Analysis and synthesis: modern thinking and its drawbacks
About the focus on inessentials and the neglecting of holistic approaches in modern thinking.
Analysis breaks issues down into parts, but what we also need is synthesis to see the wholes.
There is no doubt western technology and culture have had a profound effect on the world. Globalisation kick-started under the guidance of western colonial powers and later the USA. Technological inventions and medical progress took away lots of drudgery under which previous generations have always suffered. Nowadays we can focus more on hobbies and self-realisation in our spare time. Our lives became more complex, but also more exciting.
The meteoric rise of the western world began about 500 years ago when Renaissance and the re-discovery of Greek scriptures initiated the artistic and scientific revolution in Europe. It all culminated in the 18th century when the accumulated, economic wealth from oversea colonies and the scientific progress launched the Age of Enlightenment in which the growing and aspiring middle class, called bourgeoisie, had time and the resources to dedicate itself to intellectual topics. After the next two and a half centuries of countless wars, industrial revolution, further scientific progress, two World Wars, the Cold War and developments in telecommunications we ended up where we stand now.
The modern world view at its core is based on that Age of Enlightenment from the 18th century that put to the fore the power of reason as the main motive for human interactions and decision-making. It’s about the development of intellectual faculties of the human mind instead of relying on emotional wishful thinking and dogmas as it was prevalent in medieval Europe. All science and philosophy is based on reasoning and logics. With regard to consciousness development it’s the unfolding of mentality and its resulting effects on society that have defined our current modern era.
Thinking and reasoning are common human faculties, regardless of geography and ethnicity. Any culture can utilise the powers of intellect to benefit society and the world. It’s just that a short while ago the West triggered the process and has been benefiting from the role as a pioneer.
It’s the pioneering intellectual ways of the Age of Enlightenment that have built the modern civilisation and culture, producing scientific methods, technological inventions, division of labour, mass production etc. that have benefited the world and initiated the modern phenomenon of globalisation which other nations were able to incorporate into their own cultures and modes of living. Some attempts worked out well, some were less successful. The global process continues to this very day.
What is so special about intelectual thinking?
Western (occidental) thinking in particular likes to break an issue down into its components in an attempt to understand it. This type of comprehending appears quite reductionist. You break down a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. This breaking down is actually the definition of the word ‘analysis’. If you analyse something, you break it down into pieces to check the various components that make up the whole. Contemporary knowledge is based on analysis. A frequent use of analysis is a sure sign of advancing mentality, because analysis is based on logics.
Analysis is about breaking issues down to its components.
The most primitive mind learns from daily experiences. To begin with those experiences are based on concrete objects and events, so there is no work of abstraction involved. Abstraction only ensues when we start applying logics to our fund of concrete experiences. That’s what makes planning and predicting possible, in short: an analysis. Then we are able to summarise our daily observations into recurring patterns or principles. Such a summary of recurring phenomena is a work of abstraction.
The work of abstraction summarises experiences into concepts, and logical analysis uses the concepts as units for thinking to break experiences and objects down for comprehension.
The goal of thinking is the creation of a mental system of thought, and the developing intellect only has incomplete information and incomplete experiences to explain things. That’s why thoughts in a developing mind are only loosely connected with each other. There are always gaps missing in our understanding. And the fact that we break things down into their components makes western thinking a pretty reductionist process.
Reductionism means analysing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simpler or more fundamental constituents.
However, reality cannot be pigeonholed only because our thinking is limited. There’s definitely something missing in the process of modern ways of thinking, and that’s the need for synthesis of ideas. What is meant by that?
Synthesis: the missing component in thinking
Synthesis is the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole. It’s about a holistic approach. It’s the opposite of analysis. In fact, synthesising should be the next stage in thinking after analysis. Once you broke something down into its components to comprehend, you then reassemble it to see the bigger picture. And the effects of a bigger picture are different than the effects of its component parts. You need to understand both to stand a chance of knowing an issue completely.
Synthesis is the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole.
If you just focus on the components, then your comprehension is reductionist and thus limited. You won’t be able to understand the wholes, only its parts. But reality works as an integrated whole. There are many parts in it, but we experience things and phenomena as integrated wholes and all processes are interconnected. Nothing stands in isolation to its environment.
That’s why we need both approaches, the analysing and synthesising faculties of the mind, to understand reality.
Western thinking has always tended towards more analysis and less synthesis. What we require is more synthesis. What does that mean in praxis?
A contrast between terminology and meaning
The analytical mind attaches much importance to exact definitions and words. Although exact definitions are immensely important to avoid confusion of terms, it also represents a risk that you get stuck with certain words and don’t realise that others might be talking about the exact same thing using different vocabularies and phrases of the same language. Then, if you can’t recognise the actual meaning behind words, vocabularies will present an obstacle for understanding.
The analytical mind attaches much importance to exact definitions and words.
Analysis gets stuck in terminology and definitions. A view into an encyclopaedia shows that you can jump from definition to definition, from author to author and read descriptions about what has been said about a certain topic by this author at this time and another author at that time. The actual ideas or meanings behind the authors’ statements won’t be extracted and summarised in a completely new article, it will only be a repetition of what has been said on a topic and by whom in a chronological order. There won’t be any interest in the actual reality import of the authors' ideas and thoughts.
A synthesising mind would proceed to do exactly that. It would look behind the words and terminology in search of the actual meanings and references to reality. Then it would summarise (synthesise) those meanings from what this and that author said at this and that time, acknowledging when they meant in fact one and the same thing. The gained insight could be re-formulated in modern words in a completely new article as an instance of timeless realisation.
There’s one more problem with putting too much emphasis on vocabularies. It’s the fact that we all too often attach emotions to our ways of thinking.
Emotionality in thinking
The main obstacle to correct thinking is our emotions. They intermingle with our thoughts and as a result it’s difficult to think objectively when we are emotionally attached to thoughts. Whenever we find out that our cherished illusions and beliefs might be indeed wrong, we get nervous and upset in an attempt to deny the truth to ourselves. We ignore better arguments or don’t even care about facts if they contradict our solid opinions and views. That’s definitely not the right way to be genuine about reality.
Emotional thinking makes us deny facts that don't suit our opinions.
Intellectual development has two aspects: on the one hand we need to foster the ability of synthesis so that we get to the actual meanings and ideas behind the words. On the other hand we need to become more independent from emotion, so that thinking is free from personal desires, wishes, false beliefs and other emotional tins of the personality.
