"MOST people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so."
Philosopher Bertrand Russell coined this maxim back in 1925, as a witty aside in a passage about how difficult it is to understand relativity. It has since become a standard lament about people's ignorance and incuriosity.
These are certainly worth lamenting. But to equate them with lack of thought is to misunderstand what thought really is. The kind of "thinking" Russell had in mind is actually a very narrow class of thought: systematic, logical and goal-directed.
This is a useful and powerful tool – and we rightly praise people who are good at it, admiringly calling them "thinkers". But to define thought this narrowly ignores the true richness of our mental lives (see "Thoughts: The inside story
Think about thoughts – in itself a mind-boggling feat – and you quickly realise that they come in many varieties, from idle reverie to determined problem-solving. As far as we know, these are experiences only humans enjoy. In fact, "thought" may be the best answer to the perennial question: "What makes us human?".
That is a thought. But try to articulate where it comes from, and you may find yourself stymied. Thinking comes so naturally to us that we rarely stop to consider how ineffable and ill-understood it is. Nor is it any easier to pin down how we solve problems, or come up with ideas.
We've developed plenty of techniques that help us do those things, of course, from logic to brainstorming to philosophy. And there are technologies to help us gather individual thoughts into collective knowledge, from writing to social networking.
The combination of thinking techniques and information technologies has helped us make great strides. It is hard to envisage how our technological and intellectual achievements would exist without it.
Now science is slowly revealing the totality of thought. Will this help us harness the other kinds of thought any better than we do now? Perhaps it will at least increase our respect for them, and for those who think differently to us. And perhaps it will give the lie, once and for all, to Russell's jaded maxim.
- New Scientist
- Not just a website!
- Subscribe to New Scientist and get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered every week
- Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues
- Subscribe Now and Save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
