II. The philosophy of thought

There are three distinct types of thought in which our conscious is able to act. The three types are: Pathological, Logical, and Psychological. Every individual uses all three types of thought daily, though some may use one over the others a majority of the time. The basic understanding of the three types of thought revolves around the interpretation of emotion. For example, pathological thought cooperates with the emotions of the individual without any form of reasoning. Logical thought is the exact opposite. It cooperates with reasoning and analysis without any ties to emotion. Psychological thought is the combination of the two prior types. It uses emotions, along with reasoning, to critically analyze concepts.

After reading the definition of the three types you may be wondering why we, as individuals, do not rely solely upon psychological thought due to its combination of the best aspects of both of the other types of thought. There are multiple answers to this question; however it may best be explained through an example comparing the three types of thought.

Bobby and Linda are in a relationship. They get along quite well with each other and have many things in common. They are not the perfect couple therefore there are sometimes fights between them over petty differences. One day Bobby comes home to the sight of the couch torn up with evidence of dog hair all over it. Bobby has never been a dog person, but he set that aside when starting his relationship with Linda so that she would be happier. Bobby confronts Linda, as soon as she comes home from work, about the couch. The discussion goes like this:

Bobby: Honey, do you see what the dog did to our couch while we were gone today?

Linda: Bob, I’ve had a long day at work and it didn’t go very well, could we please just discuss this another time?

Bobby: The dog should not get away with the fact that he tore up the couch. I’m sorry your day didn’t go well, but this can’t be put off till tomorrow.

Linda: If you’re so concerned with what the dog did then go fix it and scold the dog, stop bothering me about it.

Bobby: If we never had a dog then this wouldn’t have happened. Why do you want to keep it so badly? I say we just get rid of it.

Linda: You can’t get rid of my dog Bob; it’s not its fault for being left alone. Maybe if you would care more about the dog this wouldn’t have happened.

As the discussion progresses it becomes worse, with more accusations and derogatory allegations. It eventually ends with Linda leaving the house with the dog, and Bobby sitting by himself on the couch.

Bobby: The dog shouldn’t have been allowed to tear up the couch. And I shouldn’t have to feel guilty about being upset. Linda shouldn’t have pushed the responsibility for the dog’s actions off on me. Maybe I shouldn’t have taken my frustration out on her for what the dog did to the couch. Perhaps she was having a bad day and I just made it worse by aggravating her.

As Bobby ponders all these things he feels a sudden sense of empathy and disgust at himself. He starts to miss Linda, and even the dog. He gets in his car and drives to where Linda is staying in hopes of apologizing for his wrong doing.

*Knocks on the door*

Linda: What do you want Bob?

Bobby: I wanted to apologize for how I reacted. I shouldn’t have blamed you for the dog’s actions; I know it wasn’t your fault.

Linda: You didn’t even think about what I said when I told you I was having a bad day. You treated me like nothing I said mattered. You were venting with no limits on how much you hurt me. Why should I forgive your actions?

Bobby: I know what I did was wrong, and we both said hurtful things, but I’m asking you to really think about is it worth it to lose our relationship over such a petty argument?

*A few minutes pass with Linda deep in thought and Bobby awaiting her answer*

Linda: Your right Bobby, this should be no reason to end our relationship, I forgive you. Let’s try to talk about things more before we get into arguments. It would really help us.

Bobby: Agreed.

Now, after hearing this sappy example and the happily ever after you may have lost the purpose of the analogy. If you break down the story, the beginning discussion is representative of pathological thought, on both sides. They both rely solely upon their emotions which leads them to an argument with no reasoning to discern who is right and who is wrong. However this also helps portray the second aspect of pathological thought. It is blind to itself, meaning that it does not see itself in action, and when it does it is destroyed.

The second segment of the story is representative of logical thought. Bobby is by himself using his reasoning to discern why what happened during the argument was not right or good. This also shows the secondary aspect of logical thought. It only sees itself. Logical thought can only use the individual conscious to reason within itself, it can not produce anything of sustenance outside of itself.

The last part of the story, where Bobby takes action based off his emotions, is an example of psychological thought. Both individuals act off emotion, but they use reasoning to critically analyze their actions. This shows the secondary aspect of psychological thought. It sees itself, as well as all others.

So to go back to the original question: Why do we not rely solely upon psychological thought? The answer is: because of human nature. The three types of thought can be viewed almost as a process, as was displayed in the story. We instinctually act upon pathological thought, which then leads to logical thought to discern if our actions were fair/just/right/etc. We then use, but not always, psychological thought if our actions were not what we intended them to be.

It is not to be disputed that psychological thought is the best type of thought. However it is simply impossible to possess the ability to use psychological thought all the time due to the faulting attributes of human nature. In the subsections I will be discussing each type of thought more in detail and describing certain benefits and negative side effects of each.