I’m thinking
Why is it that thinkers are so cast down or cast out?
That question may assume too much. It assumes for instance that the majority of persons do cast thinkers into their own domain. I believe this to be true for the following reasons.
The idea that the person of action is the best type of person to be. The argument for this is often given along these lines: that if you want to be successful in the real world you need to act in it which means therefore that acting only in your head (thinking) is not very useful to the real world. While its tempting to agree with that line of reasoning I would like to make a case for the idea that the real world and the mental world coexist, that both are required to be successful in both. I need good thought and good action to be successful in the real world and I need input from the real world to be fruitful in my thoughts. By real world I mean that which is not mental construct.
The oft heard complaint of “all he does is think.” I’ve had that one leveled at me a number of times. One of the comments for my last post was “I think you’re splitting hairs here” as if it were a bad thing. In fact it was that comment that spurred me into (here it is) thinking about this post. Why is it that men of action are not considered the bland and boring and the thinkers those that should be empowered? I have a feeling it is because those who act often satisfy carnal passions and physical desires. Let me not be misunderstood, the majority will rule, be they the thinkers or the actors, and chances are that whichever side did rule I’d be rooting for the opposite.
The notion that philosophy is useless. Philosophy is made popular and expanded by thinkers (a.k.a. philosophers). Much like the first point, the moral/mental/ethical/metaphysical is often what gives persons their direction, we need both mental and physical action to be successful. It would be very difficult to execute life’s longer term goals were it not for some immaterial direction.
Thinkers are attacked in the world today for being thinkers. Those that have complicated reasonings and thought patters are dismissed as slow or worse yet, stupid. The arrival at the same conclusion by two people, one swiftly and one more slowly, does not mean that the swift thinker was correct in his thought pattern and that he can be trusted to always arrive at the correct conclusions.
There are many fine nuances in thought that I believe are overlooked and undervalued by many persons.
N.B. The definition of immaterial is:
not material, not consisting of matter, incorporeal, spiritual.
Not “useless” as I have a suspicion many people think it is.