“You see the world in a way that nobody else sees the world, and I like the way you see the world.”

In The Invention of Lying (Gervais, 2009), Ricky Gervais asks what a world without lying would look like.  His answer is interesting:  No one would be able to look beneath the surface.  The people of Gervais’s imaginary world are slaves to appearances.  In essence, they are incapable of imagination.  They can have science, but not art or myth. All movies are talking-head historical documentaries.  No lies, then actors and no fiction.  Only Mark, the story’s protagonist (played by Gervais), can lie.  And what allows Mark to lie is that he is able to see more than the surface appearance.  (Consider the scene in the park where he his friend sees only a couple of “losers”, whereas Mark can see that they are really happy in love.)

For Gervais, lying can be noble, as Plato argued in the Republic.  It is Mark’s ability to lie that gives him the power of hope.  Hope, it seems, requires us to go beyond mere appearances.  We have to ignore the obvious facts and hope that things will work out differently.  It is Mark’s ability to hope that allows him to ask Jennifer Garner’s character out on a date even though she’s “out of his league”.   And after he invents lying, Mark is able to give hope to his suicidal neighbor (“things will get better”, he tells him) and help his co-worker get up the courage to face the endless routine of working in an office.  (I’m thinking of the woman who just stands outside the office building every day and says “I can’t go in there.”)  The suggestion is that hope — the feeling that life is meaningful — is a kind of self-deception that we would be incapable of without the ability to look beyond appearances.  Hope is a kind of lying that is good.

One particular expression of this good kind of lying is mythology.  Mark invents the religious myth of heaven to comfort his dying mother.  But religion, Gervais argues through this film, can cut both ways.  The myth of religion is good as long as it stays within the realm of story — like the alien invasion story of the “Black Plague” that Mark also invents.  But once the religious myth begins to function as law and science — as a literal description of an old man in the sky who rewards and punishes people based on a list of rules — the myth ceases to be helpful.

The people are incapable of truly religious thinking.  They can’t think in metaphors and myths.  They can only think in terms of literal appearances.  (And the myth can’t hold up to literal scientific scrutiny:  If we can’t see the Man In The Sky because he is too high, does that mean he lives in outer space?)  After Mark invents religion, things are briefly better.  But soon the townspeople turn Mark’s myth into science and then return to their same old world.  As literal history, the story can’t do its mythological work (i.e., to generate meaning for life).

Gervais’s claim in the film is not necessarily that the world needs lies, but that we need the ability to transcend literal appearances.  We need metaphors and myths.  I don’t know if that claim is literally true or not, but I like it.

2 thoughts on ““You see the world in a way that nobody else sees the world, and I like the way you see the world.”

  1. My friend Gregg TenElshof has written a book about self-deception where he, like Ricky Gervais, argues that self-deception is not always bad. Here is something Gregg said in an interview:

    “I argue that both (i) the mechanisms that make self-deception a possibility for us and (ii) self-deception itself have legitimate ends. God gave us the amazing capacity to deviate in inquiry from the general practice of pursuing belief in accordance with evidence. I think he did this for a reason. For the most part, believing what is true and what is in accordance with one’s evidence is a very good idea. But in special cases, believing can serve ends that outweigh truth and (epistemic) rationality. Think, for example, about the terminal cancer patient who believes (despite evidence easily available to her) that she will overcome her condition or the drug addict who believes (despite overwhelming inductive support to the contrary) that this time he will quit. The cancer patient actually has a slightly less radically improbable chance of overcoming her condition if she believes she will. The addict’s recovery is less improbable if he believes he’ll recover. Love, loyalty and friendship may sometimes require belief out of step with the evidence in the good of the beloved. And God has graciously allowed me to keep at the edges of consciousness (and beyond) several truths that would almost certainly undo me were they faced squarely (e.g., the gravity of my own sin and the overwhelming glory of his own being).”

    The book is “I Told Me So: Self-Deception and the Christian Life” (Eerdmans, 2009). More of the interview is here: http://blog.epsociety.org/2009/08/interview-with-gregg-ten-elsoff-i-told.asp

  2. Pingback: “You mustn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.” | Video Ut Intellectum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s