What is the Right Mode of Thinking?
The fact of the matter is that, despite there being countless ways to think about things, there must be some discussion on which way is best.
For instance, one can make the argument that overthinking, which is beset by anxious patterns of compulsive thought about particularly uncomfortable matters, is not helpful to us in any way at all.
One can assume that thinking rationally about something will yield more beneficial results than thinking emotionally or egoically. The more one is entrapped in a subjective way of evaluating the world, the less likely they are to find a correct answer — they will find some reassuring nonsense instead.
The actual idea of ‘thinking’ necessarily depends on some sorts of qualifiers. For example, if we take three different chess players — one who is 800, one who is 1500, and one who is 2200 — and have them look at the same puzzle, a medium-difficulty puzzle, you may find that the 800 will not solve it or take a long time, the 1500 will solve it with some time, and the 2200 may solve it very quickly. These hypothetical players demonstrate that there are many modes of cognitive evaluation, but in such a skill-based matter as chess, processing speed seems to be a particularly big factor. We seem to evaluate the same information at different speeds, and our ability to solve problems depends on how we use our mind.
On top of processing speed, I wish to make a strong case for openness, or abstract creativity, as a way of assessing what determines right thinking. One may be as dull as a computer in the way they assess things, but such a person’s range of possible thoughts is limited by their lack of imagination. One may be the smartest person in the room, but, doomed by a lack of stories to tell, a lack of personality, and a lack of social awareness, they too start to feel obnoxiously stupid. A person who can become something in the moment, as a product of their intelligence, is a person who demonstrates an independent, nonconformist mode of thinking. These people go on to become spiritual voices of reason.
What we have established so far is this: one cannot assume that there’s no right way to think. Furthermore, right thinking is emotionally uninvolved, at least with regards to itself, because one cannot have an egoic conception such as “I am thinking rightly now”. What we must do is fight our thinking, self-correct until we understand what we’re doing rightly and wrongly. One can think their way into a ditch very easily, but imagine what that same person must do to think themselves out of that ditch? A sorry sort of world it is for the people who assume things. An even sorrier world it is for the people who believe dogmatically in their assumptions, and have no desire to change their dogmas.
To explain the distinction between ‘right thinking’ and ‘assuming things’, we have to simply understand what core beliefs we hold, why we hold them, and whether they’re capable of standing under scrutiny. In Buddhism, right thinking refers specifically to non-attached, higher thoughts, which must never find themselves polluted by anger, sadness, jealousy, lust, or any other negative emotions that may bring us down. Gautama Buddha approached every person, every problem, every experience, with an effervescent love — and nothing could move him from this love. Do we understand how we could possibly be so enlightened that, no matter what we feel, internally there is a joy which could not be extinguished? Could we really comprehend such selflessness?
An assumption leads us astray — it is not something we can know for sure. This is why the two byproducts of overthinking, which are hypothetical thinking and speculative thinking, simply do nothing at all to help progress our reasoning. Thinking about “what could be” is not as useful as thinking about what most certainly will be. Furthermore, thinking about “what might be” is exactly the same as gambling, in that we are creating possibilities in our heads that are based on intuition, not reason. This leads us astray because, again, we get attached to our mental possibilities. They bring us down the world of “fantasy-land”, comforting but ultimately false. What we think, we bring into the world, so we must be careful as to how we end up acting upon the thoughts we have.
What one must do when they think seems simple enough — they must follow a train of thoughts that are all interconnected, and, supposing they are thinking meaningfully, they are not simply thinking things for the sake of doing so. I know many people who indulge in egoic, irrational, obvious thoughts.
The problem is that when most people think, they think with a sense of self-righteous certainty, wherein they assume that their opinions matter more than the opinions of others. Furthermore, especially in divisive matters, people tend to have no independent thought at all — a group cannot speak for us if we hope to be AT ALL intellectually honest. If one is to have a good mode of thinking, I would argue that they must be able to reason entirely on their own feet, with their own mind, and they must consider every possible side and argument.
With that being said, I am interested in hearing what others might say about this topic. I am very interested in how people actually think.
Thank you.
