Two weeks ago I considered simplifying by diluting disciplined thought through partisanship, preoccupation, and acquiescence. The week before that I identified disciplined thought as a healthy mix of objectivity and subjectivity; and I also differentiated between disciplined thought as a path to learning and growth, and disciplined busyness as purposeful distraction. This week I have been more busy, and less thoughtful. Shame on me!

But now I am forced to write (because I can't not), therefore I am forced to think for myself.

Damn It.

So here is what I am thinking this week...

For many of us it appears that it requires less effort to 'do' for oneself than it does to 'think' for oneself. When I ask 'Why?' the first answer that comes to mind is because (for many of us in this culture) it is easier to just go along than it is to think first. To think first adds a task which many of us feel we are simply too busy to do. Yet as I dig, I realize that doing for oneself has more potential for unintended consequence than does thinking for oneself first and then acting according to that consideration. Stated as such, this sounds obvious; and I believe I have swam this stream before but at this point I will not muddy the waters with a (conscious) rehashing of past thought. I want to see where I go with this.

Surely we do not choose to not think based solely on simple selfishness... and laziness... and obliviousness... and ignorance... and obedience... Okay; perhaps not so solely or simple but obvious nonetheless. There has to be something more... Beneath the surface? Or am I asking the wrong question? I want to look at both of these possibilities.

Beneath the Surface: 

When I ask the question 'Why does one choose not to think for oneself?' and come up with the umbrella answer 'Because it is easier.' is there something lurking besides the simplicity of not having to think?

Perhaps some of us are taught not to think; (though this goes back to simple obedience). So perhaps a better answer is that too many of us are not taught to think. This week I stumbled across and reviewed (in a book and on 2 or 3 web sites) logical fallacies. How many of us recognize, understand, and can explain Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Strawman, and Begging the Question? Before this week's review I would have struggled mightily, and even now I might pass a multiple-choice test but I would likely fail an essay test; (I now have a goal for the coming week). And if we cannot recognize a logical fallacy, how do we know what and when to question?

In this same context, how many of us can identify (in general terms) the contrasting philosophies of Plato and Aristotle; (I might do some better on an essay test here, but would appreciate a little time to review). What better way to learn how to think than to study great thinkers. This failure is not only an individual failing, but also a sociocultural failing.

Anything else?...

Of course there are systems in place that encourage us not to think. These include political struggles for power and control, bureaucracies, consumerism, wealth, laws, justice, customs, mores, and ritual, (and I'm probably missing a few), all of which may have (or may have had) their place and purpose but still contribute to our reluctance to think. In this context, I suppose one could point back to indoctrination as an overlying answer to the 'Why' question; but in a sense that takes us back to education (or the lack thereof). If we do not know how to think, we do not know what questions to ask; and even when we have questions, indoctrination, perceived majority opinion, and/or  fear of (some degree of) retribution creates a disinclination to ask.

So were these systems intended specifically to quiet (and control) the masses? Or were they initially more noble in purpose and have simply evolved into the misshapen aberrations characteristic of (at the least) some elements of each? I believe it possible that many systems may begin with noble intent and evolve into an exercise of power, fed by the abundant comfort and vainglorious complacency enjoyed by the vocal majority. Regardless it is systems such as these (strategically placed just beneath the surface) that often lead to the illusion of walking on water.

So I have (so far) found systematic, purposeful deformity and a lack of focused, meaningful education hidden just beneath the palpable waves of selfishness, laziness, obliviousness, ignorance, and obedience. Is there anything else? Perhaps words? I have always heard that actions speak louder than words, yet it is often unconsidered words that compel action; and these words are (too) often spouted by another. I agree that actions speak louder than words, but if they are another's words I believe the resulting action to be arbitrary and potentially dangerous. I maintain that one's thoughts - thinking for oneself, translated first into words, rehashed as thought, brought back to life as words, and then (after questions are answered) translated into action - are far more effective. Thus, mere words and arbitrary action I believe to also be monstrosities lurking just beneath the surface.

I am sure there are other cryptic, shadowy dangers, some just beneath the surface and others deeper. But I need to move on.

Wrong Question?

Instead of asking 'Why do we choose not to think?' we could ask 'Why would we choose to think?' - But I believe (for the most part) this will only give us answers at the opposite end of the same spectrum. However, a renegade (not for the most part) spin-off to this line of thought would be to ask 'How do I (as an individual) convince others of the importance of thinking (for oneself) before doing (for oneself)?' And the best answer I have come up with for this question, so far, is to lead by example. It is good in theory, but, (again, so far), I have not seen sterling results. But then, I am also confident that I have not been a sterling example.

Is the right question then a 'Who?' question as in 'Who is in charge?' Am I in control of my thoughts? Or am I handing that responsibility to the powers that be? This seems a bit simplistic, but it is a thoughtful start.

Could we ask a 'What?' question as in 'What do I choose not to think for myself?' (This could also apply to 'Where?' or 'When?'.) And I believe this question to be relevant in that we are at least considering circumstance and perhaps picking our battles. We all need to (at least to an extent) plan and prioritize and so perhaps this question (What? Where? When?) will aid one in more efficiently focusing personal thought.

We might ask 'How one can (in good conscience) choose not to think for oneself?' but I cannot answer this for anyone except myself.

Are there other questions that could be asked to shed light on one's predilection for doing over thinking?

As I said at the beginning of this post, this week I have been more busy than thoughtful. So perhaps to discover why, I could examine circumstance. I could ask if my busyness is purposeful distraction, or if I could redirect some energies to disciplined thought? As this week has progressed I have done the latter. Though to do so I have literally had to carve out time, (finding 20 minutes here and half an hour there), to advance this written thought. It was perhaps made easier because (as I also said at the beginning) I can't not write. As Aristotle so eloquently said:

"We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit."

So perhaps the most relevant question would be 'What new habits must I develop, (and what old habits must I let go), to move closer to excellence?' I have developed the habit of disciplined written thought, and though this is good, I am still far, far, far from Excellence. This coming week I will study thinking in the context of logical fallacies. Additionally I will consider personal habits (or the lack thereof) and effortfully strive toward improvement and progress. By asking this question and examining my personal habits, I am compelled to think for myself in a way that will positively impact my actions. Thus I am thinking before doing, and (with discipline) I am not as easily distracted or influenced by circumstantial mediocrity.

When I began this post I did not plan or foresee moving toward an examination of personal habits. Yet now that I've arrived, I see that it is important. And this vividly illustrates the value of consistent disciplined thinking for oneself.