critical theory

Once upon a time…

Odysseus

Though he [Nietzsche] discerned both the universal movement of sovereign Spirit (whose executor he felt himself to be) and a “nihilistic” anti-life forece of the enlightenement, his pre-Fascist followers retained only the second aspect and perverted it into an ideology”

Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (44)

As a grandfather sits down to begin to read a story to his grandson, the air is filled with excited anticipation, and as he starts reading, “Once upon a time…”, there is a clear break with reality, as in a dissolve sequence in a film, and with it the space for an alternate reality has been cleared. As Horkheimer and Adorno (H&A) understand the enlightenment there is a similar break at play, and one that transitions from a powerful, sovereign nature to a rational, autonomous, self-directing individual with the confidence to use their reason to control, manipulate, and ultimately dominate nature itself. As H&A read Nietzsche, and as the leading quote shows, Nietzsche was painfully aware of both the power of nature, the power of our instinctual, natural spirit to foster the conditions that will lead to a flourishing life, and he was aware of the sense of power one gains from subjecting this very nature and spirit to the yoke of one’s subjective will. The displays of this very power over nature, through vows to celibacy, etc. was one of the reasons why, as Nietzsche pointed out, the powerful nobles and aristocrats would be in awe of priests and the power and strength they must muster to control and dominate the nature they allowed themselves to get caught up with. The concern Nietzsche had, and one that H&A were able to see come to fruition, was that the second sense of power would win out over the first. This is the power of controlling nature, of controlling society and peoples as objects for mathematical, scientific, and industrial control. Unfortunately for society, as H&A read events in 1947, the “universal movement of sovereign Spirit” had been left behind in the march of enlightenment progress.

(more…)
By Jeffrey Bell, ago

PSR, Nihilism, and Dialectic of Enlightenment

The dualization of nature as appearance and sequnce, effort and power, which first makes possible both myth and science, originates in human fear, the expression of which becomes explanation. It is not the soul which is transposed to nature, as psychologism would have it; mana, the moving spirit, is no projection, but the echo of the real supremacy of nature in the weak souls of primitive men

Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (p. 15)

In the next few posts I want to begin exploring the relationship between the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) and our effort to make sense of our lives. The latter concern may seem to be a subset of the former – after all, if the PSR calls for an explanation for why things are as they are and not otherwise, then this would also include, apparently, an explanation that accounts for and explains our lives. This could not be further from the truth, however, as became increasingly apparent to many 18th century philosophers who began to think thorugh the implications of Spinoza’s rationalism, and its attendant reliance upon the PSR. In particular, many saw in Spinoza a nihilism whereby nothing in our life means anything but is simply that which follows from the necessity of God’s nature, and it is God’s infinite nature that explains, in the end, our existence. This explanation, however, does nothing to give meaning to our existence, or so the critics of Spinoza argued, and thus Spinoza’s reliance upon the PSR is not, on this view, in line with our effort to make sense of, and find meaning in, our lives.

(more…)
By Jeffrey Bell, ago