What is Traditional Thinking?

Use this forum for book and reading discussion that doesn't fall into another category. Talk about books, genres, reading issues, general literature, and any other topic of particular interest to readers. If you want to start a thread about a specific book or a specific series, please do that in the section below this one.
Post Reply
Posts: 7
Joined: 03 Apr 2009, 05:37
Bookshelf Size: 0

What is Traditional Thinking?

Post by coberst »

What is Traditional Thinking?

If we added to traditional thinking the abstract idea of change our world becomes tremendously complex. The way we manage the complexity is that we create; we create by introducing generalizations plus other abstractions.

Philosopher, tycoon, philanthropist, author, and international political activist George Soros says in his book “The Age of Fallibility” that “Once it comes to generalizations, the more general they are, the more they simplify matters. This world is best conceived as a general equation in which the present is represented by one set of constants. Change the constants and the same equation will apply to all past and future situations…I shall call this the critical mode of thinking.”

Soros identifies the traditional mode of thinking with an ‘organic society’. He further identifies the critical mode of thinking with the ‘open society’. Each society must find a means to deal with factors that do not conform to the will of the members of that society. In a traditional society, even though it focuses primarily on phenomena that are generally static, nature can be obdurate.

In the traditional mode of thinking the central tenet is that things are as they have always been and the future will be likewise—thus they cannot be any other way. The status quo is fate and all we need do is learn that fate and to organize our lives in accordance. In such a world logic and argumentation has no place because there exists no alternatives.

When we examine the nature of epistemology--what can we know and how can we know it--in such a mode of thinking we quickly illuminate the advantages and drawbacks. In such a society there is no bifurcation between thought and concrete reality. There exists only the objective relationship between knower and known. The validity of traditional truth is unquestioned; there can be no distinction between ideas and reality.

Where a thing exists we give it a name. Without a name a thing does not exist. Only where abstraction exists do we give non-objects a name. In our modern reality we label many non-concrete things and thus arises the separation of reality and thoughts. The way things appear is the way things are; the traditional mode of thinking can penetrate no deeper.

The traditional mode of thinking does not explain the world by cause and effect but everything performs in accordance with its nature. Because there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural and between reality and thought there arise no contradictions. The spirit of the tree is as real as the branch of the tree; past, present, and future melt into one time. Thinking fails to distinguish between thought and reality, truth and falsehood, social and naturals laws. Such is the world of traditional thought and the world of mythological thought.

The traditional mode is very flexible as long as no alternatives are voiced, any new thing quickly becomes the traditional and as long as such a situation meets the needs of the people such a situation will continue to prevail.

To comprehend the traditional mode we must hold in abeyance our ingrained habits of thought, especially our abstract concept of the individual. In a changeless society all is the Whole, the individual does not exist.

The individual is an abstraction that does not exist whereas the Whole, which is in reality an abstraction, exists as a concrete concept for traditional thought. The unity expressed by the Whole is the unity much like an organism. The individuals in this society are like the organs of a creature; they cannot last if separated from the Whole. Society determines which function the individual plays in the society.

The term “organic society” is used often to label this form of culture. When all is peaceful with no significant voices placing forth an alternative then this organic society exists in peace. In this organic society a human slave is no different from any other chattel. In a feudal society the land is more important than the landlord who derives his privileges from the fact that he holds the land.

For 3000 years Egypt was an example such a society. This Egyptian society remained essentially unchanged until 50BC when Western society was led into a different mode of thinking by the Greeks and by Roman conquest.

Are you satisfied with the traditional mode of thinking?
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 17:58
Favorite Author: Mealea Mathews
Favorite Book: Great Expectations
Currently Reading: The Giver
Bookshelf Size: 8
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-rilentliss.html
Latest Review: "Our True Origin The Real History of Man" by Scott P. Davis
fav_author_id: 1967


Traditional thinking, as you said, is flexible. However I don't believe that thinking is the core reason for a static societal structure. It comes down to governments that decide often, what society is to think, and in effect, what each individual in a society should be doing. I do agree that an individual without the whole cannot last, since it is through partnership, participation, and memory, that an individual rises up in a society. However, there are many loop holes in traditional thinking, that stem from lack of reference, rather than lack of change. For example, we thought that what was or is, was and is not linked to what is not. This is false in regards to the atomic sciences, but also to things such as gravity, electromagnetism, and thermal processes. We cannot see the underlying foundations behind the physical, and so by mythological definition, that which we cannot see is therefore spiritual. It is now known that these processes are not spiritual, but ethereal. So change comes from an introduction to reference, by which humanity has always depended, to base and compare its truths.
Latest Review: "Our True Origin The Real History of Man" by Scott P. Davis
Post Reply

Return to “General Book & Reading Discussion”