1 Comment

"against thinking about [X]" is ultimately "against thinking", which is equivalent to arguing in favor of idiocy.

also, it involves the idea that thinking is always a voluntary process, and while one can deliberately start considering an issue, i.e. thinking about a specific matter, thoughts usually flow freely, seeding from each other, from sensory stimuli.

while Plato's thoughts about ideas being more fundamental than substance might be unactionable, it's at least a source of inspiration, which might lead to something actionable. they could invite other thoughts such "what if thinking itself is somehow primordial, independent, moving on its own (will?) ?"

in the opposite direction, one could argue that any thinking that does not result in dollars and cents is just a waste of time, parasitic and despicable. even thinking that leads to scientific or technological breakthroughs might be seen as such, if it doesn't make rich the person who thinks. along this line, one could eventually reject your whole reasoning above through reductio ad absurdum.

finally - a side thought, unactionable - this kind of talk is sooo teenage-ish. i can think, actionably, that it could prove interesting in the form of a live debate among friends, after a sufficient amount of alcohol has been ingested.

Expand full comment