A short one today as I'm off sick. Turns out ignorance may well be bliss because wisdom teeth hurt like bastards, or at least this one does. Anyway I've written before of my belief that the skills of critical thinking must be considered as vital as those of literacy and numeracy in order for a society to be both free and peaceful.

In fact we currently find ourselves in a similar position to most European elites over the last however many centuries. Just as only the priests and aristocracy could read, and thereby wield literacy as a cosh against the masses, our current system ensures that generally it’s still only the privileged middle classes get the opportunity of academic training.

This is much bigger than the issue of access to university education however, this is about people not only not being encouraged but in fact actually being actively dissuaded from thinking for themselves. Now that was quite a sentence and it’s the way this issue shows up in our language that caught my imagination today.

I realised that while almost everyone around me uses the same words when they talk, we’re not all speaking the same language, for example:

someone tells me: “this is what I think,”

I respond with: “why do you think this?”

Now there are two possible scenarios here, A & B. In both the first line holds the same meaning, I understand that someone is giving me their opinion. It is my response however, that highlights an apparent split within the language.

When I say: “why do you think this?” I am asking to hear the reasoning behind what they have said and nothing more. I am not, so far, expressing any judgement on what I have heard. Some people would hear this meaning and reply accordingly.

Other people however, would not hear: “why do you think this?” but instead: “I disagree and question your abilities.” It is my suggestion that this difference in interpretation may have something to do with the individual’s familiarity with critical thinking.

‘Question everything’ is surely the most basic tenet of such thought practices but outside these tactics things are often only questioned if they are thought to be faulty as opposed to as a matter of course. This is also a further addition the comments made about non verbal communication a few posts back. Words cannot be solely relied upon when their meanings are so easily manipulated by the user’s own characteristics.

Another similarity between the literacy situation of yesterday and that of thought today can be found in the attitude of those being kept on the outside. Now I was watching some archaeology documentary the other day in which the approx 1500 year old but well preserved body of a man found in a bog was mentioned.

Detailed examination of the body, plus the positioning upon discovery, had apparently shown that this guys had been kneeling naked, smashed over the back of the head, then had his throat slit before being plunged face down into the bog and drowned.

According to the experts this was ‘proof’ that the guy had been part of a viscous ritual sacrifice aimed at saving the community from invasion. Based on the evidence presented to me in the show I agreed with the idea that it was a ritual sacrifice but strongly rejected the nature of the ceremony.

It seemed clear to me that ceremony had actually been as humane as possible. My assumption was that the slitting of the live throat was the focus of the piece but the victim was knocked out before hand, thereby sparing him the pain of the cut and the sight of his own life’s blood draining away.

Anyway, I could be completely wrong with that, it doesn’t matter, the point is that my thinking was based on the facts presented rather than the status of the source. Just like the literacy situation of yesterday, a lot of people either don’t appreciate the value of certain cerebral skills and so are happy without them, or are willing to ‘accept their place’ and cede responsibility to those in charge.

Let’s make no mistake here, employers may demand literacy and numeracy skills now but it wasn’t capitalist industry that drove our society towards compulsory education. History suggests that change for the better requires vision, passion and upheaval and of course, logically speaking, the next question is: where the hell’s that going to come from?