Leo Tolstoy said:
"I divide men into two lots. They are freethinkers, or they are not-freethinkers. ...Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless. A man may be a Catholic, a Frenchman, or a capitalist, and yet be a freethinker; but if he puts his Catholicism, his patriotism, or his interest, above his reason, and will not give the latter free play where those subjects are touched, he is not a freethinker, His mind is in bondage."
Bravo!
But then Tolstoy also says this:
"To understand any book one must choose out the parts that are quite clear, dividing them from what is obscure or confused. And from what is clear we must form our idea of the drift and the spirit of the whole work. Then, on the basis of what we have understood, we may proceed to make out what is confused or not quite intelligible."
Yes, in this second quote Tolstoy is referring to a book that may be hard to read, but we can infer this process onto one's interpretation of another individual as well. Of course when we do so, we have the additional aid of examining not only that individual's words, but also their deeds. And this is tied back to Tolstoy's specific reference to words on a page, as each individual's words and deeds are in some manner and to some degree influenced by book learning; book learning that may or may not have been properly understood. The point being that while Tolstoy's second quote above does not exactly contradict the first one, it does appear to allow for a lazy and/or complacent interpretation on more than one level.
Or perhaps Tolstoy is simply pointing out the impossibility of Perfect understanding, and the (occasional or frequent) necessity of filling gaps with some conjecture based on today's knowledge and interpretation. What this process cannot be is a reason or excuse to stop asking questions and searching for answers that will lead to greater knowledge tomorrow - or even later today.
There will always be gaps and it is in our nature to see them filled. When we are unable to fill them objectively, it is in our nature to fill them subjectively. A freethinker will continue to question subjective truth and search for an objective truth, whereas a not-freethinker will frequently stop searching once they have settled on a subjective truth. A freethinker recognizes subjective fill as rational temporary interpretation, whereas a not-freethinker often sees (and/or admits to) no difference between subjective fill and objective fill. And when a not-freethinker does acknowledge a difference between his or her subjectivity and a verifiable objectivity, if the fact is not consistent with their own beliefs, it is typically a passing thought quickly shunted aside with rote reminders of the concreteness of their own personal subjective truth.
To extend this interpretation:
Imagine twin brothers married to twin sisters. The more confident and outgoing of each set of twins (Joe and Mae) are married and their respective twins (Jeff and Meg) are married. After dating for a year Joe and Mae introduced Jeff and Meg certain that they would hit it off because they were similar in their individual tendencies toward a thoughtfully, equivocal introversion. They were accurate in their assessment and ultimately achieved the result they had planned for. The only aspect that did not go according to plan was Joe and Mae's hope for a double wedding. Jeff and Meg married exactly one year after Joe and Mae, succumbing to their sibling's pressure for 'at least' a shared anniversary date.
Joe and Mae thought it was 'so cool' that twins married twins, and that everyone was best of friends, and that they shared their anniversary, and that everyone was and always would be so happy. It was as if Joe and Mae had frozen the moment that encapsulated their ideal of wedded bliss and they assumed that Jeff and Meg had done the same. All four were college graduates, but as Joe and Mae rose steadily in their respective careers (insurance and banking) Jeff and Meg both bounced around a little, sometimes taking positions that Joe and Mae frowned upon. Meg spent a couple of years working at a florist because she enjoyed learning flower arrangement. Jeff spent some time driving a taxi in the city because he enjoyed the autonomy and the interesting stories. After a few years and some extended education, Jeff and Meg ultimately settled into teaching positions; Jeff at a local elementary school and Meg at the high school. In hindsight Jeff and Meg both admitted that these career choices were partially due to the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) pressures of their siblings.
Joe and Mae were active in the community and very social; and early on they worked hard at roping Jeff and Meg into their circle. At the beginning Jeff and Meg did join in on a somewhat regular basis, but both couples soon realized that it was not the greatest of fits, so invitations came less and less frequently; which was just fine with everyone. Jeff and Meg's idea of a pleasant evening was a good book, or the occasional film, or (if they were particularly reckless) a quiet dinner out and a visit to a coffee shop.
As the years went by Joe and Mae continued on their busy / professional / social / affected trajectory and were referred to by some in town as the perfect couple. No one ever heard a cross word between them or a criticism from or about either one. And the fly-on-the-wall reality at home was very similar, though as the years went by their displays of public affection (though they changed very little in public), eventually also became the norm in private.
As the same years went by Jeff and Meg remained restless, equivocal, thoughtful, and passionate, often having heated discussion that most times was academic and impersonal, but on occasion ignited a small fire that in one circumstance grew into a conflagration creating a divide with talk of a more permanent separation. In this small town there are no secrets. Joe and Mae were mortified. Once again with coaching from their siblings, Jeff and Meg came together and in some ways strengthened their bond. Their public displays of impassioned discussion were curbed almost to extinction, but the fly-on-the-wall reality at home was that fires always burned; some flames were united fronts against status quo and/or for agreed-upon change, some flames were adversarial, and some flames were... ...well... ...Some flames were simply flames.
As more years went by Joe and Mae remained steadfast and true to their plan as laid out years before, while Jeff and Meg continued to work hard (individually, with each other, and with those students wanting to learn) toward a greater depth of individual thought. To the present day Joe and Mae do not understand (nor do they approve of) this contrariness in their respective siblings that (as Joe and Mae see it) only serves to create discomfort and unnecessary confrontation. Joe and Mae are so fixed in their certainty that they see Jeff and Meg as unloving toward each other as well as toward others. This is a superficial interpretation. The reality is that as Jeff and Meg constantly question Love, and learn to live the pain of truthfulness in that Love, they have created a deeper, stronger bond (both subjectively and objectively) than Joe and Mae who do not question their Love and maintain (and insist upon) a fast and certain Love. Thus the commonly held presumption (as held by Joe and Mae) that uncertainty in Love is cold and detached, has been turned on its head by Jeff and Meg; suddenly the unloving are loving at a higher level than those who most loudly proclaim their certainty.
To complete the interpretation:
In the two quotations that began this post, Tolstoy differentiated between Joe and Mae's superficial, subjective minds in bondage, and Jeff and Meg's skeptical, unafraid, rational minds free to think.
To complete this Tale of Twin Brothers and Twin Sisters who Marry:
They all (as far as each could tell) lived happily ever after...