We are inclined (especially today) to think of freedom wholly in terms of arbitrary or pathetic volition, a potency made actual every time one chooses a particular course of action out from a variety of other possibilities. And obviously, for finite intellects and wills, this is the minimal form that liberty must assume; but it is also, just as obviously, a form of subordination and confinement. All possible choices are external to the will that chooses; they shape it from without, defining it even before it has chosen. Moreover, these possibilities are exclusive of one another: one makes a possible course of action real by rendering other courses of action impossible. And, as we all know, one can choose foolishly, or maliciously, or with a divided will. Freedom, so understood, would consist in no more than a certain kind of largely vacuous and limited potentiality dependent upon other limited and limiting potentialities.

A higher understanding of human freedom, however, is inseparable from a definition of human nature. To be free is to be able to flourish as the kind of being one is, and so to attain the ontological good toward which one's nature is oriented; freedom is the unhindered realization of a complex nature in its proper end (natural and supernatural), and this is consummate liberty and happiness. The will that chooses poorly, then — through ignorance, maleficence, or corrupt desire — has not thereby become freer, but has further enslaved itself to those forces that prevent it from achieving its full expression.

A far better formulation, methinks, than "independence from authority".

One way is to question everything, including your most cherished beliefs. ESPECIALLY your most cherished beliefs. Present them to those who will challenge them. If you can't defend them, then maybe you don't really understand them.

That's not free thinking, it's critical thinking.

Freedom = independence from authority?

Let's get right to the root of it, shall we?

I suggest Free Thinkers have independent thoughts. They search for understanding and knowledge they can internalize.

They think, therefore they are.

They do not let other people do their thinking for them.

Having been around during the 60's I have witnessed many people calling themselves "free thinkers" who were actually just conformists.

So, how can one be sure if they are actually thinking freely or just taking the path of least resistance?

One way is to question everything, including your most cherished beliefs. ESPECIALLY your most cherished beliefs. Present them to those who will challenge them. If you can't defend them, then maybe you don't really understand them.

Oh yea, one more thing. Try to avoid surrounding yourself with like-minded people. Humans have the habit of presuming the feelings of contentment and Group Think ("consensus") means their beliefs are correct and don't need to be questioned.

You asked…

Freedom = independence from authority?

That you asked it in that way made me smile.

Did you intend it to be rhetorical?

Todd: Free thinking is a natural antithesis to organized religion; organised religions are simply the codification of orthodoxy imposed by their authority.

Todd, orthodoxy exists everywhere- science, politics, education, cultural norms… The list is limted only by your imagination. Codifying is nothing more than writing down an existing consensus.

Its very heart is about following a prescribed path and any questioning of that path is often elevated to highest taboo (Jesus crackers, anyone?).

As if contraventions of non-religious orthodoxies do not entail their own taboos. Political correctness is about cultural taboos.

The strict following of an orthodoxy based on the authority of some religion is a very sheep like behavior.

The operative phrase is what a decision is based on. You can agree with an orthodox view because you find it plausible.

Todd Berkebile: While free thinking certainly implies forming an opinion independent of authority it most certainly does not imply being a contrarian. A free thinker wouldn't change his mind simply because his views have become commonly accepted.

Agreed.

Todd Berkebile: So calling anyone who holds a non-mainstream viewpoint a free thinker isn't correct. Really there should be no connection between the popularity of an idea and whether a free thinker would hold belief in that idea.

Just to clarify, my comment distinguished between a freethinker in ideal and as often ascribed by actual usage (with an eye to resolving the question of usage raised in the original post). We rarely use the term when referring to someone holding conventional views, even when those conventional views are arrived at through independent thought.

While free thinking certainly implies forming an opinion independent of authority it most certainly does not imply being a contrarian. A free thinker wouldn't change his mind simply because his views have become commonly accepted. So calling anyone who holds a non-mainstream viewpoint a free thinker isn't correct. Really there should be no connection between the popularity of an idea and whether a free thinker would hold belief in that idea. It has more to do with the process of reaching the conclusion than what conclusion is reached.

Free thinking is a natural antithesis to organized religion; organised religions are simply the codification of orthodoxy imposed by their authority. Its very heart is about following a prescribed path and any questioning of that path is often elevated to highest taboo (Jesus crackers, anyone?). The strict following of an orthodoxy based on the authority of some religion is a very sheep like behavior.