Caligula's Horse (2)

"A young businessman had just started his own firm. He had leased a beautiful office and had it furnished with antiques. Sitting behind his desk, he saw a man come into the outer office. Wishing to appear busy, the businessman picked up the phone and started to pretend he had a big deal working.

Finally, he hung up and asked the visitor, 'May I help you?'

'Sure,' the man said. 'I’ve come to hook up your phone!'”

"Let's continue!" said Wulandari. "Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so, Richard Paul and Linda Elder tell us. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

There are many different types of thinking, says Steven Schuster. No one type of thinking is better than the others. They are all useful in certain situations. We shouldn’t only use one type of thinking to the exclusion of all others.

Linear thinking is the way we were typically taught to think throughout our lives. It involves looking for a link between a cause and an effect. Linear thinking tells us that there is a cause and an effect, a problem and a solution, and a beginning and an ending. Linear thinking can be quite helpful in solving specific kinds of problems. For example, your cell phone shuts off (effect) because the battery was dead (cause). If you plug in your phone and charge the battery, your phone will work again.

Linear thinking also comes with its drawbacks. It doesn't look at things as complex systems and chooses only to focus on one small piece of a much larger puzzle. When we focus on just one small part without taking into account how it is connected to a larger system, it is possible that our solutions may create unintended consequences that are not always beneficial.

Event-oriented thinking does view the world as being more complex than linear thinking typically does, but it thinks of life as being made up of a series of events and not as a system. In this thinking model, an event is something that happened or is going to happen. Every event is believed to have a cause, and if we change the cause, the event will also be changed.

Event-oriented thinking is the foundation for our logic. If we do A, then B will happen. This type of thinking is quick, easy to apply, and easily understood. Our brains like event-oriented thinking. Our brains feel good about handling problems that are simple and familiar to us. From the earliest human history, we planted crops in the spring so we could harvest them in the fall and still have enough to eat in the winter and throughout the year, we lived near water so we could have easy access to drinking water, fish for food, and a path for transportation. We made sharp arrowheads to help us to hunt better, and we banded together in groups to help us to stay safe and make sure that everyone’s needs were being met.

Event-oriented thinking is ineffective in dealing with complex problems or systems. As our society has changed over time, event-oriented thinking has not evolved along with it. The problems we are faced with today often require a deeper understanding than event-oriented thinking allows.

Lateral thinking, invented by Edward De Bono in 1967, involves more creative thinking that isn’t immediately obvious to those who rely heavily upon traditional step-by-step, logical thinking to reach conclusions. It strives to generate new and innovative ideas in a way that we can easily repeat over time. Lateral thinking is beneficial when you are trying to get beyond thinking of problems as having one set solution and want to expand your thinking beyond the patterns you have typically thought in. It is particularly helpful in brainstorming sessions and when the desired outcome is invention or innovation.

The nature of lateral thinking is that no idea is discouraged, so all ideas are initially given the same weight, even if they are inappropriate. This may cost you precious time or get the problem-solving process off track. So, the disadvantage with lateral thinking is that a clear objective and ending point may not be identified. This type of thinking lacks some of the structure and goals that other types of thinking capitalize on.

Critical thinking involves analyzing facts in an objective manner so that a judgment can be reached. It also often entails thinking about your thinking and reflecting on the way you are reaching decisions in order to overcome any biases and improve the quality and efficiency of your cognition.

Critical thinking is effective when you are trying to find logical connections between ideas. Critical thinkers don’t accept things at face value; they dig deeper to be sure that there is rational thought and solid reasoning behind any information they are presented with before they accept it as true. It is highly beneficial when a systematic approach to solving a problem is needed.

This type of thinking is very helpful in many ways. It may just need to be monitored to make sure that it isn’t taken to an extreme. Healthy skepticism and a questioning of points of view is an important life skill, as long as the skepticism and questioning of authority is with good reason and backed up by facts.

Critical thinking is a concept that is intimidating to a lot of people, says Harvey Segler. As soon as they hear the word 'critical', their mind goes to somewhere intense and above their level. When you combine that with 'thinking', you cause a lot of people to shy away from the concept altogether.

There are a lot of ideas and premonitions that surround the concept of critical thinking, but while the prejudices range from a bunch of science geeks surrounding a table in white lab coats to politicians debating the laws of the country, the phrase itself has a simple meaning.

According to Segler, 'Critical thinking' is defined as: The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.' This is merely a lot of large words to describe what is really a very simple concept. Simple in practice, that is, because you could be thinking about anything, whether that be a faster way to get to work in the morning, or something as difficult as curing cancer.

Critical thinking gives you the tools to use scepticism and doubt constructively so that you can analyse what is before you, says Stella Cottrell. It helps you to make better and more informed decisions about whether something is likely to be true, effective or productive. Ultimately, in order to function in the world, we have to accept the probability that at least some things are as they seem. This requires trust. If we can analyse clearly the basis of what we take as true, we are more able to discern when it is reasonable to be trusting and where it is useful to be sceptical.

The focus of critical thinking is often referred to as the 'argument'. Critical thinking is associated with reasoning or with our capacity for rational thought. The word 'rational' means 'using reasons' to solve problems.

Critical thinking, in Paul and Elder view, is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it. In short, Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism [excessive interest in oneself and concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others] and sociocentrism [a tendency to assume the superiority or rightness of one's own social group].

One of the skills researchers and educators agree critical thinkers should possess and practice is the ability to look at a problem from different perspectives, says Jonathan Haber. The origins of critical thinking, however, all starts with philosophy, the key works of Plato’s student, Aristotle.

Three figures dominate the origin story of Greek philosophy. The first, Socrates, questioned fixed beliefs and strove to live an 'examined life,' activities that earned him the title of father of Western philosophy as well as a death sentence from his annoyed fellow Athenians. Socrates left behind no written work, but others captured his insights, notably his student Plato, whose Dialogs presents his master’s thinking ntertwined with his own ideas. Plato also founded what is considered to be the first school of philosophy in the Western world—the Academy—where philosophers such as the brilliant Aristotle studied.

One of the roles Aristotle played was that of a great systematizer who brought order to a wide range of subjects studied by him and other thinkers. In fact, many of today’s academic fields, such as biology and political science, became distinct disciplines only when Aristotle analyzed and organized them.

Critical thinking starts with asking the right questions.. Asking essential analytical questions is vital to excellence in thought. It is not possible to be a good thinker and a poor questioner. Questions define tasks, express problems, and delineate issues. They drive thinking forward. Answers, on the other hand, offen signal a full stop in thought. Only when an answer generates further questions does thought continue as inquiry. A mind with no questions is a mind that is not intellectually alive. No questions (asked) equals no understanding (achieved). Superficial questions equal superficial understanding, unclear questions equal unclear understanding. If your mind is not actively generating questions, you are not engaged in substantive learning. Thinking within disciplines is driven, not by answers, but by essential questions.

If you are anything close to being an average human being on the planet, the question of 'Why do the rich get richer?' has undoubtedly crossed your mind on more than one occasion. Can we find some answers to satisfy our curiosity?

Those who are financially well-off often use the wealth and privilege that they have to get insider information, special or additional knowledge which in turn helps them to generate more of that money, privilege, and closed-group information for themselves. Competitive exclusion is a system trap. What happens when someone wins a competition? He or she gets a reward. This reward — monetary, equipment, granted access — gives our winner the ability to compete even better or easier next time. This forms a reinforcing feedback loop, which increases the likelihood that the winners will keep winning and the losers will keep losing.

How does Monopoly—the board game— evolve? Each player begins the game on a level playing field, but as soon as a player begins to accumulate properties on the game board, all of that changes. When a player has control of a property, they can start to build hotels and charge the other players rent when they land on their properties. That player can then take the money they receive from the other players and use it to buy more properties and put more hotels on the game board. This makes it next to impossible for the other players to catch up, and greatly increases the likelihood that the hotel-owning player will win the game.

We also see this at play in nature. The competitive exclusion principle tells us that it is impossible to have two different species living in exactly the same ecological niche, competing with one another for exactly the same food and resources. When two species are different, one of the species will either be able to reproduce faster or be more effective in using resources than the other species. This will serve to give that species an advantage over the other one as it will begin to increase its population and continue to be dominant over the other species. The dominant species does not need to fight the other species. By using up all of the available resources, it means there are none left for the weaker competitor. This will force that species to either move away, adapt by using different resources, or become extinct.

As you formulate questions, consider the following guidelines and sample questions: questioning goals and purposes; questioning questions; questioning information, data, and experience; questioning inferences and conclusions; questioning concepts and ideas; questioning assumptions; questioning implications and consequences; questioning viewpoints and perspectives.

Jennifer Lawrence and Lawrence Chester suggest the process of critical thinking contained four steps. First, gathering info before making decisions. Second, generate ideas using a fresh perspective. Third, evaluate options using a logic-driven process. And finally, agree at each stage of the process.

So, how does critical thinking play a role in ethics? Critical thinking provides us with the tools to identify and resolve issues in our lives, says Judith A. Boss. Critical thinking is not simply a matter of asserting our opinions on issues. Opinions are based on personal feelings or beliefs, rather than on reason and evidence. We are all certainly entitled to our own opinions. Opinions, however, are not necessarily reasonable. While some may happen to turn out to be correct, opinions, no matter how deeply and sincerely held, may also be mistaken. As a critical thinker, you need to be willing to provide logical support for your beliefs.

Uninformed opinions can lead you to make poor decisions in your life and act in ways that you may later come to regret. Sometimes uninformed opinions can negatively impact society. For example, even though antibiotics kill bacteria and have no effect on cold viruses, many people try to persuade their doctors into prescribing them for cold symptoms. Despite doctors telling patients that antibiotics have no effect on viral infections, studies show that about half of doctors give in to patient pressure for antibiotics for viral infections. Such overuse of antibiotics makes bacteria more drug resistant and has led to a decline in the effectiveness of treatment in diseases where they are really needed. This phenomenon has been linked to the emergence of new, more virulent strains of drug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition, the incidence of some sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, which was once treatable by penicillin, is once again on the rise.

The ability to think critically and to make effective life decisions is shaped by many factors, including our stage of cognitive development, the possession of good analytical communication, and research skills and such characteristics as open-mindedness, flexibility, and creativity.

So, how does critical thinking play a role in ethics? Critical thinking provides us with the tools to identify and resolve issues in our lives, says Judith A. Boss. Critical thinking is not simply a matter of asserting our opinions on issues. Opinions are based on personal feelings or beliefs, rather than on reason and evidence. We are all certainly entitled to our own opinions. Opinions, however, are not necessarily reasonable. While some may happen to turn out to be correct, opinions, no matter how deeply and sincerely held, may also be mistaken. As a critical thinker, you need to be willing to provide logical support for your beliefs.

Uninformed opinions can lead you to make poor decisions in your life and act in ways that you may later come to regret. Sometimes uninformed opinions can negatively impact society. For example, even though antibiotics kill bacteria and have no effect on cold viruses, many people try to persuade their doctors into prescribing them for cold symptoms. Despite doctors telling patients that antibiotics have no effect on viral infections, studies show that about half of doctors give in to patient pressure for antibiotics for viral infections. Such overuse of antibiotics makes bacteria more drug resistant and has led to a decline in the effectiveness of treatment in diseases where they are really needed. This phenomenon has been linked to the emergence of new, more virulent strains of drug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition, the incidence of some sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, which was once treatable by penicillin, is once again on the rise.

The ability to think critically and to make effective life decisions is shaped by many factors, including our stage of cognitive development, the possession of good analytical communication, and research skills and such characteristics as open-mindedness, flexibility, and creativity.

Next session, we will discuss some ethical issues, bi 'idhnillah," said Wulandari as she was chanting,

Beri sedikit waktu

[Give it a little time]

Biar cinta datang karena telah terbiasa *)

[Let love comes because it's used to it]

[Session 3]
[Session 1]

Bahasa

Caligula's Horse (1)

"It was said, there were three most famous horses in history," said Wulandari when her face like a rounding clock; shone on the garden wall, on streets, fields, harbour quays, and trees, afer saying Basmalah and Salaam.

"The first,' she went on, "Bucephalus, belonging to Alexander the Great. A thirteen-year-old Alexander tamed the horse when no one else could by turning the animal away from its shadow. Alexander supposedly claimed that the horse was immortal. Some legends claim that the horse was born at the same time as the king, and others that they died simultaneously. Bucephalus, is almost as legendary as the king himself and he named an ancient city, Bucephala, in his honor.

The second, Clever Hans, a clever horse taught to solve math problems, tell time and dates, understand music theory, and speak German by Wilhelm Von Osten, a math teacher and mystic. The horse would watch the person asking the questions—the people who already knew the answers—and read their body language. When their body language changed when the horse arrived at the correct answer, Clever Hans would stop. Since then, similar behavior in humans has been known as the Clever Hans Effect.

The third, Incitatus, Caligula’s horse. The Roman emperor Caligula is best known today for his decadent lifestyle, brutal—and hence, inappropriate. Caligula believed he was a god and was assassinated for it. He was murdered at the Palatine Games by Cassius Chaerea.

Caligula’s horse, Incitatus had a stable made of marble and a stall made of ivory. He wore only purple blankets, the color of royalty, and had jewels hanging from around his neck. The horse had its own servants and its oats were mixed with gold flakes–he even had his own house!

Rumor has it that the emperor planned on making the horse an official member of the Roman government. The emperor lavished his attention on the horse to draw attention to how easy it was to work in government and entertain dignitaries, even a horse could do it.

So, probably, inspired by this incident, the wise Aesop tells us a satire about Caligula and his horse. He express it like this, 'A story goes that Caligula, Emperor of Rome, being one day on the back of a favourite Horse, with his whole court about him, these obsequious Gentlemen perceiving how awkwardly he managed the reins, took occasion from thence to flatter him upon being a most excellent Horseman; when the Horse immediately threw him—in the emperor's mind, he believed that in his court, the Horse was the only one of his court that had any truth in him, took a resolution to raise him to those high honours to which he afterwards arrived.'

Flatterers should be told, that he who flatters without without prior examination, is a fool, James Northcote comments on this fable. A man of integrity, says he, provided his capacities are not weak, always carries the preference in our esteem before any other, whatever situation in life he may happen to occupy.

Every fable in Aesop’s Fable always contain moral values that implies care of soul, kindhearted, respect, tolerance, justness, fairness, responsibility, and belief. All of these represent part of ethics. 

Why do we need ethics? Aren’t laws sufficient to protect people’s rights? Vincent Ryan Ruggiero tells us that Ethics is the study of the choices people make regarding right and wrong. Each of us makes dozens of moral choices daily. Will we go to work or call in sick? Follow the research protocol or violate it? Answer a colleague’s question truthfully or lie? Obey the speed laws or drive as fast as our vehicles will go? Pay our bills or spend our money on entertainment? Keep our marriage vows or break them? Meet our children’s emotional needs or ignore them? Pet the cat or kick it?

Many people reason, says Ruggiero, that we don’t need ethics because our system of laws, when consistently enforced, provides sufficient protection of our rights. In order to assess this idea we must understand who makes laws and how they make them. Who makes them is easy to answer: local, state, and national legislators. How they are made is somewhat more difficult. We know that legislators must get together to talk about a particular behavior and then vote on whether they want to criminalize it. But what do they say to one another? On what basis do they conclude that one act deserves to be classified criminal and another one doesn’t? What kinds of reasons do they offer to support their views? How can they be sure those reasons are good ones?

What, for example, did legislators say before they decided that sexual harassment is illegal? Certainly something more than 'I wouldn’t commit such an act.' The fact that two or ten or five hundred legislators expressed that personal view would not be suffi cient reason to conclude that a law should be passed preventing other people from committing the act. According to relativism, no one has any business criticizing other people’s moral decisions. If that principle is valid, then the sexual harasser should be free to follow his or her preference. The only rational basis for a law against sexual harassment is that the act is wrong, not just for those who think so but for everyone. The proper focus for lawmakers is not on their subjective preferences but on the nature of the actions in question.

Why do we need ethics if we have laws? Because law is not possible without ethics, says Ruggiero. The only way for a law to be enacted or repealed is for one or more people to make a decision about right and wrong. That has always been true, whether the lawmaker was the chieftain of a nomadic band or tribe, a king or queen, or a group of elected officials. If human beings were wise enough to create one set of laws that would last for all time, we might say that ethical judgment was once important but no longer is. Alas, humans are not that wise. New circumstances arise and laws must be revised to fi t them. In addition, new insights sometimes reveal that a law punishes behavior that does not deserve punishment or makes unreasonable demands on people.

Ruggiero further revealed that the focus of ethics is moral situations—that is, those situations in which there is a choice of behavior involving human values—those qualities that are regarded as good and desirable. Thus, whether we watch TV at a friend’s house or at our own is not a moral issue. But whether we watch TV at a friend’s house without his or her knowledge and approval is a moral issue. Similarly, filling out an application for a job is a morally neutral act. But deciding whether to tell the truth on the application is a moral issue. Consider also something many people spend a great deal of time doing these days—texting. In many cases, this way of communicating with friends and family is not a moral issue. But when it is done while driving a car, it could endanger other people and therefore is a moral issue. The same is true when an employee texts at work and thus takes time away from the job she is paid to do.

An ethicist observes the choices people make in various moral situations and draws conclusions about those choices. An ethical system is a set of coherent ideas that result from those conclusions and form an overall moral perspective.

Ethicists are not lawmakers. They are neither elected nor appointed. Their only authority is the force of reasonableness in their judgments. Their words, unlike those of lawmakers, do not prescribe what must or must not be done. They merely suggest what ought to be done. If people violate their own or their society’s moral code, no ethics enforcement officer will try to apprehend them—though if their action also violates a law, a law enforcement agency may do so.

The idea of varying degrees of responsibility for one’s actions is applied in ethics, too. Although there are no courts of ethics as there are courts of law, and no formal pronouncements of guilt or innocence in moral matters, the ethicist nevertheless is interested in the question 'Under what circumstances is a person to be considered culpable?' The conclusions ethicists reach in these matters provide guidance to lawmakers and law enforcers.

One of the most dramatic ethical issues of the millennium exploded during the final decade of the twentieth century. That issue is, for example, the creation of human embryos for research. Controversial issues like this one often generate considerable intellectual tension. People form strong convictions on one side of the issue or the other and attempt to persuade others of the rightness of their viewpoint.

The principle of right desire, in bridging the gap between is and ought, provides a foundation for judgment. The principle of contradiction gives assurance that critical thinking is relevant to ethical controversies, that when two ethical judgments are diametrically opposed, one must be mistaken. Thus these two principles offer us confidence and encouragement in ethical analysis and judgment, no small contributions.

Critical thinking is the means by which we objectively analyze the pros and cons of a situation in order to make informed decisions. It is a fundamental skill that is of such importance which we'll discussing on the next session, bi 'idhnillah."

Critical thinking is the means by which we objectively analyze the pros and cons of a situation in order to make informed decisions. 'What if' questions force an analysis and evaluation from a completely different point of view. This question actually create a framework through which we will begin to think critically. The different perspective is the catalyst for critical thinking. It is a fundamental skill that is of such importance which we'll discussing on the next session, bi 'idhnillah."

And before moving over to the next session, Wulandari intoned,

Hidupku tanpa cintamu

[My life without your love]

Bagai malam tanpa bintang

[Like a night without stars]

Cintaku tanpa sambutmu

[My love without your acceptance]

Bagai panas tanpa hujan *)

[Like the heat without the rain]

[Session 2]

Bahasa