I had my eyes tested recently, and the experience started me thinking about the nature of human thought. An instructor I know once defined "thought" as "any electrical activity that takes place in the brain." According to such a definition, worms and bees think. I hope that human thinking is better than that of worms and bees. A better definition was suggested by Professor Anne Berthoff, who defines thought as "a mental apprehension of a relationship between an A and a B with reference to a C." (The Making of Meaning. Upper Montclair: Boynton/Cook. 1981. 41-47.) Berthoff's definition is a good starting point for an exploration of human thought. What I am interested in here is the nature of the "relationship." 

      Can Berthoff's "C" be interpreted as a list of possible relationships, relationships that function almost as lenses which our brains can put into use in the same way that the optometrist kept switching the lenses in front of my eyes? Although rather limited in number, these relationships (lenses) account for massive amounts of human thought. Studying them may help you brainstorm, outline, and find details to support your thesis. 

Physical Relationships

      Physical relationships concern the way we view the physical world around us. Although it is a complex question, many psychologists think that a child's comprehension of these physical relationships plays a major role in later ability to handle abstractions. 

identity [same/different] This (A) is an apple (B). 

higher (lower) than [vertical axis] The tree (A) is higher than the building (B). 

next to (around) [horizontal axis] The fence (A) surrounds the house (B). 

inside (outside) The seeds (A) are normally inside the orange (B). 

part/whole A porch (A) is an important part of a house (B). 

quality/characteristic of The house (A) is white (B). 

cause/effect Striking a match (A) causes a flame (B). [Note that A's and B's may be named by more than a single word. Neither "striking" nor a "match" by themselves will cause a flame. The relationship between words in a sentence is often very important; hence our work on syntax.] 

      Although the preceding list is not comprehensive, it suggests that much of our thought about the physical world can be analyzed (broken down) into these A, B, and C relationships. It also suggests that the relationships are not as simple as they at first appear. Some of the relationships are "either/or": something is normally inside or outside of something else; but other relationships pose questions of degree: how much higher is "higher"? This suggests that more than one type of lens may be in use at the same time. 

Multiple Lenses

      As we will see in the discussion of Abstract Relationships, the "either/or" vs. "degree" lenses are often fundamental, but even in considering the physical world, the relationships discussed above must often be refocused according to one's purpose. If I want you to locate a house on a block, I may say, "Go to the white house." (Quality/characteristic) In this case, the either/or lens may perfectly fulfill my (and your) purpose. But suppose my wife wants the kitchen repainted white? I'll get a headache waiting for her to choose from a continuum: pearl white, antique white, satin white, flat white, etc. (It was, I believe, Aristotle who said that definition can go on forever. At some point in our "reasoning," we have to decide when to stop.) Finally, there is another "lens," the negator, which can be clicked in (or out) as appropriate: "The house is not white." 

Temporal Relationships

      Temporal relationships are somewhat obvious, but they are still an aspect of human thought. The primary one is: before / during / after Sue arrived (A) before Bill (B). At the party (A), Bill met (B) Sue. Two months later (A), they were married (B). Although these relationships may seem too trivial to be discussed, it is important to remember that they MEAN only a relationship in time, not cause. (See the discussion of the post hoc fallacy in the section on fallacies.) 

Compounded Relationships

      Consider the following sentence: McDonalds hired retired people to make their restaurants a friendlier, family place to go. Several of the logical relationships discussed above are implicit in the sentence. McDonalds (A) caused/created employment (B) for retired people. Retired people (A; and all their characteristics) are now a part of McDonalds (B). 

Purpose (Why?)

But the sentence about McDonalds includes still another relationship -- a reason, or purpose, for the initial A B relationship. We can thus look at the initial A B relationship (McDonalds hired retired people) as itself an A which is related to another idea B (to make their restaurants a friendlier, family place to go) through the lens of purpose. Much of human thought is a complex embedding of initial A B relationships combined and then built onto. I chose the example about McDonalds because it suggests the importance of examining (and, for the writer, of explaining) the purpose of an argument or act. According to a presenter at a conference I attended, several years ago, McDonalds didn't hire retired people to make the restaurants more friendly. They did it because retired people are more likely to be responsible workers who will remain on the job for a while. (Teenagers tend to quit too soon, and the paperwork involved was apparently costing McDonalds a mint.) 

Manner (How?)

      Asking how something is or should be done is often a good, logical question. Students (and faculty and staff) often complain about parking on campus. Hence we get the statement, "The college [A] should build [cause] a parking lot [B]." This complaint is easy to make. But a class of my technical students took the entire statement as an A and related it to a B through the lense of "How?" This involved exploring numerous details, from the current use of parking spaces (and the cost of maintaining them) to the costs related to making a new lot. When the students finished their study, they changed their minds. They themselves decided that a new lot would be too expensive and not needed. 

Circumstances

      It doesn't take much thought to realize that circumstances may affect one's conclusions: Bill killed Bob. Conclusion: Bill is guilty of murder. But what if: Bob was trying to stab Bill when Bill killed him. Whatever the case may be, circumstances are worth exploring. 

Condition (if)

      Relationships of condition may be the most difficult of all to deal with because they require an understanding of an AB relationship either physically somewhere else or in the future, and then a predicted causal connection to another AB relationship, either here and now, or, more troublesome, somewhere else and later. On the physical level, relationships of condition are not too troublesome for most adults: If your mother (A) says "Yes," (B) I'll (A) take (B) you to the park. But with abstractions, conditional relationships are very difficult to comprehend: If increases (A) in the rate of Social Security payments are not decreased (B), the system (A) will go bankrupt (B). "Decreasing rates of increases" is difficult enough to comprehend. Add to that the "system," which is so complex that, for all practical purposes it too is an abstraction, and it is not surprising that many retired people fear that they will no longer be receiving Social Security checks. 

Relationships among Abstractions

      It is fairly easy to see the parts of a house or of a car, but what are the parts of the Republican Party? Is Pat Buchanan part of it? (part/whole) The physical relationships discussed above apply to abstractions, but in the world of abstractions, they are not as easy to deal with. (Abstract words refer to ideas or things which we can see physical examples of, and hence can only be understood through examples. For example, "love," "hate," "virtue," "intelligence," and "patriotism" are abstractions.) Note the problems in the following:

identity: The United States is a democracy. [Although many people assume that this is true; technically, it isn't. Because we can vote on major issues only through representatives, the U.S. is a republic.] Note that identity involves the basic "same/different" perspective emphasized, for good reasons, by Sesame Street. 

part/whole: The Christian Right will not support Bob Dole because he is too liberal about abortion. [The Christian Right is not only composed of several different organizations, it is entirely probable that many of its members disagree with many of the ideas of its leadership. The Christian Right is thus an abstraction. Some of its members, perhaps many, might support Dole for other reasons. Note that the name of ANY group of people often denotes an abstraction. What I have said about the Christian Right also applies to The Democratic Party, the NRA, the ACLU, "union members," "managers," etc.] 

cause/effect: Sex education causes promiscuity. [What is meant by "sex education"? Without specific examples of what would be taught, and how, we can have no idea of what its effects might be. And what is "promiscuity"?]

quality/characteristic of: She is an A student. [Is she a student who gets all A's; or is she a student who gets C's and B's but learns a lot? Perhaps the latter is the real A student?] 

comparison: A person with high IQ scores is more intelligent than someone who scores lower. [We still know very little about the human mind, and IQ scores measure only one part (part/whole) of intelligence. Besides, what does "intelligent" mean?] Comparisons, of course can be made in terms of any quality/characteristic, of causes and effects, and of parts and wholes. In a sense, we might even say that "identity" is the result of all possible comparisons that can be made about a person, thing, or idea.
 

      NOTE: Did you find this section confusing? Worry about it only if you did not understand ANYTHING. (In that case, you should come and talk to me.) Remember that the primary purpose of this section was to introduce you to the questions and problems of logic. Some people spend their entire lives studying it, and they are still confused. If you understood parts of this section, you should consider them in brainstorming, organizing, and/or finding details for your essays. Do you want to write about financial aid? What are the parts of it? What are its causes? What are its effects? (Or the effects of the lack of it?) Use what you understood, and don't worry about the rest. (You are, of course, welcome to ask about it.)