Experts,
We all bat around the term "free thinker" a lot, but what does it really mean? Here's Webter's online definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20thinkerMain Entry: free·think·er
Pronunciation: \-ÈthiK-kYr\
Function: noun
Date: 1692
: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma
Certainly in 1692 there was risk and challenge in denying religious dogma. It is now 2008, and there are many different dogmas competing for dominance. Couldn't a student at Berkely who bucks political correctness be considered a free thinker? What about biologists at Universities that question Darwinism? (see "Expelled" by Ben Stein). It seems archaic in the extreme to label as a "free thinker" anyone who decides not to believe in "religious doma".
How about this new definition?
Free thinker: An individual that thinks (or can think) outside the bounds of his group of loyalty or affiliation, often playing an iconoclastic role in exposing group hypocrisy, myopia, and inconsistencies in thought and perception.
Isn't that a little broader? The whole "if you're not religious, you're a free-thinker" approach doesn't really grasp the wider concept, in my opinion.
That's my definition of a "free thinker". It seems that there are some on this site that buy the 1622 version; in fact even some in popular culture. Take this line from the popular Rush song, "Tom Sawyer":
No his mind is not for rent
To any god or government
Our heroic Nietzsche-esque super-man painted by Neil Peart is a "thinker" because he blithely dismisses government and religion. This is the 1622 version of a free-thinker. "Dude, I'm not religious and stuff...so I guess you could call me a 'free-thinker'". Can't pretty much any idiot choose NOT to believe ANYTHING in this day and age? Anyone claiming to be this type of "free thinker" in the 21st century should hesistate in giving himself/herself too much credit.
There's an even more absurd definition of a free-thinker being appealed to on this site as well; that is, some super-human that has NO (or virtually no) cultural, familial, national, or any other incumbrances to his thought. He needs no one and answers to no one. ALL of his thoughts are completely his own, and he has disgarded all societal influences on his perceptions of the world. I assert to you that this individual does not exist and never will. Yet many of us seem to be waiting around for such an individual to show us the truth, or are working overtime to somehow become that person ourselves. Is this realistic? Does a person need to be completely stripped of all subjectivity to see clearly? Is there a balance?
The quesiton in short: what is a free thinker, and how free can a thinker really be?
Start Free Trial
