It is up to philosophy professors to give the new subject of Critical and Autonomous Thought. I have recently questioned in an article the desirability of such a subject. I have tried to give the reasons. No, simply, “my reasons”, so that they stay there, along with the reasons of others, frozen in a pdf forever in the cloud. The purpose of giving reasons is for anyone to discuss them. Difficult, complicated and even ugly, the reasons must be affordable. If not, they are not reasons. Perhaps the experiences, experiences, emotions or feelings are unique and non-transferable, at least in the same way that the most rough of psychology and pedagogy present it. Although better thought, not even they, since the birth of the I in Modernity, there is nothing more to see music or poetry, because they are full of supposedly unique and non-transferable emotions and feelings that we all share, which is what allows us to enjoy the poem.

But reasons have their own calling to be shared, almost by definition. That does not mean that there is a single way of seeing things, obviously (with the "eyes" of reason, I mean). But its nature is not to reach the public road to stay in it forever, converted into stone. I see it this way, I think this other, OK, bye, well. Explaining the reasons should not be the end of the dialogue, but the beginning in any case.

You can say -- and not without reason -- that when we actually argue with someone who opposes us, we smash our heads to look for ad hoc reasons for something that we previously stay emotionally. The "reasoning and reception" that the venerable old Habermas sees in human communication has its limitations. Surely, for thousands of reasons, we will never convince the bishops that the voluntary termination of pregnancy is not the death of an innocent person, but the exercise of competence in the body itself and, therefore, the right of women. Perhaps the bishops are not the best examples, as they show double morality all too often (to say the least); let us say a Christian in good faith against free choice. And to be honest, let's acknowledge that it's not very likely that feminists will be convinced either.

Going back to the point: if we want to promote critical thinking, rational dialogue and debate, as well as the construction of reflective, reasonable and rational identities, I think the only thing we have to seek is to teach philosophy. Both in a substantive way, addressing the different parts of philosophy (ethical theory, knowledge theory, etc. ). ), from an adjective conception of philosophy, addressing the philosophy of history, religion, science, music, psychology, art, etc. However, we should not get into the other rag, seeking Molton names, supposedly appeal sex, to participate in the struggle for banality that is destroying regulated education. (In Navarra he has been called Critical and Creative Thinking, in the CAV Critical and Autonomous Thinking, who gives more? ). Let us not listen to the mermaid songs, let us not lose ourselves in the maze, let us not stay in the shadows of the cave.

To stay out of fashion and resist, that is today the task, the task and the obligation of philosophy (leave "challenges" aside, please). It's not a sprint, it's a race of substance, of resistance. Resistance to the psychological of AIDS, the uncritical centrality of emotions, the dictatorship of happiness at any price, the advertising empire, unbearable egocentrism and narcissism, superficiality and frivolity. Standing, philosophy teachers! Encouragement, comrades!