The Subtle Art of Self-Deception. . .

Recently, I have pondered going back to school. I am in my fifties and ponder what my next act is. Part of me would like to teach philosophy at a local community college. Westchester Community College is two miles away, but as I do not at this time have my Masters it is not doable. A Master degree is required. So my thought started with ideas of pursing such. Once you start exploring the options, however, you realize you are probably doing such a degree online and further there is cost.

So I arrived ultimately at the question of why is it that a person pursuing a masters degree must pay? It is a valid question in New York. Today, in the state of New York one can pursue a bachelors degree at no cost. No doubt there are conditions that must be met, but again, one can earn a bachelors degree in the State of New York tuition free.

Further, it is the case and was the case that most or many students pursing a PhD in philosophy do not pay for their tuition. Not only do they not pay tuition, but they are often provided with a dorm and even a stipend. So for those pursuing a PhD you can have your tuition covered and likewise be provided with room and board. Not everyone has such but many, and I acknowledge that this is based on my history and various conversations. I have not gone and researched this so I might be dead wrong today.

So both bachelor degrees and PhDs are being issued with little or no cost to students. Students pursuing master degrees, however, are looking at a cost of something like $20,000 to $50,000. These numbers are generous. The bottom line is that in the former two the degrees are largely free, and the later is not.

So I started to think that I should pursue a PhD. Why not? I am looking only for my tuition to be covered. I do not need the room and board. Nor do I need the stipend. Of course, I am looking for my studies to be part-time. Why not? Lol

Why not? Well maybe because typically a student who does pursue a PhD is coming recently from their undergraduate studies, they are younger, and they are pursuing it full-time. Their intent is to make a career of it. They are giving their life to the vocation.

I am, however, more than 50, so why would they invest their time and energy on myself, The return on their investment is limited. That said, I would not need their support. I can pursue such a program and live independently. Again I am just looking just for the tuition.

It is not, however, just the tuition. It is not the money, it is more the time. The amount of time spent with me in class,  and in a PhD program, out of class must be considered. Lastly, the amount of time I am ready to commit just does not work.

I finally spoke to a Professor at a CUNY Colloquium that I attend, and his first question was whether I have the time required for the reading. He was looking at it practically. Do I have the time required to tend to such studies? The time invested by the individual embracing such a project is appreciated and in fact demanded by institutions. I found myself reflecting that in this commitment, you can see the continuation of the monastic tradition, from which the modern day University is derived.

As you can see, I have been going back and forth at this from various angles. I would like to get a higher degree so as to teach, and perhaps publish. the later may not even require a higher degree depending on where one publishes. A peer-reviewed journal, however, I am sure requires a higher degree and a sharing of that experience acquired only at a University.

Regardless, for several weeks or for even two or three months I indulged in the idea that a PhD could be pursued part-time and paid for. It still has an allure to me, despite the challenges of such. It basically gave me peace for that time. It allowed me a way of coping with the world around me and offered a goal or a path that could in some way be pursued, even if not a realistic one. It could at least be pursued, though in the end most likely not attainable.

Today, I have kind of accepted it is unworkable, but am still not able or willing to let it go in its entirely. Perhaps with some persistence, some politics, some changing of the views on education in today's culture, maybe it is possible. Maybe. Never say die.

So with that I point to the subtle art of self-deception. I point to the above as one of the stories I was using to get through the days and weeks of recent months. It is no doubt one of the larger ones I have told myself. Considering it as such I realize that self-deception is engaged in routinely. Self-deception is perhaps necessary or useful.

What of the attorney who represents a client who is obviously guilty or has no case? How does an attorney defend such a person or case? Obviously, if the attorney can find some way to buy into the accused's innocence or to at least see some way of winning the case, it makes the case easier to defend and proceed with. It is almost required that an attorney have some type of buy-in so as to mount a vigorous defense.

Is it even possible that one mount a vigorous defense of someone that they believe is in fact guilty of the crime their client is being charged with? To engage in such requires that you suspend your doubts and even rationalize various contingencies. Such cases require that you aggressively provide an alternative narrative, not only to the court and jury but to yourself. If you cannot convince yourself of such, what chance do you have with the jury?

In any venture or project, it is a whole lot easier to proceed if one believes that the goal is attainable. If you do not see it as possible why proceed? Further, the uncertainly of the various options. In my pursuit of a PhD is unlikely but considering that today a bachelors can be pursued at no or limited cost to a student does make one pause. Likewise, the attorney who defends the accused of murder sees a quiet peaceful man who he could not imagine murdering someone, despite the evidence that the state has, or whatever the case may be. Something, has to at the least make one pause. there has to be something believable, something interesting that allows for one to challenge the obvious.

There is the case, however, that is too far. I witnessed that at the same philosophy colloquium this past Wednesday. The person presenting was detailing the types of models constructed to explain global warming to the public. After the talk she was asked how she responds to those who deny global warming and the science it is based upon. She responded that she basically does not. They, those who deny global warming, are so far removed from her view, her positions, that they will just never agree. The possible worlds separating her world and their own are just to far apart.

What I describe above is not self-deception but one can see such a case happening in an individual. Someone deceives themselves to the point where they cannot see the obvious, where what they see is simply not there. They are truly delusional. Such a case is where you pay dearly for the luxury of that belief. Your deception, and really any belief, does have consequences. A sales-person working on commission may not be committed to the product he or she is selling, but the consequent of self-deception here might very well be a sale. And that is good thing, until that person considers that the same sale in fact led to their arrest as they were selling heroin. They convinced themselves that it is OK to do such.

William James offered up the idea of the will to believe. Regardless of what the belief is, we have to be willing to believe it, buy into it, bet on it. Somethings and some people should not be believed but we still do. We sometimes have to convince ourselves, we sometimes choose to ignore facts or evidence. When we do so, we have our reasons, whether they be laziness, love of someone or devotion to an ideal. So self-deception is always there, and no doubt requires a self and a set of beliefs, but without it, we would probably not get as far as we do. Few of us are simply without our doubts.