“Fear Nothing But a Closed Mind”

Closed-mindedness; to some, this is an irreconcilable flaw. Sometimes it’s an unwillingness to consider the other side. It could be an inability to empathize. Whatever the situation, there are few ideas as abused as “closed-mindedness.”

Although the need for a receptive audience is obvious, there is also a need for respect for authority, adherence to tradition, and trust in truth. Open-mindedness, taken to the extreme, is dangerous. One should never accept the challenge to consider an idea that is logically incoherent. One should remain closed-minded when asked about the existence of a married bachelor. Some ideas really are wrong. One does not reach a greater level of understanding by accepting the premise that inquiry need not be conducted in a logically coherent way.

Granting a false premise as a consession, in order to be open-minded, will not lead to a true conclusion. The existence of truth necessitates falsehood. An obviously false claim can, and should, be rejected. If that’s closed-minded, everyone ought to be.

How many heroes are open-minded? Were abolishionists willing to consider the possibility of slavery as acceptable? Were the Allies willing to analyse the holocaust “in light of the German cultural heritage?” Clearly, they were not.

We venerate those who fought against an evil without deliberation. The truth is, everyone is closed-minded. A truly open-minded person could not function in our society. One’s firmest convictions would change every time they browsed the web.

Anyone who would claim to be open-minded, should recognize that there are times closed-mindedness must be embraced. If you disagree, you are closed-minded. If you agree, you already understand.

“My Opponent is a Nazi”

The most common form of argument, often encountered in any discipline, all types of discussion, across almost every medium, is the argument ad hominem (Latin meaning, “to the man”). This method of argument attempts to link the validity of Person A’s argument to the conduct or belief system of that person. It is most often employed incorrectly, and becomes a logical fallacy as a result.

Whether it’s the Glenn Beck Program, the 2008 presidential race, or the tea party movement, ad hom is everywhere. It is as if one says “My opponent is a nazi,” and the argument is over. All one needs to do in order to demonize and disarm an oponnent is to accuse them of being a racist, fascist, socialist, or bigot. One might even identify their oppenent as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (That’s Richard Dawkins discussiong God...) Rhetoric has a place, but it is not the foundation of an argument.

Barack Obama is not a nazi and George Bush is not a nazi. Republicans are not nazis and democrats are not nazis. Theists are not nazis and athiests are not nazis. It is embrassingly jouvenile to throw ad hom attacks at opponents as is often done in popular books, media, and conversation.

Intelligent people can disagree with good inent and good reason. Show the opposing view some respect, treat it with some contemplation, you might learn something... even if it is why you unreservedly reject it.