Postmodernism 101, Part 5: Heidegger Knows Nothing

What is postmodernism? Is it a problem?  The following continues a series of posts explaining postmodernism.  It is based on the book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Prof. Stephen Hicks.

Previous posts include:

immanuel-kantImmanuel Kant

Marxist postmodernism seeks to overthrow modern philosophy, just as Enlightenment modernism overthrew Medieval faith.  Modernism supposed we could use reason (not faith) to know reality.  Its progeny were individualism, science, liberal democracy, free markets, technology, and medicine.

The German Counter-Enlightenment reacted to defend faith and community.  Immanuel Kant hacked objectivity from reason using logic’s razor.  Half-blind reason could not know reality.  Hegel thought Kant weak, and reinvented reason – a dialectic that forced logic to give way to contradiction.

In Kant’s wake, a new camp appeared – the irrationalists, who looked into their feelings.  Nihilistic Schopenhauer perceived only will.  Faithful Schleiermacher believed in his heart.  Kierkegaard urged action – crucify reason and make a leap of faith.  Skeptical Nietzsche urged courage against the unknowable: cast away morality, tap into your will, and become the lightning – Superman.

Heidegger Knows Nothing
martin-heideggerMartin Heidegger

Postmodernism’s leading twentieth century philosopher was Germany’s mystical, metaphysical Nazi, Martin Heidegger.  He borrowed from earlier Counter-Enlightenment thinkers: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard. Heidegger concocted a dark brew that poisoned reason and revealed Nothing.

Heidegger borrowed from earlier Counter-Enlightenment thinkers: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard.  Like Kant, he thought perceptions and concepts obscured reality.  Like Hegel, Heidegger thought we could better know reality (but rejected Hegel’s reasoning).  Like Kierkegaard, he trusted his feelings.  Like Schopenhauer, Heidegger dwelt on dark feelings.

Heidegger trusted his feelings.  Like Kant, he thought reason could not know reality.  Sense perceptions and artificial concepts (including language) obscured reality.  Kant naively supposed a reality and asked what it was, Heidegger thought.  Heidegger meditated on his feelings and asked a different Question – why it was.

Logic could not answer Heidegger’s Question.  “Why is there Being and not rather Nothing?”, he asked.  The contradiction of something from nothing conflicts with logic (as Hegel saw).  Heidegger decided that logic was merely an “invention of schoolteachers” and that answering his Question requires that reason be destroyed.

In mystical fashion, Heidegger reveals metaphysical nihilism.  Heidegger, bored, anxious, and full of dread, discovered Nothing.  He first explored language, vainly seeking to uncover primordial ur-words.  He grew terribly bored, disconnected, and discovered Nothing.  In disconnected boredom, we slip into nothingness, he thought.  This dreadful sense of annihilation helps us to answer the ultimate Question.  Being and Nothing are one and the same.

Heidegger’s metaphysical nihilism and anti-realism would be a foundation for postmodernism.

  • Conflict and contradiction reveal truth.
  • Reason is subjective.
  • Concepts (language) obscure reality.
  • Contradiction trumps logic.
  • Feelings trump reason.
  • Western reason and logic are hindrances.

There is much more to Heidegger.  Nazism aside, he inherited traditional German social and political collectivism.  History and tradition made these powerful Counter-Enlightenment political currents.

Heidegger’s dark, mystic philosophy resembles the Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars mythology.  In the Star Wars universe, the Jedi knights draw power from an unseen mystical Force.  “Trust your feelings,” they are told, but do not give into the Dark Side – feelings of fear or hate.  The evil Sith lords draw power from the Dark Side.  Their evil Empire conjures Nazi imagery.  Star Wars mythology seems to warn of Nazism’s philosophical heritage.


History explains postmodernism’s leftist politics.  Next: Part 6, Rousseau’s Paradise Lost.

Postmodernism 101, Part 4: Staring into the Abyss

What is postmodernism? Is it a problem?  The following continues a series of posts explaining postmodernism.  It is based on the book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Prof. Stephen Hicks.

Previous posts include:

immanuel-kantImmanuel Kant

In Marxist tradition, postmodernism seeks to overthrow modern philosophy and its progeny.  The Enlightenment’s modern philosophy overthrew the Medieval philosophy of faith.  Modernism supposed individuals could use perception and reason (not faith) to know reality.  Its progeny were individualism, science, liberal democracy, free markets, technology, and medicine.

The German Counter-Enlightenment reacted to defend faith and community.  Immanuel Kant attacked reason with logic’s razor, slicing objectivity away.  Reason was left half-blind, unable to know reality.  Hegel thought Kant’s defense weak, and launched a counter-revolution.  Hegel conjured a dialectic that played by its own rules, a game changer that slapped logic away and reinvented reason.


The Enlightenment brought a crisis of faith and a crisis of meaning.  Mankind stared into an abyss, half-blind.  Some despaired and plunged into darkness.  Some held to belief.  Some leapt into the unknown.  Another summoned lightning in the darkness.


arthur-schopenhauerArthur Schopenhauer

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer despaired.  Hegel was a coward, he thought, for attempting to return to religion.  Hegel’s metaphysics were not reality.

Schopenhauer agreed with Kant that our minds understand reality from perceptions and concepts.  “All perception is intellectual,” he wrote, “The world is my representation [of it].”

Our only reality is our will, Schopenhauer wrote.  Our actions define our will, he argued.  Our actions reveal our motivations.  This is all we can know of reality, he said.

To search for more is pointless, Schopenhauer argued, because our will cannot comprehend more.  If we could, he claimed, we would find only chaos, cruelty, and horror.  For Schopenhauer, it would be better that man and the world had never existed.  “Nothing else can be stated as the aim of existence except the knowledge that it would be better for us not to exist,” he despaired.


friedrich-schleiermachrFriedrich Schleiermachr

German philosopher and theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher held to belief.  Kant was correct, he agreed, that reason cannot know reality.  We believe what reason tells us.  We can believe what faith tells us.

Reason is based on belief, said Schleiermacher.  We perceive external objects.  We cannot know the existence of them, independent of our minds.  The external world is an object of belief.

Faith is based on belief, he argued.  We can look inward, into our hearts.  In our deepest religious feelings, we can sense the divine.  Our faith is also an object of belief.

Faith requires that we limit reason, Schleiermacher concluded,  “No God without a world, and no world without God”.

Leap into the Unknown

soren-kierkagaardSoren Kierkegaard

Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard pushed us to make a leap of faith.  He agreed with Kant that knowledge of reality was impossible.  Nevertheless, the world forces choices upon us.  Our destinies are at sake.  We must act.

We make life’s choices in ignorance, Kierkegaard contended.  “Life can only be understood backwards,” he said, “but it must be lived forwards.”

We must choose, Kierkegaard said, “I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations – one can either do this or that.  My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not – you will regret both.”

We must make a leap of faith, Kierkegaard concluded.  God cannot be justified rationally.  God is irrational and unknowable, he said.  Like Abraham, he said, we must relinquish our understanding and thinking, and keep our soul fixed upon the unknowable.  We must “crucify reason” and make a leap of faith into the unknowable.

Lightning in the Darkness

friedrich-nietzscheFriedrich Nietzsche

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche fought to light a way in the falling dark.  Christianity’s candle was dimming, its moral compass failing.  The specter of Schopenhauer’s despair followed him.  Nietzsche summoned lightning to light the way.

Nietzsche saw the German battle against the Enlightenment as one of hatred between brothers who “wronged each other as only brothers wrong each other”.  The Enlightenment was an attack on the philosophical German spirit by the English mechanistic mind.

Nietzsche agreed with the “catastrophic spider” Kant, that reason was woeful.  Reason relied on our “weakest and most fallible organ”, he said, our consciousness.  Reason demeaned us “unfortunate creatures”, reducing us to “thinking, inferring, reckoning, coordinating cause and effect”.

Christianity could guide us no longer.  “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!”, Nietzsche lamented,  “How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers?”  Without religion’s moral compass, how could we guide ourselves?  “Whither do we move?  Away from all suns?  Do we not dash on unceasingly?  Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions?  Is there still an above and below?”  Nietzsche asked.

Nietzsche dispelled the specter of Schopenhauer’s despair.  His pessimism was born of religious “world-renouncing morality”.  Fear and pessimism must not drive us to religion, he argued.

Nietzsche proposed a way forward: Will to Power – the exercise of power to achieve individual potential.  “A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength,” Nietzsche said, “Life itself is Will to Power.”  Man must become the Superman, he argued, “the lightening out of the dark cloud”.  We should not be herded by “good and just” herdsmen.  What good are happiness, reason, virtue, justice, or pity?  We must live dangerously and embrace conflict to achieve our full potential.

Nietzsche’s short life ended in madness, his works incomplete.  Others took up his works and twisted them to terrible ends.


The German Counter-Enlightenment had now split roughly into two camps:  one Hegelian, the other irrationalist.  Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche represent German philosophy’s irrationalist camp:

  • Reality.  Reason cannot know reality.
    • The theists (Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard) found truth in the rational and the irrational.
    • The atheists (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) found no truth (only phenomena and will).
  • Human Nature.
    • Schleiermacher endorsed conscious choice of good and evil (subject to human nature).
    • Kierkegaard endorsed personal freedom to choose salvation (subject to original sin).
    • The atheists (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche) perceived will.
  • Values.
    • Kierkegaard valued individual freedom, opposed Hegelian collectivism, and valued faith in Christ.
    • Schleiermacher valued the higher good, including the individual and their duty to God and community (the collective).
    • Schopenhauer was a nihilist who thought the search for universal truths to be absurd (futile, pointless).  He saw no point in life.
    • Nietzsche was a moral skeptic who denied universal truths.  He valued achievement of individual potential in a hierarchy (at all costs).  He opposed mass movements (“the herd”, “the rabble”).

The Twentieth century awaited –  twisted ideologies and a maelstrom of chaos, war, revolution, carnage, and monstrous horror.


Postmodernism’s foundation is laid.  Next: Part 5, Heidegger Knows Nothing.

Postmodernism 101, Part 3: Hegel’s Dialectic

What is postmodernism? Is it a problem?  The following continues a series of posts explaining postmodernism.  It is based on the book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Prof. Stephen Hicks.

Previous posts include:


Reason, truth, and knowledge are meaningless, argue the postmodernists, they are only political oppression.  Marxist postmodernism seeks to overthrow modernism and its progeny – truth, reason, knowledge, science, individualism, free markets, and liberal democracy.

Enlightenment’s modern philosophy overthrew the Medieval philosophy of faith.  It replaced faith with reason.  It supposed individuals could use perception and reason to know reality.  Modernism produced individualism, science, liberal democracy, free markets, technology, and medicine.

The German Counter-Enlightenment reacted against Enlightenment’s threats to replace religion and community with a godless, soulless, amoral machine.  Immanuel Kant struck a blow in defense of religion.  He took logic’s razor to cut away objectivity, leaving only subjective reality.  Reason staggered on, half-blind.

hegelGeorg W. F. Hegel

German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel, like Kant, was a defender of the faith.  Hegel marked an even further break from Enlightenment thinking.  His work had profound, lasting effects on the world.

Hegel thought Kant’s defense of religion to be intolerable.  Kant separated man (the subject) from reality (the object).  In doing so, Kant denied universal truths.  This seemed no defense of religion, at all.

Hegel sought to restore universal truths (to defend religion) with a different strategy.  He would reunite man and reality by reuniting the subject with the object.

Reason Redefined

Hegel aimed to reunite man with reality by changing the perspective and redefining terms.  Enlightenment philosophy supposed that the subject (man) perceived the object (reality).  We were cut off from objective reality and universal truths.  We constructed subjective reality in our minds.

Hegel changed that perspective.  He redefined the “subject”.  The subject is not the individual, but the whole universe.  The individual is only a part.  Hegel agreed with Kant that reality comes from us.  But, he broke with Kant, arguing that we can know all of reality (universal truths) because it comes from us.

Hegel redefined reason.  Reason creates reality.  So, reason is a creative function, not a cognitive one.


Hegel broke western logical traditions.  Enlightenment reason argued in terms of traditional Aristotelian logic.  This logic questioned contradictions in Christian dogma:

  • How can God create something from nothing?
  • How can God be both one and three (the Trinity)?
  • How can a loving God create a world that contains evil?

Reason contains contradictions, Hegel answered, and reason must give way for them.  Logical contradictions are a problem for reason, he argued, only if we make them one.  The answer is to redefine reason, Hegel said.

  • The universe can have a beginning and be eternal.
  • God can be both one and three.
  • Loving God can create evil.

Hegel’s dialectical reasoning dispensed with individualism.  Reason’s contradictions create tensions and clash in a process of evolution, he said. Deeper universal forces act through and upon individuals, who are shaped by evolving cultures.  Universal reason realizes itself, without regard to individuals, Hegel wrote.

Hegel’s work was a major assault on Enlightenment and modern philosophy:

  • Reality.  Reality is entirely subjective.  We create reality.  Reality and reason contain contradictions.
  • Human Nature.  We have no autonomy or free will.  Culture and universal forces act through us.
  • Values. We value the collective (not the individual).  Truth is relative and constantly evolving.

Hegel’s themes of contradiction, conflict, collectivism, and relativism profoundly affected history.


Hegel’s Counter-Enlightenment seems much a reactionary counter-revolution.  He seems to restore the Medieval philosophy of faith, in part.  He threw down individualism from its lofty perch, and restored unseen God to his throne.  Individuals were but serfs or puppets, dancing for God and other invisible forces.

Hegel’s vision differed from Medieval philosophy in other ways.  Medieval faith supposed a relatively stable divine order that changed slowly.  Hegel’s faith proposed something chaotic – ever changing, evolution, revolution.  He left God’s throne on shifting sands, amidst a whirling cyclone.


German Counter-Enlightenment opens a new front: irrationalism.  Next: Part 4, Staring into the Abyss.

Postmodernism 101, Part 2: Objectivity is Dead

What is postmodernism? Is it a problem?  The following continues a series of posts explaining postmodernism.  It is based on the book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Prof. Stephen Hicks,  Professor of Philosophy, at Rockford College.  His excellent book goes into great detail, exploring postmodernism and its origins.

Previous posts include:


Reason, truth, and knowledge are meaningless, argue the postmodernists, they are only political oppression.  In Marxist tradition, postmodernism seeks to overthrow modernism and its progeny – truth, reason, knowledge, science, individualism, free markets, and liberal democracy.

The Age of Enlightenment’s modern philosophy overthrew the Medieval philosophy of faith.  Modernism replaced faith with reason.  Individuals could use perception and reason to know reality.  Reason produced individualism and science.  Individualism produced liberal democracy and free markets.  Science produced technology and medicine.

Counter-Enlightenment Strikes Back
immanuel-kantImmanuel Kant

Postmodernism’s seeds were sown during the Age of Enlightenment.  There was a Counter-Enlightenment, a reaction to modernism – both to defend faith and to criticize modernism’s logical flaws.  The Counter-Enlightenment planted the seeds of postmodernism.

Enlightenment thought helped make England into a powerhouse.  Continental Europe took notice.  The French followed, for a time.  Many Germans were troubled. The Enlightenment threatened politics, religion, community, and morality.

Enlightenment reason and individualism threatened to replace religion with a godless, soulless, amoral machine.

  • Gone was a personal God, replaced by a distant, disconnected abstraction.
  • Gone were faith, religious answers, and the human spirit, replaced by logic, causation and mechanical necessity.
  • Gone was morality and community, replaced by the selfish pursuit of happiness.

The German Counter-Enlightenment gathered its forces.  Its progeny would include existentialism, nihilism, Marxism, Nazism, communism, and postmodernism.

Objectivity is Dead

German philosopher Immanuel Kant was a defender of the faith.  He attacked Enlightenment reason in order to defend religion.  “I here therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith,” Kant wrote.  In defense of faith, he struck reason a crippling blow.

Reason is clueless about objective reality, Kant argued.  Our reason is limited by our subjective perceptions and understanding. Our perceptions are subjective.  Our understanding is subjective.  Therefore, we cannot know objective reality.

Our perceptions are subjective, said Kant.  Our sense perceptions are not reality.  They are only internal representations of reality.  Our sense organs veil reality.

Our understandings are subjective, Kant contended.  Our understandings are even further removed from reality than our perceptions.  We construct our understandings from artificial concepts.  “We always remain involved in conditions” that make our experiences, he said.

Kant rejected knowledge to protect faith.  We cannot know objective reality, he concluded.  Reason and science are cut off from reality.  Truth exists only inside our brains.  Thus, science cannot disprove God.


Kant struck a blow against reason, in a major break from Enlightenment thought.  The results might be:

  • Reality.  We know objective subjective reality because reason and perception are subjective.  Our organs of consciousness are obstacles to consciousness.
  • Human Nature.  We have the autonomous limited capacity or the illusion of capacity to form our own character.
  • Values. The individual is might be the unit of value.  Universal principles are subjective.

Kant made powerful, logical arguments against reason.  He separated object from subject, and reason from reality. Modern ideas about reason, truth, and knowledge are called into question.


Kant turned reason (logic) against itself.  Objectivity had stood on shaky legs.  Kant took logic’s razor and cut objectivity’s legs from under it.  The fight left reason wobbling – and blind in one eye.  Science could see only part of the truth.


The German Counter-Enlightenment launches a counter-revolution.  Next: Part 3, Hegel’s Dialectic.

Postmodernism 101, Part 1: Truth is Dead

What is postmodernism? Is it a problem?  Prof. Jordan B. Peterson sees postmodernism as an existential threat.  Prof. John Vervaeke suggests that the plague of postmodernism has brought a zombie apocalypse upon us.

What is postmodernism?  The following is the first in a series of posts explaining postmodernism.  It is based on the book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Prof. Stephen Hicks,  Professor of Philosophy, at Rockford College.  His excellent book goes into great detail, exploring postmodernism and its origins.

Previous posts:

Intro: The Trouble with Zombies

Truth is Dead
jacques-derridaJacques Derrida

Reason, truth, and knowledge are meaningless, argued French philosopher Michel Foucault.  Reason, he claimed, is the ultimate language of madness.

Postmodernism offers no truth or knowledge, said American philosopher Richard Rorty, because there is no truth.  Postmodernism cannot claim to be “right” or correspond with reality, he said, because there are no such things.  The postmodernist has no obligation to be “right”, agreed American legal scholar Stanley Fish, only to be “interesting”.

Reason, truth, and reality are just power and oppression, wrote French philosopher Francois Lyotard, the same as prisons and prohibitions. Postmodernism is a strategy against reason, power, and oppression.

andrea-dworkinAndrea Dworkin

Reason oppresses women, argued feminist legal critics Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin.  Sex between man and woman is a predatory “act of invasion and ownership”, argued Dworkin, “He owns you inside and out”.  Pornography is not free speech, MacKinnon and Dworkin agreed, but political oppression.

karl-marxKarl Marx

The West disguises political oppression, claimed Foucault.  Oppression is naked only in its prisons, he said, “brutal tyranny”, in the guise of “serene domination of Good over Evil, of order over disorder”.

Postmodernism is Marxist, admitted French postmodernist Jacques Derrida.  It is a tool for “radicalization … within the tradition of a certain Marxism in a certain spirit of Marxism,” he said.

Postmodern Philosophy

Postmodernism is a philosophy that denies being one.  Philosophies rest on assumptions:

  • Reality.  How do we define reality?  What is knowledge?
  • Human nature.  What is it to be human?
  • Values.  What are our values (ethics)?

Postmodernism rests on philosophical assumptions:

  • Reality.  We cannot use reason to know objective reality.  Reality is subjective (artificial).  Society uses language to “construct” reality.  Knowledge is meaningless because we lack truth and reality.
  • Human nature.  Society uses language to construct our group identities (gender, ethnicity, class).  Society is conflict.  Society’s powerful (oppressors) use force against the weak (oppressed).
  • Values.  We value fighting against oppressors on behalf of the oppressed.

Postmodern philosophy rejects modern philosophy.


Modernism arose during the Age of Enlightenment (the Age of Reason).  It gave birth to liberal government, capitalism, science, technology, and modern medicine.

Before this, Medieval Europe was dominated by the philosophy of faith:

  • Reality.  We know reality based on tradition, faith, and mysticism.
  • Human nature.  We are defined by original sin and are subjects of God’s will.
  • Values.  Individuals are subordinate to divinely ordained political, social, and religious hierarchies. We value altruistic service to others.

Modernism replaced the philosophy of faith, which had been succumbing to Renaissance and Reform thought.  Modern philosophy arose:

  • Reality.  We know objective reality by using reason and perception of nature.
  • Human nature.  Individuals are a unit of reality.  Our minds are sovereign.  We have the autonomous capacity to form our own character (free will).
  • Values.  The individual is the unit of value.
isaac-newtonIsaac Newton

Modernism emphasized reason.  John Locke made reason the key to individualism – individual ethics, individual rights, political equality, and justice.  Enlightenment thinkers, like Isaac Newton, made reason the key to science.  Science produced technology and medicine.

Modernism emphasized individualism.  Individualism in politics produced liberal democracy and ultimately led to the demise of slavery.  Individualism in economics produced free markets and capitalism.

Modernism’s views grew and dominated: nature, reason, science, individualism, and liberalism.  People became more free, lived longer, and suffered less.

Death to Modernism

Postmodernism attacks the philosophical foundations of modern Western society, and all that flows from it.  It attacks the foundation of truth, reason, and knowledge.  It attacks the edifices of individualism, science, markets, and liberal politics.

richard-rortyRichard Rorty

Postmodernism seeks to throw down Western society and replace it.  The question for postmodernists is how to proceed, now that “The Age of Faith and the Enlightenment seem beyond recovery,” Rorty stated.

Postmodernist philosophy had little influence in philosophy.  It has had greater influence in education.

  • Literary criticism.  Literary texts have no objective meaning.  They have subjective meaning to the reader.  We can deconstruct them to reveal the author’s biases – racism, misogyny, patriarchy.
  • Legal theory.  Legal Pragmatists argue against universal theories of law or legal principles are illusory.  Critical Legal Theorists reject objective or neutral readings of laws or precedent as fraudulent.  The law, they argue, is a weapon of coercion that serves white males.
  • Education.  The purpose of education is not to develop cognitive reasoning ability.  Its purpose is to mold social identities that are sensitive on issues of race, gender, and class; and to overthrow the powerful and the privileged.

Postmodernism attacks Western culture.  Some complaints have seeds of truth.  Others seem absurd, even comical, but are no laughing matter.

  • The US is not based on liberty, equality, and opportunity, but on sexism, racism, and class oppression.
  • We should not be judged by the content of our character, but affirmed based on our race or gender.
  • The West is not leading the world to freedom, but to oppression and exploitation.
  • Science does not work to make us better off.  Instead, it is elitist and sexist, and represents rape culture (full of phallic symbols, conquering and penetrating nature).  It privileges the speed of light over other speeds.
Totalitarian Power

Postmodernism’s Marxist assault on the modern West has been ongoing for decades.  Postmodernism pervades education and the humanities.  It claims no reason, no truth, no morality.  It is unprincipled, uncompromising, and promotes unthinking hate and division.  Postmodernism seeks one thing: totalitarian power.


Postmodernism underlies Prof. Vervaeke’s zombie apocalypse metaphor.  Zombie mythology resonates with us, he says, because it expresses a collective unconscious idea that something has gone very wrong.  Zombies have lost thought and meaning, identity and community.  They wander aimlessly, attacking and destroying meaning.  This zombie apocalypse looks quite postmodern.

Postmodernism is also central to Ted Kaczynski’s Unabomber Manifesto.  Kaczynski attacked Industrial Society as a threat to man and nature.  He more harshly attacked postmodern Leftism.  They oppose science and technology only until they gain power, he warned.  Then, these become tools for totalitarianism.  Otherwise, postmodernism resembles Kaczynski’s strategy for toppling Industrial Society.


How did this come about?  Next: Part 2, Objectivity is Dead

The Unabomber Manifesto, Part 7: Revolution and Leftism

Industrial Society and its Future, Cont’d

The following continues a condensed summary of the Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future.  The ideas, below, are Kaczynski’s.  The headings and numbers are his.   This is no endorsement of violence or anarchy. The document is presented in parts.  Previous parts include:

  1. Technology is recklessly driving us into the unknown. Many understand this, but think it’s inevitable.  It can be stopped, says Kaczynski.
  2. Our two tasks, he says, are to heighten social stress and to propagate an ideology opposed to industrial society.  This will further destabilize a distressed system, he argues, making revolution possible.  This follows the same pattern as the French and Russian Revolutions, he says.
  3. The French and Russian Revolutions failed at their utopian goals, but succeeded at destroying the old societies.  The idea of creating an ideal society, Kaczynski says, is an illusion.
  4. Human psychology requires that our ideology have a positive goal, Kaczynski says.  Our goal, he proposes, should be Nature – Earth and mankind in its natural state, free from organized society.  Opposing technology (a negative goal) is less motivating.
  5. Nature is the opposite of technology.  Nature is beautiful.  It requires no utopian ideal.  We came from it.  We can coexist with it.  Industrial society attacks nature.  If industrial society fails, nature’s scars can heal.  Then, we will live with nature and close to nature.
  6. We will suffer negative consequences, but everything comes at a price, says Kaczynski.
  7. We must develop ideology on two levels, he says, because most people hate psychological conflict.
  8. Ideology should have one level that is rational, intelligent, and thoughtful.  This attracts an influential, capable, and intelligent core of people who fully understand the ambiguities and the costs.  We must be truthful.  Deception will undermine and destroy the ideology.
  9. Ideology should have a second level that is simpler.  This attracts the majority who see things in unambiguous terms.  We must be careful of irrational, incendiary language because mob tactics might alienate the rational core.  Mob tactics, he says, help only when the end is near.
  10. History is made by active, determined minorities, not the majority.  Revolutionaries win with a small, deeply committed core, not shallow majority support.  Revolutionaries shouldn’t ignore the majority.  They shouldn’t seek majority support at the expense of the seriously committed core.
  11. The general strategy should avoid blaming the public.  The strategy should blame the powerful elite (oppressor).  The public are victims (oppressed).
  12. The general strategy should target the powerful elite (oppressor).  Other social conflicts distract from the main conflict (powerful versus weak, technology versus nature).  Other conflicts (ethnic, ideological, regional) undermine the main conflict.  The system only responds with more technology.
  13. Ethnic conflicts are unimportant, Kaczynski argues.  Minorities may be disadvantaged, he says, but the real enemy is the industrial-technological system.
  14. This revolution focuses on technology and economics, not politics, he says.  This is not necessarily violence or an armed uprising.
  15. The goal is not political power.  Political power is self-defeating.  The majority of voters would force elected officials to betray the cause or be voted out of office.  This revolution must come from outside.
  16. This revolution must be international, worldwide, and simultaneous.  An attempt to overthrow the system may end in dictatorship.  That risk is worth taking, Kaczynski argues.  Dictator-controlled systems are prone to break down.
  17. One strategy, he says, is to support international trade agreements that bind the world economy in interdependence.  This makes the world economy more susceptible to breakdown.  The breakdown of one industrialized nation may spread contagion that destroys others.
  18. Our problem is not that modern man enjoys too much power and control over nature.  The problem is that industrial society is too powerful and controlling.  Our personal power is slight.
  19. The collective power of industrial society is the problem.  The collective power of primitive society was negligible .
  20. Our goal isn’t to make modern man powerless, argues Kaczynski, we must break the power of the industrial system and return power to individuals and small groups.
  21. Our only goal, he argues, is to destroy the industrial system. Other goals are costly and dangerous distractions.  They tempt us to use technology and fall back into the technological trap.
  22. “Social justice” only reinforces the system.  To achieve its goals, it depends upon the technological system.
  23. Revolution is hopeless without some modern technology. It should be used only to attack the technological system, he says, because technology is too tempting.
  24. The human race is tempted by technology like an alcoholic is tempted by a barrel of wine.
  25. Revolutionaries should have many children, he suggests.  Science indicates that social attitudes are partly inherited.  Social attitudes tend to correlate with personality traits.  Personality traits are partly inherited.  In addition, children tend to share their parents’ social attitudes.
  26. Unfortunately, revolutionaries are less likely to have children because they are more concerned about population.  This works against them.
  27. Our single overriding goal must be to eliminate modern technology, says Kaczynski, with no competing goals.  Revolutionaries must be empirical, he says, find what works, and do only that.
Two Kinds of Technology
  1. It can’t be argued that the proposed revolution is bound to fail based on the claim that technology has never regressed.
  2. Technology has regressed in the past.  There are two kinds of technology.  Small-scale technology can be used independently by small communities.  Organization-dependent technology depends upon larger social organization.  Small-scale technology has never significantly regressed.  Organization-dependent technology has regressed, when social organization broke down.  When the Roman Empire fell, small-scale technology survived (e.g., water wheels).  Organization-dependent technology regressed (aqueducts, road construction, urban sanitation).
  3. Technology seems to have never regressed because most pre-industrial technology was small-scale.  Today, most technology is organization-dependent.  Simple items like refrigerators depend on large scale industrial organization: factories, power generation, power transmission, parts and service that depend on more industrial organization.
  4. Organization-dependent technology regresses when social organization breaks down.  Once lost, industrial society might take centuries to rebuild.
  5. Industrial society might not rebuild, at all.  Maybe it only develops under special conditions.  It developed rapidly only in Europe, not other civilizations (Islam, India, Asia).  Historians speculate why.
  6. Might industrial society be reborn?  Maybe, Kaczynski concludes, but it is not our worry.
The Danger of Leftism
  1. Leftists transform non-leftist movements into leftist movements.  Movements attract leftists because leftists need to rebel or identify with mass movements.  Large numbers of leftists, then, replace the original goals with leftist goals.
  2. A movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must oppose leftism.  It must not collaborate with leftists.  Leftism seeks only power – to control industrial society in the name of the collective.  It is the enemy of human freedom and nature.
  3. The anarchist seeks power, also – only for individuals and small groups to control their own lives.  The anarchist opposes technology because it forces dependence on large organizations.
  4. History shows that leftists might oppose technology, only until they gain power.  Once in control, they’d use technology for oppression.  The Bolsheviks opposed censorship and secret police, until they gained power.  Once in control, they imposed tighter censorship and more ruthless secret police.  University leftists supported academic freedom, until they gained power.  Once in control, they stifled others’ academic freedom.
  5. History shows that non-leftist revolutionaries are fools if they collaborate with leftists.  History shows that leftists betray their collaborators, and seize power.  Robespierre, the Bolsheviks, Spanish communists, and Castro all betrayed their revolutionary compatriots.
  6. Leftism is a kind of secular religion.  It is empty of spirituality, but is irrational and based on faith, not reason or facts.  It seeks to impose a morality on others.  It meets a deep human need for religion.  Leftism, refers to a spectrum of beliefs, aligned with the old left – feminism, gay rights, political correctness, etc.
  7. Leftism is totalitarian.  When leftists gain power, they forcibly invade every corner of life and seek to mold every thought.  In the leftist religion, all else is sin.  More importantly, they have a never ending drive for power, that is insatiable.  When they meet one goal, they must move on to another cause, and so on.
  8. Leftism is not motivated by distress at society’s ills.  It is motivated by the drive for power, to impose their solutions on society.
  9. For the oversocialized left, the struggle to impose their morality on everyone is their only means to pursue power.
  10. Oversocialized leftists are True Believers, single-mindedly devoted to their cause.  True Believers may be necessary for revolution, but also threaten to undermine it, if also committed to other ideals.
  11. This generally describes leftist movements.  This may not describe particular individuals or even a majority of leftists, who might be more tolerant or less totalitarian.
  12. Power hungry leftists rise to power in leftist movements.  They strive hardest for power because they are power hungry.  They hold onto power because the faithful don’t oppose them.  They crush any opposition because they are ruthless and organized.
  13. This is the historical pattern.  Western leftists excused the evils of the Soviet Union and communist countries.  They blamed the West, and excused communist aggression.  They excused the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but blamed the US in Vietnam.  Their leftist faith stopped them from opposing communist evil.  In universities today, they excuse suppression of academic freedom.
  14. Leftism has totalitarian tendencies, however mild and tolerant individuals might be.
  15. Still, the word “leftist” remains poorly defined.  There is a whole spectrum of activist movements.  Some are leftist, some partly so.  We must use our own judgment.
  16. We can list some criteria to identify leftism.  It isn’t clear cut.
  17. Leftists favor collectivism.  They emphasize our duty to serve society, and society’s duty to care for us. They frown on individualism.  They moralize.  They support gun control, sex education, social planning,  affirmative action, and multiculturalism.  They identify with victims.  They oppose competition and violence (but excuse leftist violence).  They spout phrases, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.”  They support feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness.  Strong support of all of this is almost certainly leftist.
  18. Power-hungry leftists are often arrogant and dogmatic.  The most dangerous are passive-aggressive “crypto-leftists”.  They mask their leftism and quietly work to promote collectivist values in education and to foster dependency.  Crypto-leftists don’t seem radical, but are highly motivated True Believers, driven by deep psychological needs.
Final Note
  1. These arguments are a crude approximation of the truth.  Many are imprecise and qualified.  Some may be wrong.  We can only generalize, based on imperfect information and intuition.
  2. These general outlines seem roughly correct.  Perhaps, leftism is not peculiar to modern times nor the result of power process disruption.  The oversocialized and power driven have long imposed their morality on others.  Their motivation still seems to be feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, and powerlessness.  Modern leftism seems peculiar in its low self-esteem and identification with victims.  This is different from early Christian and early leftist sympathy for victims.  The truth of that question is left to historians.

The Unabomber Manifesto, Part 6: Crossroads

Industrial Society and its Future, Cont’d

The following continues a condensed summary of the Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society and its Future.  The ideas, below, are Kaczynski’s.  The headings and numbers are his.   This is no endorsement of violence or anarchy. The document is presented in parts.  Previous parts include:

Revolution is Easier Than Reform
  1. The only way forward is to reinvent the system, says Kaczynski, because reform can’t protect freedom. This means revolution – radical and fundamental change.
  2. Revolution may be easier than reform because revolution offers greater goals and inspires greater commitment.  Reform offers lesser goals and inspires less commitment.  Psychology favors revolution over reform because revolution offers rewards, while reform avoids punishment (negative outcomes).
  3. Revolution is unrestrained by the fear that cripples reform. Revolution’s fever makes hardships endurable.  The French and Russian Revolutions show how committed minorities can dominate society.
Control of Human Behavior
  1. When society pushes us too far, we reinvent society.  Societies have always pressured us to serve.  It pressures us physically and mentally.  We have limits.  When pushed too far, we break down and society breaks down.  Then, we reinvent society.
  2. In the past, human limits were society’s limits. Now, industrial society may be ready to reinvent us.
  3. Society is already remaking our minds.  It medicates us to alleviate the suffering it inflicts on us.  Clinical depression is soaring.  It gives us drugs, so we can tolerate the intolerable.
  4. Drugs are just one example of how society controls our behavior.  There is more.
  5. Society uses technology and the surveillance state to better control us, gathering vast amounts of information about us.  Mass media propagandizes us: shaping our opinions, manipulating elections, selling us things.  Mass entertainment occupies us, distracts us, so we can escape reality.
  6. Industrial society strikes deeper, still.  Education moves from teaching to indoctrination.  “Parenting” becomes training our children to be worker bees. “Mental health” becomes enforcing conformity.
  7. Psychological control is effective but may not be enough.  Industrial society may resort to biological means.  Maybe, we’ll move from drugs to modifying the human mind.  Genetic engineering may turn to neural engineering more suitable brains.
  8. The system is under stress and must defend itself from human threats.  It must control human behavior against human threats: extremism, terrorism, ideological conflict, ethnic conflict, crime, psychological problems, social disruption, corruption, and more.  It must use any practical means to control us.
  9. Our society may survive by surpassing human limits.  This is a watershed moment in our history.  In the past, we reinvented society when pushed past our limits.  Future society may reinvent us.
  10. Society’s control over human behavior won’t appear in totalitarian garb, with totalitarian intent.  It appears in humanitarian garb, with beneficial intent.  Each step appears a rational response to a social ill.  Each justification appears beneficial, rarely counting the costs.
  11. This is not calculated authoritarianism, but rapid social evolution.  It is irresistible.  Each advance appears beneficial or the lesser of evils.  Propaganda is turned to “good” ends.
  12. Genetic engineering of mankind will not be due to our faults, but due to technological society’s demands.  We are not faulty if unnatural demands exceed our natural limits.  We are not faulty if an unnatural system makes us suffer.  We did not evolve from the natural world for this.
  13. Our society twists the meaning of “sickness”.  It defines “sickness” as thoughts or behavior that poorly serve its ends.  Those who fit poorly are surely suffering and problematic.  So, it is good that we “cure” their “sickness”.
  14. The technology of human behavior changes society.  What is optional, today, is necessary, tomorrow.  We need ever more education and tutoring to compete; ever more drugs to manage stress; ever more entertainment to escape.  This fuels a vicious cycle that demands ever more of us.
  15. The technology of human behavior may acquire near total control.  Our thoughts and behavior have biological bases.  Science can turn feelings on and off, manipulate memory, induce hallucinations, and alter moods.  These are the tools of control.
  16. Controlling human behavior is largely a technical problem.  Science excels at solving technical problems.  Advances in controlling human behavior are highly probable.
  17. Public resistance won’t prevent these advances.  There will be no effective public resistance because technology will creep up on us, advancing a bit at a time.
  18. This is not science fiction.  Yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact.  This scientific research is ongoing.
Human Race at a Crossroads
  1. Advances in human behavior technology will work unpredictably in the real world.  Human society is not a laboratory.  Educational psychology that works well in the laboratory usually has poor outcomes in the classroom.  Planned society rarely works, as planned.
  2. The system’s fate should play out in the coming decades.  The system desperately struggles to survive against threats that include human behavior.  It may survive if it gains control over us, in time.  Otherwise, it will break down.
  3. If the system survives, it will likely advance to its logical conclusion, total control over the Earth.  It will neutralize the human threat.  It will meet human needs to the extent that it needs humans.  We will be rendered docile, servile, and powerless.
  4. If the system survives, science will continue to advance human behavior technology to satisfy scientists’ psychological needs.  This is not for the “good of humanity”.  It is because solving technical problems is a surrogate activity that meets scientists’ psychological needs.
  5. If the system breaks down, humanity gets a second chance, says Kaczynski.  We can’t predict the outcome.  There will be chaos and trouble.  The greatest danger, he says, is that industrial society rebuilds itself and relights the factory fires.
  6. We have two tasks, says Kaczynski: 1) to heighten social stress and further weaken a stressed system, and 2) to propagate an ideology opposed to technological society.  This, he argues, will help bring down the system and help ensure that is smashed beyond repair after it fails.
Human Suffering
  1. Revolutionaries only hasten the breakdown, Kaczynski contends, which means less suffering.  We can only bring down a doomed system, he argues, delaying the breakdown only makes it more disastrous.  By hastening the breakdown, he says, we reduce the extent of the disaster.
  2. Our choice is not between life and death, Kaczynski argues, because death is not a choice.  The real choice, he says, is how we live: fighting for survival or suffering long but empty and purposeless lives.
  3. The system doesn’t ensure less suffering.  It inflicts suffering, worldwide: destroying cultures, degrading the environment, fueling population explosion, exploiting the developing world, triggering wars and crises.  It threatens our health and environment.  In malevolent hands, technology might destroy all life.
  4. Industrial society will never be scientific utopia.  The promises of scientific utopia repeatedly fail.  Society breaks down and we suffer more. The Brave New World never materializes because technical progress cannot predict its societal impacts.  We are trapped, with no easy escape.
The Future
  1. If industrial society does survive the next several decades, what might it look like?
  2. Science may use artificial intelligence and robotics to replace most human labor.  In that case, who is in control?  Humans or machines?
  3. If machines are in control, we are at their mercy.  Machines might seize control.  We might give them control because only machines can manage our complex system.  At that point, turning the machines off is suicide.
  4. If elite humans are in control, we face extermination or domestication.  People will be a growing burden, as machines replace us.  A ruthless elite might simply exterminate us.  This might be done humanely, using population control.  A benevolent elite might reduce us to domestic animals.  This elite might shepherd their docile flock, tending to our pointless lives.
  5. Technology will continue to replace human labor.  More people will be without work.  The workforce will face increasing demands: training, conformity, and specialization.  Fewer opportunities means more ruthless competition for status, the game more zero sum .
  6. It is hard to foresee a possible future that offers us opportunities for fulfilling lives.  If so, we either face social breakdown or less freedom.
  7. These are just likely futures.  It is hard to foresee better futures.  Technological society will likely continue long-term trends, more: dependency on technology, socialization, demands, stress, and human behavior technology.  Technology and genetic engineering know no bounds.  Humanity and other life may become unrecognizable.
  8. Humans evolved for the natural world, not technological society.  We are unlikely to adapt to this environment through natural selection.  Technology seems the likely route.
  9. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system, says Kaczynski,  and take the consequences.

Next: Part 7, Revolution and Leftism