THE ELEMENTS OF THOUGHT
In all academic disciplines, and in thinking, they share one universal truth that whenever you reason, you are trying to accomplish a purpose within a point of view using concepts and ideas, you are focused on some question, issue or problem, using information to come to some conclusion based on assumptions, all of which have implications. Thinking then generates purposes, raises questions, uses information, uses concepts, makes inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point of view. It does not matter who you are; whenever you engage in thinking, you will find all these parts.
By pulling apart anyone’s narrative, we will uncover the logic behind their thought. Let's start from the point of view; as soon as the perspective changes, there will be a different combination of the elements of thought. The perspective may be political, relationships, money, religion, gender, family, or education. When we start from a point of view, e.g. religion, we ask what the person is looking at, and how they are developing the argument. One could make three different inferences following the information given to them on the Abrahamic Covenant from the Koran, Bible, or Tanaka; the inferences change based on the information, which also changes other elements of thought, like concepts, assumptions, implications and questions. One inference coming from the Koran is that Jesus was a prophet. Another inference coming from the Tanaka is that Jesus is not the Messiah.
The inference coming from the Bible is that Jesus is the son of God, the seed of Abraham. The concepts differ for Christians: salvation through Jesus, the cross, the Trinity, grace and truth, prophecy fulfilment, and a New Covenant. For Jews: the Torah, the Messiah is a future/political leader, a covenant made with Israel through Issac and Jacob. For Muslims: prophethood, lineage through Abraham and Ishmael. A Muslim assumption is that Jesus was a prophet and not divine. A Jewish assumption is that the Messiah has not yet come. A Christian assumption is that the Abrahamic covenant pointed forward to Christ. A question in the elements of thought would differ, such as the Jew would ask what it means to be God’s chosen people. Is the messiah divine or human? The Muslim may ask who the true heir of Abraham’s covenant was, Issac or Ishmael? The Christian may ask what it means for Jesus to be the seed of Abraham. The implications of thought for the Jew are that when the Messiah is coming, the New Testament is not authoritative. The implications of thinking for Muslims are that Jesus is honoured but not worshipped. The implications for Christians are that salvation is available through Jesus, not the law.
Let’s change to another point of view on money. Inferences will follow the information one has about money. The possible inference is that money is to be spent, money is to be multiplied, or money is to pay bills. Although money can do all those things, it will have different consequences. The difference in understanding creates the end outcome. Ideas associated with money can differ based on social class, culture, family upbringing, and life experiences; however, attached to all those contexts is a narrative, yet money operates by laws.
Another point of view we could use to model thinking is politics in an American context, in the present generation. A possible inference is that Trump is a dictator. Trump is making good decisions for America. Trump is an absolute nightmare as a president. For all these conclusions, there would need to be some premises on which the argument is built. Therefore, the inferences are coming from a source of information. We must also consider the social location of the person making an inference if you were a man coming from a patriarchal society where women are expected to serve the man and engage in unpaid domestic duties just because she is a woman. However, the ideas associated with gender may differ significantly if we change cultures; people’s differing understanding of religious texts can impact their conclusions based on how they interpret meanings. Therefore, we must consider the one making that assessment when weighing up differing opinions. We can also find the logic of a thinking pattern by observing those different conclusions based on the information.
They all involve some concepts, principles, and rules. It is always important to identify these; if we want to take command of thinking, we must accurately define the concepts being used, implicitly/explicitly, consciously/unconsciously. You wouldn’t just make the statement that Trump is a dictator. When we label someone, something, or a place, further investigation is needed to understand how that conclusion is made. Some will disagree, maybe because Trump is their president and they believe that he is doing well for the country. The person saying he is a dictator may have come from one of the 12 nations Trump has banned and have family members in America that they can no longer visit. The concepts in this person’s thought may be equality, human rights, democracy, authoritarianism, and discrimination, e.g. inclusion/exclusion, as it is targeting Muslim nations; therefore, Trump's far-right nationalism is also using the discourse strategy of us and them. If we were to develop our thinking by taking command of the concepts concealed within a narrative, we would get an accurate understanding of a concept by finding descriptions of its meaning. So often, we only have a shallow understanding of a concept, or it could be inaccurate.
Let’s explore the concept of democracy as an illustration. According to the Webster dictionary, democracy is government by the people, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. On the other hand, according to the Webster dictionary, authoritarianism favours complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom. To be critical of someone’s perspective, we must find the definitions of the concepts they may be using. This is why, critically, not emotionally, getting to the logic of an argument is crucial if we come from a different viewpoint. There will be other concepts that someone from America may have based on a negative experience, maybe they were caught up in the Twin Towers on September 11th and have developed a negative view of a religious minority.
Yet to say that all people from one nation are going to display a terrorist character trait is a heresy. To further develop our understanding of the parts of thinking, we need to ask what information they are using. Perhaps a good example of this is that Trump is a radical right nationalist, where to be American, you must qualify by ethnicity and race, as some of the other terms that he uses in discourse are “Build the wall nice and tall.” His thinking shows that he has an us and them narrative; he is analogising using sentiment of American nationalism.
We need to identify the information source from which anyone is drawing inferences. Here, we look for the facts, experiences, or data the person uses to draw conclusions. Inferences are the conclusions people draw from the information. For example, Trump is an authoritarian, but there must be some connecting premise that logically connects. Sometimes people make an inference but do not have enough evidence to support that claim, or their reasons do not connect logically. In the bible, the chief priest and the elders devised a plan and gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say 'Jesus' disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” And this story has been widely circulated to this day. That is why the Jews draw the inference that Jesus did not resurrect from the grave. Hidden in that inference are untested assumptions made by a whole people group as one of the premises that they believe support this argument that Jesus is not God. That is a serious assumption that could determine the whole trajectory of someone’s belief system, which is why we must always test our assumptions.
Assumptions are the information we have taken for granted; they underlie the reason for someone's argument. Assumptions can usually be unstated or not made explicit, but they are always an element in the parts of thinking. What is the key question someone is asking whenever they think? For example, this article is trying to settle a question: Can we understand the logic behind anyone's thought, even if they are different from our own? Questions always drive our thinking; we must clarify what question directs our thinking. What is Trump's question about tariffs? How can he make America the financial superpower of the world? There are strategic reasons behind his decisions. Our goal is to figure out the question behind someone’s reasoning.
What is the main purpose of someone’s reasoning? There is always a purpose that drives thought. This is universal and will be in everyone's thinking, depending on the subject. Take a mundane activity like grocery shopping, you take out a pen and paper because you don’t want to forget what you need at the grocery store. There are clear purposes in your thinking. I may write on a subject that particularly matters to me because I have seen the injustice a problem may cause; therefore, my reasoning has a clear purpose. Here, we try to discover the intent of reasoning. What is someone trying to accomplish through thinking? If we accept some line of reasoning, what are some important implications of that reasoning?
What likely consequences follow, such as believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is God? According to the bible, the implications of thinking spiritually lead to life and peace, and the consequences lead to eternal life with God. All thinking has implications. Another way of thinking is that if we fail to accept this line of reasoning, some important implications are. Then you could ask what important consequences are likely to follow if you ignore the information. I have covered all the elements of thought that you can start implementing into your reasoning. This is an extensive subject. Still, it needs to be practically applied for it to have long-lasting benefits and to understand how thinking arranges itself just by adjusting or changing some of the assumptions that have not been tested, checking for other information sources and thinking through the logic of other people’s points of view. Practice critical thinking every day.
Picture taken from Nike Art Gallery a place of creative arts plus and displays in Nigeria.
THE ELEMENTS OF THOUGHT
In all academic disciplines, and in thinking, they share one universal truth that whenever you reason, you are trying to accomplish a purpose within a point of view using concepts and ideas, you are focused on some question, issue or problem, using information to come to some conclusion based on assumptions, all of which have implications. Thinking then generates purposes, raises questions, uses information, uses concepts, makes inferences, makes assumptions, generates implications, and embodies a point of view. It does not matter who you are; whenever you engage in thinking, you will find all these parts.
By pulling apart anyone’s narrative, we will uncover the logic behind their thought. Let's start from the point of view; as soon as the perspective changes, there will be a different combination of the elements of thought. The perspective may be political, relationships, money, religion, gender, family, or education. When we start from a point of view, e.g. religion, we ask what the person is looking at, and how they are developing the argument. One could make three different inferences following the information given to them on the Abrahamic Covenant from the Koran, Bible, or Tanaka; the inferences change based on the information, which also changes other elements of thought, like concepts, assumptions, implications and questions. One inference coming from the Koran is that Jesus was a prophet. Another inference coming from the Tanaka is that Jesus is not the Messiah.
The inference coming from the Bible is that Jesus is the son of God, the seed of Abraham. The concepts differ for Christians: salvation through Jesus, the cross, the Trinity, grace and truth, prophecy fulfilment, and a New Covenant. For Jews: the Torah, the Messiah is a future/political leader, a covenant made with Israel through Issac and Jacob. For Muslims: prophethood, lineage through Abraham and Ishmael. A Muslim assumption is that Jesus was a prophet and not divine. A Jewish assumption is that the Messiah has not yet come. A Christian assumption is that the Abrahamic covenant pointed forward to Christ. A question in the elements of thought would differ, such as the Jew would ask what it means to be God’s chosen people. Is the messiah divine or human? The Muslim may ask who the true heir of Abraham’s covenant was, Issac or Ishmael? The Christian may ask what it means for Jesus to be the seed of Abraham. The implications of thought for the Jew are that when the Messiah is coming, the New Testament is not authoritative. The implications of thinking for Muslims are that Jesus is honoured but not worshipped. The implications for Christians are that salvation is available through Jesus, not the law.
Let’s change to another point of view on money. Inferences will follow the information one has about money. The possible inference is that money is to be spent, money is to be multiplied, or money is to pay bills. Although money can do all those things, it will have different consequences. The difference in understanding creates the end outcome. Ideas associated with money can differ based on social class, culture, family upbringing, and life experiences; however, attached to all those contexts is a narrative, yet money operates by laws.
Another point of view we could use to model thinking is politics in an American context, in the present generation. A possible inference is that Trump is a dictator. Trump is making good decisions for America. Trump is an absolute nightmare as a president. For all these conclusions, there would need to be some premises on which the argument is built. Therefore, the inferences are coming from a source of information. We must also consider the social location of the person making an inference if you were a man coming from a patriarchal society where women are expected to serve the man and engage in unpaid domestic duties just because she is a woman. However, the ideas associated with gender may differ significantly if we change cultures; people’s differing understanding of religious texts can impact their conclusions based on how they interpret meanings. Therefore, we must consider the one making that assessment when weighing up differing opinions. We can also find the logic of a thinking pattern by observing those different conclusions based on the information.
They all involve some concepts, principles, and rules. It is always important to identify these; if we want to take command of thinking, we must accurately define the concepts being used, implicitly/explicitly, consciously/unconsciously. You wouldn’t just make the statement that Trump is a dictator. When we label someone, something, or a place, further investigation is needed to understand how that conclusion is made. Some will disagree, maybe because Trump is their president and they believe that he is doing well for the country. The person saying he is a dictator may have come from one of the 12 nations Trump has banned and have family members in America that they can no longer visit. The concepts in this person’s thought may be equality, human rights, democracy, authoritarianism, and discrimination, e.g. inclusion/exclusion, as it is targeting Muslim nations; therefore, Trump's far-right nationalism is also using the discourse strategy of us and them. If we were to develop our thinking by taking command of the concepts concealed within a narrative, we would get an accurate understanding of a concept by finding descriptions of its meaning. So often, we only have a shallow understanding of a concept, or it could be inaccurate.
Let’s explore the concept of democracy as an illustration. According to the Webster dictionary, democracy is government by the people, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. On the other hand, according to the Webster dictionary, authoritarianism favours complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom. To be critical of someone’s perspective, we must find the definitions of the concepts they may be using. This is why, critically, not emotionally, getting to the logic of an argument is crucial if we come from a different viewpoint. There will be other concepts that someone from America may have based on a negative experience, maybe they were caught up in the Twin Towers on September 11th and have developed a negative view of a religious minority.
Yet to say that all people from one nation are going to display a terrorist character trait is a heresy. To further develop our understanding of the parts of thinking, we need to ask what information they are using. Perhaps a good example of this is that Trump is a radical right nationalist, where to be American, you must qualify by ethnicity and race, as some of the other terms that he uses in discourse are “Build the wall nice and tall.” His thinking shows that he has an us and them narrative; he is analogising using sentiment of American nationalism.
We need to identify the information source from which anyone is drawing inferences. Here, we look for the facts, experiences, or data the person uses to draw conclusions. Inferences are the conclusions people draw from the information. For example, Trump is an authoritarian, but there must be some connecting premise that logically connects. Sometimes people make an inference but do not have enough evidence to support that claim, or their reasons do not connect logically. In the bible, the chief priest and the elders devised a plan and gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say 'Jesus' disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” And this story has been widely circulated to this day. That is why the Jews draw the inference that Jesus did not resurrect from the grave. Hidden in that inference are untested assumptions made by a whole people group as one of the premises that they believe support this argument that Jesus is not God. That is a serious assumption that could determine the whole trajectory of someone’s belief system, which is why we must always test our assumptions.
Assumptions are the information we have taken for granted; they underlie the reason for someone's argument. Assumptions can usually be unstated or not made explicit, but they are always an element in the parts of thinking. What is the key question someone is asking whenever they think? For example, this article is trying to settle a question: Can we understand the logic behind anyone's thought, even if they are different from our own? Questions always drive our thinking; we must clarify what question directs our thinking. What is Trump's question about tariffs? How can he make America the financial superpower of the world? There are strategic reasons behind his decisions. Our goal is to figure out the question behind someone’s reasoning.
What is the main purpose of someone’s reasoning? There is always a purpose that drives thought. This is universal and will be in everyone's thinking, depending on the subject. Take a mundane activity like grocery shopping, you take out a pen and paper because you don’t want to forget what you need at the grocery store. There are clear purposes in your thinking. I may write on a subject that particularly matters to me because I have seen the injustice a problem may cause; therefore, my reasoning has a clear purpose. Here, we try to discover the intent of reasoning. What is someone trying to accomplish through thinking? If we accept some line of reasoning, what are some important implications of that reasoning?
What likely consequences follow, such as believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is God? According to the bible, the implications of thinking spiritually lead to life and peace, and the consequences lead to eternal life with God. All thinking has implications. Another way of thinking is that if we fail to accept this line of reasoning, some important implications are. Then you could ask what important consequences are likely to follow if you ignore the information. I have covered all the elements of thought that you can start implementing into your reasoning. This is an extensive subject. Still, it needs to be practically applied for it to have long-lasting benefits and to understand how thinking arranges itself just by adjusting or changing some of the assumptions that have not been tested, checking for other information sources and thinking through the logic of other people’s points of view. Practice critical thinking every day.
Picture taken from Nike Art Gallery a place of creative arts plus and displays in Nigeria.
English
Arabic
French
Spanish
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek