Noesis - How to Think
Don’t be afraid. This entry contains Latin terminology for things you probably already kind of know. It’s included here to make it easier for you to look up more information on this stuff should you choose to do so, and so some readers I know personally will see that I didn’t make this up - it’s actually been around a long time.
The title of this entry is “Noesis - How to Think.” Noesis is a Greek word that essentially means the free exercise of reason and the processes of intellectual thought. I don’t mean “How to Think” in the sense of “How you ought to think; the content of your thoughts and opinions.” I mean it in the sense of “the process of thinking clearly and critically.” You probably knew that already from the context so far. And that’s important. Here’s why.
Nuance. Context. Situational fluidity. All of those things matter when looking at an idea and trying to determine its merits. It’s absolutely possible for an idea to be really good under one set of circumstances and absolutely horrible under another. Same idea, different application, different result. If you change the context in which an idea is assessed, then you change the content of the discussion and its outcomes. That should, for anyone with basic thinking skills, be obvious and absolutely unnecessary to explain. In today’s world, though, merit very often depends far less on, well, actual merit, and far more on how socially acceptable the idea is among the group one is most trying to impress. These days, merit is based almost solely on how precisely an idea can be an avatar for a group’s ideology. If you say a thing in a way that supports what your group believes, it has merit. If you can say it in a way that not only supports your own group, but also denigrates anyone who opposes you, chances are you’ll become a celebrity. The rhetoric of expressing an idea has become mind-bendingly more important than the content of the idea itself, and that leads to an interesting phenomenon. What’s happened is it’s become almost impossible to talk about ideas. It’s become nearly impossible to isolate the presuppositions and context of an idea and how it’s meant to be applied, and it’s even more impossible to nail down precisely what the claims or stances within the idea actually are. There’s a reason for it all. It’s because if you take the classical structure of expressing an idea or making an argument in favor (or against) something, you have to follow some steps. You have to introduce the idea and provide the context under which it applies (classically, this is the exordium and narratio portion of framing an argument). This essentially sets the playing field for assessing the merits of the argument. It establishes boundaries for the claims and admits inherently that outside these bounds, this idea may be totally inapplicable. Change the context and you change the content, remember? The next phase of making an argument or putting forth an idea for debate/discussion/analysis is actually outlining the claim you’re making. In classical rhetoric, this is called the proposito and the partition. It means you have to actually say what it is that you mean. It’s not enough to simply criticize what others say. It’s not sufficient to offer up your own ideas about why everyone but you is full of it. You have to actually stake out some ground and stand there and say “This is what I mean.” That’s really important, because beyond the boundary setting and context part of a debate, this is the actual content part. Discussion will usually revolve around positive and negative proofs of the claim (confirmation and refutation, in the classical traditions), and those should be assessed with intellectual rigor against objective truth and the boundaries – context – of the discussion itself. If you can do that, it becomes much easier to see what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. If you can teach yourself to think and express yourself according to this or some similar structure, it becomes much more apparent which ideas have actual value and which ones are pure dogshit. Importantly, it’s a useful tool in determining when someone is actually making a claim at all. That matters, you see, because without “content” all someone has to do to be “right” is change the context of the discussion until the argument fits what they want to mean. Without both staking a claim and defining the context, you can’t actually have a discussion about an idea. All you’re doing at that point is engaging in theater for your own echo chamber.
I encourage you to break down the things you read, see, hear, and even think into these kinds of terms. Try hard to understand the situation or context under which the idea is meant to apply. Ask yourself if you can identify the actual claim being made or the specifics of the position being taken. If you can’t, clarify them until you can. Only then should you proceed with arguing about proof or refutations. The more work you put into structuring your own thoughts in this way, the easier it will be to identify when critical elements of a thought process or idea are missing when you hear them expressed by others. You will be able to tell if an idea has been exposed as “bad” of flawed much more easily. You’ll be able to tell if someone is actually making a valid argument in the defense of an idea, or if they’re just trying to change the rules and the context to counter whatever proof or refutation just exposed them. It’s at this point that I intended to list a whole bunch of current events and issues being discussed in the public sphere. Things like the approach of the current administration to counter our runaway inflation problem with a three-plank approach of higher taxes, more regulation, and increased spending. If you structured that idea as the classical method prescribes, it starts to look like a pretty god-awful idea very early in the examination. As you get into the proof and refutation phase of examination, whatever parts weren’t clear from the outset should become breathtakingly clear in the face of evidence and examples. Trying to address historic inflation with a combination of higher taxes, increased government spending, and more regulations is, by any account and according to all available evidence, a “Bad Idea.” We can call it that because it has been tried several times in our history. These same sorts of conditions have existed (context) and when this is the approach taken to counter them (content), it always ends horribly. Recessions turn into depression, industries struggle and fail, bubbles burst, and portions of once-vibrant economies collapse. That is a demonstrable historical pattern, and there are very few if any valid counterpoints unless one changes the context of the discussion. But as we’ve noted already, when you change the context, you change the content. Rigorous thinking exposes that as a rhetorical tactic one uses not to find and examine the truth of an issue or the validity of an idea, but to be “right” in the eyes of whatever audience they’re playing to.
Examples of this abound today, and sadly they’re as common among the news outlets that once tried to foster real discussion and information as they are among the partisans and social media “influencers.” I’m going to do something I haven’t done so far in this Journal. I’m going to give you, the reader, a homework assignment of sorts. It’s not my place to tell anyone else how to spend their time or energy, but if this seems like a topic worth delving into for you, try this at least once in your daily life and see what happens to your thought processes.
Pick any topic or conversation you see in the news, on social media, or in person. Quickly sketch out in your mind the distinct parts of the argument or discussion. Ask “What is the premise? What is the context? What are the claims being made or defended?” If you can actually identify those things clearly, you’re already way, way ahead of the game. Next, take a look at the proof and refutation parts of the discussion and see if any of it bears any connection to those first three elements. Now, there’s every chance in the world that the people who actually read these entries already engage in some manner of critical thinking. You have probably seen nonsensical arguments all over and been able to tell quickly and easily that they are nonsense. In that regard, I don’t expect that adding a structure to your evaluations of such things will help you. Where it will help you is in being able to articulate exactly and precisely where or if an idea fell apart, and what specific arguments give it credence or refute its validity. It may do nothing for you in terms of being able to sniff out a bogus claim and it may add nothing to your ability to tell if someone is peddling barnyard excrement, but what it will almost certainly do is refine your precision of thought. It will strengthen the connective tissue between your thinking and the truth, and it will give you a road map to use in course correcting when you find yourself in the wrong.
At the very least, it will provide some entertainment (or abject horror) as you watch the intellectual gymnastics of most discussions today.