Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zanderax t1_j119v3g wrote

Reply to comment by ApocalypseSpokesman in Do no conform: Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Self-Reliance argues that we should strive for greatness and self-reliance rather than the "meanness" of conforming to the society's dead institutions saying that "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind" by thelivingphilosophy

What is a conformer but someone that acts solely based on how others act? If you're always counter-culture then you're just conforming in a different magnitude. The real non-conformity is not caring about if you're conforming or not but actually doing what you think is best.

66

Bigfrostynugs t1_j12bd0w wrote

I've heard it described like this:

A contrarian does the opposite of whatever is mainstream, but a true rebel does whatever they think is good or right, without regard for what is mainstream or not.

49

WriggleNightbug t1_j12q86s wrote

I hate that I love to be caught in semantics, but here I am. Caught in semantics. And loving it.

I rebel, non-conformer, and contrarian are all the same term here because they carry similar broad societal meanings(read baggage) even if your usage or the dictionary definitions are distinct. I don't have a good term yet but I think you've identified what the correct word needs.

  1. Connotation that someone will make a choice in line with their ethics/morality despite the cultural zeitgeist.
  2. A personal ethics/morality that is considered and informed based on both primary societal standards and secondary or tertiary knowledges as well.
11

Bigfrostynugs t1_j12vn1f wrote

I would say freethinker, though that doesn't speak to the validity of a person's beliefs, just their ideological independence.

9

GORGasaurusRex t1_j12xq38 wrote

To use a crude analogy: the Neutral Good alignment.

1

WriggleNightbug t1_j13ctvk wrote

I hate DND alignment so much. It's bad for dnd, it's bad for philosophy, it's bad for everything. The worst thing I keep engaging with it to hope I can make it better, but it never will happen. I'm finally just admitting I hate it and it can never be good.

4

[deleted] t1_j134c94 wrote

"good or right" as in morally or self interested or something else?

0

Bigfrostynugs t1_j15dfh8 wrote

Most cases in which one is a freethinker has nothing to do with morality or self-interest.

Say that I've decided I really want to have long hair even though I'm a guy. But then, suddenly long hair on guys becomes incredibly popular as a fashion trend. A contrarian might cut their hair short even though they liked it long, just to be opposite of the pack.

But a true rebel just wears their hair long, because that's what they wanted in the first place and they don't give a shit what anyone else thinks. The popularity of long hair for men is totally irrelevant to their decision. They just do what they think is best regardless of others' actions.

You could extrapolate that out to apply to moral decisions too if you want but the logic of it all doesn't have anything to do with what is ethical or not.

In my opinion, in order for a decision to be truly moral a person must come to it themselves. An ethical decision reached on anything other than real ethical conviction is on shaky ground.

1

Falcomaster20 t1_j126n8x wrote

You’re still abiding by someone’s or somethings rules

−4

FormalWrangler294 t1_j12a78d wrote

> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

> This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

8

Falcomaster20 t1_j12indt wrote

Not my point

−2

FormalWrangler294 t1_j12m6jx wrote

I know. Your point is lowly first-order thinking. I’m telling you to use second-order thinking and third-order thinking.

4

Falcomaster20 t1_j141wr9 wrote

No it’s not. Keep missing though

0

ndhl83 t1_j146y7t wrote

Perhaps you could try articulating your point more, then, rather than assuming it was so well stated it should not have been missed?

1