from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. One who devotes much time to thought or meditation.
- n. One who thinks or reasons in a certain way: a careful thinker.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. One who spends time thinking, contemplating or meditating
- n. An intellectual, such as a philosopher or theologian
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. One who thinks; especially and chiefly, one who thinks in a particular manner
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who thinks; especially, one who has cultivated or exercised to an unusual extent the powers of thought.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. an important intellectual
- n. someone who exercises the mind (usually in an effort to reach a decision)
A sign of a low-quality thinker is the use of "What about X?", where X is any hot topic.
From there iterative repetition refines the question until the critical thinker is able to reach a conclusion. chunkdz: Why don't ID'ers publish research in scientific journals?
For a dishonest thinker is under no moral obligation to accept a conclusion to which his logic drives him; even if he loses the argument, a dishonest thinker is not under a duty to change his mind or mend his ways.
And given that we're positing an inquiry, the notion that our thinker is concerned with losing arguments, changing his mind or mending his ways is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.
You realize how low the bar is as far as human wisdom goes when you can basically just read some great, but hard-to-read, thinker from the past, understand them, and expound their ideas clearly and compellingly in English and become a leading intellectual figure.
The thinker is the thought, the knower is what is known, the possessor is the things possessed.
Bertrand Russell said, "The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution".
She may be perfectly lovely socially, but to keep treating her as a serious thinker is a disservice to more intelligent and honest libertarians and conservatives (who are no more correct, but at least make plausible arguments worthy of debate).
This may, in fact, be code for being a long-term thinker in a short-term world.
Why do you think that it must, especially if the thinker is completely unaware of the metaphysical truth (s) in question?