how do you interpret this quote?

[cacian]

''it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it''

thanks

[YesNo]

The quote suggests that if uneducated people think something they accept whatever it is while educated people for some unexplained reason can keep a distance from the contents of their minds. I don't think the educated are any better at this objectivity than the uneducated are, but who knows? There may be some research showing that is wrong.

[Aperta Verbum]

Aristotle is basically saying that each side of an argument has its merits, the key to wisdom is to be able to appreciate both before making any judgement. The difficulty lies as YesNo has said, keeping distance from our own minds is impossible. We are born into a set class, race and sex, this leads us to hold relative values to our own understandings of the world.

A rich business man sees making redundancies necessary to maintain his business, the people being made redundant don't often appreciate the necessity of it. Aristotle is saying that the rich business man should consider the effects it has on the lives of the employees losing their jobs, and the employees should look at it in terms of; if the business goes bankrupt more people will be redundant.

Neither will ever really accept the view of the other, but to be able to understand why it has to be done is wisdom.

[cacian]

The quote suggests that if uneducated people think something they accept whatever it is while educated people for some unexplained reason can keep a distance from the contents of their minds. I don't think the educated are any better at this objectivity than the uneducated are, but who knows? There may be some research showing that is wrong.

hi YesNo you mention research. do you have more on this?

[cacian]

Aristotle is basically saying that each side of an argument has its merits, the key to wisdom is to be able to appreciate both before making any judgement. The difficulty lies as YesNo has said, keeping distance from our own minds is impossible. We are born into a set class, race and sex, this leads us to hold relative values to our own understandings of the world.

i see. what type of information/argument one is precisely talking about.

A rich business man sees making redundancies necessary to maintain his business, the people being made redundant don't often appreciate the necessity of it. Aristotle is saying that the rich business man should consider the effects it has on the lives of the employees losing their jobs, and the employees should look at it in terms of; if the business goes bankrupt more people will be redundant.

Neither will ever really accept the view of the other, but to be able to understand why it has to be done is wisdom.

I am hinting ''a sense of responsibility'' being negated or at stake in this example?
is one suggesting one does take responsibility rather argue liability??

[YesNo]

hi YesNo you mention research. do you have more on this?

I don't know what research there might be on the topic. If one quantifies education by degrees earned and then tests participants on how likely they are to accept something they have just been told, I can see how a test might be constructed.

Perhaps one could do this historically. For example, there was a belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the beginning of this century. That turned out to be false. Were educated people more or less likely than uneducated people to believe it?

[Whifflingpin]

"If one quantifies education by degrees earned..."
I think that's back to front - the quotation is saying that one can quantify education by the readiness of a mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. Then, the extent to which degree courses provide education can be determined by the ability or otherwise of graduates to look at more than one side of any given question.

[cacian]

I don't know what research there might be on the topic. If one quantifies education by degrees earned and then tests participants on how likely they are to accept something they have just been told, I can see how a test might be constructed.

Perhaps one could do this historically. For example, there was a belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the beginning of this century. That turned out to be false. Were educated people more or less likely than uneducated people to believe it?

i get it. i believe education has nothing to do with it.
but then i cant be for sure.
education does not teach us how to intervene with beliefs. education does not involve mind and intellect development on how to think and react.

[cacian]

"If one quantifies education by degrees earned..."
I think that's back to front - the quotation is saying that one can quantify education by the readiness of a mind to entertain a thought without accepting it. Then, the extent to which degree courses provide education can be determined by the ability or otherwise of graduates to look at more than one side of any given question.

this quote got my attention because now i am thinking why is ''acceptance'' being made an issue?
thought processing is not about acceptance it is about receiving a piece of information and dissolving it whichever way possible without having to either oppose it or agree with it.
that is one point of thinking and processing the intellect in other words it is acceptance to deduction not rejection. there is not continuation in rejection.
there is in deduction.
why Aristotle making an issue with acceptance and not for example liability?
we are liable when we are given something to think about. it is to me more important.

[Whifflingpin]

"why [is] Aristotle making an issue..."
A quick search shows the quotation not to be by Aristotle, but may be a summary of what someone thought he said - so it is scarcely worth trying to argue closely about its true meaning.
As Aristotle is more likely to have said, "It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits." Precise meanings are not to be expected from garbled misquotations.

[NewSecret]

So, someone told you an idea, you don't need to make the decision on whether the idea is worth assimilating or not right there. You entertain the thought and see where it goes. Another way to look at it would go someone told you a humorous thing, it was not a mannerly thing and you might not even concur that you would devise the thought yourself. Either way, you entertained the idea and it made you laugh.

[Raider]

I think it is an interesting quote, but I do not agree with it. I think it is the mark of an open mind that is able to entertain a thought without accepting it. The question really is, how many ideas of 'educated' people are we so quick to believe because they are considered academic? Many people have an inherent trust in say the words of a scientist, but are we simply too accepting of a narrative and a language that the vast majority of us do not wholly understand? I use science only as an obvious example.

[cacian]

I agree i would say it is the mind of an estimated mark to be able to entertain/enjoy or not a thought and then reject it.
it needs to in order to make room to entertain others.

[Goodman Brown]

I agree i would say it is the mind of an estimated mark to be able to entertain/enjoy or not a thought and then reject it.
it needs to in order to make room to entertain others.

I think it in it's simplest form,, as in,To recieve advise,,,or opinion to contimplate it ,or entertain it , and decide to accept it, or to reject it,,,,,,,,

[Amoratorium]

The quote suggests that if uneducated people think something they accept whatever it is while educated people for some unexplained reason can keep a distance from the contents of their minds. I don't think the educated are any better at this objectivity than the uneducated are, but who knows? There may be some research showing that is wrong.

It seems more possible to do thus, albeit dangerously, when you've already formed an truth of the same nature to fill that hole first.