I think the question ought to be, what is rational thinking, because by introducing reason you have at least some common ground to start with. Otherwise it's so broad as to not be meaningful, 'thinking' in the loose sense being simply all of the spontaneous activities of any mind.

Thinking is generalizing, abstractive, associative, contextualizing, reflective,,logical, analogical, dialogical, dialectical, imaginative, conjectural, speculative. rational, irrational.

In the context of philosophy, thinking is reflective inquiry / practice (e.g. freethought – interrogating '(one's own) biases prejudices assumptions traditions ideals' in order to lucidly 'think for oneself' contrary to prevailing 'groupthink & dogmas'), such that to think is, with sufficient grounds, to question (categorical) questions and/or to problematize (hypothetical) problems. Understanding (adaptive over above maladaptive uses of) incomplete / insufficient knowledge , not accumulating (calculative) knowledge itself, is the infinite task (horizon) of thinking ... and, though not often enough, a fortuitous accident of (attentively) lived experience.

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. In fact, its fairly interesting to see that the more you read/comprehend philosophical books and what not, the more you indulge in their (their being the person who wrote the book) thinking, which eventually leads to a loss of personal inquiry, or personal growth. A little like a chess master vs someone naturally talented at chess: one is recognizing patterns/arguments and resolving them with tried and true logical pathways, the other is relying on his gifted logical capacities to guide him.

It's what we are most intimately acquainted with out of all phenomena, but is most difficult to say anything which is not trivial or obvious.

Being stuck to this, it seems to me that thinking is an activity of the brain, which accompanies self-reflection and is carried out almost constantly in waking life, and if you count dreams too, then it appears as if we think most of our lives.

When we say we had a thought, we imply we are taking out a slice of the activity of thinking and articulating it specifically, and so it "freezes" thinking in place.

As for "philosophy", this becomes terminological more than factual, and we tend to say that certain types of thoughts pertain to issues continuing to the beginning of humanity: what is a self, what is the will, what is an object, what is the right thing to do, what is experience, and so on.

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. In fact, its fairly interesting to see that the more you read/comprehend philosophical books and what not, the more you indulge in their (their being the person who wrote the book) thinking, which eventually leads to a loss of personal inquiry — john27

You have named an important truth (an over-used word): knowledge production and transmission is a social project. "New" ideas, inventions, art works, scientific discoveries, etc. are built on the advertent and inadvertent contributions of others. That takes away nothing from those who hatch new work.

knowledge production and transmission is a social project. "New" ideas, inventions, art works, scientific discoveries, etc. are built on the advertent and inadvertent contributions of others. That takes away nothing from those who hatch new work. — Bitter Crank

Mm. Although I think a retention of individualistic thought should be somewhat prioritized, even if at times it's not necessarily possible. You need to know how to walk before you run, after all.

All in moderation...

What is thinking? — Xtrix

Thought is cognition by means of conceptions.

Thinking (rationally), then, is the conscious act of synthesis of a diversity of conceptions in a logical unity.

And now you know.......

All philosophy involves thinking. — Xtrix

If you mean “philosophy” aspirationally.

Not all thinking is philosophy. — Xtrix

It’s a good starting assumption. Thinking may or may not turn out to be philosophy.

These two points together seem headed for a question like, “What makes some thinking philosophical?”, but instead you ask

What is thinking? — Xtrix

We could come back around now, and just say that it’s something that has within it the possibility but not the necessity of being philosophy. That’s not bad, but it looks like the goal here might be to understand what philosophy is, or understand it better, by understanding what thinking is better — so we can dangle philosophy out there as a possibility but we’ll have to decide whether to treat it as something already determinate or, what seems closer to what you intended, as something we figure out along with figuring out what thinking is.

So I’ll assume we’re not relying on a given understanding of what philosophy is and take a stab at what thinking is: it’s allowing thoughts to occur, to come to me. When I’m puzzling over a problem — people at work often find me just staring intently at things — sometimes I’m doing something like calculating: this can go there, and I can change that, and then this other thing’s fine. But sometimes when I’m “just thinking” I’m waiting, not calculating. And you have to wait in a certain sort of way, not forcing your thoughts into given channels. It’s a little like finding the perfect filter, one that keeps out stuff that’s no use, but doesn’t select a solution before the problem’s even clear. I don’t think there’s a method, in particular, for keeping out only what needs to be kept out, because associations and analogies are so powerful, you almost need to let everything in, somehow without getting distracted or bogged down. — And that’s a funny thing too, because of course just thinking might be daydreaming or musing, the sort of thing that undermines any sense of “distraction”, but you can also mull over a problem, which is a sort of focused musing. It is possible to be just thinking about something or not.

I think the filtering idea is off. The thoughts that come to you come for their own reasons, and some thoughts are up front about what those reasons are and some aren’t. (If they’ve come to help with your problem, you should see that in a flash; if they didn’t, that’s sometimes immediately clear sometimes not.) The ones that don’t immediately explain themselves are obviously often the most interesting. It’s very tempting to say that those are the sorts of thoughts that mark the beginning of philosophy. Maybe. If so, then philosophy would in some way be thinking that is truest to what thinking is, beginning in the allowing to come to you of thoughts that even once they’ve come haven’t fully arrived, can’t just be grasped and filed away for use in reasoning. I like reasoning, but it’s not what I’m doing when I’m just thinking.

I wouldn't say not all thinking is philosophy.

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis?

Thinking philosophically occurs in two modes: Purposeful (widely believed to be philosophizing) & Exploratory (aimless, seemingly random walks) and this duo covers all the bases and defines...the quest for wisdom.

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis? — Agent Smith

How could we do an appropriate analysis without thinking in a philosophical context?

An example:

Maybe we should confine rational thinking to mathematical thinking. I think this can be regarded as the highest form of pure rational abstract thought.

Of course, every form of thought has is own rationality and content, but in western culture, started in ancient Greece, it is the kind of rationality and reality founded by the Greek philosophers which finds its culmination in the world of math. The thought processes can be strictly defined and maybe even located in the brain. Which doesn't explain the joy or true nature of mathematical thinking though, because therefore you have to be a mathematician. Showing the neural correlate of a mathematical thought is not the same as truly having the thought. It's interesting to know how a mathematician thinks when seeing math formulae or how he or she arrives from visions, or sounds, to theorems. How, for example, proceeds thinking to show that there are only 17 different wallpaper patterns? Or how one solves that riddle of two man and woman on an island? They have to go to another island by a boat and both wives cannot stay alone with the other wife's man.

I think the question ought to be, what is rational thinking, because by introducing reason you have at least some common ground to start with. Otherwise it's so broad as to not be meaningful, 'thinking' in the loose sense being simply all of the spontaneous activities of any mind. — Wayfarer

I think there's a meaningful difference between more abstract thought and what's going on generally when we're talking to ourselves. To me, general thought is somewhat akin to action that is simply automatic, habitual, and not consciously directed.

So when I say not all thinking is philosophy, I'm getting at the distinction you're also making. But that spontaneous activity that isn't philosophy is still meaningful.

Thinking is generalizing, abstractive, associative, contextualizing, reflective,,logical, analogical, dialogical, dialectical, imaginative, conjectural, speculative. rational, irrational. — Janus

Wrong.

(kidding)

such that to think is, with sufficient grounds, to question (categorical) questions and/or to problematize (hypothetical) problems. — 180 Proof

Philosophy does seem inseparable from its questions. I think this is a distinguishing feature, along with the reflective aspect which separates it from other kinds of thought.

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. — john27

A little like a chess master vs someone naturally talented at chess: one is recognizing patterns/arguments and resolving them with tried and true logical pathways, the other is relying on his gifted logical capacities to guide him. — john27

I don't think I'm fully understanding this point. Are you suggesting some philosophy takes place as a kind of instinctual activity?

As for "philosophy", this becomes terminological more than factual, and we tend to say that certain types of thoughts pertain to issues continuing to the beginning of humanity: what is a self, what is the will, what is an object, what is the right thing to do, what is experience, and so on. — Manuel

:up:

Thought is cognition by means of conceptions. — Mww

I think that's too narrow. I'm not always thinking conceptually. Seems more that this is one kind of thought, not thought itself.

take a stab at what thinking is: it’s allowing thoughts to occur, to come to me. — Srap Tasmaner

Is this like saying that thinking is thoughts? Which of course the next question is: "What are thoughts?"

I wouldn't say not all thinking is philosophy.

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis? — Agent Smith

Well I would say we're doing philosophy right now, in asking and analyzing "What is thinking?" But that doesn't mean that when we're not analyzing, we're not thinking. That would be like saying that all language is writing. I talk to myself all the time, and not all of it is philosophical -- in the sense of being reflective or asking basic questions.



The Stooges. Underrated philosophers.

A baker does all those things too!

But bakers aren't philosophizing, nor philosophers.

I think the question ought to be, what is rational thinking, because by introducing reason you have at least some common ground to start with. Otherwise it's so broad as to not be meaningful, 'thinking' in the loose sense being simply all of the spontaneous activities of any mind. — Wayfarer

Yes, thought is being; I think therefore I am. When we think our minds move through eternity/God, as a fish moves through the sea. Intellectual philosophy is an activity of the intellect.

I don't think I'm fully understanding this point. Are you suggesting some philosophy takes place as a kind of instinctual activity? — Xtrix

No, although that is an interesting point. My point was that generally our thoughts aren't ours in a philosophical debate, which may or may not lead to an absence of "thought". The chess analogy was to demonstrate that the master is good because he's practiced recognizing specific solutions to a variety of situations, not necessarily because he's good at "chess".

Although there's a little bit of influence in everyone, so my observation only really has merit in moderation.
.

Yes, 99.999% of what we do is plagiarism!

Yes, 99.999% of what we do is plagiarism! — EnPassant

Well I wouldn't go thaat far, but...who knows. Maybe.

Wrong.

(kidding) — Xtrix

:ok:

No, although that is an interesting point. My point was that generally our thoughts aren't ours in a philosophical debate, which may or may not lead to an absence of "thought". The chess analogy was to demonstrate that the master is good because he's practiced recognizing specific solutions to a variety of situations, not necessarily because he's good at "chess". — john27

But isn't that like saying that everything we say is also not ours?

Regarding chess: I see mastery a little differently. I think the chess master is a master precisely because he's not theoretical, as perhaps a beginner might start out being. Like a musician, in fact. Anyone who's learned piano knows that you start with simple steps and basic theory (scales, etc) -- but the expert piano player no longer has to remember any of this. Both he and the chess master simply know what to do without thinking.

But isn't that like saying that everything we say is also not ours? — Xtrix

Mm, well like all things, I think it (it being the supposed fact that influences control our thoughts) performs on a spectrum. We're influenced by everything to an extent, but the strength of the influence varies. In philosophy, I think the strength of the influence of previous masters is especially strong.

I think the chess master is a master precisely because he's not theoretical, as perhaps a beginner might start out being. Like a musician, in fact. Anyone who's learned piano knows that you start with simple steps and basic theory (scales, etc) -- but the expert piano player no longer has to remember any of this. — Xtrix

Maybe. I ain't a master in chess, so I wouldn't know. I have a friend who is though, next time i'll ask him.

I wouldn't say not all thinking is philosophy.

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis?
— Agent Smith

Well I would say we're doing philosophy right now, in asking and analyzing "What is thinking?" But that doesn't mean that when we're not analyzing, we're not thinking. That would be like saying that all language is writing. I talk to myself all the time, and not all of it is philosophical -- in the sense of being reflective or asking basic questions. — Xtrix

It's, in my humble opinion, rather difficult to tell whether there's no philosophy or there is philosophy but no one notices there is.