(Please delete)

Eliot Rosewater

I am currently reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. I came across this wonderful quote by John Locke which, in the context of a thread about discussion standards, I feel is very relevant.

It's a long quote, so I've summarised it at the end for those who don't have the enthusiasm to read it.

Since it is unavoidable that men will have diverse opinions, and that they will not have definitive proofs of their truth; and it carries too great an insinuation of ignorance, lightness, or folly for them to quit and renounce their former tenets upon the offer of an argument which they cannot immediately answer, and show the insufficiency of: it would, I think, become all men to maintain peace, and the common offices of humanity, and friendship, in the diversity of opinions.

We cannot reasonably expect that any one should readily and compliantly quit his own opinion, and embrace ours, with a blind resignation to an authority which the understanding of man acknowledges not. For, however it may often mistake, the understanding of man can own no other guide but reason*, nor can it blindly submit to the will and dictates of another.

*Eliot's note: different people have different reasonings, remember!


If he you would bring over to your sentiments be one that examines before he assents, you must give him leave at his leisure to go over the account again, and, recalling what is out of his mind, examine all the particulars, to see on which side the advantage lies. If he will not think your argument of weight enough to engage him anew in so much pains, it is but what we often do ourselves in the like case.

And if he be one who takes his opinions upon trust, how can we imagine that he should renounce those tenets which time and custom have so settled in his mind, that he thinks them self-evident, and of an unquestionably certainty? How can we expect, I say, that opinions thus settled should be given up to the arguments or authority of a stranger or adversary, especially if there be any suspicion of interest or design, as there never fails to be, where men find themselves ill-trusted?


We should do well to commiserate our mutual ignorance, and endeavour to remove it in all the gentle and fair ways of information; and not instantly treat others ill, as obstinate and perverse, because they will not renounce their own, and receive our opinions, when it is more than probable that we are no less obstinate in not embracing some of theirs.

For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men's opinions?

In summary:

• People have diverse opinions, and the best environment in which to discuss those opinions is one of friendship and politeness.
• People hold their opinions tight to their chest and may, due to pride, history or other considerations, be unwilling to simply agree with your argument, even if it is superior. Don't be overly critical of those who refuse to agree with you; try and sympathise with them.
• We're often as bad as the people we criticise. Sure, it's annoying when people ignore your arguments but, in all likelihood, you're guilty of doing the same thing to them at other times.
• Despite frequent insinuations to the contrary, no one has all the answers. Realise that your own arguments posses a degree of fallibility.
• Avoid being obstinate and militant; endeavour to be gentle and fair.

No one is obliged to do these things, of course, but I think that even a casual adherence to them would be for the betterment of the forum as a whole.


Note: I have edited the quote a little, and "modernised"/clarified some of the phrasing. The original quote is available on the Project Gutenberg etext of Locke's Essay on Human Understanding; search for "Since, therefore, it" and you will jump to the beginning of it. The bold above is mine.