Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Three Religions for Three Peoples

Every human needs a way to cope with the experience of suffering, in other words a religion.

Now, I will tell you a mystery. Each of the three layers of people that we have described, with their three layers of culture, has a different religion. Of course they do. Each lives in a different world, and and each different world is experienced a different meaning of "life, the universe, and everything." The Subordinates or Clients tend to have a pre-Axial Age religion, with vengeful gods. The Responsibles or Commoners believe in a God that made the world, enacted his divine law and directed them to get on with it. There is a tendency among these folk to get beyond vengeance, as George Eliot taught her venerable Commoner Adam Bede to do with the help of that veritable saint, Dinah Morris.

Two Kinds of Hero’s Journeys

But what about the religion of the Creatives, the educated Gentry? That, of course, is the question before us.

The Creative class, the Gentry, the Somebodies, just know that they must have some vitally important role to play upon the stage of society. God, or rather Gaia, has decreed it. But what? This is where the brilliance of rich-kid Karl Marx, son of the leading lawyer in Trier, comes in. If you are a rich kid looking around for something meaningful to do why not gussie up a quick-and-dirty meaning of life, the universe and everything that explains the world as a sub-lunar battle between Us and Them: the capitalists vs. the workers, and then organize the workers and lead them to justice against the mean-spirited bourgeoisie? Or the minorities against the racists? Or the women against the patriarchy? Or the gays against the haters? Was Marx a genius, or what?

And what does it mean to make your religion about other peoples' suffering? Did Marx not feel suffering himself? Or was he sublimating his own sufferings onto others?

I find myself asking a question: Is this a rising to peaks beyond the “heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx,” or is it a lurch back to the primitive, to re-imagine that all suffering arises from a social or economic fault or from a “hater?” And that vengeance is the answer?

For in the primitive world-view Mircea Eliade teaches us that there “is always a fault at the bottom of it.” Really, if Marx hadn’t come up with this cunning plan, what else could the scions of the Gentry do with their primitive hate, poor things?

These Creatives sound to me like der Übermensch on stilts. But how can that be? Was not Nietzsche “the Nazis’ favorite intellectual?” How come our lefty friends are singing his song?

They are singing his song because the Nietzschean hero is an egoistic hero. That’s what our modern artists and writers and activistes and revolutionaries are all about: Ego Heroism. You solve the problems of the world in your creative manifesto or work of art or activist agenda and then demand the right to implement it, as activiste, or revolutionary, or expert, or Minister of the Department of Silly Walks, because the arc of history. And never mind the butcher's bill.

But whatabout yourself? Shouldn't the activiste heal himself before he heals the world? But that raises an agonizing problem: if the Egoistic Hero is not the answer, then what is?

The answer is as old as the hills and as new as yesterday: the Sacrificial Hero. We all know something about him because we all know about the iconic Sacrificial Hero, Jesus Christ, who died on the Roman cross, not to mention Moses who died before the Israelites reached the Promised Land. But the Sacrificial Hero is an archetype that shows up everywhere, and has been an especial interest of the followers of Carl Jung, including Joseph Campbell and recently Jordan B. Peterson. The whole idea of the Jungian archetype is that each archetype is encoded in our DNA, in our unconscious minds -- and has been, for aeons.

Earth to lefties: your activist, your Gramscian marcher through the institutions, your politician is not the Hero that will save the world. He is the monster, the dragon in the underworld, that sacrifices others to his fantastic dream of personal immortality.

The Hero’s Journey has been criticized: by academics that regard it as too general or too vague, by feminists that regard it as too masculine and privileged. But against them is George Lucas’s Star Wars phenomenon that was openly based on the Hero myth and struck a mystic chord that is still echoing. So the Hero myth clearly resonates with young men; Jungians might say that Star Wars activates certain archetypes in the male collective unconscious.

Perhaps the best place to start is to check off what the Hero is not. He is not the fanciful knight of the medieval romance, pace Wagner, the feudal princely raider dressed up as the servant of Christ. He is not the lefty activiste living the fantasy of revolution. He is not the leader of the nation, feted by battalions of flatterers or serviced by a 2,000 woman “Pleasure Squad.” He is not the ethnic leader warring against hate with an agenda of hate. He is not the peacocking journalist truckling to the powerful while imagining himself speaking truth to power.

And here is something else he, or she, is not, that I blogged about recently. He is not the expert that decides that a teenager is “psychosomatic” and should be taken away from her parents and confined in a hospital’s psychiatric unit. Nor is she the Harvard academic who believes that she ought to decide how other peoples’ children should be educated. This sort of thing is a plunge back into the past. This is what the Olympian gods were up to in The Iliad, deciding who would win and lose in each battle on the plains of Troy -- as the mood took them -- because they were gods. Surely, Mao, we are better than that.

The Hero is instead the mediator between Order and Chaos, and will probably die, a Sacrificial Hero, on that fateful border. But that is where the creative life must be lived, for life cannot long thrive in the arid safety and often the cruel hierarchy of Order and the experts. And life is unendurable as unmitigated Chaos.

So the Hero, privileged and masculine and Sacrificial, must descend from the safety of privilege and learn to navigate the dark realms of Chaos in a generalized and vaguely constructed archetypical journey into the underworld of the unconscious. For here be dragons.

But, what does the Hero's Journey mean, exactly?

Next: The Hero's Journey in Each of Us
Modern educated people are called on a creative life journey

Or back to Contents

1584 Project -- Contents

1584 was the real "real" foundation of America, NHJ
  1. My "1584 Project"
    America began when the first ship of "waste population" hit the shores

  2. Oh No! I've been banned by Google
    Because of the Dreaded N-word

Activism Culture - Table of Contents

A Critical Theory of Leftist Activism Culture

0. Activism Culture in Brief

  1. Let's Epatez the Liberaloisie!

  2. Liberalism is Revolution Theme Park

  3. How Does the Next President Beat the Liberal Activism Culture?
    Proposing exactly what Trump has done.

  4. If Every Young Liberal Longs to be an Activist, What About Conservatives?
    If there were conservative activism, what would it look like?

  5. Self-Deceit at the Heart of the Liberal World View

  6. Sorry Liberals. Protest is for People Outside the System
    Good little college girls and gentry liberals need not apply

  7. The Left's Conceit About "Resistance"
    One you have removed the laws that implement injustice, the job for politics is done.

  8. The Democrats are Chained to Their Activist Base
    And that is not very good for the Democrats

  9. No Liberals, It is not 1848, or 1963. There is No Call for Riots
    Usually, Revolution Baby is not the answer

  10. Hello Berkeley, It is Time to Check Your Privilege
    Anyone at Berkeley is already more privileged than people on the outside

  11. The Left Always Preys on People Outside the System
    Because only people outside the system are not already represented

  12. It is AstroTurf All the Way Down
    The activism culture is fake

  13. Joint Address Activism: The First Time as Tragedy...
    Wearing white dresses to a presidential speech

  14. The Folly of the Activism Culture
    It assumes that all political issues should be advanced by peaceful protest

  15. The Cultural Problem at the Heart of Ashland
    Diversity and inclusion have nothing to do with Shakespeare

  16. Is It the Sixties Again?
    Think of it as a religious Creative Awakening. Again

  17. There is a Reason Why the Left is Always Attacking Middle Class Values
    It is that middle-class responsibles don't need government to supervise them

  18. What Fools These Liberals Be
    They want a hierarchical society like back in feudal times

  19. Militarism vs. Activism: Ruling Class Culture Then and Now
    Used to be that rulers were militarists; now they are activists

  20. The Two Heads of the Forces of Lefty Reaction
    We are talking about neo-tribalism and neo-feudalism

  21. The Two Reactions: How Do We Deal With Them?
    We already did, with nation states and corporations

  22. Real Critical Theory: How About a Critique of Leftism?
    Little darlings always end up in the garbage can of history.

  23. The Plague of Fake Politics
    When rich kids advocate for poor kids, watch out.

  24. When a Lefty Comes to Visit
    Really, we don't need lefty activism, because our society cares

  25. Is This Peak Activism?

  26. "Studies:" The Munitions of the Activists
    Lefties need their "studies" to fuel their rage.

  27. So-called Protest is Really War
    Because the left is all about power

  28. Peterson and Jung and Nietzsche, Oh My!
    Can the three peoples make sense of modern psychology?

  29. Whither the Culture War Now?
    We must demand that the lefties respect us responsibles.

  30. My Critique of the Left. Again
    A history of activism since 1848

  31. The Wages of Politics
    What is the point of politics with a middle class not that interested in power

  32. Blame Activism Culture for "Red Hen" Expulsion
    Because activism is a religion

  33. The Fault, dear Liberals, is in Your Religion
    We don't need no stinkin' religion of "activism"

  34. The Downside of Activism -- for Its Advocates
    It means you melt down when a conservative gets to appoint Supreme Court justices

  35. Live by the Supreme Court, Die by the Supreme Court
    The problem with using the Supreme Court for legislation

  36. Activism Culture Leads to "Spartacus Illusion"
    If you are a well-born activist it helps to think that you are really the underdog.

  37. The Fault Dear Liberals Is Not in Your Stars
    But that you believe in politics

  38. Rich Kid Protesters are Not the Cry of the Oppressed

  39. Great Reaction: Activism is Neo-Knight-Errantry
    What else do you call riding around in search of helpless victims to save?

  40. Great Reaction: Reparations is Neo-Vengeance
    Turning back the clock from law to the lex-talionis

  41. The Elite's Religion: We are Holier Than Thou Because We Care About the Victims
    But does the elite understand this?

  42. Understanding Tlaib: The Culture of Innocence
    It's needed for a truly oppressed minority. But the Muslims in Detroit?

  43. More Tlaib: How to Tell a Genuine Movement for Justice
    It isn't supported by the ruling class, you Squaddies

  44. Our Ruling Class Does Have a Religion, And How
    It believes in equality, education, climate change, by the creative/educated

  45. Suppose Lefty Activists are Just Faking It, Like Actors
    Activism is a form of acting. Like the ancient Greeks

  46. Why the Enthusiastic Trump Rally Crowds?
    Because they think he is fighting for them

  47. Think of Activists as "Activistes"
    Because like an "artiste" an activist is a public performer

  48. Pelosi's "Far Left" Bill. The Bigger Problem
    Lefties legislating their lefty morality

  49. The Sacrificial Hero Ancient and Modern
    How do we "save" the Gentry hero from egoism?

  50. The Emperor's New Clothes and Race
    Some day some kid is going to ask Mommy why liberals lie about race

  51. Riots and Mayhem: Be of Good Cheer
    It's a liberal "failure of prophecy, and Nietzsche, Brinton, and Ken Wilber have written

  52. Remember, "Activists" Aren't Revolutionaries
    But regime thugs doing what they have been carefully taught

  53. "Movements" are So Over

  54. When the White Woke Mob Comes to the Home of a Black Woman Police Chief

  55. Activism and a Meaningful LIfe

  56. Message to Lefties: The Age of Politics is Over

  57. Hey Liberals and Lefties: The Age of Politics is Over

  58. The Terminal Bossiness of the Educated Gentry

  59. Imagine! The BLM/AntiFa Riots Were The Fault of Infiltrating White Nationalists!

  60. The Mostly Peaceful Hellscape

  61. The Three Peoples and Revolution

  62. Why a Sorority Sister Got Arrested at a Riot

  63. Why the Age of Revolution is Over

  64. "We Get to Play-act on Your Dime"

  65. Why the Good Guys Always Lose: It's Not Their Fault

  66. Good Luck, Joe. You'll Need It

  67. Where is the New Miguel Cervantes When You Need Him

  68. Yarvin: Trump Never Had a Chance; Plus He's Incompetent

Allyism -- Table of Contents

The Culture of the Ally, that helps Oppressed Peoples, or not.

0. Ally-ism in Brief

  1. No, Harvard Students. You are the Oppressors

  2. Liberal Fascism: "The Worse the Better"
    Life is fun for allies of oppressed peoples. But others might not agree.

  3. Activism and a Meaningful Life
    A lot of people get their meaning of life from left-wing activism

  4. The Question of George Washington and His Slaves
    But he freed them in his will.

  5. The Moment Before Wile E. Coyote Falls to Earth
    Our progressive friends have no idea what they have stirred up

  6. What Does Soros Want?
    Thing is, for an assimilated Jew born in 1930, nationalism is the enemy

  7. Whatabout the Greek Australian That Says "Australia Belongs to Europe"?
    Aussie immigrants may not be assimilated now, but whatabout in 50 years?

  8. Dems are for the Allies; GOPs are for the Commoners

  9. The Crisis of White Liberal Hegemony
    There isn't enough loot for Gentry and for Victims

  10. The Three Peoples and Revolution
    Creatives think that Revolution could be rather cool

  11. Why a Sorority Sister Got Arrested at a Riot
    She thinks she is an "ally" of "oppressed peoples"

  12. Politics Can't Change Anything, Unless...
    You can never beat the "Cathedral" except when there's a religious revolution

  13. My "1584 Project"
    What if our real founding was when the first ship of "waste population" arrived on our shores?

  14. Race, Identity, and Innocence
    Never doubt how much politics is about innocence

  15. The Tell: Cheating When You Start to Lose
    It is telling that the Woke Left is Starting to Cheat

  16. Lefty Ally-ism, and What Real Allies Look Like
    Real allies help other people to grow

  17. Is the Trump Phenomenon a New "Awakening?"

  18. Reaching Towards an Un-Ally-ism

  19. Cheating is a Sign You Are Losing

  20. Getting to Acceptance

  21. Why the Good Guys Always Lose: It's Not Their Fault

  22. Getting a Word In Against Liberal Cultural Hegemony

  23. Good Luck, Joe. You'll Need It

  24. The Decline and Fall of the Progressive Empire

  25. Dueling Three Layers: Allyism vs. Americanism

  26. But Tear Gas and But Hate

  27. Allyism, Republicans and Democrats

  28. When a Protest is "Mostly Peaceful" Then Maybe Crowd Control is Needed

  29. The Small Minority Gig and the Ruling Class

  30. The Ten Woke Ideas from FiveThirtyEight

  31. The Importance of "Victims with Attitude"

  32. How Meaning of Life, Religion, Culture and Politics Connect

  33. Politics Equals Us vs. Them Equals Hate

  34. The End of Over/Under Politics

  35. Tribalism: China will Divide, because Politics is Division

The Question of Suffering

If Nietzsche ended his life by going mad, maybe he made a mistake in the development of his Übermensch philosophy. Maybe his mistake was to imagine that his revaluation of values for “we free spirits” could just vault nonchalantly over all the suffering and misery of the world. For, as Mircea Eliade records in The Myth of the Eternal Return, humans are eternally obsessed with the suffering of life, and that there must be a reason for all the misery.

The primitive... cannot conceive of an unprovoked suffering; it arises from a personal fault... or from his neighbor's malevolence... but there is always a fault at the bottom of it[.]

There has to be a fault. And it has to be avenged.

Primitive man, according to Eliade, solves the problem of existence and its suffering by denying history, and lives life as an annual repeating cycle, with each New Year representing a new Creation following a brief descent into Chaos. Only with the Axial Age religions does mankind dare to enter history, with the priests and prophets promising an end to suffering at the End of Time. Nietzsche sneers at “the priests,” that they teach us to hate ourselves. But perhaps the opposite is true, that the priests have cunningly taught us to hope that the natural self-hate that issues from our universal suffering will be dissolved in the moment of Redemption.

And, of course, the Left’s secular religion learned from Marx is just another priestly attempt to resolve human suffering with the hope of Redemption. The Left offers the balm of social justice once the arc of history has been heroically bent by progressive political activists towards justice. Or is the left a lurch back to the primitive, insisting that all suffering arises from a social or economic fault or a “hater” and there has to be a fault? And boy, are we activists going to teach you haters a lesson!

So what do we do about it? After the Death of God how do we acknowledge the problem of suffering and yet invent a meaning to our lives that can give us the hope we yearn for? Humans did it in primitive times, and then later with the God of the Axial Age. We tried socialism, but a scientific experiment conducted in the 20th century by eminent social scientists Lenin, Stalin, and Mao proved that socialism created more suffering than it redeemed.

Can we invent a meaning for those for whom God is Dead but who hesitate to blame kulaks or billionaires or even white supremacists for human suffering? And if we succeed, we lordly thinkers, perhaps we can then take a step further -- and I warn you this is really radical. Suppose our lordly philosophy creates not just a narrative for us lordly ones, but actually thinks just a little about the rest of the world, and concedes to lesser breeds without the law their right to a meaning that makes sense for them: for primitives, yea, for ordinary deplorables -- foul racist-sexist-homophobes though we be -- and even for the “free spirit” bad boys, the Übermenschen of Nietzsche’s fevered dreams?

And, as a bonus, wouldn’t it be fun if we could conjure up a vision of the good life “more compelling than the fanatical march toward a virtuous future that the Left offers” that would appeal even to lefties? It would be nice for our fellow humans, considering how often that lefty dreams have ended in the abattoir.

Three Kinds of People

Nothing could be simpler. But first we have to take a leap of faith. There is always a leap of faith.

Let us suppose there are three kinds of people in the world. First, there are the primitives, that live in an eternal present, buffeted around by angry neighbors and wrathful gods. Second, there are the responsibles, living in history and seeking the dignity that attaches to people taking responsibility for their own suffering in the hope of eventual redemption. Third, there are Nietzsche types, that imagine themselves the creators of their own lives: Übermenschen, a cut above the rest.

Is this too simple? Yes of course it is: the world is infinitely complex and all our knowledge but a crude effort to keep dodging disaster. But it is still pretty sophisticated, for most people cannot understand anything except their own perspective: solipsism. Even so, many of us have managed climb out of solipsism to construct a two-kinds-of-people world of semi-solipsism: Us and Them: the good people and the evil people, where the evil people are barely human and are to blame for all our suffering.

Still, a lot of people have gone the extra mile beyond the binary of Us and Them. The Vikings had their earls, peasants, and “thralls” or slaves. Romans? Patricians, Plebeians, and Slaves. Why the number three? Because with anything more complicated you will lose your audience. I discuss this further here.

And then there is Curtis Yarvin, who proposes in his “Clear Pill” that modern society comes in three layers: Gentry, Commoners, and Clients -- after George Orwell’s Inner Party, Outer Party, and Plebs -- where

The gentry are urbanites, cultivated and ambitious; the commoners are suburbanites, educated and independent; the clients are Marx’s proletariat and lumpenproletariat, uneducated and/or dependent.

I have my own three-layer theory that I call my reductive Three Peoples theory. I introduced it here. It is pretty close to Yarvin’s theory. I have: the People of the Subordinate Self, that “attach themselves to a powerful patron in return for scraps from the lordly table;” the People of the Responsible Self that “must individually shoulder the responsibility of finding their place in the city scramble and holding onto it.” And then there are the People of the Creative Self, the special people:

Our modern son of the middle class wants to live a creative life, as a writer, an artist, a videographer, an activist, a revolutionary. His sister wants to work in global health for a non-profit.

Yes, we creative people really are insufferable. Yarvin agrees; he describes his Gentry, as not so much creative as creatures of the ruling class, animated by “ambition, honor, and vanity.” I would say that most people that think of themselves as creative are fake-creatives. Really they are just intelligent ticket-punchers with an inflated idea of themselves: experts, scientists, and policy analysts. But they are Somebodies!

Here is a curious difference between Yarvin’s three-layer theory and my Three Peoples theory. It occurred to me, as most things do, in the middle of the night. Yarvin’s theory is an external theory, the description of actors on a stage: playing their roles as Gentry, Commoners, or Clients. My Three Peoples theory is an inner theory, about how people experience the world. Do you feel Subordinate, Responsible, or Creative today?

But what does it all mean? I will tell you.

The center of gravity of the modern world is the Responsible, the Commoner, the Anybody. These are people that obey the law, go to work, and follow the rules. They have surrendered to the will of the market -- some people call this modern slavery -- which is to say that they live more or less willingly in the social cooperative system of the market where you work to produce, not for yourself, as a peasant farmer might, but for others in exchange for money. Responsibles learn to trust people that demonstrate trustworthiness, and a reputation for trustworthiness is the beginning of dignity.

If you are a Subordinate or Client, a Nobody, you have not yet learned how to wive and thrive in the modern world. You live in a tribe, or an ethnic enclave in a city, and trust only other tribe members. You “got your rights” and you expect someone else to tell you what to do and you imagine yourself as their loyal and beloved retainer. But in fact you are the Little Darling of your lord and his power project, and the day will come when he will no longer need you. Hello, white working class.

If you are a Creative or Gentry you are a problem, because even though you are Somebody chances are that you are neither very creative or very gentlemanly. The real creatives, the people that have transformed our modern world, have usually started out as Commoner Anybodies: Rockefeller the store clerk; Carnegie the telegraph messenger; Einstein the patent clerk; Jobs the castoff of educated parents raised by a coastguard mechanic. Good breeding and selective colleges don’t change the world.

But, obviously, these three kinds of people will experience suffering in different ways, and will need a different understanding of the meaning of "life, the universe and everything" in order to understand their suffering and hope for a better life, despite the sorrows of the world: in other words, each of the three kinds of people needs a different religion.

Next: Three Religions for Three Peoples
Your religion depends on your understanding of suffering

Or back to Contents

Aristotle - Contents

Aristotle

1. Let's Keep Things The Way They Are

2. Aristotle's Waffle on the Function Argument

3. Happiness: Is Virtue Sufficient

4. How Many Divisions Has the Soul?

5. What About That Mean?

6. Are Incontinent Fools Wise?

7. How to Judge Actions

8. Aristotle Fiddles the Mean on Courage

9. If Virtue is Voluntary, So is Vice

10. Friendliness is Not Just For Friends

11. Is Aristotle Too Egoist?

12. Goodwill and Friendship

13. Does a Happy Man Need Friends?

14. Aristotle and Justice

The German Turn

The great question in every human life is the meaning of “life, the universe, and everything” -- for me. But this meaning has changed over the years and millennia, particularly in our own time. Many of us can’t accept the religion of our ancestors, and the religion of the Prophet Marx that they force-feed kids at our government schools and universities inspired the worst slave states in history. There seems to be a “glitch” in the Matrix. And yet still we yearn for meaning, for, as Roy Rappaport has written, “No society known to anthropology or history is devoid of what reasonable observers would agree is religion,” the attempt to find meaning in life.

I experienced my “glitch” in the Matrix decades ago when reading F.S.C. Northrop’s The Meeting of East and West. In Chapter V: German Idealism, he begins:

The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since 1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and philosophical conception of man and nature, which defined the foundations of traditional modern French and Anglo-American democratic culture, has been shown by indisputable evidence to be inadequate.
What did that mean, I wondered, a young man educated in the Newtonian mechanics of pre-relativity physics and perfectly content with the mechanical world view of the British empiricists? What was their problem? Well, I now understand, it means the German Turn: Kant and Hegel and Goethe and Schopenhauer and Marx and Wagner and Nietzsche and Freud and Jung and Heidegger and Marcuse and Habermas and their Anglo-Saxon adepts like Joseph Campbell and Jordan B. Peterson. They were all dealing with the fact that, for them, the “Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and philosophical conception of man and nature” didn’t do the job of explaining the meaning of “life, the universe, and everything,” and they set out to do something about it.

OK, so what does that mean? For me, it means that after you have read all those Germans the problem of the meaning of “life, the universe, and everything” looks a lot different than the logic and reason and mechanical world of the Anglo-Saxons. And downstream from that, so is any religion, and culture, and politics that you might want to conjure up to solve that little problem of meaning.

And you appreciate, or at least I do, why there seems to be a bit of a cock-up these days on the religion, culture, and politics fronts, especially wherever lefties are involved.

And there is this: Downstream of religion, downstream of culture, there is the fact that nobody, but nobody, has yet come up with a politics that goes one better than the politics invented by our Founders 240 years ago. How come? But there have been a ton of people -- from Marx to Marcuse -- who have taken ideas from the German Turn and made a complete dog’s breakfast out of them: murderous religions, poisonous cultures, and dysfunctional politics.

What does that mean? That the German Turn was a wrong turn, or that Marx and Marcuse were wrong’uns? My faith is that the Marxes and the Marcuses were fools rather than wrong’uns, and made a very simple, and very foolish mistake: that the answer to the question of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything in the new world could be found in politics and political power, pretending you were some kind of an Earthly god. But for me, the German Turn is not about power, but everything else.

Indeed, I would say that the one thing to take from the German Turn is that politics and power are not the answer.

But what are the positive takeaways from the German Turn? It starts, at least, that with Kant we cannot know things-in-themselves, but only sense impressions conjured up into a theory of reality. It means, with the Romantics, that there is something that comes before logic and reason. It means, with Wagner, that there is a lot more in those ancient myths than mere superstition and something more in medieval romances than rescuing damsels in distress. It means, with Nietzsche, the Peck’s Bad Boy of philosophers, that any time a God is Dead the former believers cannot avoid a revaluation of all values, even though the journey leads through decadence and nihilism and will probably tip them into madness. It means, with Freud, that 90 percent of our mind is the unconscious mind, and that probably it is the unconscious mind that is directing our lives with its repressed mania and not the magisterial logical Ego of the conscious mind. It means, with Jung, that we’d better understand our unconscious and the archetypes with which it is programmed to interpret and interact with the world before we boldly head out to bend the arc of history towards justice. It means, with Horkheimer and Adorno, that “Enlightenment behaves towards things as a dictator towards men. He knows them in so far as he can manipulate them” and with Habermas that humans do not live in a mechanical world but in a “lifeworld,” Heidegger's being-there in a face-to-face culture of shared experience in the world.

All cool stuff, but does it matter? Well, here’s my take: you be the judge.

I’ve come to think, over the years, that Kant’s dictum about not knowing things-in-themselves is the most astonishing idea in human history. He was trying to synthesize the antithesis -- before Hegel! -- between Cartesian rationalism and Humean empiricism. 

In my view, Kant's dictum that we do not know things-in-themselves but only appearances gave physicists permission to break out of the certainty that we live in a world of matter and absolute space and time. It gave them permission to dare to suggest that space and time are relative. And his ideas also led to the mad, mad world of quantum mechanics where matter is no longer matter. Another thing: with the Uncertainty Principle we have a foundational reason to believe in Free Will, or at least unexpected accidents, again. I’d say that Kant matters.

But what does it all mean? The truth is that we still don’t have a clue: that is the point of saying that we cannot know things-in-themselves -- or, if you like, the man behind the curtain -- so we are reduced, we will always be reduced, to making it up as we always have, filling in the blanks with a Narrative. And that, I presume, is the meaning of Douglas Adams’ little joke about the meaning of “life, the universe, and everything.” Nietzsche is on to it in The Will to Power §853 with a characteristic insult:

Metaphysics, morality, religion, science -- in this book these things merit consideration only as various forms of lies: with their help we can have faith in life.

Nietzsche’s lie, his “faith in life,” his Narrative, is the free spirit, the Übermensch, with increasing vigor, will-to-power, exploding forth to overcome decadence, nihilism, and the Groundhog Day of eternal recurrence. Maybe that is a bridge too far; maybe humans can never become Übermenschen, since Nietzsche collapsed into insanity at age 46.

Maybe Nietzsche is giving us a clue, that he could not bear the weight of suffering in his life, and so retreated behind the cloud of insanity. For suffering seems to be front and center in human religion, ancient, modern and postmodern, in our human attempts to understand the meaning of life.

Next: The Question of Suffering
The question of meaning revolves around the differing analyses of suffering

Or back to Contents