Quote:
He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave.
–William Drummond
Bigot. Fool. Slave. These three words are highly charged, likely to draw a strong reaction from anyone reading them. In this quote, William Drummond uses these high-velocity words to deliver a poignant and accurate- if slightly cynical- message about the uses of reason and logic. Drummond’s overarching claim in the quote is that without reason, humans are, in essence, worthless, mindless followers. In this context, I believe that Drummond is using the term “reason” to mean a series of logical statements that come to a clear conclusion, as well as any argument that uses such a series. By using terms that elicit such a strong emotional response from his audience, he creates a statement that rings true to the casual reader, despite it’s absolutist phrasing.
In the first portion of the quote, Drummond asserts, “he that will not reason is a bigot.” According to the Encarta Dictionary, a bigot is “somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views.” Drummond’s word choice here is very intriguing, because people who staunchly support one view often use flawed reason in order to support their own cause or agenda. Personally, I interpret his phrase as meaning more that “people who use false reason or refuse to listen to reason are bigots”, rather than simply that people who refuse to use reason at all are. I grew up in a family of lawyers, where failing to defend a point is a crime punishable by death (or at least, ridicule,) and the weapon of choice is razor wit backed by informal logic, so the habit of trusting reason and mistrusting moral or faith-based arguments was ingrained in me long before I could name it. Growing up, my parents always insisted that I back up any claim with a reason, and I now find myself doing the same thing to my peers; incessantly asking “why, why, why?” demanding a thought-out argument and pointing out any flawed logic for what it is. Although I sometimes see the flaws in this way of knowing, I almost always agree with Drummond’s claim.
The second piece of the quote adds “he that cannot reason is a fool.” I believe that this statement is at the heart of the IB curriculum, and, indeed, at the heart of most education systems. The very essence of the TOK program asks students to question what they know, and then draw more informed conclusions after close study of their own urges and opinions. To me, at least, that seems a lot like reason. The ultimate aim of the IB program is to “develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect,” or, in laymen’s terms, to add well-informed world citizens to the general masses. A logical progression, thus, would state that the IBO believes that it takes a good grasp of reason to be an “inquiring, knowledgeable and caring” person, or a person who is not a social, intellectual or moral fool. I agree (influenced probably by both my family and the IBO) with this conclusion, and thus agree, as well, with the middle portion of Drummond’s quote.
The third and final section of Drummond’s quote adds perhaps the most inflammatory statement of all; “he that dares not reason is a slave.” I entirely agree with this assertion, although in a more metaphorical than literal way. Especially in the Unites States, where we are only a few decades beyond segregation, the term “slave” elects strong reactions from most people. Drummond’s use of the word makes it very clear how true he believes the statement to be. I agree entirely with his assertion; I believe in the claims that “the truth will set you free,” and that “knowledge is power,” and I also believe that one of the easiest and most effective ways to gain knowledge is through reason. Although I do not think that fearing a “battle of wits” will make a person into a slave in a literal sense, I think that people who worry too much about weather their reason is perfectly correct, and who never actually put it to use have become slaves to their own insecurities, and have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in many cases of abuse, the victim, too scared to try and defend themselves or find help, often becomes almost a literal slave to their abuser, convinced that they are worthless, despite their own internal knowledge to the contrary.
Overall, I agree with Drummond’s quote almost invariably. Although I firmly believe that there are exceptions to every rule (including that one), I think that as a general statement, Drummond was quite right in asserting “He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave.”
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"Drummond’s overarching claim in the quote is that without reason, humans are, in essence, worthless, mindless followers."
I think you are making an overarching claim here yourself. He never said anything about fools, bigots or slaves being 'worthless, mindless followers'. In fact history and indeed the very world of people around us demonstrate that unreasonable mindless followers are far from worthless, in fact they are worth a lot to those who can deploy reason to control them. Unfortunately there are those who would seek to propagate and sustain a climate of unreason for the very purpose of exacting control. If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs and all that.
Think about a world populated by people completely devoid of reason. I don't just mean in some areas of their thinking, I mean as a whole. This is important to consider, because most people who argue for their unreasonable beliefs actually place huge value on their ability to reason in most areas of their life. But as soon as the reason that enriches their lives and allows them to identify the regressive barbarisms of unreason in others is turned on themselves they begin to shun it.. What you would have in a world devoid of reason, is a world bereft of analytical thought. How well do you think humans would fair?
"he creates a statement that rings true to the casual reader, despite it’s absolutist phrasing."
Firstly, you have set the persuasive stage lawyer-style by insinuating that anybody who agrees with Drummond's quote is but a 'casual reader'. The pre-persuasive technique you've employed aims to sway the reader cognitively to your corner. You are attempting to create a cognitive dissonance in the mind of the reader between their image of themselves as more than a 'casual reader' and the fact that they agree with Drummond's statement. the presupposition you are trying to plant amounts to this persuasive message: "Only a lowly 'casual reader' would disagree with my following argument." Nicely executed, but I'm calling you out on it.
Most people would agree that somebody who refused to apply reason in deciding whether or not to step off the edge of a cliff, instead falling back on the belief that they will float harmlessly to the base, would fit the category of the fool.
Most people would agree that somebody who ignored reason in deciphering whether or not White people were actually spawned from a Biblical character fornicating with pigs is a bigot.
Most people would agree that somebody who chooses to ignore reason and work endlessly for me based on my assertion that it is the will of Jaba Hullah, the true lord of the cosmos, is a slave to their unreason.
Such absolutism is justified. Such an absolutist claim is based upon the assertion that ignoring reason and logic absolutely will lead to foolishness, bigotry and slavish behaviour. It is demonstratively absolute.
"people who staunchly support one view often use flawed reason in order to support their own cause or agenda."
Flawed reason is not reason, it is flawed reason. Rationalizing something to yourself is not necessarily the same thing as thinking rationally. It actually represents an unreasonable perversion of the mechanics of reason as a means to an unreasonable end.
"Personally, I interpret his phrase as meaning more that “people who use false reason or refuse to listen to reason are bigots”, rather than simply that people who refuse to use reason at all are."
I interpret it to mean that people who use false reason are not actually employing reason, they are failing to employ reason. People who refuse to listen to reason also fall into the catagory of people who refuse to employ reason, as reason would dictate that they listen to and analyze a message whether or not they initially believe it to be reasonable or not. So essentially your quoted interpretation is correct, you just failed to realise that it actually validates Drummond's claim.
"I grew up in a family of lawyers, where failing to defend a point is a crime punishable by death (or at least, ridicule,)"
I envy you. I grew up in a family with a mother, lovely as she can be, who is unable to sustain any kind of contradiction without feigning physical injury (headache, chest pains, exhaustion, heartburn, you name it), drawing out crocodile tears or throwing tantrums. then there's my father, a Doctor, who is an example of what happens when an intellectually gifted man marries a woman like this; he has given up intellectually and has lost any drive to engage in argument because he is generally surrounded by unreasonable people who resort to emotional and physical threats in place of reasonable discussion.
Luckily i have brothers who obviously inherited the traits which were neutered in my father by an unreasonable wife and her peer group, so thankfully we have each other to nurture our intellects. We are all obsessively careful about the women we choose to enter into relationships with though; we will not suffer foolish women, we may nail a few here and there, but we've got enough sense not to let them know where we live.
"Although I do not think that fearing a “battle of wits” will make a person into a slave in a literal sense"
Mental slavery is literal and manifests itself in physically slavish actions. For example, Islamic suicide bombers, women who believe that it is a sin against God to expose their body in public, Christians who believe that all Muslims are evil etc.
"Although I firmly believe that there are exceptions to every rule (including that one)"
I disagree. I think that it is not pleasant to have to categorize a victim of abuse as a slave because of their failure to employ reason in seeking help, but it is a fact. You stated it yourself that they aren't exceptions to the rule. It may seem cold an clinical but it is true that if they employed reason properly they would take the necessary course of action to remedy their situation. There are all manner of emotional variables here, but none undermine the value of reason in such a situation, they just serve to highlight that employing reason is not always easy or comfortable.
People like the idea that there are exceptions to the rule and many will no doubt be able to list some. But I wonder if everybody would have identical, non-contradictory examples in their list of exceptions or merely ones that suit their own personal agenda. You see, people love reason until it's illumination is shone upon the fallacy of their perceived, personal exception to it's rules, then all of a sudden it becomes redundant in their eyes. despite the fact that they would no doubt apply reason in the exact same manner upon another's percieved exception.
"I think that as a general statement, Drummond was quite right in asserting “He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave.”"
I'm with you on that, I'm just a little less apologetic about it. Great entry though, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™