Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged

Who is John Galt? Saatat olla kuullut kysymyksen, mutta tiedätkö vastauksen? Tämä kysymys toistuu ensimmäiset 600 sivua Ayn Randin 1168-sivuisessa mestariteoksessa Atlas Shrugged. Maailma näyttää menevän erikoiseen suuntaan ja vastuunkantajat ovat vähissä. Tapahtuu asioita, jotka ovat ihan kuin tästä maailmasta. Konkreettisia esimerkkejä pienistä asioista, joissa ihmiset toimivat ajattelemattomuuttaan väärin ja välinpitämättömästi. Dagny Taggart tarinan päähenkilönä yrittää kaikkensa, mutta ei saa otetta siitä, mitä taustalla oikein tapahtuu. John Galt antaa vinkkejä itsestään ennen varsinaista ilmaantumistaan.

Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged

John Galt on lakkokenraali. Hän haluaa pysäyttää maailman moottorit agitoimalla ahkerat ja ajattelevat ihmiset lakkoon, mielen lakkoon. Mitä jos vastuunkantajat kaikkoavat maailmasta? Mitä jos he kohauttavat olkapäitään ja päättävät yksinkertaisesti poistua? Päättävät lopettaa tekemisensä, jättäävät kaiken taaksensa ja vain katoavat? Mitä jää jäljelle? Miten yhteiskunta toimii, jos kukaan ei kanna vastuuta? Mitä jos ahkerien mitta vain tulee täyteen?

 

Kapitalismin klassikko

 

Ayn Randin Atlas Shrugged on todellinen jättipaketti. Ei voi kuin ihmetellä, kuinka Rand on pystynyt pitämään kokonaisuuden tarinan koossa. Alussa asiat vaikuttavat viattomilta, mutta tarinan kehittyessä niille tulee merkitys ja ne kumuloituvat kaaokseksi. Kirja on luonteeltaan syvällistä yhteiskuntafilosofiaa. Se avaa tarinan muodossa yleisen yhteiskunnallisen ajattelumme ongelmia. Erityisesti se hyökkää altruismia ja valtiokeskeisyyttä kohtaan. Sankariksi Rand nostaa itsenäisen yksilön, joka omilla toimillaan tavoittelee omaa onnellisuuttaan.

 

Atlas Shrugged on klassikko. Erityisesti USA:ssa teoksella on oma merkittävä roolinsa ja siihen viitataan usein, sekä hyvässä että pahassa. Minä asemoin Atlas Shruggedin kolmen parhaan lukemani kirjan joukkoon. Lukukokemuksena se on suoritus, josta voi olla ylpeä. Moni sen tahtoisi lukea, mutta 1168 sivua karsii jyvät akanoista. Ilman todellista tahtoa sitä ei kannata edes aloittaa. Vähän kuin Raamattukin, vain hyvin harvat ovat sen alusta loppuun lukeneet. Atlas Shruggedia voi perustellusti tituleerata yhdeksi kapitalismin raamatuista. Hauskana anekdoottina kirjassa esiintyy kultaisella dollarimerkillä varustettuja savukkeita, jotka symboloivat kapitalismin henkeä. Jos tuollaisia olisi oikeasti tarjolla, todennäköisesti alkaisin polttamaan.

 

Atlas Shruggedin parasta antia ovat monipuoliset ja mielikuvitukselliset henkilöhahmot. John Galt itsessään on elävä legenda, mutta tarinaan mahtuu paljon muitakin. Hank Rearden, yrittäjä, innovaattori ja oman tiensä kulkija. Todellinen taistelija, yrittäjyyden perikuva. Francisco d'Anconia, mies joka yllättää kaikki toimimalla toisin kuin hänen oletettaisiin toimivan. Ragnar Danneskjöld, mies joka haluaa poistaa Robin Hood-sankaruuden maailmasta toimimalla juuri päinvastoin kuin Hood. Päähenkilönä tarinassa kuitenkin on Dagny Taggart, nainen joka ei pääse perheyrityksenä johtoon, vaikka kaiken vastuun kantaakin. Pahiksia tarinaan mahtuu myös useita. Moni näistä veljeilee valtion kanssa pyrkien politikoimalla pönkittämään omaa valta-asemaansa. Havahduttavinta näissä kaikissa henkilöissä on se, että jokaiselle löytyy helposti vastinpari elävästä elämästä.

 

Atlas Shruggedin opetus

 

Atlas Shruggedissa John Galt kumppaneineen kutsuu valitsemiaan henkilöitä "mielen lakkoon" eli jättämään kaiken taakseen ja kohauttamaan olkapäitään nyky-yhteiskunnalle. Kuten yleisesti lakoissa, tässä lakossa kukaan ei esitä kenellekään vaatimuksia, sen sijaan yksilöt vain jättävät roolinsa yhteiskunnassa, kun mitta tulee täyteen.

Ajatus olkapäiden kohottamisesta ja taustalle poistumisesta on kiehtova. Ei käy kiistäminen, etteikö se välillä kävisi mielessä. Nykymaailmassa tämä voisi tarkoittaa vaikka sitä, että tietyn pisteen, tietyn riippumattomuuden tilan, saavutettua sitä voisi todeta, että nyt riitti ja muuttaisi ulkomaille. Mielettömäksi menevä verotus voisi olla yksi tällainen laukaiseva tekijä. Itse voisin lähteä vaikka Sveitsiin.

 

Onko downshiftaaminen mielen lakkoilua?

 

Toisaalta aloin miettimään, onko nykyilmiöistä downshiftaaminen yksi muoto "to shrugg" eli liittyä mielen lakkoon? Osittain on, sanoisin, mutta kuitenkin vain niissä tapauksissa, joissa downshiftaaja jää elämään omilla saavutuksillaan, eikä valinnallaan rasita muuta yhteiskuntaa. Tiedän monia tapauksia, jotka työnteollaan ja sijoitustoiminnallaan tähtäävät tiettyyn varallisuustasoon, tiettyyn taloudelliseen riippumattomuuteen, jonka jälkeen he tahtovat alkaa elää rennommin ja alkaa toteuttamaan aktiivisemmin arvojensa mukaisia asioita. Tällaiseen valintaan yksilöllä tulee olla vapaa oikeus. Toinen downshiftaamisen muoto eli vähemmän tekeminen ja muiden siivellä eläminen siitä syystä, että ei viitsitä tehdä enempää, ei sen sijaan sovellu randilaiseen ajatteluun.

Kirjan parhaat palat

Kirjan parhaat palat voi kiteyttää kolmeen osioon. Francisco d'Anconian puhe juhlissa esitettyyn väitteeseen, että raha on kaiken pahan alku, on mestarillinen tykitys, joka ei selittelyitä kaipaa. Puhe löytyy kokonaisuudessaan alta. Toinen huippukohta on Ragnar Danneskjöldin perustelut sille, miksi hän haluaa hävittää Robin Hoodin levittämän ajattelun maailmasta. Ensiajatuksella tuskin kukaan sanoo vastustavansa Robin Hoodia, mutta kun kuulee Danneskjöldin argumentit, alkaa asiaa ajattelemaan uudella tavalla. Ehkä rikkaiden ryöstäminen ei sittenkään ole oikeudenmukaista. Kolmas kohokohta on John Galtin puheet, erityisesti kirjan viimeisessä kappaleessa esitetty loppupuhe, jossa kiteytyy Randin filosofian ydinkohdat ja Atlas Shruggedin sanoma. Tämä puhe on 66 sivua pitkä, joten liitän siihen vain linkin. Nämä lukemalla saa jo jonkinlaisen käsityksen siitä, millainen mestariteos Ayn Randin Atlas Shrugged on. Jos elämässäsi on joskus riittävästi aikaa tälle teokselle, suosittelen lukemaan, koska se takuulla jättää jäljen omaan ajatteluusi koko loppuelämäksi.

Francisco d'Anconia's Money Speech

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."

Ragnar Danneskjöld on Robin Hood

"I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men's minds, we will not have a decent world to live in".
What man?
Robin Hood. He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich - or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.
What in blazes do you mean?
... Ragnar:  ... I have never robbed a private ship and never taken any private property. Nor have I ever robbed a military vessel - because the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from the violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of a government. But I have seized every lootcarrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others. I seized the boats that sailed under the flag of the idea which I am fighting: the idea that need is a sacred idol requiring human sacrifices - that the need of some men is the knife of a guillotine hanging over others - that all of us must live with our work, our hopes, our plans, our efforts at the mercy of the moment when that knife will descend upon us - and that the extent of our ability is the extent of our danger, so that success will bring our heads doen on the block, while failure will give us the right to pull the cord. This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."

This in John Galt Speaking

John Galt's final speech can be read here. It's circa 66 pages long, but still highly worth of reading.

"We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt. There is a difference between our strike and all those practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endager you, not to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, accoring to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality - the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind." (1011)

Some extra quotations 

"What's wealth but the means of expanding one's life? There's two ways one can do it: either by producing more or by producing it faster. And that's what I'm doing: I'm manufacturing time... I'm producing everything I need, I'm working to improve my methods, and every hour I save is an hour added to my life." (722)

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." (731)

"There is only one kind of men who have never been on strike in the whole of human history. Every other kind and class has stopped, when they so wished, and have presented demands to the world, claiming to be indispensable - except the men who have carried the world on their shoulders, have kept it alive, have endured torture as sole payment, but have never walked out on the human race. Well, their turn has come. Let the world discover who they are, what they do and what happens when they refuse to function. This is the strike of the men of the mind, Miss Taggart. This is the mind on strike." John Galt (738)

Some links to Atlas Shrugged:

http://www.dailypaul.com/133313/francisco-d-anconias-ayn-rands-money-speech-in-atlas-shrugged

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Praxeology: Mitä on pääoma?

Mitä on pääoma? Liian moni mieltää pääoman rahaksi. Kuitenkin raha on täysin eri asia kuin pääoma. Raha on vaihdon väline, jonka keskeinen ominaisuus on ostovoima eli kyky vaihtaa rahaa ihmisen haluamiin tuotteisiin ja palveluihin. Pääoma sen sijaan on perusluonteeltaan aikaa. Pääoma on työn tuloksena syntynyt aikavarasto, joka on varastoituneena pääomahyödykkeisiin. Aikaisemmin tehty työ varastoituu pääomaan ja pääoma käytettäessään vähentää tulevan työn tarvetta. Praxgirl avaa asiaa seuraavassa erinomaisella esimerkillä. 

Pääoma on aikavarasto

Kuvitellaan Robinson Crusoe autiolle saarelle. Hän saa elantonsa syömällä kalaa. Joka päivä hän käyttää tietyn ajan kalastamiseen. Kuitenkin jonain päivänä hän päättää vähentää kalastamiseen käyttämäänsä aikaa uhraamalla aikansa verkon rakentamiseen. Tämä aikauhraus on investointi. Investointi on tämän päivän kulutuksen vähentämistä tai säästämistä, jotta tulevaisuudessa voisi nauttia suuremmista saaliista. Siispä Crusoe rakentaa verkon. Kun verkko on valmis, ei Crusoen tarvitse enää itse käyttää aikaansa kalastamiseen. Hän saa elintarvikkeensa verkon avulla. Säästyneen ajan hän voi käyttää vaikka metsästämiseen. 

Verkko on siis pääomaa. Se on investointi, joka on aikaansaatu säästämällä aikaa muusta tekemisestä. Siten se on aikavarasto, joka aiemmin tehdyn työn ansiosta vähentää tulevan työn tarvetta. Tämä vapautunut aika voidaan käyttää muuhun tarkoitukseen ja siten parantaa elintasoamme. Ei tarvitse enää syödä vain kalaa vaan voimme nauttia muista luonnonantimista ja korkeammista tarpeistamme. 

Miksi pääoma on tärkeä tekijä yhteiskunnassa?

Kun ymmärrämme pääoman määritelmän oikein ja sisäistämme sen syvällisesti, ymmärrämme myös sen merkityksen yhteiskunnassa. Pääoma on välttämätön väylä elintasomme parantamisessa. Pääoma on mahdollisuus, ei uhka. Jotta voimme kartuttaa elintasoamme, on meidän ensin investoitava aikaamme pääoman luomiseen. On siis tehtävä asioita, jotka vapauttavat aikaamme myöhemmässä vaiheessa. 

Toiseksi määritelmä tekee mielettömäksi pääoman ja työvoiman välisen vastakkainasettelun. Pääoma ja työ ovat aina täydellisessä symbioosissa keskenään. Pääomaa syntyy vain työllä ja vain pääoma pystyy vapauttamaan ihmisen välttämättömästä työstä tuottavampaan työhön. Antaa siis pääoman hoitaa ne asiat, jotka se pystyy hoitamaan niin voimme keskittyä itse mielekkäämpään ja tuottavampaan tekemiseen. 

Praxgirl: What is Capital?

How should we create wealth? Should we only live in the present moment or think about the future?

Land (nature-given means) and labour have limitations in their productive output. Therefore, if man wants to increase his rate of production of consumers goods, he must engage in a process that awards him with more time. This involves producing and saving goods that will not be used for consumption in the present, but at some later time. This accumulation of time is called Capital and the goods that store the time are called capital goods.

Capital or Time (which as we can see can be used interchangeably) is the third and final element of factor of production. For production of any good 3 factors must be mixed together:

1. Land (the nature-given means)
2. Labor (the element of human energy)
3. Time (the time involved in production)

We can see that there is a process involving "stages" in production of goods that will ultimately be consumed by individuals. These stages are called The Structure of Production. Each structure of production will vary in length of the time and the process will take. A shorter structure of production will take less time to produce the desired consumer good, but will have a lesser rate of production than a lengthier structure. 

To illustrate, let us imagine Robinson Crusoe stranded on a desert island. His immediate desire is to feed himself. He looks around and finds a fish in a fresh water pond in the middle of the island. So he jumps into the water and starts catching the fish by hand. This structure of production is almous instantaneous because his fishing is only one stage removed from his eating fish. His rate of catching fish is however, really slow. If Crusoe decides to engage in the process of building a net his rate of fishing will increase tremendously. But this also means that he will have to engage in a longer structure of production before he can begin to eat fish at all. A net will take him ten days to construct, during which he will not be able to be catch fish to feed himself. Whether or not a man will invest his time and energy into longer structure of production depends solely on his time preference, that is whether he prefers things sooner or later. Crusoe will have to decide whether engaging ten days of labor which not immediately feed him will be worth the final product which is increased rate of fish production. 

Supposing Crusoe is determined to better his situation, and he feels that a fishing net could really help him catch more fish, the question is: how will Crusoe achieve the feat of building a net without starving to death? What Crusoe needs is time. If he has been spending his entire day catching 10 fish by hand, then building a net will mean that he needs to have 100 fish saved to feed himself during the production process. Crusoe therefore has two possible ways of saving: 1. He could save some fish every day until he acquires 100 fish at which point he can now engage in the process of building the net. Or 2. He can catch less fish a day and spend the saved time building the net little by little. In both cases he is engaging fundamentally the same process in saving. Crusoe is choosing to reduce his present consumption in order to consume more in the future. His saved fish represent his capital. 

Capital is stored up land, labor and time. At every step, more capital put us closer to enjoyment of consumer goods. He who possesses capital in that much closer in time to achieve his desired good. Once Crusoe no longer has to spend his entire day fishing, he can dedicate more time to achieve more ends. He can read, write or leisure. He can spend time building a house, or preparing clothes for the winter. Saving is the fundamental action which is necessary for improvement of our situation. If I had to choose the most important implication from the fact that human act, it would be the importance of Capital. The concept of capital is the answer to the how and why we live in a such a productive and complex modern society. We all today living better off of the fruits of the labor of previous generations. What this really means is that we are all living in a world that is the result of men before us saving. Instead of consuming everything they had produced, our ancestors accumulated capital beginning with small steps like saving of fish, then producing tools such as nets and so on into larger and larger structures of production. 

We live in a very complex society where the consumer goods we enjoy aren't merely the result of technological process. Technology is merely a recipe on how to achieve our ends. Even if Crusoe knows how to build a boat to get out of the island, he has to satisfy his most urgent needs first which are to feed himself and to survive through his situation. We cannot embark onto a new technology without having the savings to facilitate this sideways production. 

Ajattelun työkaluja

Henry Hazlitin Thinking as a Science kiinnitti huomiota ajatteluun. Hazlitin pääviesti oli, että a) ajattelemiseen pitää ottaa aikaa ja b) ajattelun pitää olla systemaattista ja tavoitteellista ongelmien ratkaisemista. Kolmas Hazlitin huomio oli, että omaa ajatteluaan voi - ja jopa pitää - kehittää. Ajatteluaan voi kehittää esimerkiksi opiskelemalla erilaisia malleja, joiden kautta eteen tulevia tilanteita voi tarkastella. Nämä mallit ovat ikään kuin ajattelijan työkalupakki, josta tilanteeseen sopiva työkalu kaivetaan helpottamaan ratkaisun löytymistä. 

The Decision Book - Fifty models for strategic thinking

Mallit helpottavat ajattelemista

Tällaisia työkaluja ajattelemisen ja päätöksenteon helpottamiseksi tarjoaa Mikael Krogeruksen ja Roman Tschäppelerin teos The Decision Book - Fifty models for strategic thinking. Kirja löytyy myös suomeksi nimeltä Pieni suuri päätösten kirja. Tykkään itse malleista ja kuvioista. On selvää, että kaikki mallit tekevät yksinkertaistuksia eivätkä kerro välttämättä koko totuutta, mutta nimenomaan lähestymistapana ne toimivat erinomaisesti. Kirja sisältää 50 kirjoittajien kokoamaa yleistä mallia mm. itsensä kehittämisestä, itsensä ymmärtämisestä, muiden ymmärtämisestä ja muiden kehittämisestä.

Kirja on kuin tehty lentokenttäkirjaksi. Itsekin poimin sen matkaan Heatrowlta ja luin ajatuksella läpi parin tunnin lennon aikana. Lyhyt, selkeä, tiivistetysti kirjoitettu kuvaus selkeillä kuvituksilla. Helppo oppia nopeasti mallin käyttötarkoitus ja johtava ajatus. Kirjaa on helppo suositella luettavaksi. Vaikka moni malli onkin entuudestaan tuttu, uskon jokaisen saavan kirjasta jotain ja kirjaan on myös aika ajoin hyvä palata.

Omia suosikkejani kirjassa olivat mm:

• Eisenhowerin ajanhallintamalli
• Omaa tulevaisuutta tarkasteleva risteysmalli (The Crossroads model)
• Ongelmatilanteita tarkasteleva The Swiss Cheese model
• Oppimista hahmottava The Double-loop learning model
• Pareto-sääntö 80/20
• Tiimin johtamista kuvaava The Drexler-Sibbet Team Performance model
• Tiimin jäseniä kehittävä The Hersey-Blanchard Model (Situational Leadership)

Kirjasta löytyy muita blogiarvioita mm. Kirjaveräjästä, Jenny Henrikssonilta ja Even Butterflies Think. 

Osaatko ajatella?

Koska olet viimeksi ajatellut? Siis oikeasti ajatellut eli ottanut aikaa ajattelulle tekemättä mitään muuta. Istunut, keskittynyt ja ajatellut. 

Me kuvittelemme ajattelevamme paljon, tekevämme oikein ajatustyötä, mutta todellisuudessa ajattelemme aivan liian vähän. Itse heräsin tähän todellisuuteen lukiessani Henry Hazlittin teosta Thinking as a Science. Luen ja kirjoitan paljon, mutta ajattelen liian usein vain pinnallisesti, en systemaattisesti ajan kanssa ja keskittyen. Liian usein ihminen tarttuu ensimmäiseen ajatukseen, eikä ratkaise ongelmia ajattelemalla systemaattisesti läpi vaihtoehtoja ja siten parantaen ratkaisujaan. Teemme ja touhuamme, mutta emme ajattele. 

Ajatteletko, oikeasti?

Mitä on ajattelu?

Mitä sitten on kyky ajatella? Se on kyky yhdistää asioita mielessä. Se on kykyä keskittyä. Se on järjestelmällistä ongelmien ratkaisemista mielen avulla. Mitä suurempi ja laajempi tieto- ja kokemuspohja, sitä suurempi "tietopankki" henkilöllä on ja sitä parempi on hänen kyky ratkaisujen löytämiseen monipuolisesti. Lopputuloksena on laajempi ratkaisuvalikoima. Asiaa voi kuvata siten, että tietopankki on ihmisen kovalevy. Toisilla on kovalevyllä tallennettuna enemmän tiedostoja kuin toisilla. Ajatteleminen on näiden tiedostojen hakemista kovalevyltä, tiedon prosessointia, ajatusten yhdistämistä ja uusien ajatusten eli ideoiden synnyttämistä.

Kannattaako lukeminen?

Lukeminen on hyödyllistä. "Lukeminen kannattaa aina" sanotaan. Lukeminen on toisten ajatuksiin tutustumista. Se on tietopankin täyttämistä tiedostoilla. Lukeminen saa usein ajattelemaan, mutta lukemisen vaarallisuus piilee siinä, että oma ajattelu lähtee liiaksi seuraamaan lainattuja ajatuspolkuja. Lukeminen voi lukittaa omaa ajattelua. Siispä tietyn tietotason jälkeen Hazlitt suosittelee lukemisen lopettamista tai ainakin rajoittamista ja saman ajan käyttämistä mielummin ajattelemiseen tai kirjoittamiseen. Hazlitt vaatii myös lukemisen suunnittelua ja varoittaa lukemisen vaaroista. Olet sitä mitä luet, joten huonojen kirjojen lukeminen on sekä ajanhukkaa että suuremmassa määrin saastuttaa omaa ajatteluasi. Mieti siis mitä luet. 

Kannattaako kirjoittaminen?

Kirjoittaminen on hyvä tapa prosessoida ajatuksia. Kirjoittaminen tekee ajatukset näkyviksi ja antaa niille muodon. Kirjoittaminen myös dokumentoi ajatukset, jolloin niihin on helpompi myöhemmin palata. Mutta kirjoittaminen myös rajoittaa. Se on usein hidasta ja kaavamaista. Kirjoittaessa joutuu keskittymään enemmän muotoiluun ja sanojen valintaan, mikä on pois lennokkaalta ajatuksenjuoksulta. Siispä toisinaan on kirjoittamisen sijasta hyvä vaikka puhua nauhurille. Puhua ajatukset auki. Antaa ajatusten tulla. Pölistä.

Lue Henry Hazlittin Thinkin As a Science ja ota aikaa ajattelulle!

Hazlittin kirja on täydellinen ajatustenherättäjä. Se muuttaa omaa tapaasi ajatella ja lukea. Se pakottaa ajattelemaan. Lue se niin ymmärrät! Kirjan voi ladata ilmaiseksi PDF-muodossa tai tilata täältä Mises Insituutin sivuilta.

Minulle tämä kirja oli toistaiseksi kaikkein inspiroivin lukukokemus eikä ideoiden pulppuamisesta meinannut tulla lukemisen aikana loppua. Kirjani sivut ovat täynnä lukiessa syntyneitä ajatuksia ja ratkaisuja moniin alitajuntaisiin ongelmiin. Otin myös kirjasta opiksi: aiemmin luin kaikki junamatkat, nykyisin käytän matkasta puolituntia tai tunnin pelkästään ajatteluun. Katson junan ikkunasta ulos, pidän muistivihkon esillä ja keskityn ajattelemaan ratkaisuja esille nousseisiin ongelmiin. Tämän seurauksena ratkaisuni ovat ainakin omasta mielestäni parantuneet. Usein lopputuloksena on toimintatapa, joka ei alkuun tullut mieleenikään. Toisinaan tämän prosessin jälkeen huomaa, kuinka ideat tai ratkaisut syntyvät yön aikana alitajunnassa ja aamulla asian voi kirjoittaa paperille ratkaistuna. Suosittelen kokeilemaan!

Poimintoja

• When I use the word thinking, I mean thinking with a purpose, with an end in view, thinking to solve a problem.
• I beg no one to get frightened. Science does not necessarily mean test tubes and telescopes. I mean science in its broadest sense; and in this sense it means nothing more than organized knowledge.
• For our purposes, all sciences may be divided into two kinds: positive and normative. A positive science investigates the nature of things as they are. It deals simply with matters of fact. Such a science is physics, chemistry, psychology. A normative science is one which studies things as they ought to be. As the name implies, it seeks to establish a norm or pattern which ought to be adhered to. It studies means of reaching desired ends. To this class belong such sciences as ethics, education, agriculture.
• I object to the term "art" to designate any set of organized rules for doing a thing, because "art" also means the actual doing of that thing. And this thing may be done, and often is done, in total ignorance of the rules governing it. A man may possess the art of swimming—he may be able to swim— without any previous instruction, without any knowledge of how he ought to hold his body, arms and legs; just as a dog may do the same thing.
• The science of thinking, then, if such a science there be, is normative. Its purpose is to find those methods which will help us to think constructively and correctly.
• Before considering methods of thinking, however, it would be well to ask ourselves what thinking is. As stated before, the term is loosely used to cover a wide range of mental processes. These processes we may roughly divide into memory, imagination and reasoning. By "thinking" I mean reasoning.
• Modern psychologists tell us that all reasoning begins in perplexity, hesitation, doubt. "The process of reasoning is one of problem solving. . . . The occasion for the reasoning is always a thwarted purpose.' It is essential we keep this in mind. It differs from the popular conception even more than may appear at first sight. If a ma/n were to know everything he could not think. Nothing would ever puzzle him, his purposes would never be thwarted, he would never experience perplexity or doubt, he would have no problems. If we are to conceive of God as an All-Knower, we cannot conceive of Him as a Thinking Being. Thinking is reserved for beings of finite intelligence.
• We cannot think on " general principles. " To try this is like attempting to chew laughing gas. To think at all requires a purpose, no matter how vague. The best thinking, however, requires a definite purpose, and the more definite this purpose the more definite will be our thinking. Therefore in taking up any special line of thought, we must first find just what our end or purpose is, and thus get clearly in mind what our problems are.
• Our first step, then, is to get our problem or problems clearly in mind, and to state them as definitely as possible. A problem properly stated is a problem partly solved.
• Our next move was to classify. This is essential not only to systematic reasoning but to thinking of any kind. Classification is the process of grouping objects according to common qualities. But as almost all objects differ in some qualities and almost all have some qualities in common, it follows that, contrary to common belief, there is no one classification absolutely essential to any group of objects.
• One method applicable to almost all problems is what we may call either the deductive or the a priori method. This method reaches a conclusion without observation or experiment. It consists in reasoning from previous experience or from established principles to particular facts.
• And now we come to a whole host of effective methods, all of which may be classed as comparative. The comparative method is as old as thought itself, but it is strange that even scientists did not begin to use it consciously and consistently until almost the present generation. Nowhere is it better illustrated than in modern psychology. Most of the so-called branches of psychology are merely different forms of the comparative method of treatment " Abnormal psychology" is merely a comparison of abnormal mental types with normal mental types for the light they throw on each other. And none of these methods is of any value except in so far as it makes use of comparison.
• Often consciously used in the consideration of problems is the so-called historical method. This method, as its name implies, consists in obtaining knowledge of a thing by considering its past record. The word history is popularly used in so narrow a sense, however, being restricted only to the history of nations, and often merely to the political history of nations, that we can avoid confusion by calling this method the evolutionary. In the final analysis the method is comparative, for it really consists in comparing a thing at one period of development with itself at another period.
• Nowhere is the evolutionary method more strikingly seen than in biology. Since Darwin's great theory was promulgated the science has gone forward by leaps and bounds. We have derived untold benefit from a comparison of man and animals in the light of this hypothesis; even study of the development of individual man has been aided. The discovery of the fact of evolution constituted an incalculable advance, but the method for study which it furnished was of even greater importance.
• We are often exhorted to "observe." Presumably we are to do this '' on general principles. " Such advice is about as foolish as asking us to think on general principles. The absurdity is obvious. If we started out merely to observe, with no definite purpose in mind, we could keep it up forever. And get nowhere. Nine out of every ten observations would never be put to use. We would be sinfully wasting our time. To observe most profitably, just as to think most profitably, we must have a definite purpose. This purpose must be to test the truth of a supposition.
• The suggestions or suppositions are tested by observation, memory, experiment. Supposition and observation alternate.
• We are often aided in the solution of a problem by asking its opposite.
• The method of analogy likewise encourages suggestions. Analogy consists in noting certain likenesses between things, and assuming that they also possess other common qualities.
• Empirical observation. Empirical, at least for our present purposes, means merely that which comes within experience. But the term is generally opposed to scientific. This, however, is not what I mean to imply by the term empirical observation. I mean rather thinking on the basis merely of facts which occur in the natural course of events, which have not been systematically produced by ourselves or others for the purpose of solving a problem. Logicians usually call this method simply observation, and oppose it to experiment. But I object to calling this simply observation because experiment itself is really observation, only in one case we observe merely events which happen to occur, and in the other we observe the results of events which we have made occur. The true way of distinguishing these two methods would be to call one empirical observation, and the other experimental observation. This empirical method—if indeed I am justified in calling it a method—is the most common in all thinking.
• Empirical observation is used where experiment is impossible—often, unfortunately, where experiment is merely inconvenient. But valuable as empirical observation is, and often as we must use it, it should never be employed when we can experiment. When the empirical method is rightly used allowance always has to be made for certain irrelevant factors. But "making allowances" is always sheer guess work. The experimental method consists not in making allowances for certain factors,but in eliminating those factors.
• To make the experiment of any use we should first take two groups of pupils—the 
  larger the better. For it is obvious that if we take a great number of pupils and place them 
  in two groups the differences between the individuals will tend to offset one another.
• The experimental method has been well summed up by Thomson and Tait in their Nat
  ural Philosophy: "In all cases when a particular agent or  cause is to be studied, experiments should be arranged in such a way as to lead if possible to results depending on it alone; or, if this can- not be done, they should be arranged so as to increase the effects due to the cause to be studied till these so far exceed the unavoidable concomitants, that the latter may be considered as only disturbing, not essentially modifying the effects of the principal agent.''
• Every problem should be dealt with as many methods as possible. 
• 
  
  
  

  John Stuart Mill, in an essay on Jeremy Bentham, pointed out that the secret of the lat
  ter's strength and originality of thought lay in his method, which "may be shortly described as the method of detail; of treating wholes by separating them into their parts, abstractions by resolving them into things,—classes and generalities by distinguishing them into the individuals of which they are made up; and breaking every question into pieces before attempting to solve it."
• 
  
  
  

  Knowledge furnishes problems, and the discovery of problems itself constitutes an intellectual advance.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Method is essential to good thinking. 
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  The two most prominent errors made in classifying are (1) not making classifications mutually exclusive, (2) not making them cover all the objects or phenomena supposed to be classified.
• 
  
  
  
  Consider the classification of constructive methods into comparison,  observation, and experiment. It is apparent that these methods overlap. We cannot compare without observing, much of our observation involves comparison, when we experiment we 
  must of course observe the results obtained, and the results are usually always compared. All three methods could be classed under observation.
• We cannot overlook the excellent counsel of Blaise Pascal. He urges that we not only define our terms, but that whenever we use them we mentally substitute the defini
  tion.
• The quickest way to detect error in analogy is to carry it out as far as it will go—and fur
  ther. Every analogy will break down somewhere. Any analogy if carried out far enough becomes absurd.
• And in thinking, when we leave one method and take up another, we should try to forget entirely the first conclusion and begin on the problem as if we had never taken it up before. After we have taken up all the applicable methods, then, and then only, should we begin to compare conclusions.
• If the deductive method is to be checked up by experiment, and the results of the experiment are always to be taken, why not experiment first, and omit theory altogether? Leaving aside the fact that theory is the best guide for experiment—that were it not for theory and the problems and hypotheses that come out of it, we would not know the points we wanted to verify, and hence would experiment aimlessly—a more serious objection is that experiment is seldom if ever perfect, for it nearly always involves some unverified assumption. 
• Experiment and deduction are not the only methods which can be checked up against each other. We can do likewise with the comparative and the experimental, the historical and the theoretical—in fact, all viewpoints applicable to any one problem.
• What is essential is that all suggestions be tested out, either by memory, observation or experiment, in all their implications, and that the tendency be resisted to accept the first solution that suggests itself.
• Thomas A. Edison says he always rejects an easy solution of any problem and looks for something difficult. But the inventor has one great advantage over any other kind of thinker. He can test his conclusion in a tangible way. If his device works, his thinking was right; if his device doesn't work, his thinking was wrong. But the philosopher, the scientist, the social reformer, has no such satisfactory test. His only satisfaction is the feeling that his results harmonize with all his experience.
• The science can receive justice only in a book devoted entirely to it.
• What is the hardest task in the world? To think. —EMERSON.
• Few people will admit specific faults in themselves of any kind, especially if these happen to be intellectual.
• Any train of thought is made possible by previous connections of ideas in our minds. 
• No thought can enter our minds unless it is associated in some way with the previous thought. Psychologists have traditionally classified associations into four kinds: association by succession, by contiguity, by similarity and by contrast.
• Any attempt to show why the mind acts in this way, any explanation of the way in which the different kinds of association are made possible, would bring us into physiological psychology, would involve a study of the brain and the nervous system. For our purposes it is sufficient to keep in mind that such associations do take place. Without them no idea can occur. Without them thought is impossible.
• But when we are thinking with a purpose, in a word, when we are reasoning, we reject all associations which have no bearing on our purpose, and select only those which serve it.
• Concentration does not, as popularly supposed, mean keeping the mind fastened on one object or idea or in one place. It consists in having a problem or purpose constantly before one. It means keeping our thought moving toward one desired end. Concentration is often regarded as intense or focused attention. But the fact is that all attention is focused attention. Psychologists are fairly well agreed that we can attend to only one thing at a time. Mind wandering, and so called distributed attention, is really attention directed first to one thing, then to another, then to another; or first to one thing, then to another, and then back again to the original object, resting but a few moments on each idea.
• Concentration may best be denned as prolonged or sustained attention. It means keeping the mind on one subject or problem for a relatively long period, or at least continually reverting to some problem whenever one's thoughts momentarily leave it.
• But if most men were so convinced that concentration is such an unquestionable virtue, they would practice it a little more. At least they would make greater efforts to practice it than they do at present. The truth is that concentration, per se, is of little value. The value of concentration depends almost entirely on the subject concentrated on.
• But if you immediately abandoned every problem you started to think of, whenever you came across one which you imagined was just as important, you would probably never really solve any big question.
• Our attention is guided by interest. If a man merely allows his thoughts to flow at random, thinking only of those things which spontaneously arouse his interest, he may or may not attend to things worth thinking about. All will depend upon the path in which his natural interests run.
• The brain has no hidden mechanism by which it can separate the true from the false. To be sure, if we use no effort the most usual and strongest associations will be more likely to assert themselves, and it may be that often these will have more warrant than unusual and weaker associations. Outside of this, there is no superiority.
• As an experiment, then, the next time you come across a puzzle which you fail to solve at first tilt, write down all the unsatisfactory solutions suggested, and all the questions, difficulties and objections met with. You may leave this for a few weeks. When you return to it a few of the difficulties will look less formidable, and some of the questions will have practically answered themselves.
• It has been frequently said that many of the world's greatest inventions were due to accident. In a sense this is true. But the accident was prepared for by previous hard thinking. It would never have occurred had not this thinking taken place. It is said that the idea of gravitation came to Newton because an apple fell on his head. Perhaps. But apples had been falling ever since there were apple trees…
• Our subject is prejudice. Our object is to free ourselves as much as possible from our own prejudices…. Prejudice is often confused with intolerance. They are not the same. … The fact that a man is unprejudiced does not make his opinion right. And the fact that a man is prejudiced does not necessarily make his opinion wrong; though it must be admitted that if it is right it will be so only by accident.
• We desire an opinion to be right because we would be personally benefited if it were. Another reason why we desire an opinion to be right is because we already happen to hold it. ...To reverse an opinion is to confess that we were previously wrong. 
• The hypothesis maker has a specific form of fear of inconsistency.... The desire to prove hypothesis correct, simply because it is our hypothesis, or because it is a fascinating hypothesis. 
• An opinion is a habit of thought. 
• It is well known that the opinions of a man over forty are pretty well set. 
• We agree with others, we adopt the same opinions of the people around us, because we fear to disagree. ... Just as with fashions in clothes there are people who strive to imitate others, so there are people who devote themselves entirely to being "different."
• If you make originality and radicalness your aim, you will attain neither truth nor originality. But if you make truth your aim you will very likely get truth, and originality will come of itself.
• The distinguishing mark of the great thinkers of the ages was their comparative freedom from the prejudices of their time and community. In order to avoid these prejudices one must be constantly and uncompromisingly sounding his own opinions. Eternal vigilance is the price of an open mind.
• We think in order to have opinions. We have opinions in order to guide action; in order to act upon should occasion require.
• The doubtful attitude should be maintained only so long as you are actively searching for evidence bearing on a question. Maintained at any other time or used in any other way it means merely uncertainty, indefiniteness, vagueness, and leads nowhere.
• Next to being right in this world, the best of all things is to be clearly and definitely wrong, because you will come out somewhere. If you go buzzing about between right and wrong, vibrating and fluctuating, you come out nowhere; but if you are absolutely and thoroughly and persistently wrong, you must, some of these days, have the extreme good fortune of knocking your head against a fact, and that sets you all straight again
• Any decision would be better than no decision. 
• A good book should be read over and over again; and the art of reading is the art of skipping.
• Many learned men have read themselves into dreamy stupidity; men who know what everybody else thought, but who never have any thoughts of their own.
• Learning to think by reading is like learning to draw by tracing. … No man will ever become a great thinker by reading. It can never become a substitute for thought. At best, as John Locke says, "Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge, it is thinking makes what we read ours.
• The safest way to have no thoughts of one's own is to take up a book every moment one has nothing else to do. ...A man should read only when his thoughts stagnate at their source, which will happen often enough even with the best of minds. On the other hand, to take up a book for the purpose of scaring away one's own original thoughts is a sin against the Holy Spirit. It is like running away from Nature to look at a museum of dried plants, or gaze at a landscape in copperplate.
• A science is nothing more than the organized solution of a number of related problems.
• In mathematics, to understand is to agree.
• Every large subject has gathered about it a vast literature, more than one man can ever hope to cover completely. This literature may be said to consist wholly of two things: information as to facts, and opinions on those facts.
• The wording is never the thought. Strictly speaking, "thought" is something which can exist only in the mind. It can never be transferred to paper. ...The fact is that words, though they are not thought, are the associates of thought. 
• The more knowledge a man has the more problems he will have. 
• The best practice for boxing is boxing. The best practice for solving important questions is solving important questions. 
• We should plan our reading. If you cannot keep a list of books you intend to read, at least keep a list of books you have read. We should plan not only with regard to topics and subjects, but with regard to authors. Whether consciously or not, we tend to imitate the authors we read. This emphasizes the importance of reading the best books, and only the best books. Books are like your nutrition. 
• To quote Arnold Bennett: "Unless and until a man has formed a scheme of knowledge, be it but a mere skeleton, his reading must necessarily be unphilosophical. He must have attained to some notion of the interrelations of the various branches of knowledge before he can properly comprehend the branch of knowledge in which he specializes."
• Lay out some definite end, some big objective, to be attained; and before reading a book we should ask how that helps us to attain it.
• To think and act differently, merely for the sake of being different, is unprofitable and dangerous, all questions of ethics aside.
• To now is one thing; to do another. We do not act according to knowledge; we act according to habit. Knowledge used does not need to be remembered; practice forms habits and habits make memory unnecessary. The rule is nothing: the application is everything.