LIFE OF THE CLOSED MIND

The general argument made by Anna Quindlen in her work Life of the Closed Mind is that many Americans now have a closed mind. More specifically, Quindlen argues that we believe in too many conspiracies. She writes; “…we have become a nation of conspiracy theorists. But everything now is a conspiracy: a right-wing conspiracy, a Clinton conspiracy, above all a media conspiracy.”(pg 68) In this passage, Quindlen is suggesting that we no longer think for ourselves and believe in ridiculous conspiracies. In conclusion, it is Quindlen’s belief that “America had been hijacked by those who cannot tell the difference between opponents and enemies, between disagreement and heresy, between discussion and destruction.”

 In my view, Quindlen is both wrong and right because some people have come to a point where once a person or group have done something “evil” we automatically believe all the people from that race are evil. Yet not all people believe that. For example, ever since 9/11 happened we have had a closed mind and judged the Arabs and think that they all are terrorists. Although Quindlen might object that ever since 9/11 we have had a closed mind. I maintain that we should keep an open mind and not judge people because of what their race has done. Therefore, I conclude that we should be an open minded people so we can tell the difference between opponents and enemies.

ARGUMENTATION IN A CULTURE OF DISCORD

The general argument made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a Culture of Discord is that more students should learn how to write argumentatively. More specifically, Cioffi argues that some students have fallen into a pit where they look for the easier answer instead of thinking more to raise more questions to the reading audience. He writes; “most students …come from a culture that wants answers, not nuanced problematizations, not philosophy. They've been conditioned, as have most Americans, to seek out a position where a simple choice will solve the problem.”(pg 65) in this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that students start questioning their argument and come up with more complex questions. In conclusion, it is Cioffi’s belief that argumentative writing should never end with a definitive, an in-your-face "So there!" answer. Instead, he believes that it should raise more questions.

In my view, Cioffi is wrong because my view of argumentative writing is to choose a side and support it, not raise more questions. For example, all throughout school I have been taught to pick sides on an argument because the reader wants to know my point of view. I don’t think the writer wants me to raise more questions for him or her to answer. Although Cioffi might object that choosing sides on a argument” prohibits freedom of thought”, I maintain that choosing sides on an argument makes it easier for myself and lets the reader know what side I am on. Therefore, I conclude that I can choose side when I’m writing an argument, and I can still make it interesting.

WHY ENGAGE IN POLITICAL THINKING

The general point made by Glen Tinder in his work Why Engage In Political Thinking is that thinking helps human being to observe everything without taking sides.  More specifically, Tinder argues/suggests that we humans are thinking beings. He writes; “Only through thought do we affirm our rationality, our freedom, and our loyalty to being.”(pg 20) in this passage Tinder is suggesting that we should think more in order to have a good sense and sound judgment. In conclusion, it is Tinder’s belief that if we start to consider things with an open mind, clarity, and determination we will learn something and not be influenced by other people.

In my view, Tinder is right because the more thought someone puts into something they will be able to see more than one side of the story. For example, most people have the belief that what the Nazis did was wrong. But we wouldn’t know if it was wrong if it weren’t for ideas like the evil of tyranny. Although Tinder might object that if it weren’t for great philosophers ideas about evil of tyranny, and dignity of the law, we would not think what the Nazis did was bad. I maintain that just because some people make great ideas does not mean we can’t make our own. Therefore, I conclude that humans should think more because it helps us gain humanity not available in any other way.

A METHOD FOR READING, WRITING, AND THINKING CRITICALLY

The general point made by Kathleen McCormick in her work A Method For Reading, Writing, And Thinking Critically is that there are two parts to read, write, and think more critically: historical analysis and cultural analysis. More specifically, McCormick argues that to see more than two sides of the story you have to use historical and cultural analysis. She/he writes; “Historical and cultural analysis enables us to replace the image of conflict as a two-sided tug of war with an image of a prism with many facets that are at once interconnected and distinct and that also change with the angle of the light and the angle of the viewer.”(pg 22) in this passage, McCormick is suggesting that to see more than two sides of the conflict we should see the complexity of the issue and not simplify it into black and white. In conclusion, it is McCormick’s belief that in conflicts we should use historical and cultural analysis to view where the origins of the conflict came from and to avoid simplistic right/wrong arguments.

In my view, McCormick is right because we can be really good critical thinkers if we use cultural and historical analysis because the conflict will be more clear. For example, we need to critically think about why dress was so different for women 100 years ago. Through historical analysis we recognize specific ways in which the past was different from the present. Although McCormick might object critical thinking is the capacity to explore the relationship of one perspective to other perspectives and to connect them, I maintain that to critically think we need to use critical and historical analysis to look at it from different points of view. Therefore, I conclude that by discovering differences and connections across time(historical analysis) and recognizing conflicts and continuities within the same time period(cultural analysis), I will be a better critical thinker.