Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ed boy]

My personal philosophy is that one should be as open-minded as possible. However, that is usually misinterpreted.

The vast majority of people I know think that as long as you don't hate gays and blacks, you've achieved open-mindedness. There are countless people who declare themselves as completely open-minded and accepting, and then go on to dehumanize and shun anybody who disagrees with them (for example, people whose political views are at odds with their own). To be properly open-minded, you need to be always open to change your views, and change every single one of them in any possible direction. If you won't even consider another way of thinking, then that's closed-minded.

A consequence of this is that I find that my philosophy is incompatible with the ability to declare anything morally right or wrong, as moral judgements are declaring things as acceptable or unacceptable without even considering them. Unfortunately, lots of people have their pre-existing moral frameworks, and are shocked and can become hostile when they find that I don't share them (even though I often share the actual view, just without founding my view on a moral basis), and often equate being willing to change your mind on an issue to having already changed it.

A further consequence is that I'm extremely wary of being too confident in my views at any time. Being too confident in one's own views can lead someone to not consider alternatives, which I try to avoid.

[misko27]

My personal philosophy is that one should be as open-minded as possible. However, that is usually misinterpreted.

The vast majority of people I know think that as long as you don't hate gays and blacks, you've achieved open-mindedness. There are countless people who declare themselves as completely open-minded and accepting, and then go on to dehumanize and shun anybody who disagrees with them (for example, people whose political views are at odds with their own). To be properly open-minded, you need to be always open to change your views, and change every single one of them in any possible direction. If you won't even consider another way of thinking, then that's closed-minded.

A consequence of this is that I find that my philosophy is incompatible with the ability to declare anything morally right or wrong, as moral judgements are declaring things as acceptable or unacceptable without even considering them. Unfortunately, lots of people have their pre-existing moral frameworks, and are shocked and can become hostile when they find that I don't share them (even though I often share the actual view, just without founding my view on a moral basis), and often equate being willing to change your mind on an issue to having already changed it.

A further consequence is that I'm extremely wary of being too confident in my views at any time. Being too confident in one's own views can lead someone to not consider alternatives, which I try to avoid.

As always, I usually mention the implication you are incapable of saying, say, that the holocaust was a wrong thing, or that saving orphans from fires is a good thing. I find such people to, in a attempt to have the best position through open-mindedness, to actually be too weak and have no position at all.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind."

[ed boy]

As always, I usually mention the implication you are incapable of saying, say, that the holocaust was a wrong thing, or that saving orphans from fires is a good thing. I find such people to, in a attempt to have the best position through open-mindedness, to actually be too weak and have no position at all.

It's not a matter of having no position, it's a matter of being willing to change my position. I do currently hold the views that you listed above (holocause being bad, orphans should not be incinerated), but if someone can show me sufficient proof that the opposite holds, I happily change my mind. Just because I can't currently think of how I could be shown to be wrong doesn't mean that I'm not open to someone presenting something that has before now completely escaped me.

[Naryar]

-Idealist, because cynicism leads to self-destruction. Besides, you can't possibly live and grow with cynicism. You've got to believe in something else the world becomes pointless.
-Both "might makes right" and "right makes might" are true, unlike the general assumption that both are opposites. Might makes right because... no one takes anyone seriously in a field if he has no skills and/or natural predisposition. Yet there have been so much examples of history being utterly changed by someone who believed what he did was right. For good and evil.
-You should help and support to the ones you respect and love. The rest of humanity... you can healthily not care about them.
-Conflict is indeed the great mover of history, ideas and stuff. It is by conflict that someone grows, so promote it even if it pains you or other people. Just make sure not to take it too far, or promote senseless conflict.
-Equality is bullshit unless you are talking about legislation. People are not equal, there will always be leaders and followers, such is the way of society on this planet, both in humans and other social animals. Unless you are talking of equality under the law, which is a generally good and worthy concept.
-The world is neither a field or roses, nor a horrible place. It is neither inherently cruel or kind. Your perception shapes it, but that's only your perception. Happiness and sadness are things that happens. Don't judge the world by your recent happenings, because it's far larger than the width of your experiences.
-The highest, most worthy quality is freedom. Freedom is choosing your very own limits and living by them, while being able to change. Therefore, this implies the following...
-If you feel bound or limited by something, then fight against it ! To not fight against it is weakness.
-The greatest thing given to us is our brains so we should think before acting 99% of the time. Intelligence is one of the most important qualities in a human being. You should think before acting and keep your emotions in control. Unless it is limiting you, like said previously.
-There is no inherent meaning to life, but that's why you should choose one meaning by yourself.
-There is no superior, inherent moral truth. Choose your very own. Of course, if you choose "there is no moral truth", you sacrifice your humanity.
-The end justifies the means ONLY as long as the means do NOT corrupt/undermine the end. Yeah, i'm a big fan of old Niccolo.
-You should strive to be liked but it if cannot be done/is not practical, then be feared. Or be both, which is even wiser. More Machiavelli.
-Few things can be seen as inherently wrong or right. Most entities in this world are morally neutral. There are inherently evil acts (like rape and genocide and generally acting on hatred) but most things should be seen as tools to advance your goals, not in terms of good and evil.

[misko27]

As always, I usually mention the implication you are incapable of saying, say, that the holocaust was a wrong thing, or that saving orphans from fires is a good thing. I find such people to, in a attempt to have the best position through open-mindedness, to actually be too weak and have no position at all.

It's not a matter of having no position, it's a matter of being willing to change my position. I do currently hold the views that you listed above (holocause being bad, orphans should not be incinerated), but if someone can show me sufficient proof that the opposite holds, I happily change my mind. Just because I can't currently think of how I could be shown to be wrong doesn't mean that I'm not open to someone presenting something that has before now completely escaped me.

Hmm. Could someone prove to you that the philosophy of openmindedness is morally wrong?

[Hiiri]

@ed boy: On a very basic level, do you think pleasure is generally a good thing and pain is bad?

[PanH]

@ed boy: On a very basic level, do you think pleasure is generally a good thing and pain is bad?

What is he saying is about being able to change your mind, not necessarily changing your mind. It doesn't neither come with notions of good and bad. After all, the moral (good/bad) is a society thing.

Edit : having an open mind is also being able to understand another's thoughts leading to a statement.

[Gamerlord]

...
Posting to watch this.

[Hiiri]

As human beings, preferring a nice dinner over a nail through the hand sounds pretty objective to me. I'm just curious if he thinks he could be convinced otherwise.

[Flying Dice]

Going to watch and see how this develops.

As human beings, preferring a nice dinner over a nail through the hand sounds pretty objective to me. I'm just curious if he thinks he could be convinced otherwise.

Ah, but is that true in all cases? Is it possible to objectively state, "It is always better to have a nice dinner than to have a nail driven through your hand"? What if your nice dinner was made of food stolen from sustenance farmers, and the nail through the hand occurred while saving the life of another?  Or, if you want a laugh, take the Stoic corner and argue that the sage would prefer neither, as each is equally irrelevant to the virtuous individual.

[misko27]

I refuse to believe ed boy until he states whether in his open-mindedness, it is possible someone could logically prove open-mindedness sucks, and have him change.

[Flying Dice]

Opening your mind is like opening the door to your home: It's necessary to do so on occasion, and it can be pleasant to air things out, but if you do it constantly you're going to wake up one morning and find that your brain has been consumed by eldritch horrors. Or possibly just that you've accepted something that isn't very good in the name of tolerance. It's a similar issue as cultural relativism; "It sounds nice" doesn't make for a very good philosophical foundation.

[Hiiri]

Ah, but is that true in all cases? Is it possible to objectively state, "It is always better to have a nice dinner than to have a nail driven through your hand"? What if your nice dinner was made of food stolen from sustenance farmers, and the nail through the hand occurred while saving the life of another?  Or, if you want a laugh, take the Stoic corner and argue that the sage would prefer neither, as each is equally irrelevant to the virtuous individual.

But wouldn't it still be preferable to save the life via a nice dinner, if the option was given? I'm not sure if objective was the right word here...? Disclaimer below my avatar.

The point I'm trying to make is, if we can say some things are worse than others (ie. pleasure >  pain is not a cultural thing), we could have some sort of solid foundation for our moral philosophy to expand upon in some... er.. objective(?) sense. Then we can ditch the "Who's to say what's right and wrong?"

By the way... you know what's worse than jaywalking?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The holocaust.

[ed boy]

Hmm. Could someone prove to you that the philosophy of openmindedness is morally wrong?

I refuse to believe ed boy until he states whether in his open-mindedness, it is possible someone could logically prove open-mindedness sucks, and have him change.

Yep. I can't imagine what form such a proof would take (after all, if I knew of a proof I couldn't still keep my current view), but if someone were to present such a proof to me, I would change my stance.

@ed boy: On a very basic level, do you think pleasure is generally a good thing and pain is bad?

On a biological level, the relative merits of pain and pleasure are pretty clear. On an intellectual level, the pain being bad and pleasure being good are still present, but with weak weighting, and therefore such a preference would normally be rendered irrelevant by another preference.

As human beings, preferring a nice dinner over a nail through the hand sounds pretty objective to me. I'm just curious if he thinks he could be convinced otherwise.

Ah, but is that true in all cases? Is it possible to objectively state, "It is always better to have a nice dinner than to have a nail driven through your hand"? What if your nice dinner was made of food stolen from sustenance farmers, and the nail through the hand occurred while saving the life of another?  Or, if you want a laugh, take the Stoic corner and argue that the sage would prefer neither, as each is equally irrelevant to the virtuous individual.

With no information other than nail or dinner, then a nice meal is more pleasant that a nail through the hand, and would therefore win the intellectual debate. With the additional information, the dinner would remain biologically preferable, but the nail would be far more intellectually preferable.

The point I'm trying to make is, if we can say some things are worse than others (ie. pleasure >  pain is not a cultural thing), we could have some sort of solid foundation for our moral philosophy to expand upon in some... er.. objective(?) sense. Then we can ditch the "Who's to say what's right and wrong?"

But the non-cultural things tend to come from a biological basis. Sure, you can define a biological moral philosophy (basically eat or shag everything you see that isn't helping you eat more or shag more), but I cannot think of any universal intellectual moral axioms, especially given how fast major social norms change. After all, a hundred years ago it was pretty common to believe "women should be treated like pets", yet nowadays such a few is rare.