Small minds vs Open minds

If a person expresses himself/herself in such a way that you consider pontificating, do you automatically dismiss his/her opinion as invalid? And if so, would you describe such dismissal as a trait of one who is open minded? Or close minded?

Foxfyre wrote:

And would you say that it is open minded or closed minded to conclude that a person is pontificating rather than consider and address what the person is saying?

In the case at hand, I believe it would be neither open or close minded: it would be merely accurate.

I suppose that most of us assume that we are "open minded" in that we are willing to consider new information that may contradict or oppose assumptions we have made or beliefs we hold, .... even when we are not. Very often people are labelled "close minded" merely because they reject an opposing argument or interpretation of events, sometimes with good reason. In short, these are labels that one attaches to another; -- the perceptions of both parties are involved; and both are sources of potential error.

But, in my experience, those who pontificate is such ways are the ones who are less permeable to news ideas and concepts

Foxfyre wrote:

If a person expresses himself/herself in such a way that you consider pontificating, do you automatically dismiss his/her opinion as invalid? And if so, would you describe such dismissal as a trait of one who is open minded? Or close minded?

You are establishing the rules for the way I should, in your view, reply.

So, see my answer above.

Well, Francis is French, and we all know they are a bit ... irritable. He did say roughly that "in his experience. those who pontificate tend to be less receptive to opposing ideas". Thus he avoided a general proposition, restricting it instead to the central tendency of things as he has observed them. This appears, to me at least, a reasonable interpretation of experience, one that doesn't fly in the face of common sense,.. as I see it.

It does appear that in your latest exchanges, the two of you are getting a bit close to pontification yourselves. (My impression is that Hawkeye 10 is that way most of the time.)

[Spoken like a true pontificator.

I have not learned, however, how to express an opinion without feeling compelled to provide a rationale for that opinion along with qualifications that might apply. This, I suppose, makes me guilty of pontification that I have observed is annoying (or infuriating) to some people. It does not make me (or anybody else) guilty of being close minded, however.

back to the original post.

to me, open minded has nothing to do with agreeing with someone, or accepting that opinion even. it's about not judging the other as less worthy if the opinions differ. it's about empathic listening (rather than just tolerance of differences), invitation to dialogue despite differences. i think it's more about the approach than about the substance.
it's also not limitless, however. i would not see morality as a limitation to open-mindedness. if it was, it would lead to extreme relativism where anything goes, because it's just a part of someone else's reality. right and wrong would have no meaning.

being open to dialogue is one of the things i mentioned. not the only thing i mentioned.

is that all you have to say?

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not learned, however, how to express an opinion without feeling compelled to provide a rationale for that opinion along with qualifications that might apply. This, I suppose, makes me guilty of pontification that I have observed is annoying (or infuriating) to some people. It does not make me (or anybody else) guilty of being close minded, however.

I am confused. What do you understand by pontification? Because expressing an opinion along with providing a rationale for it and supporting it with sources is certainly not pontification.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not learned, however, how to express an opinion without feeling compelled to provide a rationale for that opinion along with qualifications that might apply. This, I suppose, makes me guilty of pontification that I have observed is annoying (or infuriating) to some people. It does not make me (or anybody else) guilty of being close minded, however.

I am confused. What do you understand by pontification? Because expressing an opinion along with providing a rationale for it and supporting it with sources is certainly not pontification.

My experience, Foxfyre has been that good ideas speak for themselves once presented. Those delivered in a bombastic style by speakers who appear to assume a degree of authority they don't posess, generally excite a degree of suspicion in most of us. They may be right or wrong nevertheless, but such a tone and attitude isn't usually a good way to excite an "open minded" disposition in the listener.

Here at A2K we are free to voice our opinion only so long as we don't do it in a tone that indicates confidence in the factual basis and logical reasoning for said opinion.