'Pokoke...' reflects an antireason mentality<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Pokoke... , or roughly \"in principle\", is a
\nJavanese expression denoting a very determined resolution, not to
\nbe changed by any power on earth; neither by the power of reason,
\nnor by brute force. This expression also denotes a readiness to
\nexecute a resolution by any means, using the dirtiest trickery if
\nnecessary. Thus when a Javanese father says to a son or a
\ndaughter that he or she cannot marry the person of his or her
\nchoice, and expresses this decision by saying: \"Pokoke... you
\ncannot marry her or him\", this means that this decision is final,
\nand will not be altered, no matter what the consequences may be.<\/p>\n
Many tragedies occur on account of this type of stubbornness.
\nAccording to my wife, an uncle of hers died as a young physician
\nin 1937 because he could not marry the Eurasian girl he loved
\ndearly. His father, who was also a physician, said at the time:
\n\"Pokoke... you cannot marry a Eurasian girl.\" This broke his
\nheart. He became seriously ill, and his last words on his
\ndeathbed were the following: \"Pa, everything is so dark here!. It
\nis getting darker and darker, Pa! Please help me, Pa!\" And then
\nhe passed away. There are many, many, tragic stories like this.<\/p>\n
In addition to signifying resoluteness, stubbornness, and
\nunwillingness to compromise, the expression also signifies
\nantireason, the rejection of reason. A person who feels compelled
\nto use this expression in expressing an opinion is no longer
\nwilling to listen to any argument doubting the validity of the
\nopinion or suggesting an alternate opinion. He or she is willing
\nonly to listen to arguments supporting his or her opinion. Such
\nan attitude is not only one of antireason, but is usually also
\nintellectually dishonest and lacking intellectual integrity.<\/p>\n
What is 'antireason', and why is it undesirable?<\/p>\n
We should first clarify the meaning of 'reason'. As I
\nunderstand it, 'reason' is the cognitive tool with which we make
\ninquiries about things that interest us to gain knowledge about
\nthem. According to the late Barry Gross, who was Professor of
\nPhilosophy at York College, 'reason' has many different meanings,
\none of which is just common sense. And what is common sense? It
\nis \"reason robustly laced with experience to which one pays
\nserious attention\". Using these two explanations as a starting
\npoint, I think it is safe to say that antireason is a state of
\nmind characterized by a loss in the conceptions of truth and
\nreason, and which makes one look upon reasoning as mainly
\ndecorative. This state of mind will eventually result in a rapid
\ndeterioration of intellectual vigor.<\/p>\n
The undesirability of antireason is self-evident. Antireason
\nmakes \"sham reasoning\" acceptable. And, according to Professor
\nSusan Haack of the University of Miami, when \"sham reasoning\" or
\ndeceptive reasoning is all too common, and when people are aware
\nof this, their confidence in what passes for truth declines, and
\nwith this also their willingness to use the words \"truth\",
\n\"evidence\", \"objectivity\" and \"inquiry\" without the precaution of
\nquotes. And when too many words have to be put in quotes,
\npeople's confidence in the concept of truth, evidence and
\ninquiry, will falter. People will ask \"Is there such thing as
\ntruth?\", \"What is truth, anyway?\", and the like.<\/p>\n
In short, it should be obvious that antireason will, in the
\nend, make people afraid to think for themselves. And if this
\n\"Pokoke ...\" philosophy is allowed to flourish in our society, I
\nthink the time will soon come when we will become afraid to think
\nfor ourselves. At the moment many of us already feel obliged to
\nput words that come honestly from our minds in quotes. We are
\nafraid of being intentionally misunderstood. We are afraid that
\nour words will be manipulated, and used against us. The worst
\nstage in this development is reached when we become afraid of our
\nthinking selves.<\/p>\n
The concept of truth is internally related to the concepts of
\nbelief, evidence, and inquiry. Thus if we feel that some truths
\nare distorted we can only restore them if we have a firm belief
\nin what we think is the real truth, if we are willing to
\naccumulate all available evidence to support this truth, and if
\nwe are willing to make an honest inquiry about it. Unless we have
\nsuch commitments, we will never be able to restore the distorted
\ntruth.<\/p>\n
Two phenomena are related to antireason, namely \"overbelief
\n\"and \"underbelief\". Overbelief is the act of believing something
\nbeyond what is warranted by the existing evidence, while
\nunderbelief is the act of not believing something when the
\nexisting evidence warrants belief. And when overbelief and
\nunderbelief are consequential, and the person who believes the
\nunwarranted and disbelieves the warranted is responsible, then we
\nhave a situation of moral culpability. When the consequence of
\nsuch a situation is a catastrophe, then the person who is the
\nculprit of such a catastrophe is, in the words of W.K. Clifford,
\n\"verily guilty\". Generally speaking, morally culpable overbelief
\nand underbelief are the products of intellectual dishonesty which
\nin the long run cause self-deceptive belief-formation.<\/p>\n
How serious is the threat of antireason in our society?<\/p>\n
It is hard to say. One guide in this respect is that among the
\nevidence for antireason are pseudobelief and pseudoinquiry.
\nPseudobelief is loyalty to a proposition one can reasonably
\nsuspect to be at least partially false, coupled with an
\nattachment to a proposition to which one has given no thought at
\nall. And pseudoinquiry is an attempt not to get the truth out of
\nsome questions, but to make a case of \"a truth\" to which one has
\nalready committed without making an inquiry.<\/p>\n
Do we see these signs in our surroundings?<\/p>\n
If we do, I think it is time to find the antidote of
\nantireason, which is intellectual honesty and integrity,
\nwillingness to make honest inquiry and respect for the demands of
\nevidence and tenable arguments.<\/p>\n
As Professor Barry R. Gross wrote shortly before his death in
\n1995, \"Eternal vigilance is the price of a reasonable society\".<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/pokoke-reflects-an-antireason-mentality-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}