Briggs Air Vane Governor

"The prejudices of the individual, far more than his judgments, they are the truth of his being"
(Hans Georg Gadamer)

certainly can not say that prejudices enjoy a good reputation. If even defects such as intolerance, or even real crimes such as racism, you are willing to even admit to a slight contamination with adversative sentences like "I'm tolerant, but ..." "I'm not a racist, but ... "is very unusual for someone to relativize their ability to recognize and avoid them. They are so numerous and so serious criticism to which they are facts that all or nearly all, are careful not admit of being infected in any way. The metaphors that are harmful aspects have nothing to envy in negativity to those who suggest the Deadly Sins, the "wedding of evil" as Aristotle calls them. They are "wearing", it is believed, as you put blinders on and blinkers, we all know, foolishly restrict our attention, we deny the overview of each of us, we still believe, could have, only the wanted. The prejudices, we still know, as glasses are deforming, and every time we put them preclude us look at things as they are, we see the world of facts, and ideas of bodies, but only one crippled by the filter of misleading fake glasses.
Who then has the ambition to uncover the rational conceptual errors that preaches them based on the absence in that which characterizes them, or should characterize the true, the authentic exercise of thinking: the thinking, the ponderosa and discern. In their place will be fixed ideas about mechanisms that can not be blocked or influenced by reasoning nor by experience. Therefore reflects a radical form of unconsciousness and absolutely not because it would leave to remove or experience or by reasoning.

Because they are so considered the emblem of all ignorance and narrow-mindedness, is very seldom the case in which someone calmly accept and recognize their own to draw the necessary consequences. The mote in our neighbor is known to be much more visibility of its beam. And so, in general, yes hunts them only where they are most obvious: those that occur in the attitudes and arguments of others. The prey is easy because it's easy to be right when you report an injury. It is, on closer inspection, the same ease of a thought supported by a preliminary scheme: we shall immediately and without much effort no doubt review.
In fact, if you really intend to hunt them down, should pursue, hunt down and kill all the prejudices, not just those that seem most obvious, even their own then. Among the latter is certainly one can mention more subtle bias, namely the prejudice against prejudice: not so sure, on reflection, that they are so useless and harmful as people think. At negative bias against them certainly contributes to, in turn, biased overestimation of what is commonly meant by legal proceedings. An assessment differs from the injury, it would even be the opposite, because it would be the result of pure reflection, careful consideration and discernment. It would be short, the product of our attention is not limited on things, a look, therefore, able to seize them in their entirety and in their factuality. On the one hand, from the injury, we would find a partial perspective on reality and inattentive to what it actually is, and second, that of the trial, we find attention to both the totality of reality and its objective conformation. A trial, thus, is opposed to the injury of a virtually unassailable position: it would be the perfect product of ideal conditions as perfect. It is assumed that whoever is able to express an opinion free from bias, can open up their perspective and mind in every significant dimension of reality and can be abstracted from a particular perspective to capture the world of things, persons and ideas that are in themselves. So they arise independently gaze that observes and the mind that understands. This assumption can not itself be highly preconceptual, indeed quite illusory since it relies on a certain denied in the most radical experience and reason: the belief that man is able to break free from constraints, from associated with its contingency, its historicity, its temporality. Thinking outside the world in which we act and it is reflected that can not be the result of an illusion, namely dell'inammissibile claim to be able to enjoy a perspective outside of time and a clearly defined by precise boundaries. Remain in them, find a boundary after another limiting constantly looking perspective and makes it therefore unstable and constantly changed, is what characterizes the human condition and is also what marks its own judgments, not just their own prejudices.
For these reasons, a closer look, judgments and prejudices between the distance is not so great as is commonly believed, and differences were noted by more than a temporal level, primarily historical, not on the logic of reason. What distinguishes a review from an adverse effect is thus fundamentally related to time and space, not the rigor or completeness of knowledge with which you will get. The story, among many other things, teaches us how this than in the past was considered a case of course, eventually took the form of a preliminary knowledge. The history of science, for example, is nothing but the history of valid knowledge that over time, with "progress" were downgraded to limited knowledge knowledge based on erroneous and incomplete, therefore biased. The Galilean physics, just to mention one of the clearest examples in this regard, it seems to us both ruling and the result of a limited perspective, but rather what it replaced, namely the one that made us believe it was the sun going down over the ' horizon and not the earth to rotate around itself hiding. So much so that the prose of Galileo can be considered just like poetry, not science. The rest are still poetic texts they send us into ecstasy with just that enchanting sunsets and moons that we revel in its diverse forms.

The difference between a trial and an injury is detected in a given because their temporality is linked essentially to their duration: the longer a knowledge is valid and most live below the species of the trial. Each time you acquire new knowledge, every time you look at reality from different point of view, here the previous reviews seem inexorably in their capacity as prejudices. Why despise them just because, like all human affairs, their fate is time being, to stay in time and, therefore, to change? The age can never be neither a crime nor a reason to blame because that is what remains as indelible character of man and of all that concerns him. The war against prejudice, the struggle waged by the Enlightenment, would result in paradoxical forms based on a dream if it were human, too human, to be able to assign ratings divine prerogatives as finality, universality ol'atemporalità. What can combat irrational prejudices, biases and judgments that are not yet, is their acceptance as the possibility of knowledge and experience, not the illusion of their removal from the human condition. Already in the acceptance of their temporary nature and willingness to investigate the conditions quotas, is a gesture of knowledge given to the rationality that belongs to us. The more one is aware of the transience of all judgments, the more one is conscious of its dependence on the given conditions, the more there is need to compare judgments made in other conditions

Without ruling, however, expectations, without our limited and partial construction of what do not know better, there is the possibility of any knowledge. To meet each other or to face the unknown we need to figure using the few elements of knowledge we have. Only by comparing the representation made by the glimmer of our knowledge and that produced by subsequent knowledge allows us to understand things differently and, therefore, better. The revision of our prejudices opens us to a knowledge that changes the shape of our skyline. To be able to make any injury, and then have the ability to recognize it as such - for example, that the Anglo-Saxon food is bad or, conversely, that Italians do not know how to enjoy the pleasure to drink a coffee - it is imperative that an Italian has at least a vague idea of \u200b\u200bwhat are the blood pudding, or a UK has at least as seen in photos are the Italian bars. Only through the injury creates expectations that can then be confirmed and denied. Without the injury, there can certainly be no clash and no waste, but no meeting and no change in their positions. And it is precisely the injury while making conscious that there are other ways to eat or a drink. It is then up to everyone to decide for themselves what they like and whether and how to change their tastes.

You can then well be argued that the prejudices have their basic utilities: they are the indispensable first step of knowledge, provide opportunities to recognize it as a temporary and limited and therefore change; offer, ultimately, consciousness than is necessary in all its confirmation or its revision. The experience that we have leads to an awareness of radical criticism that there is no knowledge which may be recognized as the authority to impose themselves without being subjected to a review of current aspects of ruling.

Injuries have, however, a function which too often forgets the importance. And 'thank you to them if we can demonstrate and also reveal what we are helpless with all our limitations. In the prejudices we express no possibility of hiding in the guise of caution and certainty provide to the thought and experience shared. The certain knowledge that achieve consensus - the collective opinions that no one recognizes even in their capacity as prejudice - say nothing of us, hide what is ours distinguishes us and makes us unique. Any attempt to unify moves into the background what in us is more authentic and truthful. Our prejudices are a reflection of who we are with all our limitations, our limited possibilities. When we let our prejudices occur freely we can not lie, we can not put the mask of a faultless accuracy. It is then due to their free deployment that we recognize how we are and we can measure both the differences between us and them, between what is believe and what we believe. In this way we can offer is to compare ourselves with others, both to rebuild our location, our history. In this sense, the condemnation of the injury as a knowledge not true can not lead them to deny the truth: they speak of us, as we were, and how we have become. They teach us that we are on the way, rooted in the knowledge that reliable and stable is to ignore the path we are on.



1