I have always thought the statement “Think for yourself” is among the most paradoxical instructions an individual can give. The statement is generally given in the hopes of the receiving party addressing a particular issue—or a general mode of thought—with an original, unique, critical mindset; yet the instruction is one that orients itself as a self-referential expression that is self-defeating. After all, if the receiving party accepts the advice blindly, then he or she is in fact ignoring the very theory of the proposal; but, if he or she does not accept the advice, then it is supposed that he or she is dictated by the concepts, thoughts, and ideals of others. The irony here is obvious: either way, one fails to think for oneself. The concept of reciprocity dominates a intellectual function that is supposed to be counter-reciprocal.

But all hope is not lost. It seems as though the only way out of this ad infinitum regression is a critical analysis of the statement itself. In order for one to actually think for oneself and avoid intellectual subjugation (even if that subjugation is intended to liberate), one must approach the advice with a sense of critical skepticism. Whether one chooses to implement the instruction immediately, postpone the observation, or ignore the proposal entirely should be a reflection upon one’s own conscientious discernment. Thus, the statement can be observed legitimately, or can be ignored legitimately: the true basis of the decision is borne in the individual’s distinct thought, and not as a product of external persuasion, manipulation or instruction.