the only part of the ‘self’ that is irrational or not is in reasoning, where language and the logic of grammar combine and work in tandem… hence why we don’t call physical things ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’, but only thoughts, conclusions, motivations, expectations and the like.
moreover, the theory that there is an effective subconscious realm that guides and gives intention to thoughts we are conscious of, presumes the subconscious is able to give intentional direction to what arrives in consciousness as a result of its influence. but again, anything below or before the stage of conscious reasoning can’t be rational or irrational simply because it doesn’t take place in language. so there is no ‘irrational self’ waiting to be discovered and accepted through some kind of philosophical method of ‘knowing thyself’. rather, it’s the interpreter who places those monsters there himself (freud and jung often did this) by utilizing lines of reasoning that attempt to describe behaviors as being motivated by secondary intentional influences (the subconscious). these psychologist’s mistakes are either made honestly by being ignorant of this impossibility, or by doing what nietzsche once called ‘trying to pull into the foreground everything despicable about man’… which, on account of there being no possibility of a subconsciousness directing behavior, only reflects the malevolent intentions of the psychologist to belittle his subject.
self deception exists, ironically, in believing that there is an irrational aspect to some part of man that must be discovered below and underneath his lucid self. rather it’s because man needs to believe there is more depth and substance to his being/behavior than simply being the consequence of multiple, non-teleological causes pushing and pulling him about for no reason. he delights in thinking himself a secret even to himself, then believes he becomes the philosopher when he goes to investigate what he thinks is there, but is not. for you this is especially obvious, as you fancy yourself as a psychologist who reveals for us ‘the hidden essence of everyone’s degeneracy’ with all kinds of philosophical word salads and language games that are’t the least bit empirical. but that’s just it; what is available empirically about human nature and the ‘self’ is incredibly simple and doesn’t allow one to project their own confusions, misgivings and malcontent onto it. for that reason, philosophy has a very limited role here… and philosophers hate that. especially the misanthropic type.
see section on ‘bad faith’: albany.edu/~ron/papers/sartre.html
nothing is given to judgement and reason except what comes immediately to consciousness, and the entire subterranean world of supposed unconscious desires and motivations exists as nothing more than inert physical states (neither rational or irrational), without purpose, reason, intention or desire. one does not not ‘know thyself’ because they haven’t yet let some pseudo-psychologist implant in them reprehensible feelings of doubt, fear, shame, and the like, and feel they need to ‘examine’ themselves. no. one doesn’t ‘know thyself’ because there is no depth or substance to this instruction. there is no ‘self’ to be searched for here. at least not the kind of ‘self’ these wind-bags are looking for.
ain’t that a wonderful irony? all this time they thought ‘know thyself’ was the hardest of things to do. in fact, discovering and accepting that there is very little ‘self’ here to be known, is the hardest of philosophical admissions. but not everyone has the minerals to be a nihilist.