Philosophy Now Forum

Are you open-minded? Before you answer, says William Hare, ask yourself the following ten questions...

https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Assessing_Ones_Own_Open-Mindedness

I am open minded although I prefer to describe myself as detached since I avoid
as much as possible holding onto opinions any more than is absolutely necessary

Should be mandatory reading requirement before posting on the forum.

What preempts most people from doing that is they have to be open-minded to begin with to start the process.

Isn't open-mindedness in a philosophical context more to do with pursuing understanding than forming beliefs or opinions - one is after 'why think (/ believe/ argue) this or that?' rather than after believing (/ thinking/ arguing) the 'best' of them...?

JoeB wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 7:57 pm Isn't open-mindedness in a philosophical context more to do with pursuing understanding than forming beliefs or opinions - one is after 'why think (/ believe/ argue) this or that?' rather than after believing (/ thinking/ arguing) the 'best' of them...?

Hi Joe

Very true but how do you define understanding? Why do we know so much but understand so little?

Open-Mindedness is impossible as a matter of fact, because the only instrument to make such assessment is itself. In other words, it’s the same problem as assessing the reliability of the ideas our brain suggests us: the only instrument to assess my brain is my brain; the consequence of this is that I have no possibility to assess my brain.
The only hope we have is doubting about all of this: perhaps there is some possibility to go outside the cage of our brain, who knows, so we try to do our best, we try to determine all signs of narrow-mindedness, trying endlessly to criticize everything, including our criticism as well.

Besides, I would like to express my disagreement with point 9 of the article: “An open-minded person is not receptive to every idea”: we need to make distinction between human limits and evidence. We need to reject some ideas just because we haven’t time nor resources to check everything, not because any idea could be denied with any certainty.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 11:27 pm
Hi Joe

Very true but how do you define understanding? Why do we know so much but understand so little?

Hi Nick.
'Understand' and 'Know' are of course connected, but I think it's important that one is PURSUING understanding... This activity is important, and benefits from open-mindedness (of course).

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:47 am Open-Mindedness is impossible as a matter of fact

Fortunately enough individuals don't exist in perfectly splendid isolation from one another. Criteria for truth of this or that will need to be found in the shared world. But then what we're after testing the truth of will derive its meaning there already, so quite right. Notwithstanding, not being able to check doesn't necessarily mean there is no fact of the matter. (There's plenty to disagree on in just the idea of this relation - between what's 'knowable' and what 'is the case'.)

JoeB wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:40 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 11:27 pm
Hi Joe

Very true but how do you define understanding? Why do we know so much but understand so little?

Hi Nick.
'Understand' and 'Know' are of course connected, but I think it's important that one is PURSUING understanding... This activity is important, and benefits from open-mindedness (of course).

Very true. However how do you define understanding? To pursue it we must have an idea of what it is.

Which we do, 'pre-philosophically' as it were. And so we work on what it means to 'understand' too; try to understand 'understand'! As a work in progress I'm reluctant to define, but I think it must admit of degrees, which is problematic - it's not just a '0/1' game. So one is looking at an accumulation of information/ knowledge/ models/ examples/ insights etc that enable one to negotiate the idea in question, pursue new lines of inquiry, answer questions, act with relatively decent chance if success, etc, as appropriate to the thing understood... Pretty vague I'm afraid!

JoeB wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 2:14 pm Which we do, 'pre-philosophically' as it were. And so we work on what it means to 'understand' too; try to understand 'understand'! As a work in progress I'm reluctant to define, but I think it must admit of degrees, which is problematic - it's not just a '0/1' game. So one is looking at an accumulation of information/ knowledge/ models/ examples/ insights etc that enable one to negotiate the idea in question, pursue new lines of inquiry, answer questions, act with relatively decent chance if success, etc, as appropriate to the thing understood... Pretty vague I'm afraid!

to understand is defined by what we do. Suppose a person's doctor tells him you must lose twenty pounds. At the same time they love the taste of choc chip cookies, Then they become annoyed with others so decide to eat the whole box.

Their intellect knows why they must lose weight. Their senses know how good they taste and their angry emotions decide they deserve to eat the whole box so they do. What does this person understand?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:47 pm I am open minded although I prefer to describe myself as detached since I avoid
as much as possible holding onto opinions any more than is absolutely necessary

Is there any necessity at all to hold onto any opinion at all?

If yes, then will provide some examples?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 5:07 am Their intellect knows why they must lose weight. Their senses know how good they taste and their angry emotions decide they deserve to eat the whole box so they do. What does this person understand?

Good, an example...
This person probably understands very well what they're doing, although their behaviour might seem a bit incomprehensible from the outside.
There is in normal discourse a difference between understanding and believing such-and-such. The criterion of a behavioural assessment of someone's understanding elides this difference. It posits I think an ideal of understanding along the lines, to understand perfectly compels belief and action in accordance with the understanding. But I think this ideal, though interesting, is only abstract. If we can have a degree of understanding then maybe that's all we ever have.
I understand the risks of smoking, but smoke nonetheless - so do I not understand them well enough, or not care, or don't believe it'll happen to me, or am I just addicted?

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 1:33 am Is there any necessity at all to hold onto any opinion at all?

Hello.
Pretty much I think not. I think we must act sometimes, and how we act will imply a position in terms of beliefs/ opinions, etc, but that position need only be 'the best information we have at the time'... They need not have any force or purchase beyond the specific action, and arguably should immediately evolve because the world and we change as we act...