Even the Younger Generations Deserve Critical Thought

There are so many differences between philosophical writing and writing meant to be loved and purchased by the public, that one cannot even imagine a neat count of them. But surely, one major difference is that philosophers intend to engage in critical thinking, of some sort (there are a lot of sorts), and popular writers often avoid it.

If this seems cruel to say of popular writers, or merely sour grapes (they the ones who can write as they do, they are the ones who are beloved), let me give the most basic overview of critical thinking. I suppose readers can think critical thinking is anything they want, but it does have a very long history and philosophers still teach and grade it every semester.

Critical thinking is to focus your attention on the argument. This means you do not waste your time speculating about motivation, you do not invoke potted history to make your case, you refrain from reflection on what a possible conclusion has and might mean to you as that is irrelevant. These days, though not in critical thinking's ancient origins, there is a focus on supporting your views carefully with data.

Critical thinking is constructive (the name is probably misleading): you first determine if any argument exists at all. It might be mere venting or any number of ways to effectively communicate. We are told, if we are critical thinkers, to leave such utterances alone. As often, a portion of an argument seems to be missing. In this case, a critical thinker generously provides what is missing, doing their utmost to improve the argument lest you become ridiculous yourself, fighting against a “straw man.”

Anyway, it would surely be a mistake to judge popular writing by standards of critical thinking, except for in a few recent cases, such as writer Meghan Daum’s work The Problem with Everything: My Journey Through the New Culture Wars. Here the author’s argument seems to be that others have no idea how to think properly, critically, and with nuance. She explains that her friends began thinking less critically around 2015 (influenced I guess by younger people, the target of the book).

So, in this case, it does seem strange that the author models exactly what we teach not to do in critical thinking courses. Arguments themselves are treated as irrelevant, beside the point, in the book. Thinkers in the “ideological dark web” are mentioned as appealing to the author, but they never have their arguments represented. The younger generations are mocked mercilessly for how annoying they are to the author, but that's it. They never have their arguments represented. They are just so annoying. That’s, I guess, the point of the book. A lot of readers seem to be very appreciative of it.

But this is where I become sure that philosophers are not doing anything audience-friendly. Engaging in constructive argument: setting out your premises, identifying an objective end-point that others may reach differently, is not a way to feel “cool” or better or somehow at ease with yourself. It’s ongoing work, and to do it is to be open to all manner of correction. That’s why a critical thinker will try to lay out all of her arguments with care: so that they can be judged. It’s a way to respect your audience. It’s treating them as if they, too, can be critical thinkers, as it gives them something precise (right there! Premise 3 is wrong!) to disagree with.

A book like Daum’s is, it seems, designed to make readers feel superior to others because they have just designated themselves "critical thinkers" due to a mocking and skeptical posture. There is zero constructive work done for the other side, there is only repeated dismissal of others’ concerns as some psychological problem from the earliest of childhood. (I think Daum thinks it could be the lack of Gen-X role models or parental preferences for gendering their children that is the actual explanation for the outlook of young people today. I am not sure I am exaggerating to suggest this is the most wholesale dismissive take imaginable.) But let’s suppose she is right about this, that she is right about every single young person she means to describe. She would still not be thinking critically. To think critically you have to be clear about someone's (if not your own) premises and argumentative moves. It gives us a chance to check the work that leads to surprising or implausible conclusions.

What I noticed in reading this book is that there is simply no way to disagree. If you mock the author’s cruelty, she’s ready because she’s already anticipated this. I wondered so many things about her assumptions, I just wondered how anyone could find many of them true, but there seems to be no point to this, as there is no way in. You either find an unspecified subset of young people ridiculous and pathetic (anything but “badass”; the book was going to be aimed at young women and called You Are Not a Badass) or you are left to figure out what it would take for someone to come to that conclusion all on your own.