I don't agree. Taking myself as an example I believe lots of people don't tangle with the greatest minds of all time because they don't have the spare time and energy to tackle them and educational training to get them started.
After a hard days breaking your arse on a building site or having your mind numbed by seven hours of spreadsheets it isn't a philosophical conceit that holds you back from cracking open Tolstoy when you get home.
@Pulchism Infact I would say its a bit arrogant to make the judgement that people in general (if thats what you mean by society) who are not suitably equipped or suitably fortunate to pursue deep intellectual research are merely stroking their own egos by attempting to be critical of things, by considering themselves free thinkers with nothing to learn from posterity, and are only doing so out of laziness.
Sometimes I get really anxious when I'm doing essays at University about certain ideas and I just know that there is this huge history of inquiry into this topic and I don't have the time to, and am not expected to, search out and read all (or even a few) of these books before I have to put out an arguement. This has been bothering me so much that I'm planning to take a year off to actually just study .
Very Interesting, what would Richard Rorty have to say about this? I wonder how much of it is just a part of our post-modern society and how much of it is a part of thinking for oneself aka creativity. But that's a great healthy distinction to keep in mind to stave off laziness as you said, thank you.
Common sense is often forgotten, because we learn mostly two ways of thinking. Sympathetic Thinking, And Critical thinking. which is just viewing things of one side of the coin dependend on the staringpoint of oneself (which includes the polarity-preference of a certain point of view)
All the things that people say are from a startingpoint. Thinking for oneself, as justification for remaining ignorant and self-centered is partly programmed by society due to the mistrust we have in others. If people say that they truly think for themselves, they cannot escape the fact that one has to do research, then they can explain both sides of the coin, and the can explain the common sense, the problems and the solution all together.
i may be wrong but it occurs to me that you're dwelling on a false dichotomy. thinking for oneself is about having a disciplined mind. being rational and critical. to say from that that it implies laziness and/or narcissism doesn't follow. it certainly doesn't imply being exclusionary towards other viewpoints, it's simply about not taking things at face-value.
Apologies for "resurrecting the thread", but the video seems to point out the pretenders to independence of thought. Having a truly independent mind is good - as Anton states, it keeps us from being "Yes-Men" - but the term has been used to make people feel accomplished and productive without worthwhile study.
None of these comments apply to me. The narrow minded people keep attributing to me a position for which they have a critique but which I have not expressed.
The reason to think for one's self is to bring one's mind into line with reality. Accepting what others say uncritically can lead us astray from reality, and reality is the sole subject of our minds.
Wouldn't you agree, Professoranton, that the purpose of thinking is to know and understand and deal with reality?
Half of thinking is learning to see the world from the view of someone else. You seem to struggle with that and/or even against it. What have this discussion at all? To convert me to your cult?
It is so convenient to simply dismiss an Objectivist as a "cult member." Yes, we Objectivists just swallow unquestioningly the ideas of Ayn Rand; we don't think at all!
I think you are equally as guilty of evasion as the people you berate in this video.
What do you know about what I have and have not read?
You and he both SEEM to struggle with listening to the actual claims being made. I have little evidence that you're not just knee-jerking and putting a position on me.
I believe I understand perfectly well what you are trying to say, and, to an extent, I concur with you.
I made no reference to your erudition, and I apologize if I came across as accusative. I merely took offense to your insinuation that Objectivism is a cult.
No hard feelings man. The dude was fairly rude to me, and I was trying to be nice to him over his most recent video and he accuses me of Obscurantism (and you concurred). Not sure what he or you want. I'd openly welcome your best video on my position on the individual and/or how that relates to self and community.
Today's cult of thinking for one's self comes from a subjectivism in Dewey. It is so widespread because of the state monopoly on education in America.
Would anyone really reject Isaac Newton because they want to have "their own" view of gravity?
@MrCropper I am glad that you have Ayn Rand to tell you that you think for yourself. What a fun cliche to repeat, especially when it becomes a mantra. Oh wait, I meant an easy identifier for making snap thoughtless judgments.
I think maybe you overestimate the ability of many people to understand complex issues. We should consider the benefits, most people willing to follow has allowed for many great acomplishments of humanity. (pyramids, highways, water, ext.).
Do you suppose the labor of the followers have permitted great minds to toil over thoughts as opposed to finding the next meal?
At any rate, I am curious. When I go to the bookstore to ask about "Selfhood and Authenticity" whom else should I pick up?
I wonder if he opposite is not also the case? or, is it the case that part of the difficulty is that there is not a similar way of scientists "keeping abreast" with ethics?
or, how about the degree to which that technology and science have amplified and magnified human incompetence and malevolence?
You seem not that informed regarding the problems and challenges that neuroscience has been having with first person theory (i.e. consciousness itself, not some third person talking about various brain states, firing patterns, and chemical changes).
You write: "In any case, subjectivity -- what goes on in the mind -- can be, and is, studied objectively and with the help of the general method of science," That does not sound right or clear or exact, at all: "Subjectivity studied objectively," That cannot be right, and certainly sounds like someone entertaining ambiguous words.
Philosophy is often for self-understanding, science is most often not.
Sorry to tell you, but most psychology is not really science. Sociology too.
Science, then, is for understanding others, the world, and maybe how one fits into the world, but self-understanding, self-reflection in the ultimate sense, remains the domain of philosophical reflection.
Point well taken and I agree in broad tenor with your argument, but your claim that "Only philosophers which keep abreast scientific progress are relevant" is a bit bold and overstated, especially regarding ethics (cf. Epictetus, Seneca, Buddha, etc.).
Philosophy and science may increasingly been seen to be serving different ends. Simply put: modern science, unlike philosophy, can help people who remain unable to help themselves.
This appears to be an overboard criticism of human organisms 'becoming' aware of , or waking up to, a valuation of other minds. Which says something of that organism's growth, not only in vocabulary itself but in interaction with media/ books as well as larger populations.
Your bias to make this critique seems, to Me/Us to stem from an oversight of inherited descriptions of what it means 'to get along with' & 'learn history of'. Hav u forgotten u'r own growth through grammar? child's play
I find something similar with some students in the arts, who occasionally seem dismayed by the prospect of engaging with art history or with the field of current practice. They seem to see this engagement not only as hard work but also an affront to their individual creativity. There is a strong streak of romanticism in the idea of 'thinking for yourself' which is very evident in student artists. (I blame the Pre-Raphaelites :) )
any, it would seem, young individual, now, will believe that their experiences and thoughts are unique and have never been thought of or experienced before, its saddening.
I know people who think in a very similar vain to this, and I try to show them the history of thought, so that they can appropriate their own minds to the world, but they refuse, choosing rather to unwittingly alienate themselves from the world and others.
These people believe that everyone around them is trying to vie for their minds, so by adopting social values and norms one would be giving their minds over to others, thus sacrificing the most human part of themselves. This view takes non-conformity to unhealthy extremes, inasmuch as it is a self-alienating view.
this attitude, which I have come across, takes non-conformity to unhealthy extremes, but whats ironic is that they don't think for themelves after they "acknowledge" the fact.
"deadly" absolutley, not only that, but alienating, disrespectful, and foolish, because in engaging with the history of thought, we can put our own thoughts into persepective, but for the people who don't their thoughts run away with them and consume them. its pathetic, its almost like learned helplessness.
This rant is so refreshing! thanks a lot.
xOnimpulsex 2 months ago
That type of think which you describe is promoted from above, and makes the people pliable to the controllers of the Hive-Mind mentality.
NibiruLives 7 months ago
I don't agree. Taking myself as an example I believe lots of people don't tangle with the greatest minds of all time because they don't have the spare time and energy to tackle them and educational training to get them started.
After a hard days breaking your arse on a building site or having your mind numbed by seven hours of spreadsheets it isn't a philosophical conceit that holds you back from cracking open Tolstoy when you get home.
Pulchism 10 months ago
@Pulchism Infact I would say its a bit arrogant to make the judgement that people in general (if thats what you mean by society) who are not suitably equipped or suitably fortunate to pursue deep intellectual research are merely stroking their own egos by attempting to be critical of things, by considering themselves free thinkers with nothing to learn from posterity, and are only doing so out of laziness.
I would say infact your video offended me.
Pulchism 10 months ago
Sometimes I get really anxious when I'm doing essays at University about certain ideas and I just know that there is this huge history of inquiry into this topic and I don't have the time to, and am not expected to, search out and read all (or even a few) of these books before I have to put out an arguement. This has been bothering me so much that I'm planning to take a year off to actually just study .
photent 11 months ago
Think for yourself so I don't have to think for you.
Perilous3D 1 year ago
You are good at these videos. A lot of people can't do rants to a camera. I personally find it very difficult and stray off the main topic.
yoseph89 1 year ago
Very Interesting, what would Richard Rorty have to say about this? I wonder how much of it is just a part of our post-modern society and how much of it is a part of thinking for oneself aka creativity. But that's a great healthy distinction to keep in mind to stave off laziness as you said, thank you.
musicmathieu 1 year ago
Common sense is often forgotten, because we learn mostly two ways of thinking. Sympathetic Thinking, And Critical thinking. which is just viewing things of one side of the coin dependend on the staringpoint of oneself (which includes the polarity-preference of a certain point of view)
ReginaldDiepenhorst 1 year ago
All the things that people say are from a startingpoint. Thinking for oneself, as justification for remaining ignorant and self-centered is partly programmed by society due to the mistrust we have in others. If people say that they truly think for themselves, they cannot escape the fact that one has to do research, then they can explain both sides of the coin, and the can explain the common sense, the problems and the solution all together.
ReginaldDiepenhorst 1 year ago
Nice!
Professoranton 2 years ago
i may be wrong but it occurs to me that you're dwelling on a false dichotomy. thinking for oneself is about having a disciplined mind. being rational and critical. to say from that that it implies laziness and/or narcissism doesn't follow. it certainly doesn't imply being exclusionary towards other viewpoints, it's simply about not taking things at face-value.
fede2 2 years ago
@fede2
Apologies for "resurrecting the thread", but the video seems to point out the pretenders to independence of thought. Having a truly independent mind is good - as Anton states, it keeps us from being "Yes-Men" - but the term has been used to make people feel accomplished and productive without worthwhile study.
Pichounator 1 year ago
@Pichounator i see. i must've missed that.
fede2 1 year ago
None of these comments apply to me. The narrow minded people keep attributing to me a position for which they have a critique but which I have not expressed.
What is that?
Professoranton 2 years ago
The reason to think for one's self is to bring one's mind into line with reality. Accepting what others say uncritically can lead us astray from reality, and reality is the sole subject of our minds.
Wouldn't you agree, Professoranton, that the purpose of thinking is to know and understand and deal with reality?
MrCropper 2 years ago
I don't know if there is such a thing as "the purpose of thinking." To me, that sounds simplistic, dogmatic, Platonic even.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Yeah, I knew you wouldn't agree with it...
MrCropper 2 years ago
Go preach your utterly less than nuanced clunkers to those who like that kind of stuff.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Half of thinking is learning to see the world from the view of someone else. You seem to struggle with that and/or even against it. What have this discussion at all? To convert me to your cult?
Professoranton 2 years ago
It is so convenient to simply dismiss an Objectivist as a "cult member." Yes, we Objectivists just swallow unquestioningly the ideas of Ayn Rand; we don't think at all!
I think you are equally as guilty of evasion as the people you berate in this video.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
What do you know about what I have and have not read?
You and he both SEEM to struggle with listening to the actual claims being made. I have little evidence that you're not just knee-jerking and putting a position on me.
Professoranton 2 years ago
I believe I understand perfectly well what you are trying to say, and, to an extent, I concur with you.
I made no reference to your erudition, and I apologize if I came across as accusative. I merely took offense to your insinuation that Objectivism is a cult.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
No hard feelings man. The dude was fairly rude to me, and I was trying to be nice to him over his most recent video and he accuses me of Obscurantism (and you concurred). Not sure what he or you want. I'd openly welcome your best video on my position on the individual and/or how that relates to self and community.
I have no ill will toward to you.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Today's cult of thinking for one's self comes from a subjectivism in Dewey. It is so widespread because of the state monopoly on education in America.
Would anyone really reject Isaac Newton because they want to have "their own" view of gravity?
That said, I think for myself.
MrCropper 2 years ago
You seem to know nothing of Dewey's work.
Professoranton 2 years ago
@MrCropper I am glad that you have Ayn Rand to tell you that you think for yourself. What a fun cliche to repeat, especially when it becomes a mantra. Oh wait, I meant an easy identifier for making snap thoughtless judgments.
Professoranton 2 years ago
I think maybe you overestimate the ability of many people to understand complex issues. We should consider the benefits, most people willing to follow has allowed for many great acomplishments of humanity. (pyramids, highways, water, ext.).
Do you suppose the labor of the followers have permitted great minds to toil over thoughts as opposed to finding the next meal?
At any rate, I am curious. When I go to the bookstore to ask about "Selfhood and Authenticity" whom else should I pick up?
fomenter666 2 years ago
How about The Absent Body by Drew Leder?
Professoranton 2 years ago
Must all science be mathematically exact science??
How, exactly, do you decide what is and what is not the proper domain of science?
What is your method for determining where science is to be applied and where it is not to be applied?
Professoranton 2 years ago
I wonder if he opposite is not also the case? or, is it the case that part of the difficulty is that there is not a similar way of scientists "keeping abreast" with ethics?
or, how about the degree to which that technology and science have amplified and magnified human incompetence and malevolence?
Professoranton 2 years ago
You seem not that informed regarding the problems and challenges that neuroscience has been having with first person theory (i.e. consciousness itself, not some third person talking about various brain states, firing patterns, and chemical changes).
Professoranton 2 years ago
You write: "In any case, subjectivity -- what goes on in the mind -- can be, and is, studied objectively and with the help of the general method of science," That does not sound right or clear or exact, at all: "Subjectivity studied objectively," That cannot be right, and certainly sounds like someone entertaining ambiguous words.
Professoranton 2 years ago
You state: "However, they can -- and most likely will - become mature sciences over time." What is the scientific basis for that claim?
Could the problem be that too many people are trying to make everything scientific, even aspects of life which cannot be scientized?
Professoranton 2 years ago
Philosophy is often for self-understanding, science is most often not.
Sorry to tell you, but most psychology is not really science. Sociology too.
Science, then, is for understanding others, the world, and maybe how one fits into the world, but self-understanding, self-reflection in the ultimate sense, remains the domain of philosophical reflection.
Professoranton 2 years ago
Point well taken and I agree in broad tenor with your argument, but your claim that "Only philosophers which keep abreast scientific progress are relevant" is a bit bold and overstated, especially regarding ethics (cf. Epictetus, Seneca, Buddha, etc.).
Philosophy and science may increasingly been seen to be serving different ends. Simply put: modern science, unlike philosophy, can help people who remain unable to help themselves.
Professoranton 2 years ago
This appears to be an overboard criticism of human organisms 'becoming' aware of , or waking up to, a valuation of other minds. Which says something of that organism's growth, not only in vocabulary itself but in interaction with media/ books as well as larger populations.
Your bias to make this critique seems, to Me/Us to stem from an oversight of inherited descriptions of what it means 'to get along with' & 'learn history of'. Hav u forgotten u'r own growth through grammar? child's play
dospook 2 years ago
I find something similar with some students in the arts, who occasionally seem dismayed by the prospect of engaging with art history or with the field of current practice. They seem to see this engagement not only as hard work but also an affront to their individual creativity. There is a strong streak of romanticism in the idea of 'thinking for yourself' which is very evident in student artists. (I blame the Pre-Raphaelites :) )
conferencereport 2 years ago
He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Comment removed
hawkeyicockburn 2 years ago
any, it would seem, young individual, now, will believe that their experiences and thoughts are unique and have never been thought of or experienced before, its saddening.
begily 2 years ago
I know people who think in a very similar vain to this, and I try to show them the history of thought, so that they can appropriate their own minds to the world, but they refuse, choosing rather to unwittingly alienate themselves from the world and others.
begily 2 years ago
These people believe that everyone around them is trying to vie for their minds, so by adopting social values and norms one would be giving their minds over to others, thus sacrificing the most human part of themselves. This view takes non-conformity to unhealthy extremes, inasmuch as it is a self-alienating view.
begily 2 years ago
this attitude, which I have come across, takes non-conformity to unhealthy extremes, but whats ironic is that they don't think for themelves after they "acknowledge" the fact.
begily 2 years ago
"deadly" absolutley, not only that, but alienating, disrespectful, and foolish, because in engaging with the history of thought, we can put our own thoughts into persepective, but for the people who don't their thoughts run away with them and consume them. its pathetic, its almost like learned helplessness.
begily 2 years ago
Couldn't agree more.
TRAGlCHERO 2 years ago 2
You have the most fucking amazing videos!! How do generate all wonderful ideas every day?
McGarnicle13 2 years ago 2
Thank you. you are too kind. The trick is that I have other people up my sleeve: I read lots.
Professoranton 2 years ago
welcome to generation Y
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago