Skip to content

Freedom Of Thought Essay Example

Not to be confused with Freethought, Cognitive liberty, or Freedom of speech.

Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints. It is different from and not to be confused with the concept of freedom of speech or expression.


Freedom of thought is the precursor and progenitor of—and thus is closely linked to—other liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Though freedom of thought is axiomatic for many other freedoms they are in no way required for it to operate and exist. Conception of a freedom or a right does not guarantee its inclusion, legality, or protection via a philosophical caveat. It is a very important concept in the Western world and nearly all[citation needed] democratic constitutions protect these freedoms. For instance, the Bill of Rights contains the famous guarantee in the First Amendment that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". U.S. Supreme Court JusticeBenjamin Cardozo reasoned in Palko v. Connecticut (1937):

Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal.[1]

Such ideas are also a vital part of international human rights law. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is legally binding on member states of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), "freedom of thought" is listed under Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The United Nations' Human Rights Committee states that this, "distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. It does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. These freedoms are protected unconditionally".[2] Similarly, Article 19 of the UDHR guarantees that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference".

History of development and suppression[edit]

It is impossible to know with certainty what another person is thinking, making suppression difficult. The concept is developed throughout the Bible, most fully in the writings of Paul of Tarsus (e.g., "For why should my freedom [eleutheria] be judged by another's conscience [suneideseos]?" 1 Corinthians 10:29).[3]

Although Greek philosophers Plato and Socrates had discussed Freedom of Thought minimally, the edicts of King Ashoka (3rd century BC) have been called the first decree respecting Freedom of Conscience.[4] In European tradition, aside from the decree of religious toleration by Constantine I at Milan in 313, the philosophers Themistius, Michel de Montaigne, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Voltaire, Alexandre Vinet, and John Stuart Mill have been considered major proponents of the idea of Freedom of Conscience.[5]

Queen Elizabeth I revoked a thought censorship law in the late sixteenth century, because, according to Sir Francis Bacon, she did "not [like] to make windows into men's souls and secret thoughts".[6] During her reign, philosopher, mathematician, astrologer, and astronomer Giordano Bruno took refuge in England from the Italian Inquisition, where he published a number of his books regarding an infinite universe and topics banned by the Catholic Church. After leaving the safety of England, Bruno was eventually burned as a heretic in Rome for refusing to recant his ideas. For this reason he is considered by some to be a martyr for free thought.[7]

However, freedom of expression can be limited through censorship, arrests, book burning, or propaganda, and this tends to discourage freedom of thought. Examples of effective campaigns against freedom of expression are the Soviet suppression of genetics research in favor of a theory known as Lysenkoism, the book-burning campaigns of Nazi Germany, the radical anti-intellectualism enforced in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the strict limits on freedom of expression imposed by the Communist governments of the People's Republic of China and Cuba or by right-wing authoritarian dictatorships such as those of Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Francisco Franco in Spain.

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which states that thought is inherently embedded in language, would support the claim that an effort to limit the use of words of language is actually a form of restricting freedom of thought.[citation needed] This was explored in George Orwell's novel 1984, with the idea of Newspeak, a stripped-down form of the English language lacking the capacity for metaphor and limiting expression of original ideas.

See also[edit]

References and notes[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • D.V. Coornhert, Synod on the Freedom of Conscience: A Thorough Examination during the Gathering Held in the Year 1582 in the City of FreetownEnglish translation
  • Richard Joseph Cooke, Freedom of thought in religious teaching (1913)
  • Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", Irish Theological Quarterly Dec 1975
  • George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, 'The Philosophy of Psychology', Cambridge University Press (1999), p. 3
  • The Hon. Sir John Laws, 'The Limitations of Human Rights', [1998] P. L. Summer, Sweet & Maxwell and Contributors, p. 260
  • Voltaire (1954). "Liberté de penser". Dictionnaire philosophique. Classiques Garnier (in French). Paris: Éditions Garnier. pp. 277–81. 

External links[edit]

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom & no such thing as publick liberty without freedom of speech", Benjamin Franklin, 1722.
  1. ^Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
  2. ^"General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 18) : . 30/07/93. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22. (General Comments)". United Nations Human Rights Website – Treaty Bodies Database. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1993-07-30. Retrieved 2007-10-21. 
  3. ^Eugene J. Cooper, "Man's Basic Freedom and Freedom of Conscience in the Bible : Reflections on 1 Corinthians 8–10", Irish Theological Quarterly Dec 1975
  4. ^Luigi Luzzatti, "The First Decree on Freedom of Conscience" p. 47 in God in Freedom. Retrieved 15 September 2014. 
  5. ^Luzzatti, p. 91.
  6. ^Brimacombe, Peter (2000). All the Queen's Men: The World of Elizabeth I. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 125. ISBN 0-312-23251-9. 
  7. ^Arturo Labriola, Giordano Bruno: Martyrs of free thought no. 1 

How We are Losing our Freedom of Thought and Speech

By Michael Michalko | Jun 21, 2012



The orthodoxy of political correctness is conditioning us not to think.

You may have read George Orwell’s classic book, “1984," which focused on the way people can be misled and persuaded by a language where a political force with an agenda subtly alters definitions, censors words and creates new terms. The word “freedom,” for example, was redefined to mean “free from something,” such as grass free from weeds or a dog free from fleas. All this was intended to alienate people from independent thought and self reliance thereby clearing the way for government to control them. That was fiction.

What is not fiction is the way the present day language police have established an elaborate protocol of what is called a beneficent censorship. Politically correct school boards, bias and sensitivity committees now review, abridge, and censor texts which in their opinion are contain potentially offensive words, topics, and imagery. The members of sensitivity and bias committees are people with backgrounds in counseling, diversity training, guidance, bilingual education, and so forth.

Diane Ravitch's book The Language Police laid bare "an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, professional associations, states, and the federal government" that steadily and stealthily reduces schoolbooks to packages of pabulum. The arbiters of political correctness on the left have joined with the fundamentalist guardians of morality on the right to foster a censorship apparatus that serves the political and social agendas of both, scorns the interests of students, and ensures that students will not be exposed to anything that might bother anyone, anywhere, for any reason.
This censorship is a formal, pervasive system of censorship that warps the content of schoolbooks, state-sponsored tests, and other educational products until they have little connection with the real world. It explains, in part, the disturbing spectacle that we see in many parts of the United States: While the cost of public education rises higher and higher, the quality of that education continues to go lower and lower.

These  committees flag many seemingly innocuous passages as potentially offensive or biased: an essay on peanuts because some children are allergic to peanuts; a biography of the designer of the Mount Rushmore monument because the site is considered sacred by some Native Americans; a legend about dolphins because it reflects a regional bias against children who don't live near the sea; an inspirational story about a blind mountain climber because it suggests that a blind person might find it harder to climb a mountain than a sighted one. The examples go on. Even Aesop's fable, "The Fox and the Crow", was flagged as sexist because a male fox flatters a female crow; to gain approval, the gender of the animals had to be changed. The review committee also gave the Board a list of topics to be avoided. These included abortion, evolution, expensive consumer goods, magic, personal appearance, politics, religion, unemployment, unsafe situations, weapons and violence -- among others.

Ravitch’s research discovered that most tests and textbooks used in American public schools were governed by sensitivity and bias guidelines, many of them more detailed and absurd than those she had encountered with the National Assessment Governing Board. One publisher sent her 10 pages of single-spaced specifications with an example of the kind of material that was acceptable. If you followed the publisher’s guidelines and the example, your story would be about a Hispanic boy who would be the hero in the story. There would be black twins, one boy, one girl; an overweight Oriental boy; an American Indian girl and a physically handicapped Caucasian girl, who was born with a congenital malformation and only had three fingers on one hand. The story would also have a senior citizen who jogged and played tennis everyday.
Following are a typical publisher’s instructions about what they cannot publish:
• Women cannot be depicted as care givers or doing household chores.
• Men cannot be lawyers or doctors or plumbers. They must be nurturing helpmates.
• Old people cannot be feeble or dependent; they must jog or repair the roof.
• A story that is set in the mountains discriminates against students from flatlands.
• Children cannot be shown as disobedient or in conflict with adults.
• Cake cannot appear in a story because it is not nutritious.
• The word “jungle” must not be used. Use “rainforest” instead.
• The expression “soul food” must never be used.
• “Able bodied” must not be used. Use “person who is not disabled.”
• “Abnormal” is banned because it is demeaning to people with disablilities.
• Replace “Adam and Eve” with “Eve and Adam.”
• “Birth defect” is banned. Replace with “people with congenital disabilities.”
• “Cripple” is banned. Replaced with “person with a mobility impairment.”
• “Fraternity” is banned as sexist. Replace with “community.”
• “Hut” is banned. Replace with “small houses.”
• “Illegal alien” is banned. Replace with “undocumented resident.”
• “Lame” is banned. Replace with “walks with a cane.”
• “Man, mankind, men” are banned. Replace with “humanity, people, personalities.”
• “Manhunt” is banned. Replace with “hunt for a person.”
• “Masterpiece” is banned. Replace with “work of art.”
• “Master plan” is banned. Replace with “comprehensive plan.”
• “Minority” is banned. Replace with “historically underrepresented group.”
• “Needy” is banned. Replace with “individual in need.”
• “Senior citizen” is banned as demeaning to older people.
• Do not portray poverty.
• Do not show women cooking.
• Do not show a cow’s udder (sexual innuendo).
• Do not show churches, bars, liquor stores, adult theaters in drawings or photos.
• Do not show a rainbow. (Gay agenda)
• No holidays or holiday decorations.

By mandating that students only be exposed to material that conforms to the presumed experience of the sensitivity and bias committees the books engage in the very stereotyping they take pains to avoid.  E.g., there is something morally evil about having a photograph of a church in a textbook; using the word “man,” in practically any context, is offensive; good people do not go to church or celebrate religious holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Passover; and the words “Master plan” is somehow racist.

Politically correct censorship is dulling  our minds by emphasizing what to exclude from our cognitive thinking processes and discussions. Notice how politically correct expressions are expressions of “what is not.” It is not a hut. It is a small house. He is not an old man. He is an older person. Children are can never be disobedient. Men are not lawyers, doctors, or plumbers. There are no mountains. Cake does not exist. There are no jungles. There are no widows, or house wives or senile old people. And so on and on.

This is thinking in deficit. Notice how careful and hesitant our speech has become. We are extraordinarily careful to make sure the words we use cannot possibly be construed to offend anyone. Consequently, we are constantly thinking of what not to say, what words cannot be used, and what expressions should be avoided. We spend our time thinking of what we cannot say instead of thinking about what we should say. It has become safer and easier to talk about what things are not or not to talk at all.

Our whole climate of thought is being changed by the orthodoxy of political correctness. It has narrowed the range of thought. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed only by words approved by the politically correct overseers, with meanings rigidly defined and all subsidiary meanings and ambiguities rubbed out and forgotten. Every year we will have fewer and fewer words and our range of consciousness will get a little smaller. Or as George Orwell defined it “Orthodoxy ultimately means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Michael Michalko is the author of the highly acclaimed Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative Thinking Techniques; Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius; ThinkPak: A Brainstorming Card Deck and Creative Thinkering: Putting Your Imagination to Work.


Tags:activism, brain, education, imagination, iq, philosophy, politics, psychology, students, thinking, thought

blog comments powered by