Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Abstract thought...what is it good for?

Murray Hamhandler

21:34 / 06.05.02

Possibly a big-ass can of worms I'm opening up here. I guess we'll see. The question, however embryonic, occurred to me recently and won't go away. I want to know how (if one were to consider it so) abstract thought has been beneficial to the world at large. In other words, would the world at large have been better off if humankind had not acquired the capacity for abstract thought? I've given it a lot of thought and, in terms of actual, concrete results, it seems to me that the following has ultimately resulted from our capacity for abstract thought:

A) Benefits for humankind, quite often to the detriment of other systems w/in the living world, and...
B) Attempts to rectify the detrimental actions that humankind has wrought as a result of its capacity for abstract thought.

Arguably, humankind itself has benefitted from the fruits of abstract thought, but what about our world at large has been improved (or might ultimately be improved) as a result? I have some sketchy ideas about this at the moment, but I want to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. This is an honest (and, I realize, very big) question that I think is worth asking.
Arthur Sudnam, II

22:58 / 06.05.02

It is difficult (impossible) to say what it means to improve the world at large, because improvement itself only exists in the context of abstract, ambiguous thought.

Whether it has been good for humankind or not is a bit like asking whether being born is good for a person. I don't think I could be legitimately called a human being if I had no abstract thoughts.

03:10 / 07.05.02

Thinking outside the box.

12:48 / 07.05.02

I'm going to have to go home & check against Horkheimer & Adorno's book The Dialectic of Enlightenment but offhand it occurs to me that without abstract thought we would have no capacity for language, and hence no psyche, no culture, and no humanity whatsoever. Which makes the question pretty meaningless, like asking "what good does it do the human race to be genetically human?"

01:01 / 09.05.02

I think that the idea of Abstract thought/rationality being guilty of the corruption of the global ecosystem is questionable.
It is part of the reason the human has related with the world the way He has. Lnaguage (which allows us to comunicate ideas) and our unique opposable thumb (which allows us to use tools to change the world around us) have part of the "guilt"

But human has been careless with the world not because he can think, gut because the way he thinks. The greeks tought of man as higher than nature, and they shared that viewpoint with the romans; oin the other side jews and christians share the belief that Man was made to rule over nature. ?This belief was not shared by some cultures and religions, like the celts or the taoists. The conception of Man being higher than nature allowed occidental civilization to grow like it did, but it also led to the corruption and progresive destruction of the global ecosystems.

On fixing it. the technology is there to do it, it probably has been there for some time now. But as long as it doesn't serve the economical interests of the grey men, those who control the governments that control the world, it won't happen.

Just thinking, Norbert Schwartz

03:21 / 09.05.02

A number of organisms not capable of abstract thought have caused serious damage to their environments. Any virus, bacteria, or parasite that kills its host can be used as an example.