The phrase ” have an open mind” has always intrigued me. Although it means something as simple as being receptive to new ideas, I am still pretty confused about it. While I always try to be an open-minded person ( or at least project myself as one), of late , I have had a dilemma with being one. Whenever someone advises you to have an open mind towards something which you clearly don’t agree with, I fail to understand why someone brands you as someone with a not-so-open mind. Here is my argument : The person pushing for the change is clearly not open to the idea of not having the change. Then , in that case , you should not be blamed for being a rigid person.
A classic example would be the situation where you are a teetotaler and you go out with a few of your friends to a bar. The situation would definitely gravitate towards your friends pushing you to not be a wuss and be ‘open’ to the idea of drinking. I have been in this situation many times and I argue that I don’t think I would enjoy it much. The standard reasoning given against you is that a person who has never drunk can never claim that one does not feel better when drunk. Well, you would never understand the fun of not succumbing to this pressure and not drinking ( being in your current state forever).
Summarizing, while doing X is considered being open, not doing X is considered as being not open. But if we let “not X” be Y, doing X is now ” not doing Y ” and not doing X is ” doing Y “. Clearly, now not doing X seems being as open to me as doing X.
P.S : Just a notion in my head that I tossed out.