Thinking Right or Thinking for Yourself?

[Cojuanco]

Which is more important, that people think true things, or that men think for themselves, even if those thoughts are false?

I was prompted by this description by Charles Williams on the thought of Alighieri:

With our modern views on party politics, at worst, or with our English views of party politics, at best, it is a little difficult for us to remember that Dante thought his own political opponents metaphysically and morally wrong. He was so touched by the habits of the Middle Ages (which he, of course, did not think were the Middle Ages; he thought he was a modern) that he believed it less important that men should think for themselves than that they should think rightly. We later moderns, on the whole, believe that men should think for themselves even if they think wrongly –The Figure of Beatrice, p. 126

So do you agree or disagree with Alighieri, and why?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Great quote. Dante is right. Critical thinking skills are good, but humility is better.

To head off an objection of free-thinkers, I grant that if we choose to submit to a particular authority or defer to another’s opinion, we are exercising a form of judgment. Nevertheless, it is a humbler form of judgment, and one which opens us to vast stores of knowledge.

Even avowed free-thinkers depend on others’ knowledge and exercise a form of faith. No one has the time or ability to do post-graduate level research personally to verify every piece of common knowledge.

 

[Cojuanco]

Then do you agree with Dante that the force of what we today would call the State be used to compel people to think true thoughts?

 

[3DOCTORS]

Great quote. Dante is right. Critical thinking skills are good, but humility is better.

To head off an objection of free-thinkers, I grant that if we choose to submit to a particular authority or defer to another’s opinion, we are exercising a form of judgment. Nevertheless, it is a humbler form of judgment, and one which opens us to vast stores of knowledge.

Even avowed free-thinkers depend on others’ knowledge and exercise a form of faith. No one has the time or ability to do post-graduate level research personally to verify every piece of common knowledge.

:clapping:

Also, so often in postmodern society, “Think for yourself!” is a veiled euphemism for “Think like a liberal!” I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this.

 

[St_Francis]

Then do you agree with Dante that the force of what we today would call the State be used to compel people to think true thoughts?

This idea is not in the part you quoted. Maybe you could add that part so as to flesh out what you are asking about.

 

[Ismael]

Thinking for yourself is good, but there ought to be ‘respect for authority’.

This in everyday life too:

People trust doctor’s advices, trust the info that accompanies medicine, legal advice from lawyers, etc…

Obviously a person would be foolish not to put at least SOME trust in the opinion and facts stated by ‘expert authorities’.

There is no serious contradiction between trusting authority and (genuine) free thinking.

To be ‘thinking by yourself’ and believing the WRONG things is, in my opinion, a case of pride and stubbornness, in most cases, rather than a case of true genuine ‘free thought’.

It is also important to ask “What IS free thought?”.

Everyone is influenced, Even, ‘rationalists’ who seek to weight everything within reason, often fail to see the truth because their rationalistic foundations biases their view.

–

As people of (catholic) faith in the Gospel, we can trust the promises Jesus made to Peter and the Apostles and have trust in the Church authority to teach the truth regarding theology and morals, however it does not stop us to ask questions. Actually we ought to, since we ought to seek to understand teachings rather than only accepting without understanding.

 

[jimmy]

I think it is stupid to oppose freedom of thought and correct thinking. Either way you have irrationality. A calculator comes to the correct conclusion every time, without exception. Yet, it is still irrational. I would rather be a human in error, than a correct calculator.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Then do you agree with Dante that the force of what we today would call the State be used to compel people to think true thoughts?

No.

 

[jimmy]

Great quote. Dante is right. Critical thinking skills are good, but humility is better.

To head off an objection of free-thinkers, I grant that if we choose to submit to a particular authority or defer to another’s opinion, we are exercising a form of judgment. Nevertheless, it is a humbler form of judgment, and one which opens us to vast stores of knowledge.

Even avowed free-thinkers depend on others’ knowledge and exercise a form of faith. No one has the time or ability to do post-graduate level research personally to verify every piece of common knowledge.

It seems that you contradict yourself between paragraph two and three. You claim it is more humble to submit to a particular authority, but then in paragraph 3 admit that free-thinkers submit to authority. So everyone is submitting to authority.

The problem is that you haven’t considered conscience. Submission to authority is determined by what a person believes. It is his conscience that demands he submits to that authority. But if he doesn’t believe that ‘authority’ is true, then his conscience demands that he reject it. Conscience demands that Christians submit to what is written in the bible and taught by Christ. It demands that a scientist submit to the findings of science (or to refuse to submit if he thinks they are wrong). The only absolute authority is truth, and that is the only thing that can bind conscience. No amount of submission can make something true, so someone who follows what their conscience tells them and rejects the ‘authority’ is being as humble as anyone.

So it is better that a man does what he believes is right, than what others think is right. By doing and following what others think is right he is contradicting his own conscience.

 

[Love4All]

Then do you agree with Dante that the force of what we today would call the State be used to compel people to think true thoughts?

Did Dante say that? If he did, how did he say it was possible? It seems to me a patently absurd idea, since people’s minds are not physical, and the only law enforcement we have is physical. How would one even verify another’s thoughts, except if told, much less correct them?

Is the reference to thoughts signified in writing or speech? If so, then I submit, we already do that. Hate speech, for example, is illegal.

 

[polytropos]

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that uniqueness has become a virtue. As secular thinking has begun to disbelieve that Truth is obtainable, people have substituted it out for uniqueness.

I don’t think this is quite what Dante was getting at. It is certainly a theme of The Divine Comedy that one should submit to God, but that really pertains more to resisting sin than to valuing Truth. Not that Dante did not value Truth - he did. I just don’t think that was the issue of the time which motivated Dante to write The Divine Comedy. Dante was also very transparently politically motivated, so although he may have considered his opponents to be in error, he was not a religious authority, and his political stances were not “Truth.”

I’d also say that the ideal is to think for oneself and arrive upon the Truth. You can’t really “think right” if you are not thinking for yourself. You can’t apprehend Truth without true faith and reason. If you don’t have true faith and reason, then you would not end up “thinking right.”

 

[Love4All]

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that uniqueness has become a virtue. As secular thinking has begun to disbelieve that Truth is obtainable, people have substituted it out for uniqueness.

I don’t think this is quite what Dante was getting at. It is certainly a theme of The Divine Comedy that one should submit to God, but that really pertains more to resisting sin than to valuing Truth. Not that Dante did not value Truth - he did. I just don’t think that was the issue of the time which motivated Dante to write The Divine Comedy. Dante was also very transparently politically motivated, so although he may have considered his opponents to be in error, he was not a religious authority, and his political stances were not “Truth.”

I’d also say that the ideal is to think for oneself and arrive upon the Truth. You can’t really “think right” if you are not thinking for yourself. You can’t apprehend Truth without true faith and reason. If you don’t have true faith and reason, then you would not end up “thinking right.”

I think an important key is to be honest with yourself. One important part of that is, I think, to discern your baser motives and do your best to weed them out. Self-interest can cloud thinking.

 

[Aloysium]

Which is more important, that people think true things, or that men think for themselves, even if those thoughts are false?

A false thought is an expression of ignorance or is a lie

It is important to think/speak out one’s ignorance in order to be guided towards the Truth.
Lies are an evil leading one in the opposite direction.

A more relevant question would be, “What is the purpose of thought, to find Truth or to hide in lies?”

 

[Ad_Orientem]

you contradict yourself . . . You claim it is more humble to submit to a particular authority, but then . . . admit that free-thinkers submit to authority.

It’s on a spectrum. Some submit more, and some more unconsciously. The point is, free-thinkers have a double standard.

. . . conscience. . . .

Good points. You’ve given me something to think about.

. . . By doing and following what others think is right [one] is contradicting his own conscience. . . .

Is this always the case? What if my conscience tells me to trust the Church, so that I “follow what others think is right” instead of what my own judgment would lead to?

 

[jimmy]

It’s on a spectrum. Some submit more, and some more unconsciously. The point is, free-thinkers have a double standard.

Good points. You’ve given me something to think about.

Is this always the case? What if my conscience tells me to trust the Church, so that I “follow what others think is right” instead of what my own judgment would lead to?

If your conscience tells you you should submit then there is no problem. You should submit. In the end it comes down to honesty with yourself.

 

[St_Francis]

I think the problem is this: we have a body of thought or opinions which we consider to be “thinking for oneself.” So if I follow Guru So-and-so or Professor Latest-Idiocy, that is considered thinking for myself.

But if I follow the Catholic Church, oh, the horror! I am no longer thinking for myself!

Since no one can possibly learn enough to truly think for oneself, we are all following authorities; we are just following different authorities.