It's Okay Not to Think for Yourself (Philosopher Explains)

The research for my podcast episodes is intense. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@cosmicnomad8575]

My view on thinking for yourself is that it is not actually good in itself but becomes good when it is used to come to the Truth. And that’s where it derives its goodness from. Sometimes it’s possible to think for yourself so much that it impedes getting to the Truth and in that case it begins to lose its value

[@sunblaze8931]

Parker's fabulous mustache is the source of his intelligence

[@CoranceLChandler]

Contraire, contraire me Mon Ami, his fabulous intelligence is the source of his mustache

[@georgechristiansen6785]

Think FOR yourself, but not BY yourself.

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

One thought of thought that should not be forgotten in this kind of discussion is the deference we don't notice that goes along with accepting certain things to be knowledge. If I accept that medicine has knowledge, or, put differently: If my (conception of) knowledge is (among other things) medical knowledge, then there is a deference that is nearly unavoidable because unless I am trained I know nearly nothing about medicine myself.

[@AlexanderLayko]

I try to let the soundness, cogency, coherence, demonstrability, reproducibility, and overall likelihood of a person's statements speak for themselves instead of being obsessed with "sources" and "credentials". In the rare event I really need to see "credentials". Guess what? I don't respect the credentials, integrity, or expertness of people who think there's 65 genders.

[@pawbard]

He rewrote Plato’s Theatetus with more emphasis on justified knowledge over true knowledge. St Thomas says the kind of approach to a science is made depending on the nature of a science, so it depends on the field of knowledge. A more realistic and humane view I think.

[@MasterMooper]

Possibly his judgement suspension argument can fall apart when considering epistemologist disagreement on what to think when experts disagree.

[@MasterMooper]

Also even in his position as long as any sharper or brighter philosophers disagree then he couldn't be rational in holding this view.

[@yuliatsf7942]

49:11 This made me think about social hierarchy. As there are different levers of experts. The head of the family should be an expert in the eyes of the subordinates of his family, or a chief of the company should be the expert on how to run the company. And in order to be a good expert on this level, they need to be able to discern good higher level experts from the bad ones on a certain matter (e.g.political, economical, medical, religious etc). In order to have good discernment they need to think for themselves. But after they choose those experts they should not think deeper past their level of hierarchy. Except maybe checking on the sanity of those experts once in awhile :)

[@lipingrahman6648]

It depends on what you are dealing with when in comes to not thinking for oneself. When it comes to philosophy, religion, art, politics, blah blah blah your no better off being a sheep than a skeptic there is nothing real in any of the above it's just a matter of what tickles your fancy. When it comes to physical reality of the structure, forces, position, etc than you need real evidence of any clam. Mistakes in arts, philosophy, religion, politics are natural, inevitable, probably good.

[@enriqueteruel6574]

Mistakes in ideas (philosophy, religion, etc) are the source of the most horrible acts of violence and produce more suffering than anything else. I dont see your point here. Wrong ideas have created the biggest wars and atrocities in history.

[@lipingrahman6648]

@@enriqueteruel6574 We can only say that a philosophical, religious, artistic, political idea is wrong or not not by the above but by looking outside philosophy. How do we say if Stoicism or Nietzsche, Protestant or Catholic, Christianity or Islam, they have no internal way to see if they are true. But only through external examination and if we are honest non of them hold much reality. People look to religions, arts, philosophies, politics not because they are true of real models of the world. But because it gives justification to whatever they want to be true or the power it brings.

[@enriqueteruel6574]

@@lipingrahman6648 bro didnt you just say mistakes in philosophy and feligion are probably good? read your own words. How can mistakes in ideas be good? Do you really need to "look outside philosophy" to say the idea that a race is superior to anothdr is wrong? what are you even saying? People are of a specific religion because they where born into it and brainwashed into it... not because it gives any justification to do anything. Thats is why people CREATED a religion... to justiphy their crazynes. But the rest of people where just born into a religion. I dont think you've studied religion enough brother. You make no sense. Bro Islam says women are inferior and you can beat your wife. Islam says the punishment for leaving islm is death. It says whom ever doesnt submit to Islamic law shoul die. Nazism says whites are the superior race... Christianity says everyone but the christians will burn in hell for eternity...

[@Gruso57]

@@lipingrahman6648 Before you go on a tangent such as this, you need to define reality. Otherwise, none of what you are saying holds any water.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Philosophy is above everything you'd consider "real."

[@bigol7169]

That is the most religious title for a video I've ever seen 😂

Lol your biases are on full display 🤣🤣

[@hydrogeniodide8436]

​@"better out than in I always say" -Shrek

[@crymeariver221]

Of course its okay to not think for yourself. Without you sheep, it wouldnt be so easy to make money and make some real moves in life. Im all about the contrast that life has to offer. The same way there has to be winners and losers in a competition.