COLUMN: Having open-minded discussions

From Sarah Giulian's, "From Under My Rock," Fall '97 From Sarah Giulian's, "From Under My Rock," Fall '97 I've recently come to the conclusion that I believe in nothing. It's not that I'm wishy-washy, confused, lost or crazy. In fact, I'm actually comforted. And so I thought I would share my experiences and reasonings. One night after an especially infuriating discussion -- he was arguing the pointlessness of a liberal arts education -- I sorted my mind out a little bit. Fact: we weren't arguing to convince the other person of our point. We were simply making them aware of it. Fact: my awareness of his points and his awareness of mine was a half-hearted attempt at understanding each other's views. I didn't get any further in my sorting. What would it be like, I wondered, to be the person who really believed these opposing ideas? How would it feel to understand them in my heart, not just in my logical head? So I took on a task for myself, a sort of open-mindedness game. Instead of blindly shooting my ideas at an argument target, I would resign my beliefs to understand the origin of the other person's ideas. In essence I would imagine myself holding those same beliefs and validating them to myself. I would empathize. Not an easy task for those who think everything we believe is right, which most of us do. This is how the game works. You take a topic. Anything from public execution to the existence of God. Then -- and this is the key -- instead of thinking "This is what I believe because this is what is right," you think, "I wonder what it would be like to believe otherwise. Maybe they are right." This is no simple process. If you're pro-choice it's not easy to defend pro-life to yourself with honest vigor. It is tough to strip yourself of your most fervent ideas, to open your mind to the possibility that maybe you aren't right. Not that you're wrong but maybe it's not a question of right or wrong. "Why," you, my outraged reader may cry, "do you want to lose what you stand for? Why make yourself neutral?" A valid question. Who am I to define the "better person," to say that extreme open-mindedness will make you better? Needless to say, I've wrestled with this argument. My conclusion is a simple one -- the world doesn't have to be me against you. We don't have to divide ourselves into angry little factions over any topic of conversation (for example, the Greek system). Instead of leaving a discussion feeling frustrated and dividing our arguments into wins and losses, we can turn our minds completely around. We can learn to understand where each point of view is coming from. We can appreciate other people's beliefs, other people's minds. This brings us closer to each other. If I can understand and defend what you believe in without anger or judgment, then I can understand you. And I can appreciate you. But there's also something incredibly liberating that comes in the shedding of the fetters of belief, the peeling off of the protective layers around our personal truths. I think I used to feel vulnerable if I couldn't defend myself entirely. If I couldn't convince myself why I'm sure value is to be found in the arts, for example. I felt as if I had been shot, like there were weaknesses in my arguments, in my beliefs and in my truths. This is a defensive strategy. We won't lead a peaceful existence if we spend our time defending our minds louder than the guy next to us. What would happen if we all just shut up and listened? What would happen if we all made an honest attempt to understand where he was coming from? We would find he's as right as we are, and we're in no position to be high-and-mighty about a single thing we believe. Nothing we can argue is more right than he. So we listen to the guy next to us, see reasoning behind his point as much as the reason behind our own. We can empathize with his beliefs like we understand ours. Suddenly after this freedom in thought, we then come to the conclusion we don't believe strongly in anything because we can't discount the reasons behind any person's counter-argument. The fact any single person can passionately disagree with us and that I can argue for her or against her can comfort us all in open-minded liberation.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.