"Rigidity"

It seems that I cannot avoid noticing ideas that are philosophically self-refuting.

For example, one person in my life consistently calls things that I believe or espouse "Rigid." Now, how am I to understand what they are saying?

Rigid means that something is unyielding, or that it does not bend or break without great force. Isn't this an admirable quality? That someone is willing to stick to what they believe? The thought arises that "It depends on what basis the person maintains those beliefs." The standard of belief emerges as the crux of the whole matter. What evidence do I have to believe what I do, and what evidence does the other person have?

It seems reasonable that if I have a more viable reason to believe what I believe than what someone else believes, I should keep what I believe and reject what they believe, if they are not compatible. This is only reasonable. Am I to be called "rigid" because I do not flail in the wind
and waffle on subjects I have clear reason to make a stand on?

Now, if I maintain my position when I really see the merits of another belief for illegitimate reasons; tradition, subjective preference, it seems as if that is the true definition of rigidity. Therefore, if someone calls me rigid, they must therefore mean that the reasons for which I hold my beliefs are illegitimate. That's far more confrontational than merely calling someone legalistic or rigid. It also would show that they actually care about truth because they have refined their thoughts.


So, when we discuss "rigidity" or legalism, it comes down to a few points:

• Truth is always primary. Why? It trumps everything else. It doesn't matter if I believe that water is made of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule because I woke up on the left side of the bed; it may be a non-sequitur logically, but that's still what water is.
• If someone is "rigid" or "closed-minded" to reference a previous post, ultimately you're saying that they views based on incorrect evidence. You are not saying anything about their actual beliefs, you are attacking the way they maintain them.

So, if you call someone rigid, you first have to tell them why their belief is wrong, and next tell them why their process to that belief is wrong, not just say the latter (which is what you might say by calling someone rigid).

Not my best post, but helped me sort out my thoughts.