Recent Readings: From Michael Scott to Magnificent Scrutiny

The examined life is the strenuous life, as espoused by Socrates, Theodore Roosevelt, and a host of others. While I've been throwing myself into a few theological works that I bet will be complete by the next fortnight's review post, within the last couple weeks I finished off two books having to do with thinking. Warning: One's more jovial, one's more reflective.

J. Jeremy Wisnewski, professor of philosophy at Hartwick College, has edited The Office and Philosophy, continuing the franchise of cookies-on-the-second-shelf presentation of the craft of Socrates applied to culture. In the spirit of other works connected to shows like House, Family Guy, and The Simpsons, Wisnewski and fellow thought wonks navigate through the cubicles of Dunder Mifflin. As a big fan of The Office, I was looking forward to diving into this work. For the most part, I was not disappointed.

Wisnewski and company tackle elements of both the US and UK version of the show (though heavily tilted in favor of the US by a chapter count of 16 to 6), showing how characters, plot, and dialogue unearth Dunder Mifflin's weltanschaung on topics such as love (heavily dependent on the relationship between Jim and Pam), the struggle to show empathy (Michael Scott's obliviousness), racial, sexual, and self-other issues (Scott again), business ethics (the obscene watermark episode writ large), and others. Really, to get the whole picture, you have to swallow this picnic yourself.

As philosophically engaging, I have no complaints. Wisnewski and his crew keep the chapters short and practical even if you don't agree with their first principles. One minor complaint I have is the planning of episodal illustrations. On different topics, several authors utilized the same episode or scene, and the repetition can be wearisome. There's only so many times you can draw truth from Jim's feelings for Pam, or from Michael's bumbling idiocy on "Diversity Day". Still, these occasional bumps of cogency don't ruin an otherwise enjoyable walk through a road of paper-thin morality.

The second tome, Alan Jacobs' How to Think, throws illuminating light on the life of the mind. Jacobs, who teaches in the Honors College at Baylor University, wants demonstrate that thinking is slow, it takes hard work, and there are impediments to it that we must battle every day.

Analytical power, Jacobs notes, is not enough. One must have a certain character that can take analysis, reassemble them in a way that--joined together with proper positive feeling--"can produce meaningful action" (p.43). One item that keeps us from thinking well is reliance on the "Inner Rings" in whom we find membership, which affirms our points of view to keep us from thinking, so we can demonize the Repulsive Cultural Other with whom we disagree. The chapter on "repulsions" is worth it based on the Martin Luther-Sir Thomas More exchange alone. Jacobs deftly handles how our language that we use can lead to straw man thinking ("in other words-ing"). Other highlights include Jacobs showing how no one truly has an open mind, and the demonstration that rigor and humility must go together.

Strong thinking finds its genesis in a strong moral center, and the genius of critical thinking skill is to manage what we have. Jacobs uses the analogy of a rider on an elephant. The rider (our logic) must tame the elephant (instinct/intuition).

Ah, happy me. Rumblings of C.S. Lewis in a different way in The Abolition of Man. "The head rules the belly through the chest."

If you need a primer on thinking well, Alan Jacobs is your man. In fact, if you haven't read his book, why are you still on my blog?