September 11, 2010
-
Change Your Mind!
Question. “What does it mean to be ‘Open-Minded?’”
A year or two ago I was discussing some issue with Some Guy on Some Guy’s xanga and he said this; “we should be careful not to make a virtue of open-mindedness.” My response was a civil rebuttal regarding the nature of being open-minded. Still, what I really wanted to say is “why shouldn’t we? Open-mindedness IS a virtue.” Not simply a virtue but a necessary component for intellectual evolution. But it does seem, to this David, people on both sides of the political spectrum are misunderstanding, and misappropriating, the term “open-minded.”
Criticism of “open-mindedness” normally comes from the right. Naturally. Conservatives, generally speaking, espouse traditional values and ideas, those they feel are tried and tested, and they resist progression. It follows suit that they would be less open to, or more reluctant to be open to, new ideas and thus feel open-mindedness represents a threat; an undermining of the traditional ideas they cling to. They also seem to feel that ‘open-mindedness’ lacks substance; an indecisive avoidance of tackling issues and taking a stance. I have a few things to say about this. The first is, quite simply “no, it’s not.” Here’s a simple and concise definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:
@the_greatest_pip - Not only do people need to think things through but they need to never rest on their laurels once they’re satisfied with their answer. The mind needs to remain open (hence open-mindedness) to any new information that may present down the line. Thinking should not be a finite process but an on-going one.
I think I know what you mean about the overzealous types… but they are not so much advocating open-mindedness as they are trying to present an image to the world. It’s not about intellectual discovery for them, it’s a fashion accessory! But just in case you mean something other than that could you gimme an example?
That’s exactly what I mean. They’ll say they are okay with *insert controversial thing*, but then they will respond quite differently when confronted with it. There is another type, as well. The kind who can’t be bothered to actually create a well-informed opinion and would rather become easy prey for charismatic leaders, opinionated family & friends, and celebrities with opinions.
Not all nuts are harmless, though. The cult leaders, the Hitlers, the crooked politicians–all predators of the second type.
And yeah, posers, but I get the impression that those might be the kind of people that guy was blogging about. I haven’t read it, though, so I don’t pretend to know anything of it.
@the_greatest_pip - OK, so posers then? That’s not so much about being open-minded as pretending to be and being a knob.
Second type; it’s the blind squirrel and the nut thing again. Yeah, they lack integrity and, if that is how they come to call themselves “open-minded,” they are probably Type 1 Posers who, when confronted with the actual controversial issue, will get all weird and not-so open-minded.
@the_greatest_pip - Yes, point taken. Some “new ideas” can be harmful (hence me editing that last comment!) Although the Hitlers of this world I would argue might employ fallacious new ideas (eugenics) but more easily find an audience amongst closed-minded types (racial, political and religious prejudices in the case of the Nazis.)
But the gist is, yes, people need education to make such assessments, an education that is ongoing. No one should be encouraged to be a blind squirrel.
allow me to blow your mind… i know this isn’t the only thing that would be referenced when speaking of open-mindedness, but several republicans in power here have cottoned on to the fact that supporting gay issues is good. we’ve had a few republicans coming out of the closet recently, too, and even george w. offered congratulations and support for a guy who came out within the last few weeks. and while many of the smaller dems are on board, mr. obama himself is dragging his feet. how’s that for fucked up?
but — there are still a lot of republicans who remain your run of the mill dimwitted bible thumpers and “don’t agree” with “those lifestyle choices.” it’s becoming a very mixed bag.
dimwitted is meant to be an adjective there, not a hyphenated noun. in other words, i don’t mean to say that all bible thumpers are dimwits, present company included. but most still are.
@mercurialmusic - Oh, sure. When I mention political allegiances it’s very much in a “generally speaking” sense. Yes, that’s kinda fucked up, though. C’mon, Obama. get things together! But I guess it all comes down to playing the game. With respect to those run of the mill, dimwitted bible thumpers Bush doesn’t have to be quite so hardline now he’s not running, whereas Obama still has to tread softly (as he’s already alienating them enough being a Muslim Socialist Commie!)
But yeah, one’s *ahem* “lifestyle choices” are just a single issue. The attitudes towards them are a symptom of the overall disease, one of many symptoms. Good for those Reps coming over (or coming out) on that one particular area but there’s still a way to go!
Post a Comment