The Essential Instability of Self - Deception 47

Two apparent paradoxes lie at the heart of discussion of self-deception, one focusing on belief, the other on intention. The belief paradox concerns how the self-deceived can combine the belief that p and the belief that not-p. The intention paradox concerns how the self-deceived can intend to believe that p, and manage it, without knowing what they are up to and vitiating it. Both are said to be paradoxes because, on the one hand, self-deception seems possible and, on the other, it can seem to require combinations of states that render it impossible. The first choice point for debate is whether to divide or dilute. Dividing presses on the analogy with the deception of others. There is no problem with Jo believing that p and Josephine believing that not-p; nor is there a problem with Jo intending to bring it about that Josephine believe that not-p and managing to make it so. The division strategy seeks to appeal to this fact and relocate the division, in some attenuated sense, within subjects so that they can genuinely count as self-deceived. Dilution explains how the allegedly paradoxical combination of states is not required. Instead, self-deception involves something less that is not paradoxical. Both approaches suffer from a problem—in fact, the same one. Each gets rid of the paradoxical character of self-deception at the price of losing the instability that is essential to it. The problem with the self-deceived is that they seem to avoid accepting a certain proposition and have anxiety over, or lack confidence in, what they are up to. It seems as though the project may fail or requires work. I put all this in terms that are as neutral as possible. It is pretty clear how the two paradoxes with which I began involve a more precise articulation of it. Their anxiety or lack of confidence stems from the fact that, deep down, they believe the proposition and have intentionally produced a belief in the opposite whose work will be unpicked if they appreciate what they have done. Thus, I say, characterize the instability and the essential work of characterizing self-deception is done. The approach has a number of advantages that I seek to bring out in the course of the paper. The first is that it provides unity where other accounts of unity fail. As we shall see, there are a number of different ways people can be …