Every one holds views according to his interest, and imagines he has abundant grounds for them... It may occur that two may meet with exactly opposite views and yet each thinks to have reason on his side, yet reason is always true to itself and never has two faces... Place yourself in such a case in the other man's place and then investigate the reasons for his opinion...
Baltasar Gracián, 1647 (tr. Joseph Jacobs, 1892)
People hold their views according to their interests and then convince themselves they have ample reasons, so two people with exactly opposite positions can each be certain reason is on their side. But reason itself is consistent and does not genuinely support both of two contradictory views; what differs is the interest colouring each person's judgment. The practical humility this calls for is real: before you condemn someone else's opinion, put yourself in their position and honestly work through the reasons they hold it, because your confident dismissal of their view might, examined fairly, cast doubt on your own. Moderation in your views is not weakness of conviction; it is the discipline of remembering that your certainty is partly interest wearing the costume of reason, and of testing it by genuinely inhabiting the other side.
Practice
- Sit in the other chair before judging; work through the reasons for the opposing view honestly, because condemning it may cast doubt on your own (maxim 227's second hearing).
- Remember that interest colours judgment, including yours; the certainty that feels like pure reason is often interest in reason's costume.
- Hold your views with moderation; two people can each be sure reason is on their side, and yours is not automatically the exception.
Use this when
- Use this in any real disagreement, especially where you are certain; the certainty is exactly what the exercise is meant to test.
- Use it before condemning an opposing position; inhabiting it fairly either strengthens your view or corrects it, and both are gains.
Ignore this when
- Don't mistake moderation for having no convictions; the discipline is testing your certainty, not abandoning it (maxim 183 keeps the will firm).
- Don't use "everyone has their reasons" to treat every view as equally valid; some positions are simply better grounded, and the test is meant to find out which (maxim 300 keeps the values fixed).
A picture of it
Certain that a colleague's opposing proposal is simply wrong, a manager makes himself do the exercise before condemning it: he sits in the other chair and works through, honestly, the reasons the colleague holds the view. Halfway through he sees that the colleague's position rests on a real concern his own had ignored, and that his certainty had been his interest wearing the costume of reason. He does not abandon his view, but he moderates it, absorbing what the other side got right. Had he condemned the proposal from his own chair alone, he would have missed the very thing that improved his own. Reason, it turned out, did not have two faces; his interest did.
Everyone thinks reason is on their side; reason itself has only one face. Sit in the other chair before you judge, and test your certainty for interest.