Is stable thinking possible?
I beg to differ. Mainly on the premise that fluctuations to our emotional core are evident and recurring. If indeed it is possible to achieve a harmonious plateau set of emotions, then novel experiences are impossible, given that thought patterns have been established. Drug or religious experiences ascertain this claim, as it transcends the thinker to a different level playing field of thoughts, challenging the citadels of conventional accepted behaviour. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to gauge the accuracy of human thought, as it is subordinated to a myriad of influences including human biases, incorrect information and distorted incentives. These influences at most is subjected to different time phases, different waves of public opinions that makes thoughts feel absolutely ‘right’ at the instant.
Stability in thought is superficially attractive but assuming it is possible, that would only imply that the world is riven between rigid dichotomies of right and wrong, relegating all thinking to different status, according to ‘merits’. But truth is esoterically subjective. Since thinking is considered the medium to acquire this truth, thinking would then be redundant as ideas and opinions are marked undebatable. In the same vein of thought, stable thinking would merely imply ignorance and a refusal to update existing thoughts with changing tides rather than an acceptance of truth.
Perhaps, stable thinking in this sense requires a more precise, nuanced definition. Belief systems and life choices are more easily defined, as it is far more personal, harmless and assessing the weights of a life choice in stark contrast to another is tedious work and redundant. Stable thinking seemingly appears to be the exclusive domain for hard sciences in which phenomenon can be deterministically tested in laboratories. Which essentially puts stable thinking to the fore, as skepticism can be accurately tested when validating a statement. However, waves of opinions within the circles of scientists are existent, the burgeoning evidence and controversy of global warming ascertains this claim. Stable thinking makes sense in the short term, but remains obscure in the long term, but this could merely stem from inadequate laboratory equipments, of existing state of technology. Stable thinking seems to be a problem for the social sciences then.
Assuming stable thinking is impossible, disciplines such as Economics would be irrelevant to teach. Any attempt at such education would only be a means for indoctrination. In the standard economics textbook, capitalist markets are enshrined with remarkable fervour, over the insipid Marxism tenets that these staunch Western ideologues eye roll over. It’s intent to provide a grasp, gist of the subject, to teach real Economics, falls short to its overbearing contempt to its fallen opponents that fail to make a page in the Allied forces’ accounts. Subjects like these hide behind the safe banners of being ‘subjective’, begging free from any further scrutiny. They continue to strut with a false earned sense of pride, when they are merely a character of the erratic moodswings of times.
Stable thinking both when understood and misunderstood have deep-seating ramifications. Consistency in thinking, allegedly validated by fresh piece of evidence, would appear to be a modest attempt at framing truth. But there is a possibility of putting best at second best. Just a thought.