Exposure point of view arguing that free thinking is not just innovate and counter the prevailing thoughts, but to expose the free thinker also can reasonably bind to any point of view, even the religious.
From the moment I started to develop my own views on the world, began to have my own ideas, always influenced by my experience or the empirical knowledge that I have been previously transmitted in several ways.
Because I do not stick necessarily to a current of thought, I like to consider myself a free thinker. Free thinker in the sense that I express my views freely, according to my opinion. However, after a little research on the Internet, I realized that the existing criteria I could not be a free thinker.
Looking on Wikipedia, I find the best search engine of knowledge, I found that the entry of free thinkers on the topic was related to atheism … At the same time I thought “why?”. I am openly Christian and have a tendency of conservative right, and I now realize that only can be considered free thinkers those of atheistic socialist tendencies.
However, this classification completely mischaracterizes the very concept that emerges from the term freethinker. The free thinker is just one that has their own opinions on the issues that surround it. The free thinking is one in which you issue an opinion on a particular point of view, even if you agree with him. In my case, for example, I’ma fan of the proposals of Christ from the Catholic interpretation, but I’m not in any way, but after considering this proposal I saw that this was the best, for example, regarding the proposed Protestant or Islamic. I do not adhere to my faith blindly, and do not advise anyone to do it this way because the reason does not exclude faith. Instead, they can and must go together.
The free thinker also has the right to change their views. In my case, for example, always had a political point of view of the center-left, particularly the training I had during school and university, and even through my contacts as an agent made pastoral ministry of the Catholic Church was long . However, for some time now, after further studies in politics, history and philosophy, saw the proposed liberal, turned to socialism, is flawed, and defend, not glamorous, but based on political beliefs (and who read other texts see my my reasons), that the best system of government to Brazil would be the Parliamentary Monarchy.
All my opinions, positions and writings, I repeat, are the result of reflections that I have throughout life, without which nothing had been imposed on me. Instead, if I had strictly followed the tenets that I have been imposed, I would have been Kardecist, and leftist Republican, and these positions diametrically opposed to those which I freely embraced, after thinking carefully about these positions and options. So just because I chose to be Catholic, monarchist and conservative, let I be a free thinker?
I believe, for example, that the papal determinations must be obeyed by Catholics, not “because”, but for deeper reasons, among which the religious unity of the church body, which results in a reliable source of the message sent by Christ (the Magisterium), which in turn exposed the means to live fully in this world. Even though I do not agree with something, at first, I know that in certain situations my point of view will not be the best for my practical experience, for I do not relate only to me and live in society. The example is deeper than what I say here, but do not write more at the risk of distorting the focus.
Within this framework, we see that the classification of free-thinker as he turned to atheism is also a contradiction in terms, because if you link the freethinking necessarily the condition is not theistic, it would be holding another kind of dogma, which would be the negative religious dogma. Thus, free thinker would not be really free, because they would find the idea of the divine something transcendentally true, it would lose its status.
n my humble – but free and thinking – point of view, free thinker, yes, you can believe in a divine power or align with views that already exist. What characterizes him is his freedom to speak without fear of being retaliated against their positions, and that is not related to simply repeat what others have spoken before. My Formation is primary juridical, and we suffer through this with a certain complex of “ctrl + c”, “ctrl + v” in our performance. The lawyer sends a standard request, the other lawyer or prosecutor send another standard response, the judge makes an order of default, which results in a default statement, ending a sentence in default, that will create a standard feature … until the Supreme Court issued a ruling also standard, and finally create a precedent against which one can never rise up! Of course, there are exceptions, but this is a great rule. Even though the piece is not strictly legal standard, she is expected to grafting on the previous case, doctrinal quotes, overviews, parts of other previous pieces.
My question is: if I already know the law, and have experience with the legal logic (science neglected in university seats) because I can not just cite the law (without doing it ipse litteris), narrate the case of dialectics to lead the way judgmental or consultant, in the case of opinions, a conclusion logically constructed. It’s simple: thesis, antithesis and synthesis, the major premise, minor premise and conclusion (that the course receives the names of legal facts, arguments and conclusion). But this is unfortunately not used. I agree that legally can not be totally free to think, because we find ourselves tied to normative devices lawfully made, and we have to “play by the rules” otherwise disrupt society. But only because I cannot use rules as those that were legitimately made? Because I have to cite scholars, and even if the quote because I have to link to what they think? Because I have to link my legal expression to the ballast to the view that a court is not legitimate to innovate on the right, and just interpret the rules in force legitimate?
If I do not have this freedom, otherwise you will have an application rejected in court or administratively rejected an opinion, then I will not have a free thought. I’m not saying here that all I speak or write (including these lines) will be right, on the contrary, I often am and be wrong. But if I have a position in legally and logically structured argument from authority is valid, I need to be countered with the same reasoning. Using an argument from authority illegitimate, as “the position of the court is in another sense” or “so and so, counselor, believes otherwise” is not valid.
Leaving the legal field, I believe that free thinking does not exclude the thought arose before. Because it’s a lie, the most blatant and rugged, the free thinker always exposes something new and unconnected to previous thinking. There is totally free thought, because our value judgments are always in some way contaminated with retrograde our experiences, however they are neurotic and schizophrenic. The most we can do the thinking on the subject is to seek to know the most, but never completely happen. If we evaluate the views of previous thinkers, we find that none brought something totally new – not even Christ has brought everything from scratch, because as he said he came not to change even a comma of the law thought the alleged opening, you want to innovate everything around you – which is not so original – is a revolutionary thought, always used pro followers of socialist views, and these gentlemen when they come to power as they wish, with revolutions always end up causing more misery than good . So in addition to lying, it is impossible to say that free thinking is not associated with any point of view. Simply stating that the person links to a thought, as already expressed, socialist-communist, in particular the cultural Marxism preaches.
Therefore, we conclude, according to my opinion that no one is obliged to follow, but only to reflect, that the free thinker is one who has their own opinions, yes, but he has the freedom to adhere to one or another school of thought, since it agrees with it rationally, having knowledge of the arguments that led to this, and learn to expose their thoughts and conclusions logically empty with no arguments from authority.