Thoughts in the world rise and fall, endlessly emerging. Everyone claims their own thought is the most correct. Yet I believe such correctness only applies in certain contexts and at certain times. Correctness cannot rely solely on majority recognition. So what is the legitimacy of thought? I define legitimate thought as that which conforms to fact, aligns with principles of justice, and possesses proper logic. (For the definition of justice, see Essay Two.)

The composition of thought arises from three aspects: logic, emotion, and interest. This essay discusses only human thought.

  1. Logic I believe thought arises to solve problems or provide guidance. To be effective, thought must conform to logic. Even ineffective thought has its own logic—only that it is mistaken.

  2. Emotion I believe part of the function of thought is to release emotion, to satisfy it, or to provide a sense of security.

  3. Interest A thought must bring benefit to its holder in order to persist. Benefit may also mean the avoidance of loss.

Can thought exist with only one or two of these aspects, or with none at all? I believe thought cannot exist with only logic, only interest, or only emotion. Logic alone ignores the interests it entails. Interest alone ignores the logic of its realization and the emotional needs attached. Emotion alone is impossible—even instinctive reactions carry interest. Since thought cannot exist with only one aspect, it cannot exist with none.

What if thought contains only two aspects? I believe logic and interest are inseparable. That leaves the question of emotion. Without emotion, thought is mere calculation—an idea but not truly thought. With emotion, it can become any kind of thought.

What influences the legitimacy of thought? I believe thought and legitimacy both stem from wisdom. Legitimacy is influenced by reason and emotion. Emotion affects legitimacy: most illegitimate thoughts originate from excessive emotional exaggeration, amplified by wisdom. Emotion is more often a negative factor, for it leads people to misjudge, making legitimate thought harder to reach. A thought dominated by emotion may by chance align with legitimacy, but only accidentally. (For the definition of reason, see Essay Eight.) Reason can make thought more logical, and logic aids in reasoning about facts. This better conforms to principles of justice, and thus produces more legitimate thought.

The relationship between legitimacy of thought and collective moral level Since legitimacy of thought is tied to justice, collective moral level is directly proportional to it. An illegitimate thought is collective tyranny. Its causes are mostly emotional: lack of reason, submission to fear, defense of existing interests, or simply conforming to others to blend into the group.

Illegitimate thought does not always need to be changed No matter how shocking another’s thought may be, it remains personal thought. Thought without action is not worth changing—only its behavior needs to be limited.

Why are more legitimate thoughts not always accepted by others? The reasons are similar to those that form illegitimate thought. Applied to individuals, it is the refusal to admit one’s own mistakes. At root, this is emotional dominance—equating evaluation with self-worth.

Personal reflection I believe even legitimate thought is only reasonable within certain contexts. Legitimate thought changes constantly, though not without fixed principles. As defined in Essay Two, the principles of justice ultimately regulate legitimate thought through the shared principles of wisdom. Beyond legitimacy, there exist illegitimate and neutral thoughts. Finally, I believe even legitimate thought is only broadly recognized—it is not iron law, nor truth.

Possible issues Why separate reason and logic? Because reason requires some logic, yet flawed logic can still be reason. Reason is a tool; a poor tool is still a tool.

Does the interest discussed in the essay on reason overlap with this essay? To some extent yes, but not entirely, because thought is not necessarily rational.

If a thought is rational, does that mean it is legitimate? Not necessarily. Reason can be used for evil purposes, while legitimacy carries value judgment.