Think for yourself, question authority.

But don’t you think certain cultures have at least more or less culture? What about, even the 90’s, albeit there may be some romanticism… But things were different then. People were making efforts to accept each other. Through those efforts, we learned we were not ready.

On your second response… To your ends… To your desires

I am fifty one. But my age is only one of the reasons why I think the way I do. The other is my psychology. I am
a loner and the advantage of that is I have no one influencing my thinking process. So there is no peer pressure
on me to think a certain way since I can think however I wish without consequence. Being a loner means I have
more time to myself to think and so can see that I am just passing through and that nothing matters in the end
As I already said this acceptance allows me to see things from a more logical and so less emotional perspective

We are beings literally made of emotions. Would you rather be a Computer or the words on the page of a book about computers? Or perhaps you would rather be a song that is never heard?

We are not just emotional beings but logical ones too. I myself find a logical perspective to be
preferable to an emotional one. Though to each their own as this is not something set in stone

You’re gonna have to tell me what you mean by ‘culture’ in that second sense before I can answer that.

So…are you trying to say that ‘thinking for yourself’ is necessarily a synonym for tolerance, acceptance, and all that shit? If not, I really don’t see what this has to do with anything I said.

No. People don’t need to be controlled for my ends.

EDIT: Boy, this thread turned into a bunch of crazy rambling quick.

We are not “literally made of emotions”. And computers are made by us, the homo sapiens. Do you know what the word “sapiens” means?

Excellent thread WWIII. I like to take it one more step, think for yourself and destroy all authority. :smiley:

Now, history has shown us that most revolutions or radical change comes from organized small minorities of individuals.

I always tell people if you’re ever expecting the majority of stupid sheople to get off their lazy complacent asses you’ll be greatly disappointed. This is why I don’t care about a majority of people. They’re worthless and useless cattle. Fuck’em.

Uccisore is a part of the exceptional chosen. He was blessed and ordained by Ayn Rand herself right before she died.

What is authority? Centralized power.

Social reforms? Well, there’s a terminology that is amusing. I have another terminology to add with your concept of social reforms, epic failure.

“There has been genetic success in being bound together in a group going the wrong direction as well as being alone in the right one. Therefore, those who have followed the assertive idiot rather than the introspective wise person have a significant presence in the gene pool.” – paraphrased from Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.

Why do you think it took you to be the age you were to begin thinking that way, is it peer pressure or is it yourself? Would you have preferred to have done it differently?

Oh well, you know what’s coming…

Sure, question authority. Think for yourself.

But to what extent in doing this does it really get you any closer to the whole truth when that truth revolves around conflicting value judgments?

So, the masses in the Sanders or the Trump campaign question the authority of the ruling class, overthrow it and then impose a new political narrative that the next generation perceives to be the authority to question.

In other words, like Hegel or Marx, the idealists and the materialists reach the conclusion that their own authority finally comes to reflect once and for all “the end of history”.

To wit: Their own authority is said to reflect the only rational manner in which to understand, among other things, everything.

I’m sorry but I have keep reminding you that in thinking for yourself you are no less thinking from the perspective of dasein. There is almost certainly no “real you” once you strip away all of the existential layers.

At least regarding this: how ought I to live?

And of course we’re all free to define anybody who disagree with as ‘the assertive idiot’ and anybody we personally agree with as ‘the introspective wise person’, such that any time we’re at odds with the masses, we imagine ourselves to be courageously ‘thinking for ourselves’.

That’s all that sort of talk is- a way to pat onesself on the back.

IS that all it is? Shouldn’t there be something more? And if so, shouldn’t we base it on reason, logic, and understanding?

Now in political ideologies it all can come down to values and opinion, but what happens is that people argue nonsensically and are inundated with propaganda, oft through confirmation bias. They base their political ideology on lies from propaganda. But ultimately, anyone can be any ideology if they have a coherent, logical argument for why. And that’s fine. We all have our opinions of course…

So it is a matter of many assertive idiots and their many followers, there’s a lot of them. I mean a lot. There are reasonable people that we can all disagree with reasonable, no matter what our values are. The problem is, there aren’t as many there. It’s not a matter of patting ourselves on the back because the population is stupid. But then again, so what if I, or you, or someone else is so much more intelligent than the general population? That’s not a matter of patting yourself on the back here, its a matter of concern over people listening to assertive idiots than an “introspective wise person”. I don’t agree that everyone can just classify whoever they want as an assertive idiot and an introspective wise person, there needs to bgood reason behind to be able to do that, and there are reasonable people who can and do understand that, regardless of their disagreements.

What you call dasein I call ego.

Formulating a world view takes time because it requires understanding which comes from both knowledge and experience. Sometimes a switch is clicked
and the mind responds accordingly but it can be very subtle so it is not until much later one becomes aware of how it all began. For me it was the simple
realisation that there were significant differences between the Abrahamic religions and entirely different belief systems outside of them. Such pieces did
not fit which meant one of two things : either one was right and the others were wrong or they were all wrong. And I chose the latter for it was the more
logical of the two positions. Then after becoming an atheist five years ago I became interested in science and philosophy. And this is how I ended up both
here and on other philosophy and rational sites. This switch clicked in my mind over eleven years ago when I partly read a book on Buddhism though I was
not planning on becoming one. However my interest was enough to begin the process of reevaluating my entire world view. The Chinese have this saying :
in order to walk a thousand miles a man must first take a step. Well my thousand mile journey began with that book and I am still walking it today. And I
shall carry on walking it until I can walk no more. Because until then there is no point at which I stop learning. As for me that is always a work in progress

Very cool, I’m glad you’re with us.

The vast majority of people already do that to the best of their ability, is the problem. To present 'let’s try applying logic, reason and understanding!" as if it’s some novel idea only a few people are using just seems like a way of puffing onesself up as superior or calling ideological enemies stupid, to me.

In those cases they are usually repeating arguments they heard, and more often than not are arguing about a subject that they aren’t actually interested in enough to have put in real time studying it. It doesn’t take much education to get past that stage.

“Those other people base their ideology on lies and propaganda” is one of the chief bits of lies and propaganda that uneducated folks buy into.

The problem is that merely ‘questioning authority’ and ‘thinking for yourself’ doesn’t provide any guarentee that you can tell one from the other. There are plenty of Catholics who thought for themselves, questioned their religious authority…and became Scientologists instead. “Here is the ideology for people who think for themselves” and “There is the ideology for people who don’t” rapidly becomes just another propaganda point.

Well no of course its not a “novel idea” - after all, didn’t I make it clear that this is now in everyone’s psyche? I don’t know where you got that impression, but it seems to be some sort of preconceived bias.

You are right about this: “Those other people base their ideology on lies and propaganda” is one of the chief bits of lies and propaganda that uneducated folks buy into."
Which makes attempts like this frustrating to deal with. Because fire is fought with fire. So did I really not say anything? So be it. But an attempt was made. Hopefully it means something to someone and its used justly.