What is an open mind
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11340596 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Adam Adatto Sandel (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 360-370 |
| Publication date | 2018-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy & Social Criticism (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0191-4537 • E-ISSN: 1461-734X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0191453718755208 |
| OpenAlex | W2792481473 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 5 |
In this article, I suggest that an open mind wholly unburdened by preconceptions and prejudgments is a mistaken ideal. Not only is it unrealistic; it deprives us of context and background knowledge relevant to judging well. I begin with two cases that show how the ideal of the “prejudice-free” mind, though appealing, may end up thwarting good judgment: blind assessment and “blank-slate” jury selection (the ideal of empaneling jurors without prejudgments). I then trace the prejudice-free ideal to the Enlightenment, exposing its roots in the subject-object worldview. Drawing on Heidegger, I suggest that the subject-object worldview is misguided and that all judgment involves a prior understanding of the matter we judge. To have an open mind, paradoxically, is to have a stake in defending a prior understanding, to be possessed of an understanding of the good that one wishes (at least provisionally) to promote. I then draw out the implications of this view for how we might make sense of cultural differences, examining the difference between the practice of marriage based on a romantic conception of love, and that of arranged marriage. By thinking through these two practices, seemingly opposed, we can arrive at a conception of marriage and love that preserves both
Aesthetics · Context (archaeology · Enlightenment · Epistemology · Ideal (ethics · Jury · Object (grammar · Prejudice (legal term · Sociology · Subject (documents · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Marriage and Sexual Relationships · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2022 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |