iii. Psychological Thought

“Psychological thinking is self-evaluating—it progresses by reflection. It has as a goal understanding, and evaluates each step in light of that goal.” – John Raithel

Psychological thought sees itself as well as all others. It is the complete cooperation of emotion and logic. It is the purest form of thought, using the surroundings, as well as the individual, to deduct conclusions and relate with others. It is only able to be grasped after the control of emotion and the selflessness of logic are achieved.

Psychological thought allows the individual to present the question of ‘why’. It is not linear in its process, but rather circular. It uses emotion to guide its path, with logic to analyze the question. Psychological thought, unlike the other types, is dependent on all forms of consciousness.

John Raithel describes the process of psychological thought perfectly when he says: “…I watch myself formulate my wish, I watch myself pursue it. And I tailor the questions by keeping in mind—really in feeling—what it is I wish to accomplish or discover.”

The three questions will again be repeated but in a different context. How am I able to possess psychological thought? What are the benefits of psychological thought? What, if any, are the negative aspects of psychological thought?

The answer to the first question is: by mastering your emotions and relinquishing your pride. The cooperation of both pathological and logical thought is essential in the attainment of psychological thought.

The answer to the second question is: clarity, serenity, compassion, love, etc. No deep thought, nor deep feeling, is capable without the process of psychological thought. Through pathological thought we can function. Through logical thought we can think. Only through psychological thought may we truly be ourselves.

The answer to the last question is: the seemingly unattainable nature of the thought itself. Psychological thought is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It may come easier to some and harder to others, but it takes effort regardless. One must want to possess it, and strive for it, to ever reach the level of psychological thought. It can not be forced upon others, nor can you force yourself to use it. It is something that must be ardently searched for, and once found, it must be cherished. For any psychological thought is destroyed when the ideas of selfish logic or uncontrollable emotions are allowed to prevail.

In conclusion: I hope this section has opened your mind to some new and different ways of thought. I give accreditation to John Raithel for the basic concepts of the three types of thought from which I elaborated. Hopefully the understanding of these types of thought helps in the venture of answering the fundamental questions of life. The next section will be dealing with philosophies of mind and life, specifically dualism and stoicism 

ii. Logical Thought

“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic” – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

“Logic is in the eye of the logician” – Gloria Steinem

The fundamental idea of logical thought is that it is blind to others. This gives logical thought the ability to focus solely upon itself and reflect. However, the side effect can be argued to be even worse than the given ability. Logical thought does not have the ability to share or listen. It simply is. This is not to be confused with logic itself. Logic is the product of logical thought, which is able to be shared with others; however the product can be conditioned to reach a certain outcome by listening to other’s logic.

Perhaps another example would help to demonstrate true logical thought. Let’s say a person walks into a forest. They happen upon a flowing stream and they observe the water as it moves. They notice the direction of the water, the sound of the water, the color of the water, etc. They then ask: ‘What is causing the water to flow in the specified direction?’ or ‘What is causing the sound of the water?’ or ‘What is giving the water its color?’ The person ponders and analyzes the gathered observations to come up with a conclusion. They use no emotion in their analysis, nor do they make any contact with others. The conclusion made, otherwise known as logic, is the product of the process of logical thought.

Notice, the example given did not ask the question ‘why’, but rather ‘what’. This is the limiting ability of logical thought. Logic is not capable of determining the answer to ‘why’ alone, such as science and the scientific process have admitted. Another differentiation between logical thought and pathological thought is the state of conscious. Logical thought is never done subconsciously. One must pose a question to begin the process of logical thought.

In order to stay consistent with the previous section, I am going to ask the same questions, some slightly altered. How am I supposed to refrain from logical thought if it is a conscious decision?  What makes logical thought bad?  Is it possible for logical thought to ever be positive?

The answer to the first question is: you can’t. As the descriptions of the types of thought progress I hope it is evident that not only is it not possible to be without a specific type of thought, it would be detrimental to be without it. Logical thought is very similar to pathological thought in the sense that it creates bias, which is extremely disadvantageous to the individual’s intellectual growth, as well as to society’s progressive growth. However, to be without it would limit the growth of the individual intellect as well. It’s a double edged sword that must be wielded with dignity and respect, not only for yourself, but for others as well.

The answer to the second question is more complex. Many logicians would argue that logic is the most important asset in growing as a species. But this begs the questions of ‘Why would we want to grow as a species’ or ‘Why is there nothing else that is more important for the growth of the species?’ As you can see, the question of ‘why’ begins to creep up out of this assumption of dominance, and as it was said previously, the question of ‘why’ can never be answered with logic alone. This example also shows the possibility for pride and selfishness to corrupt the character of an individual through the use of logical thought alone. Another explanation of the negative aspects of logical thought is: it is close minded to itself. We often resent people that we meet if they are close minded, or at least we tend not to get along quite as well. This is also true with the opposing types of thought. If we rely solely upon logical thought we restrict ourselves from possessing feelings and emotions, which are essential parts of the make up of human beings.

The answer to the third question is also a simple one: yes. Logical thought allows the individual to interpret, as well as learn, grown, mature, reason, etc. To be without these things, would only leave the individual without the ability to think for itself or act upon conscious decisions.