Philosophical Question #6: How should we think?

People really need to start using their heads instead of letting their hormones call all the shots like some folks do!

How are you supposed to actually think?
High-quality.
What does that even mean?
It means you gotta question every single thought that crosses your mind.
Why bother?
Because it’s the only way to get a real grip on the scale and the actual substance of what you're thinking about.
Can you actually grasp the full scope of a thought just by questioning it?
Nope.
Can you nail down the entire content of a thought through questioning?
Not a chance.
So why the hell do people say high-quality thinking equals constant questioning?
Because it's the only way we ever stand a shot at reaching the unthinkable.
And what’s "unthinkable"?
The unthinkable is actually being able to think with high quality, non-stop.

Back when I was just a kid in elementary school, my friends and I would constantly get ourselves into some kind of ridiculous mess, usually resulting in us being the butt of every joke. Whenever that happened, my old man would always look at me and say, "That’s what happens, son, when you don't use your own good sense." At the time, through that foggy lens of childhood, I found myself wondering... what exactly constitutes one's "own good sense," and does that imply that someone else's logic is somehow inherently flawed?
What is an idea, really, and can I ever truly claim ownership over my own thoughts? Perhaps I picked up a notion while standing in line at the CVS, or maybe I absorbed it without even realizing it while eavesdropping on a conversation on the subway, or perhaps I simply wasn't vigilant enough to stop the politicians on the news from shoving their agendas into my head, or even those relentless commercials that seem to bypass my defenses and seep directly into my consciousness...
Yet, even if I can't be certain which specific thoughts are truly mine, I hold onto the belief that "I" am, fundamentally, the sum of my thoughts.

outside the box.

I’m actually a big fan of this approach:

"One should only trust a witness when the matter at hand doesn't directly involve
their own interests, their passions, their biases, or their romanticized notions of
the miraculous. When dealing with those specific things, one ought to demand extra evidence
in an amount that is inversely proportional to the likelihood of what they are
testifying to."
Charles Darwin (1825–1895)

Basically, we shouldn't be hunting for evidence just to back up what we already think; instead, we should look at the facts first and let them form our opinion.

Hasn't the window for those applications already slammed shut? 🤔

goldencobra5 said:Let’s be objective here.

The thing is, an opinion shouldn't lean into mindless euphoria—you know, those people who hunt for positivity just for the sake of feeling good—nor should it descend into pure pessimism where you find a flaw in everything.
True thought requires shedding all biases. It demands actual effort; you can't just lounge around being mentally lazy and then try to mask that inertia by claiming some sort of supposed "superior intuition." That's just an excuse for lack of discipline.
Furthermore, thought should never be shackled by the mundane constraints of daily life or mere pragmatism. Even when we are dealing with the most practical, everyday matters, our reasoning needs to reach beyond the borders of our immediate reality.

I was thinking about this the other day while walking through Central Park, and it struck me: when we consider the feet we stand on, we have to weigh them against the concept of wings. If we don't make that comparison, we lose the ability to tell whether we are truly standing firm or if we are actually taking flight. Without that perspective, we won't even know if what we're using are indeed feet at all.

Exactly. Beyond just the visualization I brought up, drawing parallels is just as big of a deal.
I mean, if you actually want an objective take on anything—to make sure your thoughts aren't totally skewed—you need both the visual stuff and these comparisons.
Nice one, Battleship X. We basically completed the thought.

mistyfox812 said:I think there are two big things at play here (I’ll call them dialectical and phenomenological, just for the sake of argument).

The first part is basically practicing opposites. Once I’ve sat with my own opinion on something, I try to start from the assumption that everything is actually the exact opposite of what I think—just to see if that counter-argument actually holds water.
Most of the time, it does. 😁
(Actually, 😉 Borges used to be super clever and had a blast with this kind of thing—looking at stuff from the weirdest possible angles in his stories.
)

But man, that can lead you straight into total relativism. And total relativism usually just turns into this lazy sophistry where people decide "well, it's whatever I want it to be."

Think about it: it gives you this sense of freedom in your thinking, being unattached to your own biases (which feels great), but at the same time, it makes you unattached to the truth (which leads to that empty "anything goes" mindset).

The second part—the thing that should act as an anchor to steady all that wild, "could-be-anything" relativistic freedom—is basically hitting the pause button on your thoughts. It’s about observing without overthinking and just acknowledging reality for what it is. What is, is. There’s no "choice" involved; it just is how it is. 🙂 Truth binds us together, so yeah, truth provides that connection.

You need both of these moments to actually move forward. It’s like walking: you’ve gotta have one foot planted firmly on the ground while the other one stays free to take that next step.

🤷

I’m voting for @nobody and nothing because of those truths that are indisputable yet limiting. ( bolded text ).
Sure, you can sprint sometimes, spending more time with both feet off the ground. But even then, you can't run without hitting the pavement every once in a while.

Timothy Kern11 said:I’m voting for @nobody and nothing because of those truths that are indisputable yet limiting. ( bolded text ).
Sure, you can sprint sometimes, spending more time with both feet off the ground. But even then, you can't run without hitting the pavement every once in a while.

hmm, yeah

I think I'll cast my vote for him too,

though I suppose I'm basically voting for myself at the same time since we're saying the exact same thing, I guess.

but nobody really nailed the concept using all those professional technicalities, 🙂

One should approach life with as few preconceived notions as possible, which essentially means allowing the mind to remain open and fluid.

rustymaker5 said:Hasn't the window for those applications already slammed shut? 🤔

Oh dear, it appears I have also lost my way... I was quite preoccupied with 🙂

hiddenhound3 said:One should approach life with as few preconceived notions as possible, which essentially means allowing the mind to remain open and fluid.

Well, go ahead and let the moderator put you on the ballot up there... other than that, I think your answer is actually spot on.

Brenda Cook4 said:Well, go ahead and let the moderator put you on the ballot up there... other than that, I think your answer is actually spot on.

It really doesn't matter; I am not the competitive type, and I truly thought we were just going to have a casual chat about this, so I haven't bothered reading through every single detail.🙂

I have had a change of heart!

I would also like to be included on that top list!!!

What exactly is the prize? 😍

You’re such a tease, Florine. 😁

I was actually torn between the responses provided by absolutely nobody and the insights from enky, but since I’ve always had a soft spot for the ladies, I’m declaring enky my winner while I sit here eagerly awaiting her next thought-provoking question... 🙂

Kenneth Peterson5 said:How are you supposed to actually think?
High-quality.
What does that even mean?
It means you gotta question every single thought that crosses your mind.
Why bother?
Because it’s the only way to get a real grip on the scale and the actual substance of what you're thinking about.
Can you actually grasp the full scope of a thought just by questioning it?
Nope.
Can you nail down the entire content of a thought through questioning?
Not a chance.
So why the hell do people say high-quality thinking equals constant questioning?
Because it's the only way we ever stand a shot at reaching the unthinkable.
And what’s "unthinkable"?
The unthinkable is actually being able to think with high quality, non-stop.

Benjamin Moore6 said:You’re such a tease, Florine. 😁

I was actually torn between the responses provided by absolutely nobody and the insights from enky, but since I’ve always had a soft spot for the ladies, I’m declaring enky my winner while I sit here eagerly awaiting her next thought-provoking question... 🙂

Damn it!

I am never going to attempt to come up with something so ridiculous ever again. 😠

What do you guys think... is having a brain actually a gift, or is it just one big cosmic joke meant to punish us?

bluemarlin232 said:What do you guys think... is having a brain actually a gift, or is it just one big cosmic joke meant to punish us?

A curse, obviously. 😁

There are plenty of more elegant ways to perceive reality,
but we were stuck with "just" the intellect.

It’s hardly a fair distribution, is it? 🙂

bluemarlin232 said:What do you guys think... is having a brain actually a gift, or is it just one big cosmic joke meant to punish us?

And who's actually claiming they have one?

bluemarlin232 said:What do you guys think... is having a brain actually a gift, or is it just one big cosmic joke meant to punish us?

just like a dream.