Ever get the sense that someone is trying to open your mind for you?
I don’t mean in the sense that they’re introducing us to new ideas and inviting us to explore them and decide whether they’re worth embracing.
It’s more like someone is angrily demanding that we renounce everything we once understood to be true and replace it with their preferred dogma.
Even once non-controversial scientific facts are now being called into question, in the name of having an “open mind.”
It raises a question of when it’s appropriate to close your mind.
Joseph Sobran had this to say:
“In fact it’s nonsense to say flatly that a mind should be “open” or “closed.” The real question is when, not whether, to close it. Of course it’s wrong to close it prematurely. But at some point you have to make a commitment about the truth of things.”
He’s right.
When we’ve reached the point that simple scientific truths are considered too bigoted to stand, how can any moral truth be held with confidence?
Opening minds by brute force is not the same as persuading others to lower their ideological filters.
Consensus reached by intimidation isn’t really consensus.
It’s as if we’ve lost sight of the fact that honest disagreement can take place in a society without the need for government intervention.
It also underscores the need for taking responsibility for our own worldview and having the courage to say “no” when others make unreasonable demands.
An open mind doesn’t require thinking, speaking or acting the way that others demand we do.
Thanks for reading Hyde In Plain Sight! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.
Share this post