Despite the claims of many, it is clear that people are not rational. Whilst many can make rational decision some of the time, we mostly act on irrational thoughts or are compelled by subconscious urges. If Freud taught us anything (and although there is debate as to what he taught us, there can be no debate as to whether he taught us anything), it is that our rationality is merely the surface reflection of the murky subconscious which dictates our moods and demands our action. This can be best illuminated through considering the morals standards through which people live their lives.
Most people consider themselves moral but live by arbitrary rules which contradict. Examples abound. One may recycle fervently yet still take multiple long-haul flights a year. Another may preach the virtues of globalisation and immigration as a liberalising force for world society, yet march on parliament when their job is outsourced. The fascist who has an immigrant friend who is “alright, not like the rest”, the liberal who blasts American foreign policy yet is strangely mute towards the actions of China and North Korea: the list can go on. The technical term for this is cognitive polyphasia; it can be summarised as the ability to think about the same issues in contradictory terms in different situations. I would not say this condition is endemic in, or has arisen due to, the modern era. This form of doublethink is an integral part of human nature.
The result of cognitive polyphasia is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort we feel when our rationality is faced with the contradictions in our thought. The only way to resolve this is to alter ones thought processes in order to reduce the difference between the opposing beliefs one holds. This can be achieved through dogmatic thinking (“It is obvious that America is a special case, it must be held to higher account than anyone else”), denial of facts (“I recycle that much, it must more than make up for my flights”) or just by refusing to acknowledge any such contradiction (“Just because I cheat on my wife from time to time doesn’t mean I don’t love/respect her”). This process is so innate that we rarely see or appreciate its occurrence. Even if we become aware of this process, our minds soon find ways to restore a logical balance. Nietzsche, succinct in his description of human nature as ever, sums up this procedure best: “’I have done that,’ says my memory. ‘I cannot have done that’ – says my pride, and remains adamant. At last – memory yields”.
Despite our claims for rationality, we have two processes at work within our minds which lead us to less than rational conclusions. Cognitive polyphasia allows us to hold conflicting views of the same phenomenon when viewed in different circumstances. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we feel when we realise this contradiction and alleviate it with self-deception. At times we allow rationality to rule and force ourselves to see our contradictions (or find ourselves in a situation where such a decision is forced). Our contradictions may be pointed out to us and held under such a bright light of enquiry we are forced to make up our mind, as it were. The human mind though rarely has such moments of clarity and these moments, for moments they are, are fleeting and far between. Nobody wants to be told they’re wrong, especially when the stakes are as high as one’s own moral judgement. It is amazing how ingenious the mind will be when placed under duress. One will allow oneself to believe vast errors in logic in order to maintain a veil of coherence in thinking. The cost of not self-deceiving is more than just damaging to one’s pride; it threatens the fabric of one’s professed morality.
As such we live our lives forever in contradiction; our internal demand to live by objective principals is achieved through a barely conscious self-deception when our subjective circumstances change. To cry out for an objective reality, for something real in which to base ourselves, is an element of the human condition. When reality shows us that our moral principles have no bearing to the reality in which we exist, our minds weave a sophistic tapestry so intricate we can rarely reveal it. As these acts of sophistry go on, as we weave our web of denial ever further and further, we lose sight of what the original contradiction was. The fascist cannot allow himself to see how his friendship with an immigrant contradicts his nationalist views. The liberal won’t allow herself to see the implicit conservatism in protesting against market liberalisation, or the hypocrisy in demanding moral perfection from one state and not another. These contradictions become so buried that to unearth them would cause the very fabric of reality that the person holds to unravel. They are therefore hidden, denied not only to others but also to one’s own conscious mind. Far from being rational agents, we deceive ourselves into believing that we are rational through a process of self-deception so intricate its exposure cannot be permitted.
Human beings hold truth as the highest aim, whether this be in scientific enquiry, philosophical debate or in conversation between one’s peers. Lies are frowned upon as they are a way of deceiving and denying access to the ‘truth’ of a situation. Whilst the nature of truth (and by proxy access to it) is beyond the remit of this particular discussion, it is clear that one ostensibly seeks truth externally whilst possessing an aptitude to disguise the truth of one’s own internal contradictions. Our cries for rationality and autonomy disguise that fact that we are all irrational and all liars. Even the most honest of us holds views that they cannot square and disguises them in some way in order to restore balance. In order to restore the façade of rationality, we disguise these lies and can never let them be revealed. Perhaps in future when considering rationality and truth in contrast to those who lie this one fundamental point should be remembered: the fundamental lie is always to oneself.
ssptmusing 