'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".