define me

I sat over coffee with friends recently discussing the relationship of thoughts and actions. Particularly, our dialog centered on the relationship between theology and praxis in the life of a believer, though the content produced commentary on the larger issue. It seems that classic response to this pairing is that concept should lead practice. That is, we should do what we know to be right or put another way, people should have enough self control to impose the will of their mind on their actions. When we were children we said things like "I couldn't help it," which often precipitated a long lecture and a stinging backside. It was for this reason that I was stunned to hear that some at the table believed that his actions are what dictate his thoughts. Can this be? Was Bruce Wayne correct in his assertion that "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me." I have recently watched "What the "Bleep" Do We Know!? - Down the Rabbit Hole Quantum" in which the same type of assertion is made. Which is that we are more a product of our circumstances and actions in this nebulous web of existence than determined free agents in an actual world. Is an idea such as this even reasonable, for what initiates action but mind? Likewise what is the fate of truth in such a paradigm? Is this the newest edition of the chicken and the egg? Are we relegated to skepticism at best and nihilism at worst?
THE QUESTION: What is the relationship between thought and action, concept and practice?

Comments

[dallasbpeters]

Thought always comes before action. Always. It has to.

Now the relationship between thought and action is probably pretty complex and I will leave all that up to the big time philosophers and psychologists. Though it seems to me that there are two separate modes of operation built in us. Reactionary and contemplative. (Yet both of these modes require thought first. )

We are reactionary in that we are capable of making decisions with out conscious thought process. Able to make quick decisions on the spot. Hitting the brakes on the freeway to avoid a pileup, etc. Now the source of those reactions is what gets complex. How much is our environment responsible for how we are conditioned to react. How much is past experiences. How much is genetic. I won't comment on any of that because I have no idea what I am talking about. All I know is that we have a database of programmed reactions.

But we are also contemplative beings. Able to stand back from a situation cycle through our programmed responses and hold them up to what is right, what is best, what is selfish, what is beneficial. Take that information and act on it.

Which mode we operate in will be different for each person in each situation. So it is really hard to make categorical statements for an individual.

ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: Thought always comes before action.

[Andy]

What then is paul referring to when he says I always do what I hate and neglect what I love? Sure we have a plan of action where our mind is this sort of supreme being but what happens when we get off track. I would like to say that my mind dictates what I do all the time and on the electrical charges level I know it does, but everyone can think of a time in there life when they did something and it wasn't according to their ideals. "Oh what was I thinking?!" seems to be a pretty common expression.

[Ryan Young]

Interesting take on Paul. What I think we can know for sure is what he is not saying. Paul is not suggesting that somehow he acts in a way that he is unable to control, and that this behavior is what shapes his thinking. This is clear from his other writings. Yet he does admit to doing things that are not consistent with his beliefs, and this creates the question: How do we account for such inconsistency between though and behavior? Perhaps it is the will, the passions or the soul of the individual. Depening on your understanding of a self any one of these could be a plausible answer. It is in this way Andy, that we agree that within the universe of the self the mind does not alway reign supreme. What I believe is important from original post is that we are careful to not adopt a perspective that suggests that people do things they have no conceptual input into and that these actions then define what they would hold as conceptual truth. Perhaps an example is a child who endures physical suffering when he is young and as a result accepts the occurance of continued abuse on the grounds that my actions, which I am in no way responsible for, define me. Not only does this kind of thinking facilitate being victimized it also facilitates victimization. If one's actions, not directed by a conept such as truth, are allowed to form normative behavior (and therefore conceptual truth) for that individual what we find is a license for any sort of behavior imaginable on a grounds that lacks a foundation for truth and therefore accountability. Ultimately the issue appears to be whether or not conceptual truth needs to be the driving force in our lives or if we will allow self and all it's many behaviors to be the driver.