Principles of Non-Contradiction: Can Critical Thinking 'Come Off' as Not Critical?..

The following is an inquiry into the nature of a critical thinker and their apriori nature to be critical. To define what should be considered of critical in the statements, premises, and conclusions derived from the thoughts of the critical thinker shall be considered as such; to think in a critical manner presupposes all that which is verbalized by said thinker will indubitably imply a critical tone/critique. The occurrence is due to the fact that critical tone/critique is the very bi-product of a statement, premise, and/or conclusion of said thinker. Furthermore, this very presupposition is arrived at and applied aptly due to the principle of non-contradiction... In essence it is impossible for critique to not follow from thought, as for thought is the very implication which these presuppositions derive from, and therefore may not be denied... The proof of PNC is irrelevant in the acquisition of this hypothesis, as for it is self evident for the arrival of this very truth, and therefore only thought is the applicable mode in which this hypothesis will depend on...



To think is to have an opinion, one way or another, even if the opinion is thoughtless; however, this assertion only applies to those who think. Therefore, those who do not think this does not apply to, but who would not think? Is it impossible to not have a thought?



To think, or not think, that is the question?... It appears as though it is impossible to not have a thought due to the very fact we perceive our own existence; existence implies an individual will have overt thoughts, either verbalized or non-verbal, and therefore mean a "critique" is being formed and/or emoted externally. Now, overt thought is not the only stipulation regarding the affect of thought; non-overt or subconscious thought is also an implication stemming from said accepted existence. This means, in other words, an individual will think whether the thought is recognized cognitively or not. An individual will breath, blink, feel, breath, yet do they overtly have to think to have the desired action take effect? Furthermore with these non-overt/ subconscious thoughts a critique, or critical thought, still takes place; it is not the case the individual will inadvertently have a non-overt thought without the critical nature to act on the thought. To think is to think critically whether the outcome is desired or not; all existence is a manifestations of thought, thought is the affect of existence whether overt or non-overt, therefore to exist is to think and be critical.

...(Now, can we get some contradictions?)

Now, existence is irrelevant to this hypothesis and the validity/soundness which follows, because existence is presupposing something is here thinking, or being thought of, and therefore is irrelevant due to the self evident proposition the "collective" titles as existing. These words are implication of either direct, overt thought by an individual, or by subconscious, non-overt thought of a collective manifestation. So, existence aptly is irrelevant to an extent except for the initial premise for thought; to think or be thought of something must exist.