Meta-Criticism and Metacritical Thinking - Essay Example

META-CRITICISM Meta-criticism, or key critical concept, such as 'criticism', 'critical', 'critic', 'ctitique', seeks to solve problems by subdividing them into smaller sections that are consequently dealt with accordingly. This generates from understanding that social issues are built of smaller sub-problems. Developing solutions for these smaller problems is seen as an easy affair compared to dealing with mega issues. Participants in systems thinking can focus on the small problems and thus come up with best solutions. Dealing with these issues individually helps improve understand the underlying causes and thus develop preventative measures-this also improves participating professionals skills of dealing with such problems in the future. Researchers incorporating systems thinking embark on investigating the link between the smaller social issues, that is, the contributions each problem segment was making on the overall social problem. According to Checkland and Poulter (2006, p. 27) little isolation between issues are made during the research process. However, connection between the various issues is done towards the end of research. Individual researchers with experience in various sub-sections lead investigation therein. This provides opportunity for the contributing issues to be combed conclusively before being incorporated in solution finding processes. However, it is the connection between the various issues that help understand the real social problems, and therefore lead to development and implementation of best solutions. This form of thought process also includes the parameters of spirituality and the arguments related to existence of god. However, there are exceptions too. In this context it would be relevant to say that in the context of meta-criticism Jean Kilbourne presents excellent example of the term. Jean Kilbourne makes an excellent point in her portrayal of advertisement and its appearance of violence and sexually predatory nature. Blatantly sexist, implied violence and the essence of fear or dominance would be inherent in advertisement of all descriptions from lingerie, to jeans all the way to peanut butter. Jean Kilbourne's essay shows us how much we ignore in the world of advertisement, which simply exemplifies that which we ignore in life as a whole. Either her portrayal of the difference between perceptions of men and women in the various ads, including such concepts as intimacy, violence and innocence would be such as to cause alarm or to cause us to seriously examine the route advertisement is taking in the role of human behaviors. Human behavior is altered by stimuli outside the mind, but absorbed by that same mind. It is this absorption that must be considered when understanding the human psyche. Sexual advertisement has a tendency to increase violence done by men continuously exposed to the ads and the industry continues to use these sexual images for attention magnets. The biggest problem with this now would be the fact that now teenagers and children have become a target audience, resulting in addiction toward images and brands. Her meta-criticism is persuasive and highly motivating backed by relevant informative text. (Kilbourne, 116-7) However, it should be noted that there various schools of Meta-critical thought process and they are generally associated wit cosmological criticism and arguments. The first one, derived from the argument of motion, stipulates that for bodies to be in motion, they have to be moved by other bodies. Since it is contended that the two states of being 'potential' and 'actual' are mutually exclusive, it is not possible for a "mover" and the "moved" to be the same, i.e. automated movement is axiomatically ruled out. Now, based on this contention, if we regress to infinity, then we arrive at the concept of the 'first mover'. Since the 'first' mover, cannot, logically be moved by any 'preceding' body, the former has to 'God'. The second postulate is in terms of the nature of 'efficient causes'. This posits that, it is not possible for a thing to become an efficient cause for itself. For an efficient cause, there has to be a 'first' cause, proceeding an 'intermediate' cause. Hence, if there were no first cause, there would be no intermediate or ultimate causes. With this logic if we progressively regression towards infinity, we will come to a point where a cause will not have a preceding 'efficient cause". This first cause would be 'God'. (Aquinas, 100-101) The fourth principle hinges on the gradation of different things in the world from less good to good, noble etal. Just as there are gradational conditionality in different physical properties of things, (from being in the states of hot, hotter and hottest), Aquinas, held 'God' to be ultimate something, which was the cause of other beings down the causal order, as the primordial embodiment of 'goodness' and other means of perfection. The fifth principle was based on the idea of 'governance' in that, Aquinas argued, just as natural bodies, bereft of knowledge, acted in terms of an underlying objective. This actually is 'the design', to achieve a best end, there existed some intelligent being, as the repository of all the superior knowledge and perception, referred to as God, who directed natural things, down the physical order, to move towards their respective ends. The third postulate is ideated in terms of the twin pillars of 'necessity' and 'possibility' and can be associated to key critical concept 'ctitique'. Aquinas premised that in nature, things are 'possible' to be or not to be, i.e. they are 'contingent' viz., they are generated, mutated/corrupted and may or may not necessarily exist. Following this principle of 'contingency', it may be argued that if all things can go out of existence and do not necessarily exist, and then there must be a time when all things would go out of existence. Here, Aquinas appealed to the 'Principle of Plentitude'. This principal stated that if something was a real possibility, then allowing the passage of an infinite amount of time, it was eminently possible as per the logical conclusion. This conclusion states that everything could go out of existence at once, such as 'now', if the same was taken as a snapshot splice in the eternal flow of time. However, such an idea was empirically absurd since we have the evidence of existent things which could be sensually perceived. Even if someone argued that it could be because everything vanished out of existence, only to come back into existence, Aquinas contended this from the principle of 'ex nihilo, nihil fit'. In other words, if something vanished out of existence; it could not pop back into existence. Therefore, not all things could be contingent. (Craig, 201b) Aquinas buttressed his premise in terms of an assumption of hierarchy of being with 'necessary existence', each lower being dependent upon the higher to infinity. The hierarchy of necessary existence itself would need a justification for its existence. In this context, Aquinas took recourse to the 'principle of sufficient reason', which enunciated that everything that happened would need to have a sufficient explanation for occurrences. Since the hierarchy of necessary existences would therefore need to be explained. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason; it would need a self-explaining necessary entity, stationed beyond the causal series, to explain the order of the hierarchy. On the principle of deductive logic, Aquinas argued that the self-explaining 'necessary' existence, upon which other things were contingent in the world, was what humans understood as God. The Third Way of Aquinas argued logically for the existence of a God, on the basis of key concept 'critic', but did not emphasize on the customary benevolent perception of a 'Judeao-Christian God'. Aquinas tried to even out this imbalance by contending that by dint of being self-explaining, necessary existence would by nature embody the attributes of nobility suggested to epitomize the very point of perfection (Fourth Point) and chart everything lower down the order according to a grand system of design (the teleological principle of the Fifth Point). In his refutation of the Cosmological Proof of the Existence of God, Kant had, in effect, contended that extraction of a commensurate object from a purely arbitrary idea was an unnatural procedure and an exercise in "scholastic subtlety". The fulcrum of the cosmological proof of God's existence rested, according to Kant, on two essential components. The first one is the advocate of the argument initially sought to establish the existence of a necessary being viz., "If something exists, then an absolutely necessary being must also exist". (Kant, 507-519) The rational cosmologist then sought to infer that this necessary being is the 'ens realissimum' (the idea of supremely real being). According to Kant, the above automatic identification, somewhat surreptitiously introduced the (dialectical) ontological argument. Whereas the Ontological argument moved away from the concept of the ens realissimum to the postulate that such a being existed necessarily based on key critical concept critical', the Cosmological argument moved vice versa. Since the cosmological proof aimed to identify the ens realissimum with the necessary being, and because the same required an a priori argument (i.e. beyond the realm of empirical corroboration), Kant premised that the proof was eventually conditioned by its dependence on the ontological validation. This clearly demonstrated that Kant took both the ontological and cosmological arguments to be complementary expressions of the one underlying 'rational demand for the unconditioned'. (Kant, 507-519) While elaborating on the weakness of the cosmological proof, Kant contended that in it, the idea of God (the ens realissimum), in the realm of pursuing certain speculative or philosophical interests, was the one to which we are inescapably led in our attempts to account for the pure possibility of things in general. Kant underlines the philosophical constraint of the cosmological reasoning, limiting itself exhaustively merely to possible pairs of 'opposed predicates' while making efforts to determine everything with thoroughness. Apart from the above, Kant had quite a number of other negativities to complain about the cosmological paradigm as. The argument, Kant retorted, was challenged by an "entire nest of dialectical presumptions" which must be highlighted and "destroyed". These included the attempt to draw inference from the contingent -beyond the sensual realm altogether, an effort that resulted in sheer 'transcendental misapplication' of the concerned categories. According to Kant the dialectical effort to conclude from the conceptual possibility of an infinite series of causes to some actual first cause. This is beyond the arena of sensual perception, as highlighted in Aquinas' cosmological argument (2nd Principle), resulted in a "false self-satisfaction". This is a conceptual delusion, by dint of which, the 'reason' (falsely) feels itself to have finally zeroed on a truly 'necessary being'. These arguments have found support in the parameters of Leibniz. It was argued that the approach of Kant is supposed to be nihilist but holds truth in the context of logical derivations. (Craig, 147a) As Kant further fine-tuned his logic, he maintained that this was surreptitiously achieved by 'conflating' the merely logical possibility of a concept (which, in its own term, is not self-contradictory) with the transcendental (real) possibility of a thing. Thus, Kant's critique of rational theology was characterized by his efforts to clearly delineate the sources of the dialectical fallacies, with the help of key critical concept 'criticism', which he laid bare in relation to the specific arguments for God's existence. While Kant was renounced for his attacks on the specific arguments for God's existence, his criticisms of rational theology were more detailed in their approach and constituted a potent critique of the idea of God itself. From the above discussion of Aquinas' different strands of Cosmological argument, along with its relative high-points and weaknesses, it seems that the Third Contention, delineating the principle of the 'possible' and the 'necessary', was, arguably, one of the most potent and persuasive of all his critiques, and formed the butt of a very forceful and incisive critique of Kant. (Reichenbach, 221) Thus, it is clear that Meta-critical thinking further show possible societal consequences that could arise when small issues go undressed. Researchers using systems thinking thus embark on developing solutions for each and every small issue before escalating into a system-wide problem, especially considering the link between the issues. This approach thus lacks a comprehensive solution to societal issues. Instead, solutions lie in small solutions addressed in respective micro-problems. Addressing one micro system tends to reduce effects of other systems in the overall. Indeed, failing to address societal problems until they form a complex issue makes solution development more hard given various solutions that need to be incorporated. However, notes Roethlisberger and Dickson (2003, p. 50) that developing and implementing solution for one aspect of complex system could have a negative impact on the others. This calls for all the participating parties to develop and implement solutions on respective sections concurrently. The parties have to further coordinate implementation stages and thus avoid affecting each other's processes. Most importantly, the collaborating researchers embark on evaluating possible conflict between respective solutions. Undertaking these measures from the beginning stages helps participating researchers to oversee possible conflicts and therefore implements only the less conflicting solutions. The participating researchers need to keep close communication between themselves and outside stakeholders. (Schick, 56-7) Key critical concept, such as 'criticism', 'critical', 'critic', 'ctitique', 'meta-criticism' thinking is achieved through various models that participating researchers choose in the initial stages. First, the hard systems are used in complex problems that require complex solutions. Such systems are usually used in the operations research and computer techniques. Researchers using hard systems are tasked with the responsibility of investigating whether certain social issues can adequately be addressed using this approach before embarking on its application. This calls for incorporating stakeholder interests in various stages of applying hard systems. This approach is however critiqued as taking people as being passive in their undertakings instead of working through complex motivation approach. There also exist soft systems used in studies that lack quantifiable measures (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 81). The soft systems are further used in situations where research subjects processes both qualitative and quantitative aspects. According to Lewin (2001, p. 118) are exceptionally strong when addressing issues pertaining to qualitative matters as they deal more with observation other than measuring. To get qualified results, soft systems embark on motivating individuals to participate in research processes. The subjects thus provide various viewpoints that enrich respective findings. The soft systems' strength in motivating subjects to take part in respective research helps in dealing with the aforementioned situation of projects with both qualitative and quantitative components. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that with so many developments in the field of criticism, have we become closer to being able to define meta-criticism in one true sense Or, rather, have we learned to adapt and respect all forms of meta-criticism and their inherent values. What might be considered a masterpiece of an argument in the past by everyone may only be considered a masterpiece to a small number of people in this modern day. Rather than classifying meta-criticism in one major group, we should respect all art for its value and its effect on society as a whole. I do not believe we will ever be able to truly identify meta-criticism in the analytical sense, but we will learn new ways to improve our talents and we will constantly gain more resources to spread our art across all reaches of the universe. It does not really matter whether or not we can define meta-criticism, because meta-criticism is just an expression. It is a method for human beings to get out their emotions and share them with the rest of the world. It helps to describe what cannot be spoken. And in this method of thought, meta-criticism has an infinite number of possibilities and an infinite number of ways to influence the lives of others. There are no strict guidelines for defining meta-criticism or key critical concept, such as 'criticism', 'critical', 'critic', 'ctitique', nor will there ever be. Everything is in the mind of the beholder, but it doesn't matter. As long as society keeps using meta-criticism forms and aesthetic values to gain a new found sense of identity, I think the world will live without being able to strictly define what meta-criticism is. So don't pursue the field and believe you must define others work, but rather, attempt to find its emotional value and apply it to your own life. Works Cited: Kilbourne, Jean; Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt: Advertising and Violence; Rereading America Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing 5th Edition; St. Martin's Press 2001 Aquinas, T; The Cosmological Argument (The First Four Ways); The Metaphysical Quest; 100-101 Craig, William Lane; Argument from Plato to Leibniz; Wipf and Stock Pub., 2001 (a) Schick, Theodore & Vaughn, Lewis; 'How to think about weird things'; UB Press, 2007 Craig, William Lane; The Kalam Argument; Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000 (b) Kant, E; The Impossibility of a Cosmological proof of Existence of Good; Chapter III; Kant's Reason of Pure Reason; pp 507-519 Reichenbach, Bruce R; The Argument: A Reassessment; Thomas, 1972 Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action. New York: Wiley. Lewin, K. (2001). Theories in social science. New York: Harper. Roethlisberger, J. & Dickson, J. (1999). Systems Thinking and Its principles. Cambridge: Harvard University. Read More