Which comes first, thinking, or the thinker?

The tradition of Western philosophy, at least since Descartes’ famously eloquent summary of cogito sum ergo, has held that the thinker came first. This seems intuitive enough; after all, there must be a driver first before there is any driving, just as there has to be a cook first before there’s any cooking. So naturally there is really a thinker, someone who thinks, in whose head thoughts are being constructed.

But Eastern traditions hold that thinking comes first, and that it’s a result of thinking that a thinker arises. Although perhaps not as intuitive, this can also make perfect sense; consider that stereotype of waiters and waitresses being actors and actresses – only in-between roles. Is one truly an actor (or writer, or artist) if one doesn’t do any acting (or writing, or art)? Would you be a “baseball player” if you didn’t even play any baseball?

one is only, say, the Queen of England if she truly does perform all the duties of that office. Likewise, it’s thinking that makes the thinker: The act first that then defines the title.

This seemingly easy observation has profound implications for the way we think, if we think about it deeply enough. In the case of our self-identities, these implications are quite unsettling, for it raises the question of whether we are who we actually think we are. Much anger in the world arises from what are literally thinking errors, often involving some aspect of self-identity.

In the most sensational examples, one often reads of racists who discover, to their horror, that they have ancestors who were of the very ethnic or racial group they hate. After a tough period of soul-searching, many give up their racism, although not always realizing how literally it was always “all in their heads.”

To find more interesting articles such as this one, visit www.world-best-article.com.