Affiliation:
1. GRADUATE STUDENT, UNIVERSITY OF Cologne
Abstract
This paper introduces the concept of tragic self-deception. Taking the basic notion that self-deception is motivated belief against better evidence, I argue that there are extreme cases of self-deception even when the contrary evidence is compelling. These I call cases of tragic self-deception. Such strong evidence could be argued to exclude the possibility of self-deception; it would be a delusion instead. To sidestep this conclusion, I introduce the Wittgensteinian concept of certainties or hinges: acceptances that are beyond evidential justification. One particular type of certainties—iHinges, which are adopted for motivational reasons—explain the phenomenon of tragic self-deception: they warrant the subject’s dismissal of the evidence without loss of rationality from the subject’s point of view. Subsequently, I deal with some objections that can be raised against this account of self-deception.
Reference29 articles.
1. Allen, Cynthia M., “Self-Deception is the Key to Justifying a Vote for Trump,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 4, 2016.
2. Alston, William P., “The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification,” Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 2, 1988, p. 257-299.
3. American Psychiatric Association (ed.), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), 5th edition, Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013, p. 819.
4. Audi, Robert, “Self-Deception vs. Self-Caused Deception: A Comment on Professor Mele,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 20, no. 1, 1997, p. 104.
5. Bach, Kent, “Thinking and Believing in Self-Deception,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 20, 1997, p. 105.