At some point in the fairly distant past, I recall reading a philosophical parable which impressed me greatly. As best I can remember, it went like this:
The Devil has convened a meeting in Hell of all the lesser demons. He demands that all of them come forward and explain what progress is being made for the corruption of mankind. All his minions talk excitedly of the wars that have been started, the unnatural acts committed, the cruelties, the injustices of man against man. The The Devil finds this all unsatisfactory; this is the same tired routine he's been hearing since the dawn of time. Finally, the last demon stands up and says "My lord, i believe we have failed to dehumanize people because we have focused so much on crimes against God and Nature. We have failed to alienate Man against things."
The Devil is confused. "But in a modern society, Man has more things than ever. Are you suggesting we deprive him of them?"
The demon shakes his head. "No, sir. What I mean is that we should replace his things with a series of abstractions, outlines, and spirituality. Man must see objects as symbols; he must learn to use them for effect. They should never be given value in themselves. And, of course, the door to joy must always be firmly shut."
At that, Satan leaned back and smiled. "Brilliant." He said. "Let the work go foreward."
This little story has stayed with me for some time. Ever since reading it, I've been increasingly aware of the way people latch on to tiny, significance-laden fragments of larger beliefs and enlarge these fragments beyond anything reasonable or healthy.
I don't mean worthles slogans that are repeated over and over again; I mean when a 'slogan' of any type becomes more important in people's minds than what that slogan was originally supposed to embody.
Take the recent House approval of a bill to ban flag-burning. To those who support it, the American flag is supposed to represent the freedom and promise of America. Maybe it does, but in the end it's still only a piece of cloth. To sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of a cloth is lunacy, no matter what mystical properties you ascribe to it.
In the furor over Mel Gibson's 'The Passion', the line was drawn with liberals protesting anti-Semitism and religious conservatives denying it, while neither side at all understood the concerns of the other. The reason is that, to the film's detractors, the murderous, jeering, vile Jews of the 'The Passion' were just who they appeared to be, and this translated to a certain hostility against Jews today. To Gibson's devotees, nobody in the film was a real person and it didn't matter if what was shown in the movie never happened. It was all symbolic, showing the cruelty suffered by Jesus before his death. Quite possibly that's how it was intended, but it never even occurred to them how anyone could be upset at the sight of hook-nosed Pharisees mingling with the Devil or little curly-haired Jerusalem boys suddenly becoming red-eyed vampires. The disconnect between symbolism and reality was complete.
The examples of this type of thing are endless, whether one uses icons (the cross, the flag), verbal or written mantras (the Ten Commandments), honorifics ('Greetings, Comrade'), pieces of clothing (headscarves) or even political systems ('democracy' or 'communism' as the answer to all ills).
What we end up with is a society where nothing matters in itself. I think we're all poorer for it, and should endeavor as best we can to rid ourselves of attachments to things that cloud our ability to see the country behind the flag, or the meaning behind the chants.
Edit: I remember now that I came across that fable in an essay entitled Enjoying this So-Called Iced Cream: Mr. Burns, Satan, and Happiness. Don't ask.
10 comments:
Take the recent House approval of a bill to ban flag-burning. To those who support it, the American flag is supposed to represent the freedom and promise of America. Maybe it does, but in the end it's still only a piece of cloth. To sacrifice our civil liberties for the sake of a cloth is lunacy, no matter what mystical properties you ascribe to it.
But those who burn the flag do so because it is a symbol of America - the obsession with making "a piece of cloth" represent something more isn't one which only proponents of the flag-burning ban have.
in that case, those who burn the flag fall prey to this 'mythology of symbols' too. An icon is burned and an icon is defended; in the ensuing battle, does anyone remember why the flag was being burned or held sacrosanct in the first place? what we have is a great deal of empty gestures and no real engagement. It's rather like marrying the picture of a person instead of a real one. So
As usual, LA brings up a great point, but only addresses it tangentially. The point should not be to complain about the times, “when a 'slogan' of any type becomes more important in people's minds than what that slogan was originally supposed to embody.” The important questions are 1) why did the symbol become more important than that thing which it symbolized? and 2) how is this phenomenon used to maintain the power of the elite? Here are my first impressions regarding these questions; however, these are just rambling thoughts; I do not have what could be called ‘answers’ to these questions just yet.
As to question 1:
Simply put (You’ll excuse me if I am a little Nietzschean here,) the symbol becomes more important than that which is symbolized because there is nothing to symbolize. Those who revere the flag do so because they think it represents certain qualities about the state, or perhaps the nation, which the flag is supposed to symbolize. Let us not argue about what these exact beliefs are, let us just call them A, B, and C. Now, unfortunately, A, B and C cannot be true because our universe is an inherently meaningless one and no transhistorical and immanent meaning can be placed upon any object or idea. Thus The United States of America or The People of The United States of America are not A, B, and C. They are nothing. They may at some moment and under some circumstances A, B, and C; however, at least as frequently (I would say more frequently) they are X, Y and Z (let us say that X, Y, and Z are the things that those who revere the flag least want to admit about their state or their nation.) And so how does one create the impression that the state or the nation inherently A, B, and C and rarely ever X, Y, and Z? Through any number of means of communication e.g. books, movies, debates, TV, magazines, flags, banners, slogans, etc., and through indoctrination connected with prominent institutions e.g. schools, churches, military and paramilitary organizations, corporations, etc. I am not saying that all these means of communication are connected and controlled by a secret jingoist cabal. I am only pointing out that these genuinely semi-autonomous entities can be used by a variety of semi-autonomous sources and repositories of power in society (both elite and popular power) to create this impression. Other (usually less powerful) sources of and repositories of power (very rarely elite) can fight this hegemony with varying amounts of success by creating there own impressions.
Which brings us to question 2:
Those with power (i.e. those who create the idea that the nation or state is inherently A, B, and C) use the same techniques which help them to create their ideology as tool to maintain the myth and as weapons to combat a counter-hegemonic interpretations of the state and nation. These ‘means to mythology’ not only create the myth—they do not, as LA suggests, merely symbolized the myth—but also they become a repository for the myth and a defender of it. Certainly the means to mythology can be used for counter-hegemonic purposes (we can see this all the time—I am thinking of Abbie Hoffman here—with the flag.) The flag burner, however, takes a different approach. The flag burner does not, as LA lamely suggests, “fall prey to this ‘mythology of symbols.’” Instead the flag burner says, “I am sick of this mythology; I want to destroy this symbol which has created the lie that it symbolizes, which maintains the lie that it symbolizes, and which separates us from the lie that it symbolizes. I want to face America, I want to contemplate America. I want America in itself, not the myth of America.” I am in agreement with Kant that such a noumenalogical (is that a word?) analysis is impossible; however, I agree with Weber that studying something which is ultimately unknowable can yield interesting, important (perhaps even partially true) results. The whole reason that symbolism is so useful to the power elite is that the symbol, the creator of myth, stands in between the myth and the person for whom the myth is intend. In general, one cannot think (I am using the Heideggerian meaning of ‘think’) about America in the presence of the flag; the flag is becomes a means to avoiding thought. The flag burner says, “I can no longer avoid thought; I demand the right to think about America.” The power elite are justly afraid of this outcome. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt pointed out all the slick and efficient ways that modern society is able to make sure individuals avoid thinking and that totalitarianism and mass murder can only be achieved when people refuse to think. She speaks often of the fact that Eichmann had great difficulty constructing an original sentence, but he could always remember—even twenty years later—the myriad Nazi slogans which acted as an impediment to thought. The flag burner does not burn the flag because she is against A, B, and C—this would be surrendering to the “mythology of symbols,” agreeing that yes, the flag represents reality, the reality of A, B, and C, concluding that A, B and C are something to be opposed—usually the flag burner agrees that A, B, and C are good things and that X, Y, and Z are bad. The flag burner simply wants to reevaluate the myth. Burning the flag, one flag, creates a space in which the reevaluation can take place. This space cannot last forever, nor can it extend very far, but, phenomenologically speaking, this is more effective than any counter-hegemonic use of the flag which might cover more territory and last longer. No one can say what this reevaluation will find, but I would say that it should happen. That’s where I stand.
Tom's Foolery:
I will simply assume that you are new to the English language, because my “immature intellect” cannot possibly fathom some other reason that you would possibly misunderstand me so. Your post is so full of misreadings that perhaps I will forget to refute some of them. I hope not, but if I do, I hope you will forgive me.
I did not, “cast off all meaning of everything in the Universe.” You assertion that I, “find no meaning in anything” is just as false. My exact statement was, “our universe is an inherently meaningless one and no transhistorical and immanent meaning can be placed upon any object or idea.” Let us examine this more closely than you cared to in your rush to refute me.
I did not say, “our universe is a meaningless one.” I said, “our universe is an *inherently* meaningless one.” I will rephrase, since I am familiar with your linguistic difficulties. It means: the universe has no *inherent* meaning. Or, it could mean: meaninglessness is *inherent* in the universe. In fact, both of those statements taken together constitute the full meaning of my original phase. That is why I phrased it as I did and no the other two ways. Had I know the troubles you have; I would have chosen words differently. You have my sincere apologies; it is the job of the writer to know his audience, not the other way around.
This statement, “our universe is an *inherently* meaningless one” is difficult to understand, no matter how good one’s English may be. So what do I mean by that? Luckily, I explained what I meant in the very next clause. I said, “no *transhistorical* and *immanent* meaning can be placed upon any object or idea.” Thus, I do not deny meaning altogether, I deny *inherent* meaning. What do I mean by *inherent*? I mean *transhistorical* and *immanent*. So, to explain further—for, I know the grave extent of your linguistical troubles—any meaning which is not *transhistorical* and/or *immanent* is, of course, valid (if not valid in itself, then at least valid as a phenomenological fact.)
Perhaps your least insightful comment is in the second original paragraph which reads, in its entirety:
“I doubt that anyone who burns the flag is thinking "to hell with the symbols, I want the real America." The analysis by the first comment is far more likely. And if as you say they are tired of symbols and symbolism, the act of removing them is an acceptance of their validity. If the symbol is meaningless, the lack of the symbol has just as little meaning. If the symbol is meaningless, the desecration of the symbol is just as meaningless.”
I would like to offer you a list of those things I did not say which you attribute to me in this paragraph.
1) I did not say “that anyone who burns the flag is thinking ‘to hell with the symbols, I want the real America.’” 2) I did not say that the flag burner “[is] tired of symbols and symbolism” 3) I did not say that “the symbol is meaningless.”
No in fact these statements could not be further from what I actually said. So what did I actually say?
Well, here are the ideas to which I think you were referring; however, I cannot be sure because those things you attribute to me are so far from what I said that it is difficult to tell where you got them.
All these misunderstandings refer, I think, to this statement:
“Instead the flag burner says, ‘I am sick of this mythology; I want to destroy this symbol which has created the lie that it symbolizes, which maintains the lie that it symbolizes, and which separates us from the lie that it symbolizes. I want to face America, I want to contemplate America. I want America in itself, not the myth of America.’”
I did not say that the flag burner thinks, “‘to hell with the symbols, I want the real America.’” I did say that the flag burner rejects the flag because it is used to create and maintain a mythology which prohibits thinking (again, I stress that I am using the Heideggerian sense of the term.) This may or may not be true, and I think we should debate this. Instead you misread me or perhaps just evade the issue I raise. Fine, I would like to debate this point, and if you have any argument to make against it, then I look forward to engaging your criticism, if not, that’s fine too. I also did not say that the flag burner “[is] tired of symbols and symbolism.” Of course, I recognize that burning the flag is a symbolic act and that if it were not, no one would do it. That is not my argument. I did say that the symbol of the flag has been used by a variety of semi-autonomous members and institutions of the power elite to inhibit thinking. Now, in keeping with my denial of inherent meaning, I say that both destroying the flag and using it differently can both serve the purposes of counter-hegemony. I simply state that the flag burner is “sick” of the symbol and would rather destroy than use it differently. Once again, in keeping with my denial of inherent meaning, I never state that this is inherently better, only that it happens and I approve of it. But isn’t my approval of an act which encourages thinking against the temptation not to think an endorsement of inherent meaning? No. I explain that my objection is not transhistorical, but based on the uniquely modern phenomena of totalitarianism and mass murder which I believe, following Hannah Arendt, are inextricably linked to the ways in which the power elite of a nation can keep large groups of individuals from thinking. Again, we can debate this, but if we do, let us debate this, and not something that I never said. Of course I never said that “the symbol is meaningless.” It is exactly its meaning, although not its (nonexistent) inherent, transhistorical and immanent meaning, to which I so fervently object. My point is simply that the symbol plays its part in creating the symbolized, and not the other way around. This is obvious, if one looks at the history of flags in the western world (I will elaborate later, if you are not familiar with it), and I mentioned it only to refute LA’s misguided notion.
Now for you last paragraph, which is the least coherent, and thus most difficult to understand, but I will try:
“Perhaps you find no meaning in anything, I doubt it as you passionitely [sic] defended a symbolic act. It is the mark of an immature intellect to try to remove the meaning other people hold, even worse that you can't do it but must rely on the thought of others to do so. In case you didn't notice, those thoughts were thought before. They were printed before and they were preached before. Yet what they stood against still stands. Their ineffectiveness has been displayed by time. As you find no meaning in anything, and attempt to strip meaning from others, they find no meaning in you.”
Now I have already made it clear that your much repeated accusation that I, “you find no meaning in anything” is a grave misreading of my post, I hope you now understand my argument, if not, I will elaborate further on a later comment. Now your next accusation, “It is the mark of an immature intellect to try to remove the meaning other people hold, even worse that you can't do it but must rely on the thought of others to do so.” is hard to understand. I assume you mean my references to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kant, Weber, and Arendt, but I am not sure since the clauses dangle dangerously far from any logical antecedent. I don’t know why it is intellectual immature to be misunderstood by an idiot (I am speaking of you here), and I don’t think that it is “even worse” to refer to philosophers in making my argument. I do think it is immature, or at least lazy, to simply quote a philosopher, a president, and a general without tying them together to make any coherent argument. Simply dumping quotations upon the reader is a mark of pseudo-intellectuality, referring to other thinkers in the course of one’s own argument it what intellectual writing is all about. In fact, Arendt makes her arguments with references to Heidegger who makes his argument with reference to Nietzsche. It is by engaging with and placing oneself in the context of earlier thinkers that the intellectual makes her own argument. Now, I did not engage with these writers extensively, because I was not writing an academic paper, I was writing a comment on my friend’s blog. Still, old habits die hard, and I referenced other authors; so sue me. You next comment, “In case you didn't notice, those thoughts were thought before. They were printed before and they were preached before. Yet what they stood against still stands. Their ineffectiveness has been displayed by time.” Now, of course, what I said must have been thought before; language is a prison, and there are only so many things which can be thought in a language with limited words. However, I don’t think that “what they stood against still stands” or “their ineffectiveness has been displayed by time.” Those thoughts were thought in relation to other issues and other problems. I simply used them to shed light on current issues. Perhaps this is no good, and things will never change. But this is not inherently no good, and it is not inherent that things will never change. So I fight my battle, as a vigorous pessimist and a despairing optimist. Finally you say, “as you find no meaning in anything, and attempt to strip meaning from others, they find no meaning in you.” This is the only remotely interesting thing you said in your entire post, yet, whether you know it or not, it is almost an exact quote from a book by Nietzsche called Thus Spake Zarathustra. Here is a different quote from the same book, which is one of my many mottos (you’ll forgive any minor errors, I am writing this from memory,) “He who wants to be a creator in good and evil must first be an annihilator and brake values.” What does that mean? Nothing, nothing at all.
Jon: If "our universe is an *inherently* meaningless one" from where do we have the authority to derive meaning?
If the universe is devoid of inherent meaning, isn't life, by an extenstion, meaningless too?
A Wiser Man Than I:
The question of meaning is not a question of authority; it is a question of power. Those individuals or institutions with the power to create meaning, create it, those who don't adopt the meaning of other powerful people or institutions. That is my whole point about the flag, it is a means of mythology which has been used, along with other means to mythology to create a myth, to create meaning where none inherently exists. Now, this is an oversimplification, everyone has some power to create something, the power elite just have more power and can create on a larger scale. That which the elite create will often further reinforce their power, giving them an even greater advantage. Do the elite have the authority to do this? Let us leave this question for later. The elite do this that much is clear. What is also clear is that we who are not elites can fight against it, in solitude or in solidarity, by using what little power we have in creative and strategic ways.
As to you other question, “If the universe is devoid of inherent meaning, isn't life, by an extenstion [sic], meaningless too?” Yes, if by meaningless you mean, without inherent meaning, than I agree with that statement. There is actually a whole book about this by Michel Foucault (called The Order of Things) where he argues that the very idea of “life” as we think of it today was created by the bourgeoisie in the early eighteenth century. It was their power which created the idea of life and this idea led directly to their meteoric rise in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
Tom's Foolery:
The reason I have so many grammatical errors in my post is precisely because I don’t have very much time to spend commenting on other peoples’ blogs. I wrote that post you are criticizing in about 6 minutes, and that was just because I was angry at you, usually I spend a maximum of three. I don’t proofread, because I don’t care if there are errors; whether you like my grammar or not is of very little importance to me. In fact, I care so little about blogs that I tried to write blogs on two separate occasions. One I stopped after one post, the other I stopped after two. As for your comment about a transcendental being, I do not believe in transcendence, it is against my religion. God is dead, live with it, or deny it; I don’t care. You comment about human nature is absurd, there is nothing transhistorical about human nature except that some philosophers have argued for it, while others did not. The human natures which various philosophers have held to exist transhistorically actual vary a great deal between historical epochs, and even within them. Plato and Hobbes both posited some type of what we would now call “human nature,” but in fact the Platonic human nature and the Hobbesian one are totally different. Descartes’ and Kant’s ideas on human nature follow from Plato’s dualism, however, they are both quite distinct from his and from one another’s. Marx’s philosophy of human nature follows rather indirectly from Kant’s idea’s about consciousness, however, it is difficult to believe that when one sees just how different they are. So sure, a thousand philosopher have believed in human nature, but they have believed in a thousand different human natures. Each one of these was a product of power and of the specific historical troubles of the epoch. Human nature is, in fact, one of the best arguments for my side. If there were anything inherent in human nature, I think perhaps we could find at least a few philosophers who agreed about it. I know I’m arrogant, why not be, I am Man and Man has become God! Perhaps I cannot convince you, perhaps I repel you, but your acceptance means nothing to me, because I have no respect for your thought, or lack thereof. You say, “Perhaps you find pleasure in this because you view youself [sic] on a pulpet [sic] with an outlook far superior to that of the rest of the population.” The only person I feel superior to, at this moment, is you. You say, “The mark of truth is that it remains past those that discovered it. You must humble yourself to the truth and realize that it is greater than you, that it existed before you, and will exist after you. I've spent far too much time on this post and responding to yours in general.” And yet what you call “truth” is a recent invention relative to the august age of the universe. What you called truth will wash away like a sand castle, then be rebuilt, then wash away again. Why should I humble myself before the sand. I set up my beach chair in your supposed truth. You say, “The pleasure I thought I derived from rebuking you is the same you derive from preaching, both which are wrong.” You should say that the pleasure you derive from rebuking me is the same as the pleasure you derive from worshipping God. Since both are based on nothing, because you have not rebuked me, and God does not exist. You say, “You can continue your debate with the existence of right and wrong, but a discovery of human nature will lead you [sic] mind to places it hasn't thought before.” I say, you can continue to believe in something, but only by facing the reality of nothingness will you ever overcome yourself!
It seems that this post has drifted a bit. Oh well. Philosophy is still quite interesting. Nonetheless, I do wonder what it is like to live as you do Jon.
When we are the biggest and most important things in lives--as you surely believe, after all, Man is God--we not only take ourselves far too seriously, but we lead such sad existences. Is there no wonder in a sunset or a baby's laugh?
It is only when we realize that we are not the most important thing in this world that our lives take on any meaning at all.
For though those in power can exert meaning on our lives, and on aspects of it, it is a meaningless gesture. If life is "inherently" meaningless, it is surely all together meaningless. Quote whoever you will. When it comes down to it, you seem to have a mistaken philosophy.
God is not dead, and our attempts to kill Him have failed. There is something bigger than you. I hope someday you realize it.
A Wiser Man Than I:
You say: “When we are the biggest and most important things in lives--as you surely believe, after all, Man is God--we not only take ourselves far too seriously, but we lead such sad existences. Is there no wonder in a sunset or a baby's laugh?”
Now, c’mon, do you really think the man who proposed to set up his beach chair on the supposed truth of the believer takes himself too seriously?
I think it is the Christian nihilist who takes himself too seriously. The Christian nihilist (and I am talking about you here) cannot worship God, because God does not exist. So instead the Christian nihilist worships himself; the Christian nihilist worships his ability to put his faith in an illusion and finds solace only in comparing himself to the unbeliever. (What would Moses say if he knew you had become your own idol?) It is for this reason that you must claim that I lead a “sad existence.” If you did not continue to say things like this, to create some pitifully small meaning the only way you know how, by petty opposition—for, in this statement of yours you have mistakenly proven my entire point—you will be unable to convince yourself that you are happy. Unlike the Christian nihilist, I say “Yes!” to life in all its meaninglessness and absurdity. I say “yes,” and I am happier saying “yes” than I was in the 10 straight years of attending religious services every week in which I constantly drowned “No”.
“It is only when we realize that we are not the most important thing in this world that our lives take on any meaning at all.”
That may be, but I am not willing to sacrifice my life in order to create a meaning which is unreal. Certainly, I will not sell myself into slavery at the hands of an imagined god just so I can sleep more easily at night.
“For though those in power can exert meaning on our lives, and on aspects of it, it is a meaningless gesture. If life is "inherently" meaningless, it is surely all together meaningless. Quote whoever you will. When it comes down to it, you seem to have a mistaken philosophy.”
This quotation shows that you have not understood at all what I have been saying. That’s fine, what I am saying is not palatable to the Christian nihilist, because Christianity is idolatry and I am an iconoclast. I have explained myself three times and I will do so no longer. You are now free to wallow in your pseudo-pious, self-worshiping idolatry; you will not get any more trouble about it from me. I do not care if the Christian nihilist spends the rest of eternity denying life; for he is the last man, and I am going to live forever.
God is dead; it is the Christian who has killed him, and it is I who is joyfully dancing upon the grave.
Post a Comment