Deep Thinking Questions

For truly deep thinking, questions have to get past the usual level of debate. We can, for example, stop looking at just how to solve a problem and question the existence of the problem. Instead of examining specific diseases, we can ask about the nature of the concept itself. These and other ideas are presented in the examples below. Pondering the questions raised can be your "deep thinking practice" for the day.

Is it Really a Problem?

Often a problem is a matter of perspective. It may not really be a problem at all, but a solution to a larger problem - if we consider it from the right view. High gasoline prices, for example, are seen as a problem that needs to be solved, because most people naturally prefer to spend less operating their cars. However, when we look at this supposed problem from a broader perspective, we can see something else. High gas prices spur the invention and production of other means of transport.

Suppose for a moment that governments all used subsidies and price controls to limit the price-per-gallon of gas to fifty cents. Who wouldn't drive more at that price, right? In fact, we would use more and more for years, until one day it would all be gone - reserves have some limit. Meanwhile electric cars or new fuels would not be available as alternatives, because they would never have been able to compete with such cheap gasoline. As the crisis hit, whole economies would face deep recessions or depressions.

This potential disaster is avoided because of the supposed "problem" expensive gas. When it costs four dollars per gallon, other fuels which can be profitably sold for three dollars can be developed - something which couldn't happen if they had to compete with artificially cheap gasoline. At ten dollars per gallon for gas, new kinds of cars and other transportation options will surely be invented and marketed. The high price is exactly what's needed to spur new and necessary transportation options.

Look in other areas of life for supposed problems which are actually solutions to larger issues. Consider "bad" situations or processes to see if a broader perspective suggests good effects.

What is a Disease?

Our pains and symptoms are very real, but what makes them a disease? When asking this question, and doing a bit of online research, I found that a "disease" is often an arbitrary labeling of a collection of these various symptoms. That people are anxious in public is a reality, for example. But did we need to name this feeling "social anxiety disorder?" Some professionals in the medical and psychological industries decided that anyone who has "intense fear during social interactions," "fear of being judged," and "trembling and sweating when thinking of meeting with others" has a disorder, and gave it a name.

Clearly the process of defining a "disease" or "disorder" is arbitrary at times. People suffering from an inflammatory bowel disease may have many different specific symptoms, for example. But those with certain ones will be diagnosed as having crohn's disease. Some diseases are defined by the presence of a specific pathogen, like mononucleosis (a virus in this case), but others are effectively defined into existence by those who then treat them.

Acne is real, as are obesity and the feelings teenagers have about both of these these. Why not invent a condition called "body-esteem disorder," identified by symptoms such as "avoidance of public activities due to concerns about one's appearance," and "extreme anxiety when being observed by peers." Then a new drug could be created to relieve the symptoms of this "illness" or "disorder."

Identifying - or rather creating - new diseases can be very profitable for companies which then develop and market new drugs which treat them. Has this process gone too far? Some other deep thinking questions to ponder:

Is it necessary that behaviors be defined as diseases or disorders? (The choice to drink too often is labeled as the disease of alcoholism.)

Does it make sense to call ways of thinking symptoms of a disorder. (And if one "trembles and sweats when thinking of meeting with others," couldn't he choose not to think of that, or do we have no control over our thoughts without drugs?)

Do Animals Have Rights?

I have a friend who would never hurt an animal on purpose, yet told me that people should be allowed to torture animals, including their pet dogs and cats. The problem was that his moral philosophy couldn't justify ascribing rights to animals, so he couldn't support laws which prevented people from harming them. Following only the logic of our current philosophies can lead to some ugly places, as this demonstrates.

We feel sympathy for animals - even if we kill and eat them (at least most of us feel something). We generally don't want animals to suffer, and most of us are comfortable with laws which criminalize animal cruelty. This seems to suggest a sense that all sentient beings have some "rights." Are these differentiated only be the degree of development in each species?

Some other deep questions this leads to have to do not only with our moral relationship to animals, but to other humans who are no more developed than some animals. The concept of rights in general is raised by examining the morality of how we treat animals. Of course, logic alone may mislead us, but feeling also seems like a shaky basis for moral codes. Some European communities used to feel perfectly fine burning bags of living cats for entertainment. Do animals have rights? On what basis? What does that say about our morality and human rights?

More Deep Thinking Questions

Consider any principle, whether the mundane, "clear nights are colder," or the more philosophical, "using force to silence a person is always wrong," and you can probably imagine a realistic scenario which contradicts that principle. Are there any absolute principles? What are they? Are there only probabilities?

Authority slavery is one of the biggest enemies of truth. So said Albert Einstein. How should we relate to leaders in the various areas of scientific knowledge and industry? Believing those who know more about a subject than us seems reasonable, yet we know these "experts" can be - and often are - incorrect. Perhaps to benefit from their expertise while being open to new ideas, we could we train ourselves to see such people not as authorities, but as "higher probability sources" of truth or valid information.

We say people are "under the influence" of drugs or alcohol, but we don't really have a similar expression for those who are intoxicated by an idea or philosophy or opinion. Do we underrate the addictive and potentially destructive power of ideas over human beings? If we accept that there is a difference between having a belief and being controlled by one (it having us), how do we distinguish the two?