To truly think freely is inherently an act of courage, and this can be said with certainty because it stems from basic truths about how human societal, poltitical, and religious systems operate.That is to say, the survival of these systems is predicated on such things as fear, collective identity, and unquestioning belief in the values and beliefs that these structures espouse, and so to counteract these pressures is to counter the uniform cowardice under which they stand.
Take, for example, the contradictory nature of the United States’ main political parties’ agendas. As many, such as neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, have pointed out, political parties operate by often tying together stances on completely arbitrary topics, with no real idelogical basis to unite them rationally. For instance, why should one’s view on abortion have any connection to their view on fiscal policy? The two subjects are totally independent of each other (or about as independent as any two political topics can be), yet our political parties have joined them for, one can soundly deduce, purely political reasons. This is not to posit that all party positions are completely arbitrary, and that none of them can be linked via the greater political idelogy to which the given party ostensibly subscribes. Social conservatism, on issues such as gay marriage or affirmative action, and constitutional conservatism, on issues such as gun rights, can genuinely be brought together under the umbrella of conservatism, and the same can be said for plenty of positions on the left as well. But this, of course, is the purpose of political parties in the first place: uniting relevant viewpoints under a broader ideological foundation. But issues arise, and attempts at freethought are suppressed, when this underlying motive is inevitably abandoned, and parties instead aim to cultivate collective thinking, with the implied threat of social disapproval and political impotency for those who choose to retain their individuality. For, as Orwell so warned us in 1984, the most effective, but likewise most despotic, way to maintain power is to control what people think, because the act of merely controlling people’s actions brings upon the enormous hazard of leaving their minds free to perceive the flaws and wrongdoings of those in power. So although the U.S. Constitution guarantees that political structures are unable to coerce, except by way of legislation, the people into acting in a way that aligns with their agenda, they are still able to exert a tremendous influence on the way we think by capitalizing on basic human shortcomings such as fear, insecurity, the aversion to individuality, and the need for social validation. It is not by people’s own free will that they associate the notion of two members of the same sex having a romantic relationship with that of an unborn baby being killed prematurely in order to permit their mother to wield further control over her life. These two distinct ideas have been brought together with the intention of extending influence over a political support base, not of finding truth or fostering harmony among members of the national community. Because there is no rational reason, much less an idelogical one, why someone cannot both champion the right of two individuals of the same sex to marry each other, and believe that an unborn child’s life should be prioritized over their mother’s right to autonomy as far as child-bearing is concerned. The notion that these stances are contradictory under the ideology of liberalism is total nonsense and is motivated by little other than partisan self-interest, which strives for manipulation rather than healthy discourse and meek compliance rather than unhindered truth-seeking. Thus the stigma that exists around those whose beliefs do not fall neatly and conveniently into a party’s agenda is purely an aritficial one; we created this destructive group-think mentality ourselves, and at the fault of our own underlying flaws. It should not be unpopular or dangerous or even uninteresting to think for oneself, and it is with an appalling irony that we inflct harm upon ourselves by creating an environment in which this is the case.
Because thinking collectively, and likewise being too afraid to hold one’s own opinion, much less express it, is an undeniable detriment to society and to ourselves as individuals. For one thing, this apprehension about treading upon the dogma of an organization, whether it be political, religious, or social, is a sentiment that confines the mind and starves it of its innate curiosity, discernment, and critical reasoning skills, which invariably leads to groups of people that are defiant, defensive, and loud-mouthed, but in turn lost, self-pitying, psychologically discontent, and overall bereft of substance. There is nothing beautiful or honorable in mindlessly following a creed, even if one has been inculcated with the idea that that creed is sacred and therefore inviolable?—?this behavior only suffocates the unique human capability for independent reasoning and decision-making, and ensures, quite repugnantly, that the potential the human mind possesses is never realized. This principle doesn’t apply only to political structures in society; the doctrine of religion can be soundly denounced in the same breath. If one recognizes the paramount importance of allowing human beings to think freely, then one must likewise see that indoctrinating children since infanthood to blindly follow a religion, without ever providing a rational basis for them doing so, is a hurtful and stifling practice. It does a person no good to teach them to unquestioningly accept the mythology and accompanying doctrine of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, while shunning all other religions as incorrect by the same gross irrationality. While this may succeed in earning someone the approval of members of their religious community and they may be looked upon as righteous or pious by others who share in this mindless habit, this behavior nonetheless constricts one’s mind and shuns critical scrutiny. Very few people even choose to adopt a religion in the first place?—?that is to say, there are few converts compared to those who are religious since birth. Most religious people are adherents of their religion by mere coincidence: they are Christian if their parents are Christian, and Jewish if their parents are Jewish. There was no sort of “personal arrival” for most people concerning their religion; they were simply told since an exceedingly young age what to think on these religious matters, and learned early-on the mental habit of cowardice and submission. I bring this up not just to criticize religion, but to illustrate how the mindlessness it promotes is part of a much greater flaw in human society and in human nature; to illustrate how the thoughtless acceptance of ideas, whether political, religious, or otherwise, is not a victimless crime, even if the ignorant blissfulness one receives from doing it may deceive one into believing so. We cannot solve society’s problems nor our own problems if we stubbornly refuse to think independently and critically merely because doing so is often frightening, lonely, and intimidating. Why protest the waste of any material resource, when the resource that is the human brain lies dormant and chained upon our heads?
What adds even further irony to the tendency of humans to mindlessly follow dogma is the fact that people do not genuinely appreciate or venerate those who accept common beliefs without critically examining or refuting them. Looking at those historical figures whom we hold up as paragons of the human race, it is abundantly clear that freethinkers are people whom we intuitively admire and cherish, both because of the strength of their ideas themselves, and because of the world-altering change that these ideas have led to. The history books do not look fondly on partisan hacks, or religious zealots, or cowering social conformists, and justly so, because these people offer little to humanity and to themselves by refusing to think independently. As Laurel Ulrich said, though it has become something of a cliché, “well-behaved women seldom make history,” and this general concept is properly embodied in how we view humanity’s leaders of the past. So although one may earn a job promotion or receive a spirited applause for saying only that which is popular to say, and thinking only that which is acceptable to think, us humans inevitably ignore these lifeless automatons and their deadening mechanicity.
Said otherwise, history forgets those who choose not to think for themselves?—?and that, I daresay, is justice.