Long time out..

Close to a month since my last post, so i'll do something i'm more familiar

I read something recently - on a different blog, an individual said that those who would not try new foods were close-minded. Now i would certainly agree on an immediate level - but the principle brings a larger question to mind - What is close-mindedness?

The simple, non-polemic meaning would seem to assume that an individual was not receptive to an idea different to their own. It has ties to inclusive thinking. But the problem is, does anyone receive ideas that are contrary to what they perceive as truth? If one individual says that murder is wrong, and another says it is okay if it garners them financial gain, is the former closed-minded to the latter simply because he is not receptive to the latter's?

Likewise, would we ridicule truth because it is not inclusive to falsehood?

Should we strive, therefore, to always be more inclusive and "open-minded," (I.e. an ideology that accepts everything, regardless how contradictory) like so many extreme liberals would tout? They themselves are closed-minded to conservative ideals. To be open-minded is to be like a sewer, a trash can, or even a landfill - whatever is thrown in by whatever source, you receive - even if that idea is destructive or acidic, as the bottoms of some trash cans are eroded by the combinations of liquids in them. Realistic applications of open-mindedness are quite disgusting and unsanitary.

Closed-mindedness actually embodies something more like a home - only those who are welcome or invited in may come, which keeps out undesirables. Those who would harm the house are kept from entering. An intensive care unit in a hospital usually has more stringent requirements as far as washing hands and such - in that sense it closes itself off to other things to protect itself.

Now another potential meaning of Closed-minded would seem to be that an individual is not willing to even consider ideas that are contrary to their own. Sadly, this is the less-used idea of the term. Usually it is used as an insult to someone whom you have not sufficiently proved your point to, and you merely wish to blame them for choosing something else.

In these circumstances, an individual turns a blind eye to ideas that do not match their current system of thought or perception. This isn't the entire reality - because an individual is constantly subjected to information that does not match their idealized picture. The more accurate description is that the person constantly takes all new stimulus and subjects that to a certain interpretive framework, and that framework slowly (or quickly) changes over the course of their life. This is a more accurate model of human thought, because human beings by nature cannot maintain total stasis in their belief system. Doing so is an accomplishment only of an insane man.

Although both ways of operating are present - (1) that individuals sometimes ignore information intentionally, and (2)that individuals frame all new ideas into their particular system,
being "closed-minded" means being firmly established into a belief system to a fault.
This assumes automatically that the particular belief system makes no provision for listening to other belief systems, which is highly uncommon. Most ideologies confront the perceptions in other ideologies quite openly - which means that the individual has probably not ignored the information, but conformed it to their own ideology.

Sadly, "closed-minded" has nothing to do with whether or not the system of thought is right or not. It is merely descriptive that the person does not incorporate another idea or another set of ideas. It says nothing about whether those ideas that confront the "close-minded" belief system are right, either. Also, any belief systems could conceivably consider other beliefs and see how they might agree with another. So it stands to reason that the criticism of "Close-minded" is always, even if indirectly, aimed at the believer's attitude and not the belief.

Therefore, the term is ultimately useful only in the sense of criticizing someone else without addressing whether or not the beliefs are true.