Mental Laziness by Amelia H. Botsford

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 20, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 32.

Mental Laziness.

By Amelia H. Botsford

It is a bad thing to be lazy bodily; but that affliction possesses the great advantage over mental laziness, in that its victim must feel a wholesome shame which combines with the sharp spur of necessity to drive him into industry. But mental laziness too often exists unsuspected, and therefore unreproved, becoming daily a more fixed habit, until the brain, rusted out by inaction, can scarcely turn off a thought a week, instead of blessing its owner continually with new and happy ideas. Who can ever believe himself lazy? And yet, my good friend, why is it you have so long delayed answering that home letter, and why do you turn to your wife for the details of that little affair of two years ago which you might recollect yourself would you but make the effort? And you, too, most industrious of women, why was it you did not reckon up that bill of goods nor count your change, when shopping? If you would candidly review the events of a single week would your conscience be entirely clear of all stain of mental laziness?

It is really wonderful in how many different ways this dislike to intellectual exertion crops out. We yield our minds to the play of every chance suggestion; we walk the streets thinking of nothing in particular, and observing nothing in particular, we build castles in the air not the less unreal that they may concern our business; we find it too much trouble to keep accurate account of our expenses, or to make thoughtful plans for the week's work; we are too lazy even to use atlas and dictionary when we read.

It is not strange in the case of women, whose usual duties require attention to a dozen things at once in a way quite distracting, that the mind becomes unaccustomed to maintain any train of thought for much consecutive time. The necessity for constant oversight of Tommy and Mary, the planning for the next meal or the next mending, invade even the comparative leisure of the afternoon. At least the mind of the busy mother is active, but can this be said of the young girl bending over her fancy work? Ask her of what her thoughts are and see if you do not get for answer, "Nothing much." How much time slips away in this dreamy fashion even with the best of us, and we dignify it with the name of thought! Rather call it sheer idleness.

Much real laziness crops out in reading. How often a book is taken up to fill a little crevice of time when a little solid thought of our own would be vastly more appropriate. But instead we pick up a book or paper, and how much thought do we give its subject? It may be a topic of which we already have some knowledge; do we then compare, criticise, endeavor to array in compact form all that we know or have read on the same subject? Very seldom; it would be too much trouble to read that way. Instead our mind takes a dreamy cognizance of what is before it, without any distinct mental exertion; and, in consequence, an hour afterward we could not recall the principal heads of the article. Especially demoralizing is the popular way of reading newspapers; a glance here and there, a bit from this article, a few lines from that, the headings of two or three more, and how much wiser is any one a half-hour later? Nothing could be more destructive to all habits of attention than this trick of reading carelessly what is not expected or intended to be remembered.

In the choice of books the same laziness is displayed; a solid literature requires too much work, so the very lightest kind is preferred, and even fiction is read too superficially, for a novel that is worth reading at all is worth reading thoughtfully. Yet many young people pride themselves on reading a great deal, who have never read anything carefully in the whole course of their lives. By such foolishness they are constantly weakening their mental powers, for in time it is almost impossible for them to understand and remember the simplest narrative. In the days when books were few, men and women thought for themselves and did not rely on books to do it for them. Those were the days of sturdy, original common sense; if what men then said and did was not great, it was at least their own, worked out by their own brains, not absorbed from the records of other men's minds. And with all the wonderful advantages of our present time we shall fail of similar mental growth if we do not cease making crutches of our canes.

There is yet another form of mental laziness that should be noted: religious. Many people are genuine Catholics in one point, they do not believe in thinking for themselves. In the church in which early associations have placed them they remain, though they may not know enough of her doctrines to know whether they believe them or not. What proportion of church-members can answer intelligently the simplest question in the church catechism? No doubt if doctrine were thoroughly understood there would be some shifting from one church to another, for we often see a Methodist in the Presbyterian fold, or a Congregationalist among the Baptists.

As to the ignorance of the work of the church at home and abroad, its history and government, what occasions this, which is sadly prevalent? Surely not the absence of accessible information. But then, to read carefully and thoughtfully on these subjects requires more trouble than some of God's servants are willing to bestow. And yet for what purpose have these brains been created? Has one any more right to shirk mental labor than physical? In short, is it not really wrong as well as pitiable to be mentally lazy? We commend these questions to each reader who has been glancing listlessly over these pages. If he also believes a reform advisable, surely he will remember the command to build every one over against his own house.—Amelia H. Botsford, in Christian at Work.