< Back to previous page
Publication
On the brink of nihilism?
Book - Dissertation
Subtitle:Remolding ethics by addressing the ‘deficit problem’
Abstract:This dissertation attempts to address, examine, and potentially remedy an
issue, that has been rapidly gaining momentum, in modern thought.
Throughout my work I will be calling this issue the ‘Deficit Problem’. In broad
strokes, the deficit problem is a twofold problem that investigates our current
metaphysical and ethical deficits. 1) Modernity’s metaphysical deficiency
reveals itself when philosophical frameworks, specifically certain types2 of
existentialism and postmodernism, are confronted with nihilism.3 When this
confrontation with nihilism emerges modernity does not seem to have a
sufficient answer. Rather, it has been increasing this deficit by pushing for an
instrumentally rationalized reconfigured ethos, that overemphasizes self-
mediating dialects. This way of thinking has in some circumstances, for
instance in the works of Nietzsche and Camus, led to the abandonment of
metaphysics and eventually the devaluation of being (nihilism). Ultimately,
the metaphysical deficit attempts to highlight the idea that: a piece of nature
cannot determine the whole of nature. In other words, when we reconfigure
the ethos via self-mediating dialectics a piece of nature (the self) begins to
determine and impose its own values and meaning onto the world (the other)
without respecting the innate value of the other. Reasoning in this manner
often strips the world of its inherent value and replaces it with the reconfigured
values of the individual. The results of this instrumentally rationalized and
self-mediated ethos has drastic consequences for, not only our metaphysical
frameworks, but also our ethical systems. 2) The ethical deficit is a
consequence of the improper treatment of two philosophical notions that are
constantly at the forefront of philosophical debate; namely, free will and evil.
This deficit takes full force when we begin to univocally determine concepts
of free will and inadequately address the problem of evil.
In order to address these deficits I will peruse and build upon the texts
of Baruch Spinoza and William Desmond; most specifically the Ethics (E) for
Spinoza and God and the Between (GB) for Desmond. The works of these
philosophers will allow me to clearly highlight our metaphysical and ethical
deficits. The remedy for these deficits will be formulated by questioning,
connecting, and elaborating on particular topics, namely: God, free will, evil,
and nihilism. Of course Spinoza and Desmond have dealt with these topics
extensively, with that being said, in order to have a comprehensive outlook I
will also take into consideration a significant amount of secondary literature.5
When we examine each of these topics, in their corresponding chapters, a
general theme for this dissertation will present itself. This theme can be
summed up as: an earnest request for modern philosophy to reopen itself to
the porosity of being. The aim of this dissertation is embedded within this
theme and can be described as: a hope to remedy our deficits, which are a
product of modernity’s overemphasis on self-mediating dialectics and
instrumental rationality
issue, that has been rapidly gaining momentum, in modern thought.
Throughout my work I will be calling this issue the ‘Deficit Problem’. In broad
strokes, the deficit problem is a twofold problem that investigates our current
metaphysical and ethical deficits. 1) Modernity’s metaphysical deficiency
reveals itself when philosophical frameworks, specifically certain types2 of
existentialism and postmodernism, are confronted with nihilism.3 When this
confrontation with nihilism emerges modernity does not seem to have a
sufficient answer. Rather, it has been increasing this deficit by pushing for an
instrumentally rationalized reconfigured ethos, that overemphasizes self-
mediating dialects. This way of thinking has in some circumstances, for
instance in the works of Nietzsche and Camus, led to the abandonment of
metaphysics and eventually the devaluation of being (nihilism). Ultimately,
the metaphysical deficit attempts to highlight the idea that: a piece of nature
cannot determine the whole of nature. In other words, when we reconfigure
the ethos via self-mediating dialectics a piece of nature (the self) begins to
determine and impose its own values and meaning onto the world (the other)
without respecting the innate value of the other. Reasoning in this manner
often strips the world of its inherent value and replaces it with the reconfigured
values of the individual. The results of this instrumentally rationalized and
self-mediated ethos has drastic consequences for, not only our metaphysical
frameworks, but also our ethical systems. 2) The ethical deficit is a
consequence of the improper treatment of two philosophical notions that are
constantly at the forefront of philosophical debate; namely, free will and evil.
This deficit takes full force when we begin to univocally determine concepts
of free will and inadequately address the problem of evil.
In order to address these deficits I will peruse and build upon the texts
of Baruch Spinoza and William Desmond; most specifically the Ethics (E) for
Spinoza and God and the Between (GB) for Desmond. The works of these
philosophers will allow me to clearly highlight our metaphysical and ethical
deficits. The remedy for these deficits will be formulated by questioning,
connecting, and elaborating on particular topics, namely: God, free will, evil,
and nihilism. Of course Spinoza and Desmond have dealt with these topics
extensively, with that being said, in order to have a comprehensive outlook I
will also take into consideration a significant amount of secondary literature.5
When we examine each of these topics, in their corresponding chapters, a
general theme for this dissertation will present itself. This theme can be
summed up as: an earnest request for modern philosophy to reopen itself to
the porosity of being. The aim of this dissertation is embedded within this
theme and can be described as: a hope to remedy our deficits, which are a
product of modernity’s overemphasis on self-mediating dialectics and
instrumental rationality
Number of pages: 190
Publication year:2024
Accessibility:Open