What Defines "An Open Mind"
 

In an attempt to answer a question for someone, I was asked to define "open Mindedness", and it was pretty tough. I found myself questioning how I could define such a thing, if I was lacking an open mind , Myself.
I worked thru it, and decided I could meet the criteria I set for my own explanation.

I could really use the definitions of others, to verify my own interpretation.

I think "open mindedness" is the ability to consider new ideas, or ones that clash with the way one normally thinks, without prejudging them.

I agree with this quote. I also think that most people who think they have an open mind, and accuse others of not having one, are just as guilty of not having an open mind. That's just my observation. Just for the record, my mind is firmly shut on many issues and I am aware of this.

Rid yourself of preconceptions..

...listen...

...consider different angles on every issue.

Admit to yourself that there are others out there who know a great deal more than you.

Be willing to accept that you may be totally wrong at any time.

Am I right?

-SF

Being 'open minded' has come more and more to mean either naivety or being accepting of everything.

To me being open minded is taking things based on logic and evidence.

For example, some people think crystals have healing powers. I think they are idiots. They would call me closed minded, but I look at it from an evidence based standpoint. If there were evidence that crystals could heal, I'd be the first to put one on my desk.

Being open minded has nothing to do with being accepting of other ideas, only willing to examine them based on their merits. If the ideas do not stand up to scrutiny, then you can safely ignore them without being 'close minded'.

I do work very hard every day to rid myself of beliefs.
I find there's no great need to believe much at all.
You can pretty much operate on a "deal with what is in front of you" basis and respond accordingly, without the need for beliefs to guide your behavior.

accepting and not doubting.
not being gullable, per say, but knowing that anything is possible and that there is no right or wrong.

So if I say something like, all black people are worthless criminals and should be exterminated, thats not wrong?

Of course there is a right and wrong, and in some ways it takes courage to stand up for it.

This concept of no right or wrong is a product of the wishy washy fuzzy thinking brought to you by people who don't wish their own deviations from the norm to be judged.

There is a difference between being rigid and being non committal. You can argue that humans can never know THE TRUTH but that doesn't mean that the truth does not exist, and we have an obligation to get as close as our abilities allow.

I think being open minded is having the ability to see things from outside yourself, removing all of your personal (mis)conceptions and socially ingrained reasoning techniques from the thought process. That being said, I feel it is entirely impossible for a person to be fully and truly "open minded".

I take that back, perhaps a new born baby can be defined as being open minded.

The opposite of this.

An open mind means that for every idea, there is a neighbourhood of nearby ideas that is also in your mind.

A closed mind is a mind that is not open.

More seriously:
Given that THE TRUTH cannot be known, and if it exists it is indistinguishable from a random truth, doesn't occam's razor sorta tell you that you shouldn't assume it exists?

Personally, I'm open to the possibility that there is THE TRUTH. I'm also open to the possibility there isn't. Any decision I make that is qualified on the lack of existance of THE TRUTH is a flawed one: by the very arguements that attempt to show there is no THE TRUTH, its non existance cannot have implications.

An open mind is keeping the fact that you could be wrong about something in mind when you make a decision. Admitting and using your own fallibility.

Misused, that could lead to paralysis. Used properly, it doesn't have to. Having an open mind does not solve all problems.

No, that's lying. Fundamentally, you suggest killing is wrong, and unless you would agree that this is true at all times, it can't be given such a label.

That is correct. They don't want to be judged as morally right or wrong because... there is no moral right or wrong. The people who believe in these judgements judge quickly and ignorantly things that have such labels applied.


Yes let us start with removing these false morals, mediums of control, we can erase this evolutionary flaw that has occurred in our minds. Surely you can see they are the cause of much human suffering.

Ah now this is an excellent direction.

Tecoyah have you not in so stating this, just closed your own mind to my ideas? You have dismissed them without intellectual probing.

So you are saying we know the truth, and hence can lie about it? Do you think that all racists think they are lying? Do you simply not have the balls to say 'THAT IS NOT TRUE' and are trying to get around the issue.


Again, no moral right or wrong? So how would the racist statement be a lie. You SAID there is no moral right or wrong. Therefore its ok if I rape and murder if its morally ok to me? People do this all the time, we lock up these people because it is WRONG. Have the courage to stand up and say something is wrong.


No surely I can't. We have evolved for the last 4-5 billion years, and part of the evolution as a social creature has been knowing how to get along with each other. This includes moral judgements. They may be different based on how/where/when a society is, but a society can NOT function without some basic moral judgments. Harm can be done, but a society without morals is not a society. EVERY social intelligent animal has its morals of sorts, its order, its rules, wolves, dolphins, apes, and people.

Having an open mind means you must look at things logically and intelligently. You must base each case on its merits. If you think being open means you must accept everything as 'ok' you are being naive.

Lets take some real life examples.

I am not a homosexual. I have no desire to experience homosexual contact. I am still accepting of homosexuals, and think they have a right to function in society.

I am not a pedophile. I have no desire to experience pedophilia. I think pedophiles have no place in society and should be locked up.

Both examples are value judgements based on moral principles. Some people would disagree. I assume many of you have heard of NAMBLA. I have evaluated their arguments and reject them and think they have no place in society and should they attempt to do what they want to I think they should be locked away.

Am I close minded to think so?

If it is not too much trouble....I was rather hoping this could remain a viable thread for awhile, and not degrade into the unfortunate diatribe that certain members seem to create with their mere presence.

so...please continue without the useless banter.

Having an "open mind" simply means having the ability to change your opinion...

Symptoms of a closed mind. If you can not discuss your ideas when someone disagrees, why do you post?

I have presented arguments, examples and logic. Perhaps they are flawed. Perhaps if you disagree you can show the flaws. I am open minded an I am willing to change my mind provided you provide a better argument. Instead you insult.

Now THIS is the best definition yet.

I feel that this thread is excellent and flowing perfectly. It is merely a typical philosophy discussion. Not all will agree and they want to express that. Having some of all views makes a greater impact to those involved. Helps us realize who we are. If we don't have the "cold", how will we know what "hot" is?

What he says.
My opinion about things changes often too.

An open minded person, to me, is someone who can hear and see different and diverse things without rejecting them.

I think I have an open mind. Just dont expect me to change it.

I would say that a statement such as 'all blacks are worthless and should be killed' is not true. Racists don't think they are lying, but they think they are 'right'. I don't think I am avoiding any issue.

A statement can be true or untrue without being labeled as right or wrong. My hair is purple. Many people kill and rape thinking they are 'right', while others disagree and say they are 'wrong'. There is a reason that you can't convince everyone of what things are 'right and wrong' and its because these are false ideas.

Ustwo I have much respect for your willingness to pursue truth. I hope you will agree that it is the pursuit of truth that is our goal in these discussions. Not to prove to everyone we are 'right'. Perhaps you should start another thread and give a clear description of what this 'right, wrong, good, bad, evil' mean.

You are indeed correct.....guess my "idea" of an open mind is better than my practice of it.Apologies to ustwo for the slap, as he is right to question my negativity.

Maybe the current digression should be placed in a different thread? After all, we may not want to de-rail this one.

Regardless, I'll carry on, and give my views.

In my opinion 'right' and 'wrong' don't exist (for the purposes of this discussion, we should you use the words 'right' and 'wrong' to refer to morally right and wrong, Correct and Incorrect or True and Untrue should probably be used in the place of factually right and wrong this, just to avoid confusion.)

I believe that the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are socially constructed ideas. But this does not set out to trivialise such things. They are social constructions, but they are *very important* social constructions!

Take 'money'. Money doesn't exist, it's a social construction...and a very important one at that. Without it, our society (as we know it) would undeniably collapse. If everyone woke up tommorrow morning and fogot about the concept of money, then money would cease to exist...all we would have is such things as bit of coloured paper (cash) and numbers stored on computers (bank balances).

Same thing with morality. If everyone forgot what morality was, all we would have remaining is rules, and written laws.

The analogy goes further.

What is the price of this vase? How much money is it worth? What is the TRUTH in this matter?

Well ultimately, the vase is worth as much money as a person is willing to pay for it! In other words there is no fact of the matter, there is only an opinion.
Similarly with morality. Is euthenasia moral or immoral? Ultimately there is no fact of the matter, there is only opinion.

Now, for the most part, we can agree on how much things are worth, and what things are moral.
We would all agree that raping someone is "wrong". Similarly we would agree that $X is a reasonable price to ask for a television.

Yet how much is this antique vase worth? Not a lot to me...I know nothing about antiques, and have no interest in it, yet to a collector such a vase may be worth a huge amount of money. Which one of us is CORRECT? What is the fact of the matter. Of course, in this example we can see that the question is meaningless:
Is the universe right-side-up, or upside-down? Again the question is meaningless...there is no fact of the matter.

So where did the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' come from?
Well they come from experiences we have. When we do something 'wrong' we have feelings of guilt, and when we do something 'right' we have positive feelings...we feel good about ourselves.

Why do we eat? Why do we avoid damaging ourselves?
We eat to avoid the unpleasant feelings of hunger, and to seek the pleasant feelings of contentment. We avoid damaging ourselves to avoid the disagreeable feeling of pain, and to seek pleasure.

But that is only begging the question...why do we really eat? What is the purpose of eating?
Ultimately me need to eat to survive. Evolutionary speaking, having the feeings of hunger/fullness is a positive disposition to survival. Similarly with 'moraliy'. We need an unspoken set of moral-like social rules in order to be able to function together as a social group. There are great survival benefits to working in a group, so social behaviour is a good thing for natural selection to exploit. Hence our internal 'moral' feelings.

I think ustwo has hit the nail on the head clearly and correctly.
This whole thread started when tecoyah demanded that I either develop a "Truly Open Mind" or he wouldn't deal with me anymore. I asked tecoyah to define a "Truly Open Mind". Hence this thread. But in reading this thread, I find I agree with most of the posts, but cannot and will not return to a state of mind I held for many years. And after careful consideration and much research and discussion, deliberately and willingly turned away from; and that was the relativistic way of looking at things.
I have been down that path and have experienced that path and grown and evolved and matured and changed beyond that path. New information and ideas and concepts have come to me that have demonstrated reasonably that that way of thinking is outdated and no longer useful to me. I am still able to entertain relativistic concepts with an open mind, but I have also come to understand the value of absolutes.
It is my opinion that those who demand that relativistic idealism is the only way to think and express, have either not considered the value of absolutes or will not do so, and thus, have closed their minds to that avenue of thought.
This is but my opinion.
Meanwhile, I agree with Ustwo's assessment of Truth vs truths.

An open mind is one that doesn't let it's biases get in the way of its understanding.

I agree with filtherton. I always thought that it's when you can take a stand on an opinion, but still consider other possibilities and listen

The stated purpose of this thread is to define what open mindedness means for members of TFP. I personally feel Ustwo hit the nail on the head.

For me, as a member of TFP, that means be willing to read and consider other people's ideas, share my own, and not judge. Ignoring what one doesn't agree with is one viable way to do this. Another is to say something to the effect of: for me, or imho, or I have found. That implies that you have considered the issue, come to your own conculsion, are sharing your personal thoughts and are not judging other's right to believe what he/she believes.

Unga puts it well when he says:

An open mind flows like a river.
A closed mind thows up dams in the way of the flow.
An open mind will be allowed to overflow with no worries.
A closed mind will run dry.
An opened mind will know love.
A closed mind will know fear.

A related thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&threadid=9664

And the norm is defined by you, me, society, the pope, dust bunnies ?

Each one of those has/had major flaws, except for dust bunnies those cute rascles.

All of the above define the norm.

We all define right or wrong.

When we disagree, we disagree. When enough people agree sufficiently, that is a 'norm'. When they enforce it with weapons on other people and write it down, that is a 'law'.

The inability to tell, objectively and with 100% certainty, if the norm selected is a good one or not, doesn't mean that it is completely invalid, or bad, to have right and wrong.

An open mind starts with the acknowledgement that we could be wrong and that we do not possess all knowledge.

I think its just the opposite Lebell - an open mind accepts that it DOES have all knowledge - in a general sense. Of course, I don't mean that I "know" the absolute value of PI or how many hairs are on your head. I'm speaking of higher level truths like right and wrong, good and bad, even the answer to "What's the meaning of life". We all "know" the answer to these types of questions; just ask youself the question. I'm sure if you "open your mind" you will surely answer. Whether you choose to accept the answer or not is up to you.

An open mind is a process not a state.
Open mindedness requires active engaement with the world. To be blunt, you must consider options and viewpoints AND be prepared to discern the value of each not passively accept all as equally true!
An open mind is not a can to filled with trash and it is not an impermeable vault.

How do you discern worth and what should fill your open mind?

It is trite to say, "we define what is right and what is wrong". Such a position is not freedom, it is slavery. Rather, it gives you (or me) the power to enslave me (or you) according to how right and wrong are defined arbitrarily. Might is right, the strong make the rules. Morality is defined by fashion.

The indvidually determined defintion of "right" only last as long as you have no contact with other people.
If only the purveyors of relativistic drivel were true to the logical consequences of thier arguments. That would be the the only reason to admire Freud, for one. And certainly not Sartre who blathered about the meaninglessness of life but seemed to enjoy his position in it, never engaging in his "ultimate human freedom" - suicide!! PULEEZE! What garbage! But perhaps I am too close minded! However, I plan to keep my mind, unlike Nietzsche.

The first sentence, not the second.

Whose scrutiny?

Yours?

Is your scrutiny really _yours_?

Where did your rules and facts that you judge by come from?

Objective scrutiny?

How objective can a person be, given that he or she is drenched in experience they cannot shake themselves from (and succumb too by trying to rid themselves of it)?

Right is right until it's wrong, or we decide that right means wrong.

Logic is only logical, because we say it's so.

1 + 1 = 2

Only in our culture.

Upon further reflection:

An open mind lives in shades of grey, a closed mind - allowing itself the comfortable luxury of absolutes - sets itself in an existence of black and white.

Which is Right?

Neither.

Which is preferable?

That's up to you.

No, 1+1=2

.

My mind is not closed, perhaps you can show me 1+1 = 3, but until then 1+1 = 2.

Numbers are concepts, as is the logic that manipulates them.

Concepts borne of our own imaginations, as reference points for shared experience.

These concepts are not absolutes, they do not exist in anything but the human mind.

Maths is _our_, _human_ method of describing what we see, our experiences, in a formalised manner and as such, it is entirely subjective.

As subjective as any other language, as abstract as money, faith and love.

If two trees fall in the woods and no one is there to count them, do they still equal two?

The point i'm making is this:

the two fallen trees could just as well be # trees, if teach had taught us that # followed 1 in the same way he/she would have taught us that 1 + 1 = #.

...and what are these "trees" of which you speak?

Subjective convention, not absolute fact.