Why does it seem that so many people not only allow others to tell them what to do, but they welcome and even need it? They want their pastors to tell them what to believe... They look to the political pundits to tell them where to stand... They ask the fashion fascists what they should wear... They beg Hollywood to tell them what "true love" is and what is beautiful, so they know who to fall in love with. They listen to politicians who tell them what is best for them and what is best for the country... They drool over celebrities who tell them what's "hot"... The list goes on and on. Why? The only conclusion I am led to time and again is that these people must have low self-esteem, low self confidence and an abhorrent self-image. My first knee-jerk reaction is to blame Christianity. Christians are not only satisfied, but proud to refer to themselves as sheep. God is the ultimate authority not to be questioned. (Well, at least he WAS until the Holy Roman Catholic Church staged their successful coup against the powers of God and decided to bill themselves as the ultimate authority). They are taught that they should strive to live with Jesus as their example - however, they are also taught that no one could possibly live up to Jesus' example. Jesus is perfect, and we are lowly dirty humans who are born in sin and can not live without sinning. What is defined as "sin" is simple, unavoidable human nature, therefore we are all unworthy of Heaven, but Jesus took pity on our pathetic asses and sacrificed his life for us - and we don't even appreciate it! I can't really blame Christianity, though, because this seems to go across religions and cultures. I think, "Maybe it is the advertisers playing on the insecurities and fears of people attempting to push their drugs onto us that feeds on people's self image and causes them to fall into this behavior and doubt themselves." Then I realize that without poor self-esteem and lacking confidence, they wouldn't be able to pull these dirty tricks. Perhaps they take advantage and perpetuate of people's self-loathing, but they do not cause it. What, then, is the problem. Why are so many people so afraid of thinking for themselves?
I am not necessarily talking about individualism. Simply thinking for yourself. There is a distinction. Since you brought it up, however... Care to further explain why individualism is futile? Are you simply referring to those who model themselves in opposition to the norm and claim that they are just being individuals -as if they are not also being controlled by social norms by simply mindlessly "rebelling" against them? Do you think that there is no such thing as individual thought because many do not understand what that entails?
Wherefrom are people to get high, or at least proper self-esteem, good self-confidence and a positive self-image? You think these come from thin air? Or that a magic fairy bestowes them upon people? Define "thinking for oneself" - and you will see the problem. What does it entail, this "individual thought"? Do you believe that phenomena exist separately one from another, individually, all by themselves? If yes, what is your foundation for thinking so?
Well, I suppose that's my question, isn't it? It seems you agree with me that people have low self-esteem and self-confidence. Why do you think that is? Thinking for oneself is the simple act of coming to one's own conclusions based on reason and what one witnesses in the world. It is the act of self determination, rather than mindless mimicry. It is the process of determining and defining one's own value systems and beliefs. I still don't see where the problem is.
No. I believe that everything that happens is due to a complex matrix of interconnected cause and effect relationships. That, however, does not mean that people can not come to their own conclusions and question and challenege those conclusions under new evidence. It does not mean that people must be slaves to fashion, pop culture and social pressures to conform to this norm or that one.
I think I am leaning towards the public school system (in America, at least). Rather than encouraging kids to think for themseves, it teaches them to work to fit in. It teaches them that success is attained by being able to fit comfortably into predefined holes.
Hello, One Raven, You came very close to answering the question yourself. Simply put, the problem at the center of it all is laziness. It takes some *effort* to think for one's self, to research and get the information needed to reach a reasonable conclusion on any matter in particular. For the group of people you are talking about, it's too much work. They would rather be spoon-fed the answers than - heaven forbid! - exert their little minds. (Side note: I always stressed this point when I was teaching psychology classes.) Also, you will find that those individuals that are successful in business ventures do not fall in this category. They think for themselves are anything but lazy, self-starters, gather all the information they can find and pay absolutely no attention to the "latest thing" - unless it happen to BE their business to cater to this lowly group of creatures.
There are people who aren`t rational thinkers. Therefore to be able to think righteously, one must have to base his/her thoughts the rational way.
Because they depend on the material. Because people who think that it is their looks, their possessions, their job, their friends, their education etc. that give them proper self-esteem and self-confidence. Material things take a lot to gain, and one never has enough of them; a materialist, once having accumulated a fortune, will at least be worried to keep this fortune intact and will maintain it, which takes new material strife. Look around, inquire. Many people believe that being materially poor equals being miserable and having low self-esteem. One should strive to look better, have a better job, have more, have more ... and for what? So that one could feel good about oneself. ? One OWN conclusions, value systems and beliefs? Conclusions, ideas, values - they cannot be owned, you can't claim that an idea is yours. You can be sure, and if you look around, be convinced that "your" ideas are not unique. Many people can believe the same things, hold the same values. And these relationships are there, regardless of the people who may think in terms of these relationships? I don't see how that follows. If they are materialists, then they will be slaves to the material. You think a 6-year old or a 10-year old or a 15-year old is able "think for himself"?! Please. They don't have the experience necessary to be able to do something like "think for themselves". One first has to learn the ABC before one can write something. The way I see it, the problem is that kids are encouraged and even supposed to remain at that ABC level, in every sense. As long as teachers teach and kids learn for the sake of learning or in order to be successful in the world, as long as teaching and learning is done for material purposes, this is how long people will be unable to 2think for themselves". This is true though; in a materialistic world, (material) success is often attained that way. Why should they not be lazy?! The whole of economy is based on consumers not "thinking for themselves". If people started thinking, they would buy much less stuff, so the production would go down, people would lose jobs etc. It is in the interest of capitalists that people do not think before buying. It's easy to criticize people for being lazy. But what exactly have you got to offer them, why should they "think for themselves"?
I agree with you one_raven but think a little differently about the education system goals of making people "fit" into a job or workkforce. I'd see it as trying to teach them the basic skills to read ,write, math and science along with some history and public awarness of what the society is they are in. After they can master those things it is really up to the child to improve themselves and read things they enjot reading or doing things they enjoy doing with the education they recieve about the basic skills for learning.
Freedom. The freedom to chose their own set of ideals, interests, etc. and not simply be another member of a herd of lemmings foundering around with no real sense of direction.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=846095#post846095 Perhaps. But like I said earlier, if people did have the self-esteem and self-confidence problems in the first place, they wouldn't fall into that. First of all, I believe that it is absurd to believe there is no such thing as an original idea. EVERY idea, no matter how many times and in how many different ways it has been expressed, was, at one time, a truly original and unique idea. The FIRST time. Unique ideas happen all the time and will continue to happen all the time. This is all moot, however. I said nothing about ideas that are original and truly unique in man's history. I said coming to your own conclusions. If I give a subject rational thought, consider what I see around me and come to my own conclusions, those conclusions are no less valid if they happen to coincide with what Nietzsche said. Yes. Maybe you can explain to me why it doesn't. Just because phenomena is related, why does that mean that people can not come to their own conclusions through critical thought and reassess those conclusions under new evidence? But why are they materialists? Yes. Absolutely! I know MANY who do, and there is no reason why they can not. That seems like an awfully defeatist attitude. True, their experience is limited, and their views will likely change (if they keep an open mind) but that does not mean they can not or should not think for themselves. They don't have the experience necessary to be able to do something like "think for themselves".The way I see it, the problem is that kids are encouraged and even supposed to remain at that ABC level, in every sense. As long as teachers teach and kids learn for the sake of learning or in order to be successful in the world, as long as teaching and learning is done for material purposes, this is how long people will be unable to 2think for themselves".[/quote] So you agree with my assessment above? Perhaps. perhaps we just had different educational experiences. What, then, do you think the problem could be?
"Thinking for yourself" is ill defined. Maybe you have read the works of Solomon, who despaired: "Vanity of vanities [...] there is nothing new under the sun." I hope invert_nexus will see this thread and weigh in with his knowledge on linguistics. There have been (false) contentions that the Pirahã can't "think for themselves" as much as we can because of language limitations. I think that language limitations in such 'retards' is coincidental and deficiencies in complex arithmetic are better linked to culture. In plain terms, we can look at a person in Aztec times and remark on how unthinking they were for believing the gibberish spouted by the priests in support of gods and human sacrifice. Just as atheists will think similarly of Christians, Christians will think similarly of theists, terrorists of Americans, Americans of terrorists, intellectuals of laymen, laymen of intellectuals.. ad nauseam. So you see, everyone and his mother can accuse everyone else of being "unthinking". And just as in a lunatic asylum, we will simply call all men lunatics except ourselves. The only way for you to escape this is to non-circularly define what thinking for oneself entails, and how such a trait is to be identified. Individualism is futile so long as you were born in a society. For an excellent argument of this (if I may blow my own trumpet Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), read this. It shows how people who defend morality cannot ever be said to be "thinking for themselves." I suppose you have a set of morals which you defend because you think they are "right", which is all the more reason why you should read that post and discover why you are wrong - in striving to conform to your morals and also for assuming that you, or anyone thinks for himself. I referred also to those people. I used, for a very short time, to think that was the only way to be my own individual (although I never put it into practice!). The problem with that is that society leads you to be satisfied with those norms, and when you become dissatisfied, it is because society has again led you to become dissatisfied with those norms. For example, religion. No person who benefits from religion will become dissatisfied with religion unless religion starts to fall short for them. So, both ways, religion is what satisfies them and religion is what gives them dissatisfaction. If they rebel against religion consequently, they are only doing so because religion is making them rebel against it, just as, previously, religion made them feel satisfaction. So that there is no individuality in reactionism. There is no such thing as individual thought (for us at least) because everything we learn and interact with comes from society. We can't think outside of what we have learned in society. This goes back to what I talked about earlier concerning language and limitation. EDIT: Ok, I see your definition now: In this case, no one thinks for themself. Absolutely not. You didn't learn language based on "reason", logic, and whatnot. You can't prove that the axioms of mathematics are true using "reason", or what you witness in the world (see here, in case you don't believe me). In which case you can't be said to think for yourself either.
Please! You're simply bantering about words. "Own" does not imply ownership, but rather the fact that the individual has used his/her mind to reach conclusions independently. And before you or others launch into more silly stuff about there being "no such thing as independent thought", consider this: if that were true, we'd still all be living in caves and using rocks and spears to hunt with.
§outh§tar, Do you concede that there is a difference between blindly accepting what you are told without examining it to the best of your ability and challenging what is taught to you with a critical mind?
Aw, shucks - learn to think for yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If there was no such thing as original thought, how could we possibly have progressed beyond our initial primitive level. Do you get it now? And there was nothing even slightly silly about my bringing down your two statements. Either you're NOT thinking or just being argumentative (or possibly just having fun, I hope). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What does society have to do with it if no one in that society can have an original thought as you claimed?
