Self-Deception and the Common Life investigates the topic of self-deception from three points of view: philosophical psychology, ethics, and theology. Empirical evidence and an «ordinary language» analysis support the case that the linguistic expression 'self-deception' is literally meaningful and that the language of the common life can be trusted. After critically analyzing the cognition, translation, and action accounts, along with the contributions of Freud and Sartre, Steffen proposes a new synthetic «emotional perception» account, one that avoids paradox. Giving attention to relevant moral issues, he argues that self-deception is not immoral, but represents a peculiar form of akrasia. Finally, because theologians employ 'self-deception' to describe the cognitive component of sin, Steffen considers the logic of theological self-deception. His study seeks an «intimate acquaintance» with self-deception and exemplifies a method of analysis relevant to constructive theological inquiry.
Lloyd H. Steffen
«...it is the comprehensive scope of the background materials that makes this discussion uniquely valuable...The bibliography is a valuable resource in itself. Readers at all levels who share an interest in self-desception from a literary, psychological, philosophical, or theological perspective would do well to look into this book.» (S.L. Krantz, College of St. Thomas) «The book is a significant contribution to the literature on self-deception, an issue that warrants reflection by all of us.» (L.Gregory Jones, Journal of Religious History) «This is a formidable, interesting, and sometimes subtle work, which shows a considerable grasp of many bodies of relevant literature.» (R.M., Ethics)
«Since the book appeared, scholarship on self-deception has continued to grow exponentially; sociobiologists are the latest to enter the fray. But this remains the only intensive study of the religious dimension of self-deception, and it provides an excellent introduction to many other aspects of this puzzling form of human irrationality.» (Bruce S. Alton, Religious Studies Review)
()