On Excessive Thinking

Aside from escapism, few activities promise us as much consolation as the process of thinking. Among all the intellectual spheres, philosophers are perhaps the ones who take most pleasure in thought. Rather than brood on intractable problems, philosophers invite us to investigate the root of our problems from an entirely different perspective, hence mitigate our worries and anxieties, if not solve them. However the contemplative habit of mind may put our minds at ease, there is a generally held belief that thinking is perhaps the cause of our problems. It suggests that thinking violates the fundamental law of human nature, something invented to complicate things, therefore is falsely raised to a status of superiority as the greatest intellectual pursuit out of all human activities.

If the process of thinking is problem-inducing, it is because reason seeks to destroy our passion. From the latter part of the eighteenth century down to present day, our world has been influenced by a feeling of what may be called "the romantic movement". This movement has a distaste for the Classical civilisation, rather than champion the ideas laid down by the Greek thinkers through the process of thinking, it directs against science and philosophy, rendering our intellect unnecessary.

One of the pioneers of this movement is Rousseau. In his "Discourse On The Origin of Inequality", he goes on to sketch the history of human civilisation as regressive as opposed to the commonly supposed progressivism. Rousseau thinks that we are all good in the state of nature, always acting on our first impulses hence realising what we naturally need. In the state of nature, people are not drawn to the material possessions that we commonly cherish in the modern world such as a brand-new Mercedes, expensive high-end fashion garments, and a pretentious piece of painting, instead they are more drawn to the essential features of a happy life: love of family, friendship, romantic love, love of nature, a taste for music and dance. Why do we need wine when what our body needs is water? Why do we use art to imitate nature when the nature is itself a great work of art? Why do we make clothes a product of artificial beauty when their original purpose is to protect our body from severe weather? It is this commercial civilisation that pulls us away from happiness, leaving us to sigh and suffer in the world of misfortunes.

Along this line of naturalist thought, two thousand years before Rousseau invokes his absurdly romantic fantasy, Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism, argues in defence of this naturalist position. Just when Socrates reminds us that the only evil is ignorance and the only good is knowledge, Lao Tzu advises us to banish knowledge and wisdom altogether. Just when we think industrialisation is worthy of honour because it promotes profits, Lao Tzu advises us to discard them. For God's sake, what is wrong with learning how to live and making money in order to make our life happy?

Lao Tzu, like Rousseau, attends to us with the idea of non-doing. He shows us how reason has brought more harm than good. Through industrialisation, we may acquire new skills to increase our wealth, but behind every act of making money, we may neglect the dark side of human nature and liberate a dangerous evil impulse, namely, jealousy, hence the emergence of thieves. The acquisition of knowledge and wisdom may teach us how to live, but the fact that it promotes endless discussions and debates may direct us away from the true aim of the pursuit of knowledge, namely, the attainment of truth. Rather, we may only argue for the sake of arguing in order to please our narcissistic soul and avoid the fear of losing a debate. The evils of mankind are therefore unnatural. They are merely the products of civilisation and money.

From a naturalist perspective, our problems lie in thinking too much, an accusation of excessive cerebral activity. The interference of thinking removes from us the fluidity that passions assure our mind can command. It condemns our intuitive reliability therefore prevents us from realising our own ends to put our thoughts into practice. However convincing this argument may seem on the surface, philosophers blame it on our lack of self-control and our inability to strike a balance between reason and passions.

Bertrand Russell assures us the otherwise. In his short essay "In Praise of Artificiality", he suggests that all civilisation can only be made possible by reason:

"All civilisation, especially on its aesthetic side, is artificial. Manners, good speech, good writing, good music, good dancing- everything that gives grace to life depends, not on the denial of natural impulses, but upon training them to express themselves in ways that are delightful rather than in ways that are crude."

According to Russell, reason does not prevent us from enjoying our state of nature, rather than imprison our passion, it refines and sensitised them which breeds style and beauty. He reminds us that fashion designers are civilised beings and wish to civilise consumers like us by making clothes artificial and stylistic, not a mere protection from severe weather. While Rousseau tells us what our body needs is water, a vast variety of drinks does not just serve to quench our gross thirst, but during the production of drinks, it also presents to us beauty hence enhances our pleasure while drinking.

As to reason may complicate things, naturalists restrain us from pursuing things beyond their necessities. But to be convinced that the world is indeed simple is to refuse to confront problems which may lead to pains and sufferings. In the quest of self-understanding, naturalists accuse us of being narcissistic, drawing all the unnecessary attentions on ourselves. But this assumption is premised on the fact that we must admire our own image in the mirror. Philosophers never invite us to the thought that we must think well of ourselves. On the contrary, they direct us to the virtue of self-criticism, they urge us to look into the mirror of our incomplete selves, remind us that we all make mistakes and that we need to revise our own faults, learn from experience, and correct them. The naturalists' condemnation of reason is perhaps a terrible excuse, an attempt to avoid the verdict of the analytical truth of the mirror, to cover up their lack of intellectual courage and explain away the psychological evidence of cowardice that lies deep in their hearts.

Moreover, if thoughts are left unfettered and passions left freely expressed, they may lead to bad consequences. One should not find it hard to remember how the French absurdly confused violence as a species of romance hence have the heads of aristocrats and members of Royal Family cut off to assure another establishment of dictatorship. How quickly advantages of civilisation may be wiped out by intuition.

Nevertheless, our actions are guided by passions. But that is not to say reason is stripped of its place in conducting human affairs. Reason allows us to decide which ends we want to pursue while passion helps put our thoughts into action. It does not prevent us from enjoy the spectacle of joy that passions offer, but rather it softens and humanises them in order to let them express in their most delicate form.

W