Consept

When we encounter the term “criticality,” it is often associated with the notions of critical thinking or the act of critique understood as negative evaluation. Neither of these interpretations captures the essence of criticality; rather, each of them, when considered in isolation, tends to obscure or present a biased view of its core meaning. Through years of research, I have developed the framework of the concept of criticality (or criticism), understood as a fundamental subject-object relationship and, more specifically, as a human attitude toward the world. Understood in this way, criticality is not an act of negative judgment but a positive and active engagement. Furthermore, in its primary sense, criticality is not merely a desirable characteristic of thinking but a foundational capacity that can precede reflective thought altogether.

Many people would agree that thinking critically is essential, yet few interrogate what this actually means. Some even uncritically equate thinking with criticality. The terms “criticism” and “criticality” are inherently broad and polysemic, allowing for a wide range of interpretations and analyses. My focus lies in exploring the general idea of criticality and the critical attitude.

This concept aims to uncover the most fundamental aspects of our engagement with the world, approached through two complementary dimensions: the epistemological and the historical-philosophical. The epistemological dimension seeks to reveal the rudimentary structures of our orientation toward the world, while the historical-philosophical dimension provides a coherent paradigm that describes the emergence of philosophy and its historical development. Within this framework, the essence of the critical attitude is clarified, its foundational nature illuminated, and the idea of skepticism (including its distinguished form, zetetic skepticism) is refined as a specific type of criticism.

I aim to demonstrate the elementary logic underlying criticism while proposing a wholly original critical paradigm for interpreting early Greek philosophy. In my view, this opens up a new domain of philosophical inquiry within the fields of epistemology and the history of philosophy.

In my research, I distinguish three key types of criticism: separative criticism, anti-dogmatic criticism, and epistemological criticism. The first, separative criticism, is the most foundational and rudimentary. Its essence lies in the ability to distinguish and separate, which entails the capacity to set boundaries. Importantly, this capacity—viewed from a subjective perspective—is not unique to humans but extends to beings capable of making distinctions, even in non-rational acts. In De Anima (432a), Aristotle defines the soul of animals through two faculties: the faculty of discrimination (τῷ τε κριτικῷ) and the faculty of movement (τῷ κινεῖν). This suggests that the act of discrimination, as the simplest and most rudimentary form of criticism, is deeply intrinsic to cognition itself. Separative criticism, as the capacity to delineate boundaries, appears more foundational than rationalism, and in this broad sense, it seems to precede and condition rationalism, including critical rationalism. It represents the ability to discern and demarcate appropriate boundaries among objects, capacities, knowledge, values, methods, and so forth. This foundational nature also emerges in the form of epistemological separative criticism, which articulates the fundamental awareness of the distinction between the knowing subject and the object being known.

Anti-dogmatic criticism, on the other hand, expresses resistance to the approach of dogmatists who accept specific assertions more strongly than warranted, disregarding doubts, potential objections, and human cognitive limitations. This type of criticism rests on the premise of potential revision of accepted beliefs, including the strength of their justification. It involves a reflective process that critically examines existing facts in relation to one’s own beliefs, necessitating consideration of the grounds for these beliefs and the possibility of revising expressed viewpoints. Anti-dogmatic criticism builds upon separative criticism, as it relies on the capacity to distinguish valid justifications from flawed ones. This position opposes both positive dogmatism and negative dogmatism—or both simultaneously. In other words, anti-dogmatic criticism stands against any uncritical adherence to dogmatic stances, whether affirmative or negative. Furthermore, anti-dogmatic criticism can be analyzed in both its actual dimension (weaker version) and its modal dimension(stronger version), offering a nuanced approach to the critique of dogmatism.

Epistemological criticism is characterized by its metasubjective nature, as it pertains not to reality itself but to the forms of reflection on reality. It can be understood as the position that epistemological considerations (or, in the Greek sense, epistemological-methodological inquiries) precede all other types of intellectual exploration. Criticality, as a specific attitude of the subject rather than a concrete research procedure, inherently embraces the provisionality and openness necessary for continued inquiry. At the same time, it firmly opposes the rigidity characteristic of dogmatic attitudes, including negative dogmatism, doctrinaire positions, ideological biases, or any claims to finality.

The crucial hallmark of criticality is not its opposition to belief or trust in authority per se but rather its emphasis on an investigative attitude that resists the passivity of a believer’s mindset. Such passivity is marked by a stickiness of thought, an inertia that manifests in either the certainty of dogmatic beliefs or the certainty characteristic of negative dogmatism, which is often mistakenly equated with skepticism. This investigative attitude, rooted in the erotetic (questioning) tradition of Greek thought, represents the proper milieu of philosophy as a process that begins with breaking free from naivety and unfolds through an inquisitive and comprehensive search for answers.

Criticality also aligns with the ideal of impartiality and resistance to domination by any single tradition. It is defined by a continuous readiness to engage in reflection, revision, and dialogue, avoiding the intellectual stagnation inherent in dogmatic certainty. This philosophical attitude promotes not only the pursuit of knowledge but also the dynamic and open-ended nature of philosophical inquiry, embodying an essential movement toward greater understanding and the relentless questioning that lies at the heart of philosophical thought.

The recognition that we live in a world of uncertainty is not new. Homer and Hesiod depicted the vulnerability of mortal humans ensnared in deceptive narratives, unable to achieve certainty and constantly challenged by the complexity of reality. Despite humanity’s occasional heroic attempts to transcend ambiguity and embrace clarity, uncertainty has now become our daily environment. Moreover, this uncertainty is compounded by change, complexity, and ambiguity, presenting us with a cascade of questions and doubts as we strive to navigate our circumstances. As Jacques Chardonne aptly put it, we must learn to “live with dignity in uncertainty.”

The worst responses to uncertainty and its accompanying anxiety are naïve attempts to fabricate dogmatic certainty, the establishment of rigid norms, the propagation of power—even violence—to create an illusion of safety, blind reliance on unassailable authorities, and the use of manipulation or demagoguery. These approaches lead us astray.

I link the ancient tradition of critical thinking with a attitude rooted in creativity and sensitivity. The antidote to fear driven by uncertainty is not a new dogmatic narrative to redefine us but a posture of critical, creative, and sensitive engagement with the surrounding world. In my perspective, I deepen the scope of what is traditionally associated with the Critical Thinking Movement. While its early iterations focused primarily on formal and rational mechanisms of argumentation or the ability to make sound judgments, criticality must extend beyond this narrow focus—even beyond its indispensable educational dimension. I see criticality as a foundational attitude toward the world, underpinning more specific skills and activities.

Criticality is neither mere fault-finding nor a purely negative response to external stimuli. Instead, it is a positive and active attitude. It serves as a remedy for the phenomenon of “stickiness” of thought, the tendency of the human mind to cling to established ideas. This stickiness can inhibit change and make it difficult to respond effectively to novel or atypical situations. People, after all, are often advocates of their own views.

Criticality challenges this inertia, fostering openness and adaptability, allowing us to live with dignity amid uncertainty while actively and creatively engaging with the world around us.

The Critical Attitude: Balancing Between Extremes

The critical attitude is the ability to balance between two extremes: under-criticality and over-criticality.

The former is characterized by an insufficiently critical approach that permits some degree of dogmatic resolutions, whether minor or significant. The latter, in contrast, represents an excessive rejection of propositions that are adequately justified, at least for the time being. This conception of criticality aligns with a properly understood skepticism, which I define as zeteticism.

A zetetic attitudeis expressed as a set of abilities that include:

• the capacity to undertake the effort of continuous questioning and searching for answers,
• the capacity to sustain a patient cognitive hope,
• the capacity to resist the temptation of finality in conclusions,
• the capacity to recognize the broader context of a given issue, and
• the capacity to embrace curiosity and inquiry with enthusiasm.

In my framework, criticality is intricately connected to creativity and sensitivity, forming the core of a meaningful and fruitful relationship with the world. I understand creativity and sensitivity as zetetic abilities enabling profound spiritual exploration. These abilities manifest in diverse ways: through creative acts that reveal previously unnoticed dimensions of existence, in the intimacy of recognizing the multifaceted relationships between things, and in the tenderness of a refined perception of reality’s complexities.

Such criticality transcends narrow judgmentalism or intellectual rigidity, fostering an attitude that is open, inquisitive, and responsive. By combining critical rigor with creative openness and sensitive awareness, the zetetic attitude enables a deep engagement with the world—an engagement that seeks not only to question but to explore and to understand, cultivating a nuanced and dynamic relationship with reality.

In my research, I present criticality as a foundational category that provides a framework for describing and explaining the most rudimentary philosophical issues. By identifying key types of criticism, I propose a way to organize basic subject-object relations and refine the core characteristics of various attitudes toward the world and investigative attitudes. My goal is to uncover the foundational structures of critical thinking—perhaps even certain critical schemas. On the deepest level of our engagement with the world, separative criticism emerges as the most rudimentary form of criticism, representing the ability to distinguish and separate. This foundational capacity enables other critical processes, such as judgmental criticism, structural criticism, volitional criticism, and interpretative criticism, as well as the more developed forms of anti-dogmatic criticism and epistemological criticism.

Types of Criticality (Criticism):

1. Separative Criticism

   Separative criticism is the most fundamental type of criticism, as it precedes not only all reflection but also forms the basis for other types of criticism. Its essence lies in the ability to differentiate and establish appropriate boundaries between objects, abilities, types of knowledge, rules, values, methods, and other domains, depending on the perspective taken. Particularly significant is epistemological separative criticism, which highlights the distinction between the knowing subject and the object of knowledge. A lack of separative criticality manifests as the inability to make fundamental distinctions, resulting in improper divisions, unilateral oppositions, false dilemmas, and the conflation of disparate categories.

2. Anti-dogmatic Criticism

   This form of criticism, exemplified by skepticism and zeteticism, resists both positive dogmatism and negative dogmatism, with skepticism rejecting both outright and zeteticism emphasizing the continuous search for answers. Anti-dogmatic criticism challenges dogmatic attitudes that accept certain propositions more strongly than warranted, ignoring doubts, objections, and human cognitive limitations. This form of criticality promotes a reflective attitude that considers various aspects of established facts and confronts them with one’s beliefs, fostering ongoing evaluation and the possibility of revising one’s views.

3. Epistemological Criticism

   Epistemological criticism asserts that epistemological (or epistemological-methodological) inquiries precede—or should precede—all other types of philosophical investigation, such as cosmological, theological, or ontological inquiries. This type of criticism operates on a metalevel, engaging in self-reflection and evaluating the methods, techniques, and values of thinking itself. It emphasizes the necessity of scrutinizing the foundations of thought before pursuing broader philosophical questions.

Additional Forms of Criticality

Beyond these primary types, other forms of critical activity include judgmental criticism, structural criticism, volitional criticism, and interpretative criticism. A particularly noteworthy distinction is between personal criticism (which includes self-criticism and allo-criticism) and impersonal criticism (focused on ideas and positions).

Self-criticism addresses the cognitive processes and outputs (assertions) of the critic themselves, while allo-criticism pertains to these issues in relation to others. Combined, these forms constitute full personal criticism. It is essential to differentiate criticism of dogmatic convictions from mere rejection of belief systems. While criticism targets the finality or resolvability of beliefs, it does not negate the possession of beliefs themselves.

Both self-critical and allo-critical stances may become entangled with dogmatism. For instance, personal allo-dogmatism assumes that only the critic possesses knowledge, while anti-self-dogmatism assumes the impossibility of attaining knowledge. These contrasting positions highlight the need to distinguish between anti-self-dogmatism (a form of negative dogmatism) and genuine self-criticism, which, unlike the former, does not foreclose the possibility of acquiring knowledge but remains open to it.

Syncriticality: Forms and Theoretical Foundations

In my research, I employ the term syncriticality and its derivatives to describe cognitive activities and evaluate their outputs, distinguishing two primary forms:

1. Conjunctive Syncriticality: This form is associated with the act of uniting (binding, integrating) and can be referred to as syncriticality of conjunction.
2. Comparative Syncriticality: This form relates to the act of comparison (juxtaposition) and can be referred to as syncriticality of comparison .

In contrast to conjunctive syncriticality, diacriticality emphasizes division and differentiation. Full criticality, therefore, is the combination of syncriticality and diacriticality, encompassing the dual capacities of uniting and separating. It is erroneous to prioritize one over the other, such as favoring syncriticality at the expense of diacriticality. Since complete criticality represents a synthesis of these approaches, it can be understood as a syncritique of syncriticality and diacriticality, but only at a metacritical level—or more precisely, at a metasyncritical (metadiacritical) level. Thus, there is no dominance of syncriticality over diacriticality; rather, their synthesis operates dynamically on a metalevel, encompassing both. Criticality, in this sense, is a continuous and adaptive process of integrating syncriticality (the capacity to unite) and diacriticality (the capacity to separate).

Comparative Syncriticality

Comparative syncriticality, as a form of syncriticality, focuses on the act of comparison (juxtaposition) and serves as an expression of general criticality. It is closely linked to other types of criticism, particularly judgmental criticism and interpretative criticism, but most notably it exemplifies anti-dogmatic criticism. However, it should be noted that comparative syncriticality can also manifest in dogmatic forms. My analyses focus primarily on its anti-dogmatic form, expressed through skepticism and zeteticism.

Within comparative syncriticality, I distinguish two fundamental types:

• Ameinosyncriticality: Concerned with comparison aimed at identifying what is “better” or unequal under a specific criterion.
• Isosyncriticality: Focused on recognizing equality under a specific criterion, without assumptions of superiority or inferiority.

Each of these forms can manifest in both zetetic (non-dogmatic) and dogmatic variations. The key difference between ameinosyncriticality and isosyncriticality lies in the principle of comparison. Ameinosyncriticality involves evaluating differences to identify a superior aspect of a given object of comparison (named “criterion” within criticalist terminology), whereas isosyncriticality assumes equality in the specified respect. The “criterion” referred to pertains not to the genesis of beliefs (knowledge) but to their structure when they are juxtaposed for the sake of mutual justification. Fundamentally, the notions of “superiority” and “equality” relate to the broader structure of justification, which serves as the basis for evaluating the coherence and strength of beliefs. The primary aim of my research is to provide a comprehensive critical perspective that facilitates the interpretation of philosophy in its structural, systematic, and historical dimensions.

I interpret anti-dogmatic criticism as an alternative to either the negation of positive dogmatism or the negation of negative dogmatism. In contrast, I view skepticism as a conjunction of both negations: the negation of positive dogmatism and the negation of negative dogmatism. This understanding of skepticism allows for multiple interpretations, each with distinct implications, such as epoché (suspension of judgment), isostheneia (balance of opposing arguments), potential transformations in models of knowledge or justification, negative dogmatism, agnosticism, or the principle of persistent inquiry devoid of dogmatic assertions.

Although the term “skepticism” is inherently polysemic, a detailed analysis of skepticism as articulated by Sextus Empiricus—particularly the divergence between his interpretations in Pyrrhoniae Hypotyposes (Pyr., I, 1–4 and Pyr., I, 7)—reveals two distinct forms of skepticism: effective skepticism effecticism) and zetetic skepticism (zeteticism). The former culminates in epoché, marking the cessation of inquiry and search. The latter, however, emphasizes the principle of persistent inquiry, rejecting any assumption about the finality of resolution. In other words, skepticism does not necessarily imply zeteticism; it can also lead to opposing conclusions.

In my view, zeteticism, as a form of skepticism, complements skepticism with the directive of continuous inquiry. It underscores the skeptical distance from both positive and negative dogmatism, offering a framework of active searching and questioning rather than definitive conclusions.

The fundamental characteristic of the zetetic attitude is its emphasis on uninterrupted searching — an ongoing process of exploration and questioning that stands in sharp contrast to positions predicated on the cessation of inquiry. This opposition—cessation of inquiry versus continued searching—coupled with the contrast between final resolution and provisional solutions, serves as the core criterion distinguishing zeteticism not only from both forms of dogmatism but also from effective skepticism (effecticism).

Philosophy, as Plato puts it, is the love, desire, and pursuit of that which one does not currently possess—in essence, a zetetic effort. Thus, in its original and functional sense, philosophy is zeteticism: an active process of striving for wholeness while fully aware of its own lack, burden of ignorance, and incompleteness. Yet, this pursuit is one imbued with hope, requiring no definitive resolution regarding its attainability. Philosophy is not so much an unfulfilled love (which might suggest negative dogmatism) as it is an uncertain love, a searching love, and a love of hope—a love situated between (metaxú): between ignorance and wisdom, between emptiness and fullness, and ultimately, between humans and the divine.

A compelling encouragement for zeteticism can be found in a passage from Thucydides:

“This shows how little trouble most people take in their search for the truth—they happily resort to ready-made opinions.” („οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑτοῖμα μᾶλλον τρέπονται”) (History of the Peloponnesian War, I, 20, trans. M. Hammond)

Thucydides highlights a critical dimension of zeteticism: the rejection of ready-made answers in favor of the arduous but rewarding path of ongoing inquiry and the relentless pursuit of truth.

Rick Rubin, in The Creative Act: A Way of Being, quotes Robert Henri’s words as a guiding motto: “The object isn’t to make art, it’s to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable.” How can one achieve such a state? In my view, one of the principal ways is by linking criticality with creativity. Creativity represents a human attitude (a set of qualities), while creativity in action manifests as a specific form of activity.

Drawing on M.A. Boden’s framework, I identify three primary creative processes:

• Exploration: Activities associated with inquiry, discovery, and the identification of new problems, often deepening questioning and interrogative thinking.
• Combination: Associating and connecting elements to reveal relationships between the known and the unknown.
• Transformation: Processes of change and reconfiguration that lead to innovative outcomes.

According to my theory, the processes of critical activity and creative activity converge on several levels:

• Zetetic attitude: The integration of separative criticism with exploratory processes, facilitating inquiry and discovery.
• Conjunctive syncriticality: The merging of syncritical processes with combinative activities, particularly in reconciling contrasts and resolving apparent paradoxes.
• Anti-dogmatic criticism: The alignment with transformative processes, fostering cognitive distance and alternative perspectives.

Special emphasis is placed on problem finding, which involves not only the identification of issues but also the formulation of meaningful questions. A question embodies the humility of thought, a readiness to listen to the world, an act of empathy, and the courage to initiate dialogue.

Criticality, creativity, and sensitivity form the pillars of a new education paradigm, one that values inquiry, innovation, and emotional depth. These qualities are essential for fostering individuals capable of navigating the complexities of an ever-changing world with both analytical rigor and imaginative vision.

I place particular emphasis on the phenomenon of the transgressive nature of sensitivity, which integrates cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual dimensions. Sensitivity, in this sense, is far more than the capacity to experience stimuli or passively receive impulses; it entails an active pursuit of experiences and, more importantly, a creative attitude toward them.

Key characteristics of sensitivity include:

• Holistic perspective: Sensitivity should be connected with the desire for a comprehensive view of phenomena.
• Warmth of feeling: Sensitivity contrasts with the cold detachment of insensitivity (e.g., anesthetics, “coolness” as described by Wolfgang Welsch) and the overheating of hypersensitivity.
• Foundation for self-awareness: Sensitivity is a prerequisite for genuine self-knowledge.
• Recognition of intimacy and ambiguity: It involves an awareness of the intimate processes of the world and an acceptance of the unclear and the undefined, expanding the boundaries of inquiry to encompass subtle and indeterminate aspects of reality.

In its relationship with criticality and creativity, I am particularly interested in sensitivity as a zetetic ability for profound spiritual exploration.

Poetry—and art in general—epitomizes this sensitivity. It provides a lens through which to perceive the structure of the world with subtlety, uncovering the depth of distinctions even to the point of blurring boundaries and dissolving the effects of separative criticism. Art penetrates the intricate entanglements of the established world, capturing the intimacy of its complex relationships. In this way, sensitivity complements criticality and creativity, offering not only a means of understanding the world but also a way of transcending its rigid structures to reveal deeper connections and truths.

This synergy between criticality, creativity, and sensitivity is essential for fostering a nuanced and transformative engagement with the world, one that balances discernment with empathy and analytical rigor with aesthetic and emotional depth.

In my studies, I demonstrate that early Greek philosophy is inherently critical, as well as appropriately skeptical and zetetic, thereby outlining a criticist paradigm for interpreting the thought of this period. This approach complements existing cognitive frameworks in the study of ancient philosophy, revealing previously overlooked or underappreciated aspects of Greek thought while reevaluating and potentially repositioning some of its traditionally emphasized themes.

Key contributions of this criticist paradigm include:

• A novel analysis of extant fragments of early Greek philosophy, emphasizing forms of criticism, skepticism, and zeteticism present in their thought.
• A reinterpretation of early Greek philosophy through the lens of distinct stances such as positive and negative dogmatism, effective and zetetic skepticism, fallibilism, agnosticism, and externalism.
• Evidence that the problem of certainty, and not merely truth, was already thematized in pre-Platonic philosophy.
• An argument for the centrality of epistemological and methodological questions in early Greek philosophy, challenging their traditional marginalization.
• The introduction of syncriticality, in its conjunctive and comparative forms, as a tool for philosophical and historical-philosophical analysis.
• Highlighting the role of metaphilosophical reflection in Greek philosophy, as well as the value of early Greek philosophical inquiries for strictly metaphilosophical considerations.
• Mapping deeper connections between the Presocratics, Sophists, and later philosophical traditions.
• A fresh perspective on Platonic metaphilosophy and erotetic thinking (the philosophy of questioning).
• Tracing the historical origins of fallibilism in early Greek thought.
• A skeptical reinterpretation of the works of Homer and Hesiod.
• Identification of ancient antecedents to contemporary philosophical problems.

The distinctiveness of my research lies in combining analytical (contextual) methods with a “genetic” approach, employing the tools and techniques of a historian of philosophy. These methods—historical and comparative—are applied complementarily to provide a richer and more nuanced understanding of Greek thought.

Early Greek philosophy taught us not only holistic, rational, explanatory, and argumentative ways of understanding the world but also, more profoundly, instilled in us a posture of vigilant engagement with crises and respect for inquiry. In this global and theoretical dimension, these philosophers shaped a complex critical attitude that became a driving force for Western culture.

Thus, I am inclined to see these early philosophers not merely as pioneers of philosophy, science, natural theology, or the first nautical explorations but, above all, as architects of a critical disposition that continues to fuel intellectual and cultural progress.