Think for Yourself
Is wide reading the making of a mind, or a trespass on it — another man's thoughts trampling through ground that should have been your own?
To think for oneself, Schopenhauer argues, is worth more than any quantity of reading, which at its worst merely lets a foreign mind march through yours. A good style says clearly what is worth saying and hides nothing behind terminology — a standard he wields against hacks who write for money, scholars who read until they can no longer think, and professors sheltering in Hegel's fog. The counsel is not theory but the method of the sharpest prose stylist among philosophers, who knew exactly what obscurity had cost him.
- intellect
- reflection
- truth
- judgment
- solitude
- experience
- character
- memory
- genius
Enter a dialogue
- A person reads constantly yet feels their own thinking has gone slack — do you tell them reading has trampled through their mind?
- You prize thinking for oneself over reading — but without the books of others, where would a solitary mind even begin?
- Tell me the difference between the scholar who reads until he can no longer think and the mind that thinks for itself?
- To write a good style that hides nothing behind terminology, what refuge must a scholar give up when clarity exposes empty thought?
- Someone wants to sound learned and reaches for grand terminology — what would you say about clarity and what obscurity really conceals?