'Pokoke...' reflects an antireason mentality

'Pokoke...' reflects an antireason mentality

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Pokoke... , or roughly "in principle", is a
Javanese expression denoting a very determined resolution, not to
be changed by any power on earth; neither by the power of reason,
nor by brute force. This expression also denotes a readiness to
execute a resolution by any means, using the dirtiest trickery if
necessary. Thus when a Javanese father says to a son or a
daughter that he or she cannot marry the person of his or her
choice, and expresses this decision by saying: "Pokoke... you
cannot marry her or him", this means that this decision is final,
and will not be altered, no matter what the consequences may be.

Many tragedies occur on account of this type of stubbornness.
According to my wife, an uncle of hers died as a young physician
in 1937 because he could not marry the Eurasian girl he loved
dearly. His father, who was also a physician, said at the time:
"Pokoke... you cannot marry a Eurasian girl." This broke his
heart. He became seriously ill, and his last words on his
deathbed were the following: "Pa, everything is so dark here!. It
is getting darker and darker, Pa! Please help me, Pa!" And then
he passed away. There are many, many, tragic stories like this.

In addition to signifying resoluteness, stubbornness, and
unwillingness to compromise, the expression also signifies
antireason, the rejection of reason. A person who feels compelled
to use this expression in expressing an opinion is no longer
willing to listen to any argument doubting the validity of the
opinion or suggesting an alternate opinion. He or she is willing
only to listen to arguments supporting his or her opinion. Such
an attitude is not only one of antireason, but is usually also
intellectually dishonest and lacking intellectual integrity.

What is 'antireason', and why is it undesirable?

We should first clarify the meaning of 'reason'. As I
understand it, 'reason' is the cognitive tool with which we make
inquiries about things that interest us to gain knowledge about
them. According to the late Barry Gross, who was Professor of
Philosophy at York College, 'reason' has many different meanings,
one of which is just common sense. And what is common sense? It
is "reason robustly laced with experience to which one pays
serious attention". Using these two explanations as a starting
point, I think it is safe to say that antireason is a state of
mind characterized by a loss in the conceptions of truth and
reason, and which makes one look upon reasoning as mainly
decorative. This state of mind will eventually result in a rapid
deterioration of intellectual vigor.

The undesirability of antireason is self-evident. Antireason
makes "sham reasoning" acceptable. And, according to Professor
Susan Haack of the University of Miami, when "sham reasoning" or
deceptive reasoning is all too common, and when people are aware
of this, their confidence in what passes for truth declines, and
with this also their willingness to use the words "truth",
"evidence", "objectivity" and "inquiry" without the precaution of
quotes. And when too many words have to be put in quotes,
people's confidence in the concept of truth, evidence and
inquiry, will falter. People will ask "Is there such thing as
truth?", "What is truth, anyway?", and the like.

In short, it should be obvious that antireason will, in the
end, make people afraid to think for themselves. And if this
"Pokoke ..." philosophy is allowed to flourish in our society, I
think the time will soon come when we will become afraid to think
for ourselves. At the moment many of us already feel obliged to
put words that come honestly from our minds in quotes. We are
afraid of being intentionally misunderstood. We are afraid that
our words will be manipulated, and used against us. The worst
stage in this development is reached when we become afraid of our
thinking selves.

The concept of truth is internally related to the concepts of
belief, evidence, and inquiry. Thus if we feel that some truths
are distorted we can only restore them if we have a firm belief
in what we think is the real truth, if we are willing to
accumulate all available evidence to support this truth, and if
we are willing to make an honest inquiry about it. Unless we have
such commitments, we will never be able to restore the distorted
truth.

Two phenomena are related to antireason, namely "overbelief
"and "underbelief". Overbelief is the act of believing something
beyond what is warranted by the existing evidence, while
underbelief is the act of not believing something when the
existing evidence warrants belief. And when overbelief and
underbelief are consequential, and the person who believes the
unwarranted and disbelieves the warranted is responsible, then we
have a situation of moral culpability. When the consequence of
such a situation is a catastrophe, then the person who is the
culprit of such a catastrophe is, in the words of W.K. Clifford,
"verily guilty". Generally speaking, morally culpable overbelief
and underbelief are the products of intellectual dishonesty which
in the long run cause self-deceptive belief-formation.

How serious is the threat of antireason in our society?

It is hard to say. One guide in this respect is that among the
evidence for antireason are pseudobelief and pseudoinquiry.
Pseudobelief is loyalty to a proposition one can reasonably
suspect to be at least partially false, coupled with an
attachment to a proposition to which one has given no thought at
all. And pseudoinquiry is an attempt not to get the truth out of
some questions, but to make a case of "a truth" to which one has
already committed without making an inquiry.

Do we see these signs in our surroundings?

If we do, I think it is time to find the antidote of
antireason, which is intellectual honesty and integrity,
willingness to make honest inquiry and respect for the demands of
evidence and tenable arguments.

As Professor Barry R. Gross wrote shortly before his death in
1995, "Eternal vigilance is the price of a reasonable society".