The Death of God and the Meaning of Life

Last Book Read - The Death of God & the Meaning of Life - Julian Young

In this work, Young presents an excellent history of the development of thought concerning meaning from the pre-modern age to the current postmodern era.  Central to the progression of history from one period to another is the death-of-God, a fundamental change in human understanding. He presents this transition as a stream of thought beginning with Galileo and the advent of science and ending with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.  As Nietzsche noted when he originally announced the death of God in 1882, that when Galileo unchained the Earth from the center of the universe, we were placed in a cold, dark void, moving in an uncertain direction with no up or down.  There was no longer any fixed point of reference, and no longer a fixed source of meaning.  We were left with the dangerous possibility of nihilism.  The modern age responded by providing new methods of fixed systems.  The worlds conceived by Hegel and Marx moved the true-world of religion into the future history of humanity.  This true-world was no longer an other-world in space, but existed away from us in time.  But this illusion could only be sustained for so long.  With the end of functioning Marxism in 1989, this revision of religion also became defunct, providing a final death of God.

Young suggests that Continental philosophy deals with the death of God - conservative continental philosophy being the modern-era revisioning of God.  With the end of that came radical continental philosophy, which finds any replacement for God to be impossible.  "A religion is anything that postulates or promises a true world."   Here we have worldviews such as non-theist religions and schools of thought such as Marxism, that all function as religions the same as theism does.  When Nietzsche announced the death of God, he proposed that any of these systems were no longer possible in performing the function that they had done in pre-modern world.

I think that we could view radical continental philosophy as the philosophies of existentialism.  There may be some non-existential worldviews that have subsequently developed in the branch of post-modernism, but I would hesitate to call these complete philosophies, but rather culture theories, at this point. In other words, I think that all philosophy of meaning following the death of God is existential in nature.

Young examines the philosophy of four existential philosophers: Neitzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus, as well as the two postmodernists Foucalt and Derrida. He divides Nietzsche into three distinct periods of thought (early, late and posthumous), Heidegger into early and late and Sartre into two different early versions (ignoring the late).

He begins by tracing the lineage of thought of other-world meaning from Plato to Kant.  Schopenhauer takes Kant's notion of the hidden other-world and applies it to his pessimism, where passing from this world to the other is preferable.  Nietzsche continues this "European Buddhism" and attempts to overcome the implicit nihilism by suggesting that we can experience the other world through art.  Hegel and Marx continue a non-supernatural view of the other-world by relocating it to history.

When Nietzsche finally changes his mind about pessimism, he creates a whole new track of thought - radical continental philosophy- negating all the true-world views. Young then discusses Nietzsche's attempt at creating meaning by creating the self as a work of art, a complete narrative.  However, there is a problem of choice - the question of what life to choose.  He suggests these are the problems of authority and the immoral script.  Young then moves on to Heidegger, discussing historicity and the discovery of the authentic life.  For Heidegger your heritage, your community, are central to the meaning of life. But what if these traditions are not moral or meaningful themselves?  The problems of authority remain.

Sartre is up next. Dividing the work of Being and Nothingness, Young finds two views of  Sartre, based on slightly different interpretations of absurdity, as well as opposing views of humanity's desire to be God.  Sartre-two he dismisses as a nihilist based on this Sartre's understanding that all of life is conflict with others,  making life both meaningless and eternal conflict.  The views of Sartre-one come down to this: "(1) God is Dead. (2)Since there is no God to authorize the good, we have to do it ourselves. But (3) we have no authority over ourselves. Hence (4) we possess no authoritative account of the good, and life is meaningless (and so worthless)."

Finally we have Camus who views life as absurd - that is the disparity between how things are and how we want them to be.  But as many have argued (such as David Cooper and Camus himself ), the absurd hero of Camus' vision accepts this absurdity and happily lives in alienation, and this sets him apart from the existentialists.  Young suggest here that Camus believes life is better with no meaning. There is simply no possibility of a grand-narrative meaning.   What Camus really wants is life full of experience, "an ethics of quantity."  He looks to the "Barbarian Gods" on the beaches of Algeria, living without appeal and a lust for experience. Camus' version of the overman lives without appeal, because there is no divinity to appeal to, but rather lives with strength and majesty in this absence.  Aimlessness is preferable because a project of disciplined self development causes one to be a slave to their goals. Freedom is reduced and one always lives in the future, never in the now.  The absurd hero is indifferent to time and is only concerned with "being there."  Young ultimately rejects Camus' view and his hero as constructing static person that "will not change." Without some kind of goal, one will ultimately have a life that is simply boring.  He regards building one's life through self-defining goals as essential.

After analyzing the traps of existentialism and the unoriginality of the postmodernists, Young returns to Heidegger. He is clearly a Heidegarrian and takes the late un-existential Heidegger track as a means of escape from nihilism. Meaning is discovered rather than created, it is realizing the proper disclosure of the world and your place within it. Meaning comes from facticity - essence and existence become inseparable, according to Young.  Guardianship of the world, of Being, becomes our central task. This "Being" does not exist in a theistic sense,  but it is rather "the god of the poets," immanent in everything. 

Young does a better job at revealing underlying flaws in existential philosophy than other religious anti-existentialists that I have mentioned in the past.  He also provides an interesting and refreshing solution to the problem of meaning, by being non-theist and non-existential.  I am, at this point, however, not ready to dismiss Nietzsche, Sartre or Camus quite as easily.  I think that perhaps Young neglects some of the horrors of World War II and the Cold War, and their effects on modern philosophy, which explain some of the dark, nihilist leanings found within it.  Nevertheless, I believe existentialism is still optimistic and the right direction for finding post-death of God meaning.  As for Heidegger, his final position of Being is at least a non-true-world one.  Therefore, I can only assume that this Being, as sacred but not God, is a form of pantheism.  Of course, this leads to the question if Being is non-true-world, then does that mean pantheism is not religion?  Atheism and pantheism certainly function the same in practice, but any more on this matter will have to wait for another time.

Overall this book is highly recommended as one of the best works on philosophy in recent years.  It is an excellent work on many levels, first explaining the development of modern philosophy, as well as elucidating the existential positions and highlighting their particular details. Finally, it functions as a current state analysis of history by showing the progression from modernism to post-modernism through death-of-God realizations and the failed and desperate attempts at true-world transmutations.

Achtung Baby

The 18.09.09 episode of Sound Opinions discussed the evolution of U2 and proposed that Actung Baby was a turning point in the band's career, a position I fully embrace.

1991 saw the completion of the transition from the modern world to the postmodern one, a phase which began with World War II and lasted until the end of the Cold War.  Nowhere was more central to this history than Germany.  The post-Cold War left a vacuous space with no remaining metanarrative.  At the heart of this time and place U2 recorded what many would argue is their masterpiece, Achtung Baby.  For a new time emerged a new sound and attitude from a band that had been at the forefront of events in the 1980s. This world had a new sensibility and the record reflected that: it was darker, more complicated but in many ways less serious.  The future was open, free - but also very uncertain.

Every aspect of Achtung Baby showed that U2 had evolved.  The guitars not only gained an industrial-esque distortion, but a rawness and urgency.  The beat gained more dynamic rhythms and the bass developed a deeper influence.  The vocals also received distortion and different voicings.  Lyrically and thematically, this album revealed a deeper introspection and reached new levels of metaphor.  The album was noted for being U2's "heaviest" work, and as "dark," "intense," "dense" and "violent."  All of these words are quite appropriate and reveal the depth of the album.

Artistically, Achtung Baby was a success by being not only highly relevant, but showing an awareness of its point in history. It felt dynamic, and being musically innovative was progressing forward into the future. After two albums of exploring American music, this album is purely European and as such seems less stuck in one place or time.  The album is consistent throughout in a way no previous album has been.  The Fly, being the first single, as well as the opening track Zoo Station provided the most abrupt departure in sound through heavy beats and power guitar riffs.  Upon first hearing these tracks, the listener was exposed to a new world, something not heard before.  Even Better Than the Real Thing exemplified awareness of the hyper-real postmodernism of the era.  Until the End of the World continued the guitar-driven momentum and brought the album to inner depths of despair, guilt and betrayal.  One personifies the most conventional U2 track on the album, but thematically centers it with the concepts of separation and unification.  Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses and Mysterious Ways provided the lightest and brightest pop on the album.  So Cruel and Tryin to Throw Your Arms Around the World contribute the slowest and quietest moments of introspection.  Ultraviolet and Acrobat pick up the pace and contain the final push of the album to find meaning.  Finally Love is Blindness is the dark conclusion.  None of these songs are particularly "daylight" songs, it seems hard to visualize any of them except in dark rooms and streets.

It could be said that U2 was in a period of "irony and nihilism" (Assayas, 294).  But, I would say, a better description would be that U2 was in a period of hyper-awareness - of postmodernism, and the record (as well as Bono's extracurricular activities) was an attempt to overcome the nihilism in this world was lacking a firm foundation.  The artistry found on this record expanded U2's vision.  Subjectively, the work is much more individualistic - involving a personal contemplation, and conversely, it showed a historical and global awareness - the pulse of the Zeitgeist.  It would seem that U2 found a perfect balance of gravity in this period, always serious, but here the awareness of gravity is also an attempt to overcome it. When the band took this new record on tour, the result - Zoo TV-  was a massive presentation of this postmodern feel.  An epic display of the hyper-real through facades and technology.  But, as Bono says, the music was only "wrapped in irony. Actually, there was real blood going through those veins." (Assayas, 295)

The continued experimentation found on Zooropa and Pop was almost certainly more innovative, but did not reach a similar level of achievement. [2] The first was far too eclectic and viscerally inconsistent and the latter suffered from bad production [3] and a superficiality - the irony just seemed stretched a little too far and the balance of gravity seemed off.

Is Achtung Baby their masterpiece?  It often makes the list of best albums of all time.  And it rests at the center of these polarized discussions.  I will certainly claim that is a driving force in these debates and is therefore one of the leading contenders.  Is it a departure?  The band certainly intended it to be.  They needed to break the tension that had risen from the success of Joshua Tree.  And they felt it was - there was trepidation by the band about releasing it because they thought it so different.  The experiment was to see if all of the band's "outward manifestations" could be removed but leave that "spark" that is the essence of U2.  Of course, the result is something that is still purely U2.

Is Achtung Baby better than the revered Joshua Tree? I would certainly argue yes, beginning with the reasons stated above. Being innovative, the freshness of the sound has lasted longer.  The main problem with the Joshua Tree is its success [1]. While Actung has a more multi-era sound, Joshua Tree has a very 80s sound which has lead to the successful tracks being considered more as "80s hits." The sound is stripped-down, more acoustic and more Americanized.   Its track list is also inconsistent.  With or Without You and Where the Streets Have No Name are definitely A-grade U2. The third super-track, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, despite being their most well known, is perhaps their weakest single and most over-rated track on the album, in my opinion.  Bullet The Blue Sky has survived as a concert favorite, but comes through better with the post-Zoo TV energy.  Running to Stand Still, In God's Country, Trip Through Your Wires and One Tree Hill are all good songs, but a little too uniform, lacking a certain edginess.  Red Hill Mining Town is more of the same - not bad, just not breaking any new ground.  Exit and Mothers of the Disappeared become the low points of this album, lacking enough significance for independent interest.  On the other hand, I would concede that some of these weaknesses are strengths.  In many ways this record is the antithesis of Achtung Baby [4].  Here the songs can be visualized in daylight, and in open spaces.  The murky, layered depths are not present, and everything is clearer and less confused.  The album is a good example of stripped-down simplicity.

But when it comes to creating a masterpiece, I think complexity is a necessity.  The depth of the material found later on Rattle & Hum foreshadows what would develop on Achtung Baby and shows an evolving maturity that surpasses Joshua Tree.  Rattle & Hum showed U2 expanding as musicians, but Actung Baby showed them progressing as artists. They were no longer a rebel New Wave band, but something more.  Certainly Bono in reflection seems to know that Actung Baby and Zoo TV was a major turning point in the band's evolution.  It was U2's exercise of "judo" to overcome the criticisms of their past, and through this experiment they propelled themselves to new levels of achievement.

U2 has always evolved their sound over trilogies.  Boy/ October/ War debuted the band as a New Wave rebellion.  They then began their global ascent with the Unforgettable Fire, broke out with The Joshua Tree, and continued with Rattle & Hum.  This trilogy formed the "classic" U2 sound.  They re-emerged with the post-modern Achtung Baby and continued experimenting with Zooropa and Pop.  As a new millenuium dawned, they returned with All That You Can't Leave Behind, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and closed the decade with No Line on the Horizon.  [5] These three form what I consider the "neo-classic" trilogy. The core sound returned, but as always when one returns to a place from where they started, everything that has been learned is re-incorporated, and the neo-classic represents a synthesis between modern and post-modern U2[6].

U2 will be playing a free concert in Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the death of communism. Hopefully the set will draw heavily from Actung Baby. [edit 10.29.09]


[1] I would compare The Joshua Tree to Rush's Moving Pictures.  Both had three standout A-side tracks become iconic.  In both cases these three tracks were brilliant, but became identified synonymously with the band and were extremely overplayed.  Decades later, these songs are inseparable from the band and often blind people from experiencing better material.
[2] The post-modern themes of Achtung Baby were developed even further on Zooropa.  The title track is a great exploration of the postmodern condition of hyper-reality.  The album as a whole shows its own postmodern essence through it eclecticism.  Beginning with the slick, electronic European Zooropa and ending with the more acoustic, raw, American The Wanderer shows a journey  ending in its opposite.  But as a complete work of music, this variation is less interesting and a bit less cohesive.
[3] Most discussions of Pop seem to place the blame on the production.  I can't tell myself, I only know the album is displeasing to my ears.
[4] I think its quite appropriate that the only song U2 released between JT/R&H and AB/Zooropa was Night and Day.  The symbolism could not have been more perfect .
[5] Its possible that the release of  Songs of Ascent will change this pattern.
[6] U2 also functions on another post-modern level.  As members of the New Wave that helped build Modern Rock, their status in the 80s was unquestionable.  Once Modern Rock aged and receded farther in time to exist alongside Classic Rock, what came after was literally Post-Modern Rock.  As their status as one of the greatest rock bands has continued to persevere throughout this time period, they have continued to contribute to the definition of contemporary rock music.



Sources:

U2 & Philosophy, Mark A. Wrathall, Open Court, 2006
Bono in Conversation, Michka Assayas, Riverhead, 2005
Cultural Theory And Popular Culture: A Reader, John Storey,  University of Georgia Press; 2006