>What’s better – acting without thinking, or thinking without acting? Posted on May 8, 2010 by thebigqs One comment Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Related Philosophy Posted by Robin
>The only effective answers to this question must be ambiguous. That's because the answer will always depend on who you are, how you judge what is better, and what you are talking about.For example Marx thought that there was little point in thinking something unless you acted on it. Yet many Greek philosophers thought they were the 'creme de la creme' of society simply because they thought. Hence it is firstly subjective. Who you are also affects how much you need to think. For example someone with anger problems may be better thinking. And whoever you are, your mind also affects the methods by which you judge what is better.Some actions have negative consequences. So if you're using a method of evaluation based on the results of your actions you will clearly say that those actions are bad. Yet of course without prior thought you cannot know which actions will be bad and which good; and that puts us in the realms of game theory.You could say that zero is always better than a negative, and therefore gamble by saying it is better to think without acting. Or you could say it is likely that the positives to be gained from action without thought will outweigh the negatives to be gained from other actions without thought.In addition some people define action and thought differently. If you think something and then write it down, have you acted on it or not?So the answer basically depends on multiple factors and will always change between different people.