3 ms·
It's funny, I was going to point out in the essay that I think the exact opposite of what you said above: You have to write to think, but just because you write
by pmichaud 17y ago
It's funny, I was going to point out in the essay that I think the exact opposite of what you said above: You have to write to think, but just because you write, doesn't mean you've had big thoughts. It's necessary, but not sufficient.
- harpastum 17y agoMy parent and grandparent comments exemplify the true nature of the situation -- that writing and thinking are correlated, but there is no causation between them. Writing stimulates thought. Thought stimulates writing. One does not necessitate the other.
- zaidf 17y agoTo write anything beyond random characters, you have to think. The amount of thought can vary, indeed, depending on what you are writing. Even if you wrote the word "dog"--there are some units of thought(concious or subconcious) involved. On the other hand, we think without the physical act of writing all the time.
- dejb 17y agoI don't think taking dictation would qualify as thinking in the sense meant by this article. Pretty much any action a human could undertake would qualify if that was the case.
- scott_s 17y agoProgrammers can code to think. Illustrators can draw to think. Musicians can play to think. One can think without writing, coding, drawing or playing. But putting your thoughts into form makes a huge difference because it lets one build.
- pmichaud 17y agoYeah, I agree with you. I didn't get into it in the article because I was trying to be succinct, but you're right.
- h34t 17y agoI think it´s a substantial omission, not worth the value of being ´succinct´. Saying that ¨people who don’t write, are people who don’t think¨ is an insult to anybody who expresses their thought in music, social interaction, design, in-the-flow decision-making, etc. -- a very large number of people who have made major contributions to our world.
- tsally 17y agoYeah, I agree with you. I didn't get into it in the article because I was trying to be succinct, but you're right. It's a solid piece and it's important to be succinct, but I think in this case your succinctness might cause some readers to miss your main point. You might consider replacing "writing" with "the act of creation".
- electromagnetic 17y agoAgreed and I'd wholly agree with the general point of "if you don't create, you don't think". Humans by nature are data processing machines, our entire life is just data. We remember images because we have saved a biological jpeg in our brain, we remember words and sentences because we've got text and audio biologically saved. However it's the act of creating that distinguishes thought from action. When I write, or draw, or create a song I am creating something new. I'm creating data that has in essence never existed before. It's not a hard coded biological function and it's not something everybody does. The act of creating shows our distinction as individuals, and perhaps prove to ourselves and others that we're not just p-zombies faking our way through life.
- zaidf 17y agoThus my emphasis on have. You can do all of that to stimulate thinking. But you don't have to. On the other hand, you have to think to write(anything other than random letters, though even that might require some thought).