Why It's Hard To Think Clearly In Our World

To think or to act? That is the question.

A Mug of Insights is 100% a reader-supported newsletter. Since you’re here already, consider signing up for a paid subscription for $5/month which will give you access to the full archive (posts are automatically archived after two months) and all of my extended essays with further reading lists. And on average, subscribers will get 50% more weekly posts from our regularly scheduled program. Thank you for your contribution!

---

As lifelong students, we must constantly balance theory and practice because either extreme will get us in trouble. But it seems to be the case that we’re living in a culture dominated by actions.

Hannah Arendt called this mode of living vita activa where actions remain how we affirm our existence. Under this view, our lives are not defined by routines, traditions and least of all the status quo. This heroic actionism needs to take priority if we want to break out of this anonymous process of living. In other words, resistance remains the only method of changing ourselves and the world.

But this view has a limit. According to philosopher Byung-Chul Han, if we’re solely concerned about vita activa, we risk letting our actions devolve into compulsion and repetition.  

Take the news, for example. Each new reportage seeks to push us to the edge of our seats and evoke drastic actions. If we follow this “endless stream of emergencies” (as articulated by the critic James Fallow), then we’ll begin to think like our in-groups with no chance of synthesizing a thoughtful response from multiple perspectives.

In our personal lives too, without consulting the past mistakes from history and biographies, we become blind to our deficiencies in the present. We’ll continue to act out our patterns if no alternative keeps us in check.

These are examples of what would happen if we don’t incorporate what Han called vita contemplativa into vita activa. Even if our actions are well-intentioned, they will

“remain a term of compulsion [that] becomes empty and [turn] into pure activity, leading to franticness and restless (Han, in The Scent of Time, p.98).”

Thinking clearly in this climate of action is increasingly difficult. The news wants us to make up our minds as soon as possible and self-help gurus want us to treat their words as gospels.

The general sentiment here is: don’t dwell on a problem for too long, just go with your first instinct. But this attitude denies that deep thinking is rarely linear and often moves in roundabout ways (Han, P.108), refusing to bow down to a quick conclusion.

In reality, if an issue is complex enough, then there will be two contradictory sides that we need to actively consider. The task here isn’t simply to feel secure in a solid opinion but to be comfortable enough to lean into that uncomfortable confusion for the sake of a more complete picture.

This isn’t to say that thinking is better than action. In fact, too much theory-building detaches us from what needs to be done. We will begin to feel isolated from the world if we fail to communicate our ideas in a shared language. And any idea, however brilliant, is ultimately useless if it doesn’t align with the world’s concerns.

So, in sum, balancing actions and thinking is difficult. As we explore more perspectives from our present politics and past histories, we might eventually conclude that to think intelligently is to synthesize the emergencies of today with the context of the past without subscribing totally to either.

Some days we need to lean into reading more than acting and vice versa, but if we take either to its extreme, the journey of lifelong learning will grind to a halt, turning into empty theories or rigid ideologies. In other words, to remain curious is to remain on the fence between theory and practice without letting one dominate the other.

And I am still searching for this balance in my life.

Until next week

Robin