Many of the entries I have posted on here are an attempt to try and find a rational application of ideas, or the imprint of massive theories onto the chaotic transgressions of daily life. Theories themselves when applicable to meaning, society and culture, prove effective when they
1. can justify or explain a particular situation — why things are
2. grasp the relationships of various categories as they function by highlighting a fulcrum upon which meaning is generated.
For this reason, it may be incoherent or disjointed to present a theory simply as a theory for its own sake. Such theorization is an artifice of academia and not at all pragmatic. Nonetheless, I present below a theory I batted around a bit a few years ago in order to try and make sense of what I was doing. I am not going to apply the theory here, but simply present it as a point of reference.
Forgive me, if this seems too academic.
Dialectical Nihilism
we have heard of dialectical materialism — and dialectical idealism. the former is used to describe the adoptation of hegelian dialectics by marx… an explanation of production (the formation of history through class struggle). the latter i have heard as a reflective description of hegel, when in fact dialectics itself in general is associated with hegel, although at its root we can get socratic dialogue. fine whatever, classical blahblah. but can be mix traditions? nietzsche and hegel don’t go together. but let’s try:
what about dialectical nihilism?
step 1. simple nihilism in-itself. we have the reactionary nihilist who claims “i believe in nothing”. this is coupled with what you might call evangelical atheism in which this nonbeliever poo-poos everything that is “meaningful” — claiming such people are idiots. let’s take the example of God. such a nihilist would eagerly either make fun of or try and convince believers that there is nothing instead of God.
incidentially this form of nihilism is what i associate with self proclaimed atheists and nihilists, which is why i do not take up such a title. it’s an obscene sort of behavior which is hypocritical.
step 2. negative nihilism. most atheists do not reach this point, or atleast if they do they are quiet about it. this is where nihilism recognizes that while “i believe in nothing” this has a negative bearing in extension. such a nihilist would see believers of God and say, “well good for them. at least they are happy… i guess”.
step 3. nihilism for-itself. such a nihilist can go to church because of the pleasure of other people’s feelings. of the beautiful architecture, of the pleasantness of the hymns and the freshness of goodwill — and enjoy the simulacra of religion and not see any contradiction because while there may be nothing, what does it matter what others believe in? let’s enjoy this nothing in its nothinghood. perhaps sartre…? most people will never reach this level ethics in their life, this adherence to a productive principle.
step 4. this is where nihilism itself is a notion. what to call it? if this was truly hegelian it would be the reversal or what sartre might say as nihilism in-itself-for-itself; but such a mode is often found in either the 2nd or 3rd step, not the 4th. here a nihilist can claim that “there is nothing for me to grasp; why shouldn’t i believe in whatever? at least i am happy… i guess”. what makes this the 4th step is in the empty form of the notion — which of course in hegel’s 4th is like this 4th — a divorce of content from the empty pure form (reality). in this example it is expressed as a separation of belief from reality… a point at which some christians i have met have attained.
at its core, we have a resemblance of nietzsche… in the form of hegel. not to say that nietzsche is synonymous with nihilism. certainly nihilism is a simplified form. what might make this nietzschiean is in how we divorce a position’s normal “expected” valiance from its expression… not just that we deal with nihilism and therefore must deal with the origins of values. we have a movement into the origins of the seed of belief in that 4th nihilist claim…
so but basically this can be understood as a justification of christianity or whatever through nihilism.
Comments (0)