Abstract

In the target article, Iain McGilchrist draws upon his work, The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (=ME), to develop the relevance of its central claims to religion. Here and elsewhere McGilchrist contends, contrary to some critics, that his construal of the divided brain hypothesis (=DBH) does not make the fundamental philosophical error which is known as the homunculus fallacy. The critics’ charge is this: McGilchrist’s DBH purports to explain certain psychological features of human persons by providing an explanation that is in fact a pseudo-explanation. It is a pseudo-explanation because the DBH’s explanation of these psychological phenomena merely reintroduces the same psychological phenomena as explanatory factors that belong to the two different hemispheres of the brain. This article addresses whether McGilchrist’s position is in fact innocent of the charge of the homunculus fallacy. It is one thing to recognize the principle of contradiction and aim to avoid contradictions, it is another thing to avoid actually contradicting oneself. I show that McGilchrist consistently violates the homunculus fallacy despite his consistent claims to the contrary. I then argue that it is impossible for McGilchrist to articulate the central thesis of ME, namely, DBH, without violating the homunculus fallacy. Indeed, McGilchrist’s DBH requires that the error identified by the homunculus fallacy is not a fallacy at all, but is a deep insight crucial to understanding the making of the western world. Let us begin with the homunculus fallacy.