Freedom in One Lesson

89.

Open versus Closed Minds

In our world, people agree on very little. One exception may be the high regard for having an open mind and the criticism against having a closed mind. Such rhetoric presumes that what we are open or closed to is the truth, but we are also routinely exposed to a great deal of nonsense, which is not good to be open to.

Today, Americans are repeatedly told to be open-minded and “follow the science” (say, on mask restrictions) even when the science supports false-hoods. At the same time, they are browbeaten into closing their minds to legitimate questions about vaccines, mandated closures, critical race theory, and more. Both types of argument are used to reduce our freedoms.

Leonard Read insightfully addresses such issues in “Open versus Closed Minds,” from his 1973 book Who’s Listening? (Read 1973). We should open our minds to what he writes.

Open-mindedness is almost everywhere hailed as a virtue. . . . A person of closed mind, on the other hand, is generally condemned as narrow, shallow, nit-witted. . . . But this, of course, poses the question: To what should one’s mind be closed and to what should it be open?

. . . I would like my mind open to truths yet to be perceived and closed to all nonsense. . . .

While no one knows overmuch, each of us knows some things. . . . A good rule: Close the mind on what one knows and understands and keep it open to what is not known and understood. In either function, one’s mind serves him as a guide . . . helping him to avoid the ditches and stay on the road toward his destination.

Read explains why neither open—nor closed-mindedness necessarily indicates wisdom on a topic.

The more one knows and understands, the more the issues upon which his mind is closed! But although a closed mind may indicate the number of issues upon which a man has reflected and reached settled conclusions, it also might be a sign that one has perceived next to nothing. The degree of closed-mindedness is not necessarily an accurate gauge of how much one knows and understands!

The lesson? Never try to estimate the knowledge and wisdom of others by how closed or open their minds. . . . A person’s mind may be closed with . . . things which he knows or sincerely believes and upon which he can act; or it may be closed and quite empty, receptive to no ideas at all. By the same token, a mind may be open, but open to every kind of an idea—wise or foolish; or it may be so open on every side that no idea can be registered there for reference or use. So the question is not entirely whether a mind is open or closed but whether it is a working mind and, if so, to what purpose.

He asks a very uncommon question about what we should and should not be open to: What kind of openness would serve both ourselves and society—both those around us today and in posterity?

The idea that one’s mind should be open to that which is not known or understood and that our aim is to grow in knowledge and wisdom, gives rise to a logical and relevant question. How may we best serve each other as each of us pursues this end? By opening our minds to each other! By so doing, we expose what light we have gained and, thus, maximize the total enlightenment. Open-mindedness in its best sense!

Unquestionably, this sharing process accounts for the greater expanse of knowledge and wisdom . . . we have inherited from the past. . . . We are free to pick their brains, so to speak, to whatever extent we are willing to open our minds to their ideas. Likewise, we may pick the brains of one another among our contemporaries to the extent each is willing, always bearing in mind the personal responsibility to choose and judge which ideas to accept or reject, and which of ours are worthy of sharing with others.

As Ortega phrased it, “The known is what’s no longer a problem.” So numerous and all-pervasive are our problems that the unknown must be regarded as infinite. . . . Those issues to which the mind is still open are problems rather than answers. . . . Thus, the best one can do for others is to enumerate those ideas and propositions on which his own mind is closed—express what he believes to be true.

To help us understand open—and closed-mindedness, Read lays out the core principles on which his mind is closed—that is, settled—principles which he believes are true and serve as solid premises from which to reason and evaluate behavior. “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

1. The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments.

2. The good society rests on individuals having high moral scruples and ethical guidelines; no organizational gadgetry, however deftly devised, can overcome moral and ethical deficiencies.

3. Government limited to administering justice and keeping the peace—equality before the law—is an essential adjunct to morality. . . .

4. Government—organized force—can only inhibit, restrain, penalize. It has no business interfering in the creative realm.

5. Creativity stems exclusively from individuals acting privately, competitively, cooperatively, voluntarily.

6. No man who lives, no association, nor any government is competent to decide for any other where he shall work, what his hours or wage shall be, what and with whom he may exchange, or what thoughts he shall entertain.

7. Freedom in transactions is an absolute principle.

8. The value of any good or service is what another will give in willing exchange.

9. The good or bad politician is not the cause of good or bad government. He reflects the thinking of his constituents. When the thinking is good enough, then good men can and will be elected to office.

10. Obedience to one’s highest conscience is to seek approval from God, not men.

Read’s closed-mindedness toward changing his mind about certain principles encourages serious reflection about what we believe. He seems to echo Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations: “If anyone can convince or show me that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. It is truth that I seek; and truth never yet hurt any man. What does hurt is persistence in error or in ignorance” (Aurelius 1902).

Read also provides a way to evaluate the quality of our own closed-mindedness.

There is a reliable test as to whether or not one’s closed-mindedness derives from a growing knowledge or from a lack of understanding. If from lack, there will be a sense of know-it-all-ness; if from growth, the more issues on which one’s mind is closed, the better paved is his access to the unknown. This test merely emphasizes the obvious: the more one knows, the more is he aware of the unknown.