It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of — namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown –
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
What Nietsche suggests is that philosophy, or rational argumentation, is primarily non-rational (or autobiographical).
To understand why this is controversial, you need to understand the context. Nietzsche wrote after ideas like Mill’s Utilitarianism gained ground. The chief task of philosophers was to describe the world as it objectively was, and how it must be. They did so by using logical arguments. Nietzsche wasn’t buying any of that. To him, the only truth people argued for was their own subjective biases, dressed in academic language.
Nietzsche’s observation says less about the nature of logic, and more about human nature, after-all, he was according to himself, the world’s first psychologist.
It was not that there was no such thing as reason or logic, only that it was used as an instrument to justify one’s own bias, rather than a means to finding the truth. It was dishonest to claim otherwise.
This critique by is not limited to professional philosophers, but to all people, who hold an opinion about anything. In a later post, I will discuss the nature of bullshit, but for now, let me stick to this idea of rationality versus emotions.
If it was true that logic and reason could lead people to updating their beliefs about the world, we would expect a convergence of opinions among the most logical people. But that is not what we see. In most topics, a consensus does not exist, even among scientists.
It isn’t because one side is being more logical than the other side, but that each side has chosen to accept different presuppositions for emotional reasons and will look for ways to validate their own beliefs rather than challenge them.
Confirmation bias is universal. And the problem is not that people interpret the world differently (it is a good thing), but that the existence of so many different interpretations suggests that all interpretations are of equal quality or that it is best to avoid interpretation altogether, or worse, a second problem, to the illusion of “sticking to the facts.”
The first problem leads to he prevalence of bullshit and whacky beliefs (because, why not?). The second problem leads to scientism or paralysis.
There is no way of avoiding a subjective framework. The “stick to the facts” statement is one that itself begs the question: Which facts exactly and why?
And that is why bullshit so easily proliferates, thus the two problems are related.
On the one hand, logic is insufficient as a means of bringing people to the same conclusion. On the other hand, not all conclusions are equally justifiable.. Now, it is possible for an unjustified conclusion to be true, and for a justified conclusion to be false. You can develop a valid argument for why you hold a position, but one of your premises are false. or you may be missing an additional premise.
For example, only recently have researchers discovered the benefits of gut bacteria. Ever since the discovery of germs, the scientific consensus was that people should wash their hands and keep germs away. Hygiene was seen as essential for good health.
Argument against Germs
For a long time, people thought it was essential to be extra clean to have good health. But now it turns out that germs are not all bad. Some germs are essential for good gut health. So, practice good hygiene, but not totally. The good germs was the missing premise.
The same thing happened with cholesterol (good versus bad). And up until very recently, very few doctors would have prescribed fasting – now there are countless doctors who talk about its benefits.
The idea is, smart people can easily be misled because of incomplete information. When you tell yourself to stick to the facts, it’s not only that you have to choose which facts you want to stick to, but you need to have sufficient facts to begin with. And it is never the case that you have the right facts. Every belief you have is based on faith, since you are discounting what you don’t know. Philosophers might call this an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad absurdum), but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. To stick to the facts means to stick to an illusion.
It is always safe to assume, based on an unfailing historical trend, that what we think we know now is probably wrong. The only truly honest position is radical skepticism. Any other position is biased, and based on emotional reasons.
If you need to have an opinion about something, you cannot simply lay out the facts – you must go with your bias, no matter how tenuous your arguments. You must stand for something. To refuse to do so means you stand for nothing, which itself is something, but unlikely to be what you intended to stand for in the first place.
Thus, there are two evils: pure dogmatism and pure skepticism. The lesser of two evils is somewhere in between.
The dogmatist is emotional, gives little consideration for the facts – although they may pretend to be highly interested in reason. The skeptic is disinterested in emotional leaps, but on the other hand, lives in a constant state of agnosticism about everything.
If you have any opinion about anything at all, then you have already subscribed to some interpretation. If you don’t consciously wrestle with your own subjective interpretation, or the subjective interpretations of others, which inform your opinion, then you become a victim to your unconscious biases or the biases of others.
Pure skepticism and pure dogmatism are not pragmatic positions. It is important to even be skeptical about skepticism, and to be dogmatic against dogmatism.
The appropriate response to Nietzsche’s criticism is not to transform yourself into a disembodied processor of facts, because that is impossible, in light of what we know about how the tentative nature of “facts” and even about how the brain functions.
There was a time when the brightest minds thought that the ideal was to be completely rational. But this is an old idea, and has been seriously undermined since the mid nineties when Damasio published his book, Descartes’ Error.
Damasio showed that patients with damage to the part of the prefrontal cortex that processes emotions struggle with making even routine decisions.
HBR
Nietzsche was right, we make choices based on emotions, not on logic. If we could make a choice based on reason, we wouldn’t care if the part of our brain that was responsible for emotions was damaged.
The disconcerting finding is that the intellect is responsible for rationalization, not for making decisions. When Hume said that you cannot derive an ‘ought from an is’, that is what he meant.
Say you want to give a million dollars to charity, how do you do it? Do you choose to help people with their education, or do you help them find jobs? Do you decide to help people or animals? Children or adults? The disabled or the healthy? Maybe, in the end, you choose to give your money to clean up the environment, given how much damage humans have done. Are you irrational in any of these cases?
What is the implication here? It isn’t that reason and evidence don’t matter. They do, but absent an emotional commitment, they are powerless. You could be presented with very persuasive evidence that you should quit smoking, but it won’t matter unless you make an emotional decision to quit.
Advertisers know this well. If argumentation was effective for persuasion, they would quote Socrates more often and make fewer appeals to your unconscious.
When politicians or academics quarrel about anything, each side is presenting the facts that validate their emotional perspective, or in Nietzsche’s language, that impose their autobiography. But, it is important to not be too cynical. As mentioned before, there are higher quality ideas, and reason does matter. But, as an instrument to persuade others (or yourself), it isn’t reason that is the deciding factor. Don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.