>What these fools did, as Mach has said, was to save their successors the trouble of thinking. If they had worked solely in view of an immediate application, they would have left nothing behind them, and in face of a new requirement, all would have had to be done again. Now the majority of men do not like thinking, and this is perhaps a good thing, since instinct guides them, and very often better than reason would guide a pure intelligence, at least whenever they are pursuing an end that is immediate and always the same. But instinct is routine, and if it were not fertilized by thought, it would advance no further with man than with the bee or the ant. It is necessary, therefore, to think for those who do not like thinking, and as they are many, each one of our thoughts must be useful in as many circumstances as possible. For this reason, the more general a law is, the greater is its value.
Mr T>it gives me another way of looking at the problems in our society. i think that our KISS habit amounts to an ‘economy of words’. the economy of thought is moving us towards ‘everything is One’ while the economy of words is moving us to jargon whose individual words unfold into a story and each person reading them has to supply their own version of the story. within the story are many more words, whose meaning is of the same vintage as when those who do not like thinking were told what they meant.
Mach, in this snippit has made a couple of logic flaws.
1) He seems to feel that There is one thing happening inside the skull and one outside.
2) He has not considered all the possibilities.
call it extrinsic/intrinsic, whatever
As to 1) there are two things happening inside the skull and one outside.
As to 2) there are 4 possibilities, not 2.

Inside the skull are two processes, top down and bottom up
top down (binary, serial, whatever) leads him to believe there are people who like to think and people who don’t.
1) people who like to think
2) people who don’t.
This is, in and of itself, kiss thinking.
As I see it (boolean, parallel whatever)
HOWEVER, if you work the logic both ways (bottom up) there are 4 possibilities.
1) people who like to think
2) people who don’t
3) people who won’t
4) people who can’t
both views are valid, but bottom up is the more complete. By complete, i mean we have reached the limit of mankinds cognitive abilities. (inside the skull only, which may not be an absolute limit.)
for instance, you contrast thought and words, you seem to be mixing oranges and orangutans.
thinking contrasts with musing
words contrasts with symbols.
thinking goes with words
musing goes with symbols

It’s an equation with these parameters. Philosophy, simply put, is a seemingly endless debate over what side of the equals sign to put the parameters on. A worldview is just different words used to describe these parameters, and determine the right and wrong side of the equals sign to put these words on.
Oranges and orangutans is an interesting topic by the way, I’ll do a post on them. Oranges


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: