Intellectual Autonomy and Libertarianism
“most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so”
autonomy, intellectual This is here meant as a *person’s intellectual independence. It is, therefore, to be contrasted with being intellectually heteronomous (or dependent): the intellectual puppet of one’s circumstances, including the mainstream media. By this understanding, it exists to varying degrees and never perfectly. Engaging in philosophy can be one extreme of intellectual autonomy (but see *academics). Following *common sense can be one heteronomous extreme. However, intelligence does not appear to be strongly positively correlated with intellectual autonomy. Most bright people are timidly orthodox in their *opinions. For instance, even people with a scientific background typically accepted all the *state *propaganda on *COVID-19. Overall, as Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once wrote, “most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so”.
Sometimes such autonomy is said, usually by non-*libertarians, to be what *“justifies” (gives supporting value to) *liberty. This is because liberty can be destructive and so is not always an end in itself, supposedly unlike autonomy (which liberty has a tendency to promote, but which might be overridable if it does not do so). However, it is part of the justificationist fallacy that anything can be supported beyond assumption. Instead, one can value liberty directly and in a *critical-rationalist way. One need only conjecture that there is no sound criticism of the idea that people ought to have liberty, without giving an impossibly exhaustive and epistemologically irrelevant list of the reasons that liberty is valuable. It would also be more libertarian to hold that, in any case, people have a *right to be heteronomous.
And it would be more *economically informed to realise that there is a price to be paid for acquiring intellectual autonomy (in terms of forgone *opportunities), and passed a certain point it is not worth paying. This point differs with different people, at different times, on different issues. Individuals have a right to choose the extent to which they judge intellectual autonomy to be economic in their own case, and other people have only a right to attempt to persuade them otherwise—and only then if they are willing to listen (see *freedom of speech or expression).
autonomy, personal Self-rule. To *rule oneself is simply not to be ruled by other people. There is no logical implication that one is thereby intellectually autonomous, or personally prudent, or respects similar autonomy in others. However, it is not uncommon to conflate the bare concept with such desirable additions. See *sovereign individual.
(These entries are from A LIBERTARIAN DICTIONARY: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)