What do you think?
In Praise of Prejudice: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past
Today, the word prejudice has come to seem synonymous with bigotry; therefore the only way a person can establish freedom from bigotry is by claiming to have wiped his mind free from prejudice. English psychiatrist and writer Theodore Dalrymple shows that freeing the mind from prejudice is not only impossible, but entails intellectual, moral and emotional dishonesty. The attempt to eradicate prejudice has several dire consequences for the individual and society as a whole.
156 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2007
About the author
Theodore Dalrymple
99 books646 followersAnthony Malcolm Daniels, who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. He worked in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries as well as in the east end of London. Before his retirement in 2005, he worked in City Hospital, Birmingham and Winson Green Prison in inner-city Birmingham, England.
Daniels is a contributing editor to City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, where he is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow. In addition to City Journal, his work has appeared in The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Salisbury Review, National Review, and Axess magasin.
In 2011, Dalrymple received the 2011 Freedom Prize from the Flemish think tank Libera!.
Daniels is a contributing editor to City Journal, published by the Manhattan Institute, where he is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow. In addition to City Journal, his work has appeared in The British Medical Journal, The Times, The Observer, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The Salisbury Review, National Review, and Axess magasin.
In 2011, Dalrymple received the 2011 Freedom Prize from the Flemish think tank Libera!.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
September 22, 2026
Greetings to all the weary tenants whose movements are inscribed by geodesics, (no invidiousness for those whose theories admit of other flight trajectories - that are surprisingly time consuming to refute in a rigorous way using only a Chinese ring puzzle and a broken device engineered to vaporize crystal methamphetamine but are nonetheless sensibly rejected by even those who do not go through the illegal paraphernalia assisted verificationation process - intended.) it's ye ancephalous influencer back at it again. But, listen, hey, you remember when Thanos (who majorly defaulted in his thinking about how to successfully defuse our cosmic Malthusian sitch in any kind of durable fashion and should've really taken a page out of Salarian Geneticist's galactic playbook and deployed a Krogan genophage - sans species prejudice, natch) says: I am ineluctable (sp)? No? You don't watch Marvel movies because you, (and Scorsese and virtually every member of Letterboxd and self proclaimed auteurs the world over who are filming Willem Dafoe's confusingly large hog erupting blood like the Mount Vesuvius of nutsacks), view such media as heralding the end of cinema properly defined? That's awfully prejudiced, don't you think? It smacks of being encumbered by provincial attitudes, to criticize anything in a way that suggests objective standards of excellence innervated by traditional roots which expand beyond the sacred locus of your ex nihilo reasoning (ie. muh sacred opinion). I find it personally offensive (as something of a liberty maximizer myself who has, at various times, insisted upon my own cleverness despite exogenous factors conspiring to reveal my idiocy.) that you would ever situate the identity of anything (most especially yourself - if called an asshole by the ATM machine, for instance*.) in a inescapable social substrate to which you owe the vast majority of your continued functioning as a sybaritic reprobate.
Today, when asked about the weather, I said:
Interlocutor 1: The sun behind the clouds looks like a scab bleeding light.
Interlocutor 2: DON'T!
Interlocutor 1: A radiant hematoma pulsing sickly on the left parietal lobe of a Zephyr's brain.
Interlocutor 2: Interlocutor One, please..
.
Interlocutor 1: God's grace is vitiated by cellulites of vapor and his fury is azure.
Interlocutor 2: Goddamn... GOD - DAMN!
Interlocutor 1: Would that I make myself pleasing and hope for your continued forbearance, but my personal autonomy is contraindicated. If only there were nestled sets of mutually reinforcing moral norms to give shape to proper modes of conduct. If only there were some structure to render probity more than a word seldom used. Some source of external authority, administrative fiat or something more organic deriving from the social world, if only - historically well-sedimented practices, settled forms of social opprobrium to chastise me with. But, then again, that would require discernment, and that would require that some biases go unverified because we as individuals simply do not have the time or intellectual capacity to derive from first principles all the accrued wisdom to which we must acculturate. We cannot, in fact, make such a project remotely intelligible or even as intelligible as Aleister Crowley bridging the gap between formal and casual wear in a pair of Chinos and Slipknot t-shirt. Undifferentiated torrents of stimuli rushing into a tabula rasa do not a Hot Topic employee make.
TLDR: Many nasty shibboleths have been felled throughout history, but to raise the act of vandalizing *Chesterson's many fences to that of a moral imperative is not a coherent form of exploring the minima and maxima of freedom, but rather a guarantor of absurdity. All of us have strong feelings for which we remain inarticulate but convinced, especially in matters of ethical conduct. Those who examine these lacunae of formal reasoning and judge them intolerably uncosmopolitan are free to engage in intractable debates on what might constitute the relative nature of good and evil, but must eventually get on with the business of living - hopefully conceding along the way that people have found better and worse ways to do it, about which their solitary ruminations have little to add.
It is my sincere hope that some portion of the people who view this deliberately misunderstand me (and the book) as having advocated being an asshole. Because ATMs don't lie.
*This happened to Stephen King in the movie Maximum Overdrive, an enduring pop-culture classic which, in my experience, remains relatively obscure. Wherein: King, playing an unfortunate bank customer who gets fed up with a sentient ATM at the first Bank of Wilmington, calls out to his wife, saying: "Honey, come on over here, sugarbuns. This machine just called me an asshole!"
*A fence belonging to a man named Ezekiel.
Today, when asked about the weather, I said:
Interlocutor 1: The sun behind the clouds looks like a scab bleeding light.
Interlocutor 2: DON'T!
Interlocutor 1: A radiant hematoma pulsing sickly on the left parietal lobe of a Zephyr's brain.
Interlocutor 2: Interlocutor One, please..
.
Interlocutor 1: God's grace is vitiated by cellulites of vapor and his fury is azure.
Interlocutor 2: Goddamn... GOD - DAMN!
Interlocutor 1: Would that I make myself pleasing and hope for your continued forbearance, but my personal autonomy is contraindicated. If only there were nestled sets of mutually reinforcing moral norms to give shape to proper modes of conduct. If only there were some structure to render probity more than a word seldom used. Some source of external authority, administrative fiat or something more organic deriving from the social world, if only - historically well-sedimented practices, settled forms of social opprobrium to chastise me with. But, then again, that would require discernment, and that would require that some biases go unverified because we as individuals simply do not have the time or intellectual capacity to derive from first principles all the accrued wisdom to which we must acculturate. We cannot, in fact, make such a project remotely intelligible or even as intelligible as Aleister Crowley bridging the gap between formal and casual wear in a pair of Chinos and Slipknot t-shirt. Undifferentiated torrents of stimuli rushing into a tabula rasa do not a Hot Topic employee make.
TLDR: Many nasty shibboleths have been felled throughout history, but to raise the act of vandalizing *Chesterson's many fences to that of a moral imperative is not a coherent form of exploring the minima and maxima of freedom, but rather a guarantor of absurdity. All of us have strong feelings for which we remain inarticulate but convinced, especially in matters of ethical conduct. Those who examine these lacunae of formal reasoning and judge them intolerably uncosmopolitan are free to engage in intractable debates on what might constitute the relative nature of good and evil, but must eventually get on with the business of living - hopefully conceding along the way that people have found better and worse ways to do it, about which their solitary ruminations have little to add.
It is my sincere hope that some portion of the people who view this deliberately misunderstand me (and the book) as having advocated being an asshole. Because ATMs don't lie.
*This happened to Stephen King in the movie Maximum Overdrive, an enduring pop-culture classic which, in my experience, remains relatively obscure. Wherein: King, playing an unfortunate bank customer who gets fed up with a sentient ATM at the first Bank of Wilmington, calls out to his wife, saying: "Honey, come on over here, sugarbuns. This machine just called me an asshole!"
*A fence belonging to a man named Ezekiel.
August 16, 2020
Esse é meu segundo contato com o autor (o primeiro sendo alguns capítulos que eu li de A Vida na Sarjeta: O Círculo Vicioso da Miséria Moral) e eu gosto muito das análises que ele faz. Dalrymple é um psiquiatra britânico que recebe muitos pacientes que sofreram ou cometeram violência, e ele traz muitos insights sociológicos e filosóficos a partir disso.
Em Defesa do Preconceito é uma obra em que ele tenta demonstrar para o leitor que preconceitos são parte da natureza humana, e somente a partir dele os indivíduos possuem virtude social. A aversão ao preconceito muitas vezes é mais danosa que o preconceito em si, e ele dá diversos exemplos históricos para fundamentar sua teoria. Acho uma leitura bastante interessante para quem quer pensar um pouco sobre sociedade e comportamento humano.
Alguns dos meus trechos favoritos foram:
"Um objetivo inalcançável não pode ser visto como desejável."
"Geralmente, fatos inconvenientes nos levam a heroicos contorcionismos retóricos a fim de preservar a nossa visão, em vez de promover uma honesta reavaliação."
"O amor pela verdade, embora exista, é geralmente mais fraco que o amor pelo poder."
"Isso, é claro, torna as leis e, portanto, aqueles que as produzem, os árbitros morais da sociedade. São eles que por definição decidem o que é e o que não é permissível."
Em Defesa do Preconceito é uma obra em que ele tenta demonstrar para o leitor que preconceitos são parte da natureza humana, e somente a partir dele os indivíduos possuem virtude social. A aversão ao preconceito muitas vezes é mais danosa que o preconceito em si, e ele dá diversos exemplos históricos para fundamentar sua teoria. Acho uma leitura bastante interessante para quem quer pensar um pouco sobre sociedade e comportamento humano.
Alguns dos meus trechos favoritos foram:
"Um objetivo inalcançável não pode ser visto como desejável."
"Geralmente, fatos inconvenientes nos levam a heroicos contorcionismos retóricos a fim de preservar a nossa visão, em vez de promover uma honesta reavaliação."
"O amor pela verdade, embora exista, é geralmente mais fraco que o amor pelo poder."
"Isso, é claro, torna as leis e, portanto, aqueles que as produzem, os árbitros morais da sociedade. São eles que por definição decidem o que é e o que não é permissível."
February 14, 2013
Theodore Dalrymple (no relation, and it’s his pen-name anyway) is out to rescue a couple terms from an underserved perdition: prejudice and discrimination. No doubt, there are unwarranted prejudices that are socially and personally destructive; and discrimination when employed in the service of bigotry is bad. But prejudice of one sort or another is, according to Dalrymple’s argument, necessary and, in fact, unavoidable. You can’t throw out one prejudice without accepting another in its place, and part of wisdom is to exercise discrimination in the cultivation of your prejudices.
As with all of Theodore Dalrymple’s books and essays, this is well written and well argued. He’s a pleasure to read. There’s plenty of sarcasm, wit, dry humor, etc, in the British style. He draws here, as he usually does, from his experience as a physician and psychiatrist working in the British prison system and with inner-city populations. He wrangles with John Stuart Mill quite a lot in the present volume too, and with Descartes - and with the disciples who made each of them say things they didn't quite mean to say.
This is not the most colorful of his books. Some of his other essay collections (Life at the Bottom and Our Culture, What’s Left of It, for example) are more fun. And there are moments here when his choice and use of personal anecdotes (about bad-mannered girls he’s seen on the train, for example) make him sound like a crusty-nosed old curmudgeon. But most of the time, I’m afraid, he’s right.
As with all of Theodore Dalrymple’s books and essays, this is well written and well argued. He’s a pleasure to read. There’s plenty of sarcasm, wit, dry humor, etc, in the British style. He draws here, as he usually does, from his experience as a physician and psychiatrist working in the British prison system and with inner-city populations. He wrangles with John Stuart Mill quite a lot in the present volume too, and with Descartes - and with the disciples who made each of them say things they didn't quite mean to say.
This is not the most colorful of his books. Some of his other essay collections (Life at the Bottom and Our Culture, What’s Left of It, for example) are more fun. And there are moments here when his choice and use of personal anecdotes (about bad-mannered girls he’s seen on the train, for example) make him sound like a crusty-nosed old curmudgeon. But most of the time, I’m afraid, he’s right.
September 25, 2018
Very persuasive -- it's a shame these days that writers like Theodore Dalrymple have to write books in defense of common sense, which is really what this is, the term "prejudice" meaning what it originally meant -- "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" -- or, the distinguishing of good ideas from bad using a brain to tell the difference -- and not outright bigotry.
September 14, 2025
Dr. Dalrymple—that’s his pen name—is a psychiatric MD, and worked for years in a British prison in some rough neighborhood. He’s also the author of numerous essays and short works (like this) challenging everything you think you know. For years, he wrote regularly in the National Review.
He’s arguing here that the John Stewart Mill ideal of a man without prejudice not only is impossible—something I think most everyone learned by the time they were 20—but ill-advised. Prejudice, in its original meaning, just was the reliance on the facts, words, or opinions of others. It fatally became associated with “racial prejudice,” and thus banished from discourse.
But it flunked even before that, as anyone who actually read Mill knows (quoting Mill: “The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference are exercised only in making a choice.… The faculties are called into no exercise by doing a thing merely because others do it, no more than by believing a thing because others believe it.”) This sort of return-to-first-principles looks great in a college textbook—but anyone who tries to live that way quickly will be overwhelmed.
How do we know, Dalrymple asks, the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066? Well, we can find a host of secondary sources; possibly dig up some primary source. But, Mill could say, how do you know they are correct? English history is not my field, nor do I want to become an expert in it. Instead, I rely on the settled judgment of experts—in other words, prejudice. The same is true for science. I probably could prove Ohm’s law, but not much else. I “stand on the shoulder of giants” so as to not have to re-discover what theorists and inventors already did. This, too, is prejudice. But we never would leave the cradle without it.
Dalrymple reminds us that the close relative to non-prejudice is “nihilism.” Yet that comes from Ivan Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” I could say flatly concepts from Russian novels ought not to be our polestar, but the point is that the way Turgenev employs the term is quite similar to Mill, and equally dangerous.
[Added Sept 21: I later came across this quote from a 1960 William F. Buckley essay, “In the End, We Will Bury Him”—
“Last year, Mayor Wagner ostentatiously announced his refusal to greet Ibn Saud—on the grounds that Ibn Saud discriminates against Jews in Saudi Arabia, and no man who discriminates against Jews in Saudi Arabia is going to be handled courteously by Bob Wagner, mayor of New York. Now, as everybody knows, what Nikita Khrushchev does to Jews is to kill them. On the other hand, he does much the same to Catholics and Protestants. Could THAT be why Mr. Wagner consented to honor Khrushchev? Khrushchev murders people without regard to race, color, or creed, and therefore whatever he is guilty of, he is not guilty of discrimination? is THAT the shape of the new rationality?”
Yes, Bill Buckley certainly called it.]
Dalrymple’s 126 page book ends by quoting the epigraph falsely credited to Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” The author then provides one of those “which way, Western Man,” comparisons, via two syllogisms, copied here:
1) All prejudice is wrong.
The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice.
Therefore, the distinction between good and evil is wrong.
2) The distinction between good and evil is both inevitable and necessary for the exercise of virtue.
The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice.
Therefore, prejudice is necessary for the exercise of virtue.
Choose carefully.
He’s arguing here that the John Stewart Mill ideal of a man without prejudice not only is impossible—something I think most everyone learned by the time they were 20—but ill-advised. Prejudice, in its original meaning, just was the reliance on the facts, words, or opinions of others. It fatally became associated with “racial prejudice,” and thus banished from discourse.
But it flunked even before that, as anyone who actually read Mill knows (quoting Mill: “The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference are exercised only in making a choice.… The faculties are called into no exercise by doing a thing merely because others do it, no more than by believing a thing because others believe it.”) This sort of return-to-first-principles looks great in a college textbook—but anyone who tries to live that way quickly will be overwhelmed.
How do we know, Dalrymple asks, the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066? Well, we can find a host of secondary sources; possibly dig up some primary source. But, Mill could say, how do you know they are correct? English history is not my field, nor do I want to become an expert in it. Instead, I rely on the settled judgment of experts—in other words, prejudice. The same is true for science. I probably could prove Ohm’s law, but not much else. I “stand on the shoulder of giants” so as to not have to re-discover what theorists and inventors already did. This, too, is prejudice. But we never would leave the cradle without it.
Dalrymple reminds us that the close relative to non-prejudice is “nihilism.” Yet that comes from Ivan Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” I could say flatly concepts from Russian novels ought not to be our polestar, but the point is that the way Turgenev employs the term is quite similar to Mill, and equally dangerous.
[Added Sept 21: I later came across this quote from a 1960 William F. Buckley essay, “In the End, We Will Bury Him”—
“Last year, Mayor Wagner ostentatiously announced his refusal to greet Ibn Saud—on the grounds that Ibn Saud discriminates against Jews in Saudi Arabia, and no man who discriminates against Jews in Saudi Arabia is going to be handled courteously by Bob Wagner, mayor of New York. Now, as everybody knows, what Nikita Khrushchev does to Jews is to kill them. On the other hand, he does much the same to Catholics and Protestants. Could THAT be why Mr. Wagner consented to honor Khrushchev? Khrushchev murders people without regard to race, color, or creed, and therefore whatever he is guilty of, he is not guilty of discrimination? is THAT the shape of the new rationality?”
Yes, Bill Buckley certainly called it.]
Dalrymple’s 126 page book ends by quoting the epigraph falsely credited to Burke: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” The author then provides one of those “which way, Western Man,” comparisons, via two syllogisms, copied here:
1) All prejudice is wrong.
The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice.
Therefore, the distinction between good and evil is wrong.
2) The distinction between good and evil is both inevitable and necessary for the exercise of virtue.
The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice.
Therefore, prejudice is necessary for the exercise of virtue.
Choose carefully.
December 28, 2019
"An effort to do the impossible—to expunge our minds from all preconception—is not merely doomed to failure, but affects our judgment in a baleful way. In order to prove to ourselves that we are not prejudiced, but have thought out everything for ourselves, as fully autonomous (if not responsible) human beings should, we have to reject the common maxims of life, common maxims that in many, though not all, cases preserve civilized relations." (124)Theodore Dalrymple, retired physician and former prison psychiatrist, argues that the contemporary conviction that all prejudice is inherently bad is not only wrong (for we cannot do without prejudices, one always replacing another, nor are they anything in themselves aside from the way we evaluate them based on their consequences), but the desire to remove all prejudice qua prejudice also often leads to worse outcomes than if we were willing to simply accept some prejudices (that is, conventions) that are, so the speak, tried and true. His almost aphoristic writing style is pleasant, but sometimes it prevents an argument from being worked out as much as it ought to be.
I also find that he sometimes takes his points a little too far. Most problematic, probably, is that it is not always clear who, exactly, he is addressing: are the people who are most vocally advocating against prejudice—say, against race- or gender-based prejudice—really always also committed to the complete eradication of all prejudice as such? Having said that, it is true that nowadays there is a strong and, here I agree with Dalrymple, often misguided tendency to abide only by one's own authority, to see one's own judgment as the pinnacle of what ought to be, and to ignore (be blinded to) the fact that, one really is always prejudiced—because we are fundamentally prejudiced. A prejudice against bearing children out of wedlock has largely disappeared—so is there no prejudice left, then? Of course, there is. The dominant prejudice now is that people should be free to have children in whatever way they please. None of these ideas is 'neutral'—that's the crucial point. There is no post-prejudice society, just as there is no unprejudiced person; not even in principle.
Does this mean that we should just give in to all our prejudices? Definitely not. We should replace ones that are bad; but we should also keep ones that are good—especially those that are fundamental to our living well together, to our functioning as a society. For this, we need the power of discrimination, in the old sense of the term, which power is precisely what is stake.
All in all, then, In Praise of Prejudice was more thought-provoking than consistently convincing and decisively argued, even though I'm inclined to agree with Dalrymple on a number of points.
January 14, 2009
Really fine thinking.
March 18, 2010
A very good book. Everyone should read it. Only 126 pages, but good stuff on every page.
September 12, 2013
One of the things I like about Dalrymple is that he knows how to rant in a succinct way...requiring a like-minded review.
http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres...
http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres...
Read
October 26, 2016I already reviewed other essays by Dalrymple and this one adds little to his standard pet peeves. I tend to agree with him, and since today I am in a bad mood I also think it is too late to save our society (or whatever is left of it)
January 25, 2009
In an era where judgments - let alone pre-formed judgments - is looked down upon, Mr. Dalrymple gives an elegant and pointed defense of the necessity of prejudices.
March 6, 2024
Grotendeels een doorslag van Leven aan de onderkant: Het systeem dat de onderklasse instandhoudt in de zin dat de afwezigheid van vooroordelen uitmondt in de afwezigheid van aansprakelijkheid: de inspraak van een kleuter in boodschappen ligt aan de basis van een eeuwige puberteit waarin alleen de eigen mening telt, zonder dat er verwachtingen zijn om aan te beantwoorden.
Met extra John Stuart Mills, vroegmodern profeet van het individualisme, die soms te optimistisch was over de menselijke natuur, maar realistisch genoeg om zijn theorieën niet tot het uiterste door te drijven.
Met extra John Stuart Mills, vroegmodern profeet van het individualisme, die soms te optimistisch was over de menselijke natuur, maar realistisch genoeg om zijn theorieën niet tot het uiterste door te drijven.
August 13, 2018
Excelente livro com reflexões pertinentes e uma leitura fácil e confortável. Em vários momentos o autor parece se tornar a voz que ecoa na minha cabeça! Meu primeiro livro do Dalrymple e adorei a forma de provocar com argumentos concretos!
January 28, 2023
Very interesting insights, will probably read again.
December 25, 2020
Click-bait title. Dalrymple sets up a scarecrow by painting prejudice with the broadest of strokes then proceeds to attack it by basically making very uncontroversial claims such as that not having solid opinions and moral principles is bad.
A little shallower and less well-argued than his other books, but a good read nonetheless.
A little shallower and less well-argued than his other books, but a good read nonetheless.
December 8, 2022
Every so often my thoughts grow starchy and stale, and I begin to worry if my opinions and sentiments are more reflective of a wider culture, programming them upon me, than as conclusions of my experiences and time introspecting. So I reach for the cultural right, a mental whetstone. Anthony Daniels' very pen name has some kind of disturbing English elitist sibilance that makes me reluctant to type it, but he's a very interesting writer and worth reading. Like my last experience with a contemporary figure of the cultural right, I can't say he's a 'good' writer stylistically. In need of an editor with a heavier hand.
This book is, in many ways, a classic conservative polemic against something that, perhaps, does not exist. Rick Roderick's excellent youtube lectures on postmodernism rebuke the idea of a modern, relativistic boogeyman - no-one believes everything is relative, and likewise, I'm not sure how standard an opinion it is that all prejudice is necessarily bad. But often an engaging thinker just needs a broad thesis to hit upon some brilliant insights, and this book is always pretty engaging, even if it is a lot of preaching to the choir.
I consider people like Daniels to be the better angels of the modern left. Disappointed idealism is at the heart of all conservatism. He's an excellent moralist, in the sense he can dish out the harsh truths. Perhaps too harsh - he refers glowingly to an old anthropological text, The Mountain People, while looking at the reviews her reveal its standing is fraught. So would I say I agree with everything he believes and want to read more of him to receive his wisdom? No. He's often persuasive, but I am not necessarily persuaded. That everyday logic and morality is baggy and riddled with contradiction is a belief I didn't need this book to enforce. The people who express those opinions tend to be, at best, miserable, and more often, objectionable in their own lovely way. But I appreciate this book gets a few gears turning.
Not having Kant's mind, it doesn't take much to wake me from my dogmatic slumber. But I appreciate this book gets a few gears turning.
This book is, in many ways, a classic conservative polemic against something that, perhaps, does not exist. Rick Roderick's excellent youtube lectures on postmodernism rebuke the idea of a modern, relativistic boogeyman - no-one believes everything is relative, and likewise, I'm not sure how standard an opinion it is that all prejudice is necessarily bad. But often an engaging thinker just needs a broad thesis to hit upon some brilliant insights, and this book is always pretty engaging, even if it is a lot of preaching to the choir.
I consider people like Daniels to be the better angels of the modern left. Disappointed idealism is at the heart of all conservatism. He's an excellent moralist, in the sense he can dish out the harsh truths. Perhaps too harsh - he refers glowingly to an old anthropological text, The Mountain People, while looking at the reviews her reveal its standing is fraught. So would I say I agree with everything he believes and want to read more of him to receive his wisdom? No. He's often persuasive, but I am not necessarily persuaded. That everyday logic and morality is baggy and riddled with contradiction is a belief I didn't need this book to enforce. The people who express those opinions tend to be, at best, miserable, and more often, objectionable in their own lovely way. But I appreciate this book gets a few gears turning.
Not having Kant's mind, it doesn't take much to wake me from my dogmatic slumber. But I appreciate this book gets a few gears turning.
February 26, 2018
Theodore Dalrymple is a marvelous essayist, but he is at his best when he allows his mind to wander freely onto whatever topic catches his interest. Thus, his best books are collections of essays on various and diverse topics, typically collected from his periodic online and print essays over time.
As he himself put it in Farewell Fear,
As he himself put it in Farewell Fear,
“Whenever it is imperatively necessary for me to read a book pursuant to something I am currently writing about, I immediately lose interest in it… and then I want to read about something else entirely.This book is different. Although structured as short essays, clearly Dalrymple forced himself to sit down and write a collection of essays on a common theme. It is still very good, but not as good as his best work.
Often I read more than one book at a time. When I tire of one I fly to another. My mind is magpie-like, attracted by what shines for a moment”
October 11, 2009
Dalrymple's main point is that we've thrown the baby (the good kinds of discrimination) with the bathwater (the bad kinds of discrimination). While I don't always agree with him, I found his discussion of the way we've grown overly-dependent on law as the giver of morality interesting. "There's no law against it" has become the byword of those who want to act rudely and selfishly. He thinks that some prejudices (not liking when people put their feet up in the train or wake you with their music) are good. He says that it is a delusion to think that we can live without making non-fact based judgments. As he writes "Unfortunately, no system of ethical propositions, or any other system of propositions, can exist without presuppositions, that is to say, prejudices." He claims that in our rush to rid ourselves of all presuppositions, we've just tended to replace good ones (it's not okay to put your feet up in the train) with bad ones (it's okay to put your feet up) 6/09
August 7, 2008
Dalrymple provides a scathing critique of the progressivist notion of Cartesian intellectual-autonomy and the resulting effects it has had on Western culture.
March 24, 2012
Dalrymple has the expert touch.
April 24, 2015
Dalrymple posed some very thought-provoking statements and examples. An interesting book for sure!
December 23, 2016
Muito bom. Que aprendamos com um agnóstico o valor de ter preconceitos quando os conceitos forem bíblicos.
April 9, 2018
It's almost impossible to say anything about Dalrymple's writing that hasn't already been said. It's interesting, persuasive, and very enjoyable to read. This is a great little book.
May 7, 2020
Ótima reflexão sobre um dogma moderno: o fato de negar todo e qualquer preconceito ser um bem em si mesmo. Dalrymple nos mostra que para além de ser uma proposição infantil, ela é falsa.
July 18, 2020
A afirmação “não julgue um livro por sua capa”, ou melhor, pelo seu título, nunca fez tanto sentido. No atual mundo do politicamente incorreto, o uso da palavra preconceito está fortemente relacionado ao sentido pejorativo. Quem tem preconceito é intolerante.
Neste ensaio, Theodore Dalrymple fala sobre a importância de se transmitir alguns preconceitos de geração em geração, para a manutenção de uma sociedade saudável. Por exemplo, porque alguém questionaria o fato de se apertar o interruptor e uma lâmpada acender. Nossos antepassados já descobriram o funcionamento da energia, ja inventaram a lâmpada e finalmente, sabem como acendê-la. Tentar redescobrir esse processo seria pura perda de tempo.
O livro não trata sobre discriminações (raciais, religiosas etc.), machismo, homofobia, xenofobia etc... A proposta é firmar no leitor a importância que conceitos pré-estabelecidos, ou conhecimentos anteriores não devem ser desprezados pela simples necessidade de se criticar ou questionar tudo, “o sábio questiona aquelas coisas que merecem questionamentos.”
Vejamos então, alguns preconceitos que o autor trata, e quais implicações ao abandoná-los.
Com o advento das redes sociais, surgem cada vez mais os críticos para todos os assuntos. Dalrymple esclarece que o crítico cético em sua maioria não está preocupado pela busca da verdade, mas apenas em esconder suas preferências pessoais: “Ao menos hoje em dia, o cético radical não se interessa tanto assim pela verdade, mas importa-se muito mais com a sua liberdade— o que vale dizer, uma liberdade concebida como o mais amplo campo para a satisfação de seus caprichos.”
Referente aos valores que muitas vezes os pais deixam de passar para seus filhos, delegando para as crianças decisões as quais, elas sequer têm a maturidade necessária para tomá-las, Dalrymple defende que tanto no âmbito familiar quanto no escolar, é necessário instilar os preconceitos corretos nessas crianças, para que possam fazer escolhas melhores ao longo de sua vida: “Ao abdicar de sua responsabilidade dessa forma, em nome de não passar os seus próprios preconceitos e pressuposições às crianças, e para não impor sua própria visão sobre o que é certo, esses pais encarceram os seus filhos dentro do círculo das preferências infantis.” Imagine a vida adulta dessas crianças!
Atualmente existe uma grande preocupação em não ser visto como intolerante, daí a necessidade de se auto proclamar uma pessoa sem preconceitos. Pura falácia, pois o conceito contra o preconceito já é um preconceito em sim, e Dalrymple afirma que não existe a ausência do preconceito: “Derrubar determinado preconceito não significa destruir o preconceito enquanto tal. Na verdade, implica inculcar outro preconceito.”
Ainda nessa mesma linha, o autor chama a atenção para o perigo em se preocupar mais com a fala do que com as ações, desta forma um crápula pode ser considerado bonzinho, desde que não fale preconceituosamente: “Isso contribuiu para que se criasse uma atmosfera moral na qual a simples enunciação de sentimentos virtuosos (e de abjuração da crueldade) fosse confundida (ou tomada como) a virtude em si. Portanto, tudo bem se alguém for um crápula inescrupuloso, pois desde que expresse as palavras certas, isto é, demonstra não ter preconceito, tudo estará bem.”
Nos relacionamentos amorosos, por vezes, abdicar do preconceito pode ser ainda mais danoso. Como exemplo o autor apresenta a situação onde uma mulher se envolve com um homem sabidamente violento, mas ela abre mão do preconceito e mergulha num relacionamento abusivo, que poderá lhe custar a vida: “Elas aceitaram, talvez sem o saber, o preconceito moderno contra o preconceito, um preconceito que, no caso delas, poderia tê-las poupado de espancamentos e por vezes da morte.”
Os 29 capítulos do livro são curtos, de fácil entendimento e sempre deixam claro que “as palavras movem, mas os exemplos arrastam”.
Neste ensaio, Theodore Dalrymple fala sobre a importância de se transmitir alguns preconceitos de geração em geração, para a manutenção de uma sociedade saudável. Por exemplo, porque alguém questionaria o fato de se apertar o interruptor e uma lâmpada acender. Nossos antepassados já descobriram o funcionamento da energia, ja inventaram a lâmpada e finalmente, sabem como acendê-la. Tentar redescobrir esse processo seria pura perda de tempo.
O livro não trata sobre discriminações (raciais, religiosas etc.), machismo, homofobia, xenofobia etc... A proposta é firmar no leitor a importância que conceitos pré-estabelecidos, ou conhecimentos anteriores não devem ser desprezados pela simples necessidade de se criticar ou questionar tudo, “o sábio questiona aquelas coisas que merecem questionamentos.”
Vejamos então, alguns preconceitos que o autor trata, e quais implicações ao abandoná-los.
Com o advento das redes sociais, surgem cada vez mais os críticos para todos os assuntos. Dalrymple esclarece que o crítico cético em sua maioria não está preocupado pela busca da verdade, mas apenas em esconder suas preferências pessoais: “Ao menos hoje em dia, o cético radical não se interessa tanto assim pela verdade, mas importa-se muito mais com a sua liberdade— o que vale dizer, uma liberdade concebida como o mais amplo campo para a satisfação de seus caprichos.”
Referente aos valores que muitas vezes os pais deixam de passar para seus filhos, delegando para as crianças decisões as quais, elas sequer têm a maturidade necessária para tomá-las, Dalrymple defende que tanto no âmbito familiar quanto no escolar, é necessário instilar os preconceitos corretos nessas crianças, para que possam fazer escolhas melhores ao longo de sua vida: “Ao abdicar de sua responsabilidade dessa forma, em nome de não passar os seus próprios preconceitos e pressuposições às crianças, e para não impor sua própria visão sobre o que é certo, esses pais encarceram os seus filhos dentro do círculo das preferências infantis.” Imagine a vida adulta dessas crianças!
Atualmente existe uma grande preocupação em não ser visto como intolerante, daí a necessidade de se auto proclamar uma pessoa sem preconceitos. Pura falácia, pois o conceito contra o preconceito já é um preconceito em sim, e Dalrymple afirma que não existe a ausência do preconceito: “Derrubar determinado preconceito não significa destruir o preconceito enquanto tal. Na verdade, implica inculcar outro preconceito.”
Ainda nessa mesma linha, o autor chama a atenção para o perigo em se preocupar mais com a fala do que com as ações, desta forma um crápula pode ser considerado bonzinho, desde que não fale preconceituosamente: “Isso contribuiu para que se criasse uma atmosfera moral na qual a simples enunciação de sentimentos virtuosos (e de abjuração da crueldade) fosse confundida (ou tomada como) a virtude em si. Portanto, tudo bem se alguém for um crápula inescrupuloso, pois desde que expresse as palavras certas, isto é, demonstra não ter preconceito, tudo estará bem.”
Nos relacionamentos amorosos, por vezes, abdicar do preconceito pode ser ainda mais danoso. Como exemplo o autor apresenta a situação onde uma mulher se envolve com um homem sabidamente violento, mas ela abre mão do preconceito e mergulha num relacionamento abusivo, que poderá lhe custar a vida: “Elas aceitaram, talvez sem o saber, o preconceito moderno contra o preconceito, um preconceito que, no caso delas, poderia tê-las poupado de espancamentos e por vezes da morte.”
Os 29 capítulos do livro são curtos, de fácil entendimento e sempre deixam claro que “as palavras movem, mas os exemplos arrastam”.
August 15, 2021
Another cracker from Dalrymple- although I’ve downgraded it to 4 stars because a) I didn’t agree with all of his arguments- I think he pushes the definition of the word “prejudice” too far and tries to extrapolate from that, meaning that his argument doesn’t always hold water, and b) it is very densely written and sometimes hard to follow.
His argument overall does seem to make sense though. Here’s his final syllogism:
1. “The distinction between good and evil is both inevitable and necessary for the exercise of virtue.”- yep.
2. “The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice”- he spends a long time arguing for this. I think he just about proves this point. For instance, he shows that prejudice against prejudice is deemed virtuous by most. But in trying not to judge, one is judging! He shows that moral judgements are inevitable. I think that’s right.
3. “Therefore, prejudice is necessary for the exercise of virtue”. This does logically follow from his second point. And the more I think about it, the more I think he is right.
You can’t say something is good or bad unless you are being “prejudiced” in some way.
An interesting yet challenging read! Short though.
His argument overall does seem to make sense though. Here’s his final syllogism:
1. “The distinction between good and evil is both inevitable and necessary for the exercise of virtue.”- yep.
2. “The distinction between good and evil can be based only on prejudice”- he spends a long time arguing for this. I think he just about proves this point. For instance, he shows that prejudice against prejudice is deemed virtuous by most. But in trying not to judge, one is judging! He shows that moral judgements are inevitable. I think that’s right.
3. “Therefore, prejudice is necessary for the exercise of virtue”. This does logically follow from his second point. And the more I think about it, the more I think he is right.
You can’t say something is good or bad unless you are being “prejudiced” in some way.
An interesting yet challenging read! Short though.
June 4, 2022
There is not much about this book that I find objectionable, but it was different from what I expected and hoped it to be. I was excited to pick up a dense book of polemics, with compelling criticisms of steelman arguments for nonjudgmentalism paired with a forceful defense of prejudice.
If that is what you are looking for too, In Praise of Prejudice is going to leave you unsatisfied. Dr. Dalrymple’s book builds, understandably, on his clinical experience as a psychiatrist. It consists mainly of a series of demonstrations of the harm caused by nonjudgmentalism in the real world, rather than a series of philosophical arguments proving the validity of prejudice as a concept (though it does present a few of those, as well—just not in depth). In this regard, In Praise of Prejudice is similar to Dalrymple’s other book, Life at the Bottom—although more concise.
All things considered, this is not a bad book. I don’t regret reading it, I think I’m better off for having done so, and I am probably going to recommend it to others at some point in the future. It’s just not as impressive or impactful as I’d hoped it would be.
If that is what you are looking for too, In Praise of Prejudice is going to leave you unsatisfied. Dr. Dalrymple’s book builds, understandably, on his clinical experience as a psychiatrist. It consists mainly of a series of demonstrations of the harm caused by nonjudgmentalism in the real world, rather than a series of philosophical arguments proving the validity of prejudice as a concept (though it does present a few of those, as well—just not in depth). In this regard, In Praise of Prejudice is similar to Dalrymple’s other book, Life at the Bottom—although more concise.
All things considered, this is not a bad book. I don’t regret reading it, I think I’m better off for having done so, and I am probably going to recommend it to others at some point in the future. It’s just not as impressive or impactful as I’d hoped it would be.
May 11, 2020
A superb defence of a much abused term: 'Prejudice'. It is needed in a functioning society because we cannot live efficiently without underlying assumptions which manifest as prejudice. Many prejudices are wrong, often bad; but some are useful. You cannot approach every aspect of life as though you are engaged in a Socratic dialogue to find out what is true. Life is too short. This book is also a critique of the idea of a constantly examined life, arrogant individualism and self-absorbed modernity. A significant work that to some extent runs counter to the ideas of John Stuart Mill, paragon of Liberty. Clear and concise.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews