This question brings to mind Cal Newport’s book Digital Minimalism--specifically the section on solitude where he argues the case for the importance of being alone with your thoughts. He says, “solitude is what’s happening in your brain, not the environment around you...a subjective state in which your mind is free from input from other minds.”
The chapter talks about some of nation’s great leaders--Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr.--sought solitude in order that one’s mind would be left to “grapple only with its own thoughts.” Newport goes on to say, “Solitude requires you to move past reacting to information created by other people and focus instead on your own thoughts and experiences.
My experiences are mine alone. My walks in nature, watching a fox with her kits or a caterpillar crawl across a leaf, are mine alone. But how I process what I’m seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling--it’s all influenced by 47 years of input from external sources.
This is similar to the concept I attempted to convey toward the end of my post “Choosing the Wrong Path.” My son will be my son no matter his age, and I will always be able to see a bit of his young, less-influenced self; however, he also can never be who he was or think the same way he did when he was just a tiny tot in my arms because he is constantly be influenced by what he is learning.
“Jonah (or any of us really) is not who he was at four. Yet, he is. At 30, he will not be the same self he is today as he progresses further and further into his sobriety. But his addiction will remain a part of his fabric for the rest of his days.”
I think it’s dependent on your operational definition of “independent”. We’re always taking in information and processing it, even in the middle of the woods from nature, and even when we’re using memory to think back on a previous concept or conversation. In that sense, no, thought is always dependent on the fragments of external stimuli. But if independent = original, as in taking in all that stimuli to create a new proposition, then I think that’s a hallmark of being human?
Thanks Bryn, your comment about external stimuli was also something that I was pondering but didn't clearly state in the post. I think I need to revisit this topic armed with additional knowledge because I think there are broader implications about this idea. I've been wanting to write about it for some time and I wrote this one kind of quickly because I wanted to at least start talking about concept.
Agreed! Otherwise, if “original” thought is not possible, think of all those poor aspiring PhD students with nothing to write about in their dissertation! :-)
Great post! I have never really thought about this topic before but it is very eye opening. I struggle to think of anything "original" that I have thought or come up with that is not in some way influenced by someone/something else.
I would argue that even an "original" thought would be by necessity in response to someone else, or else we would never know it was original. Everything we do is in some shape or form a reaction.
Interesting article! Definitely raises some questions. I tend to agree, as much as I hate too, I’m not sure a totally independent thought would be easy to come by today. I’m sure there are exceptions (there always are), but outside of a miracle, I can’t think of one.
I love thinking about questions like this! I'll add on by asking a slightly different question: is it possible to think without language? And if not, then thinking has to be social because language is inherently social. And this leads to another question: does our language shape the way we think and the thoughts we are capable of having? (I think of the movie Arrival.) The best questions are the ones that cascade into more questions in my opinion. So thanks for this!
I believe the common wisdom is that language is a key requirement for being able to reason and its mandatory for communication between humans. And I think language itself shapes our thoughts by its ability (or inability) to include concepts.
We can't live - or learn - in a vacuum. I do a lot of solo walking and solo thinking - but I'm pretty sure I'm only ever thinking thoughts that have been influenced in some way - either a lot or a little - by outside sources: people, literature, news, experiences involving other people....
It's made me think about something perhaps related to solo thinking: where are the lines between 'I learned this', I learned this from someone' and 'I am entirely self-taught'? I remember a discussion about this with a fellow artist. While I accepted the fact that she had never taken an in-person class to learn the skills we both have, I didn't agree with her that taking 'only' online classes, learning from YouTube videos and books, following step-by-step tutorials on other artists' blogs and getting together regularly for shared studio time with other artists meant that she was 'entirely self-taught'.
We all expose ourselves to the things we'd like to learn. Sometimes that's at school, or via a self-led class, an experience or simply a discussion with a friend about a topic of mutual interest.
I'm not sure that any thoughts I have on my own are ever ones that I could claim as entirely mine, because - despite being the most anti-social person I know - I seek out people, words and conversation to influence my own learning process.
The issue here is the meaning of the word "independent." Jacobs has really chosen the wrong word. If I take his meaning correctly, he should have said, "To think in isolation from other human beings is impossible..." If that is what he had said, it would be simple to agree with him. Even if we think in temporary isolation from other people, as in your novel example, our whole apparatus of thought was formed in communion with them.
Your POV question was not asked or answered in isolation. You learned the question and its alternatives from other people. This does not mean that your conclusion isn't your own. The point is rather that the question isn't your own. The very notion of the novel and of POV are not your own. The conclusion is your own, but it was not reached in isolation.
When we talk about independent thought, we mean (at least, I take it that we mean) reaching a conclusion based on its truth value rather than on fear or favor. At every quarter today we see people insisting on perfect submission to one ideology or another as a condition of being allowed to speak or enter or belong. This is where independent thought dies, when people form their thoughts not based on criteria of truth, but on criteria of inclusion; when your thoughts are literally not your own but the thoughts of the group.
When we say no to the mob and think what we believe to be true, that is independent thought, but not thought in isolation. The latter is impossible, the former merely difficult and dangerous.
Lots to mine here, Mark. Jacobs does talk about fear or favor in his book. I expect that Jacobs may be defining the word thinking more narrowly that I am but I'm getting out of my depth here.
Not sure if you’re familiar with the concept of Symbolic Interactionism, but that would be how I begin to answer your question about independent thinking!
Wouldn’t say I’m smarter! Different expertise perhaps. But yes, SI is my basis for how we know anything at all (although you complicate it in your post, which I like)
This question brings to mind Cal Newport’s book Digital Minimalism--specifically the section on solitude where he argues the case for the importance of being alone with your thoughts. He says, “solitude is what’s happening in your brain, not the environment around you...a subjective state in which your mind is free from input from other minds.”
The chapter talks about some of nation’s great leaders--Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr.--sought solitude in order that one’s mind would be left to “grapple only with its own thoughts.” Newport goes on to say, “Solitude requires you to move past reacting to information created by other people and focus instead on your own thoughts and experiences.
My experiences are mine alone. My walks in nature, watching a fox with her kits or a caterpillar crawl across a leaf, are mine alone. But how I process what I’m seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling--it’s all influenced by 47 years of input from external sources.
This is similar to the concept I attempted to convey toward the end of my post “Choosing the Wrong Path.” My son will be my son no matter his age, and I will always be able to see a bit of his young, less-influenced self; however, he also can never be who he was or think the same way he did when he was just a tiny tot in my arms because he is constantly be influenced by what he is learning.
“Jonah (or any of us really) is not who he was at four. Yet, he is. At 30, he will not be the same self he is today as he progresses further and further into his sobriety. But his addiction will remain a part of his fabric for the rest of his days.”
https://hollyrabalais.substack.com/p/choosing-the-wrong-path
Great food for thought this morning, Mark!
Oh yes, solitude is key for reflection and processing. This picture just keeps getting bigger.
I think it’s dependent on your operational definition of “independent”. We’re always taking in information and processing it, even in the middle of the woods from nature, and even when we’re using memory to think back on a previous concept or conversation. In that sense, no, thought is always dependent on the fragments of external stimuli. But if independent = original, as in taking in all that stimuli to create a new proposition, then I think that’s a hallmark of being human?
Thanks Bryn, your comment about external stimuli was also something that I was pondering but didn't clearly state in the post. I think I need to revisit this topic armed with additional knowledge because I think there are broader implications about this idea. I've been wanting to write about it for some time and I wrote this one kind of quickly because I wanted to at least start talking about concept.
Agreed! Otherwise, if “original” thought is not possible, think of all those poor aspiring PhD students with nothing to write about in their dissertation! :-)
.....😂
Great post! I have never really thought about this topic before but it is very eye opening. I struggle to think of anything "original" that I have thought or come up with that is not in some way influenced by someone/something else.
I would argue that even an "original" thought would be by necessity in response to someone else, or else we would never know it was original. Everything we do is in some shape or form a reaction.
Interesting article! Definitely raises some questions. I tend to agree, as much as I hate too, I’m not sure a totally independent thought would be easy to come by today. I’m sure there are exceptions (there always are), but outside of a miracle, I can’t think of one.
I love thinking about questions like this! I'll add on by asking a slightly different question: is it possible to think without language? And if not, then thinking has to be social because language is inherently social. And this leads to another question: does our language shape the way we think and the thoughts we are capable of having? (I think of the movie Arrival.) The best questions are the ones that cascade into more questions in my opinion. So thanks for this!
I believe the common wisdom is that language is a key requirement for being able to reason and its mandatory for communication between humans. And I think language itself shapes our thoughts by its ability (or inability) to include concepts.
This rabbit hole has no end!
Really interesting, Mark! A great read.
We can't live - or learn - in a vacuum. I do a lot of solo walking and solo thinking - but I'm pretty sure I'm only ever thinking thoughts that have been influenced in some way - either a lot or a little - by outside sources: people, literature, news, experiences involving other people....
It's made me think about something perhaps related to solo thinking: where are the lines between 'I learned this', I learned this from someone' and 'I am entirely self-taught'? I remember a discussion about this with a fellow artist. While I accepted the fact that she had never taken an in-person class to learn the skills we both have, I didn't agree with her that taking 'only' online classes, learning from YouTube videos and books, following step-by-step tutorials on other artists' blogs and getting together regularly for shared studio time with other artists meant that she was 'entirely self-taught'.
We all expose ourselves to the things we'd like to learn. Sometimes that's at school, or via a self-led class, an experience or simply a discussion with a friend about a topic of mutual interest.
I'm not sure that any thoughts I have on my own are ever ones that I could claim as entirely mine, because - despite being the most anti-social person I know - I seek out people, words and conversation to influence my own learning process.
The issue here is the meaning of the word "independent." Jacobs has really chosen the wrong word. If I take his meaning correctly, he should have said, "To think in isolation from other human beings is impossible..." If that is what he had said, it would be simple to agree with him. Even if we think in temporary isolation from other people, as in your novel example, our whole apparatus of thought was formed in communion with them.
Your POV question was not asked or answered in isolation. You learned the question and its alternatives from other people. This does not mean that your conclusion isn't your own. The point is rather that the question isn't your own. The very notion of the novel and of POV are not your own. The conclusion is your own, but it was not reached in isolation.
When we talk about independent thought, we mean (at least, I take it that we mean) reaching a conclusion based on its truth value rather than on fear or favor. At every quarter today we see people insisting on perfect submission to one ideology or another as a condition of being allowed to speak or enter or belong. This is where independent thought dies, when people form their thoughts not based on criteria of truth, but on criteria of inclusion; when your thoughts are literally not your own but the thoughts of the group.
When we say no to the mob and think what we believe to be true, that is independent thought, but not thought in isolation. The latter is impossible, the former merely difficult and dangerous.
Lots to mine here, Mark. Jacobs does talk about fear or favor in his book. I expect that Jacobs may be defining the word thinking more narrowly that I am but I'm getting out of my depth here.
Not sure if you’re familiar with the concept of Symbolic Interactionism, but that would be how I begin to answer your question about independent thinking!
I think I vaguely remember Symbolic Interactionism from my university days but that's been over 30 years ago so the memories are a bit murky. :)
Thanks for the nudge, though, I'm going to refresh my memory and that may fill in a gap or two.
This is why it's important to cultivate a network of people who are both smarter and more learned than I am. :)
Wouldn’t say I’m smarter! Different expertise perhaps. But yes, SI is my basis for how we know anything at all (although you complicate it in your post, which I like)