A friend gave me an article written by Suma Varughese which explains the differences between mind and heart thinking. Unfortunately the link is not working now.
And this link is on "This is John Galt Speaking" from Atlas Shrugged.
The first link espouses what the author calls heart based thinking, something that is holistic unlike head based thinking which could be egoistic and self centered. She says that heart based thinking considers multiple faculties including our intuition, intuition being the seat of all the knowledge that we have inside us but we something we don't realize we do. She believes that head based thinking will not consider issues of morality, ethics.
She cites the example of a person who gave up a lucrative job to take up social work.
That this could not have been possible had a person thought with his head (mind) only. The head would have weighed the monetary disadvantage of social work and would have dropped that option. And thus, a person may have missed his calling by being focused on the material advantages because he thought only with his mind. By letting the heart take control, one looks at other perspectives than just material advantages. There is more to life than just money. Can money give you peace, happiness?
Ayn Rand's link on John Galt talks about the value and goodness of mind based thinking. I have taken excerpts from Ayn Rand to speak for the head against Suma's heart in this debate.
One wonders. Which is better? Heart based or mind based? Are we not repelled by selfish, egoistic thinking? Especially when a person don't pay any heed to the pain he causes to others because of his actions? For example, what do we think of a banker who won't lend to a man whose wife needs urgent medical treatment?
Is there a simple answer to this question? Or does it depend on the circumstances? Sometimes head and sometimes heart?
When I read both the articles above (Suma's and Ayn Rand's), I realize that there is a third factor which is relevant to answer the question (is head better or heart better?). Both head based and heart based thinking are capable of expecting things from others for free. This nature of man "of expecting to be subsidized" is the factor that is unacceptable. One's need does not give a right. This may not necessarily be an issue of either the head or the heart.
Ayn Rand brings this very important third factor somewhere else in Atlas Shrugged:
I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. - John Galt's pledge.
Not every man who thinks with the head lives by the above rule. Nor every man who thinks with the heart.
The important factor that Suma seems to have missed is the last phrase in the quote above - "nor ask another man to live for mine". When this rule is part of a man's head, what issue would Suma have with head based thinking?
Suma brings out the example of Gandhian thinking, of his belief in ahimsa (non violence), simplicity and frugality, all of which she says are incompatible with head based thinking. I disagree with this. When did head based thinking espouse violence - did John Galt and his cronies indulge in it? Did they condemn violence or were they ambivalent about it? Do we know the number of people who think with their hearts and can't live without pleasure? When did simplicity and non violence become a copyright of heart based thinking?
Suma's says that the violent revolutions in France and Russia were a product of head based thinking. I object again. Violence is NOT a product of head based thinking. So, do I mean all heart based thinkers are violent? Again NO. Violence, simplicity, frugality are other dimensions of our personality which are not a subset of either heart based nor head based thinking.
Take all the people jailed for violent crimes. Take the rapists. Does a rapist think, plan and execute a rape? Does he think with his head? What about the other criminals? I believe that thinking with the head is denounced too much and the heart based thinking is revered more than it ought to. Both head and heart people are capable of being criminals, of not living frugally or starting a violent revolution. The head not being used primarily in decision making does not in itself make a person good or clean.
Take Ayn Rand's philosophy without John Galt's pledge. Hank and John may be no different from the "moochers".
We have to understand one thing. That the core issue of ahimsa (and smaller issues of frugality, simplicity) is independent of both head and heart based thinking.
If ahimsa and John Galt's pledge are assumed to be a given, the right question to ask of a man maybe: "Do you believe in ahimsa and John Galt's pledge?"
Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-and-life-ayn-rand.html
The important factor that Suma seems to have missed is the last phrase in the quote above - "nor ask another man to live for mine". When this rule is part of a man's head, what issue would Suma have with head based thinking?
Suma brings out the example of Gandhian thinking, of his belief in ahimsa (non violence), simplicity and frugality, all of which she says are incompatible with head based thinking. I disagree with this. When did head based thinking espouse violence - did John Galt and his cronies indulge in it? Did they condemn violence or were they ambivalent about it? Do we know the number of people who think with their hearts and can't live without pleasure? When did simplicity and non violence become a copyright of heart based thinking?
Suma's says that the violent revolutions in France and Russia were a product of head based thinking. I object again. Violence is NOT a product of head based thinking. So, do I mean all heart based thinkers are violent? Again NO. Violence, simplicity, frugality are other dimensions of our personality which are not a subset of either heart based nor head based thinking.
Take all the people jailed for violent crimes. Take the rapists. Does a rapist think, plan and execute a rape? Does he think with his head? What about the other criminals? I believe that thinking with the head is denounced too much and the heart based thinking is revered more than it ought to. Both head and heart people are capable of being criminals, of not living frugally or starting a violent revolution. The head not being used primarily in decision making does not in itself make a person good or clean.
Take Ayn Rand's philosophy without John Galt's pledge. Hank and John may be no different from the "moochers".
We have to understand one thing. That the core issue of ahimsa (and smaller issues of frugality, simplicity) is independent of both head and heart based thinking.
If ahimsa and John Galt's pledge are assumed to be a given, the right question to ask of a man maybe: "Do you believe in ahimsa and John Galt's pledge?"
Additional reading:
http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2012/05/death-and-life-ayn-rand.html
