The fact that he was concerned what the majority of Europeans thought, as if it was always a bad thing, makes him a contrarian. Logically, it's not really a valid factor to emphasise contemplation of for most things. If someone is a contrarian, it is a habit, inherently, and the motive of that habit is rested entirely upon an obsessive concern over what everyone else is doing or thinking, and then antagonistically opposing that, rather than having your own valid reasoning for what you believe or do- whether it 'goes against the grain' or not. Whilst the definition says "a person who takes a contrary position or attitude," that is not what I mean, and I think the definition should be changed. It only makes sense to call someone out on it when it is a habit, it doesn't make sense to label someone a contrarian for opposing some other person's view a single time. I prefer the quote: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” Marcus Aurelius Whilst some cowards are fixated on always being on the side of the majority, or the side that they believe will win, the stubborn people who are always trying to antagonise a majority, just to elevate themselves as 'intellectuals' or counter-culture revolutionaries, are just as bad.