Why It's OK Not to Think for Yourself

Why It's OK: The Ethics and Aesthetics of How We Live

by Jonathan Matheson

We tend to applaud those who think for the ever-curious student, for example, or the grownup who does their own research. Even as we’re applauding, however, we ourselves often don’t think for ourselves. This book argues that’s completely OK. In fact, it’s often best just to take other folks’ word for it, allowing them to do the hard work of gathering and evaluating the relevant evidence. In making this argument, philosopher Jonathan Matheson shows how 'expert testimony' and 'the wisdom of crowds' are tested and provides convincing ideas that make it rational to believe something simply because other people believe it. Matheson then takes on philosophy’s best arguments against his thesis, including the idea that non-self-thinkers are free-riding on the work of others, Socrates’ claim that 'the unexamined life isn’t worth living,' and that outsourcing your intellectual labor makes you vulnerable to errors and manipulation. Matheson shows how these claims and others ultimately fail -- and that when it comes to thinking, we often need not be sheepish about being sheep. Key Features

Genres: Philosophy

252 pages, Paperback

Published September 29, 2023

Reviews

[Donald · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of philosophy seeks to uncover hidden truths about the universe, challenging all previous assumptions. But some, on the other hand, seeks merely to confirm and clarify what already seems obvious, if you think about it. This book is in the latter category, and that's perfectly ok. It is common sense that we cannot work out everything on our own, that most of the time, to gain knowledge we must rely on experts or the testimony of others, and it's ok not to think for yourself on every question. And yet, in the modern age we have valourised the individual enquirer, the radical sceptic who takes nothing on trust and always checks for himself. This book very comfortably smooths over that conflict, between the imagined ideal and the ordinary reality. The author argues that for almost any question there are people out there better able than you are to find the answer, that if there is a consensus among the experts it is rational to follow them, and that if there isn't a consensus it is rational to suspend your judgement rather than trying to come to an inexpert conclusion yourself. He considers, in turn, many objections to his conclusion and argues that each fails to defeat it. Some of the time there are good reasons to think for yourself anyway, to develop your intellectual virtues for instance, but it's ok not to. Some readers might find the book overly nitpicking, pulling apart every detail of each argument for and against, but I think it gives a good flavour of the analytical style of philosophy, in which every assumption, no matter how apparently simple or obvious, must be questioned and justified.