Critical Thinking Society
How have critical thinking skills in humans evolved over time? – Since evolution is a process which takes millions of years, The human fossil record reveals that our ancestors were capable of using stones as tools. An ape-like human ancestor living a million years ago was custom manufacturing a variety of stone tools and using fire. Early humans used even more sophisticated tools such as spears and arrows. These “stone age” people are depicted as “cavemen” but this belies the fact their culture was fairly sophisticated. The proof is the last stone age culture encountered in modern times – Native American “Indians”.
Many meso-american cities were far larger than european cities during the middle ages. Looking at modern euro-american culture, it is seen the only real difference is technology based on metal instead of stone. All the social institutions are still present, reguardless of the particular style of political system behavior in use. Humans probably have not evolved mentally since they evolved as a separate species. In a sence, it is our technology which is evolving. How have the principles of logic helped shape modern science and technology? – Logical thinking provided a method by which scientific thought could evolve.
The general assumption allowed a statement – the presence of (whatever) is always accompanied by (Something else). (Whatever) is present, therefore (Something else) is also present. The ability to move from the solid ground of a known fact to assuming the possibility of another fact allowed a test for the second fact, and allowed thought to outpace knowledge, so that people thought impossible things and found ways to obtain them.
How does a critical analysis of one’s society and self contribute to a particular internal and/or external perspective on the world? Critical analysis of self and society of course involves challenging one’s current view of oneself and one’s current view of one’s society (not to mention a society’s view of itself). In order to do this, one must take up a stance that falls outside of one’s habituated perspective. To the extent to which “perspective” differs from “horizon”, I’m tempted to say that the horizon would be a circle that surrounds and contains various perspectival circles, such that a horizon is richer than any given perspective but it’s still distinct from other horizons.
These other horizons be represented by circles which either overlap the first but are not synonymous (like the Olympics symbol), or which stand entirely outside each other as “O O”. Each self could contain within it’s horizon perspectives, and each “self-horizon” could be a perspective within a social horizon. In other words, each person has the potential of taking up plural perspectives within his/her horizon, and likewise a culture as a whole can take up different perspectives within its horizon.