Being Open Minded

[tripsis]

Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues? Think about it. I bet most people that use the term don't even consider that. How can they just take a side? Isn't the act of taking a side the act of closing your mind to the other side hence the loss of being truly "open minded"?

 

 

 

I disagree with that. I don't see why someone can't make their personal decision, but still be open minded to what others have to say after their side is chosen. Whether they've made their decision or not, I view an open minded person as someone who is willing to listen to any ideas that someone has to offer. So even after they've taken a side, they can still leave their mind open to be swayed.

[meol]

[hide=Original Post]

These are just some thoughts I have had on the topic of being open minded. I would be interested to hear what other people thought on this perspective.

 

 

 

Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues? Think about it. I bet most people that use the term don't even consider that. How can they just take a side? Isn't the act of taking a side the act of closing your mind to the other side hence the loss of being truly "open minded"?

 

 

 

Wouldn't being truly open minded mean being open to every single idea out there? I could understand someone being "open minded" until they learned enough to form an opinion(this is a good thing) but as soon as that opinion was formed on the issue they would cease to be open minded on the topic. The act of forming an opinion means they are rejecting a position in favor of another position. That is not open mindedness.

 

 

 

To me the only people that should be going around claiming to be open minded on a topic are only those people that haven't made up their minds on the issue yet. True open mindedness should be a position of neutrality since a side has not been taken and all sides are being considered. Claiming open mindedness on a topic should be the same as claiming ignorance(this isn't bad, just being honest with oneself saying I don't know enough to make a decision yet) on that topic until said person has educated themselves enough to form an opinion.

 

 

 

Let's face it, in a debate where everyone is taking sides true open mindedness doesn't exist. Taking a side in a debate and then proclaiming your side open minded while claiming the other position as close minded is just a subtle little game in semantics to try to make people of one position look good and people of the opposing position look bad due to word associations.

 

 

 

I would go as far to say that many people that sling these words around don't even realize they are just using semantics to try to make the people they disagree with seem backwards, ill informed, or just ignorant. You have to admit, even if it is dishonest(intentionally or not), it is an effective tactic because most people don't even think about what it really means. All most people get is the negative or positive feel of the words and how those words were associated to the issues.

 

 

 

Just remember, if you disagree with anything I wrote you aren't being open minded! :wink:

[/hide]

 

 

 

Just arguing or defending both sides of the argument is not being open-minded, IMO; it's just being wavering and not having an real opinion.

 

 

 

Being open-minded is the act of thinking something without it meaning that every other idea/set of ideas/believes are wrong. Not trying to bring religion to an example, I'll try with Politics.

 

 

 

An open-minded communist would say: "Well, if Capitalism really assures people's freedom and its goal won't necessarily be wealth, but if it cared about the human beings, it might actually work." However, it wouldn't mean that he hadn't an own opinion.

 

 

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't have to stop you from being open minded. It requires tolerance and self-critic (here I mean: "the ability to see your own faults/the faults in your set of beliefs") more than anything else.

[warri0r45]

Ok Warri0r, if I were to come do your door and try to sell you to religion, what would you say?

 

 

 

Looking back on some of these religious topics, I can find several times when you are "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others" while you criticize me as a Christian for being "stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas."

 

 

 

And the majority of anti-religious people in this forum are not only willing to be intolerant of my beliefs, but they are not willing to be receptive to the notion that they may be wrong.

 

Then please do so I can apologise profusely.

 

 

 

As for the person coming to my door in all honesty I'd likely ask them to show me something totally novel about thier religion which I've probably never heard before and after doing so, if it's nothing new, I'd likely say thanks but no thanks. If you'd like to sell me your religion I'd love to hear something that I've likely never heard before. I mean something interesting as hell (not literally; I'd imagine hell is a pretty monotonous place, lol :P ). Shoot me through a PM if you'd like.

 

 

 

But again, if you could, which it seems you'd have no problem in doing, show me where I was as you accuse me and I'll apologise to you.

 

 

 

Bah, you've grown up in the past few months. I do remember you being a little more...shall we say...blunt. But you've been a good little boy for the first 10 pages of your posts :P.

 

 

 

Give me a few days to come up with a PM. I am really tuckered out from work, and tomorrow is going to be worse. The joys of being an RA.

 

 

 

EDIT: Dangit!

 

 

 

and barihawk -

 

 

 

Seriously, I am getting sick of these topics that claim that Christians are backwards Middle Age relics. We believe in science, too.

 

 

 

 

thanks for not being ignorant. :)

 

 

 

I'm probably getting you confused with someone else, Warri0r. However, In the span of one year you have aged like 10 according to your posts :P. I like that.

 

 

 

Thanks.

[Ichimaru]

Lol ambassadar you make it sound like open-mindness doesn't exist. It does, face it.

 

 

 

Being open-minded is being receptive to new ideas. Some people are, some people aren't. Gays? "Ew, gays!" "Okay, hi gays!". Simplist, but true.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think the true issue and the true stimulus for this topic is ,"How do you define 'open-mindedness'?".

 

 

 

For me, being open-minded isn't merely sitting on the fence, as you have seemed to imply in your first post. I actually regard that attitude as naÃÆÃâÃâïve, and actually proves you don't have the strength to stick to one opinion. Open-mindedness is the ability to accept the viewpoint of another person or another group. This doesn't mean you have to agree with that viewpoint, it merely means you have to accept its existance and accept it's a fully valid opinion.

 

 

 

For instance, as in the post above me, it's fine for you to say you feel homosexuality is wrong. I'd call you intolerant for it, but so long as you accept that it's an emotion that valid and a form of sexual relationship that exists in our world, and you could still just as easily have a discussion about something completely unrelated like sport or music with a homosexual, then I'd still regard you open-minded. Biggots who would say, "Ewww, you're gay, get away from me you freak!" are without doubt closed-minded.

 

 

 

It's not closed-minded to take an opinion, so long as you accept other people's viewpoints and when you question them, you question the opinion and not the person's decision to adopt that opinion.

[Barihawk]

Now Ginger, what about me?

 

 

 

I for one fully accept homosexuals as my brothers, and will treat them as I would want to be treated. However, I am completely against homosexuality the practice, to the point that I would deny rights to those to openly practice it (keyword, practice. As in they are actively having sexual relations with the same sex, not just being a homosexual).

 

 

 

Am I closed minded? Hating a practice but not those who practice it?

[BlueLancer]

Am I closed minded? Hating a practice but not those who practice it?

 

 

 

Not really, it's your personal opinion and it doesn't hurt anybody. Just like you could hate the practice of killing endangered whales for their fat and the meat (but not hating the fishermen who need it to live and feed their families)

 

 

 

 

to the point that I would deny rights to those to openly practice it

 

 

 

You don't have any rights to deny rights from others that don't hurt the society or you personally.

 

 

 

Do you have a right to stop a murderer? Yes.

 

Do you have a right to stop a robber? Yes.

 

 

 

Do you have the right to limit other people's personal freedom? No. What if a gay person hated your practice of having intercourse with women? Would he be able to restrict you and point a gun at your head?

 

 

 

There are a few factors a human can't control: Age, skin color, sexuality, length, etc... Discrimination based on any of those is (fortunately) punishable by law in most civilized states.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Now Ginger, what about me?

 

 

 

I for one fully accept homosexuals as my brothers, and will treat them as I would want to be treated. However, I am completely against homosexuality the practice, to the point that I would deny rights to those to openly practice it (keyword, practice. As in they are actively having sexual relations with the same sex, not just being a homosexual).

 

 

 

Am I closed minded? Hating a practice but not those who practice it?

 

Well, that's a contradiction in itself. You've said you'd actively deny a homosexual couple the right to have sexual intercourse, which runs counter to you 'fully accept[ing] homosexuals'.

 

 

 

In short, you doing that isn't accepting homosexuality, so according to the way I look at this, you are being closed-minded, even if you don't realise it.

[Barihawk]

Never said I did support homosexuality, emphasis on "ity," but rather the homosexuals themselves.

 

 

 

And yes, I was playing devil's advocate there. While I do have my own opinion on homosexuality, I would never deny them rights. My father and I have been in literal fights over gay marriage, but to be honest, it doesn't hurt me.

 

 

 

The only form of gay marriage that I would oppose is to have a wedding in a church. It's like pissing on God's front doorstep. However, if a couple really loves one another, they can do whatever else they want (and get a liberal pastor, if they can find one.)

 

 

 

And bah, I digress.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Never said I did support homosexuality, emphasis on "ity," but rather the homosexuals themselves.

 

 

 

And yes, I was playing devil's advocate there. While I do have my own opinion on homosexuality, I would never deny them rights. My father and I have been in literal fights over gay marriage, but to be honest, it doesn't hurt me.

 

 

 

The only form of gay marriage that I would oppose is to have a wedding in a church. It's like pissing on God's front doorstep. However, if a couple really loves one another, they can do whatever else they want (and get a liberal pastor, if they can find one.)

 

And note I said "accept", not "support".

 

 

 

I wouldn't agree with gay marriages being in a Christian Church, nor would I expect them to be held there unless the viewpoint of that particular branch of Christianity changed. But that's not because I disagree with homosexuality. I just accept that the Christian Church has an equal right to deny homosexuals a marriage in their own church.

 

 

 

Hence, I'm open-minded. I take a viewpoint, but I accept the viewpoint of opposing bodies.

[kelem_ryu]

But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude.

 

 

 

I do. By that you close your mind to anything that doesn't fit into this scientific believe sytem. For all i know some key elements of science may just be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Generally there is imo a difference between being open minded and presenting an opinion. Opinions usually exclude other opinions. Not everybody however will cling to his opinion no matter what. Changing an opinion takes some time though. To me open mindedness means to put yourself into the shoes of somebody presenting an opinion and accept it just as he does. Affirming that this opinion is right. Then the process of critical thinking starts and you compare this right opinion with other ideas and opinions you know (all of them valid and right). Contrary to scientific practice i try to varify every statement instead of trying to falsify it. This way i end up with a broader spectrum of possible truths.

 

 

 

I guess true open mindedness means to accept every opinion, idea, theory and so as true. You need to close your mind to some degree to stay functional in day to day world.

 

 

 

Perhaps I didn't elaborate on my mentality when it comes to science. If you can prove me wrong I invite it. In fact I emplore you to. Really, please, do. I can't stress enough at how much I don't give a damn about holding to a theory, no matter what it is. If you manage to overturn a past paradigm in scientific thought and present a new one with a greater breadth of explanatory power and evidential weight, I'd be willing to shake your hand, sir.

 

 

 

And science is not a belief system, it's at current the most, or only, objective methodology to uncover knowlege of the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

EDIT: Just to add, if talking about supernatural notions, I'm not the kind of person to believe they don't exist. Research weak atheism and agnosticism. Those are what I am. If there's something I don't know, I'm not going to accept it nor am I going to deny it. Also, science does not state anything on the existance, qualities, properties or otherwise of supernatural notions; as you're probably aware it's a naturally limited methodology and stakes no claim on the supernatural. In lacking belief via skepticism and stating in all honesty It's not the kind of thing I can have knowlege of, I still invite anyone to show me why thier supernatural notions are true of the reality in which we exist.

 

 

 

(gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry)

 

 

 

Science is based on the unproofable assumption that everything we can see and touch exists. It relies heavily on sensory input. Some eastern religions claim that perception is merely an illusion created by mind. If that is true, then scientific theories wouldn't explain reality, they would describe mind.

 

 

 

(gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry)

 

 

 

Meh. Happens to the best =P

[warri0r45]

But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude.

 

 

 

I do. By that you close your mind to anything that doesn't fit into this scientific believe sytem. For all i know some key elements of science may just be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Generally there is imo a difference between being open minded and presenting an opinion. Opinions usually exclude other opinions. Not everybody however will cling to his opinion no matter what. Changing an opinion takes some time though. To me open mindedness means to put yourself into the shoes of somebody presenting an opinion and accept it just as he does. Affirming that this opinion is right. Then the process of critical thinking starts and you compare this right opinion with other ideas and opinions you know (all of them valid and right). Contrary to scientific practice i try to varify every statement instead of trying to falsify it. This way i end up with a broader spectrum of possible truths.

 

 

 

I guess true open mindedness means to accept every opinion, idea, theory and so as true. You need to close your mind to some degree to stay functional in day to day world.

 

 

 

Perhaps I didn't elaborate on my mentality when it comes to science. If you can prove me wrong I invite it. In fact I emplore you to. Really, please, do. I can't stress enough at how much I don't give a damn about holding to a theory, no matter what it is. If you manage to overturn a past paradigm in scientific thought and present a new one with a greater breadth of explanatory power and evidential weight, I'd be willing to shake your hand, sir.

 

 

 

And science is not a belief system, it's at current the most, or only, objective methodology to uncover knowlege of the universe in which we live.

 

 

 

EDIT: Just to add, if talking about supernatural notions, I'm not the kind of person to believe they don't exist. Research weak atheism and agnosticism. Those are what I am. If there's something I don't know, I'm not going to accept it nor am I going to deny it. Also, science does not state anything on the existance, qualities, properties or otherwise of supernatural notions; as you're probably aware it's a naturally limited methodology and stakes no claim on the supernatural. In lacking belief via skepticism and stating in all honesty It's not the kind of thing I can have knowlege of, I still invite anyone to show me why thier supernatural notions are true of the reality in which we exist.

 

 

 

(gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry)

 

 

 

Science is based on the unproofable assumption that everything we can see and touch exists. It relies heavily on sensory input. Some eastern religions claim that perception is merely an illusion created by mind. If that is true, then scientific theories wouldn't explain reality, they would describe mind.

 

 

 

(gah, hit quote when I should have hit edit, sorry)

 

 

 

Meh. Happens to the best =P

 

 

 

So do you reject science on this basis or are you just suggesting I'm closed minded because I favour believing that everything we sense exists over the idea that perception is an illusion of the mind? Perhaps I freely acknowlege the assumption that our senses detect reality but accept the assumption because it's lead to a method with innumerable benefit far more than any worldview has, even if that perception is an illusion. Man, this is why I don't bother with philosophy. We can sit around questioning existance all day and not get anywhere or accept there is one objective reality and realise it's a logical and definable one. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the point of not accepting our senses as accurate percievers of what exists. Do you think such a denial of senses would allow something as intricate as the computer you're typing on to come about? Or is that just another illusion of this grand fake reality? :wall: It never ends.