The Irony of (Radical?) Idealism

[meansnoworries]

Eight people sit around a table, discussing life, society, the human condition... what-have-you. A talking point is brought up, and the consensus is that the talking point may be generally agreed upon. One of the octet suggests something else, though. Perhaps he voices dissent rather than assent

Comments

[wizwar_guy]

to settle on an enlightenment is to slip back in to hypocracy. once you have to defend your freedom you are no longer in control of it.

if you never question your sanity then you'll never grow, never overcome, never evolve. you'll just sit, incomplete, unfinished, a period at the end of the first sentence.

[sumomnistimes]

i think there's a boundary, an endpoint if you will, to free thought. i cannot conceive of a person that has taken the notion of free thought, applied it to their life, and not at some point come to a conclusion about something, flimsy as it may be. free-thought is different than open mindedness. free thought is uninhibited by historical convention, open mindedness is unhibited by resolution to a problem. open mindedness, to me, seems to be one of those "best if used in moderation" tools. if you are constantly priding yourself on open-mindedness, considering every bit of information as potential truth and certainty, then you'll leave no time to focus on developing beliefs. the great men of our time weren't open minded, they were free thinking.
PS. this is just my opinion on the matter, take it as you will. i'm simply trying to be constructive.