owlsbooks Chapter 2321
Chapter 2321
Chapter 2321
Of course, nobody knows any of this yet.
Even Sif and Gale themselves, who knew the most, only knew that Gale had been influenced by the Black Death Sword, which was why he acted so recklessly. This was also the moment Gale broke down; he had always believed that Gale had slaughtered gods for revenge, that he himself had betrayed the Ancient One on Earth and was willing to destroy an unrelated planet for revenge!
It's like this: many people always claim to be independent and free, capable of independent thinking, but one day they are suddenly told that it's all an illusion, and that their so-called independent thinking is actually something they've been taught!
This is like someone negating everything about you.
Whether it's good or bad.
Independent thinking is not simply "I have my own ideas," but a profound ability involving the scrutiny of information, logical deduction, self-reflection, and resistance to external pressure. It is not only a manifestation of wisdom but also a refinement of character. However, in reality, many people misunderstand the essence of independent thinking, equating it with stubbornness, blind rebellion, or merely a mechanical rejection of mainstream viewpoints. Such misunderstandings not only diminish the value of independent thinking but can also lead to prejudice and confusion. Simply put, independent thinking means being able to analyze, judge, and draw conclusions independently based on reason and logic when faced with problems, viewpoints, or information, without being swayed by external voices. It does not completely reject the opinions of others but rather allows for critical screening based on the absorption of external information to find answers that conform to facts and logic. However, independent thinking is not the same as being "unconventional" or "different from the crowd." Many people mistakenly believe that as long as their views differ from the majority, it constitutes independent thinking. This idea is one-sided. True independent thinking is more of an internal thought process than an external display of results. It requires us to possess the following core abilities:
In today's information-saturated world, we receive far more information than our brains can process daily. The first step to independent thinking is learning to sift through this deluge of information to extract valuable insights. This requires us to assess the source, credibility, and potential biases of information. For example, a seemingly authoritative article may be driven by commercial interests; a widely circulated viewpoint may simply be a product of collective sentiment.
Independent thinking is inseparable from rigorous logic. When faced with a problem, we need to learn to ask "why," dissect the essence of the problem, and seek evidence and causal relationships. For example, when we hear "a certain technology will completely change the future," independent thinkers will not immediately accept or deny it, but will ask: How does this technology work? What problem does it solve? What are its limitations? The highest level of independent thinking is to remain vigilant about one's own perceptions and biases.
However, everyone has cognitive blind spots, influenced by their upbringing, education, and culture. Independent thinking requires us to constantly reflect: Are my views driven by emotions? Are they bound by some preconceived notions? Only through self-examination can we break through the limitations of our thinking.
Independent thinking often means going against mainstream opinion, which requires strong psychological qualities. Under group pressure, many people choose to follow the crowd to avoid conflict or isolation. Independent thinkers, however, dare to stick to their own judgment, even if it means being misunderstood or isolated.
Independent thinking is not only the cornerstone of personal growth but also a driving force for social progress. On a personal level, it helps us make wiser decisions; on a societal level, it promotes innovation and change. Here are some core values of independent thinking: In the information age, blind conformity is a prevalent phenomenon. The algorithmic push of social media and the amplifying effect of public opinion can unconsciously lead us into "groupthink." Independent thinking allows us to escape the flood of information and maintain clear judgment. For example, in the consumer field, many people are "influenced" by advertisements or influencer recommendations, ultimately purchasing products they don't need. Independent thinkers will ask: Do I really need this? What is its cost-effectiveness? Through rational analysis, they avoid being manipulated by marketing tactics.
Throughout history, many great discoveries and transformations have stemmed from independent thinking. Galileo's challenge to the geocentric model and Einstein's theory of relativity were both achievements inseparable from questioning and breaking through existing ideas. In modern society, whether it's technological innovation or social reform, independent thinking is the driving force behind progress. For example, when developing electric vehicles, Tesla founder Elon Musk faced skepticism from the traditional automotive industry but persisted in his vision, ultimately transforming the entire industry.
Despite the importance of independent thinking, it faces numerous obstacles in practice. Here are some common hindrances and misconceptions: 1. Information overload and cognitive laziness. Information overload leaves many people feeling exhausted, leading them to choose the easiest path—accepting ready-made viewpoints. This "cognitive laziness" makes us inclined to believe authority and follow trends, rather than analyze and judge for ourselves. For example, when faced with complex technological topics, many people would rather believe the conclusions of experts than spend time understanding the underlying logic.
2. Group Pressure and Conformity. Humans are social animals and crave acceptance within a group. Conformity makes us inclined to compromise or remain silent when faced with differing opinions. Psychologist Solomon Asch's classic experiment showed that even when faced with clearly erroneous group opinions, many people choose to agree to avoid conflict. This psychology is a natural enemy of independent thinking.
3. Cognitive Bias and Egocentrism. Our thinking is often influenced by "confirmation bias," which means we tend to accept information that aligns with our existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. Furthermore, egocentrism leads us to overestimate our judgment, believing that "my thoughts must be correct." Both of these biases hinder our ability to objectively analyze problems.
In reality, the vast majority of people who believe they have independent thinking abilities are just pretending!
Many people actually lack the ability to think and judge independently!
When a celebrity is condemned online for a scandal, some people, without even understanding the details, rush to tell them to "get out of the entertainment industry." When rumors of a certain brand causing cancer spread on social media, some people, without even seeing the test results, rush to forward "life-saving tips." When a boss approves a clearly unreasonable plan in the workplace, most people, despite feeling there's a problem, still unanimously say, "The boss is brilliant." These scenarios are all too familiar—many people appear to be "thinking," but are actually just repeating others' opinions; they appear to be "judging," but are actually succumbing to the group's position. Independent thinking, this repeatedly emphasized ability, has long become a scarce commodity in reality. This lack is not an innate intellectual deficiency, but a "cognitive disability" shaped by the information environment, education, and group pressure. It turns people into "passive receivers" in a complex world, into "emotional repeaters" in the face of right and wrong, and ultimately, unconsciously, they abandon their core dignity as "rational beings."
This is what we referred to above as information overload and cognitive laziness.
Data from a certain platform shows that in 2025, less than 12% of users actively switched their opinions in their news feeds, while a staggering 78% simply swiped past differing opinions. This means that most people would rather remain in their comfort zone, repeatedly receiving opinions they agree with, than spend five minutes reading an in-depth analysis of opposing viewpoints. It's like a group of blind men touching an elephant; one touches the trunk and says, "The elephant is a hose," another touches the leg and says, "The elephant is a pillar," but no one is willing to take a few steps to see the whole elephant. Even more alarming is the erosion of depth of thought caused by fragmented information. 15-second short videos, 200-word trending topics, and sensationalist headlines are fragmenting people's attention. A survey shows that modern people check their phones on average every three minutes, with each focused thought session lasting no more than eight minutes. This "short, quick, and fast" information consumption has led people to become accustomed to "conclusion first"—upon seeing "a certain food is poisonous," the first reaction is "share it immediately," rather than asking, "Who conducted the test? What was the sample size? What dosage would be harmful?" When thinking stops at "receiving conclusions" instead of "deriving the process," independent judgment becomes empty talk. The "authority worship" of the information age further undermines independent thinking. In the past, authority was textbooks and experts; now, authority is "big V" accounts, "internet celebrities," and "top trending topics." When a health blogger says "eating this can fight cancer," even without any scientific basis, it can attract millions of likes; when a financial influencer recommends a stock, even with a severely inflated price-to-earnings ratio, it can attract a flood of retail investors. People aren't thinking about "whether what he said is right or wrong," but rather calculating "how many followers he has" and "whether others believe him." This method of judgment, "using traffic instead of logic," essentially relinquishes the right to think.
The nemesis of independent thinking is "intuitive judgment" hijacked by emotions. The fast pace and high pressure of modern society make people increasingly reliant on emotions to make decisions—supporting "severe punishment" when angry, tending towards "forgiveness" when sympathetic, and believing in "conspiracy theories" when fearful. This "emotion first, reason last" model completely deprives judgment of its objective foundation.
The "factionalism" on the internet is a prime example. When a celebrity is accused of domestic violence, fans, regardless of the evidence, immediately accuse the woman of "extortion"; when a company is exposed for tax evasion, netizens, without asking details, immediately call for its "bankruptcy." Their judgment criteria are not "what the facts are," but "who I like" and "who I hate." Sociologist Gustave Le Bon said in *The Crowd*, "Individuals in a crowd lose their self-awareness and become puppets dominated by emotions." The current online community perfectly illustrates this point. The abuse of "victim narratives" makes emotional blackmail even more deceptive. When someone says, "I'm weak, therefore I'm right," or "I'm miserable, therefore I'm correct," many people will instinctively side with the "weak," even if the "weak" is proven to be lying. For example, an internet celebrity fabricates a story of being "bullied by their boss" to gain sympathy; even after it's revealed to be scripted, fans still say, "Even if it's fake, it's to expose workplace injustice." This logic of "emotion over fact" essentially replaces rational judgment with moral blackmail, turning thinking into a competition of "who can play the victim better." More profoundly, emotional judgments bring instant gratification, while independent thinking requires delayed gratification. Forwarding an abusive Weibo post provides an immediate sense of shared righteous indignation; agreeing with a simple conclusion quickly grants the satisfaction of "I'm smart." Independent thinking, however, requires research, discerning truth from falsehood, and logical reasoning—a tedious process that can potentially overturn one's own preconceived notions—which is far too "against human nature." In an era where "gratification reigns supreme," many would rather be "angry puppets" than "clear-headed thinkers."
This is what was mentioned above: cognitive bias and egocentrism.
Another obstacle to independent thinking is the excessive desire to conform. Humans are social animals, inherently afraid of being excluded from the group. When the majority holds a certain viewpoint, even if one has different ideas, one will subconsciously "shut up" or "go along with it"—this "conformity instinct" is amplified into "thought dictatorship" in modern society. "Meeting room silence" in the workplace is a typical example. A company conducted a survey: 75% of employees admitted to "holding back their opinions in meetings" because they were "afraid of being punished by their superiors" or "afraid of being isolated by colleagues." This "false consensus" formed by silence allows flawed decisions to proceed smoothly. Like the Emperor's New Clothes, even though no one can see the clothes, everyone pretends they are beautiful because "everyone says they can." "Label violence" on the internet makes conformity cheaper and resistance more costly. When you question something that is "widely condemned online," you are quickly labeled as "whitewashing," "paid trolls," or "morally questionable"; when you disagree with someone's "viral viewpoint," you may be attacked by their followers for being "uncultured" or "pretending to know what you don't." This atmosphere of "different is evil" leads many to choose to "take sides first, then think (or even not think at all)." After all, standing with the group, even if wrong, provides a sense of security from the belief that "the law doesn't punish everyone." This herd mentality essentially relinquishes the "right to think" to the group, replacing "one's own judgment" with "others' judgment." Like pedestrians at an intersection, even if the light is red, if someone leads the way in crossing against the light, a group will follow—not because they didn't see the red light, but because they believe "everyone's doing it, so it must be okay." But the truth is, the majority's choice may simply be "the majority's mistake."
This is group pressure and conformity.
But what's truly laughable is that no one is willing to admit that they lack the ability to think independently!
In short, this incident dealt a very, very heavy blow to Geer.
Unexpectedly, in the end, he still became a pawn. What's even more ridiculous is that Nar was also a god.
He called himself the Godslayer, but in reality he was just an executioner who slaughtered other gods.
His self-proclaimed 'liberation' was actually just the beginning of an even greater massacre!