Humans are story telling creatures. A big part of what it means to be reflectively (mimetically) self conscious involves our capacity to imagine other realities and to generate explanations (often in story form) for our sense impressions of the world (our curated “reality”). Plato, an inveterate story teller himself, is famous for his distrust of story tellers and dramatists. And… before systemic prose philosophers like Plato, stories were curated, controlled, and fostered by societies where what we now call governance, tradition, and religion were not strictly delineated from each other.
Plato represents a milestone in a long transition involving separating mythos and nomos from logos (myth and law from reasoned logic — or from various versions of “reasoned logic”). While I wouldn’t argue that mythological thinking (story telling that follows grammars and transitions more related to power and emotion than to “cool reason”) is always self deceptive or even totally irrational, I would argue that it arises more spontaneously in humans than does “logos” (which often requires certain levels of literacy, training, study, and discipline in bodies of knowledge and tradition.) Illiberal pponents of logos and the Enlightenment are also far from ENTIRELY wrong when the point out that formal logic and dispassionate reasoning are not simply often inadequate to understanding and dealing with our physical and cultural environments, they (logic and reason) can also be sources of both fallacy and deception.
So, in udder words, I beg to differ!
Simpliticus: We are not the stories we tell ourselves we are!
I absolutely agree with you that logic and reason can be sources of fallacy and deception! In the piece, though, I wasn't as much trying to target a specific mode of being self conscious -- it seems like you think there are at least two, I'm not so sure about this -- as I was trying to draw out a tension between what people like Plato seem to appreciate, namely, this 'delphic' self-knowledge, and self deception. If self-knowledge must be an achievement, and self-deception seems so obvious to us, how can it be self-knowledge? It seems we have to give up our view of what one or the other is.
More abstractly, though, this might actually be a point of agreement if I understand you properly. Though I might not draw the distinction in the same way, it is far from obvious that we can derive self knowledge, especially that special delphic self-knowledge, from 'cool reasoning.' Cool reasoning would, rather, seem to require that we abstract away from everything personal about us, taking up some impersonal and detached stance.
You probably shouldn’t take me too seriously because I’m pretty sure I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think I’m worried about/convinced of/resigned to the notion that self deception is as inevitable as ignorance when it comes to the human encounter with ourselves and our environments. To the extent this is a somewhat valid thing to say, I think, is based on the ways we can be conscious of ourselves in the first place. Most forms of what we think of as consciousness are a means of focusing on certain sense impressions which involve excluding or filtering out other sense impressions. This is arguably true of all sentient beings whereas humans also have something that can be called reflective (or mimetic) self consciousness. This kind of
‘awareness of awareness’ is probably related to our linguistic capacity. So even at that level there are many possible sources of error starting with the fallibility/unreliablity of our sense organs but also in the many ways we can interpret sense impressions, then remember them, and then integrate them with other sense impressions. But our linguistic abilities are also socially, religiously, politically, ideologically, (culturally) embedded so that brings to bear entire hierarchies of possible error and self deception. Formal logic as an individual discipline and the scientific method as a set of cultural practices are useful ways to try to identify, try to prevent, and correct certain types of errors. They are not foolproof. They can be misused intentionally and inadvertently. Since the Enlightenment these types of “rational” error corrections and controls have been protected because they have been profitably instrumentalized by those seeking to benefit from concentrated power and also by those who seek protections FROM concentrated power. Both sides though tend to conflate error correction and control with the pursuit of “truth” (a concept with a lot of theistic entanglements—which lead to a passel of other conceptual/moral/cultural problems.)
Ah! Nonsense! I assure you that I am the one who doesn't know what he's talking about! :)
I don't mean to say that self-deception is as inevitable as ignorance. I don't know whether it is inevitable! I think it does, however, present us with a problem as knowers. I mean to argue, here, less that self-deception is inevitable and we must worry about it on that front--rather, I am trying to say that the CASE of someone's escaping self deception doesn't fit clearly into what we take to be knowledge.
I also get the sense you are worried about the treating of 'logic' as foolproof. I am worried about this too. I've taught high schoolers, and they very often preface a point that happens to be incorrect by saying: "well, logically..." However, I have trouble seeing the connection between this thought and self-deception/self-knowledge. Could I ask you to spend a bit more time talking about that?
But of course (long after Plato) stories are still controlled curated and supported by society in the form of corporations, ideologies, governments, and religions etc. (Plato, of course, approved of this. He just wanted people like himself to be in charge of the process.)
This is such an interesting topic, and you write so well! It’s amazing how often humans lie to themselves, almost like we’re trying to avoid facing certain truths!
Well, so you've just decided the topic of my next piece. What an interesting thought! Yes, we would be 'better off' in the sense that we could no longer lie to ourselves, but you're right that it would make life dull. I wonder what particularly would become dull? Is the worry that it makes all self-knowledge the easy-to-get kind?
Yes, if life were easy or if knowledge came easily, we wouldn’t grow as people.These ideas and concepts wouldn’t emerge. It’s the challenges and uncertainties that make life interesting.
And I’ll be taking credit for your next post haha!
Humans are story telling creatures. A big part of what it means to be reflectively (mimetically) self conscious involves our capacity to imagine other realities and to generate explanations (often in story form) for our sense impressions of the world (our curated “reality”). Plato, an inveterate story teller himself, is famous for his distrust of story tellers and dramatists. And… before systemic prose philosophers like Plato, stories were curated, controlled, and fostered by societies where what we now call governance, tradition, and religion were not strictly delineated from each other.
Plato represents a milestone in a long transition involving separating mythos and nomos from logos (myth and law from reasoned logic — or from various versions of “reasoned logic”). While I wouldn’t argue that mythological thinking (story telling that follows grammars and transitions more related to power and emotion than to “cool reason”) is always self deceptive or even totally irrational, I would argue that it arises more spontaneously in humans than does “logos” (which often requires certain levels of literacy, training, study, and discipline in bodies of knowledge and tradition.) Illiberal pponents of logos and the Enlightenment are also far from ENTIRELY wrong when the point out that formal logic and dispassionate reasoning are not simply often inadequate to understanding and dealing with our physical and cultural environments, they (logic and reason) can also be sources of both fallacy and deception.
So, in udder words, I beg to differ!
Simpliticus: We are not the stories we tell ourselves we are!
Sagiaccio: Yeah, but what good do dat do me?
I absolutely agree with you that logic and reason can be sources of fallacy and deception! In the piece, though, I wasn't as much trying to target a specific mode of being self conscious -- it seems like you think there are at least two, I'm not so sure about this -- as I was trying to draw out a tension between what people like Plato seem to appreciate, namely, this 'delphic' self-knowledge, and self deception. If self-knowledge must be an achievement, and self-deception seems so obvious to us, how can it be self-knowledge? It seems we have to give up our view of what one or the other is.
More abstractly, though, this might actually be a point of agreement if I understand you properly. Though I might not draw the distinction in the same way, it is far from obvious that we can derive self knowledge, especially that special delphic self-knowledge, from 'cool reasoning.' Cool reasoning would, rather, seem to require that we abstract away from everything personal about us, taking up some impersonal and detached stance.
You probably shouldn’t take me too seriously because I’m pretty sure I don’t know what I’m talking about, but I think I’m worried about/convinced of/resigned to the notion that self deception is as inevitable as ignorance when it comes to the human encounter with ourselves and our environments. To the extent this is a somewhat valid thing to say, I think, is based on the ways we can be conscious of ourselves in the first place. Most forms of what we think of as consciousness are a means of focusing on certain sense impressions which involve excluding or filtering out other sense impressions. This is arguably true of all sentient beings whereas humans also have something that can be called reflective (or mimetic) self consciousness. This kind of
‘awareness of awareness’ is probably related to our linguistic capacity. So even at that level there are many possible sources of error starting with the fallibility/unreliablity of our sense organs but also in the many ways we can interpret sense impressions, then remember them, and then integrate them with other sense impressions. But our linguistic abilities are also socially, religiously, politically, ideologically, (culturally) embedded so that brings to bear entire hierarchies of possible error and self deception. Formal logic as an individual discipline and the scientific method as a set of cultural practices are useful ways to try to identify, try to prevent, and correct certain types of errors. They are not foolproof. They can be misused intentionally and inadvertently. Since the Enlightenment these types of “rational” error corrections and controls have been protected because they have been profitably instrumentalized by those seeking to benefit from concentrated power and also by those who seek protections FROM concentrated power. Both sides though tend to conflate error correction and control with the pursuit of “truth” (a concept with a lot of theistic entanglements—which lead to a passel of other conceptual/moral/cultural problems.)
Ah! Nonsense! I assure you that I am the one who doesn't know what he's talking about! :)
I don't mean to say that self-deception is as inevitable as ignorance. I don't know whether it is inevitable! I think it does, however, present us with a problem as knowers. I mean to argue, here, less that self-deception is inevitable and we must worry about it on that front--rather, I am trying to say that the CASE of someone's escaping self deception doesn't fit clearly into what we take to be knowledge.
I also get the sense you are worried about the treating of 'logic' as foolproof. I am worried about this too. I've taught high schoolers, and they very often preface a point that happens to be incorrect by saying: "well, logically..." However, I have trouble seeing the connection between this thought and self-deception/self-knowledge. Could I ask you to spend a bit more time talking about that?
But of course (long after Plato) stories are still controlled curated and supported by society in the form of corporations, ideologies, governments, and religions etc. (Plato, of course, approved of this. He just wanted people like himself to be in charge of the process.)
This is such an interesting topic, and you write so well! It’s amazing how often humans lie to themselves, almost like we’re trying to avoid facing certain truths!
Oh it's absolutely my favorite topic in philosophy! I do wish we were without it though, haha -- things would be *much* easier!
Easier but so dull haha
Well, so you've just decided the topic of my next piece. What an interesting thought! Yes, we would be 'better off' in the sense that we could no longer lie to ourselves, but you're right that it would make life dull. I wonder what particularly would become dull? Is the worry that it makes all self-knowledge the easy-to-get kind?
Yes, if life were easy or if knowledge came easily, we wouldn’t grow as people.These ideas and concepts wouldn’t emerge. It’s the challenges and uncertainties that make life interesting.
And I’ll be taking credit for your next post haha!