The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. Options
Daemon
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 31,384
Neurons: 93,330
Location: Inside Farlex computers
A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Bully_rus
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 3:19:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2013
Posts: 3,255
Neurons: 306,689
Location: Minsk, Minskaya Voblasts', Belarus
But a man who doesn't think for others doesn't think well for himself too...
PureBlueLight
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 3:39:25 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/29/2015
Posts: 33
Neurons: 170,921
Location: Portimão, Faro, Portugal
Correction: a man, or, a woman.
Ouarasse
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 4:33:13 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 4/20/2016
Posts: 8
Neurons: 803
True! We are not endowed with billions of neurons (85-100) so that someone or something else may do the thiking for us. There's a problem, however. History is travelling down a road that seems to create conditions in which individuals feel less compelled to think for themselves. This had been raised some decades earlier by Henry David Thoreau in his philosophy of "simple living", a philosophy that stresses "self-reliance", including thinking your own thoughts. Some other philosophical perspectives, such as "constructivism" (John Dewey), share this view. They even believe that it's practically impossible to impart meaning, because meaning is constructed rather than received. Even teachers are advised not to instruct. They are asked to create learning conditions in which the students do the learning themseves. The role of the teacher is not to teach (paradox?), but to show material and raise questions that trigger the students' curiosity and unleash their learning powers. Meaning is knit within the web of your own cognitive apparatus. So in this sense, Wilde is right. Thinking involves setting your own peculiar neural networks in motion, otherwise you're not thinking at all. One more thing that we need to pay attention to is that most of our thinking is (probably) an effort to justify our emotional attachments (see The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt). You first "like" like something (the reasons are not clear why you like it) and then you do some thinking to justify the "correctness" of your liking. Cognition and emotion are actually quite intertwined and we should make sure that our thinking is not restricted to the subordinate function of justifying our emotional tendencies.
pedro
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 5:00:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
A man who thinks he is thinking for himself may be deluded.
CatCat
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 2:02:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/15/2014
Posts: 985
Neurons: 15,410
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".

Alan Greenspan (I think)
gerry
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 2:25:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 535
Neurons: 291,011
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Why not it's your best friend next to timeApplause
monamagda
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 4:58:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 7,987
Neurons: 6,379,884
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia


Context from: "The Soul of Man under Socialism"

"Individualism will also be unselfish and unaffected. It has been pointed out that one of the results of the extraordinary tyranny of authority is that words are absolutely distorted from their proper and simple meaning, and are used to express the obverse of their right signification. What is true about Art is true about Life. A man is called affected, nowadays, if he dresses as he likes to dress. But in doing that he is acting in a perfectly natural manner. Affectation, in such matters, consists in dressing according to the views of one’s neighbour, whose views, as they are the views of the majority, will probably be extremely stupid. Or a man is called selfish if he lives in the manner that seems to him most suitable for the full realisation of his own personality; if, in fact, the primary aim of his life is self-development. But this is the way in which everyone should live. Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people’s lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognises infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. It is grossly selfish to require of ones neighbour that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he? If he can think, he will probably think differently. If he cannot think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from him. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses. Under Individualism people will be quite natural and absolutely unselfish, and will know the meanings of the words, and realise them in their free, beautiful lives. Nor will men be egotistic as they are now. For the egotist is he who makes claims upon others, and the Individualist will not desire to do that. It will not give him pleasure. When man has realised Individualism, he will also realise sympathy and exercise it freely and spontaneously. Up to the present man has hardly cultivated sympathy at all. He has merely sympathy with pain, and sympathy with pain is not the highest form of sympathy. All sympathy is fine, but sympathy with suffering is the least fine mode. It is tainted with egotism. It is apt to become morbid. There is in it a certain element of terror for our own safety. We become afraid that we ourselves might be as the leper or as the blind, and that no man would have care of us. It is curiously limiting, too. One should sympathise with the entirety of life, not with life’s sores and maladies merely, but with life’s joy and beauty and energy and health and freedom. The wider sympathy is, of course, the more difficult. It requires more unselfishness. Anybody can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature – it requires, in fact, the nature of a true Individualist – to sympathise with a friend’s success."


https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

isaaac
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:11:25 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/20/2014
Posts: 88
Neurons: 42,671
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Why " Kafe revolutionaries" so long winded?
Rahul Goyal
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 6:33:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/15/2015
Posts: 1,355
Neurons: 156,941
Location: Kolkata, Bengal, India
Hmmmm
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.