|
This might seem to have to do with open-mindedness in the sense that an open-minded person will acknowledge that others might be starting with different premises than themselves, so when they see that another person holds true a belief that is contradictory to a belief that they themselves hold, they will assert that the other person is different (starting from different premises), but not necessarily wrong. That is, the logic internal to the other person's thoughts is most likely sound, it's just that the other person started from different premises and so reached a different conclusion. A closed-minded or bigoted person would refuse to admit the possibility of other premises, and so if another person arrives at a different conclusion then that other person must be crazy or stupid or something. This hypothetical closed-minded or bigoted person would lack what Donald Davidson has called "the principle of charity", which makes linguistic (logical) communication possible. This is why arguing with a bigot is a pointless endeavor.
Logicians would assert that starting from different premises and reaching a different conclusion does not a contradiction make. Some logicians (W. V. O. Quine) would go so far as to assert that it is *impossible* to *really* hold a contradiction true, to the point where if someone seems to hold contradictory beliefs then this is, ipso facto, proof of some unacknowledged difference of premises, some semantic slipperiness in the meaning of the premises themselves, if no other more obvious explanation can be found.
Is Quine right about this? What would Buddha (or Rinzai) say? All those koans seem to be trying to get us to see form and formlessness at the same time....
(at this point, the Buddhists and the logicians both attempt to bite my head off from different angles....)