Observe and don't just see, listen and don't just hear, understand and don't just learn. Such is said to us in our growing years..by parents, by teachers. These are supposed to make us more empathetic , responsible and sensitive human beings. However in the process, somewhere our so called intellectual minds start over-doing it.Don't we start searching for a reason when none exists? Don't we start looking into things "in-depth" and "analyzing", "slicing-dicing" every bit of information we see, every bit of response that we get from our surroundings and every individual whom we get close with? We cannot simply accept things at its face value. If we get ill-treated by someone, betrayed by someone, we still keep on finding reasons and more intricate reasons that "there must be some legitimate reason for the person doing that". And somehow that "legitimate reason" has to be as close as possible to what we would like to believe, something that would not challenge our own judgment And on the contrary , when something good happens to us or is about to happen, we still can't accept it wholeheartedly.We always try to find out reasons and more reasons, rationales and more rationales...So why, what, when, where..questions pop-up just like that!! Our intellectual, superior minds, minds taught to scrutinize each and every thing can't accept anything which is blunt.
Going by how human mind processes what it sees, there have been distinctively two schools of thought.One , that of Descartes who was of the notion that belief and understanding are two separate processes. So , basically what he meant is that people , at first, consume some form of information and then depending on how they understand that information, they believe it/ disbelieve it.Descartes' argument is intuitively correct, as we would always like to "believe" that we are rational individuals.
This is also called the Cartesian approach.This approach typically also helps to say that one always had the option of processing the information before believing it.It does not question the purpose of the person on the other end , if he/she purposefully wants to divert the other. Descartes , as similar to many of the philosophers of his age, considered philosophy in the light of theology.His school of thought always supported the fact that human beings possess the capability of understanding something and then believing it. Hence, if you are a follower of the Church, that necessarily means you and solely you are taking an informed decision. Similarly, if you are falling for a wrong person,if you are choosing the wrong career for yourself , you are taking an informed decision and nobody else but you are responsible for it.
The Cartesian approach had been challenged by Spinoza who was of the opinion that there does not exist any parsing of the mental process. Hence, human mind has a single process, which is "believing" unless and until that is proven wrong by external factors.This approach, though looks quite unattractive and unappealing, led to various experimental studies and research later on.
So what is the default position of human mind?Well, following the various research that went on, now it has been proved that Spinoza approach is more correct. So , human mind believes first unless something happens to challenge the veracity of that.
Coming back to my initial question, if human mind "believes" by default, then are we seeing a delineation from the normal when the intellectual modern human tries to look beyond the face value and finally believes that which is not even stated?Is this a new phenomenon typical to the thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent, urban world citizen?That is the reason, some of us, and probably each one of us would have at least some unanswered questions about other individuals..why was she behaving like this..why did he say this..why did he do this...questions like this remain unanswered through out our life. We do not believe on the information we have, rather add on , may be some extraneous variables to the equation.Extrapolating more and more things are getting into us.
May be sometimes, simplifying things shows the right way.Accepting information at face value may not give a 360 degree coverage , nevertheless, an all round view is not necessary always and specially when that is going to be mostly based on hypothetical ,possible scenarios biased towards our mind's inclinations.Simplification of thoughts is required, even if that leads to hard truth.But dwelling again and again and over analyzing only burdens us.
Going by how human mind processes what it sees, there have been distinctively two schools of thought.One , that of Descartes who was of the notion that belief and understanding are two separate processes. So , basically what he meant is that people , at first, consume some form of information and then depending on how they understand that information, they believe it/ disbelieve it.Descartes' argument is intuitively correct, as we would always like to "believe" that we are rational individuals.
This is also called the Cartesian approach.This approach typically also helps to say that one always had the option of processing the information before believing it.It does not question the purpose of the person on the other end , if he/she purposefully wants to divert the other. Descartes , as similar to many of the philosophers of his age, considered philosophy in the light of theology.His school of thought always supported the fact that human beings possess the capability of understanding something and then believing it. Hence, if you are a follower of the Church, that necessarily means you and solely you are taking an informed decision. Similarly, if you are falling for a wrong person,if you are choosing the wrong career for yourself , you are taking an informed decision and nobody else but you are responsible for it.
The Cartesian approach had been challenged by Spinoza who was of the opinion that there does not exist any parsing of the mental process. Hence, human mind has a single process, which is "believing" unless and until that is proven wrong by external factors.This approach, though looks quite unattractive and unappealing, led to various experimental studies and research later on.
So what is the default position of human mind?Well, following the various research that went on, now it has been proved that Spinoza approach is more correct. So , human mind believes first unless something happens to challenge the veracity of that.
Coming back to my initial question, if human mind "believes" by default, then are we seeing a delineation from the normal when the intellectual modern human tries to look beyond the face value and finally believes that which is not even stated?Is this a new phenomenon typical to the thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent, urban world citizen?That is the reason, some of us, and probably each one of us would have at least some unanswered questions about other individuals..why was she behaving like this..why did he say this..why did he do this...questions like this remain unanswered through out our life. We do not believe on the information we have, rather add on , may be some extraneous variables to the equation.Extrapolating more and more things are getting into us.
May be sometimes, simplifying things shows the right way.Accepting information at face value may not give a 360 degree coverage , nevertheless, an all round view is not necessary always and specially when that is going to be mostly based on hypothetical ,possible scenarios biased towards our mind's inclinations.Simplification of thoughts is required, even if that leads to hard truth.But dwelling again and again and over analyzing only burdens us.
