This is part of my report on our education system. I am not providing evidence for it right now (it's long and in my report), but our entire education system (as well as all books, movies, research journals, and all other sources of media) come from a single source, and they have for over 100 years (multiple generations). I like to call that source The Trust, but you can call them the Rockefellers. It's not entirely accurate, but for now it's close enough.
I am making this post because people often don't understand what "trust" is. Nor do they understand what "critical thinking" is. The reason they don't understand these things is because they have been taught that they are something different than what they actually are. These confusions give the PTB control over our beliefs and our actions. They are fundamental control mechanisms for The Matrix. Here I will discuss these concepts a little bit.
This is part of a longer report, so forgive the flow, as it may relate to other content, and forgive some of the normie centric stuff. The report is intended for an audience that still thinks vaccines are God's gift to mankind.
What is critical thinking?
Looking up the definitions I am very unsatisfied with what I find. In addition to a lack of agreement, the definitions seem nebulous, even circular. You would think something so fundamental would not be that difficult to explain. Stanford’s philosophical encyclopedia says this about it:
Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus.
So its an “educational goal” that has apparently completely failed since it can’t even be defined in a satisfactory manner. What else?
John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as:
active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends.
Mmkay… I find when something seems difficult to define, its best to look at the roots. The etymological dictionary is quite nice for this, though we have to… think critically about what it says to piece it all together:
critical: critic + -al "involving judgment as to the truth or merit of something"
-al: relating to
critic: from Greek kritikos "able to make judgments," from krinein "to separate, decide" (from PIE root *krei-"to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"
So to be critical means to judge the truth or merit of something. An important implied statement is that if you are being critical, it is you being critical, i.e. you are the “critic” in “critical thinking”. It is you applying judgment as to the truth or merit of something. It is you that is being discriminating (discerning). It is you that is deciding for yourself after consideration.
think: "imagine, conceive in the mind; consider, meditate, remember; intend, wish, desire"
To think means (according to this) to conceive in the mind. It’s perhaps a bit narrow of a definition, but for this purpose I think (conceive in my mind) that it will suffice. This suggests it is possible to “think” without being critical, but it is not possible to be critical without thinking. Thus, using the etymological dictionary, my conclusion is:
critical thinking: to be discerning and think for yourself, applying your own judgment, after consideration, as to the truth or merit of something.
(Emphasis because these ideas are so often skipped in our teaching.)
That wasn’t so hard. I like mine a lot better than any of the other “competing definitions” I’ve seen, though I had to use some critical thinking to get to it.
What would be the opposite of critical thinking? It could be “any thinking that is not applying your own judgment as to the truth or merit of something” (not being critical). It could also be “not thinking at all” (not thinking).
On an unrelated note (but totally not unrelated at all), what does it mean to trust?
trust: reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues of someone or something
belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective
To “trust” means to rely on someone else (e.g. to make judgments, or decide what is truth) for us. To be “critical” means to rely on yourself to make judgments, or decide what is truth. To trust means to assign your critical thinking over to someone else. Trust, in this context, is the opposite of critical thinking since you are giving up the “you” part of the critic and giving it to someone (or something) else.
Why would we trust? Sometimes there just isn’t enough time to do a whole lot of critical thinking or to be skeptical. Imagine couples figure skating without trust. It isn’t that I think there is never an appropriate time for trust. What I mean to say is, most of the time we are trusting, we aren’t realizing we are doing so. We are instead doing what we were trained to do (trust) instead of critical thinking, which is what we should be doing.
For example; we are told:
- Listen to your mother (but we really mean trust).
- Listen to your teacher (but we really mean trust).
- Trust your doctor.
- Respect your elders (but we really mean trust).
- Trust the experts.
- Trust the science (which is the opposite of what scientists are taught about science).
- Trust what you see on the news, they can’t lie because you are being shown the truth.
Other than what we are told, we trust certain institutions as well. For example:
- We trust government institutions, even though almost no one trusts any politicians.
- We trust large corporate institutions even though they are basically conflict of interest machines.
- We trust books if they are old.
- We trust what someone says, if someone we trust also trusts them. Trust is like a virus, it spreads unabated within whatever echo chambers we belong.
- We trust leaders, because they are more important than us, and there must be a reason they are more important than us.
In other words, we give up our own critical thinking in all of these circumstances.
All our lives, from cradle to grave, this is what we are taught; to trust these sources. I do not mean to suggest we should not be listening to our mothers, or teachers, or doctors, or experts, etc. On the contrary, I think that listening is an excellent path to understanding Reality. What I am trying to say is, listening to someone's argument and then thinking critically on it, and trusting someone are not the same thing. In fact they are, at least sometimes, at odds.
Your absolutely, fundamental missing piece is that God's Word is the source of all Truth, and Jesus is both the "way, the truth, and the light." In John we learned, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God...He was with God in the beginning."
I would encourage you to also include the trivium: the biblical trivium is knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. The classical (Greek, Roman) trivium was grammar, logic, and rhetoric. An excellent book is Teaching the Trivium: Christian Homeschooling in a Classical Style. Edit: typo
Wisdom comes from healthy discernment in all things. Always question “knowledge” unless it’s of God. (The only trust that doesn’t require being earned). Understanding requires empathy; to temporarily place one’s analysis of another’s view or situation as your own.
Who wrote the bible? Who really wrote the bible?
You believe the bible is absolute truth. You believe that no fuckery can have possibly happened within that body of work because it says so itself. For two thousand years people have been taught to believe that one thing.
Yet we know that the bible, as we know it today, received a final edit by a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (known as Moloch in some circles), one Emperor Constantine who performed this act of Religion Creation for the sole purpose of uniting the disparate kingdoms of Europe back under one Roman Empire. He performed this act of Religion creation over three centuries after the death of Christ (imagine how much we have gotten wrong, or otherwise lost from three hundred years ago in our history). The Christian Religion took hold over all Europe because the beliefs were codified into law by that same Emperor. It solidified his rule as absolute, and even Divine. Prior to that codification certain topics were not believed as Truth, including the Trinity (as espoused in Christian canon). On the contrary, the Trinity is a concept of other religions, and it's inclusion was not only by force, but to appease the other religions (what you would call "Pagan") at the time in this forced joining and Religion codification.
This looks at the idea of the Trinity having its origins going back many thousands of years all across the world, It does not talk about the exact same Trinity as the foundational tenet of Christianity, but rather a triune idea of God (the father in Christianity), God the Word (Jesus aka The Messiah in Christianity), and God Sophia (wisdom aka The Holy Spirit in Christianity). In this historical reference, and if one takes out the Nicene doctrine and rereads Jesus' teachings, one finds the Trinity more as the trinity (lower case), and that God is one God (the creator). God's word is all of us and God's wisdom is also all of us. Part of the whole, but not the same. Not the same level (because we are trapped on Earth, or we believe that we are).
Many books that were otherwise cannon at the time were left out. Many books (Revelations specifically, but not exclusively) have questionable authorship. It is this very book, whose authorship is so controversial that "closes the loop" on the beliefs, and says "everything is in here, don't question it, don't think critically about its contents" (paraphrased). Many translations are highly questionable, and indeed, many of the sects of Christianity (the Religion) are based on completely different interpretations of key sections of the bible. Of course the Religion you belong to got it right, and to say otherwise is heresy.
But you trust these people, because the bible says you must. It self-proclaims itself as the absolute Truth, and nothing can be added or subtracted, AKA it can't be questioned. You MUST NOT THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT THE BIBLE.
Yet it was created exactly and precisely in the form that it was, leaving out many gospels and other historical books purely to unite an empire under one divine right of rule.
Many of the teachings of Jesus can be found in other gospels left out of the bible. They are quite enlightening, and I suggest you read them. Give up on the "the bible is complete, with no possible fuckery" idea and think critically about it.
I've never looked at Constantine's supposed involvement in an edit, only his pagan influence on the church in general. However, being married to a man who enjoys researching the texts, the resurrection, creationism, and evolution... I'd have to say that influence never has come up. I can ask him or research it, but to address your main concern... yes my husband and I have both read C.S. Lewis and many other authors. All examine the evidence for Christ. That's how Lewis started his journey. My strongest source is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who I've known for a very long time now. He's real and has rescued me from myself more times than I can count. Through practical experience I've found the Word of God to be true, reliable, and trustworthy. It's why, though the enemy has tried to destroy me many times, God just works it all for my good. I've had my share of trouble, but how many women can claim what I can claim... by the measures that matter to me I'm incredibly blessed. God is good. His Word is true. I know nothing in life to be more true than God's love and faithfulness. His mercy to me is boundless...I could never describe his love adequately. He's done everything from leading me to a warehouse sale with the very thing I desperately wanted in it... to binding up my wounds and giving me joy in my darkest moments. Jesus IS the Word. The Word is living and it heals people.
outstanding post yet again. Blind trust and the abandonment of critical thinking is simple laziness, yet another pitfall that evil draws us all towards.
As to earlier posts here talking about the few good classes in school they had, I had a high school psych class that did nothing but teach the different forms of marketing- bandwagon, appeal to authority, etc. Excellent primer on the basics of human control. it was my second best class after typing hahah.