Most people think reason is a pretty simple concept.

But Peter Sloterdijk showed that it’s not so simple.

He argued that modern reason is no longer a single, absolute authority like it was during the Enlightenment. Instead, it has become a tool to help balance multiple perspectives.

“Since modern thinking no longer claims the ability to turn self-knowledge into knowledge of the worldor world experience into self-experience, philosophy has had to retreat from the theories of ‘objective reason’ to those of ‘subjective reason.’ As a result, the old holistic passion loses its ground, and philosophy sinks into the apparent fragmentation and lack of foundation of the subjective.”

In his book Critique of Cynical Reason, Sloterdijk defines modern cynicism as:

“Cynicism is an enlightened false consciousness. It’s that unhappy, modernized awareness, where the Enlightenment has both succeeded and failed.”

I love how he wraps it all into the idea of “false consciousness,” because both hypocrisy and cynicism fall into that category.

Cynical reason is when someone knows perfectly well that their actions are immoral or contradictory, but still goes ahead with them, coldly and resignedly.

They’re not trying to convince anyone anymore. It’s the “yeah, so what?” attitude of the modern world.

A few examples from our industry:

The CCO who admits their entire case study is fake, from the idea to the results but says: “It’s always been this way. That’s how the awards system works.” They don’t care about ethics or truth; they just want a Lion and their bonus.

From my point of view, there’s also what I call hypocritical reason.

I haven’t found this term formally defined, but I think it’s important to bring it up as a contrast to cynical reason.

Hypocritical reason is when someone tries to uphold ethical values but doesn’t follow them fully. It hides behind virtue, but occasionally bends the rules, risking crossing over into cynicism.

Still, it’s not the same. Let’s take the same example, but now through the lens of hypocritical reason:

The CCO who says that 90% of the case is real, but admits they “tweaked it a little”: “We just wanted to inspire the world, to show what’s possible. We did it for the sake of creativity, to drive positive change.”

While the cynic has dropped all pretense of ethics, the hypocrite still clings to a façade of virtue.

Both, though, are forms of the “false consciousness” Sloterdijk described.

The cynic fully accepts their contradiction. The hypocrite, although also “enlightened” and aware of what’s right, chooses to maintain the image of being ethical, even if they stray, because deep down they still want to be on the side of good.

So what are the consequences of this conflict between these two types of reason?

We lose the freshness of creating ideas that everyone enjoys, from the brief to the final production.
We lose freedom and real connection with people, because we focus more on impressing juries than connecting with real audiences.
We miss the chance to be different and stand out. Don’t you feel like every case study is told the same way now? And the same types of ideas keep winning? Just follow the format…
Worst of all, ethical reason often loses. We all know amazing, 100% real ideas that never get a Lion, just because they didn’t inflate results or create fake news to spice things up. Entering Cannes isn’t free, producing and launching ideas often takes extra effort from the agency. So losing to an idea that was never even made, or that blatantly exaggerated its results, feels unfair.

Deep down, I think the pressure for numbers has gotten us here.

And yes, I agree that most of us, more or less, have been caught in this cycle at some point.

That’s why this reflection isn’t meant to point fingers or throw stones at any one campaign.

What I don’t agree with is the idea that “this is how it has to be because it’s always been this way.”

If we take ethical reason and apply it to other areas, like sports, we’ll see that positive change is possible without killing the spectacle. For example:

In soccer, you rarely see players throw blatant flying kicks right in front of the ref, cameras, and 80,000 spectators, at least not like in the ’80s.
You also don’t hear about poisoning the opposing team’s drinks or using illegal substances mid-game.
In cycling, doping has dropped by 70% since the biological passport and stricter penalties were introduced. This has opened up chances for more riders to compete for top spots in the Tour de France, Giro, or Vuelta a España.

So yes, Sloterdijk was right to call some forms of reason “false consciousness.”

In the end, reason is always a choice.

And sometimes, the real choice is to think freely and creatively, without pressure to win awards. To genuinely want to sell or promote the product, if that’s what we’re doing. Or to truly help a social cause, if that’s the goal. That’s real freedom: to think freely.

The only wrong choice is believing or pretending that we have no choice at all.

Because that’s how we fool ourselves. And that’s always a losing move.

Disclaimer: This article does not claim to be, nor does it aim to be, entirely correct. This article was not written by an AI, but I must inform you that I relied on it to deepen my views, theories, and thoughts; to translate the content into English with proper grammar; and to thoroughly research the concepts of cynical reason and hypocritical reason, two notions very present in festivals."