So two of my roommates and myself got into a fairly heated discussion the other night centered around the topic, is thinking for the sake of thinking a waste of time?
My girlfriend (one of my roommates) and I sided that thinking can be, and often times is, its own end. My other roommate however, became very frustrated with us. His argument was that dwelling on thinking is a waste of time and that if it bore no fruit, there's no point. My rebuttal was that thinking of something for so long would eventually yield new thoughts, which would be the fruit of labor.
We discussed this some more and everything boiled it down to the point that my girlfriend and myself enjoy the journey, not the destination, and the other roommate the converse of that. My girlfriend and I enjoy experiences, the other roommate enjoys results.
So, fellow Hubskiers, is thinking for the sake of thinking worth thinking about?
I don't think that as it is this is an answerable question. Thinking "for its own sake" implies that it cannot influence something other than itself, when obviously it influences the thinker at the very least. There has been a reasonable amount of debate over centuries as to whether anything can be done for its own sake, or if the reward at the heart of it just becomes more obfuscated.
I suppose I should restate my position. I think that thinking for the sake of thinking is its own end in that an unintended result of thinking is a sense of solace and self understanding.
Think of it in another way. Do you volunteer because it's the right thing to do (it's own end), or do you volunteer because it makes you happy (happiness being the end)? The debate comes because since volunteering will intrinsically make a person happy (a generalization, I know), it is said that a person can't volunteer for the sake of volunteering because it will always yield being happy.
Thank you! That makes much more sense to me now. Is there really a debate though? I mean, I've done a lot of dumb work in my life that I certainly didn't get any happiness out of (other than that of finally being able to do what I deem good). However, I did that work nonetheless. Or is the argument more like whenever you do something you are always doing it for at least a couple reasons, only one of which will be simply to do it?
Or is the argument more like whenever you do something you are always doing it for at least a couple reasons, only one of which will be simply to do it?
This is where the debate lies. Many people say you can't do something for the sole reason of doing it, that there are always unintentional byproducts. Because these byproducts exist, the output is more than the input as opposed to input = output (volunteering = volunteering as opposed to volunteering = volunteering + happiness).
BLOB_CASTLE nailed it. In case you have a lot of time and want to join in on the discussion/thought process, go nuts!
That's some heavy reading you just posted there.
Oh yeah. I love philosophy, but you gotta want to read it.
Oh definitely no doubt. However, I probably don't have time to fully ingest it over my bowl of cereal before work.
No way! Just thought I'd leave it here in case anyone had time. No obligation!
Dang. This is maybe the chillest of all music?
For centuries it had been argued to be the chillest of all music.
He may have found that thinking too much about thinking is detrimental to his well being or that it's frivolous.
And that's something I don't know I can understand. Perhaps I just haven't thought enough about thinking to find it detrimental?
No, just acknowledge that everyone is different; perhaps far more different than you had previously considered. To the point that over-thinking things is actually detrimental to many people. I identify more with your way of things in that I enjoy thinking about pretty much everything. But it's been a somewhat painful road to realize that everyone is different.
acknowledge that everyone is different; perhaps far more different than you had previously considered.
I suppose that is what's going on here. I do try to recognize the differences in everyone, but I do often times feel so convinced of something that I can't see how anyone else could possibly think any differently. With time I suppose that'll change.
Yeah I struggle with the same thing. But at the end of the day, I generally find my relationships much more rewarded by me taking a person at his or her word. A person's ideals are informed by their experiences and by being overly-critical of their views I'm actually calling in to question their experiences which is really bad. It's a fine line to walk sometimes, especially with true friends you care about. So yeah, once I feel like the healthy amount of debate has run its course, I'm left with the decision to think that either they're mentally deficient, or just trust their experiences.
A person's ideals are informed by their experiences and by being overly-critical of their views I'm actually calling in to question their experiences
That puts very well what has been going on with one my roommates and myself lately. I can definitely be over critical of his views (mainly because it feels as if our fundamental views are stark opposites). I hadn't realized though that he could be offended by this and view it as discrediting his experiences. Thanks for shedding light on the situation.