Right, this shouldn’t take long. Because you can’t think about the absence of
thought, can you; so how can you think about its origin? And of you can’t trace its beginning, how can
you map its history? It’s like the old
Irish joke: “You shouldn’t really be starting from here.”
Stanley Kubrick had an answer: a big black monolith
suddenly appears amongst a bunch of hitherto thoughtless hominids; its mere
presence triggers Thought – and we jump-cut 2,000,000 years. It’s a masterly bit of myth-creation, but it
begs the question. Whoever put the
monolith there must have thought about it first.
I think of thought (ha!) as boiling down to two words:
‘why’ and ‘if’. ‘Why’ looks to the past,
trying to explain, ‘if’ to the future, trying to predict: the important thing
is that to be thinking, you have to be able to do it with your eyes shut.
So, the history of thought? Well, from Kubrick’s apeman’s realisation
that if he used that bone in that particular way, then this consequence would
ensue; through the discovery by the likes of Socrates that you could think
about the abstract as well as the particular; all the way to the boundless
scope of artistic imagination and the consciousness-expanding potential of
digital technology – there’s certainly been a lot of it. (And I haven’t even mentioned ‘Deal or No
Deal’.).
But I’m not sure thought itself has really changed that
much. It’s broadened its range of
subject matter, obviously; but has it expanded its basic toolkit? Has it deepened? Did we become better thinkers over the millennia,
as we civilised ourselves?