Keywords: hemispheric brain asymmetry, autism, dipolar opposites, flux, McGilchrist, Plato, Heraclitus.
Iain McGilchrist’s “The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the
World” (2021) argues that Western thinking has become overly dependent on left-hemisphere processing, causing
us to lose sight of the whole by focusing too intensely on its parts. In this paradigm, abstractions have come to
seem more real than concrete realities — words are experienced as more authentic than their
referents, creating a self-referential system resembling a hall of mirrors. The result is that we increasingly
inhabit an abstract map rather than the actual territory. McGilchrist warns that this imbalance approaches a form
of collective mental illness and poses a serious threat to civilization. His proposed solution is to restore
intuition and metaphor to their rightful place in human cognition.
While I find merit in McGilchrist’s analysis, his sprawling 1,500-page work proves challenging to navigate.
Though rich in fascinating factual content, the book meanders extensively. He combines solid insights with esoteric
philosophical musings, such as his statement that “Whatever-it-is-that-exists-apart-from-ourselves creates
us, but we also take part in creating whatever-it-is” (Introduction). His discussion of Nothing as an
irreducible element of existence, paired with Being as its dipole (Chapter 20), exemplifies this tendency towards
abstraction.
What’s particularly concerning is his uncritical reliance on controversial philosophers: Nietzsche (cited 35
times) and Heidegger (45 times), both associated with Nazi ideology, are referenced extensively without
acknowledgment of their problematic legacies. Similarly, he draws heavily on Hegel (28 citations), whose
collectivist philosophy has had destructive historical consequences and whose work Bertrand Russell critiqued
as fundamentally flawed. The frequent references to Carl Jung (32 times), whose work blends wisdom with
speculation, and Rupert Sheldrake (6 times), whose “morphic resonance” theory is widely considered
pseudoscience, further muddy the waters. The inclusion of evidence from poetry, literature, myth, and even
Mozart’s operas adds to this eclectic mix.
Despite McGilchrist’s references to respected thinkers like Hans-Georg Gadamer and
Michael Polanyi, his philosophical framework remains problematic. Central to his thesis is the notion that
phenomena exist only through the tension of opposites. However, his claim that “You cannot have heat without
cold, or brightness without darkness” (Chapter 20) is logically flawed. Cold and darkness are merely the
absence or low levels of heat and light, not true opposites. The universe could theoretically exist in a state of
complete illumination, or, as current cosmological theories suggest, eventually reach a state of total darkness and
cold. Furthermore, the modern understanding of fundamental particles contradicts his argument: protons and
neutrons, the building blocks of stable matter, consist of three quarks working in cooperation rather than
opposition. This demonstrates that not all systems are built on dichotomies. His interpretation of Cusanus’s
coincidentia oppositorum appears to stem from Jung’s misreading, suggesting that opposites coincide
while excluding their mutual exclusion (Chapters 20; 28). This misses Cusanus’s central insight that God
transcends opposites not by maintaining them in tension, but through divine simplicity — a state
in which all opposites are completely enfolded while transcending their opposition.
If nature truly operated through dichotomies, as McGilchrist suggests, the brain’s hemispheres would
necessarily present fundamentally incompatible worldviews. However, Professor Michael Spezio’s research
(2019) finds limited empirical support for such pronounced hemispheric asymmetries. McGilchrist asserts that
“reality is primarily shaped by the right hemisphere. So when the right hemisphere is malfunctioning, the
left hemisphere is relatively at a loss” (Chapter 4). He documents numerous unusual mental phenomena
resulting from right-hemisphere lesions to support this claim. His reasoning suggests that when the right
hemisphere is compromised, the left hemisphere assumes control but, due to its supposedly inferior capacity for
constructing a coherent worldview, produces distortions that share “extensive and very striking points of
similarity with schizophrenia and autism” (Chapter 9, Summary). However, from a layman’s perspective, a
simpler explanation presents itself: the damaged right hemisphere actively interferes with normal left-hemisphere
functioning, rather than merely revealing its inherent limitations. Without such interference, the left hemisphere
would likely function normally.
An Internet search reveals that numerous successful hemispherectomies (complete removal of one brain hemisphere)
have been performed, with surprisingly positive outcomes regardless of which hemisphere is removed. Patients who
have their right hemispheres removed don’t typically develop severe autism or schizophrenia, contrary to what
McGilchrist’s theory would predict. This challenges his assertion that “the left hemisphere cannot
attend in the manner characteristic of the right hemisphere, even where necessary” (Chapter 2). By the
book’s end, McGilchrist appears to moderate his position, acknowledging that the left hemisphere can perceive
wholes, albeit through a different process — bottom-up rather than top-down (Chapter 21). This
qualification seems to undermine his central thesis about hemispheric specialization.
McGilchrist’s adoption of the psychoanalytic concept of a ‘mental unconscious’ is puzzling, given
that most neuroscientists view unconscious processes simply as brain activities. His claim that the unconscious can
perform background tasks while consciousness focuses elsewhere, and that we can deliberately delegate tasks to it
(Chapter 17), contradicts current research. Professor Nick Chater’s work (2018) demonstrates that
consciousness can handle only one problem at a time, with no parallel background processing. This reliance on
questionable theory risks misleading readers.
Another significant issue is McGilchrist’s interpretation of Platonic Forms as mere abstractions, which he
claims has contributed to Western thought’s overemphasis on the abstract over the concrete. This
misrepresents Plato’s philosophy. Platonic Forms are actually atemporal, perfect exemplars that serve as
models for physical reality. Plato celebrates the transcendent yet concrete particular, not its abstraction,
elevating Love and Beauty as supreme principles. The Forms aren’t abstract representations but real presences
that the mind can perceive directly, similar to how the eye sees physical objects. This makes Plato’s
philosophy fundamentally different from the left-hemisphere thinking McGilchrist describes.
McGilchrist’s metaphysics of flow, which positions change as the fundamental reality while dismissing
stability, misrepresents Heraclitus, whom he cites in support. Professor Jessica N. Berry clarifies that
Heraclitus emphasized stability and persistence in nature, focusing more on logos, measure (metron),
order, and necessity than on flux. Heraclitus’s famous statement that “Wisdom is one thing. It is to
know the thought by which all things are steered through all things” (DK B41) indicates that change operates
within the framework of logos, maintaining order among opposing forces. This misinterpretation, likely
inherited from Nietzsche (whom Heidegger criticized for the same error), risks promoting relativism.
Einstein’s concern about his Theory of Relativity being misinterpreted as philosophical relativism is
relevant here — the theory actually establishes absolute constants that give rise to
relativistic effects. The universe’s adherence to precise physical laws and apparent predetermined nature
contradicts the primacy of flow over fixity.
The author’s claim that “the static and the timeless has been privileged in the West ever since Plato
followed the path of Parmenides, not Heraclitus” (Chapter 22) oversimplifies complex philosophical
relationships. While Parmenides viewed change as illusory, Plato acknowledged it as characteristic of the physical
world, which he considered real though less real than the timeless realm of Forms. Physical objects participate in
the Forms’ reality to varying degrees. This nuanced view suggests that Heraclitus and Plato aren’t as
opposed as McGilchrist suggests.
Although I learnt much from this book, there is too much intellectual woolliness and lack of exactitude for my
taste. As I see it, some authors are misinterpreted while some are augmented although they ought to be severely
criticized. Abstruse philosophy might lead young readers astray. A world that is “a seamless, always
self-creating, self-individuating, and simultaneously self-uniting, flow” is clearly not the whole truth and
it leads to relativism. The author has not quite convinced me that an imbalance towards the left hemisphere in the
general population is responsible for the cultural decline of the Western world. What I do know is that women,
immigrants from backward countries, and decision makers on the autist spectrum, have today much greater influence
than before. Most importantly, women have acquired voting rights, which easily explains the vulgarization and
infantilization of politics. It appears that women are more left-hemisphere oriented (Chapter 4). He ought to have
discussed the female way of thinking and its destructive effects on our civilization. I give the book 3 out of
5.
© Mats Winther, 2022.
References
Chater, N. (2018). The Mind Is Flat: The Illusion of Mental Depth and the Improvised Mind. Yale University
Press.
Cusa, N. of (1990). (Hopkins, J. transl.) Nicholas of Cusa on Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an
Appraisal of De Docta Ignorantia. The Arthur J. Banning Press.
Gemes, K. & Richardson, J. (eds.) (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche. Oxford University
Press.
McGilchrist, I. (2021). The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World.
Perspective Press.
Russell, B. (1967). A History of Western Philosophy. Simon and Schuster.
Spezio, M. (2019). ‘McGilchrist and hemisphere lateralization: a neuroscientific and metaanalytic
assessment’, Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9:4, 387-399.
‘The Fragments of Heraclitus.’ heraclitusfragments.com (here)
‘Theory of forms.’ Wikipedia article. (here)
