What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

Nagel explores the nature of consciousness, subjective experience, and the limitations of human understanding. This piece of philosophical literature is deeply rooted in The Unknowability of Subjective Experience, or the idea that one can never completely understand the experience of another being.

Nagel’s essay, published in the 1970s, emerged in a time when reductionist theories held sway in the realm of philosophy of mind. The dominant theories proposed that mental states and consciousness boiled down to physical processes and objective facts. In contrast, Nagel argued that subjective experience was mysterious and opaque, becoming a voice in the philosophy of mind. His stance marked a significant departure from the mainstream.

Nagel’s primary argument is that objective facts and subjective experiences are fundamentally disconnected (See: The Unbridgeable Gap Between the Objective and Subjective). Nagel uses a bat to show how one can never fully understand the experience of another being. The bat’s limited vision, reliance on echolocation, and nocturnal lifestyle render it foreign to the human experience. Nagel argues that even with a complete understanding of a bat’s biological and physical characteristics, we still could not comprehend what it is like for a bat to be a bat. The analogy, or comparison for the purpose of explanation, drawn between bats and humans is an essential vehicle for conveying Nagel’s core argument.

The bat is a literary choice that also operates as a challenge to anthropocentric biases, urging readers to self-reflect and broaden their ideological horizons. Nagel’s choice to use a non-human creature to explore human consciousness underscores our inherent anthropocentrism and challenges us to expand our perspectives. By urging us to consider what it’s like to be a bat, Nagel isn’t only inviting us to an imaginative exercise; he’s compelling us to acknowledge the existence of conscious experiences beyond our own, and to recognize our inability to fully comprehend them. To drive home this point, Nagel asks what it may be like to be a wasp or even a Martian. In this way, Nagel crystallizes his argument that subjective experience cannot be reduced to physical processes.

Nagel leverages a variety of rhetorical devices to engage readers and consolidate his arguments. Hypothetical scenarios pose “what ifs,” encouraging readers to delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the essay. Nagel asks the reader to imagine oneself as a bat or adopt the bat’s point of view, inviting a futile imaginative exercise that highlights the unique subjectivity of experience. This thought experiment reminds us of our inability to literally transform into a bat, illuminating the vast divide between human and nonhuman experiences. By employing this hypothetical scenario, Nagel illustrates that each individual’s experience is fundamentally inaccessible to any other, thus hoisting a central pillar of his argument about the subjective nature of consciousness.

Nagel also employs rhetorical questions. For instance, when he asks the reader to imagine life through the lens of a bat, he is not merely asking for speculation. Instead, he asks the reader to confront the vast chasm that separates human experiences from those of nonhuman beings. This approach underscores the fundamental tenet of Nagel’s argument—the inherent subjectivity and incommunicability of individual experiences. The rhetorical question acts as a mirror, reflecting the insurmountable divide between human consciousness and the experiential world of a bat. They invite the reader to grapple with the philosophical ideas Nagel poses.

The literary devices in Nagel’s essay aim to engage a multidimensional audience, including philosophers well-versed in the nuances of the discourse as well as lay readers intrigued by the mysteries of consciousness. His language is accessible and his tone conversational. Nagel’s choice of voice is a literary technique designed to bridge the gap between the complexity of his subject matter and the varied comprehension levels of his readers, broadening the reach and impact of his work.

Nagel’s essay fits into the context of broader issues and evolving societal attitudes. He extends his argument to claim that science, with its objective approach, fails to fully capture the subjective aspect of consciousness. He raises critical questions about the limits of human knowledge and understanding, challenging the supremacy of empirical science and advocating for the recognition of subjective experiences as valid components of reality. It’s a call for a more inclusive philosophical and scientific discourse that acknowledges the limitations of our understanding and values subjective experiences in their own right. This has profound implications for our interactions with and attitudes towards other conscious beings. By establishing the inherent subjectivity and uniqueness of experience, Nagel implicitly advocates for a greater respect and consideration for nonhuman consciousness. Such an argument can be seen as an indirect commentary on issues such as animal rights and environmental conservation, urging a reevaluation of our ethical frameworks in light of our expanding understanding of consciousness.

Nagel’s essay also has philosophical implications, participating in long-standing debates and offering a counternarrative to prevalent theories. Nagel’s main argument about the unknowability of other beings refutes the mechanistic, reductionist views of consciousness prevalent in his era. By challenging these dominant theories, such as materialism and functionalism, Nagel opens up new avenues of thought. Principally, his critique of reductionism suggests a shift from mechanistic interpretations of the mind towards a more holistic comprehension of human consciousness. This shift reflects the evolving societal and philosophical attitudes of the era, and a movement away from theories that seek to explain everything in objective terms.

By exploring the subjective experience of a creature as different from us as a bat, Nagel develops a central theme in his essay: Embracing the Unknowable. He examines the prevailing scientific and philosophical theories of his time, particularly those subscribing to a reductionist approach. He argues that these theories, in their attempts to reduce consciousness to purely physical processes, fail to acknowledge the subjective aspect of experience. According to Nagel, subjectivity is as integral to consciousness as its physical counterpart.

Nagel suggests that the failure to account for the subjective nature of consciousness is not just an oversight, but a significant flaw in these theories: “And to deny the reality or logical significance of what we can never describe or understand is the crudest form of cognitive dissonance” (440-41). This statement captures the crux of his criticism against reductionist theories and some scientific approaches that neglect or dismiss subjective experiences simply because they are difficult to quantify or describe objectively. Through his inquiry into established theories, Nagel underscores the limitations of human understanding.

Nagel proposes a more inclusive approach to understanding consciousness, one that accepts the reality of subjective experiences, even when we lack the tools to describe them. He suggests that our inability to comprehend subjective experiences of other creatures, such as bats, does not negate their existence or significance. In essence, Nagel’s essay invites readers to acknowledge and grapple with the unknowable, challenging the sufficiency of reductionist approaches and prompting a reconsideration of the methods and assumptions we employ in our quest to understand consciousness. He underscores the complexity and multifaceted nature of consciousness and urges a broader, more inclusive approach to its study.

“What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” uses a variety of literary devices and techniques to present an argument about the nature of consciousness and subjective experience. Through his choice of themes, symbols, rhetorical devices, and figurative language, Nagel encourages readers to reconsider their understanding of their own experiences and those of others.