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.

i. Pathological Thought

“Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions.” – David Borenstein

“The emotions aren't always immediately subject to reason, but they are always immediately subject to action” – William James

These quotes are perhaps the easiest way to understand pathological thought. Often times as an individual we are confronted with emotions which are subconsciously aroused due to stimuli provided from specific circumstances. Or to put it more simply… We get emotions that we can’t control from things happening around us.

Now, because of these subconscious emotions we perform arbitrary functions such as thought and physical action in specific ways. However, we often times act solely upon our emotions without regards to logic or reasoning. This is pathological thought in its purest form.

So now you might be wondering: How am I supposed to refrain from pathological thought if it happens subconsciously? Or: What makes pathological thought bad? Or: Is it possible for pathological thought to ever be positive?

The answer to the first question can be obtained by approaching the question from a different angle. A subconscious emotion is something that can not be altered and therefore must be kept in check. If we realize that emotions can not be stifled, but rather, they should be accepted as a form of instinctual reaction, then we can proceed to understand how to control them. Once we learn how to manage our emotions, we will be able to leave the realm of pathological thought and venture into the ideology of psychological thought.

The answer to the second question is indeed very personal and relative to the individual answering. However, I believe there is a universal consensus on some opinions regarding the disadvantages of pathological thought. To act solely upon one thing, regardless of what it is, is a form of bias action. And as was stated in the previous sections, bias is a very undesirable trait which can lead to limited, and often times poor, actions. Also, the fact that emotions are a temporary reaction to stimuli is one that provides reason not to make a decision without consideration or comparison of something else. I think that it can be accepted that it would not be wise to make a life altering decision based upon a temporary condition.

Lastly, the answer to the third question can be found from analyzing our subconscious reactions to negative stimuli from the environment. Without pathological thought we may never release our hand from a stove top burner, or make critical decisions when being faced with a life or death situation. These are two examples that could be debated, but I hope you see the idea of the answer provided. Without pathological thought we would not be able to make split second decisions that could determine the difference between life or death. 

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. 

ii. Bias

It can be argued that it is impossible to exist without bias of some sort. To be fair, the argument is correct in the fact that there will always be knowledge that we have not obtained, whether it is due to a lack of desire, or simply a lack of time. But to say that bias will exist even when an individual has the knowledge, as well as the experience, to make a logical decision is blatantly false. This is not saying the decision will have a positive or negative outcome, but rather, it will be decided upon rationally.

To understand my argument as to why this statement is false, the definition of bias should be provided, as well as the definition of logic. Bias, by definition, means ‘a preference of inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.’ Whereas logic is defined as ‘a system of reasoning’, and as was said earlier, reasoning is when the process of analysis and rational thought is applied to concepts.

By applying these definitions to my argument, it then becomes: ‘But to say that a preference, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment, will exist even when an individual has the knowledge, as well as the experience, to make a reasoned decision is blatantly false.’

After inserting the true meanings of the key words into the argument, it becomes easier to understand my point, that the counter argument is, in itself, counter intuitive, solely due to the fact that it does not account for the true meaning of logic.

 Now, let’s delve into how bias is formed when creating an opinion or argument. Perhaps the best way to portray the creation of bias is by means of an analogy:

Johnny strives for the best understanding of cooking and the culinary arts that he can. He has multiple mentors that he frequently questions and seeks knowledge from, but they are all of the same fundamental culinary background. After ten years of relentless practice and determination, he becomes a chef using the same techniques taught to him by his mentors. Later on, after Johnny is an established chef he enters a competition where he is challenged to create the best tasting meal that he can conjure.

He sets to work planning ahead for all of the necessary materials that he will need to prepare his meal. After hours of hard work, planning and cooking, he produces his masterpiece. This meal is like nothing that he has ever created before; all the aspects are present such as taste, texture, smell, etc. As he submits his creation to the judges he waits with full certainty that he will win the competition. To his great confusion and disappointment his meal is not chosen to win the competition, but rather the meal produced from a world renowned chef who studied the culinary arts in multiple parts of the world, obtaining the most information possible and applying it to his creation.

This example serves multiple purposes.

1. The creation of something with bias does not necessarily mean that it is, in and of itself, bad or false. 
2. The analogy supports the idea that facts are not understood in isolation, but that they are fitted into a personal understanding when not compared with something else.
3. The limitations experienced through bias, not only distort, but inhibit the open mindedness of an individual.

Now that the creation of bias and its limitations are clearly understood, the solution should be provided. To eliminate bias, the basic human nature of doubt should not be confined. The desire for knowledge should never be satisfied. The counter intuitive idea of settling, due to comfort or safety, should be eliminated. And the system of discussion should never cease. For it is with all of these things that we grow to meet our full potential as individuals.

Charles Curtis sums up the idea of bias when he says: “Bias and prejudice are attitudes to be kept in hand, not attitudes to be avoided.”

i. Reflection and Analysis

Reflection by definition means ‘A thought or an opinion resulting from consideration.’ By this very definition one is able to deduct that it is not possible to reflect upon an answer if one is not willing to consider the original question, as well as the counter argument from which they have chosen oppositely. To limit the ability of consideration is to effectively limit the ability of human thought.

Now to understand why the attribute of reflection is necessary if we are ever to progress as an individual, let alone society, we must, once again, look at the faulting attributes of human nature. We are bound by a sense of doubt as humans, which leads to our questioning. This is indeed what sets us apart from all other animals. But we are also bound by the instinctual want for comfort and a sense of safety. This is perhaps one of our greatest downfalls, due to its retarding ability to the progression of our species. Often times we will settle on a specific point of view and live with a sense of security, which may be false, due to the sentimental values proposed by the given perspective.

If we were to overcome this dilemma of the want for safety and comfort, with the process of reason through questioning, our false perceptions of truth would be cast out and the age of true progression would come forth. Now I am surely not saying this with the close minded idea that all opinions are wrong. In fact, I believe that our perception of truth is based of the consensus of opinion, but that is to be discussed later on. The argument I am trying to convey is simply, if we limit ourselves to specific opinions without the consideration of other opinions, solely because of our want for safety or comfort, then we effectively eliminate all sense of reason and logic within our thought process.

Analysis is defined to mean ‘The study of constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.’ To put it more simply, analysis is the process by which one studies the relationships between elements of a whole. It is generally accepted that in order to be taken seriously in any scientific community, or even more generally, in society, one must have analyzed the data before coming to a conclusion. This same process of analysis should also be applied when working with questions and perspectives. It has become far too easy in today’s society to become close minded and reject all opinions contrasting to your own. And we have, for some odd reason, allowed this irrational and, quite frankly, unjust process to take place.

To possess the ability to apply analysis to your questions and opinions is to possess the ability to discern truth from fiction, and ultimately right from wrong. If we were to apply the same standards to all aspects of life, then that would be just one more achievement for humans in the quest for equality among all within the species. Perhaps the superb moral teacher, Buddha, described it best when he said:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

Imagine the possibilities if we, as a species, were able to not only abide by this quote, but live by it. Now that we have discovered the meanings behind the words, reflection and analysis, hopefully we can apply them to our fundamental questions of life later on…

I. The Fundamental Questions of Life

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning.” These words, by the great intellectual mind of Albert Einstein, capture the very aspect of human nature that aids us in our progression as a species. Perhaps to fully understand the importance of human reason through the process of questioning, a proper definition should be provided for each term. Questioning – an expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply. Reason – the capacity for logical, rational, and analytical thought. Once an understanding of the true meanings of the words is grasped, the true understanding of human thought is able to be achieved.

To question is to attempt to gain knowledge in order to apply our reasoning ability, as humans, to further understand our surroundings. Without the ability to question there would be no progress as an individual, or as a species. We, as humans, are born with the inherent ability to question, it is that which provides us with our ability to mature and interact with our environment. It is for this fact that the idea of acceptance without questioning is considered irrational and illogical. To quote the influential mind of Joseph Joubert, “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.”

If the above quote is abided by in all circumstances then the progress of the human race is imminent with no possible impeding force acting against it. What inevitably holds our race back from unconstrained progress are the faulty human attributes of pride and prejudice. The truly great minds of history have realized this undeniable truth, and have urged others to come to the same realization by providing examples of how to treat others, and examples of how to interact with individuals who do not share the same views or opinions. Thus the age of reason began through the process of questioning and debate.

By understanding the truly vast importance of the process of reason through questioning, you are able to reflect on what are known as the fundamental questions of life. Now, I’m afraid, that in order to fully understand my intentions, you must be aware of the true definition of ‘fundamental questions of life’. The term fundamental means ‘of or relating to the foundation or base.’, in other words, it is used to describe the heart, or core of an item, or idea, or belief. So to use the term in context would create the meaning of ‘the core questions of life’.

Now that still leaves uncertainties as to what exactly are the core questions of life? And, are the questions not relative to the individual who is asking? The answer to the first question is quite simply: the fundamental questions of life are questions that pertain to all individuals of the human race, regardless of ethnicity, culture, religion, education, age, etc. Now the answer to the second question is not quite so simple, in fact it is rather complex due to the broadness of the question itself. It is true that questions are a personal attempt to reach enlightenment. It is also true that questions are solely relative to the individual asking them. However, the point I am trying to make is not that it is irrelative to the individual asking, but rather that no matter the relativity, the questions remain relevant to the human race as a whole. These two words are often confused for one another, but they simply cannot be applied in the same context to achieve the same result.

So now that we have outlined the process of reason through questioning, as well as the definition of the fundamental questions of life, we are ready to begin our reflections…