Writing is the activity of giving thoughts material form, with the use of signs and symbols. Written materials, such as books, essays and webpages, are the materialization of someone’s thoughts. Thus, reading represents the assimilation of foreign thoughts in one’s own mind.

While we read, our mind is similar to a puppet in the puppeteer’s hands — we have no control over it, we are “thinking” with the writer’s mind. Obviously, that is not necessarily a completely bad thing, for when the source of our thoughts dries up we need to feed our minds new material. But too much reading creates mind atrophy (incapacity of thinking and judging), and probably even addiction to thinking with someone else’s mind. Further, it encourages a sort of “argumentum ad verecundiam” behavior, in which people support their borrowed thoughts with more borrowed thoughts.

sponsored links

Constant thinking with someone else’s head (reading) is similar to constant car driving — it won’t be long until one has difficulties in walking on his own two feet.

The opposite of reading, thinking for oneself, is the pursuit of creating a coherent, whole system of thoughts. Even though its start might be slow, the system will grow exponentially as more knowledge from without is interpreted, catalogued and put together. And unlike thoughts and ideas acquired from books, the ones which have their origins in one’s own mind flow together of themselves into a unity of thought, knowledge and insight.

Thinking for oneself is the result of experience, conversation and a little reading. The art of not reading consists in thinking for oneself.

It is a shame to scare away one’s own thoughts through reading. It is the same as leaving the jungle and going to the botanical garden for the purpose of learning about plants.

It is true that we might get to our conclusions faster through reading than through thinking for ourselves, but the latter is hundreds of times more valuable than the former. It has context, flow, rhythm, depth and coherence — one feels at home in it.

* * *

One of the most important characteristics of the genius mind is that it thinks for itself, and only later on it discovers who the authorities for his opinions are.

photo by: Kamal H.


Liked this post? Subscribe for updates via RSS or email:
  • http://www.wellbeingandhealth.net Evan

    I think the situation is a little more complicated than this.

    We even think in ways we have learned from others. Reading can expand our knowledge – especially in areas we know well – without the trial and error of experience. It can save lots of time. Reading can also be the comparison of the writers thoughts with our experience – it need not be passive (in this regard using mind maps and putting the author’s thoughts in your own words can be helpful).

  • http://www.wellbeingandhealth.net Evan

    I think the situation is a little more complicated than this.

    We even think in ways we have learned from others. Reading can expand our knowledge – especially in areas we know well – without the trial and error of experience. It can save lots of time. Reading can also be the comparison of the writers thoughts with our experience – it need not be passive (in this regard using mind maps and putting the author’s thoughts in your own words can be helpful).

  • http://armannd.com/ Titus-Armand

    I know you read what I wrote, but please do it again — no offense.

  • http://armannd.com/ Titus-Armand

    I know you read what I wrote, but please do it again — no offense.

  • http://thejim.livejournal.com Jim

    That’s certainly an interesting take. I must disagree with you, though. The danger lies not in reading too /much/ but in reading too /narrowly/ on a given subject. In matters of philosophy, for example, one cannot simply read a single book and assume that everything in it is correct – your argumentum ad verecundiam point stands – however, reading a single view point is the real danger.

    The true freedom given by reading – and reading voraciously – is that it allows you to take in varying viewpoints on the same issue and synthesize those viewpoints into a new and – in some cases – wildly different point of view. Reading, for example, Aurelius, Nietzsche, Lao-Tzu and the Buddhist Pitaka would, using your assumption of the blind acceptance of print, provide the reader with a confused and blinkered world view. However, I see reading those texts as providing the reader the materials they needed to formulate a new person philosophy. It is only by maintaining orthodoxy with the texts that ‘too much reading’ is negative.

    When one reads philosophy and does not question themselves or the author, then they have failed themselves as Humans. The true nature of humanity is in challenging the orthodoxy of society. Orthodoxy leads to stagnation. Constantly questioning the status quo destroys orthodoxy and, by reading constantly, one must – by necessity of being Human – have questions raised that demand answers.

  • http://thejim.livejournal.com Jim

    That’s certainly an interesting take. I must disagree with you, though. The danger lies not in reading too /much/ but in reading too /narrowly/ on a given subject. In matters of philosophy, for example, one cannot simply read a single book and assume that everything in it is correct – your argumentum ad verecundiam point stands – however, reading a single view point is the real danger.

    The true freedom given by reading – and reading voraciously – is that it allows you to take in varying viewpoints on the same issue and synthesize those viewpoints into a new and – in some cases – wildly different point of view. Reading, for example, Aurelius, Nietzsche, Lao-Tzu and the Buddhist Pitaka would, using your assumption of the blind acceptance of print, provide the reader with a confused and blinkered world view. However, I see reading those texts as providing the reader the materials they needed to formulate a new person philosophy. It is only by maintaining orthodoxy with the texts that ‘too much reading’ is negative.

    When one reads philosophy and does not question themselves or the author, then they have failed themselves as Humans. The true nature of humanity is in challenging the orthodoxy of society. Orthodoxy leads to stagnation. Constantly questioning the status quo destroys orthodoxy and, by reading constantly, one must – by necessity of being Human – have questions raised that demand answers.

  • http://armannd.com/ Titus-Armand

    I agree with you, Jim. I was wrong in that I didn’t define a narrower target for my idea.

    Given that the vast majority of the world’s population does not question themselves, the author, or ideas presented to them and are, in your words, failed as Humans, reading too much is a sure way of getting confused. There are many industries exploiting ‘failed Humans’ and they all flourish — this is not hard to observe.

    When talking about fruitful minds though, your point applies.

  • http://armannd.com/ Titus-Armand

    I agree with you, Jim. I was wrong in that I didn’t define a narrower target for my idea.

    Given that the vast majority of the world’s population does not question themselves, the author, or ideas presented to them and are, in your words, failed as Humans, reading too much is a sure way of getting confused. There are many industries exploiting ‘failed Humans’ and they all flourish — this is not hard to observe.

    When talking about fruitful minds though, your point applies.

  • http://www.carshelpingamerica.org automobile donation

    The economy has such a huge affect on the decision.

  • http://www.carshelpingamerica.org automobile donation

    The economy has such a huge affect on the decision.