The Five Disciplines of Thought

The Five Disciplines of Thought

Introduction

One of the deepest and yet most practical topics in philosophy is the nature of thought and the criteria of good thinking. In presenting this manual for improving thought, we will touch on some of the abstract philosophical problems connected with thought and knowledge, but our focus is on the practical improvement of thought. To do this, we have to make some assumptions, all of which are questioned in interesting ways by various philosophers. For example, we have to assume that thought is something that can be observed and discussed, usually by verbal and nonverbal behavior, with at least some objectivity. We have to assume that we can distinguish, to some extent, better from worse ways of thinking about or approaching a problem or issue.

These are already contentious claims, even stated in this hesitant or weak way. After all, we tend to think of our own thinking as very closely connected with our identity, which we tend to think of as a very private and personal affair. The first thing I worry about when someone tells me about a way to improve my thinking is that they are going to tell me not just how to think, but also what to think. Even how I think is part of who I am, and I’m not sure I want to let anyone change that. I’m not sure they could. In any case, I would do my best to resist.

The way we think is closely related to our identity, not just because some of the topics that we have convictions about (values, tastes, interests, etc.) help define us, but also because the style of thought you have developed to this point in your life is influenced by your experience and your response to your experience. When students write about their thinking style, they often refer to family members with whom they share habits of mind and personal tendencies. Sometimes they write about very significant events (sad or happy) that shaped the kind of thinker they have become. The more I think about my approach to my own thinking, the more I see it in relation to my life. If all of the claims in this paragraph are true, I could imagine drawing the conclusion that no one (except maybe me) knows enough about my unique way of thinking to offer interesting advice on how to improve it.

Thinking and identity are closely related. But two other convictions make me from drawing the skeptical conclusion above. First, we can become aware of our own and others’ thinking styles, and we can look at the effectiveness and quality thought in others. Sometimes we notice something in the way a friend handles a situation and we decide that we admire it and want to develop a similar approach. If we can “objectify” our thought in this way, then maybe it isn’t so private after all. As long as I’m the one choosing to adopt an admired trait or develop a habit of thought, I do not see a threat to my identity. This manual is full of recommendations that you can decide to try out or not. Second, in many situations we do have very clear and straightforward criteria for successful thinking and understanding. Thinking well about how to fix your car should help get the car fixed. If a doctor thinks carefully about a diagnosis and remedy for a patient, the result is more likely to be favorable. Of course, in some thinking situations it is notoriously difficult to find good criteria to judge the quality of our thought. Thinking about whom to trust, thinking about a direction to take in life, thinking about committing to a relationship are all difficult cases in part because the criteria for making the judgment is less clear. In general, matters of the heart and spirit present less clear cut criteria for judging the quality of our thought.

Let’s introduce some terminology and look further at the method we will follow in this manual before trying to decide whether any of this will work. After all, we are already in danger of breaking one of the basic rules of good thought in our discussion. It is important to define your terms. We have been writing about “thinking” as if we all agree about what it is. But what is thinking? We will discuss that question in general later, but for now we can focus on a practical set of definitions. Thinking is something that occurs in reflective/deliberative contexts. These are situations in which reasons are offered for claims. Thinking is the general activity of inquiry which produces reasons for claims. A rationale is any set of reasons for a claim. A claim is any statement that can be true or false. Questions are not claims, phrases are not claims, but sentences that say “one thing of another” are claims. When we offer a reason for a claim, we can call that claim the conclusion and the reasons are the premises. Sometimes the reasons we offer for a conclusion help us decide whether to believe the conclusion. These are called arguments. In other cases, the reasons we offer for a claim help us understanding how the truth of the claim came about. These are explanations. That’s a lot of terminology right away and we’ll be going over all of it in more detail as we proceed. For now the important concept is the idea of a “reflective/deliberative context.” A reflective context could involve just you thinking by yourself, but I suggest you normally think of a setting with more than one person involved in a discussion in which people are offering reasons for claims. We have a romantic or stereotypic idea of thinking as primarily a solitary endeavor, but most thought and deliberation takes place in a social setting. The setting might be face to face or mediated through telephone, writing or other technology. Thinking alone still usually involves an internal monologue in which we pose questions and reply to ourselves or create alternatives and then step back and look at them, much the way people in a discussion suggest a diversity of ideas. When thinking alone, many people report that they have simulated “conversations” in which they associate a “voice” with particular alternative views they are considering. So whether you are alone or with others, the idea of a reflective/deliberative context as a plurality of voices captures of experience of deliberation as interactive.

Our method in this manual is practical. Thinking is something you do, not just something to know about. There are many things that it is useful to know about thinking, but you will not improve your thinking just by learning information about thinking, discussion, logic, or any of the other topics we will take up. You can apply this point to any activity. Imagine someone studying guitar by only learning information about music and guitars, without practice. Any complex activity that you can get better at (sometimes these are called “perfective activities”) involves applying concepts through practice and performance and evaluating that behavior for further improvement. This is what it means to look at thought as a discipline.

The word “discipline” has some negative connotations. Face it, there were times when you did not want to practice piano or go to that workout. Because disciplines involve complex and often difficult goals and because they involve performance and evaluation, we don’t always rush to practice. We also have negative attitudes about discipline because we associate it with the training of dogs or getting in trouble. This meaning of discipline is more closely related to punishment. You might have hoped for something loftier as a central metaphor for improving thought. As you do improve your thinking through the five disciplines of thought suggested in this work, you will probably come to be critical of some of the ways you currently think or express your thought. But there’s no need to punish yourself. On the contrary, improving your thinking is one of the most liberating and exhilarating experiences you can have. So thinking is understood in our approach as something that happens in reflective/deliberative contexts. These are situations in which we engage in a wide variety of conversational goals. We might be exploring a topic, debating, trying to answer a question, formulating a plan of action, etc. All of these goals, and many others, involve giving and evaluating reasons. We can look at these situations and ask ourselves about our performance (or the group’s performance) as thinkers. Then we can take the evaluations we make of our own and other’s thinking and try to apply those lessons to the next reflective context we find ourselves in. Just like a piano lesson or a coaching situation. My goal in writing this manual is to “coach” you through the five disciplines of thought. If we’re successful, you will have a model for improving your thinking that we serve you for many years to come. And all without telling you what to think.