Substack latest.
The serious thinker is self-critical: his examination of life, without which his life is not worth living, is a self-examination, even unto a painful thinking against himself. He has the courage to entertain, which is not to say endorse, dark thoughts. He is not an apologist for a ready-made worldview. He toes no party line. His watchword is ‘inquiry,’ not ‘worldview.’ He would have a worldview if he could, but he must inquire to find one.
Here is a dark thought, one I do not endorse, but entertain, though not with much hospitality.
Read the rest.
“The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.”
That’s how Chesterton would answer your question (citation below).
Another Chestertonian thought would be that when society breaks down, the vices are let loose, but so too the virtues. Both run wild.
It is easy to get the idea that vices can go mad (“The world is just power and brutality at bottom.) The virtue part stumps us.
Still, we can recognize an old Christian virtue inside Gad Saad’s “suicidal empathy,” but it is virtue distorted and mutated.
Saad writes 118 years after Chesterton, but both come up with a similar diagnosis. Saad’s thesis would be that compassion becomes pathological when it refuses boundaries or to be tempered by prudence. Pity is good, but when it becomes absolute, it is destructive.
Christianity “contributes” to the suicide of the West, but only if understood in the sense that even secular ideologies cannot escape their inheritance moral teachings from our Christian past. It accepts these, but bends them to its will.
Chesterton, in conclusion:
“When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation) it is not merely the vices that are let loose.
“The vices are indeed let loose, and they wander and do damage.
“But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage.”
— Orthodoxy, Chapter 3, “The Suicide of Thought” (Kindle)
Augustine would disagree.My comments don’t always get published eg. Locke one, therefore will leave you to your echo chamber.
My quibble here is with the ‘Nietzschean’ part.
Nietzsche’s view of history is a cartoon caricature. Heroic Antiquity a la Conan the Barbarian degenerating into ‘weak’ Christian men. His range of heroes is very telling: Caesar, Alexander, Cesare Borgia, Napoleon et al. A teenage revenge fantasy of the frustrated worldly impotent who concocts a cult of violence as a means of compensation. There’s a clear line of descent from him to the sad ‘Manosphere’, Incels, Andrew Tate etc.
The reality of history is far more complex and multi-faceted than Nietzsche’s ‘Just-so’ story. For a man who considered himself an expert in ambiguity and nuance, he can be remarkably simplistic in so much of his thinking.
Cannot agree more with Karl.
I don’t know. Would require LOTS of historical analysis and data to decide how much he approximates historical reality.
I rather think Nietzsche underestimates Christian metaphysics, not Christian life advice — there’s he’s spot on, imo.
Btw, he explicitly says even barbarians are not that it.
Also, fairly advanced, and originally anon, Nietzscheans (like Bronze Age Pervert, Zero HP Lovecraft, Second City Bureaucrat, Raw Egg Nationalist, L0mez, Gildhelm, Stone Age Herbalist) dislike manosphere. See e.g. the clash of BAP and Tate, https://blackbeardphilosopher.substack.com/p/the-boredom-of-the-gods
There is only one bright guy I know of who’s Christian (even Catholic) and does not strawman them much — Justin Dean Lee, a horror story writer, editor from First Things.
Karl,
Thanks for your comments, but my post is not about Nietzsche but about the ‘dark thoughts’ I there express. I could have and maybe should have left ‘Nietzschean’ out of my title. Even if you are entirely right about N, the ‘dark thoughts’ remain a doxastic option for people. The question of prime interest to me is whether powerful arguments can be deployed to dispel the ‘dark thoughts.’ Also of interest to me is whether you and Vlastimil are tempted, and to what extent you are tempted, to accept the ‘dark thoughts.’
And whether you are right or wrong re: your psychologizing of Nietzsche in terms of a “teenage revenge fantasy” of a “frustrated worldly impotent,” his central ontological claim that “The world is the will-to-power and nothing besides” is one main form the Dark Thought takes.
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the invitation to reply.
I am not sure I have much to say about the ‘dark thoughts’ except that in my view it could be even darker. What I mean is that if we put aside the ‘Nietzsche narrative’ of decline, what if the real unpalatable truth is that human beings are and have always been fundamentally trivial animals?
I offer as evidence social media, which is surely a ghastly but useful insight into the typical mind. There is no reason to think that the majority have not always been like this, except now they have the means to express it via the internet. I actually welcome this, as it offers us more information than previous philosophers have had at their disposal re “the common man/woman” etc.
As for the manosphere and topics VV is interested in, I have nothing more insightful to say than I believe it just comes down, as ever, to possibly incompatible first principles.
Either you A) Believe or are open to belief in the Transcendent, in which case it makes sense to focus your spiritual/intellectual energies on that. Worldly mess will not appeal as it does not seems to offer anything in that department.
Or B) You are a committed Atheist, in which case the “Matter Pool” is all you think exists. Given that, it seems to follow as a reasonable response that the best thing to do is to splash and leap as long and loudly as possible while you are in it. I know a few guys like this. I respect their choices. The only observation I will make is that for them nothing ever seems enough. They always need one more drink/woman/substance. On the other hand, they could point to me and ask what has your focus actually produced in terms of concrete answers/satisfaction, and that would be a fair enough response.
I think of a line from Celine: “Experience is a dim light and only lights the one who carries it.”
Well said, Karl. I like the way you formulate the Main Existential Option. Either a life in quest of the Transcendent or a deep dive into the Matter Pool. (‘Matter Pool’ your coinage?) One might shoot for Neither by committing suicide. But that requires faith in nonbeing and hope that one will not survive bodily death. Look before you leap! (” Erst waegen, dann wagen!”) Two of the theological virtues thanatized. (You’re Irish right? Catholic background?)
Or one might vacillate and instead of (exclusive) Either-Or, Both-And. Worldliness six days a week, church on Sunday morn. In this direction there is also Nietzsche’s Last Man “who has little pleasure for the day and his little pleasure for the night.” (quoting from memory.)
So four options in total. I myself cannot take your (A) option because of my abiding sense that this world, while no illusion, is ontologically defective and ultimately ‘unsatisfactory.’ It cannot be the cynosure of our ultimate concern. As you put it, “the worldly mess” is unappealing and offers nothing , leastways, ‘in the end.’ Hence my sympathy for Simone Weil despite her Albigensian extremism. Plato’s the man; she’s an acolyte, but a very bright light in the darkness of the 20th century, perhaps the finest examplar of the religious sensibility in the last century.
As for the two intermediate options, I reject both, although I am hardly a full-on ascetic. I sleep in a comfortable bed and on a Saturday night I allow myself one Jack & Coke.
As for your (B) option, the “splashing and leaping” of a guy like Tate is to me obviously a waste of one’s incarnation. If one of these guys says to you: “what has your focus produced by way of concrete answers or satisfactions” no answer you give could move him since he is already lost.
There is hope only for someone who, having dived deep into carnality, sensuality, drugs, alcohol, abuse of women, etc. comes to the realization that the REAL he seeks cannot be found there and that he must reform his life before it is too late.
In the end it comes down to a de-cision made in moments of highest existential clarity, and then sticking with that decision. You have to DECIDE what to believe and how to live. Nothing can be proven in this area. People who think they can prove the ex. of God, e.g., are fooling themselves. The ‘presuppers’ are even worse.
Thanks, Bill. Yes, “Matter Pool” is my own.
Forgive my pedantry, but I’m a tad confused by your statement at the beginning of your third paragraph that “I cannot take your (A) option…” Do you not mean to say you can/do take it, ie the route of belief/attempted belief? Or am I being dense and missing something?
I admit I am a tad uncomfortable with your statement at the conclusion about “deciding what to believe.” I can understanding hoping or wanting to believe (my own state), but “deciding” to believe seems firmer than I can manage. I would like to believe in the same way I believe I am typing right now. Some (many? most?) people do. Some are equally adamant in their non-belief. I am not sure belief is a decision, but again I am perhaps missing something. I don’t see why a healthy and balanced agnosticism is not possible.
Also curious as to whether you have any thoughts re my “People have always been mediocre” thesis?
Vlastimil,
Glad you showed up here, and thanks for the links. Do you know Karl White? He too is on Facebook. I believe he is about the same age as you and facing some of the same difficulties. I won’t speculate further along that line out of concern for privacy but you both are free to say whatever you want. Also on Facebook is Stephanus Nobilis who is about 10-15 years younger than you and Karl. I mention him, not because he is facing any out-of-the-usual life difficulties, but because he appears to be shifting away from the Christianity of his upbringing.
Karl White’s deprecating reference to Andrew Tate comports well with my low opinion of the man based only upon the quotations from him I received from you — and that you have helpfully supplied again in the above link.
It would be interesting to hear you and Karl discuss Tate.
Bill,
I plan to do a podcast with Karl.
My current, though largely plagiarist, dark (Nietzschean) thoughts are here.
https://blackbeardphilosopher.substack.com/p/the-goid
The world is dark, yes, very very much. Yet I try to learn _amor fati_.
Of course you can undermin darkness epistemically. As well as light. The (pragmatic) Q is, what is (more) probable, and what is more prudent or conducive to well-being. I think it depends on one’s character, even genotype.
Karl,
I hate this WordPress software. There’ s no Reply button beneath your last response. (I have no idea why.) So I’ll put my comment here. I meant to say that I DO accept and live by your (A) option. I do proofread, but we often see what we want to see.
Your second paragraph advances the discussion. Can one believe in the Transcendent (not to be confused with the Transcendental if Tom C. is reading this), the Unseen Order, God in the same way that I believe that I am typing right now? No. And would it be reasonable to expect that one could? No. If you would like to believe in that way, then you would like to believe in a way that is impossible. The keyboard and everything around it is given to the senses, evident to the senses, compellingly evident. You see it and your fingers; you hear the clicking of the keys. God is not evident to the senses, and no instrumental extensions of our senses such as a telescope will help. All we get here below in our present state are intimations, mystical glimpses, and the like that are easy to dismiss as ‘brain farts,’ random neuronal swerves, experiences generated by autosuggestion, etc. I don’t deny that the intimations, glimpses, etc. are evidence of a sort. Mystical experiences can be life-changing events. Remember that Jewish guy who fell off his horse on the road to Damascus? But the latter sort of evidence is obviously weaker than the former. And so I say: the will comes into it. You have to decide what weight to attach to the mystical, religious, paranormal experiences. You have to decide what you will believe and how you will live.
You speak of a “healthy and balanced agnosticism.” That might mean that you commit yourself neither to your (A) option nor to your (B) option. But that refusal to decide between the two options is itself a decision in favor of ‘practical atheism.’ Without either affirming or denying the existence of God, you decide to live as if God does not exist. Now no one KNOWS whether God and soul are real or not. So, at the level of pure theory, agnosticism about God and soul is correct. And I grant that agnosticism is a “balanced” (your word) position, but is it “healthy” given that we are not mere spectators of life but also participants in it? If we were mere spectators, then we would have no existential stake in the theoretical controversy. But seeing as how we are not mere spectators, we do have a stake in whether we survive bodily death and have a shot at ultimate felicity. Now if I reasonably believe, but cannot know, that God and the soul are real, and they are real, then, here and now I am in touch with the truth — which would be good thing, no?
Not knowing, and not being able to know, you are yet free to believe and disbelieve. You ought to believe what in the end will benefit you. But then the belief involves an element of decision. It is not arbitrary because the decision is made after canvassing all the considerations for and against.
As for whether people have always been mediocrities, yes, of course. Most of us are in the middle of the bell curve. ‘Mediocre’ means: of moderate value, quality, ability. But the question needs to be made more precise. Do you mean mediocre in this or that respect or mediocre in every respect? Is Elon Musk a mediocre engineer? No, he is one of the best at the present time. But he is arguably a mediocre political thinker. And so was Einstein, even though he was one the greatest physicists of all time. What would a mediocre human being be? The question needs to be clarified before it can be answered.
Bill,
Regarding “practical atheism,” what precisely distinguishes a man who seeks to live a moral life, following as best he can, say, something like the ethical system of Aristotle or Kant, but who is agnostic on the question of God’s existence from the believer in the bare essentials of theism, that is, someone who acts in accordance with similar moral precepts but who does not adhere to the creed or take part in the rites of worship of any church? I don’t see that the intellectual assent of the latter to the propositions that God exists, created the world, and remains actively engaged in it, supplemented, perhaps, by private prayers and practices of his own making creates an “existential stake” that fundamentally differs from that of the former. Here, in the case of these two good men, the difference between a “healthy and balanced agnosticism” and “mere” theism is entirely intellectual rather than existential. Of course, if the believer accepts the dogmas and doctrines of some faith community and participated in its l rites of worship, the differentiating factor between the two would be clear, but this is not the case here.
Vito,
So there are these two guys, A and B.
A makes a good faith attempt to live by some respectable moral code but is agnostic on the theoretical question of God’s existence. He neither affirms nor denies the theistic worldview.
B, on the other hand, (i) accepts the bare essentials of theism; (ii) lives by the same moral code A lives by; but (iii) is unchurched, i.e., does not participate in the rites and rituals of any church, and (iv) while a ‘generic theist,’ does not subscribe to the very specific theological dogmas of a church such as the RCC.
Beyond this, I don’t know what exactly you are maintaining. You seem to be directing yourself against my notion of “practical atheism.” I said, contra Karl, that his “healthy and balanced agnosticism,” while theoretically balanced, is practically atheistic, and thus not obviously healthy inasmuch as it involves a decision (perhaps tacit) to live as if God does not exist.
Bill,
I guess that I am expressing myself poorly. I was reacting to your statement that “But that refusal to decide between the two options is itself a decision in favor of ‘practical atheism.'” I am proposing that a man with a decent moral code who “refuses to decide” has a life that is barely distinguishable and, thus, as “healthy” as that of a man with a similar code but who decides in favor of God’s existence. It renders the choice that one makes regarding the question of his existence of lesser importance than one might assume and makes agnosticism as valid an option as belief or atheism.
Mr Caiati,
I’m inclined to agree with you, although I guess motivations are important.
A) Someone may believe for plausibly compelling philosophical, logical, scientific etc reasons. It may not actually carry any real existential import.
B) Someone may believe because they desperately seek Justice, Meaning, Redemption etc. Here I would say the existential stakes are vital for the concerned individual.
I’m not sure how someone who is “purely” Theistic and uncommitted to a particular religion can actualise their existential concerns. Each religion has different codes and ethical practices. You could try going down the “Perennialist” route and distilling the putative ‘essence’ of the world’s religions I suppose, but again, disagreement as to this essence is rife. Maybe it’s more realistic on a psychological level that the Theist will react and bounce off the religion of their upbringing and navigate their own way accordingly.
I agree with you that Agnosticism is a perfectly viable option. One may simply not know, and find no compelling reasons for being swayed from one’s uncertainty. It strikes me as perfectly authentic – one is not trying to force oneself into a particular mould.
Karl,
This will help clarify my position: https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/theistic-religious-belief-and-what?r=f3tzc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Thanks, Bill.
I have a couple of queries that may seem pedantic and annoying.
1) In the linked piece you say, “But the religious experience, while not probative, is nonetheless evidence of something Transcendent.”
I may quibble here, but what sort of genitive is that “of”? If something isn’t probative, would it not be more rigorous to say “is evidence pertaining to the unresolvable issue of the Transcendent”?
2) You say that mystical experiences can be doubted as ‘brain farts’ etc. I am wondering is there any phenomenological experience that can ever escape standard Cartesian doubting. Let’s say I have the phenomenological experience of dying and then being in the presence of God/the Divine/the Transcendent, could I still conceivably doubt? I wonder what it would take to erase that possibility. I realise the question is unanswerable, but felt like floating the issue.
Karl,
You don’t come across to me as pedantic, quibbling, or annoying. You are asking good questions.
I’ll respond to (2) first. Can any object-directed experience escape Cartesian doubt? No. No such experience proves the reality of its intentional object. Suppose I see a naked woman. Does it follow that there is (exists) a naked woman that I see? No, I might be dreaming. Similarly in the case you describe. Suppose I have a near-death experience as of an angel (or a demon). Can I doubt the existence of the angel? Perhaps not while I am having the experience, but I surely can later.
What would it take to erase the possibility of doubting the real existence of an intentional object? This question is not unanswerable. I will now give a partial answer. Ongoing perceptions that cohere with the initial perception. I see a naked woman walking toward me. I take off my sunglasses, I open my eyes wide, I shift my position. She’s coming closer and closer. Olfactory sensations kick in: I smell her perfume. If this series of visual and olfactory experiencings coheres in the sense of revealing one and the same object, then it becomes less and less likely for me to doubt the extramental existence of the naked woman.
As for (1), the ‘of’ functions as an objective genitive.
All I can say is that I hope one day I will come into the presence of the Most High, Summum Bonum, Ground of Being etc and my doubts are erased, and that even the faculty of doubting is dissolved in its presence. If not, I’d say we’re in a real pickle.
There may be some consolation in the following thought. If, when I die, I cease to exist as a person, then there will be no more ‘pickles’ for me. And the same goes for you. We are in a pickle now, but there will be no more pickles then. On the other hand, if we attain the Beatific Vision, then all doubts will vanish and along with the doubts the need to doubt (doubt being the engine of inquiry) and perhaps even the faculty of doubt (as you suggest). From our present POV, however, it is mysterious how we can retain any personal identity in that (all-consuming?) Vision.
But here and now, in the present pickle, my suggestion is that we should live as if God and the soul are real, follow the Ten Commandments, avoid the Seven Deadly Sins, not even think about fucking you neighbor’s wife, abstain from diving and splashing into the cauldron of lusts, crime, drugs, alcohol, etc.
Bill,
I assume that my two initial comments make some sense, but perhaps, given my lack of expertise in these matters and your puzzlement regarding the first, they do not. They reflect, however, my deep interest in this issue of the persistence of doubt, and so, I want to risk making another point. It concerns deciding “what to believe and how to live” and “sticking with that decision.” Specifically, I wonder if this notion of “sticking” confers on us a freedom in these matters that we do not always possess. Consider a man who comes to accept certain religious doctrines after a long period of sustained and intense reflection, much of it guided by reason and some of it guided by more elusive impulses of what Pascal would call “the heart” and to have lived by them for many years; and then to find, gradually not suddenly, that the intellectual and emotional ground on which they sit had shifted or given way without his instigating this change, calamitous to faith, and without his even realizing that it had happened. What is more, once recognized, this unsticking was not simply accepted by him but resisted through a determined counterattack of reasoning, prayer, and participation in public worship, and yet it did not abate; rather, each of his defenses, once comforting and enriching, had now become a form without substance, a semblance of belief rather than belief itself; the meaning had been drained out of them. So, in the end, this fellow’s conscious deciding had very little to do with what he held to be true; rather, some deep unconscious process, made up of what mixture of repressed, half-remembered, or misunderstood events of his past life, of shadowy intimations of things that sit beyond the reach of sight and reason, and of soul forming defects I do not know, brought him, against his will, to where he had no intention of going, back into profound doubt.
Karl,
I too am “not sure how someone who is “purely theistic and uncommitted to a particular religion can actualize their existential concerns.” It seems that philosophical theism is but the first step toward a spiritually enriching and redemptive religious faith. And I think that you are also right in pointing out the pitfalls of the perennialist option, given the profound differences the core claims of the world’s religions, even those that are theistic. So, the process of deciding what to believe inevitably becomes more protracted and messier, since the acceptance of the demanding dogmas and doctrines a particular church, as well as all the faults and shortcomings inherent in any human institution, whatever claims are made of its initial mandate, give rise to further doubts and hesitations. Fatiguing.
Vito