You can only properly critically analyse if you are able AND willing to critically analyse yourself in the first place as well.

The problem, is that any assumption you wish to cricise contains assumptions.

Which means, that in order to :

“””Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_analysis””””

So to criticise (the verb “to criticise”) means to question assumptions.

An assumption does not exist, it tautologically is “made”.

Which means that what you are criticising is the process in which that assumption is made, the conditions, the components in as far as that has an impact on the process (only). But not and never “what made that assumption” what “what made that assumption “is”. For a start because you don’t know what it is, and secondly because it’s not an assumption.

You only think you necessarily need to criticise what made those assumptions. Because perspective is necessarily part of what makes something, (not some factor that can absolutely be ignored) both when you do something and when what you criticise does something.

Because any assumption made by anyone is, by definition made by someone.

Because YOU are someone as well.

BOTH YOU and how YOU work AND “someone” and how his or her assumption is “made” needs to be criticised.

But only by criticising both you and “someone” which creates a new relationship which is NOT equal to what you or someone “is” in the first place.

ie when you criticise someone, that’s a specific logical perspective which can objectively be expressed.

This is very very often mistaken with the following phrase :

“Because any assumption made by anyone is made by someone, you necessarily need to criticise that someone.”

Which is wrong, not true, false, and a huge mistake (which has huge consequences “in the world”) because that phrase disregards the fact, the “fact” that when someone “makes” something, he or she or it is not an assumption.

I am not an assumption.

YOU can NOT criticise me, YOU can NOT critically analyse ME, you CAN NOT by definition, question “ME”.

Not because you don’t have the power to, or the capacity to, or the intention to, or whatever, but because whenever you do, it’s not me you’re criticising, and if you think it is, you’re wrong and don’t even know it.

What I do, what I think, what I say, what I assume, how I work, how I do this, how I evolve from one state to another, why, that kind of thing, yes of course you can criticise all of that and each of that.

Basically, any function that I have, you can criticise.

But me? no. I do not assume that I “am”, I am not an assumption, and neither should you “assume” that I am, neither should anyone, because even if I can’t absolutely prove it to you, regardless of any perspective or any laws of this that or the other, regardless of anything else, if I (anything; ie : think, piss, cry, laugh, even “am” in the first place, any function at all) then I must necessarily be. That’s an absolute.

It is therefore impossible “logically” and according to the definition of “criticism” to criticise what I am. Any critique of what I am will not be a critique of what I am but a critique of what you think I am, how you assume me to be.

Which is itself an assumption, which itself can be criticised without criticising you, (especially as “critising you is impossible” lol).

I absolutely am (in any given context) and if I’m not, then there’s nothing to criticise in the first place. Only what I have done, did, thought, how I was viewed, how you view me and so on.

I think so I am means that “I think” is not an assumption, it’s knowledge, a realisation of my own existence, self awareness.

In this phrase : “I think so I am”, you can criticise the “I am” you can criticise the “so” in relationship to that, you can criticise the “think”, but you can not critise I.

Because “I” is not an assumption, the letter “I” is a symbol that abstractly refers to what I am which neither I or you can properly define and explain and describe.

So you can criticise also what you think “I” am, or, you can criticise what I think I am, but you can not critise I when I say it. In the same way, if you criticise yourself, you need to realise that it is not what you are that you are criticising, but how you are, you’re not an assumption, you can only criticise assumptions.

In the same way, you can not criticise a government unless “government” is an assumption.

In the same way, you can not criticise what a terrorist “is” because what you think a terrorist is is an assumption.

In the same way, you can not criticise anything that is not an assumption, otherwise, by definition, it is not criticism. It is what some people call “character assassination”.

Critical thinking is therefore, by definition, revolutionary, because it criticises itself. But that’s only because “itself” is not something or someone in the first place. That’s only because critical thinking is a process, and any process can be criticised.

Which means it absolutely can not exist in a domain which is “controlled” by an authority which does not accept self criticism, including by others.

For example, a society such as Western or Oriental, a country such as France or the USA, an institution such as the United Nations or NATO or UNESCO, a revolutionary group or movement such as OWS or Anonymous or the Hamas, a rebel party such the Communist party or any “opposition” party to an existing majority, a terrorist group (which I can not truthfully provide examples for without “taking a side” since terrorism is defined by which side you’re on, a branch of science such as Physics, a philosophy movement such as as the Aristotle school, an educational process such as French pedagogy, or any institution, whether formalised or not, which does not genuinely and truthfully take into account this point.

All of those examples’ definitions, existence, is based on assumptions which you can criticise, however in the same way, what you are then criticising is not what they are, it is what they do and why they do it.

If you surrender the absolute fact and obvious statement that you are what you are irrespective of anything else, that you exist no matter what (you couldn’t surrender that if you did not exist) :

You surrender the most important pillar which allows you to “think for yourself”, you surrender the only objectively real truth which you can absolutely know.

But just a thought, that fact that you can’t critisise what you are does not mean you can’t critise what you do, think, feel, or even how you think feel, do.

Basically, if you (and no one else) can criticise what you are, you can criticse (as I have just done) what you think of yourself :

edit :

Now, if you realise this, this is one thing I got to say

:

NOT THIS (spot the difference) :