After reading all of the Paul and Elder readings, I decided to go to Intellectual Standards because it was something that I would not pick. The reason I picked this reading because it was complicating the most for me. I could not decide whether if I disagree or agreed with what the book because there were a lot of points that I did not agree and a lot of points I agreed with. I definitely agree with the statement “It is through careful application of intellectual standards to our thinking that we create high-quality reasoning.” I think it is really important if you spend your time thinking about the specific subject, because the result you would get from thinking carefully is more likely the best result possible. That is something that is really obvious because if you do not do that, you might get an answer that is not outside of box. It could be something that is just good enough. I didn’t agree with the statement “The logical of the question, “Is Jack a selfish person?” is implicit in the established use of word selfish. Unless we have a good reason to stipulate a special meaning for the term, we need to apply terms in keeping with educated usage, and thus to be accurate in our use of words.” I do not agree with the statement previous because if a person said that then that person obviously had a reason to say that. I think it is basic commonsense for someone to know the meaning of selfish. If the person did not know the meaning of selfish then that person would not even bring up the word in the conversation. It is tough reading this reading because there’s points where I’m like “Yeah, I agree with that! I never thought of that before!” but then comes some points where I’m like “No, that reason does not make sense? I do not understand why the book pointed that out.” Overall, I can say that this book made me think outside of the box whether if I agreed with it or not. I also always believed that if you want to think well, then you have to come up with so many different logics and then settle with one. But, I feel that this book suggests us to think outside of the box but not too outside because that way, we would get lost in our thinking. I never once thought that it could be true, but when I think about it- it does make sense. You would get lost in your thinking and come up with something you could have done better. This book sure makes me think in a different way, but yet in a good way.
See you all soon, my friends!
MARTHA xoxo
I have a question for you. I read about that you agreed with the statement, "It is through careful application of intellectual standards to our thinking that we create high-quality reasoning." But where does that leave emotion in the mix? For example, say a girl loves two boys. Her emotion is going to be partly based on how she feels about each guy. Simply thinking a lot on the issue might not be enough. In my opinion, problems of the heart can't be logically solved like Paul and Elder suggst.
ReplyDeleteI felt very similar when I read Intellectual Standards.
ReplyDeleteThe only part I'm having a hard time with is this: "But, I feel that this book suggests us to think outside of the box but not too outside because that way, we would get lost in our thinking. I never once thought that it could be true, but when I think about it- it does make sense. You would get lost in your thinking and come up with something you could have done better."
What would the world be if we "didn't think too outside the box?" Would we have the technology we have today? Would we even have florescent lights? Airplanes? Or even fountain pens? We have to remember to thank the people who, since the cave men era, thought outside the box for the world we have today (technology-wise).