Free Thinking or Free Wheeling?

Leo Tolstoy is reported as having said:

“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless.”

I find this statement fascinating. In a way it is also disturbing, or at least unsettling.

Using freedom to think freely – unassociated with fixed beliefs or relationships – allows the mind to seek meaning and truth without bias or presumption. It tests our understanding of the world around us. It challenges incomplete thoughts or what become known as incomplete truths – wispy assumptions made to fit the things we know.

Knowing anything is most likely incomplete. Coming to know is a process, and by definition not fully complete at any point of the process. The cycle of search, gather, ponder and conclude creates a point of stasis; collecting those points into a body of conclusions builds toward an understanding of those ‘things’ or thoughts gathered. But change one of the components and the process needs to restart and reanalyze the points of stasis.

To do otherwise makes me suspicious shortcuts will lead to slopping thinking and inappropriate conclusions. Perhaps this is ‘free wheeling’ and not the subject of our quest.

I think sound bites are products of such free wheeling behavior. So too is ‘spin’ on topics under discussion. Clever, yes; truthful and accurate, no.

So the latter is a peek at the unsettled-ness of free thinking. It can be abused and manipulated.

Oscar Wilde said:

            “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

             Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth.”

This is also a disturbing idea. Why? Because it suggests that much of what people say are apt not to be true reflections of who they are. How then do we deal with the chimera this poses? If it is not real is it then myth? And if myth, how does it inform discussion and understanding?

I agree that a person is likely to speak the truth about his understanding or person-hood if he is in a safe place. Hiding behind a mask or assumed name or identify provides safe place temporarily. It is not a permanent home in which the person knows himself or allows others to know him truly.

Fake persona or face does not build strong foundations of trust.

The juxtaposition of Tolstoy’s and Wilde’s thoughts gives us pause in today’s society. We need to think freely so as to understand reality, but our person-hoods need to be open and truthful else we are dealing with fakery. In a 24/7 social environment of image and staged appearance (news programs and entertainment programs) what we see is not real. It is masked and made pretty.

Jon Stewart’s daily program is an entertaining means of seeking accurate reporting and meaning. It strips away the fakery. He makes it funny. But the facts – truth – are there baldly to be seen.

How refreshing. However, why must we do this in the first place?

January 15, 2013