Being Open Minded

[Psilon]

Do u any of u think that being open-minded is a good thing?

[Nightflower]

Is there anyone here who thinks being open-minded is a bad thing?

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Okay...let me try...

It can be. Being open minded to certain actions or beliefs can confuse one's principles or moral stance, if not cloud them further.

[VashTheStampede]

Being open-minded is a good thing, I just don't like being forced to be open-minded.

[Jedigreedo]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Is there anyone here who thinks being open-minded is a bad thing?

I try to open my mind sometimes, but theres just too much of a draft. So yeah I guess you could consider that a bad thing. :D

Now if you open it fully for something, it's just so revealing... :eek:

[gtracer72]

Being open-minded is good.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

It's only bad if you lack common sense.

I am very open minded, about everything except one thing.

[Zechs]

It's good man as long as you use good jdugemnet with it.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Okay...let me try...

It can be. Being open minded to certain actions or beliefs can confuse one's principles or moral stance, if not cloud them further.

Nicely contrarian spirit there. ;)

Yeah, "open mindedness" can easily verge into credulity. "Could it be that the Loch Ness Monster is actually a submersible UFO being operated by the CIA as part of a conspiracy to smuggle heroin into northern Scotland?" "Yeah, I'm open-minded, so I'll accept that as a possibility."

:rolleyes:

I think it's better to cultivate a mild skepticism toward all things. It is possible to adopt a mildly skeptical stance toward a claim without endorsing the contrary; it is possible to be skeptical about the lone gunman theory of JFK's assassination without endorsing any other theory in its place.

If you possess this kind of skepticism it gives you the benefits of "open mindedness" -- you are not locked in to a cluster of beliefs that go unchallenged -- without exposing you to the danger that your brain will fall out of your head.

[Nightflower]

Feh... of course there is a limit to how open-minded one can be. There's a limit to every "positive" human behavior. It was just my way of responding to the way the original question was phrased, as if it was an incredible thing that only a few people would agree with. ^_^

[Y3k-Bug]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Is there anyone here who thinks being open-minded is a bad thing?

It easily can be. Being open-minded requires a certain level of tolerance/understanding. When these 2 attributes are too high in a paticular person, problems can ensue. For instance, I personally never got angry. Ever. I was so quick to see everything from ever possible viewpoint, that I understood the reasoning behind a few mean-spirited actions against me. Then it was too the point where I would just CREATE reasons. Luckily, this is something my girlfriend saw in me, and helped me break the habit. So yeah, its possible.

*update*
Oh. It would seem that you clearly got all of this already. Guess this is what I get for not reading a thread entirely. Well, I'll just leave this here for posterity's sake, hehe.

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Nicely contrarian spirit there. ;)

Yeah, "open mindedness" can easily verge into credulity. "Could it be that the Loch Ness Monster is actually a submersible UFO being operated by the CIA as part of a conspiracy to smuggle heroin into northern Scotland?" "Yeah, I'm open-minded, so I'll accept that as a possibility."

:rolleyes:


I think it's better to cultivate a mild skepticism toward all things. It is possible to adopt a mildly skeptical stance toward a claim without endorsing the contrary; it is possible to be skeptical about the lone gunman theory of JFK's assassination without endorsing any other theory in its place.

If you possess this kind of skepticism it gives you the benefits of "open mindedness" -- you are not locked in to a cluster of beliefs that go unchallenged -- without exposing you to the danger that your brain will fall out of your head.

I agree with you. However, you say you have to have mild skeptism. Now you talk about UFOs, which the majority of the world thinks is stupid. Now say if I were to talk about a religion. I talk to a person X who is of the faith of Religion A, about Relgion B. If person X using his sceptisim thinks that Religion B is a bunch of garbage, is that person now not open minded?

[JTurner954]

I always go into a movie or TV show open minded basing it on its own without nitpicking small inaccuracies, familiar actors, and other things thereby giving myself an independent opinion.

[James]

I prefer rationality to being open minded. You can't fault rational thinking.


I agree with you. However, you say you have to have mild skeptism. Now you talk about UFOs, which the majority of the world thinks is stupid. Now say if I were to talk about a religion. I talk to a person X who is of the faith of Religion A, about Relgion B. If person X using his sceptisim thinks that Religion B is a bunch of garbage, is that person now not open minded?

Hmm. Relgion itself prevents being open minded, almost by definition. To follow something religiously or dogmatically. So I don't think you can be religious and open minded.

[TimTwoFace]

I consider myself open-minded, and I believe it's a good thing. Thing is, I don't want open-mindedness to result in changing my own already-formed strong opinions I have about various topics. To me, it means you don't have to believe in what others feel, but respect their opinions, provided they're reasonably rational. :)

-Tim
(Open Minded to a Fault?)

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ
I prefer rationality to being open minded. You can't fault rational thinking.

Hmm. Relgion itself prevents being open minded, almost by definition. To follow something religiously or dogmatically. So I don't think you can be religious and open minded.

Well, there are religious dogmatisms, and there are non-religious dogmatisms. Count up the number of things that you believe without rational proof, and you'll be horrified.

And religion is no impediment to curiosity and open-mindedness. Until the late 18th century it went without saying that every philosopher and scientist was not only a theist, but also a devout Christian; and the presumption that a scientist was a believer (like the rest of society) wasn't overturned until the late 19th or early 20th century. And even then it was overturned for sociological reasons, and not because science proved there was no God.

Anti-humanist religious dogmatism sparked and has gone a long way toward sustaining anti-religious humanist dogmatism. I dislike both. If man is made in God's image, and if God loves man, then there is no reason that man should not love himself (in addition to other things). And if we believe in man, why cannot we make room for man's beliefs? (To quote Tom Stoppard.)

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Psilon2011
I agree with you. However, you say you have to have mild skeptism. Now you talk about UFOs, which the majority of the world thinks is stupid. Now say if I were to talk about a religion. I talk to a person X who is of the faith of Religion A, about Relgion B. If person X using his sceptisim thinks that Religion B is a bunch of garbage, is that person now not open minded?

That's why "mild skepticism" replaces "open mindedness." Person X is not being open-minded. But I don't think it is important that he be open-minded toward Religion B, only that he be mildly skeptical even of his own rejection of Religion B. There is a difference between saying "Possibly, Religion B is true" and saying "I reject Religion B, but possibly I am wrong to do so." The former leans toward a kind of undiscriminating credulity, while the latter merely guards against dogmatic rejection of other possibilities.

Of course, I could be wrong. I just don't think I am. ;)

[ZorBrak]

I think Nightflower summed up my opinion on it the best. So I really don't have anything to add.

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


Well, there are religious dogmatisms, and there are non-religious dogmatisms. Count up the number of things that you believe without rational proof, and you'll be horrified.

No doubt. We all take thngs for granted and we all have standpoints and ethics which are probably near to immutable.



And religion is no impediment to curiosity and open-mindedness. Until the late 18th century it went without saying that every philosopher and scientist was not only a theist, but also a devout Christian; and the presumption that a scientist was a believer (like the rest of society) wasn't overturned until the late 19th or early 20th century. And even then it was overturned for sociological reasons, and not because science proved there was no God.


That wasn't what I trying to imply. However, I don't disagree with what you said. 'Scientist' itself is a newish term in itself. Before that people were just philosphers.

My point was that a firm conviction - or faith - in a subject, will define what - in certain areas - you can or cannot believe. Personal ethics, which could be said to be dogmatic or inate, are projections of personal belief. Yes I would be hard pushed to be persuaded that killing animals is a good thing, but I could listen and judge for myself. It's up to you what you think and whether you are willing to be open to another concept.

Religion is a set code. It's a group of ideas and ideals that are to be taken on faith alone. You cannot be open minded if following doctrine. This varies from follower to follower, but I don't think the analogy of religious understanding can compare to understandings of UFO's.



If man is made in God's image, and if God loves man, then there is no reason that man should not love himself (in addition to other things). And if we believe in man, why cannot we make room for man's beliefs? (To quote Tom Stoppard.)

Interesting. I've always felt people overstep the belief and understanding of man and go straight to man's beliefs. If we all spent the first part learning about ourselves, and each other and where we stand and then used that evidence to weigh up the theological question at middle age, I'm sure we'd get on better... Remain open minded until you have accumulated enough evidence to form a conclusion. Instead we have a societies which indoctrinates religion to their kids at a young age, affecting their ability to make open minded judgement on ethics and theology.

Just a thought........!

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ
My point was that a firm conviction - or faith - in a subject, will define what - in certain areas - you can or cannot believe. Personal ethics, which could be said to be dogmatic or inate, are projections of personal belief. Yes I would be hard pushed to be persuaded that killing animals is a good thing, but I could listen and judge for myself. It's up to you what you think and whether you are willing to be open to another concept.

Religion is a set code. It's a group of ideas and ideals that are to be taken on faith alone. You cannot be open minded if following doctrine. This varies from follower to follower, but I don't think the analogy of religious understanding can compare to understandings of UFO's.

If by "doctrine" you mean "that which cannot be questioned while adhering to a certain group," then by definition you are right. And so it would certainly seem that (for instance) one cannot be a Catholic without subscribing to certain doctrines about which you have no choice to believe.

Well, perhaps. I'm not willing to speculate about all religions, but there is a difference between acceding to a set of doctrines, and using it to define the limits of your intellectual life. Again, Catholicism offers an example. The method of argument and counter-argument (as best displayed in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas) was a way of setting forth, explicating, and defending certain doctrines by rigorously attacking them. Theological disputes were held and arranged in ways similar to legal trials, in which doctrines were hotly disputed not because the participants actually believed contrary things, but because in the heat of dispute the doctrine's intellectual foundations could be strengthened. It is not close-minded to believe in something that has been rigorously proven (according to some canons and criteria of proof), and these disputes were supposed to supply those proofs.

In other words, it is perfectly possible to stand inside a set of accepted doctrine -- even to accept it on faith without proof -- while maintaining one's intellectual virtue.

This is not to say that religious believers don't often take the existence of doctrine as a reason to turn their brains off -- indeed, to take reason and evidence as tools of the devil. Such is probably the widespread rule. But it isn't necessarily that way.


Interesting. I've always felt people overstep the belief and understanding of man and go straight to man's beliefs. If we all spent the first part learning about ourselves, and each other and where we stand and then used that evidence to weigh up the theological question at middle age, I'm sure we'd get on better... Remain open minded until you have accumulated enough evidence to form a conclusion. Instead we have a societies which indoctrinates religion to their kids at a young age, affecting their ability to make open minded judgement on ethics and theology.

Much like we indoctrinate them to be tolerant and sensitive and non-discriminatory? ;) It all rather depends upon which set of ethical and moral rules you take to be necessary to the foundation of a proper life, doesn't it?

But I actually agree with you, and would go farther. The religious impulse requires an element of mystery, and one that I'm not sure the child's mind is prepared for. Just as only an adult mind can grasp the creepiness of the thought behind The Matrix, I think a good sense of mysticism paradoxically requires the concentration of all the rational faculties. (If I'm not careful here, in a moment I'm going to turn into G.K. Chesterton.)

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Okay...let me try...

It can be. Being open minded to certain actions or beliefs can confuse one's principles or moral stance, if not cloud them further.

But that's the whole point to being open minded. How do I REALLY know that my principles are set in stone, the best way to act in any and every situation I come across? I don't, but that's okay. It's called being human. And being an open minded human lets me make sure I understand and accept everyone else's stance. That doesn't mean, though, that I have to AGREE with their stance. But CRUCIAL understanding, acceptance, and compassion towards the idea or thought is most important.

You don't have to agree with the guy who says Aliens stole his large intestine as part of a global conspiracy to keep him from removing the lesser nutrients from his digested food if you don't wanna! *deep breath* But making fun of him for it would make you seem like a jerk, is all.

*walks away giggling*

......lol! .....large intestine....ha haaa.....ooooh mercy

[czyznyck99]

Being open-minded can get people into trouble. I am not that open-minded, I reject more than I accept. But that doesn't mean I am ignorant, either.

If everyone was open-minded, we would never reach a decision on anything.

Later.

[Singin' Stray Cat]

I'd like to think I'm open-minded - but not so much that just anything can walk right in. :p

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by czyznyck99

If everyone was open-minded, we would never reach a decision on anything.

Later.

lol! That's not open-mindedness. That's my friend. Just ask his mom.

-"You want Burger King for lunch?"

-"Eeeh, sure whatever...."

-"What, you'd rather have Taco Bell?"

-"Eeh, yeah sure....where ever is fine."


He's not too open minded towards everything. He's just lazy. :p


I am completely open minded to all fast food chains around the world!

[Kal-el]

It seems that everyone has a different idea of what exactly being open minded is. Sometimes it can be an excuse to never make a firm decision or have an opinion on anything.
Actually, the previous points brought up about religion basically being a vehicle to diminish open minded thinking got me to thinking. Throughout history, scientific principles have often been seen as unchanging and definite. Various peoples have proven the hard beliefs to be incorrect. If these individuals did not challenge the establishment of science (their "religion" so to speak) with their open minded views and ideas, our technological advancement may have never happened. Scientists today continue to do the same things, challenging what has been set in stone.
Science and religion are both contruscts made with the influence of the human race, therefore imperfect (even the smallest variation or mistake creates imperfection). I feel that any man-made construct suffers from imperfection. This is what many open-minded thinkers, both in the fields of science and religion, strive to improve upon. Both areas will be judged using the basic standards set over time (the "faith" of both areas if you will).
Basically, after all that, what I'm trying to say is that an area of thought, even one with fairly specific parameters in place (i.e. the laws of physics in science and canon law in a religion) can actually be a platform for an enhanced version of open-minded thinking. Answering the unanswerable. Questioning the established.
This is something that may start when we are all very young. When you are told not to do something, how often are you more inclined to do it and see for yourself? Now, when you are told something is a certain way and it can't be changed, how often will you think "Why is it this way?" and "can this be disproven?"