Independent Thinker; Aphorisms
Posted on Aug 16th, 2007
by 
Slacky
Slacky
An independent thinker is a person who subjects each statement he thinks might be an abstraction to the maximum amount of analysis of which he is capable. If his analysis of the statement ends in a place where it is inconclusive about the validity of the statement, the independent thinker will withhold judgment about the validity of the statement. Analysis of any statement can be ongoing.
Of course, the independent thinker dismisses as invalid any abstraction for which he can't find strong evidence of validity by means of his analysis. In fact, the experienced independent thinker can often dismiss in great rapidity, in an almost mechnical manner, thousands of received notions and cliches.
To dismiss the validity of these, he need not even always engage in basic logcial analysis. For example, an independent thinker might dismiss the cliche and received notion "Freedom isn't free" on the grounds that it doesn't even meet the criteria of the dictionary definitions by means of which concensus reality definitions of words are established.
To demonstrate ... any definition will state that "freedom" is the state of being free. Likewise, anyone or anythng that is free must, again, by definition, be in a state of freedom. If, then, the dictionary is to be used as a standard of at least concensus reality speech, the statement "Freedom isn't free" must be invalid. The independent thinker could induce that the phrase "freedom isn't free" was generated as shorthand for some phrase such as "freedom entails sacrifice."
The independent thinker, if she is experienced, will analyze the phrase "freedom entails sacrifice" by formulating such questions as: 1. What is the meaning of the term "freedom"? 2. In the unlikely event that "freedom" can be defined, is there strong evidence that "freedom" exists in the United States in a form that is qualitatively superior to that of the "freedom" that exists in other places? 3. Even given that "freedom" can be defined and be demonstrated to exist in the highest qualitative form in the United States, what is the evidence that this freedom requires sacrifice or that it is worth sacrificing for?
In my case, the questions are answered in astonishing rapidity. I think it is very unlikely that any person will ever be able to formulate a precise definition of freedom or to demonstrate that such a state as "freedom" exists. I categorize the term "freedom" as invalid and conclude there is no evidence that the nonexist state justifies any sacrifice at all. I induce that the cliche and received notion "Freedom isn't free" was generated at some time as a trigger phrase designed to indoctrinate adults to willingly, and even enthusiastically, sacrifice adult children whom they claim they "love" in the cause of wars that are started by politicians in Washington, D.C., whom the parents have never met; are started by these politicians for reasons about which the parents know nothing; and are fought in countries about which the parents know nothing.
As received notions make up the framework for organized institutions, experienced independent thinkers will often reject, after a great degree of analytical work, organized religion, organized politics, organized government, organized education and, in theory, at any rate, organized community. (For me, the question of whether an individual can exist outside of community remains open.) As was stated in another blog, the nihilist is a person who wants to see all elements of the status quo cease to exist.
Of course, the independent thinker dismisses as invalid any abstraction for which he can't find strong evidence of validity by means of his analysis. In fact, the experienced independent thinker can often dismiss in great rapidity, in an almost mechnical manner, thousands of received notions and cliches.
To dismiss the validity of these, he need not even always engage in basic logcial analysis. For example, an independent thinker might dismiss the cliche and received notion "Freedom isn't free" on the grounds that it doesn't even meet the criteria of the dictionary definitions by means of which concensus reality definitions of words are established.
To demonstrate ... any definition will state that "freedom" is the state of being free. Likewise, anyone or anythng that is free must, again, by definition, be in a state of freedom. If, then, the dictionary is to be used as a standard of at least concensus reality speech, the statement "Freedom isn't free" must be invalid. The independent thinker could induce that the phrase "freedom isn't free" was generated as shorthand for some phrase such as "freedom entails sacrifice."
The independent thinker, if she is experienced, will analyze the phrase "freedom entails sacrifice" by formulating such questions as: 1. What is the meaning of the term "freedom"? 2. In the unlikely event that "freedom" can be defined, is there strong evidence that "freedom" exists in the United States in a form that is qualitatively superior to that of the "freedom" that exists in other places? 3. Even given that "freedom" can be defined and be demonstrated to exist in the highest qualitative form in the United States, what is the evidence that this freedom requires sacrifice or that it is worth sacrificing for?
In my case, the questions are answered in astonishing rapidity. I think it is very unlikely that any person will ever be able to formulate a precise definition of freedom or to demonstrate that such a state as "freedom" exists. I categorize the term "freedom" as invalid and conclude there is no evidence that the nonexist state justifies any sacrifice at all. I induce that the cliche and received notion "Freedom isn't free" was generated at some time as a trigger phrase designed to indoctrinate adults to willingly, and even enthusiastically, sacrifice adult children whom they claim they "love" in the cause of wars that are started by politicians in Washington, D.C., whom the parents have never met; are started by these politicians for reasons about which the parents know nothing; and are fought in countries about which the parents know nothing.
As received notions make up the framework for organized institutions, experienced independent thinkers will often reject, after a great degree of analytical work, organized religion, organized politics, organized government, organized education and, in theory, at any rate, organized community. (For me, the question of whether an individual can exist outside of community remains open.) As was stated in another blog, the nihilist is a person who wants to see all elements of the status quo cease to exist.
Access: Public
abstraction
August 2007 