Sting is lined up to play a one-off show, consisting of Dominic Miller, David Sancious, and Josh Freese. I couldn't ask for a better line-up. We know Dom has been in Italy working with Sting, hopefully they are finishing up work on tracks that have been started over the last five years. This could be the return of something great.

The Universe Next Door

Last Book Read: The Universe Next Door - James W. Sire


I came across this book in a thrift store and I can't pass up any book that discusses existentialism and postmodernism. Written as a Christian criticism of different worldviews, I figured reading this would be any interesting exercise. I will limit my comments here to the chapters on nihilism, existentialism and postmodernism.

Sire's take on nihilism is that it is logical conclusion from naturalism, that is things are as they are in an objective and contingent world. There is no inherent meaning in anything, and none can be concluded. The biggest problem with this chapter is his confusion of nihilism and absurdism. He quotes much from Camus and Douglas Adams, as well as Beckett and Kafka. All of these writers are concerned with absurdism, and I certainly wouldn't consider any of these as nihilists. None of them deny value, they only claim that it is absurd and possibly unknowable. He does cite Nietzsche, as is necessary in any discussion of nihilism, but he does not recognize Nietzsche's anticipation of escape from this "box". Nihilism is not a live option for a philosophy, and is really more of a rejection of philosophy. Sire seems to confuse two types of nihilism: epistemological, the position that there can be no truths, and existential, the position that there can be no meaning. Nihilism may be a logical paradox, as Sire claims, when it is epistemological nihilism. But that does not mean naturalism is necessarily false. Knowledge is a construct, dependant on human conciousness. Let's not confuse truths and facts, the universe doesn't care how we frame and catalog our experience of reality, it just is. It may be a fact that the universe is nothing but random atoms joined purely by chance, but nihilism is not inherently linked with this explanation. The paradox arises within the human understanding, and not in the external world. Furthermore, this epistemoligcal nihilism is not a necessary component of all nihilsm. It is in the existential sense that nihilism is most often used, and I think this is what Sire means when he claims that worldviews end in nihilism, because all values are equaled, and hence lose meaning. This is exactly what Nietzsche argued when discussing the "devaluation of values". It is also present in Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. I think history has proven the real presence and danger of existential nihilsm, it can exist without paradox. But many people such as Pirsig and Nietzsche have shown solutions that do not reject a naturalistic framework. Finally, he claims Nietzsche "ended in an asylum" because of his links with nihilism. This is purely false, his mental disorders were a direct result of a biological infection and not a philosophical one.

Next, Sire moves on to existentialism. He correctly notes existentialism as a response and a solution to nihilism (as is much of philosophy and art). Here, we see the introduction of subject into the universe. Human consciousness changes existence, and makes meaning and value possible. This meaning is not pre-determined, however. It is created by the activity of consciousness. Sire's rejection of existentialism begins with the danger of solipsism, where the value of the "I" is the only one and no one else is recognized in the equation. But, he also recognizes that Sartre has already addressed this. The very center of existentialism is the realization that we are being-for-itself, and others are also being-for-itself. We must recognize others as subject and not as objects. Now, existentialist ethics are never a simple matter, and Sartre himself was unable to complete his works on it. But, here Sire over-simplifies the whole notion of an existentialist ethics and quickly moves past it without a detailed examination. His main argument is that in existentialism good is created by choosing, so what ever one freely chooses is the good and non-choice is evil. This, of course, ignores the major element of existentialism, responsibility. Because we have freedom we cannot pass off our choices, and any evil they create, to anyone else. We alone are responsible for the outcome. Choice itself is not the good, but we are given the opportunity to create good and make universal our choices, thereby creating the world we want to live in. Sire would do well to read de Beavoiur's Ethics of Ambiguity for an explanation of existential evil. He does admit that Camus' The Plague is a case for living the moral life in a world where values are ungrounded. But, Sire's problem still remains, they are ungrounded. Just because humans can affirm values, they do not gain any more of a base and they can be countered by opposite affirmations. Then, when these conflicts arise, how can we know which one is "right"? Here again, a more detailed analysis of freedom and responsibility would help narrow the range of possibilities and take us away from pure relativism. Sire does not touch at all on authenticity, and this, I would argue, is the centerpiece of existentialism , and without recognizing that, we cannot adequately explain or analyze it. When we recognize the freedom of others, and our responsibility to them, we go a long way forward in creating a morality that is close to "traditional", without unnecessary essences and exterior explanations. It is not that far removed from the virtue ethics of Aristotle.

Moving on to postmodernism, Sire does provide some decent background discussion, noting the historical changes from being to knowing to meaning. He does not think postmodernism will be with us "for the long haul." I think this has been quite disproven, as postmodernism continues to more accurately explain the current world. His charge that postmodernism is completely dismissed by scientists is also complete nonsense. Here some readings from Kellner and Best would illuminate that criticism. I do agree that postmodernism is inadequate when it comes to areas like ethics, leaving only a vague relativism. While I think postmodernism is an excellent descriptive philosophy, I believe it is very incomplete as a prescriptive philosophy. Finally, Sire attempts a lethal blow by claiming that the position "there are no metanarratives" is itself a metanarrative and therefore self-nullifies the whole philosophy. Once again he tries to force the position of epistemological nihilism on a worldview. I'm not convinced that the postmodern claim is that there are no truths or no knowable truths, rather that there are only experiential truths. These truths are not enough to provide a metanarrative without an external source from beyond experience, and there is no evidence of this source. We can only know what we experience, and can create stories or narratives about that. But there is no way to step outside our experience and view ourselves and the totality of existence objectively.

Sire states that this is not a work of professional philosophy and he is quite right. It is far too shallow and brief for that. Nevertheless, Sire tries to claim that he logically proved the self-inconsistencies in each of these worldviews, but that simply was not possibly in the limited manner of this work . For instance, he claims to have shown pantheism inconsistent, but nowhere in the book did he provide a full proof of that. Despite what many readers of this book have thought, it is also not a good catalog of worldviews. If it attempted to casually present a collection of worldviews it might succeed. But, Sire isn't that casual, he over-simplifies and quickly tries to dismiss everything he disagrees with and prove his own view correct. So, this book is stuck between being a serious work of critique, and a casual work of general introduction, accomplishing neither. As a final insult, after revealing the illogical form of these views, he presents his own without any logical basis. At best his theistic view, even if fully accepted, could not be defended purely on logical grounds. Sire has proven himself logically inconsistent. Since he has to accept a groundless fact for the very basis of his worldview, theism, this should not be a basis to reject other theories. The views presented here are based on facts, or at least perceptions and experience, rather than extension of belief, which leads Sire to a very unstable point for his attacks. He would be better off arguing why these philosophies could be true, were it not for an inadequacy or defect, namely the existence of his theism, and then argue why one should accept this theism as a starting point, being ungrounded, and reject plain experience for something more.

"This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
- Douglas Adams

"We will bury you" - Nikita Khrushchev

As the twentieth century ended, it seemed we had permanently done away with Marxism as a viable option. Certainly Krushchev was wrong - capitalism triumphed over communism. As I've stated earlier I think the battle was really more between democracy and totalitarianism, and democracy rightfully won. In the twentieth century capitalism supported democracy, but now in the twenty-first century we have moved into the realm of supercapitalism (more on this later). Capitalism and democracy are no longer mutually supportive. So perhaps, we can go back and learn a little from Marx and from democratic socialism. Here's more on this point.