John Locke

Section 10. Prejudice.

Everyone is forward to complain of the prejudices that mislead other men or parties, as if he were free and had none of his own. This being objected on all sides, it is agreed that it is a fault and a hindrance to knowledge. What now is the cure? No other but this, that every man should let alone others' prejudices and examine his own. Nobody is convinced of his by the accusation of another; he recriminates by the same rule and is clear. The only way to remove this great cause of ignorance and error out of the world is for everyone impartially to examine himself. If others will not deal fairly faith their own minds, does that make my errors truths, or ought it to make me in love with them and willing to impose on myself? If others love cataracts on their eyes, should that hinder me from couching of mine as soon as I could? Everyone declares against blindness, and yet who almost is not fond of that which dims his sight and keeps the clear light out of his mind, which should lead him into truth and knowledge? False or doubtful positions, relied upon as unquestionable maxims, keep those in the dark from truth who build on them. Such are usually the prejudices imbibed from education, party, reverence, fashion, interest, etc. This is the mote which everyone sees in his brother's eye, but never regards the beam in his own. For who is there almost that is ever brought fairly to examine his own principles and see whether they are such as will bear the trial? But yet this should be one of the first things everyone should set about and be scrupulous in, who would rightly conduct his understanding in the search of truth and knowledge.

To those who are willing to get rid of this great hindrance of knowledge (for to such only I write), to those who would shake off this great and dangerous impostor, prejudice, who dresses up falsehood in the likeness of truth and so dexterously hoodwinks men's minds as to keep them in the dark with a belief that they are more in the light than any that do not see with their eyes, I shall offer this one mark whereby prejudice may be known. He that is strongly of any opinion must suppose (unless he be self-condemned) that his persuasion is built upon good grounds, and that his assent is no greater than what the evidence of the truth he holds forces him to, and that they are arguments, and not inclination or fancy, that make him so confident and positive in his tenets. Now if, after all his profession, he cannot bear any opposition to his opinion, if he cannot so much as give a patient hearing, much less examine and weigh the arguments on the other side, does he not plainly confess it is prejudice governs him and it is not the evidence of truth, but some lazy anticipation, some beloved presumption that he desires to rest undisturbed in? For if what he holds be as he give out, well fenced with evidence, and he sees it to be true, what need he fear to put it to the proof? If his opinion be settled upon a firm foundation, if the arguments that support it and have obtained his assent be clear, good and convincing, why should he be shy to have it tried whether they be proof or not? He whose assent goes beyond his evidence owes this excess of his adherence only to prejudice and does, in effect, own it when he refuses to hear what is offered against it, declaring thereby that it is not evidence he seeks, but the quiet enjoyment of the opinion he is fond of, with a forward condemnation of all that may stand in opposition to it, unheard and unexamined; which, what is it but prejudice? Qui aequum statuerit parte inaudita altera, etiam si aequum statuerit, haud aequus fuerit.[039] He that would acquit himself in this case as a lover of truth, not giving way to any preoccupation or bias that may mislead him, must do two things that are not very common nor very easy.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001

Answers

(continued...)

Section 11. Indifferency.

First, he must not be in love with any opinion or wish it to be true till he knows it to be so, and then he will not need to wish it. For nothing that is false can deserve our good wishes nor a desire that it should have the place and force of truth; and yet nothing is more frequent than this. Often are fond of certain tenets upon no other evidence but respect and custom, and think they must maintain them or all is gone, though they have never examined the ground they stand on, nor have ever made them out to themselves or can make them out to others. We should contend earnestly for the truth, but we should first be sure that it is truth, or else we fight against God, who is the God of truth, and do the work of the devil, who is the father and propagator of lies; and our zeal, though never so warm, will not excuse us; for this is plainly prejudice.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001.

(continued...)

Section 12. Examine.

Secondly, he must do that which he will find himself very averse to, as judging the thing unnecessary or himself incapable of doing it. He must try whether his principles be certainly true or not, and how far he may safely rely upon them. This, whether fewer have the heart or the skill to do, I shall not determine; but this I am sure, this is that which everyone ought to do who professes to love truth and would not impose upon himself which is a surer way to be made a fool of than by being exposed to the sophistry of others. The disposition to put any cheat upon ourselves works constantly and we are pleased with it, but are impatient of being bantered or misled by others. The inability I here speak of is not any natural defect that makes men incapable of examining their own principles. To such, rules of conducting their understandings are useless, and that is the case of very few. The great number is of those whom the ill habit of never exerting their thoughts has disabled; the powers of their minds are starved by disuse and have lost that reach and strength which nature fitted them to receive from exercise. Those who are in a condition to learn the first rules of plain arithmetic and could be brought to cast up an ordinary sum are capable of this, if they had but accustomed their minds to reasoning; but they that have wholly neglected the exercise of their understandings in this way will be very far at first from being able to do it and as unfit for it as one unpracticed in figures to cast up a shop-book, and perhaps think it as strange to be set about it. And yet it must nevertheless be confessed to be a wrong use of our understandings to build our tenets (in things where we are concerned to hold the truth) upon principles that may lead us into error. We take our principles at haphazard upon trust and without ever having examined them, and then believe a whole system upon a presumption that they are true and solid. And what is all this but childish, shameful, senseless credulity?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001.

"We should contend earnestly for the truth, but we should first be sure that it is truth, or else we ... do the work of the devil"

This recommendation would immediately reduce what I know by 93%. Then I could liven up the conversation by such bon mots as, "I know how to tie my shoes," or "I see a car." This might be a relief. It might also drive me howlingly mad. It is hard to say at this early date.

If I was feeling awfully clever I could always use the journalist's favorite dodge and say, "Some experts believe that [insert prejudice here.]" or "Reportedly... [nonsensical assertion] is true." That way I could fill my conversation with prejudice and error while strictly speaking the truth.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.com), January 30, 2001.

Nipper,

So what you are attempting to communicate with your post is that clever conversation, be it filled with falsehoods or not, is more important to you than testing your principles & examining what you think you know to be correct or at least caped in some semblance of solidity? Well, at least you're aware that you cultivate form over function and are honest enough to admit it. As both a former class clown and currently boring conversationalist, I found the former to be quite hollow and unfulfilling, whereas the latter is slowly being improved upon. Or so I imagine. It is possible to not forsake wit while serving up some measure of truthfulness. I offer Flint as one example. Love him or revile him, he works his ass off to produce quality thought while at the same time injecting humor into his writing. (Please send all hate email triggered by my last statement to Lars. He made me write that.)

Your lambaste of reporters' usage of qualifiers is a bit puzzling. Surely you don't believe that all supposed experts in a given field agree on much of anything. It would be the height of dishonesty for a reporter to insinuate otherwise. Yet this iota of integrity displayed by some reporters irks you somehow. You call this dodging, as if somehow a bold statement, however lacking in accuracy, is preferable. Well, your wish is granted time and time again. Witness the shoddy, lazy reporting at all levels of popular media. If this is what you desire from the fourth estate - entertainment to the exclusion of precision, diligence & effort – then you must be one happy camper.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001.

Rich:

Nipper makes a good point that I think you misread. He's saying (in my interpretation, anyway) that there is a strict limit to our immediate knowledge. Almost all formal education is nothing more than telling us what others say they think, or what others say they observe. We'd be little more than cave men if we had to make our way through life based on nothing but direct personal experience.

Beyond this, the great strength of the human brain is the ability to abstract, to derive meaningful patterns from pointillistic data. Conversely, as Locke notices, our great weakness is the ability to see *incorrect* patterns, to draw reasonable but wrong inferences, and to predict the future based not on instinct (predator-bad-run) but on past patterns improperly induced.

In Locke's general sense, prejudice includes all the middle ground between omniscience and the simplest physical observations. Maybe it would be helpful to recognize that within this entire range we are dealing with probabilities, not facts, based on equivocal and transient data. Nonetheless, life requires that we make constant, critical decisions on the basis of such information and shaky conclusions drawn from it. We can strive to make *better* decisions, to make our prejudices more closely fit our predictions. But this effort is the enemy of finding "truth" in the same way excellent is the enemy of perfect.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 30, 2001.

What we face today, a plethora of information and golden opportunities to acquire it, was inaccessible to most of the people of Locke's time. Therefore I believe we are to be held to higher standards than those of his day for we have all the tools at our fingertips necessary to achieve that which Locke speaks to – except one. That one quality which must be cultivated within: a sense of duty to ourselves and others to seek for and present the truth, garnered through effort, as best we can, while remaining fluid in our thinking, in our ability to accept that we just might be wrong.

So much of what I read here is concretized opinion. This state of mind would not sadden me so if it were held there. Instead, we are deluged with stream of unconsciousness. Read, get pissed, spew. "My party is better than your party. My slant – which isn't a slant at all, but the way it really is or ought to be - should be considered doctrine!" Of course. Of course. Now take your blood pressure medicine before you pop a vessel. Seriously, I worry about some of the folks who post here.

Passion is a wonderful thing, a gift, a sign that we are alive, that we care about something. But passion is also imbalance. One that must be tempered by reflection and self-examination, by reason and some measure of logic, by humility and compassion.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001.

Yes Flint, I understand this very well. Truth is that most unattainable of realms. We must communicate however innacurate the results. You've explained this subject very well numerous times. Thank you for laying your thoughts out on this yet again.

What I reacted to was what I perceived as the callous disregard for the pursuit of it, for making the effort to present opinions and ideas with forethought. Better to be inaccurate than boring? This thinking, or lack thereof, frazzles me to no end. And I know all too well it does you too.

I posted these snippets from Locke which I came across this morning in the hopes a few folks (no one in particular) would be triggered by reading them to reflect on their processes of thought and consequent output. I hope this is or will be the case. Self-improvement is a life-long endeavor.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 30, 2001.

Rich:

Yes, we're back to the church/school dichotomy. I agree that some here (all too many, I'm afraid) don't search for the truth at all, they *start* with it, at least according to their own definition. Their purpose then isn't to evaluate conflicting claims according to agreement with observation, but to evaluate observation based on agreement with faith. Facts are made to fit conclusions rather than vice versa.

This is surprisingly easy. Countless experiments have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that people observe what they *expect* to observe, regardless of what's there. When shown videotapes later of what was actually there, they SWEAR the tapes are doctored. Reality is no match for faith.

But this is why AA requires that you must *start* by admitting you have a problem you can't control. Unless you do that, you have no hope. And yeah, this forum is full of people who not only won't admit it, they can't even see it. But the comic relief is often welcome, and hey, in contrast with Hawk and Cherri, even FS looks reasonable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 30, 2001.

'A wise man realizes how little he knows.'

Someone said it ... I don't know who...

-- Will (rightere@home.now), January 30, 2001.

Behold, we know not anything;
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last -- far off -- at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
-- TENNYSON

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 31, 2001.