There are two trains of thought running through the existentialist tradition, seldom denoted as such. They are entirely at-odds with one another—so much so that, in truth, they ought to be thought of as a tradition and anti-tradition. While there is often a distinction made between Christian and atheistic existentialism, there is a more encompassing yet also more pointed distinction to be made: a distinction between affirmation and denial of given meaning. The first is championed by the likes of Kierkegaard and Heidegger, while the second is characteristic of Nietzsche and Sartre.
While Kierkegaard and Heidegger affirm that meaning is already given to us, that it has always and already been at play in the world in which we find ourselves, the likes of Nietzsche and Sartre have as their starting point the outright denial of what is given. They are both perfectly clear on this: Nietzsche in his rejection of Christianity in favor of “creating” one’s self and one’s own values, and Sartre in his rejection of God and subsequent insistence on “existence preceding essence,” “choosing oneself,” and “choosing for all of man” at the same time. They reject what is given to make room for whatever they wish.
Nietzsche’s madman scolds the more naive atheists who casually proclaim that “God is dead” because they do not grasp the significance of such a view: that if one denies the existence of God, one simultaneously gives up all meaning that is God-given. As Nietzsche points out, without God-given morality individuals have to find or create for themselves some other basis on which to act and to judge various actions. Now while the many rambunctious little Nietzscheans might feel wildly free, even frothing at such a thought, any ordinary person might imagine such a task to be as dizzying for an individual as it is deleterious for a society. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; the reality of such denial is much more severe than just the loss of God-given morality—it entails the loss of all God-given meaning.
In the Christian worldview, everything in Creation has God-given meaning, purpose, place, and value. People, animals, metals, materials, holidays, etc. There is a coherent, unchanging story of how these things—and everything, including the ground on which we stand—came to be, their significance, and so-on. In denying God, an individual loses all of that. The ground on which everything was understood is gone from beneath their feet.
Where does that leave a person? As Nietzsche says, such an individual arrives at a point where he or she must create for themselves the values which they will assign to actions—but the same responsibility also falls on the individual for everything else with God-given meaning. Not only must the denier of what is given choose for himself new values on which to act, he must also “choose” what meaning, purpose, significance, and so on to assign to everything under the Sun.
This is quite a massive burden to take on—and yet, the inexhaustibility of the burden is not even the most despairing thing about it. While one may offload much of the burden to institutions of various persuasions (scientists, scholars, new age chakra-charlatans, etc.) and latch onto ready-made substitute stories, what weighs infinitely more on an individual in denial than the weight of all that he assumes responsibility for is the inherent weightlessness of anything he subsequently puts forth. As Iain Thomson puts it quite elegantly in Being in the World:
“Life is made most meaningful when you respond to meanings that are independent of you. This is a point that goes back to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard said that, ‘If you think all meaning comes from you, then you can just take it back.’ You’re a king without a castle, you’re a sovereign of a land of nothing. There has to be something in the world that pushes back, that has some force over you, or else you’ll never experience anything as really mattering to you.”
If it is an individual who decides what is meaningful and what isn’t, then he can decide—for any reason or no reason at all—to simply rescind any meaning given. He can always change his mind. Everything would be dependent on his whim, and have no other measure beyond his present conception of things—which is, of course, subject to change. Such an approach to the world not only yields sour grapes, but fundamentally entails that nothing has any inherent, undeniable meaning. Any meaning previously given is always in turn liable to be denied by he who gave it. Even before denying any meaning he’d previously attached to something, he is haunted by his ability to do so; any meaning he can think up is always and already shrouded in doubt from its inception.
While those in denial appoint themselves—or by proxy someone else or some institution—the arbiters of meaning and morality, they will often claim that such arbitration is undergone using reason in an attempt to deny the arbitrary nature of their claims. It is not them who dictates, but reason, they claim. For all the favor it has found, reason can be quite fickle, even deceiving; every philosopher and rhetorician knows that justification can be put forth for anything. Simply put, reason is not always sincere.
That is not to say that reason is never solid; indeed, the difference is whether or not one’s reason begins with the denial of or the affirmation of what is given. What is given—what is true—can be plainly seen. As Heidegger emphasizes using the literal translation of the Greek word for truth, aletheia, as “un-concealedness,” the truth is what is unconcealed, that is, revealed for us to see. Moreover, truth is recognized in the sense that when it is encountered, it is recognized as having-been all along. The truth is and has always been there, regardless of when one comes to see it.
What is given is prior to reason, and reason must always reflect what is given. If the reasoning does not match up with what is given, with what is plainly visible, it is not the given that is wrong. No amount of mental gymnastics aimed at a certain conclusion is able to stand in for the truth of what is given...such reasoning simply becomes more and more rickety for one to stand on as the gymnastics are continued.
The greatest thinkers throughout history—such as Aristotle, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger—are so insightful first and foremost because of their keen and honest perception of given reality. Their reasoning begins with truths that are perceivable should one care to look with honest eyes, and their thoughts and arguments remain faithful to what is given to be seen. They do not seek to, as Sartre once instructed a student, “Choose; that is, invent.” Truth and meaning are discovered, acknowledged, and embraced—they are not chosen or invented.
What does all of this tell us about why Nietzscheans and the like are so repulsive? In short:
Nihilists are in denial, and denial is inherently dishonest and disengaged.
They deny and reject the given moral standards and understanding of who we are, the world we inhabit, and our place in it. They deny the recognizable virtues and vices that have accompanied mankind since the beginning and have separated the wheat and the chaff, the worthy and the reprehensible. In its place, they put their own morality...or some ready-made, made-up one that they subscribe to. Who knows what that “morality” entails and when it will change? They reject what is plainly visible, and they reject the world we are all born into because they do not even want to try to live up to the standards set for us. They don’t want to try to be virtuous, and so they fervently attempt to justify what is vicious, picking new vices to place on pedestals as their inclinations carry on unabated.
That they reject what is given and substitute their preferred conception of things not only sets them a world apart from honest people in terms of worldview, but it also makes them unstable and unreliable. Whatever ethos they give themselves is subject to change; not only can they not be relied upon to act morally, they cannot even be relied upon to be constant or consistent. What is more, all of this betrays a profound hubris and lack of humility: they do not want to accept the reality that is given and which we all share...they think they know better how things “really are” (read: how they currently wish things were so that all would marvel at their supposed superiority defined by their substitute realities) despite the fact that others recognize reality plain and clear. Simply put, they don’t have the humility to subject themselves to reality—they reject anything binding that they do not like. They live in dishonesty, and cannot be trusted.
Finally, in attempting to be arbiters of meaning they carry on a meaningless existence. Nothing actually matters to them because they reject the mattering in want of being able to control it. They’re incapable of enjoying all of life’s splendor in full relief alongside their fellow man for fear of subjecting themselves to reality. This leaves them disengaged from the wonders of life because they wish to have a say over said wonders...they wish to be able to deny what is wondrous should something ever come into conflict with their feelings or inclinations. In denial and reservation, they are unable to be in awe of life...they are stubbornly incapable of the humility that allows people to be captivated by the God-given wonders of life.
Thank you for this (saw link on Sigma Game). Been trying to find a succinct and cogent explanation for why I instinctively recoil from Nietz and his ilk. Bravo.
I need to read Heidegger, he seems to be chasing me. 😂
Fantastic article though, thank you.