The value of an open mind

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I posted this somewhere else but I thought it might be better in a new thread.

An “open mind” is often lauded as a fantastic thing to have, as if the highest goal of humanity should be to remain open to every possibility and not make any determination as to the value of competing ideas. While this might seem intellectually enlightening, it is of no practical use whatsoever.

It seems to me that the rules one learns about crossing the road, driving in traffic (I obviously have cars on the brain today), handling a firearm, eating a balanced diet, behaving in a socially acceptable manner in public, etc… are the complete antithesis of “keeping an open mind”. We learn to follow accepted patterns of behavior that produce the most benefit to ourselves and society. If we approach these practical aspects of life with “an open mind” we will soon be dead, injured, or in jail. We don’t look at the guy driving the wrong way up the freeway firing a shotgun in the air and say, “wow, I’m sure glad he’s keeping an open mind about the rules of traffic and firearm use, more people should follow his example!”.

So, when people talk about the fact that we should all “keep an open mind”, what they are really saying is “lets keep an open mind about everything, except those parts of life that are vitally important”.

Is that what all you “open-minded” people mean?

2

Umm… … that sounds a lot like ‘We learn to become automatons’.

I don’t see what the problem here is. Honestly, I mean… if there is street light which is obviously broken so that it’s stuck on red are you just going to sit there until the person comes to fix it? Of course not. Having an open mind is just a catch-all term for a variety of different ways of thinking, but I think the point here is that it’s not a negative concept. You say it’s impractical but I don’t follow. Surely it’s more practical to go through the red light then wait however long it would take to turn green.

3

I agree with Gobbo that it’s a broad term that can apply to a lot of different situations. So, if you attack ‘open-mindedness’ directly, someone defending it is free to use the traffic light example Gobbo used. It’s not exactly a straw-man, because the sort of decision he describes does require mental flexibility we could call open-mindedness.
The problem is that it’s applied disproportionately, and the idea of it’s importance is all mixed up. First, as long as religious people who think every other religion is wrong are “narrow-minded”, while humanists who think every other religion is wrong are “rational”, we’ll continue to have these debates.
Also, open-minded is seen by some, in some issues, as being a perpetual state of affairs- never coming to a final judgemental solution, always hearing new ideas, never settling on one, this is seen as a virtue. The implication that it’s ok to be indecisive about a matter until the day we die is ALSO an implication that the matter his wholly unimportant. So the person pushing this type of universal, eternal open-mindedness refutes himself with his desire to discuss the subject at hand.

4

Have you been listening to “rebel yell” again?

I admit that the alternative to a completely open mind, a completely closed mind can have it’s difficulties too. No point defending that particular beach front.

Maybe all I’m saying is that those who value an “open mind” would do well to define what they mean by having an “open mind” (which would also address Uccs comment) and provide a good reason why open mindedness is of more value when approaching spiritual matters than it is when driving downtown (man, I’m stuck on driving analogies today…hey, maybe I need to change gears!..OK, I admit that joke was pretty bad…).

5

When one talks about the open mind they often mean in light of ideas. I did not think i would have to iterate this point to its minutest detail. I find it kind of amusing that you remain hung up on this and are over scrutinizing it.

When I read a book, take a class, meet a person, or look at a problem I look at it as a world of possibilities. The book may have ideas that I find strange, the class may be boring, the person may be obnoxious, or the problem may have a simply solution. But it does not mean that they do not hold any value whether it is one small idea that I can take or a whole multitude. This allows one to constantly evolve.

As far as the “common sense” side of it that is not what I meant. That is a given that we cannot keep an open mind as to whether guns or dangerous.

Yes, that was an awful joke but I will forgive ya :slight_smile:. Now, when it comes to spiritual matters I believe it is important to keep an open mind due to the multitude of varying beliefs. When you simply close your book and decide that you are solely right; you are neglecting the possibility which millions of others have useful ideas or information for you to learn and maybe even adhere to.

6

“The purpose of an open mind, like an open mouth, is to clamp shut on something solid.”
– G.K.C.

7

See I see it more as ‘An open mind is like an open mouth… willing to digest anything’ or something along those lines.

Mental Stagnancy drives me nuts.

8

What is the attempted goal of the open mind? That is, the mind that is open in the way important to philosophy, rather than traffic?

9

To be able to spot the faulty red lights within philosophy/life. If you close up you’ll be sitting at that red light for maybe years…

10

Well, if we must continue that analogy, does this imply that there is someplace worth going? If I’m just going to be driving around in circles, there comes a point where stopping is as good as going, right?

11

‘Open-minded’ and ‘close-minded’ are rarely used as descriptive labels in my experience. They’re just emotionally-charged words of praise/contempt that one uses when the conversation goes the way one likes/dislikes. Everyone has perception, the ability to open one’s mind to everything; and judgment, the ability to close it on something (as mrn quoting GKC noted). Everyone uses them in the way they think best. To call someone open or closed minded is simply to say “you perceive rightly/wrongly” or “you judge rightly/wrongly”. It says nothing about why the perception or judgment is right or wrong. This is why these phrases usually fail to be anything more than emotional exclamations.

12

I realize that most people are talking about “ideas”, but as I said before, this simply means that having an open mind is practically useless. It seems to be an attitude that will lead to a lot of discourse but little action. that being the case, why is it of any value?

I find it interesting that you use the word “evolve” to describe a process that bears absolutely no similarity to evolution in any way, but let’s leave that to the side for now since you’re not the only one who does this.

I agree that there is value in listening to different ideas. However if one proposes never making a critical judgement about the value of such ideas (and remains open minded), it’s very hard to see the point of listening at all. As Ucc has already articulated more clearly than I, if we admit that we are going to be “open minded” about spiritual matters until the day we die, that seems very similar to admiting that spiritual matters are completely irrelevant, except maybe to give us something to chat about over dinner.

OK, consider 2 competing mutually exclusive spiritual ideas. For example, (a) a person must be baptised to enter heaven, (b) baptism excludes a person from heaven (sorry Gobo I know I’ve used this one before!). You have choices. Either you think that:

(i) the metaphysical world is so wildy different to reality that some how BOTH these positions can be correct.

(ii) NEITHER position is correct and you have some other fabulous idea about the afterlife or entrance to heaven.

(iii) ONE of these positions is correct and the other is by definition incorrect.

(iv) You simply don’t care, don’t know, or don’t want to deal with this issue right now.

Now, if you approach this little problem and tell me to just “keep an open mind” on the topic, it sounds to me like you are advocating position (iv). That is, having an “open mind” just seems like a fantastic excuse for laziness, or a way to denegrate the issue at hand so you don’t have to face it. Why such an attitude should be encouraged, or thought to be enlightened is beyond me!

13

The value of an open mind usually accrues to the other guy who wishes to fill it.

14

I love what Ned, Aporia, and Sabrina have said here. I would like to add that we have a means/ends aspect to this that needs to be considered. Gobbo example of the person at the traffic light. Red means stop, and if the person at that light is 100% close minded, they’ll sit there stopped until they starve to death.
So in this context, open-mindedness is a means to making the right decision, which is to drive away. If the person is perpetually open-minded, the exact same thing happens, except instead of being paralyzed by ‘red means stop’ they are paralyzed considering the infinite possibilities for why a light wouldn’t turn green. The open-minded person can’t rule out ‘red means stop’ to overcome it. Once the driver has decided to start moving, they have become close-minded to any theories that would have kept them at that light- and since this is a metaphor for life, they can’t take it back, they have concluded and moved forward.
Ethically, notice that the open-mindedness is only a virtue in this situation because of the ends it brings about. That is to say, open-mindedness is only a good thing if it leads you to the truth, however, coming to the truth and stopping there requires open-mindedness to cease once it’s purpose is fulfilled.
All simply stated, open-mindedness is only a good in hindsight, when seeing where one has arrived after the open-mindedness ceases.

15

On the contrary, lack of action should not be the result. You are making the common lumping together that I have seen when people hear atheist upon the board. You believe that if someone has an open mind they are simply lazy and ambivalent to the world. When in reality, an open mind should be striving for new information new ideas. But I cannot change your mind set so believe what you wish.

If you wish to play semantics so be it. Evolve is a broad term that I used to apply to the mind. I made no mention of macro-evolution or any of this in a scientific manner. If my manner confused in you some way that you felt the need to try to assure me of a difference between the metaphorical and the literal then I do not know what to tell you. Except read the context.

To grasp more and fight to understand less. Perhaps even understand your fellow man more. But why would anyone want that…

:sunglasses:

Well if you feel that is the case so be it. In Eastern Schools of religion many of the greatest studied many religions and came to find their own truth. Hinduism believes no ones path is the same but rather as unique as the individual. In no way do I see this as nonconstructive of religion, in fact I think it helps more. You also make it sound as if one with an open-mind would place almost no value on religion or its position.

Actually I would go with number 1 but thanks for being presumptive :stuck_out_tongue:

If you see my position of being open-minded as such than I doubt I can ever change it. But it is not fantastical excuses. But rather a curious stance of believing that each path is different. Can I tell someone they are wrong if it is right for them? Spirituality is as varying as the individual. And once again I will reiterate that you believe this to be such an abhorred situation because you have seemingly closed the book on what you think is correct. But once again i will say I cannot change your mind or perspective. I just hope that you will gain some facet of what I am talking about.

16

What about Scholasticism?

That was an incredibly open-minded movement which also only respected and recognized one ultimate Truth.

17

Sartori

Thanks for the good belly laugh. :slight_smile: Were you being ironic on purpose? That ‘believe what you wish’ thing at the end of your point here just totally made Ned’s point, and especially made the point about open-minded people being lazy and ambivalent to the world. You just now exhibited it.

Xunzian, teach us a thing or two about these Scholastics! The sound…scholarly.

18

Hey man, that is your tradition, not mine. I just dig 'em. During my more intoxicated moments pouring over Confucian philosophy and other philosophies I start to fancy myself a Confucian scholastic in the bouts of a great dispute, and a quodlibetal at that!

Lombard, Abelard and Aquinas are all famous scholastics. Good people.

They sought to reconsile the seeming contradictions between classical thought (who can question the genious of Aristotle, for example) and Christian thought? And also, of Christian thought (like Augustine) with Christian knowledge (like the Bible).

Pretty cool stuff.

19

Satori is a very patient and intelligent person. It is a shame you would disregard what (s?)he has to say.

Despite your biting remarks, I believe you are incorrect, and once again arguing semantics. Satori did not exhibit laziness and ambivalence, but rather recognized the obvious difficulty in changing anybody’s beliefs through discussion. If, in your opinion, laziness and ambivalence is failing to change others’ beliefs about the world, perhaps you are correct (you’d have to ask Satori). My opinion of such, however, is in the individual’s failing to seek out and find new knowledge and possibilities, not rabidly trying to convince others of it, and a simple statement, such as “believe what you wish,” doesn’t in the least imply such a failure.

20

Your comments made me think that where we are temporally in this process can have a huge effect on whether we are percieved as open or closed minded, or whether we perceive others as such.

One can imagine the situation of someone considering competing philosophies or spiritual truths. But after careful reflection the individual decides that he is going to choose the way that seems best and most “truth-full” to him.

If you happen to catch him while still in the process of deciding which way to go, you might say, “he’s a very open-minded chap”. However, once he actually makes any decision of substance, especially one that involves him taking any action, you could easily criticise him for being too closed to “alternative possibilities”.

But the reality might simply be that he’s just a fairly average guy who approaches spirituality in much the same way that he decides what pants to wear that morning.