Philosophy Now Forum

I always try to be fair-minded, but that's not the same thing.

Were you always open- or close-minded or did you change in midstream, perhaps several times? If open-minded, what do you do to maintain that state?

A poll should be revealing.

PhilX

Yes, things fall out faster than I can put them back in.

wtf wrote:Yes, things fall out faster than I can put them back in.

Don't leave it open or you will lose your mind.

PhilX

"Do you have an open mind?" is a very open-ended question. This is because the definition of 'mind' is not generally accepted nor even known by most people. Just ask the question, "What is the 'mind'?" and see how many differing and conflicting answers you get.

What you mean by 'mind' could be very different to what I, for example, mean by 'mind'. Your question is a bit like asking, "Does God exist?" without ever stipulating what is meant by 'God' first. How an individual defines 'Mind' or 'God' has huge influence if one has an open mind or not, of if God exists or not, for example.

Of course what is generally accepted as an 'open mind' is known, but if a person is really open, then they would wonder, and thus question, "What is the 'mind' really, and how does a person have one or not?

Now, My answer to your question is there is a Mind, which is always open by the way, whether a person uses that or not is another matter.

To Me, people can either look at things from a truly open (and objective) perspective or from a truly closed (and subjective) perspective, or from anywhere in between.

A person can look from either the (truly open) Mind or look from the brain, or they can look from both. How this is possible is seen and known after discovering and/or learning how the Mind and the brain actually work.

I'm old enough to have a pretty nearly complete stable. I trade a horse only after grave and careful considerations; I let none escape or be eaten by wolves, and I corral a new mustang only rarely, if he's worth the effort.

Open-mindedness is harder than it looks, as it isn't just being accepting of all ideas, but it's being accepting of ALL ideas. This means that even when someone proposes something wildly unethical and absurd, you are still able to withhold judgement and objectively consider what their stance is and why they may have come to that conclusion. This is hard for most people to do, as when once holds a strong stance on something, it is difficult to stop and consider why one may disagree.
Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to agree with them.
I think this is crucial in philosophy, as in order for us to get somewhere, we have to view problems from all possible angles.
You need to bring in the person that thinks that women are the scum of the earth, as well as the one who believes they are the foundation upon which it runs.
Remember. It is not you versus eachother, but both of you versus the issue.

I thought it meant consideration of all ideas.

Ooo! Look!! We agree!!! Although I'd add an 'open mind' also means a willingness to change it as well.

you can't be open minded to everything. but yes as long as their is basis, I do it.

osgart wrote:you can't be open minded to everything. but yes as long as their is basis, I do it.

I agree that 'you' can not be open to everything, but 'I' am open to everything. Are 'you' open to this fact?

If not, why not?

Will your answer further show and prove WHY the 'you' is not open to everything, and will you prove that the 'you' actually does not "do it", as you like to put it? The 'it' was referring to 'being open to everything', right?

Will your responses here show that the first part of your sentence is absolutely true, which actually absolutely refutes the last part of your sentence? Can a 'person' really be open to everything and be biased at the same time?

While you will be proving how the 'you' can not be open to everything, I will be showing how the 'I' IS open to everything? (This is not necessarily for present generations to notice and understand now, but for future generations to oneday see and understand.)

are you saying everyone is open to everything? in the sense that we are subjected to everything I agree. acceptance however is a matter of choice

osgart wrote:are you saying everyone is open to everything? in the sense that we are subjected to everything I agree. acceptance however is a matter of choice

No I am not saying that. How do you think we could be subjected to everything?

What I am saying is, it is possible to be open to every and any thing. I, for one, are completely open.

How could we challenge those who think they have an open mind ?

What strange theses can we offer to them to ponder on ?

Am I open minded if I refuse to listen to Ouzo prophesies ?
It still reminds me of Greek whiskey, I cannot help it.

How much time should I spend thinking about something before I am allowed to dismiss it as nonsense ?
More than 2 minutes ?

I have an open mind. I can recognize the disaster that the Trump presidency is turning into, as well as still being relieved that Hillary didn't become president. I can always see many sides of any issue. I'm one of the few people these days who enjoys reading things I either don't agree with or don't believe. I read Alex Jones every day. I don't believe a word on the site. I read the New York Times every day too; and I don't believe a word on that site either! For example I didn't believe the bs the Times printed to help Bush lie the country into the Iraq war. In short, I love fake news, but I don't believe fake news; and I know that it's ALL fake news. That makes me an open-minded skeptic.

In terms of things you could throw at me that I'd be close-minded about, I'd say I tend to be a rationalist. We landed on the moon and the earth is round. I don't go in for pseudoscience.

But I don't necessarily think science is True with a capital T. I love science but deplore scientism. I'd rather debunk than praise the likes of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

That's my personal manifesto of open-mindedness for what it's worth.