THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
It was formerly considered necessary for all books on the subject of
thought to begin by a recital of the metaphysical conceptions regarding
the nature and "thingness" of Mind. The student was led through many
pages and endless speculation regarding the metaphysical theories
regarding the origin and inner nature of Mind which, so far from
establishing a fixed and definite explanation in his mind, rather tended
toward confusing him and giving him the idea that psychology was of
necessity a speculative science lacking the firm practical basis
possessed by other branches of science. In the end, in the words of old
Omar, he "came out the door through which he went."
But this tendency has been overcome of late years, and writers on the
subject pass by all metaphysical conceptions regarding the nature of
Mind, and usually begin by plunging at once into the real business of
psychology--the business of the practical study of the mechanism and
activities of the mind itself. As some writer has said, psychology has
no more concern with the solution of the eternal riddle of "What is
Mind?" than physics with the twin-riddle of "What is Matter?" Both
riddles, and their answers, belong to entirely different branches and
fields of thought than those concerned with their laws of operation and
principles of activity. As Halleck says: "Psychology studies the
phenomena of mind, just as physics investigates those of matter." And,
likewise, just as the science of physics holds true in spite of the
varying and changing conceptions regarding the nature of matter, so does
the science of psychology hold true in spite of the varying and changing
conceptions regarding the nature of Mind.
Halleck has well said: "If a materialist should hold that the mind was
nothing but the brain, and that the brain was a vast aggregation of
molecular sheep herding together in various ways, his hypothesis would
not change the fact that sensation must precede perception, memory and
thought; nor would the laws of the association of ideas be changed, nor
would the fact that interest and repetition aid memory cease to hold
good. The man who thought his mind was a collection of little cells
would dream, imagine, think and feel; so also would he who believed his
mind to be immaterial. It is very fortunate that the same mental
phenomena occur, no matter what theory is adopted. Those who like to
study the puzzles as to what mind and matter really are must go to
metaphysics. Should we ever find that salt, arsenic and all things else
are the same substance with a different molecular arrangement, we should
still not use them interchangeably."
For the purposes of the study of practical psychology, we may as well
lay aside, if even for the moment, our pet metaphysical conceptions and
act as if we knew nothing of the essential nature of Mind (and indeed
Science in truth does _not_ know), and confine ourselves to the
phenomena and manifestations of Mind which, after all, is the only way
in which and by which we can know anything at all about it. As Brooks
says: "The mind can be defined only by its activities and
manifestations. In order to obtain a definition of the mind, therefore,
we must observe and determine its various forms of activity. These
activities, classified under a few general heads and predicated of the
unseen something which manifests them, will give us a definition of
mind."
The act of consciousness determines the existence of Mind in the person
experiencing it. No one can be conscious of thought and, at the same
time, deny the existence of mind within himself. For the very act of
denial, in itself, is a manifestation of thought and consequently an
assertion of the existence of mind. One may assert the axiom: "I think,
therefore, I have a mind;" but he is denied the privilege of arguing: "I
think, therefore, I have no mind." The mind has an ultimate and final
knowledge of its own existence.
The older view of Mind is that it is a something higher than matter
which it uses for its manifestation. It was held to be unknowable in
itself and to be studied only through its manifestations. It was
supposed to involve itself, to become involved, in some way in matter
and to there manifest itself in an infinitude of forms, degrees, and
variations. The materialistic view, which arose into prominence in the
middle of the Nineteenth Century, held, on the contrary, that Mind was
merely an activity or property of Matter--a function of matter akin to
extension and motion. Huxley, voicing this conception said: "We have no
knowledge of any thinking substance apart from an extended substance....
We shall, sooner or later, arrive at a mechanical equivalent of
consciousness, just as we have arrived at a mechanical equivalent of
heat." But, Huxley, himself, was afterwards constrained to acknowledge
that: "How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness
comes about by the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as
unaccountable as the appearance of the _jinnee_ when Aladdin rubbed his
lamp."
The most advanced authorities of the day, are inclined to the opinion
that both Matter and Mind are both differing aspects of some one
fundamental Something; or, as some of the closest thinkers state it,
both are probably two apparently differing manifestations or emanations
of an Underlying Something which, as Spencer says: "transcends not only
our reason but also our imagination." The study of philosophy and
metaphysics serves an important purpose in showing us _how much we do
not know_, and why we do not know--also in showing us the fallacy of
many things we had thought we did know--but when it comes to telling us
the real "why," actual cause, or essential nature of _anything_, it is
largely a disappointment to those who seek fundamental truths and
ultimate reasons. It is much more comfortable to "abjure the 'Why' and
seek the 'How'"--if we can.
Many psychologists classify the activities of the mind into three
general divisions; _viz._, (1) Thinking; (2) Willing; (3) Feeling. These
divisions, which result from what is known as "the tri-logical
classification," were first distinctly enunciated by Upham although Kant
had intimated it very plainly. For many years before the favored
division was but two-fold the line of division being between the
_cognitive_, or knowing, activities, and the _conative_, or acting,
activities, generally known as the Understanding and the Will,
respectively. It took a long time before the authorities would formally
recognize the great field of the Feelings as forming a class by
themselves and ranking with the Understanding and the Will. There are
certain sub-divisions and shadings, which we shall notice as we proceed,
some of which are more or less complex, and which seem to shade into
others. The student is cautioned against conceiving of the mind as a
thing having several compartments or distinct divisions. The
classification does not indicate this and is only intended as a
convenience in analyzing and studying the mental activities and
operations. The "I" which feels, thinks and acts is the same--one
entity.
As Brooks well says: "The mind is a self-conscious activity and not a
mere passivity; it is a centre of spiritual forces, all resting in the
background of the ego. As a centre of forces, it stands related to the
forces of the material and spiritual universe and is acted upon through
its susceptibilities by those forces. As a spiritual activity, it takes
the impressions derived from those forces, works them up into the
organic growth of itself, converts them into conscious knowledge and
uses these products as means to set other forces into activity and
produce new results. Standing above nature and superior to its
surroundings, it nevertheless feeds upon nature, as we may say, and
transforms material influences into spiritual facts akin to its own
nature. Related to the natural world and apparently originating from it,
it yet rises above this natural world and, with the crown of freedom
upon its brow, rules the natural obedient to its will."
In this book, while we shall fully and unquestionably recognize the
"tri-logical classification" of the activities of the Mind into the
divisions of Thinking, Willing and Feeling, respectively, nevertheless,
we shall, for convenience, use the term "Thought" in its broadest,
widest and most general sense, as: "The power or faculty of thinking;
the mental faculty; the mind," rather than in its narrower and
particular sense of: "the understanding or cognitive faculty of the
mind." Accordingly, we shall include the cultivation of the mental
activities known as Attention, Perception, Imagination, etc., together
with the strictly cognitive faculties, under the general term of
Thought-Culture.