EXTENDED Essay Example For Students

EXTENDED Essay Asian Philosophies of Critical Thinking: divergent or convergent to western establishments?By Clement NgSCHOOL CODE: 1206 (Sha Tin College)CANDIDATE CODE: MAY 2003 ? 1206 038AbstractThe research question of this extended essay came across at a very early stage in my life. Having been born and developed from a family with all its members being University instructors and professors, I was often involved in arguments related to the lack of critical thinking in Asian cultures. As I got older, having had the chance to emerge in different cultures, I started to develop my own viewpoints and answers. I started to wonder about the truth between the real differences of Asian and Western philosophies of critical thinking. This extended essay, intended to be a research and investigation, bearing the title Asian Philosophies of Critical Thinking: divergent or convergent to Western establishments? is in fact however merely just a summary of my viewpoints and answers which I have developed through out the years. In the first section of the essay, Logical Tradition in India and China I will attempt to give evidence of critical thinking in two Asian cultures that I have chosen; namely India and China. In India, I will argue that critical thinking is clearly visible in historical texts such as the Caraka and Nyayasutra. This is presented as the well-known five-membered argument, a system of logical deduction, similar to the Aristotelian syllogism found in the west. In China I would focus mainly on the two schools of logical thought, the Mohists and the Logicians. For the Mohists I would argue that critical thinking is a vital element in the building of what they call mental models. For the Logicians, I would study deeply the writings of Hui Shih and Kungsun Lung, I would show that in fact both of them developed systems of logical and paradoxical thinking that could well serve as the foundations of modern science. If critical thinking is clearly presentable in these Asian cultures then why are there still concerns for introducing it to them? This is the question I intend to answer in the latter section Needhams Grand Question and Fullers Interpretation. During this section, I would also show that discussions of modern science seem to enable us to see how the tradition of critical thinking arose and how they were promoted or discouraged. I would cover how Asian historical, economic, social and cultural factors have a big influence on their development of critical thinking. Lastly I would show how the prioritization of a civilization has a devastating effect on deciding the future road they intend to walk. In conclusion, I would argue that since the philosophy of a culture is but an abstract and theoretical expression and justification of the cultures decision to choose one set of priorities over another, Asian philosophy and critical thinking are neither necessarily divergent nor necessarily convergent to western establishments. ContentsIntroduction 4Logical Tradition in India and China 4Needhams Grand Question and Fullers Interpretation 7Asian Philosophy and Critical Thinking: Divergence or Convergence? 8Conclusion 9Bibliography 10References 11Asian Philosophies of Critical Thinking: divergent or convergent to western establishments?By Clement NgIntroductionIt is widely recognized nowadays that critical thinking has become a necessary ingredient in all levels of education. Educators and educational policy makers agree that one of the desirable goals of education is that students are able to think critically. Throughout the past few years, many have felt the need to consider critical thinking more seriously in educational programs. At the moment several different acts are being considered around the world by various factors and agencies. The core of these proposed acts is the idea that the students are able to think critically and independently. Although there are widespread disagreements on what critical th inking actually is, there is an agreement that it has become very important in the world overwhelmed by huge amounts of information. Some Western educators who teach at schools or universities in a number of Asian countries have voiced their difficulties and problems they encounter while trying to teach critical thinking and other related skills to Asian students. Bruce Davidson (1998) argues that a set of Japanese cultural factors act as a kind of barrier against teaching critical thinking to students. Atkinson (1999) goes so far as to argue that critical thinking is culturally specific, and is a part of the social practices of the West having no place within Asian cultures, which do not adopt such practices. What these educators have in common is the feeling that some elements in Asian cultures do prevent the full realization of critical thinking skills in the students. Most of these elements perceived by Western educators in Asia are quite well knownthe beliefs that teachers are superior and always right, that knowledge is not to be made here and now, but exists eternally, so to speak, to be handed down by teac hers, that social harmony is to be preferred rather than asking probing questionsto mention just a few. Is critical thinking really culture specific? Can the traditional belief systems of Asia respond to the challenge of the modern world while still retaining their distinctive identities? Are Asian philosophy and critical thinking necessary divergent or possibly convergent? These are very significant question not just for Asian cultures, but for understanding how cultures of the world respond to globalization. In addition the question also has a bearing on the problematic relation between critical thinking and the cultural environment in which it happens to be embedded. In this essay, I attempt to argue that critical thinking is not necessarily incompatible with Asian traditional belief systems. In fact I will show that both India and China do have their own indigenous traditions of logical and argumentative thinking; it is just because of certain barriers that prevent them from further developing such establishments. I will further try to show that these traditions can and should be reexamined, reinterpreted and adapted to the contemporary situation. By doing this I would seek acknowledgement to the essay question and would provide an answer to the Western educators who have found no such critical traditions in the East. Logical Tradition in India and ChinaIt is widely known that India had a highly advanced logical tradition, spanning more than two thousand years. The successes of Indian mathematicians and computer programmers are perhaps due to the fact that logic and critical thinking have been integral to the Indian way of thinking since time immemorial. Such integration can also be witnessed in the fondness of Indians for talking and debating. Tscherbatsky (1962: 31-34) tells us that in the times of Dignaga and Dharmakirti, two of the greatest Buddhist logicians, the fate of entire monasteries depended on public debates. According to Tscherbatsky, Dignaga won his fame and royal support through his defeat of the brahmin Sudurjaya at Nalanda Monastery (31-34). In another vein, Matilal (1990: 1-8) argues that the Indian logical tradition is entirely home grown, since there is no evidence of India being influenced by Aristotelian ideas. Matilal also shows that many topics, which are of interest by contemporary logicians and philosophers today, were discussed and researched into with sophistication by Indian scholars. Such topics include theory of inference, empty names, reference and existence, perception, knowledge of the external world, substance, causality, and many others (Matilal 1990). Moreover, Tscherbatskys (1962) work, dealing mainly with the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti illustrates that India is one of the great logical and philosophical civilizations of the world. There are a number of topics that both traditions discovered independently of each other. For example, Matilal notes that the counterpart of the Aristotelian syllogism is the five-membered argument found in such texts as Caraka and Nyayasutra. Instead of the three propositions found in Aristotelian syllogism, the five-membered argument consists of five propositions, the first of which is the conclusion, and the last repeating what is already stated in the first. The remaining three propositions in between are the premises. Here is one example of the five-membered argument cited by Matilal (1990: 5):1. There is fire on this mountain. 2. For, there is smoke there. 3. Smoke goes with fire always (or, in all cases, or in all places): witness, kitchen. 4. This is also a case of smoke. 5. Therefore, there is fire there (on the mountain). Logicians will immediately be able to reconstruct this argument in the familiar Aristotelian form as follows:The place on the mountain is a place where there is smoke. A place where there is smoke is a place where there is fire. Therefore, the place on the mountain is a place where there is fire. Matilal, however, notes that there is at least some dissimilarity between the Indian and the Aristotelian argument forms presented here. For instance, he says that the conclusion of the Indian argument form is in the form of ?singular proposition, (i.e., modified by demonstratives like ?this or ?that) whereas that of the Aristotelian syllogism is either universal or particular (i.e., modified by quantifiers like ?all or ?some). But the dissimilarity here could be amended, as indexicals (terms like ?this or ?that which relies on the context of utterance for their full meaning) could be dispensed with by supplying the required information on the context in which they are uttered. Thus it could be safely stated that the Indian logical tradition fully comprehended the essence, so to speak, of logic, which is the concept of validity and the basic valid argument form. Another of the worlds great civilizations, China, also had its own indigenous and independent logical tradition. Two of Chinas logical schools of thought are the Mohists and the Logicians. The former was founded by Mo Ti, who lived between 479 to 381 B.C., during the Warring States period of Chinese history (Ronan 1978: 114). Among the typical Chinese scholars the Mohists are better known for their doctrine of universal love and the condemnation of offensive war rather than their interests and achievements in the physical sciences. In the latter Needham reports that the Mohists went very far towards realizing that the thought system was in fact a prerequisite for modern science. Most significantly, the Mohists appeared to be in grasp of the concepts of deduction and induction. They viewed the former as a way of thinking which follows a ?mental model, which guarantees that whoever follows it will never fail to be right in their thinking. Here is an example of reasoning based on follow ing such mental model:Model thinking consists in following the methods . What are followed in model-thinking are the methods. Therefore if the methods are truly followed by the model-thinking , the reasoning will be correct. But if the methods are not truly followed by the model-thinking, the reasoning will be wrong (Ronan 1978: 119). On the other hand, the Mohists also recognized the value of ?extension which is a kind of reasoning from the known examples and ?extend it to unknown cases similar to them:Extension is considering that that which one has not yet received is identical with those which one has already received, and admitting it (Ronan 1978: 119). The Civil Rights Movement Essay1034Asian Philosophy and Critical Thinking: Divergence or Convergence?Hence, the values typically associated with Asian culture such as social harmony and deference to the elders and teachers are thus seen as consequences of the cultures deciding to put a certain set of priorities above others. Social harmony was instrumental in bringing about the cultural unity that is the most distinctive characteristic of Chinese culture. It is valued above most other types of values because it goes hand in hand with social stability, whose alternative is perceived as chaos and general burden of social structure. The prioritization of social harmony can also be seen in other Asian cultures such as the Thai one, and results in Thais trying as far as they possibly can to avoid open conflicts and disagreements. In the case of China, since all the elements that could bring about the rise of modern science were in place, it is quite clear that the Chinese culture actual ly chose not to go along the path taken by the Europeans. The decision made by a culture to adopt a particular system of beliefs and practices certainly did not happen suddenly, as if at one particular moment of history, members of a culture had a meeting and declared their cultures adoption of this or that set. The decision occurred gradually throughout the historical development of a culture, and can be seen in China adopting Confucianism rather than the more materialistic and scientifically inclined Taoism and Mohism, and in India adopting the more mystical doctrine emphasizing the role of meditation and private insights rather than publicly demonstrable methods of knowing. I think that reasons for such decision are enormously complicated, but it is hardly conceivable that China was somehow destined to lag behind Europe in the science race due to factors they could not control. This may be taken to show that critical thinking and Asian thought are divergent. If the Asian cultures chose not to go along the path where critical thinking is one milestone, then both do not seem to go with each other, and Atkinson may be vindicated when he argues that critical thinking is a part of Western culture only. If the Asian cultures prioritize sets of values which are incompatible with critical thinking, and if they freely chose those sets over the set adopted by Europeans for whatever reasons, then it appears that critical thinking would belong to European culture only, and to adopt it to Asian cultures would be the same as to importing foreign ideas and practices to alien lands. Thus, Atkinsons argument seems to fit well with the under determinist position. This line of reasoning, however, would be valid only if a culture decided as its own set of priorities at one time will always remain so for all other times. If the Thai culture, for example, once decided that social harmony should take precedence over critical argumentation and open debates, then critical thinking practices would be forever alien to them. But that is surely a very unreasonable position to take. Cultures, like humans, often make decisions that later are amended or revoked with new decisions made; when things are not the same any longer. Decisions to prioritize one set of values over another are not etched in stone, but even so the stone can be broken down or else taken to a museum or a pedestal where it loses its real meaning. Decisions at one time reflect the circumstances normal at that particular time, and to stick onto past decisions with no plan of adapting or making new decisions in response to changing circumstances would make the culture frozen and unable to participate. Opting not to correct their past decisions, a culture would in effect be telling the world that it is constructing a wall around itself, giving nothing to the world and receiving nothing. However, sociological and economic conditions of the current world do not permit such a scenario from happening. Cultures need to change themselves, not merely to survive, but to prosper and to permit better lives for their members. Consequently, Asian cultures and critical thinking are divergent only if the former opt not to correct their decisions. But since we are talking only about decisions, then it is not difficult at all to suggest that cultures would make new decisions in response to changing times. Doing so would make the two more convergent. Hence, the divergence and convergence, after all, depend on what decisions a culture makes. There is nothing necessarily attached to a cultures path along history that makes it essentially divergent or convergent from the modern critical thinking tradition, or from any tradition for that matter. Since the philosophy of a culture is but an abstract and theoretical expression and justification of the cultures decision to choose one set of priorities over another, Asian philosophy and critical thinking are neither necessarily divergent nor necessarily convergent. ConclusionAny attempt to introduce, or we should say to bring back critical thinking practices to the cultures of Asia would, therefore, begin within the cultures themselves. This is in line with the under determinist idea that each culture has its own peculiar development path which is not necessarily shared with others. The mission of spreading the truth of one culture to another is a misplaced. One that apart from sounding patronizing, is something the current morality cannot accept. Thus the first step in such an attempt must consist of a series of arguments designed to show to most members of the culture where critical thinking is to be introduced, that critical thinking is really good. However to do that would at least require large amounts of explanations, something that is definitely out of scope of this present essay. Besides, to argue that critical thinking is actually a good thing to have is difficult, because it may run counter to the deeply established belief that critic al thinking is just a label for the confrontational mode of life that the culture finds unpleasant and difficult to accept. Though the task is difficult, I believe that it is unavoidable. As an insider of my own Chinese cultural tradition, I am trying to convince the members of my culture of the value of critical thinking and its important role in educating citizens for the increasingly globalized world of today and tomorrow. An important part of my argument for combining critical thinking and its belief systems to the Chinese culture is the idea that people should view the elements of their culture which could present the most serious obstacles to critical thinking as benign fiction. That is, elements such as respect of the elders and the belief in social ranking and so on should be viewed in the same way as a modern person views his or her own traditional customs and ceremonies. One is in a sense a part of the culture where the ceremonies happen, but in another sense detached from it. This is because he knows himself only to serve a certain function in the culture, and in addition, knowledge of other cu ltures enables further detachment from his own customs and ceremonies. Such an argument would naturally require a lot more space and time than is available here. What I hope to have accomplished in this essay, however, is much more modest. It is, as we have seen, an argument that Asian philosophy and Asian thought in general do not necessarily conflict with critical thinking and its presuppositions. Furthermore, it is the influential making of decisions throughout the history of each culture itself, which, I believe, is flexible and adaptive enough to effect important changes for the future. 1065BibliographyAtkinson, D. 1997. A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking. TESOL Quarterly 31, 71-94. Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson. 1991. Misconceptions of Informal Logic: A Reply to McPeck. Teaching Philosophy 14.1, 35-52. Davidson, Bruce. 1995. Critical Thinking Education Faces the Challenge of Japan. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 14.3, 31 pars., http://www.shss.montclair.edu/inquiry/spr95/davidson.html. Fuller, Steve. 1997. Science. Birmingham: Open UP. Hatcher, Donald. 1995a. Critical Thinking and Epistemic Obligations. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14.3, 38 pars., http://www.shss.montclair.edu/inquiry/spr95/hatcher2.html. Hatcher, Donald. 1995b. Should Anti-Realists Teach Critical Thinking?. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14.4, 21 pars., http://www.shss.montclair.edu/inquiry/summ95/hatcher.html. Hongladarom, Soraj. 1998a. Critical Thinking and the Realism/Anti-Realism Debate, http://pioneer.chula.ac.th/~hsoraj/web/CT.html. Hongladarom, Soraj. 1998b. Humanistic Education in Todays and Tomorrows World. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 1 (forthcoming). Hostetler, Karl. 1991. Community and Neutrality in Critical Thought: A Nonobjectivist View on the Conduct and Teaching of Critical Thinking. Educational Theory, 41.1, 1-12. Matilal, Bimal Krishna. 1990. Logic, Language and Reality: Indian Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. McGuire, John. 1998. Is Critical Thinking Cultural Thinking?. Unpublished ms. McPeck, John E. 1991. What is Learned in Informal Logic?, Teaching Philosophy, 14.1, 25-34. Needham, Joseph. 1969. The Grand Titration: Science and Society in East and West. London: Allen Unwin. Paul, Richard. 1993. Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Ronan, Colin A. 1978. The Shorter Science and Civilization in China: An Abridgement of Needhams Original Text. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Sutton, Robert. 1995. Realism and Other Philosophical Mantras. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 14.4, 18 pars., http://www.shss.montclair.edu/inquiry/summ95/sutton.html. Tscherbatsky, F. Th. 1962. Buddhist Logic. New York: Dover. References The literature on the nature and definitions of critical thinking are enormous. Probably the most intense debate among critical thinking experts centers on the question whether critical thinking can be a separate autonomous academic disciplines dealing with the general form of thinking to be applied by students in all of their academic areas. Or whether it is not autonomous at all, but should always be part of important academic disciplines. However, I believe that these debates give us little understanding of what critical thinking should be. For critical thinking would be nothing if not applied to real cases, and the study of it would not be totally effective if the skills and theories unique to it were not abstracted and studied on their own. The other debates focuses on the nature of critical thinking, or the meaning of critical thinking itself. Richard Paul (1993) provides a definition that no one can gainsay: Critical thinking is the kind of thinking one thinks of on es thinking in order to make ones thinking better. Hatcher (1995a; 1995b) calls for the kind of critical thinking that is based on the so-called epistemological realist position this is contrasted by Sutton (1995) and Hostetler (1991), who argue that critical thinking is more amenable to the anti-realist position. Whatever it is, there is still no correct definition concerning the true meaning of critical thinking.