What do you think is more important: thinking or doing?
What do you mean?
My mother said that before you do something, you must first think. So I think that thinking is more important because it leads the doing.
Hmmm… makes sense, but on the other hand, why do we also think when there’s no doing to think about?
Well, we can think of all kinds of things, not only of doing something. Take mathematics or logic, that’s only thinking and you do nothing.
What about all these math assignments we got in highschool? We had to DO them, not only think about them!
Hmmm… makes sense. Thinking as a special kind of doing, yes, thinking is also doing, but it’s the only doing that you can do without any help of your body parts, except your brains. But let’s exclude thinking from doing, just for clarity. But in the long run… once you have thought enough about mathematical methods and systems, then you are able to DO something with it, to apply the fruits of thinking to e.g. developing technical instruments. In this way thinking steers doing, too.
OK. Can you also mention an example of the reverse: that doing leads thinking?
Do you mean an activity leading to a thinking process? Without any other thoughts than only the thoughts influenced by that special activity?
Yes, that’s what I mean.
I’m afraid there aren’t any. An activity per se doesn’t generate a thought without help of one or more other thoughts or feelings that you previously had. It can generate feelings, and via these feelings you can start thinking e.g. of how to get rid of this lousy job of cleaning the toilets.
Now I got you! Suppose you clean a toilet and you get an idea of a new kind of toilet seat, then your activity has generated a thought! Or the fly that you see so often in urinals, I bet the inventor got the idea when using one!
Yes, but with the help of other thoughts. Previously you have learnt about toilet seats and spattering by own experience, you know how to use them, how society sees it, etc.
OK you have your point.
Now again, what do you think: what is more important: doing or thinking?
Well, summarizing: our thoughts lead the actions we do, so thinking is more important than doing, and doing only leads to thinking if sustained by previous thinking or feelings.
OK. But if our thinking isn’t followed by resulting actions, does thinking remain more important? Suppose you have all kinds of beautiful thoughts, but you don’t do anything with them, is thinking also in that case valuable, even more valuable than doing?
OK. But if our thinking isn’t followed by resulting actions, does thinking remain more important? Suppose you have all kinds of beautiful thoughts, but you don’t do anything with them, is thinking also in that case valuable, even more valuable than doing?
Hmmm… I won’t think so. What’s the use of thinking if nobody notices anything of it, except the thinker himself?
Isn’t thinking by definition always followed by doing something, influencing many actions of the thinker, in the short run or in the long run, as we noticed? And, on the other hand, aren’t there many actions that aren’t influenced by any thinking, such as eating when hungry, going to bed when you are tired etc.?
Now you ask this… yes, it seems that thinking per definition is followed by actions in the long run. Many activities we do are influenced by cumulative bits of thinking. Many activities are also not influenced by thinking such as you mentioned.
Then this is our conclusion: 1. thinking is more important than doing. 2. thinking is always followed by activities influenced by it. 3. Not all activities are influenced by thinking.
We have been thinking, haven’t we?
I think so.
What’s the purpose? What activity will follow?
Next time we are going to discuss learning and knowing, and their relationship to doing.
5 comments:
Without thinking, nothing matters. This comes from the basic philosophical principal: I think, therefore I am.
Without thought, we are merely rocks rolling down hills until we stop.
In the end, whether we do something or not, it all ends the same. We stop. We are nothing.
Thinking is the air between nothingness.
Thinking is always followed by activities influenced by it".
This is the intriguing statement. Without stimuli, would a thought be able to form, to focus? Is it possible to "think" as we know it without activity, without being tethered in this physical world? Sensory-deprived people become insane, don't they? It's a question.
Seraphine, you make me thinking :)Your first comment made me think about nothingness and emptiness as the final destiny of existence, and what thinking/doing have to do with this final destiny. We think because we are "thinking animals", just like animals respond to stimuli with strivings and avoidances, so we respond also with strivings and avoidances, but we also ask questions: why do we strive or avoid, and get into vicious thinking circles which lead to benefits and we start thinking because we like thinking in itself. But our thinking also leads to damages and nest-pollution, because our animal strivings and avoidances also remain, in our feelings and emotions. (These are also fed by thinking and vice versa to make it more complicated). I think this is the human drama: we are put in a world that is like it is, whether we like it or not, and also in a body that is like it is. The only blessing we have is that we are the blurred lenses created by nature, by which nature can look at itself, let's hope and love, to make up for the blur.
Your second comment: yes, I agree that we can't think without stimuli (see above). Stimuli can be activities themselves, but also things we observe and information we get. Sensory-deprived people become insane which is an indication that humans are "thinking animals": deprive them from stimuli and they get inzane just like animals deprived from stimuli because they can't use and develop their innate capacities by learning.
I very much appreciate your time and interest dedicated to my stories, Seraphine because I can imaginge that your unique blog also asks much time and energy, I hope we can continue our amateur-philosophies further, and I also appreciate your tolerance of my utterings responding to the stimuli I get from your blog :)
Nest pollution. I like that term. I suppose if we are going to mess our own nests, a blurred lens is the preferred tool for not seeing the damage. If you can't see it (sans stimuli), it doesn't exist.
I didn't say "preferred". The blur is a deficiency, I would prefer a clean lens, but despite the blur we can see (and even smell) the pollution and thinking tells us we have to stop it. Nevertheless there is something that prevents me from doing away my car (loosing many hours of working, family and blogging (:D) time), my vacuum cleaner etc. We did put away the dishwasher and we hang the laundry instead of putting it into the dryer. The problems in the world outside North America, Australia and Europe are widely known, I feel powerless to do something about it and admire people who "make a difference" in giving up careers to help.
Post a Comment