The History of Critical
Thinking (abridged)
~ 85,000,000 b.c.e – July 21st, 2008
Critical Thinking in the 21st Century
• Critical thinking, due to its continually growing
significance in the 21st century, is an idea that is
highly deserving of attention.
• It receives it, however, mostly in the form of lip
service.
• While educational leaders, teachers, parents,
government officials, business, and the public are
increasingly calling for its development and use in
virtually every sector of life, it is an idea which is
still largely misunderstood.
In Search of a History of Critical
Thinking
• Part of this misunderstanding is due to the fact that,
though it is widely popular (in the sense that almost
no one denies its importance), its place in history has
not been firmly established.
• In one sense, it is a relatively new term which only
entered the lexicon in the 1930’s.
• Yet in another sense it is ancient, in that its roots are
traceable to Socrates, and perhaps indeed to our prehuman ancestors.
• In a still further sense it is non-existent, in that no
one, as far as we can tell, has ever attempted to write a
history of the idea.
Why a History of Critical Thinking?
• A history of critical thinking is vital if we are to understand its
relationship and function in current world societies and ways of living
(and therefore of thinking).
• Having a sense of the social conditions under which critical thinking
has either taken root or been weeded out, allows us to see more
clearly the extent to which societies today either foster or hinder its
development.
• Knowledge of the manner in which historical thinkers have thought
about, argued for, or developed various aspects of critical thinking
gives it more life and figure. It also makes us aware of the fact that
the idea of critical thinking has been an implicit part of human
evolution, and is a major key to our survival in a future which
promises to continue to increase in complexity.
• These insights, which a history of critical thinking, properly written,
will provide, will allow us to more fully assess the work necessary to
establishing societies in which criticality is a central cultural value.
Our Approach to this History
• The purpose of this history is to construct a dual
narrative.
• One will focus on the implications of stratification in
societies and on the effect of that stratification on the
way and the extent to which critical thinking was
encouraged or discouraged, historically speaking.
• Our second narrative will seek to document those
who were able to move beyond those social
conditions and, in doing so, form the roots of critical
thinking.
First Narrative: Social Conditions
Necessary for Critical Thinking
• Freedom of thought, belief and action
• A society which values criticality, reason, and
questioning
• A society which values the development of intellectual
traits of mind
• Widespread public education (in the true sense)
• The availability of a strong sense concept of critical
thinking
• Available leisure time for all
• Work which encourages critical thought
Second Narrative: Contributions of
Individual Thinkers
In its “pure” form, critical thinking cannot be found
in history, for the simple reason that critical thinking is
an ideal and ideals do not exist as fully
embodied. Hence, in seeking to begin to develop a
historical account of critical thinking, we are looking
for emergent “threads” of critical thinking, aspects of
critical thinking, forerunners of critical thinking. Not
the pure stuff, but the impure stuff out of which the
“pure” is being refined.
“Threads” of Critical Thought
• the acceptance of freedom of thought
• the need to become intellectually disciplined and to think
systematically
• the belief that the mind can reason and through reason figure out
the nature of things
• the need to think within multiple points of view
• the need to develop intellectual humility
• the need to think for oneself and the courage to speak against
established views
• the need to develop reasoning skills
• the need to apply intellectual skills internally in order to take
charge of one’s life
• the need to apply intellectual skills to important human problems
in an effort to alleviate suffering and pain
• the need to think about a wide range of subjects
• The concern for understanding the manner in which the human
mind can be flawed or problematic
• The commitment to lifelong learning and intellectual growth
Prehistory
(~85,000,000 b.c.e. – 500
b.c.e.)
Animal criticality?
Prehistoric Thinking
• For millions of years we lived much as our pre-human
ancestors (Chimpanzees and their kin) do today.
• We might characterize our thinking at this stage as
almost wholly uncritical.
• It is difficult, however, to make judgments about the
criticality of animals and pre-human creatures.
• Perhaps there was a primitive form of criticality which
allowed us to use basic tools, utilize primitive
communication, work together in groups, and make
small change to our environment.
“The Bushmen of South Africa are intimately
acquainted with the way of life of more than fifty
animals. They can follow a herd of antelope even over
hard dry ground which holds only the very faintest
impressions of hoof prints, and can detect the almost
invisible hoofprint pattern that distinguishes a
wounded animal from its fellows in the herd.
Furthermore...in an area hundreds of square miles
they know ‘every bush and stone, every convolution
of the ground…they do not read or write, but they
learn and remember. If all their knowledge about their
land and its resources were recorded and published, it
would make up a library of thousands of volumes.” John E. Pfeiffer. The Emergence of Man (New York:
Harper and Row, 1969) pp 134-135
• Looking back, we see that each step in human
evolution has occurred over shorter and shorter time
periods, but has resulted in increasingly significant
differences.
• The first known primate was a shrew-like creature
which appeared about 85 million years ago.
• It took almost 80 million years for the first hominids
to appear
• It was five million more until the first “human” (in the
genus homo).
• It took two million years until homo sapiens arrived.
• And it was two hundred thousand until the advent of
agriculture and established settlements
• And just barely over 12,000 years to the modern day.
Significance of Prehistory to the
History of Critical Thinking
• It is quite easy to forget our extended history, but a cursory
look reveals its significance to understanding our present stage
of evolution.
• How far have we truly evolved? To what extent are we still
ruled by our primitive instincts and passions? What will be our
next evolutionary step? Will it be from homo sapiens (thinking
human being) to homo criticus sapiens (critical thinking human
being)? Are we already in the process?
• It took seven million years to move from hominid to homo
sapiens, how many years will it take to go from homo sapiens
to homo criticus sapiens? What would the world look like if
this occurred?
Ancient Greece and
Rome
(500 b.c.e. – 400 c.e.)
Critical Thinking Emerges
Social Conditions in Ancient Greece
and Rome
The World – 6th Century B.C.E.
The World – 3rd Century B.C.E.
The World – 2nd Century C.E.
Greek City States – 550 B.C.E.
Ancient Athens
On the whole there was very little snobbery
or social exclusiveness at Athens. As Plato's
dialogues show, men formed readily into
groups and did not stand on ceremony with
a stranger. The gymnasium and wrestlingground were common resorts. When
Socrates got back from the wars, so Plato
relates, he went straight to one of these and
every one jumped up to greet him and ask
the news from the front. Conversation
never flagged. For the Greeks were never so
happy as when talking.
But, if the Greek could appreciate the country-side,
he perhaps loved the city more; and his favourite
resort was the market-place or Agora. Along the sides
were colonnades with stately rows of pillars and
brightly frescoed walls. One, the Painted Stoa, gave its
name to the Stoic philosophers who originally
foregathered and found their pupils there.
Everywhere is a babel of voices; and at time of full
market the whole space is crowded. Many walk up
and down in the adjacent colonnades. Groups form;
and conversation flows freely, ranging over all manner
of topics, from vulgar gossip to political or even
philosophic discussion.
How is this Significant to the History
of Critical Thinking?
• The author only mentions males. Perhaps this is
innocuous or perhaps females were oppressed and
excluded from intellectual culture
• The Greeks were very interested in sharing ideas
through discussion.
• There was a high level of openness. It does not seem
that Greeks were unduly prejudiced.
• There were many opportunities in Greek life to discuss
ideas with others, which would have greatly facilitated
intellectual growth.
• Some took advantage of these opportunities to think
through important ideas, and some did not, similar to
modern day coffee shops.
The Marketplace
Greek Dress
Xenophanes went about from city to city, calling in
question on moral grounds the popular beliefs about the
gods and goddesses, and ridiculing the anthropomorphic
conceptions which the Greeks had formed of their
divinities. “If oxen had hands and the capacities of men,
they would make gods in the shape of oxen.” This attack
on received theology was an attack on the veracity of the
old poets, especially Homer, who was considered the
highest authority on mythology. Xenophanes criticized him
severely for ascribing to the gods acts which, committed by
men, would be considered highly disgraceful. We do not
hear that any attempt was made to restrain him from thus
assailing traditional beliefs and branding Homer as
immoral.
Significance to Critical Thinking:
• That questioning and dissent were cultivated to
the extent that some individuals were able to
question received beliefs and traditions
• That, at the very least, freedom of thought and
expression were protected to allow for critique
of established religious beliefs
From what has been said already it will be clear that Athenian
citizens enjoyed considerable leisure; and it is natural to
inquire how this came about. The explanation lay partly in the
character of their occupations. Farmers, for example, were not
always busy; there were slack times between corn-harvest in
May and the vintage in September, and again after the vintage
till the olive-picking in late autumn. Sailors, similarly, were
unoccupied during winter when storms made the sea unsafe.
The craftsmen, being independent and not working for a
regular employer, were masters of their own time, and could
knock off work when they chose. Retail dealers, too, could
close their shops to attend a political meeting or dramatic
performance.
Significance to Critical Thinking:
• Leisure time was not limited to the upper
classes. This gave many the opportunity (but not
necessarily the inclination) for self-reflection.
Without time to develop one’s mind, critical
thinking cannot flourish.
Of course these movements of intellectual freedom were, as
in all ages, confined to the minority. Everywhere the masses
were exceedingly superstitious. They believed that the safety
of their cities depended on the good-will of their gods. If this
superstitious spirit were alarmed, there was always a danger
that philosophical speculations might be persecuted. And this
occurred in Athens…[as a result of anti-religious
philosophers] they introduced and carried a blasphemy law, to
the effect that unbelievers and those who taught theories
about the celestial world might be impeached…Anti-religious
thought was liable to be persecuted...but there was no
systematic policy of suppressing free thought…There was a
large enough section of influential rationalists to render
impossible any organized repression of liberty, and the chief
evil of the blasphemy law was that it could be used for
personal or party reasons
Significance to Critical Thinking:
• Despite the remarkable freedoms which existed in
Ancient Athens (especially for the era), it was not an
ideal state. In addition to the persecution of women
and slaves, free men were also constrained in the ideas
they could think and express.
• We are reminded that the amount of strong sense
critical thought that was present in Ancient Greece was
confined to a small minority of one city state.
Influential Thinkers in Ancient
Greece and Rome
Pre-Socratics (650 – 450 B.C.E.)
• Key ideas: This group of thinkers was the first
historical example to question the natural world
in ways that did not involve myth or
superstition. Much of their writings have been
lost
• Significance: They broke ground and in many
ways set the stage for the thinkers that followed.
Their secular stance influenced Athenian society,
making questioning the gods and established
traditions more palatable.
Socrates
• Key Ideas: Socrates believed that the best way to teach
and learn was through disciplined, rigorous questioning,
and almost all of his contributions to critical thinking
are derived from his dialectics with unsuspecting
Athenians.
• Socrates believed that people learned best, not by being
told what to believe or do, but by being guided through
questioning to what made most sense to believe or do.
He often used questioning to help people see either that
what they said they believed they did not, in fact, believe
(because their “beliefs” were inconsistent with their
behavior), or that what they said they believed was
conceptually unsound or illogical.
Socrates Significance to Critical Thinking
• From what we know Socrates was a paradigm
critical thinker in many ways. He exemplifies all
of the threads of critical thought, excepting that
he did not always distinguish between questions
which could be settled and those which could
not.
• His contributions to critical thinking are
widespread, but his most significant is his
method of inquiry and teaching which we now
call the “Socratic Method”.
Plato and Aristotle
Both were focused on explaining the world in
terms of metaphysics. They theorized and
attempted to answer questions which are
unanswerable. Both made contributions to critical
thinking in various ways, but their metaphysical
underpinnings detracted from their work. In
setting the stage for much of the reasoning which
followed, as much Medieval thinking took
Aristotle to be the highest authority, they did
more to hinder the growth of critical thought
than they did to advance it.
The Sophists
Key idea: They highlighted the importance of
education and the role of intellectual dialogue in
that process. They were ready and able to
critique (or to defend) social, ideological, or
political traditions or realities. They reflected on
the nature of language and culture. They were
said to believe that they could find the correct
answers to all questions. Some of the sophists
were skeptical of absolute truth and
conventional morality and came eventually to
teach the view that anything can be proved, if
one has the requisite skills of argumentation.
Significance of Sophists to Critical Thinking
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They did not fall prey to metaphysics or theology.
Like the Epicureans and Stoics, they focused on
human nature and human life.
They advocated freedom of thought
They typically questioned the status quo.
They believed that the mind can reason and through
reason to figure out the nature of human life (if not
of the laws of nature itself).
They recognized the need to think within multiple
points of view
They recognized the need to develop reasoning skills.
They believed that it is important to take charge of
one’s life.
They believed that it is important to become
intellectually disciplined.
Hippocrates (460 – 370 B.C.)
Hippocrates took major steps in the field of medicine by focusing on
the scientific logic – as opposed to the metaphysical logic - of sickness
and disease. Hippocrates’ ideas, though never synthesized or expressed
in these terms, are based on the following two premises: “(a) Health is
the natural state, disease is unnatural; and (b) Disease, no less than
health, is governed by natural causes, which it is the task of the physician
to understand.”
Hippocrates denounced those who explained sickness as a result of the
gods as “magicians, ritualists, charlatans, and excorzists [sic]” concluding
that the reason they “called [maladies] sacred [was] to conceal their
ignorance of [them]. Though much of his work has since been lost, his
philosophy and method of inquiry has survived. Consequently, he is
now considered “the father of medicine”, and it is he for whom the
Hippocratic Oath is named.
Galen (129 – 200 A.D.)
Galen, following Hippocrates’ doctrine, produced over 500
tracts on medicine, philosophy, and ethics. The article on
Galen in Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia includes some of
his most notable discoveries: he proved that different muscles
are controlled at different levels of the spinal cord, that the
brain controls the voice, he identified the functions of the
kidney and the bladder, and he conceived that the body
metabolizes in order to produce energy.
Galen performed many audacious operations — including brain
and eye surgeries — that were not tried again for almost two
millennia. To perform cataract surgery, he would insert a long
needle-like instrument into the eye behind the lens; He would
then pull the instrument back slightly to remove the cataract.
The slightest slip could have caused permanent blindness.
Hippocrates’ and Galen’s
Significance to Critical Thinking
The significance of Hippocrates and Galen to the
history of critical thinking lies in their questioning of
dominant ideology and practice, their firm belief in
the power of the human mind to solve problems
using reason, and the systematic and disciplined
nature with which they approached the study of
medicine. In essence, they pioneered and formulated
the nature of what it means to think like a physician.
Herodotus (484 – 425 B.C.) and
Thucydides (460 – 395 B.C.)
What Hippocrates and Galen did for medicine,
Herodotus and Thucydides did for history: they
introduced secular history and explained human
events as being driven by human, rather than
supernatural, action.
Herodotus
Herodotus, for his work on the history of the wars between the
Greeks and the Persians (500 - 478 B.C.E.), is often credited as
being the “father of history”. In the Cyclopedia of World Authors
he is credited with writing the first known secular history, with
attempting to establish a strict chronology of events, and with
highlighting the lessons inherent in his narrative (three
fundamental aspects of modern historical writing). However,
some of his work is questionable, as he often did not care to
distinguish between fact and myth, leaving it to the reader to
decide what to believe; it is for this reason that some scholars
prefer Thucydides.
Thucydides
• Thucydides’ has been called “The first truly critical historian of the
world.”
• Once a high ranking officer in the Athenian navy, Thucydides was
exiled for failing to defend Amphipolis from the Spartans during the
Peloponnesian War. He spent the remainder of the war traveling and
recording the testimony of veterans and civilians from both the
Spartan and the Athenian camps in order to write a history of the war.
• His account therefore portrays the viewpoints of both sides and
provides excellent insight into the thinking of those involved.
• Though his thesis is never made explicitly clear (perhaps due to the fact
that he died before he could complete his work), a close reading brings
to light certain key themes: that clever, sophistic orators are able to
sway uncritical mobs to actions which ultimately are not in their
interest; that this can be fatal in a democracy; and that war is a tragic
and unjustifiable waste of human life and property, which energy
would be better spent constructively.
Herodotus’ and Thucydides’
Significance to Critical Thinking
Herodotus and Thucydides exemplified essential
critical thinking traits such as thinking within
multiple points of view; attempting to write
without undue bias towards their own frame of
reference; having the goal of the alleviation of
suffering through historical lessons; and
attempting to understand and develop the ability
to think historically.
Stoic and Epicurean Philosophy
Both saw the world as a place filled with fear and
suffering, much of which was beyond the control of
individuals. Their solutions involved empowering
individuals to use their rational capacities to overcome
those pains which every human inevitably experiences
in a lifetime. They both stressed the power of the
mind to, as Milton would say over two thousand years
later, “make a hell out of heaven, or a heaven out of
hell.”
Epicurus
• Epicurus believed that the main problem, and disturbance, in
the human mind is a result of not understanding the natural
world, and fearing the wrath of heaven. As he puts it “A man
cannot dispel his fear about the most important matters if he
does not know what is the nature of the universe but suspects
the truth of some mythical story.”
• For Epicurus, the ultimate goal was to avoid pain and fear
and to promote pleasure. It is for this, and because of a
superficial understanding of his ideas, that he was slandered
by the Stoics as a hedonist, but this was far from the truth.
Epicurus defended himself against these charges, saying “For
it is not continuous drinkings [sic] and revellings [sic], nor the
satisfaction of lusts…which produce a pleasant life, but sober
reasoning…and banishing mere opinions, to which are due
the greatest disturbance of the spirit.”
Significance of Epicurus
Epicurus contributed to the ideal of thinking by explicating a
principle based system by which to live a rational life (which is
explicated in his “Principle Doctrines”), as well as by reenforcing and advancing the scientific spirit and method of
inquiry which was begun by the pre-Socratics and continued
by Hippocrates. He also firmly refused to divert into
metaphysical arguments, stating that where there are multiple
reasonable explanations and no way to prove any of them,
the reasoner should simply either pick one at random or
suspend belief until proof is made possible. He was
interested in a wide range of subjects and maintained a
disciplined approach to solving problems. However, most
importantly, he aimed to alleviate human pain and suffering
by offering a means for overcoming fear of the world and of
death.
Stoicism
• Stoic philosophers agreed with Epicurus’ refusal to be
afraid of death or of the world around him, however they
did so on different grounds. According to the stoics, the
events in a person’s life can be divided into two categories:
those which can be controlled, and those which cannot.
Those which can be controlled should be, and to the extent
that it is possible, individuals should seek to live a life of
self-examination and should treat others with justice. Those
events which cannot be controlled, however, should be
forgotten or put aside, for worrying simply causes pain and
stress.
Significance of Stoicism
Stoicism is significant to the history of critical
thinking because it represents a rational answer
to an irrational world. For to expect the
irrational to be rational, is irrational. The Stoics,
instead, contributed to the ideal of critical
thinking by attempting to develop a disciplined
system by which to take command of one’s own
life and alleviate human pain and suffering, both
in oneself and in others.
General Conclusions regarding
Thinkers in Greece and Rome
• These contributions, some of which may seem self-apparent and
unimportant, were profoundly progressive given the context under which
they were developed. Greek and Roman progressive thinkers opened the
door to many avenues of intellectual pursuit which had not existed before.
For the first time in history, there was true scientific inquiry into the nature
of the world and the human body which was not based on the dominant
religious ideology of the time. The advances made Hippocrates and Galen
greatly improved the treatment of illness and disease. Herodotus and
Thucydides broke the mold of history as myth and provided a secular
example which could be followed by later historians. They made it possible
for historians and students of history to learn from the mistakes of the past
and apply those lessons to the present. Socrates exemplified a substantive
and powerful manner in which to approach learning and the internalization
of ideas. In him we can see a very near approximation of the ideal of
critical thinking. Epicureanism and Stoicism provided some with the
opportunity to study the human mind with regards to the manner in which
it can be unsound, as well as ways in which its critical capacities can be
developed and improved.
What can we learn from this era?
• That critical thinking as an idea is at least 2500 years
old, perhaps many millions more.
• That Socratic critical thinking is extremely rare
• For critical thinking to emerge, reason must be valued.
• Available leisure time is a necessary, but not a sufficient,
condition for the development of critical thinking.
• Without separating metaphysical questions from
questions focusing on science, human nature, etc., it is
easy to become entangled and limited in thought.
• That even seemingly “free” societies often have
significant flaws which are largely invisible to those
within them.