Why Should We Not Stop Thinking?

“Thinking reed. It is not in space that I must look for my dignity, but in the organization of my thoughts. I shall have no advantage of owning estates. Through space the universe grasps and engulfs me like a pinpoint; through thought I can grasp it.”

Blaise Pascal, Pensées

Introduction

One of the most gripping dilemmas in philosophy, as well as the natural sciences is the nature and existence of the thought. Blaise Pascal valued the ability to think as the crucial, defining factor of human dignity, because through our system of thought we can grasp the universe and therefore gain our dignity as a conscious part of it. In a broader context of Pascal’s Pensées, the first sentence of Pascal’s quote is a consensus of his claim that a human being is merely a weak reed – but a thinking reed. It is in thinking that Pascal finds human dignity. He stresses that one should look for human dignity not in ‘space’ but in the organization of one’s thoughts. Through space, the universe grasps a human like a pinpoint – ruthlessly positioning and defining his ontological status. This statement engages in discourse regarding human nature, epistemology, the philosophy of thought and our relation to the universe as humans. Moreover, Pascal’s claim stimulates the question, is thinking really a defining human quality and does it really allow us to comprehend the surrounding reality?

What is thought?

Pascal’s quote comes from a philosophical work titled Pensées which means ‘Thoughts’, perhaps referring to the idea of thought and inquiry as a medium of philosophy. Philosophy is by definition a ‘love of wisdom’, and wisdom is an ability to make judgements and decisions based on knowledge and one’s experience. In Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding David Hume claimed that we make judgements about our universe because of the impressions we gain from empirical observations-from these impressions we can extract ideas about our surrounding and organize our assumptions into an adaptable vision of the world. Hume used an example of remembering the interior in his room; his vision was built by various experiences of being in the room, seeing and touching all of its contents. This concept implies that what we are thinking about is what we derive from memory – our organization of thoughts is an organization of what we have experienced.

The word ‘thought’ derives from an Old English term ‘thanc’ which has three meanings; giving thanks, thinking, and memory. Martin Heidegger analyzed this fact in an essay titled What Is Called Thinking? and noticed that ‘thinking’ (etymologically) means giving thanks to entities we comprehend with our mind and preserve in memory, to what is there. The word ‘thought’ seems ambiguous, and can have many meanings; in Plato’s Cratylus, upon the analysis of gods names and their correctness, Socrates mentions that Athena’s name means Thought. Considering that the name of the goddess of wisdom and knowledge means Thought, it implies that thinking is the imperative of wisdom and a way to knowing. What Pascal implies in this quote may connect to the very idea of philosophy as a pursuit; through thought, we perceive the universe, create assumptions about what we see and therefore grasp its immanence into our mind. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari defined philosophy as ‘creating concepts’, actively fabricating systems of thought about our reality. Many scientists, such as Richard Feynman perceived science- as well as philosophy- as a creation of scientific laws and finding structure in our perceived reality. An extension of Pascals thought would be that through thinking also philosophizing, comprehending the universe one must look for human dignity.

Since we don’t have a concrete definition of what a thought consists of, Heidegger proposes that to answer the question ‘what is called thinking’ we must not define what thinking is, but rather define why do we think, what has been given the name of thinking and what characterizes thinking as a human activity. Thinking and analyzing the world gives a sense of stability and meaning; even if we are unable to completely grasp the universe as a whole, our organization of thoughts provides us with a structured vision of our environment. According to Blaise Pascal, no matter how we define thinking is a distinctly human quality which enables us to comprehend the universe and provides meaning for our actions – and a role in the universe.

In search of dignity

The term ‘dignity’ has connotations of given respect, a distinguishing quality that makes one proud. It seems necessary for human beings to look for their dignity, as we need to define who we are and what we represent. In Pensées Pascal also argues that one should not have any advantage in owning estates, as we should not look for dignity in physical space. But considering a capitalist system which we live in; a realism based on the value of status and material possessions this idea seems rather unrealistic. As Mark Fischer noticed in Capitalist Realism, in the modern world moral values has been replaced by feelings: feeling and looking good, presenting an expected image of a high-functioning healthy human; to gain social acceptance and therefore happiness, one must conform to this social norm and engage in consumption of material things.

However, Pascal’s claim may be supported by the philosophical thought of the Book of Kohelet, summarized by the notion of ‘vanitas’, which refuted the value of estates and material goods. In the Bible, the Book of Kohelet lists all the important values present in human existence and disproves their value by pointing out that each one of them will fade and will not last forever. Considering this idea, Pascal’s resolution seems rational – material possessions can be destroyed, but more importantly they can never determine human dignity despite playing an important role in our economical system. What defines dignity is the ability to think for oneself – that is perhaps the only aspect of human life that can never be taken away by anybody.

In culture, visions of the worst possible scenarios-dystopias- almost always portray terror through absolute control as the control over thoughts, the most private and defining human quality. Both George Orwell’s and Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novels featured a society deprived of creative and critical thinking. The deprive a human of their organization of thoughts is to deprive them of their personal universe created in their mind – and therefore of their humanity. Because of that fact, in Hegel in a Wired Brain Slavoj Žižek warned people against the ‘wired brain’ concept, e.g. Neuralink, consisting of a brain plugged to a computing device that could read thoughts and implement them into a computing system. Žižek argued that displaying everyone’s system of thoughts would destroy our culture, personal relations and almost every aspect of everyday life in society, because thoughts and private impressions would no longer be a mystery; in person communication would never be the same.

The main problem with modern technology and the use of artificial intelligence is that proximity of endless data discourages humans from thinking for oneself. In an essay titled What Is Called Thinking? Martin Heidegger stated that the most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking. This essay, published already in the 20th century could not be more up to date. Our ‘time’ certainly is thought-provoking, considering the rapid development of science and technology and current political affairs – yet paradoxically, we are still not thinking. Independent thinking obviously is not easy and comfortable; Socrates noticed that fact by pointing out to the similarity between the Greek words ‘mathei’ (meaning learning) and ‘pathei’ (meaning suffering), and he concluded that with thinking and learning new concepts comes great suffering, because wisdom is a practice of evaluating and doubting one’s beliefs, which eliminates the feeling of stability in life. However, his other conclusion was that the greatest wisdom is admitting that we know nothing, and moving forward from that knowledge. Despite the fact that thinking may be a difficult solitary activity (as G.W.F. Hegel defined it) we must not stop organizing and creating our thoughts, for as Pascal states there lies our human dignity.

Human, all too human

Upon scientific progress and broader understanding of our surrounding appears a notable question: what is our relation to the universe? As Pascal stated, the universe engulfs a human like a pinpoint; we are a part of nature and calling a human a reed may be an overstatement, yet an understandable one. If we consider what he called ‘space’, the three-dimensional space adding up to our universe, then the conclusion seems correct – as we are a part of the observable material universe, a cluster of atoms as well as any being in the cosmos. The idea of this ‘space’ grasping us like a pinpoint; positioning exactly and deterministically describing who we are corresponds with the facts we have about ourselves as a species – death is inevitable for humans as much as for any animal, and since birth we have a physical body which will deteriorate with time along with all of nature.

Pascal’s view of a human as a ‘meek reed’ was in opposition to the main thinkers of the renaissance era, who agreed with Protagoras’ thought that man is the measure of all beings. Pico della Mirandola also advocated shifting the focus onto humans, and positioning humans as the main value and a concept to be appreciated more than anything else. The focus on humans seems logical, since in philosophy as well as the sciences and art our main focus is ourselves. By knowing ourselves and, as Pascal argues, our organization of thought we can understand the universe. However, Protagoras’s idea may lead to dangerous dogmas which Friedrich Nietzsche addressed in Human, All Too Human.

Becoming ‘all too human’ is an aggravating perspective that stems from treating a human being as a center of the universe and all values. Nietzsche, as well as Deleuze presented this idea as a warning – one must never forget about our role in nature and how we are an integral part of it. Treating humans as superior to other beings leads to exploitation, abuse of power and eventually the loss of our humanity. Obviously, there are many factors distinguishing a human from other organisms – but as Roman Ingarden concluded in his essay On Nature, we gain our humanity by recognizing ourselves as a part of nature and positioning ourselves as an individual part of it.

Summary

Having taken into consideration all the points above, Blaise Pascal proves that our dignity as humans can be gained only through individual thought, through which we can understand the universe and therefore position ourselves in its realm. We don’t know if humans are the only beings that can formulate coherent thoughts, but we’ve surely made the most of this phenomena by enquiring into our nature by philosophizing and creating art, science and culture which materialize our thoughts to make them comprehendible for other humans.