it is derived from the Greek: krinein "to separate, decide"
To think is, at least in common practice, to define, to separate. It is the act of seeing a thing as separate in the mind. All evidence (physics, etc.) suggests that this act of separation is largely incorrect, or rather, correct only with a purposefully narrow scope of view, which misses a lot of information. In other words, the act of thinking (in practice) is the act of "defining," which is the act of diminishing "That Which Is" to "what we want it to be so we can deal with it; i.e. limit it in our minds eye."
In that act of "thinking" there is intrinsic separation, which inherently includes a cogitation of "differences" for "comparisons", thus "analytics." So, the etymological connection of "separate" (krei-"to sieve") is intrinsic in the act of "thinking" (our common practice of it) not in the decision part AKA the judgement. So there are two different concepts in the word roots, one is the common practice of separation (AKA defining) and the other is one of judgement. I suggest the "separation" part is intrinsic to the "thinking" part and not the "judgement" part.
To support this there is another method of "thinking" that does not separate. It is the act of listening, or what is commonly called "meditation." In meditation you listen to what the universe has to say about itself rather than telling it what it is (defining AKA separating). Whenever you start telling the universe what it is through separation, you fail in your meditation. These two methods of thinking are largely opposites.
However, the act of Critical thinking, i.e. judging for yourself the veracity of things is the same in both our standard form of thinking AKA separation AKA analytics, and in our "listening" form of thinking. Thus Analysis (even in the loosest sense in which you are using it) is not necessary for judgement of veracity AKA "critic". Thus "Judging" and "Separating" are, by definition, not the same thing, and by definition have nothing intrinsic to do with each other. They are however complimentary, and this complementarity is found within the root words. The primary focus of the word "critic" however is judgement, and the "separation" AKA analytics, is not a requirement for this judgement and is only added on because it is a common practice in the act of thinking.
Yes, I consider it as two dimensions of the same thing without being equal. before judging there is analysis, then weighing then the verdict. You could do without the other two, yet that would not be very wise.
It is however very common, thus my insistence that "analysis" and "critic" (judgement) are strictly separate by definition (even if generally not in practice).
To think is, at least in common practice, to define, to separate. It is the act of seeing a thing as separate in the mind. All evidence (physics, etc.) suggests that this act of separation is largely incorrect, or rather, correct only with a purposefully narrow scope of view, which misses a lot of information. In other words, the act of thinking (in practice) is the act of "defining," which is the act of diminishing "That Which Is" to "what we want it to be so we can deal with it; i.e. limit it in our minds eye."
In that act of "thinking" there is intrinsic separation, which inherently includes a cogitation of "differences" for "comparisons", thus "analytics." So, the etymological connection of "separate" (krei-"to sieve") is intrinsic in the act of "thinking" (our common practice of it) not in the decision part AKA the judgement. So there are two different concepts in the word roots, one is the common practice of separation (AKA defining) and the other is one of judgement. I suggest the "separation" part is intrinsic to the "thinking" part and not the "judgement" part.
To support this there is another method of "thinking" that does not separate. It is the act of listening, or what is commonly called "meditation." In meditation you listen to what the universe has to say about itself rather than telling it what it is (defining AKA separating). Whenever you start telling the universe what it is through separation, you fail in your meditation. These two methods of thinking are largely opposites.
However, the act of Critical thinking, i.e. judging for yourself the veracity of things is the same in both our standard form of thinking AKA separation AKA analytics, and in our "listening" form of thinking. Thus Analysis (even in the loosest sense in which you are using it) is not necessary for judgement of veracity AKA "critic". Thus "Judging" and "Separating" are, by definition, not the same thing, and by definition have nothing intrinsic to do with each other. They are however complimentary, and this complementarity is found within the root words. The primary focus of the word "critic" however is judgement, and the "separation" AKA analytics, is not a requirement for this judgement and is only added on because it is a common practice in the act of thinking.
Yes, I consider it as two dimensions of the same thing without being equal. before judging there is analysis, then weighing then the verdict. You could do without the other two, yet that would not be very wise.
But interesting to review nonetheless.
It is however very common, thus my insistence that "analysis" and "critic" (judgement) are strictly separate by definition (even if generally not in practice).
unfortunately, very common indeed. I see the reason for your insistence, yet have no inclination to acquiesce to it.
That is my judgement based on the analysis and weighing of what I perceive i.e. my thinking as a totality.
But I a sure we'll be fine.