Open-mindedness

[kostiak2]

Have fun:

[Ewan]

That's very good

[dandymcgee]

That was awesome.

[kostiak2]

I'm glad you guys liked it :D

[LeonBlade]

Thank you very much for posting this video, I really enjoyed it.
I hate it when people have a false concept of open-mindness when I don't agree with them.

[kostiak2]

Thank you very much for posting this video, I really enjoyed it.
I hate it when people have a false concept of open-mindness when I don't agree with them.

[aamesxdavid]

Interesting. It's important to note that the video does contradict itself a bit. While the scientific or logical conclusions do allow you to be more open-minded, to say that it 'proves' anything in an absolute way is absurd. Science does and has always changed its methods and conclusions constantly. So you can say "I don't believe X, and here are my reasons", and it's perfectly logical. You can never, under any circumstances, say "X does not exist, because...", as everyone who has said that in the past has been proven wrong in enough time. And call me the arrogant Existentialist I am, but there is no such thing as complete objectivity. Whether the reasons are logical, misguided, or nonexistent, everyone believes what they are comfortable believing, and these beliefs are rarely, if ever, changed by someone else. Reason and justification are irrelevant; everyone is simply "rehearsing their own prejudices" (even the logical or scientific person) and defending it by any means necessary. Belief precedes justification, so the means of reasoning you choose to defend it are simply dependent on your already set in place prejudices. Evidence can only "change" your mind about something that you have not yet made your mind up about.

So I suppose the only way to define an open mind is one that never states anything as being factual, but only saying that there is evidence one way or the other, and thus never takes a solid position on anything.

[Maevik]

Interesting. It's important to note that the video does contradict itself a bit. While the scientific or logical conclusions do allow you to be more open-minded, to say that it 'proves' anything in an absolute way is absurd. Science does and has always changed its methods and conclusions constantly. So you can say "I don't believe X, and here are my reasons", and it's perfectly logical. You can never, under any circumstances, say "X does not exist, because...", as everyone who has said that in the past has been proven wrong in enough time. And call me the arrogant Existentialist I am, but there is no such thing as complete objectivity. Whether the reasons are logical, misguided, or nonexistent, everyone believes what they are comfortable believing, and these beliefs are rarely, if ever, changed by someone else. Reason and justification are irrelevant; everyone is simply "rehearsing their own prejudices" (even the logical or scientific person) and defending it by any means necessary. Belief precedes justification, so the means of reasoning you choose to defend it are simply dependent on your already set in place prejudices. Evidence can only "change" your mind about something that you have not yet made your mind up about.

So I suppose the only way to define an open mind is one that never states anything as being factual, but only saying that there is evidence one way or the other, and thus never takes a solid position on anything.

While many exestentialist philosophers might agree that this is generally how people behave, I doubt any of them (especially post-Sartre) would say that this is the behavior of an authentic or transcendant person. According to Sartre, being authentic means NEVER cementing labels, especially on one's self, to do so would cement one's self-identity and keep said person from ever being able to become more than the lable's they have self-applied.

For instance, if you lie, then apply the lable "Liar" to yourself, then you may never be able to be a truthful person. Instead, you might say "I have lied in the past." This is no less true ( in a way, it's more true since you're not predicting what you assume will happen ,) and it leaves you open to be whoever the fuck you want to be from the present forward. Saying you are a liar only cripples you, preventing you from transcending that quality you have self-applied (however true it may be at any given moment.)

And when it comes down to it, everything in philosophy ( especially existentialism ) comes down to the point that you really can't prove anything. I think that's why this video touches on a very important point. We cant prove anything, merely interperet the information our senses deliver to us, and we know that these senses can easily be fooled or altered ( or even manifested such as in dreams or with LSD use etc. ) so the only thing that we actually KNOW exists is that little voice inside our head. This observer is all we REALLY have, and we do a great disservice to it, both by failing to filter shitty information, and by cementing anything that does get through as "things I know for fact."

[aamesxdavid]

While many exestentialist philosophers might agree that this is generally how people behave, I doubt any of them (especially post-Sartre) would say that this is the behavior of an authentic or transcendant person. According to Sartre, being authentic means NEVER cementing labels, especially on one's self, to do so would cement one's self-identity and keep said person from ever being able to become more than the lable's they have self-applied.

For instance, if you lie, then apply the lable "Liar" to yourself, then you may never be able to be a truthful person. Instead, you might say "I have lied in the past." This is no less true ( in a way, it's more true since you're not predicting what you assume will happen ,) and it leaves you open to be whoever the fuck you want to be from the present forward. Saying you are a liar only cripples you, preventing you from transcending that quality you have self-applied (however true it may be at any given moment.)

And when it comes down to it, everything in philosophy ( especially existentialism ) comes down to the point that you really can't prove anything. I think that's why this video touches on a very important point. We cant prove anything, merely interperet the information our senses deliver to us, and we know that these senses can easily be fooled or altered ( or even manifested such as in dreams or with LSD use etc. ) so the only thing that we actually KNOW exists is that little voice inside our head. This observer is all we REALLY have, and we do a great disservice to it, both by failing to filter shitty information, and by cementing anything that does get through as "things I know for fact."

I'm not sure how this became a debate on the existential dilemma of the application of labels to oneself, but I'd say you're overgeneralizing a philosophy. Many philosophers label themselves one thing or another; Sartre being one of the few philosophers studied in existentialism who labeled himself an "existentialist". I can only guess that what you're thinking of is the idea of not accepting preconceived notions on what a person is supposed to be or do. Moreover, saying that you are something doesn't change the way you act unless you consciously censor your behaviour to adhere to this label, which to put it bluntly is fucking stupid, as I'm sure few would argue. A label one gives to oneself is more likely to change based on their behaviour than the other way around.

Where the hell did labels come from anyway?

In any case, the point I was making against bold-facedly claiming something as being true was to the one point in the video where he says that one can occasionally say that "X is true" if there is undeniable proof, which goes against the idea of having an open mind and being willing to consider new ideas on the subject. There can be no such thing as undeniable proof, so you can never say "X is true".

Lost my train of thought, so I'll just leave it at that..

[wtetzner]

There can be no such thing as undeniable proof, so you can never say "X is true".

x is true.
Ha, I said it.

Wait, where am I?

[kostiak2]

In any case, the point I was making against bold-facedly claiming something as being true was to the one point in the video where he says that one can occasionally say that "X is true" if there is undeniable proof, which goes against the idea of having an open mind and being willing to consider new ideas on the subject. There can be no such thing as undeniable proof, so you can never say "X is true".

Lost my train of thought, so I'll just leave it at that..

undeniable proof unless proven otherwise. The point here, is that you can accept ideas if most evidence point to it being true, BUT the whole idea of open-mindedness is to be able to say "X is not true" if presented with evidence that proves otherwise. A person with a closed mind will reject that X can be not true, even if the evidence are overwhelming.

[aamesxdavid]

undeniable proof unless proven otherwise. The point here, is that you can accept ideas if most evidence point to it being true, BUT the whole idea of open-mindedness is to be able to say "X is not true" if presented with evidence that proves otherwise. A person with a closed mind will reject that X can be not true, even if the evidence are overwhelming.

I don't think undeniable means what you think it means. By definition, undeniable proof can't be proven otherwise. More to the point, what I was saying is that throughout most of the video, he's very careful to say things like "I believe X" and not "X is true", which keeps you open to changing what you believe if evidence proves you wrong. Then in the middle he says sometimes you can say "X is true" if you have undeniable proof - which goes against everything he had said before, because it closes your mind from taking arguments against it.

Having said that, this is mostly semantics. Generally what you're saying when you say something is true is that you believe it to be true, unless you're an arrogant bastard like me. Similar to whole label argument, saying you believe something to be true rather than simply stating that it's true is not going to change your willingness to accept new ideas - you either will or you won't. Changing a word or to in a statement about it means nothing. My comment about it was simply that for someone so careful in his language about it, suddenly making a bold objective statement was a bit hypocritical.

[wtetzner]

Then in the middle he says sometimes you can say "X is true" if you have undeniable proof - which goes against everything he had said before, because it closes your mind from taking arguments against it.

Well, if you are talking semantics, then this isn't going against everything he had said before, since if the proof is undeniable, then by definition no argument can deny it, right? He's basically saying "If there is undeniable proof that x is true, then you can say 'x is true' while still being open-minded."
Now, the truth table for an implication is:

Code: Select all

  p   |   q   | p => q
----------------------
true  | false | false
true  | true  | true
false | true  | true
false | false | true

So even if there is no such thing as undeniable proof, the statement is still true.
To be honest, I don't really care if he contradicted himself, I just felt like making a truth table in code tags.

[aamesxdavid]

Well, if you are talking semantics, then this isn't going against everything he had said before, since if the proof is undeniable, then by definition no argument can deny it, right? He's basically saying "If there is undeniable proof that x is true, then you can say 'x is true' while still being open-minded."

Sometimes I feel like only two sentences of my posts are read. So here are the cliff notes:

I think it's semantics. For how much the video stresses choosing your words carefully, he clearly does not, so he is in no position to make such a contradiction.

So even if there is no such thing as undeniable proof, the statement is still true.

Your table was entirely conditional, based on "if p is true". If those conditions can't be proven to be true, then neither can the resulting statement. This is where the undeniable proof becomes a problem. Every "if" is hypothetical, and therefore cannot be proven to be true.

Okay, now I'm just avoiding work...

[wtetzner]

Your table was entirely conditional, based on "if p is true". If those conditions can't be proven to be true, then neither can the resulting statement. This is where the undeniable proof becomes a problem. Every "if" is hypothetical, and therefore cannot be proven to be true.

What? The condition is part of the statement. The point is, the only time "p implies q" is false is if p is true and q is false. If the condition (p) is false, then the implication is true.