The breakthrough came from reading a short item at View from the Right. Lawrence Auster briefly describes in the item Fr Seraphim Rose's idea that there are four stages of nihilism.
The four stages mark a progress away from a traditional belief in an objective, higher truth. In the first stage, Liberalism, the higher truth is no longer believed in but the concepts (the "names") are still made use of. In the second stage, Realism, there is a more aggressive denial of higher truth, with only the materialistic and deterministic aspects of reality being recognised.
It is the third stage, Vitalism, that I want to focus on. Vitalism is a reaction against the sterile world created by the Liberals and Realists. However, Vitalists don't return to the traditional higher truths as an antidote to sterility. For them, what matters is not whether something is true, but whether it promotes vitality - whether it is life-affirming and life-giving.
Nietzsche was a Vitalist when he wrote:
The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving ...
The key quote regarding Vitalism is this one from Lawrence Auster:
In the Vitalist stage of society, people deliver themselves over to an unending search for sensation and excitement, for the exotic and the experimental, for ever-greater freedom and satisfaction of desires, for the “riches of diversity,” for the transforming “energy” that is produced by a society in constant change and motion--and with all these things being seen as, even explicitly promoted as, a substitute for any inherent truth and goodness in existence.
I believe that Catherine Deveny had such a Vitalist moment when she wrote the column that puzzled me six months ago.
Consider the following excerpts:
What confronting and confusing times we're living in. It's not just the environmental catastrophe and the financial crisis. Technology is advancing at breakneck speed ... Add to this our general existential melancholy, exacerbated by and contributing to many turning their back on organised religion. Depression is rising, obesity's an epidemic, binge drinking's up, divorce is through the roof ... sometimes it feels like: "Where are we going and what are we doing in this hand basket?"
We have no idea what's going to happen next. What once worked no longer does ... Everything's changing. We're terrified, we're excited. We've got no choice.
Think back to the 1960s ... No one could have predicted the massive cultural change ... Who would have known we were in for such culturally vivid times?
... the truth is, my friends, we're off the map. What an adventure.
... we do know that the times ahead will be full of massive change and huge challenges
Don't just be prepared to stuff up, expect it. Encourage it. Experiment. As Zorba the Greek says: "Life is trouble. Only death is not. To live is to undo your belt and look for trouble."
I found it difficult to process this message because it seems so reckless. Catherine Deveny is telling us that we are going to hell in a handbasket, that we have no control over what happens, and that this is a great, terrifying adventure to be embraced.
This differs markedly from earlier forms of radicalism. The philosophical radicals of the early 1800s, for instance, held that everything was determined by association and that you could therefore achieve unlimited social reform by changing the way that people were conditioned (e.g. through the education system). These radicals belong to the earlier Realist stage of nihilism, the one emphasising materialism and determinism.
So one group of radicals promoted the idea that we can scientifically control social development to achieve increasing levels of human happiness; Deveny, in contrast, believes that things are out of control, that there are signs of social deterioration, but that this chaotic state of flux provides the conditions for a meaningful life.
This makes sense if we think of Deveny as a third stage Vitalist rather than a second stage Realist. And it does seem undeniable that Deveny's message fits Lawrence Auster's description of Vitalism.
Auster: In the Vitalist stage of society, people deliver themselves over to an unending search for sensation and excitement, for the exotic and the experimental ... for the transforming “energy” that is produced by a society in constant change and motion.
Deveny: Everything's changing. We're terrified, we're excited. To live is to undo your belt and look for trouble. Experiment. We're off the map. What an adventure. Who would have known we were in for such culturally vivid times? The times ahead will be full of massive change.
One final point. An advantage of the Vitalist position for radicals like Deveny is that it allows them to wash their hands of the damage that they themselves have done to society. They get to present social change as being an unpredictable, accidental result of natural forces beyond anyone's control, rather than a predictable result of the liberal politics that has dominated the West for some generations.
Eugene Rose's genius insight into the Vitalist stage of Nihilism is a key to understanding our age. I'm always telling people about Rose, and I am so glad to see that he has opened up doors for you.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain then the "radicals" that want to accomplish social change within traditional forms (i.e. without revolution)?
ReplyDeleteThe most prominent example of this is the gay marriage debate. Most mainstream gay campaigners present themselves as wanting the same perfect "bourgeouis" setup as everyone else: suburban house, loving partner, kids in good schools and so on.
(As opposed to the more fringe element, including some feminists, who may deplore marriage but support gay marriage anyways).
According to your scheme, this is stage one Liberalism: name without its original (and true) form.
Yet, the original form of democracy only included the votes of the slave-owning males of Athens. Over the years, democracy expanded to include non-propertied men, former slaves and women. No one in their right mind would say that the original form of democracy was corrupted by its gradual expansion to let all men vote.
I honestly can't see any difference between how democracy has changed, and how marriage is changing -- both happening within the traditional forms.
Lawrence Auster, I'm going to have to delve further into Eugene Rose's ideas.
ReplyDeleteI read quite of bit of D.H.Lawrence at one time and it strikes me that he fits, in part, within a Vitalist current of thought.
Lawrence wrote much that was interesting and insightful - perhaps because he was open to some of the stronger and immediate of human experiences.
But he seemed to think that living through such experiences - connecting to them adequately - was enough. He apparently believed that an integrated life was one which drew at least in part on the daemonic.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteMarriage in modern society is losing its traditional form - and not just because of the homosexual marriage issue.
However, accepting the concept of "homosexual marriage" does contribute to the changing of form.
Think of it this way. The love of men and women can be thought of as being complementary. It is like two distinct parts completing the other. It therefore makes sense for heterosexuals to think of marriage as being an exclusive union.
This understanding of marriage is reinforced by the fact that this union of man and woman issues naturally in new life; added to this, there is a concern of the male to ensure paternity, further reinforcing the notion of fidelity and exclusivity.
Added to this is the dynamic by which women traditionally needed to draw a man into a stable relationship to provide for her and protect her; and then added to this is the effect on male sexuality of women being less likely to accept the advances of the average male, meaning that for most men a stable relationship is a more likely path to sexual success than efforts to play the field.
None of this applies to male homosexuals. There is no natural complementarity by which two spouses fit together to complete each other and create new life. There are no concerns about paternity. There is no dynamic requiring one partner to be a lifelong protector and provider. And there are not the same restraints placed on a promiscuous male sexuality.
For all of these reasons, expanding marriage to include homosexuals is likely to change the culture of marriage. It will be much more difficult to understand marriage as a natural, exclusive union of two persons.
Much more likely is that marriage will be redefined as a more open-ended public recognition of love or commitment.
This is not just speculation. Whenever I debate right-liberal types on this issue and I point out that marriage will lose its exclusive nature and that there will be no principled basis to object to, say, polygamy - the right-liberals agree. They ask me why men shouldn't marry more than one women if that's what everyone involved wants to do.
What's the fourth stage?
ReplyDeleteThe Nihilism of Destruction, where the Nihilists try to bring it all down around their heads. Sound familiar?
ReplyDelete“This is not just speculation. Whenever I debate right-liberal types on this issue and I point out that marriage will lose its exclusive nature and that there will be no principled basis to object to, say, polygamy - the right-liberals agree. They ask me why men shouldn't marry more than one women if that's what everyone involved wants to do.”
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t agree with you more Mr. Richardson! I believe your last statement above highlights a dilemma for the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka Mormons; or is it?
Mormons no longer practice polygamy because of mans laws, and if any Mormon were to practice polygamy publicly, the leaders of the Church would excommunicate them immediately. So if homosexuals can marry this could possibly lead to more diverse forms of marriages like polygamy? Why not? Bisexuals could marry, sisters & sister, brother & brother. We can’t deny these marriages? That would be darn right hatful and discriminating? But then again it might not be bad for Mormons after all, seeing that polygamy would no longer be use as a weapon of persecution? I personally can’t begin to comprehend the righteous utopia of polygamy.
Mark, I wouldn't read too much into Deveny's writings. She is a fruitcake, plain and simple.
ReplyDelete