On Self Deception

1. There is the me only I see and know.

2. There is the me only others see and know.

3. There is the me that both I and others see and know.

4. There is the me that neither I nor others see and know.

Herbert Fingarette (Self Deception, 1959) used the concept of “avowal” to describe self deception. We do not view everything we do or think or say as equally central to ourselves. We disavow (consciously or unconsciously) some parts of who we are by saying “I wasn’t really being myself.” So we might begin our investigation of self deception by questioning the idea or ideal of the “unity” of the self. In other words, we must learn to accept the contradictions of the self. Yet we must not give up on moving towards self definition.

... a self deceiver — indeed, each of us — is a community of subselves that are organized clusters of desires, attitudes, emotions, beliefs, and purposes; each of which can be expressed in semi-independence from other clusters. In self deception, a wider community of selves shuns a subself unacceptable to it ... one person can play the two roles of deceiver and deceived. Yet the subselves should not be viewed as so autonomous and dissociated as those involved in multiple personalities.

Martin, Self Deception and Morality

Stephen Crane, better known for his novel, The Red Badge of Courage than for his poetry, yet reflects his attitudes on self deception in most of his poetry, as we heard at the beginning, and again here:

There were many who went

There were many who went in huddled procession.
They knew not whither;
But, at any rate, success or calamity
Would attend all in equality.

There was one who sought a new road.
He went into direful thickets,
And ultimately he died thus, alone;
But they said he had courage.

“Truth,” said a traveller

““Truth,” said a traveller,
“Is a rock, a mighty fortress;
Often have I been to it,
Even to its highest tower,
From whence the world looks black.”

“Truth,” said a traveller,
“Is a breath, a wind,
A shadow, a phantom;
Long have I pursued it,
But never have I touched
The hem of its garment.”

And I believed the second traveller;
For truth was to me
A breath, a wind,
A shadow, a phantom,
And never had I touched
The hem of its garment.

I was in the darkness

I was in the darkness;
I could not see my words
Nor the wishes of my heart.
Then suddenly there was a great light–
“Let me into the darkness again.”

I met a seer

I met a seer.
He held in his hands
The Book of Wisdom.
“Sir,” I addressed him,
Let me read.
Child”– he began.
“Sir,” I said,
“Think not that I am a child,
For already I know much
Of that which you hold.
Aye, much.”
He smiled.
Then he opened the book
And held it before me. —
Strange that I should have grown so suddenly blind.

Although having a healthy skepticism toward “ultimate Truth” is necessary, it is not enough. Ancient wisdom views self understanding as the basis for morally significant life. Therefore, we must examine its practice by us more carefully. Our evasion of self acknowledgment happens in numerous ways, including, to name a few: willful ignorance, systematic ignoring, emotional detachment, self pretense, and rationalization.

... Sometimes self deceivers obscure their understanding of the concepts they use in forming beliefs. George Orwell had this in mind when he defined double-think as the power to hold two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accept both of them. Orwell contended that in the real world of politics, as in his imaginary world of 1984, language and concepts were being systematically abused in order to form contradictory ideas about freedom, government coercion, and war. He identified the use of a subtle mixture of conscious obfuscation and more–unconscious self deception:

To use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.

(Martin, p21-23)

David Hume once reported a not uncommon experience in doing philosophy:

‘There are two principles, which I cannot render consistent; nor is it in my power to renounce either of them.

Beyond this traditional wisdom, however, we are all prone to avoid truth when it threatens our self esteem or sense of well being. Genuine self understanding requires a willingness to confront our own evasion of ourselves and the world. Mike Martin, in his excellent book, Self Deception and Morality defines self deception as “the evasion of acknowledging to oneself the truth.”

Martin analyzes the four main traditions concerning self deception:

(Martin, p. 5)

The central themes in this “Vital Lies” tradition are expressed in nine theses by Martin:

1. Because it is inevitable that factors other than evidence influence belief formation and because vital human needs are frequently served by self deception, much self deception is inescapable.

2. People who are incapable of self deception are probably incapable of romantic love and certain other forms of loyalty and dedication, or at least substantially less capable than they otherwise would be.

3. The degree to which people ought to be guided by evidence and truth-centered desires (i.e., desires to obtain, acknowledge, and live by the truth) is not a purely factual matter. It can be decided only by a value judgment. Even if some people consistently choose to base their beliefs rigorously on the available evidence, they are still doing so because of a value commitment about what ought to guide belief formation.

4. A good deal of self deception is morally permissible, especially when its motives are morally permissible, its foreseeable consequences are not harmful, and no moral obligations are violated.

5. Self deception can be a morally admirable response, even a heroic response, to a difficult or tragic situation. Clearly this is so where altruism is the motive, other options are more undesirable, and an intended good is achieved through the self deception.

6. Occasionally people morally ought to engage in self deception if there is no other realistic way for them to meet important moral obligations. (Although rare.)

7. Attacking or trying to remove the self deceptions of other people can sometimes be mischievous, immoral, self righteously hypocritical, or disastrous.

8. It is often permissible and occasionally morally obligatory to encourage, support, or foster self deception in other people, especially where the self deception is a desperate last resort in coping with difficult situations or a stopgap in dealing with a crisis. (This can lead to indifference or patronizing behavior.)

9. It is reasonable to engage in self deception when it provides the most effective way to avoid actions that morally ought not to be done. More generally, when self deception is morally permissible and serves rational desires or needs, it is rational to engage in it so long as there are no overriding bad consequences in doing so and as long as no better options are available.

Yet it is unlikely that self deception may function exclusively in this positive way. The reality is that self deception often causes harm to oneself or others. When it threatens or handicaps life it should be rejected. What we need, as ably stated by Amelie Rorty:

is not the wholesale substitution of self knowledge for self deception, but the gifts of timing and tact required to emphasize the right one in the appropriate place.

(Inquiry, 1975)

Nor is self deception an individual problem only. Institutions, countries, cultures have often suffered or perished due to the inability to know themselves, the failure to define the contradictions, ambiguities, and identities within them.

Our time has seen the reality of this in the acceptance of reductionistic practices–simplistically reducing and narrowing a problem or issue to one idea, person, or event. While journalism aids us by investigating and printing information we might not know, it often reduces the issue to popularize it among a public seeking simplicity.

I would be remiss not to mention how institutions, countries, cultures have often surrendered or even perished because of their inability or unwillingness to know themselves, their contradictions, ambiguities and identities. I think our culture and nation are very much in danger because of this today. How are we as a nation seen by others? How is the arrogance of our current administration seen by others? In a British poll this week, in which people were to name the most dangerous world leader, both the President of Iran and the Premier of North Korea came in behind the person chosen as the most dangerous man in the world – our President!

Finally, let me suggest that whether the context is a corporate or individual one, some guidelines will serve us well.

Each of the four traditions conveys insights into when self deceivers are or are not dishonest in morally culpable ways . . . writers in the Inner Hypocrisy Tradition . . . exaggerated when they claimed that all self deception is immoral . . . members of the Authenticity Tradition . . . failed to establish authenticity as the sole or supreme value or even in all respects as a distinctively moral requirement. . . . The Moral Ambiguity Tradition erred in viewing responsibility for self deception as inherently ambiguous or opaque. And contrary to the Vital Lie Tradition, even useful self deception remains a failure of rationality in a sense centered on the commitment to truth.

Being honest with ourselves is difficult because evading truth is often attractive and easy. Avoiding dishonesty with ourselves demands both more and less than avoiding all self deception.

. ... we may shape our character and lives autonomously on the basis of confronting significant truths and avoid passively modeling ourselves on social conventions or limiting ourselves to what we have been in the past.

. ... self deception . . . may be a necessary or expedient way of serving needs and important interests without harming anyone.

(Martin, p. 132 3)

For those of us in liberal religion we have some additional aids, to help us in this whole struggle.

Our central ideals of:

These serve, as well as other ideas, to support our efforts.

. ... [One resource] for promoting vital needs without self deception is the capacity for basing self esteem on a commitment to self honesty. Self esteem is a fundamental need in reflective beings, because without it there may be little concern for satisfying other vital needs. . . . [We may] base self esteem on a quest for self honesty and the will to avoid dishonest forms of self deception. After all, the need for self esteem usually generates a desire to value ourselves for what we really are. We want our characters and lives to have genuine significance, not a mere shadowy illusion of worth. Placing a commitment to self honesty at the heart of our self esteem assures us of a sense of self worth and serves as a way to increase self-understanding.

(Martin, p. 135–136)

At 71, Jorge Luis Borges had had such a copious literary career that he even grew a bit tired of himself. At least this is what he says in “Critical Essays on Jorge Luis Borges” (G. K. Hall), edited by Jaime Alazraki.

People have been unaccountably good to me. I have no enemies and if certain persons have masqueraded as such, they’ve been far too good natured to have ever pained me. Anytime I read something written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support. I have even secretly longed to write, under a pen name, a merciless tirade against myself. Ah, the unvarnished truths I harbor!

Readings (Accompanying this address)

At every step, one has to wrestle for truth; one has had to surrender almost everything to which the heart, to which our love, our trust in life cling otherwise. That requires greatness of soul: the service of truth is the hardest service.

-Nietzsche, The Antichrist

How little absolute sincerity is to be expected, even from persons otherwise honest, whenever their interest in any way bears on a matter, can be judged from the fact that we so often deceive ourselves where hope bribes us, or fear befools us, or suspicion torments us, or vanity flatters us, or a hypothesis infatuates and blinds us, or a small purpose close at hand interferes with one greater but more distant.

–Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation

It is no doubt an evil to be full of faults, but it is a still greater evil to be full of them and unwilling to recognize them, since this entails the further evil of deliberate self delusion.

–Blaise Pascal, Pensees

Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love. And in order to distract himself without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures and sinks to bestiality in his vices–all this from continual lying to other men and to himself.

–Father Zossima in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov

By a lie a man makes himself contemptible–by an outer lie, in the eyes of others; by an inner lie, in his own eyes, which is worse still and violates the dignity of humanity in his own person.

–Kant

As long as there have been men and they have lived, they have all felt this tragic ambiguity of their condition, but as long as there have been philosophers and they have thought, most of them have tried to mask it.

–Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

With the truth, one cannot live. To be able to live one needs illusions. . . . This constantly effective process of self deceiving, pretending and blundering, is no psychopathological mechanism, but the essence of reality.

–Otto Rank, Truth and Reality

Take away the life lie from the average person, and you take his happiness along with it.”

–Dr. Rellings in Ibsen’s, The Wild Duck

Truth is not always so punitive. . . . There may be truths on the side of life. I am quite prepared to admit that being habitual liars and self deluders, we have good cause to fear the truth, but I’m not at all ready to stop hoping. There may be some truths which are, after all, our friends in the universe.

–Saul Bellow

We were never more free than during the German occupation. . . . Because we were hunted down, every one of our gestures had the weight of a solemn commitment. . . . And the choice that each of us made of life and of being was an authentic choice because it was made face to face with death.

–Sartre

For my part if there is a single instinct in me that is stronger than any of the rest, it is the instinctive desire to be truthful with myself and others. I will not be self deceived. I will look life straight in the eye.

–Felix Adler

UUC Home Page