TED Conversations

Blaise Jabo

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

one's thinking

One’s thinking
What you are thinking, I am thinking of it, or I have already thought of it and I might be about to think of it. Thinking is regarded as something from a personal perspective, argued to be unique, and of intelligent background. But I think as one might as well think too, that (thinking) is just as common as anything else, created around an environment that will give that thought a meaning, same way we cry at funerals instead of smiling/laughing, the environment will play a big role in whatever we are thinking, it stimulates us to think. So if two individuals are exposed in same environment there is a big chance for them to think about things in an almost same fashion, however it’s the application and presentation of the thought by individuals that makes the thought look different when it comes to the outside. Thinking comes from within us, the environment triggers us to communicate with it in thought; we create thought, shape it, weight it and give it a time-scale. The thought might be of the same to two individuals, but the shaping of the thought, the weight and its timing might be very different which in result appear as if the two individuals had different thought in the first place

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 12 2013: During the period of time leading up to our evolution to the species, homo sapiens, we may not have had complex thoughts beyond our basic urges to survive and procreate. No doubt we had developed an inclination toward community, but likely communicated through gestures; language itself was probably of a low order and limited to grunts and gesticulations.

    The banding together of the earliest 'people' would require the development of a rudimentary 'vocabulary', a common language. Members of even the earliest surviving groups would develop means to communicate with each other, and would work for the common good of the band; specifically, for it's well-being and survival. An awareness individual well-being based on the common purpose of the group would, through time, become inherent.

    As individuals within groups displayed specific abilities which increased the safety or the well-being of the group, they would undoubtedly assume positions of increased responsibility, and their ideas, their thoughts, would likely be adopted by the group. Their thinking would set them apart from the general mass, as long as it benefited the whole. The basic credo, however, would remain the betterment, or the status quo, of the group.

    A code of behaviour would develop, directed toward sustaining and improving the group's well-being. Individual thinking would be welcomed if it supported the group, and the willingness to accept new ideas would increase as new ideas proved successful. Eventually, the continued success of new ideas would tip the scales to the point where creative thinking was encouraged and rewarded, and old ideas would slowly be replaced.

    Although there are "...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."*, the maintenance of the status quo seems to be our guiding principle, and while new insights are widely offered and considered, our individual and group thoughts, much like those early bands of nomads, remain unchanged. *Hamlet
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2013: this is a really good point of view about this topic. Thanks a lot for your insights.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.