However, despite our almost cock-sucking respect for other cultures, we weren't open-minded in the least. I can virtually guarantee, with 99% certainty, that a colloquium on how illegal immigration could hurt the US would be booed out in less time than it takes to yell "Viva La Revolution!" while waving a Zapatista flag. On the political scale we were collectively somewhere between Vladimir Lenin and Mikhail Bakunin. A donor who donated money for an American flag on campus was roundly rejected by a school-wide vote (I, totally apathetic, abstained for reasons of laziness) because of our hatred for George W. Bush (I hate him too, but the flag ain't his flag) and American neo-imperialism that was destroying all the cultures we so loved. So I decided to do what few in my school seemed like they could: I decided to become open-minded.
But what exactly is open-minded? In "How to Be Open-Minded" on eHow, they give the following recommendation:
Helpful words and phrases: "That could be true"; "That makes sense"; "Looks like you're really strong in your beliefs"; "Oh,"; "Mmm-hmm"; "So do you believe..?"; "I can see where you're coming from"; "Well, that's a good point."
Wow, these phrases sure don't seem like they could be insincere. "Looks like you're really strong in your beliefs *cough* you fucking retard *cough*" Also, open-mindedness seems to be, in the mind of the author of this particular gem, being too much of an ass-licking dipshit to challenge or debate anyone's beliefs on the grounds that 'they deserve respect'.
wikiHow has this to say on the subject:
While waiting (in line at the bank, a coffee shop, a restaurant, the grocery store, or waiting for someone to pick you up, or a show on TV to start), ponder things, calculate, memorize. You can, for example, memorize digits of Pi (you can get to 50 in a matter of hours, 200 in a matter of weeks), try to remember all of your high school teachers' names, memorize Prime Numbers, get fast at reciting the alphabet backwards, the Greek alphabet (forwards and backwards), remember how many movies Tom Cruise has been in, try Doubling numbers, start at 1, to 2, to 4, to 8, till you get to larger numbers than you can handle.
Yes, open-mindedness apparently has some magic correlation to how many boring lists you're willing to memorize or your tolerance for performing amazingly repetitive tasks, usually of the sort that cognitively-challenged math-genius-wannabes and MathCounts competitors (they're the same damn thing) do 'for fun'. wikiHow also recommends that you:
Learn about different people and lifestyles. A great gateway into this is Wikipedia, where you can read articles on a wide variety of practices, such as Swinging, Wicca, Christianity, the Green Party, Conservatism, Communism, Anarchism, Sunnis, Discordianism, Tutsis, and the Yakuza. Consider how many members they have worldwide. Volunteer with an organization that works with a community of people you are unfamiliar with.
All I can say about this recommendation is, hell yes, I'm volunteering with the Yakuza.
And another pearl of wisdom:
Walk backwards through your whole house. (But be extra careful not to trip over anything, or fall down the stairs)
Actually, on second thought, if you take this piece of advice, feel free to fall down the stairs.
And finally,
Attend churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, trade union meetings, places of worship and meditation that you never have. Read about and learn how to recognize cults or cult-like behavior and avoid them!
Yes, it is open-minded to 'respect' various popular religions but to treat unpopular ones ('cults') with disdain and to avoid them like the plague. And anyway, aren't 'worship' and 'meditation' cult-like behavior by definition? wikiHow seems to be in the business of training robots rather than cultivating open-mindedness.
However, wikiHow's entries are merely puzzling; eHow's entry is my real target because this is what open-mindedness seems to be in the popular consciousness: being too spineless to debate out of fear of offending, regardless of your real feelings on the subject. My definition of open-mindedness doesn't come out of the seeming desire of the writer of the eHow recommendation to have every cock in the world in his mouth; it comes out of my experiences with my high-school colloquia, those sermons on 'open-mindedness' intent on showing how happy poor people are when they live under the rule of mystics (as put by a friend of mine when I was discussing with him the topic of my last post) and yet failed to consider real political movements within this country as worthy of 'respect', let alone discussion. The point of real open-mindedness is to be willing to consider logically any idea that comes before me. If logically it is unsound, I am then free to slander it to my heart's content. I took up this as my goal.
This is how I learned to be a real person again, how to disagree and disagree strongly with things, to ridicule and to blaspheme. I had a debate about the death penalty with another student at my school, where I argued that the death sentence is occasionally fully justified. She started off her argument with "it is more punishment to imprison them for life, isn't it?" hoping, I guess, to shut me up since obviously support for the death penalty stems out of a love for cruel punishment. I responded that cruelty wasn't the point, the point is deterrence (and I argue that life imprisonment and death are roughly equal in deterrence since it is impossible to imagine either) and removal of the offenders from any position from which they could harm society again. Her response: "But aren't we stooping to their level then?". First of all, no, what the fuck are you talking about, if someone steals something from you and you take it back, you're not stooping to their level, that should be obvious. Secondly, and more importantly, her argument is that the death penalty is wrong because it is not cruel enough and it is too cruel. This is a perfect example of what close-minded means: you cling to your precious opinions without examining them first, repeating flawed and self-contradictory arguments in a feeble attempt to shield them (by the way, I've heard many good arguments against the death penalty, just not from this person; the best I know of is that death offers no chance of correction if the verdict is erroneous). Phony, ass-kissing 'respect' for beliefs can only perpetuate this by encouraging people to consider their beliefs as inviolable, immune from argument, not answerable to the demands of reality. Arguing, blaspheming, ridiculing people's beliefs - that is what forces them to reconsider (unless, of course, they're idiotic assholes) and forces them to create a logical backing for their ideas. You cannot ridicule effectively what has a sound logical framework. "Ha ha ha, you believe that 1+1=2" carries no weight behind it, but "Creationists must be right - after all, whenever we discover a fossil b that fits perfectly into a so-called evolutionary gap from a to c, we have only replaced that gap with two gaps" is a strong argument against the 'God of the Gaps' mentality of Intelligent Design proponents.
My quest was for open-mindedness, first in myself (I take this ideal to extremes, even to the point of acknowledging that from a purely logical standpoint racism is totally consistent, even though empirically it is racist, tribalist societies that are the most backwards and that empirically prosperity seems to depend on culture and ideals rather than race - I consider myself a culturalist in that I consider many cultures to be inherently inferior to others, as opposed to a racist), then in others. I consider myself, as I have already stated, to have succeeded in being open minded. Now I attempt to do the same to others. And this is why I relentlessly taunt the beliefs I consider horribly, destructively wrong; why I never tell anyone I respect their ideas when I don't; why I feel proud that I am able to overcome my inherited liberal knee-jerk reaction and freely insult anyone; why my favorite word starts with an 'f' and ends with an 'uck' (hint: it's not 'firetruck').
It's liberating to be open-minded, the real open-minded. Try it out, spread the word, and fuck with any illogical bastards who cross your path (only be careful that you yourself are logical, otherwise it might be them who fuck with you). Together we can start the foul-mouthed revolution in the name of progress and reason.
Note: for those who looked at wikiHow and saw a few changes to the bit about attending churches, I did that bit of editing. Also, if you see a suggestion about debating people and insulting their beliefs, that was me as well.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that logic is not the ultimate answer to whether an idea should be accepted or not, because not all things have a logical conclusion. Most things involving emotion, for example, are difficult to resolve logically, because emotions are inherently illogical. For example, arguments concerning the death penalty often have emotional components due to their issue of morality. I'd be interested to know when you think the death penalty would be fully justified.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, belief, being related to emotion, usually cannot be argued about logically. For example, if one were to argue over whether one should believe in God, it'd be impossible to come to a logical conclusion because of the lack of factual evidence. Instead, the emotional weight of each argument for and against belief in God determines the outcome in each individual. However, the existence of God can be argued logically and empirically, since that is objective, not emotional.
I agree that true open-mindedness is not comprised of "phony, ass-kissing 'respect' for beliefs", but I would argue that it doesn't entitle you to try and force your own views down other people's throats. People are entitled to their own viewpoints, yes? And you are free to express those views, but it's wrong to try to force them to change their beliefs and think logically. And no, I'm not simply saying that because it protects their feelings—well, technically, perhaps—but by act utilitarianism, trying to force your logical way of thinking on to others does not maximize happiness, except in the rare case that you are successful and it drastically improves their lives. Furthermore, by rule utilitarianism, if EVERYONE tried forcing their views on everyone who disagreed, there would be a great deal more unhappiness and suffering in the world.
Hence, I would come to the conclusion that open mindedness encourages you to consider others' beliefs, but does not give you liberty to insult them if they do not meet your standards.
I do agree about the 'force your beliefs down other people's throats' thing, but insults do not comprise force, so insults seem perfectly fine to me. As the great man Maddox once said, "it's ironic that you [a hate-mailer] are complaining because I put down people for 'standing up for what they believe' when the reason you're writing me is that I too am standing up for what I believe". Since insults are not equal to force, at least for anybody with a shred of self-esteem (and if that's the case, it ain't my problem; if somebody threatens to kill himself if I vote for the Democrats, at which point I vote for the Democrats and he kills himself, I didn't murder him; if somebody is so insecure and has such low self-esteem as to regard my insults as force, I still didn't force him), I feel it perfectly within my rights to insult people.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm saying is that I refuse to buy into the variety of politically-correct open-mindedness that seems to be gaining in popularity, and that I reserve the right to be condescending, to make fun of, to insult. P-C open-mindedness teaches that beliefs are sacred; they are not. This doesn't mean I go around yelling at people for their beliefs, but it does mean that if I hear something I totally disagree with, there is a good chance I'll start probing for logical flaws and make fun of any that I end up finding.
As for your question about the death penalty, I'm planning a post on that at some point in the near (-ish) future, so all your questions will be answered (hopefully) then.
-The Angry Philosopher