Post on 04-Apr-2018
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
1/7
1
Zwizschenzustandforever - rhetorics of complete nihilism as politics of undecidability
Dear listeners! At the beginning this presentation, I find myself at a loss. The topic of our
panel, Literature and/as the Politics of Undecidability may seem to be, at first sight, quite
concrete, but this illusion dissipates quickly when you start thinking about it. Leaving
everyday institutions aside, we are faced with a need for a number of definitions and
elaborations. What is literature? What is the political and what is its possible distinction from
politics? How to tie the two together with the conjunction and or as? The title of my
presentation also introduces the vague concepts of nihilism and rhetorics. It is probably not
impossible to provide all the necessary conceptual specifications, but not within the space of a
brief presentation. As bad would be to use the key concepts as defaults the implicit
definitions of the concepts would immediately predetermine the fate of this discussion. Today
I will try to discuss not only undecidability as an object, but also in such a manner that the
politics of undecidability that has been presented as a hypothesis for our panel would in fact
be realized in my presentation. For this purpose I will nevertheless survey all the conceptsIve mentioned and will attempt to weave a rather contingent web of thought out of them, at
the risk of remaining superficial and of drowning in the labyrinth of specificities.
SLAID2
SLAID3
1. Rhetorical opening embracing nihilism. No thought is born ex nihilo. Todays
presentation draws on my previous research in which I have formulated the fuzzy network of
ideas know as nihilist thought. The line of thinking that began with Nietzsche to comprehend
contemporary Western civilization through the image of European nihilism seems to me (as to
several other researchers, see Levin 1988, Rosen 1969, Vattimo 1994, Weller 2008) to this
day to be an arbitrary way of thinking about the surrounding reality. Let us recall the fragment
of an aphorism that my title refers to (fragment 9[35], year 1887):
Nihilism represents a pathological transitional stage (what is pathological is the
tremendous generalization, the inference that there is no meaning at all): whether the
productive forces are not yet strong enough, or whether decadence still hesitates and
has not yet invented its remedies. (Nietzsche 1968: 45).
This passage from Nietzsche (as well as other similar ones) point to the necessity of
completing the transitional stage and overcoming nihilism. To this day, many philosophers of
culture debate the methods with which nihilism can be disposed, and in general the issue is
whether one should put stakes on active overcoming or passive expectation. This last option
was chosen by the most noteworthy developer of Nietzsches conception of nihilism, Martin
Heidegger, according to whom the essence of nihilism resides in the forgetfulness of being
and that the only prospect is to wait for the overcoming ( Verwindung, see Heidegger 1978,
1999). Such an attitude is undecided; it abstains from an active assault against nihilism and
many later thinkers who put their stakes on undecidability (e.g. Derrida) undoubtedly owe
much to Heidegger.
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
2/7
2
But is this wait for the end of nihilism warranted? The heideggerian line of thought itself
provides no guarantees; Nietzsches predictions, on the basis of which voluminous
monographs have been written (Kuhn 1992), remain vague in this issue, and there arises a
need for interpreting the status of the various forms of nihilism. There are also thinkers, for
whom there has never been an age of nihilism (e.g. Badiou 1999: 53-59). I myself have been
best convinced by Gianni Vattimos hermeneutic interpretation of nihilism (Vattimo 1994,
1997),
SLAID4
according to which we should read both Nietzsche and Heidegger in the manner that excludes
the possibility of overcoming nihilism. Vattimo argues that Nietzsches and Heideggers
conceptions of nihilism coincide (Vattimo 1994: 20): on the one hand, the death of God and
the absorption of all higher values into exchange value; on the other, the forgetting of Being
and transformation into values that circulate in the challengig-fort connections of
contemporary technology as enframing (Ge-stell). To expect the overcoming of such a
situation is, for Vattimo, a sign of metaphysical nostalgia, and we should rather muster our
courage to embrace complete nihilism. In Nietzsches words:
Presupposition of this hypothesis: that there is no truth, that there is no absolute nature
of things nor a thing-in-itself. This, too, is merely nihilismeven the most extreme
nihilism. It places the value of thing precisely in the lack of any reality corresponding
to these values and in their being merely a symptom of strength on the part of the
value-positers, a simplification for the sake of life. (Nietzsche 1968: 45).
SLAID5
2. The rhetorical nature of truth.What is the theoretical status of Vattimos conception of
nihilism? Is this not just a philosophical feint, where on the one hand the eternal permanence
of nihilist undecidability is announced, but on the other, one particular discourse is decisively
imposed? Vattimos philosophy does not conclude with the acceptance of complete nihilism,
but rather begins there in a sense; the ontologically substantiated weak thinking develops into
ever new ethico-political speeches against violence (Vattimo 1992, 2004). And all these
books are written rhetorically in a highly persuasive manner. Nevertheless, one cannot accuse
Vattimo of naivety: he is well aware of the paradoxical nature of his thinking, and hasreflected repeatedly on the foundations of his thinking.
Drawing on Nietzsche, Vattimo claims that we live in a world that has lost its own essence
and turned into a fable, in which the information-technological merry-go-round makes all the
previous metaphysical distinctions oscillate, including that of subject and object. (Vattimo
1994: 164-181) Yet one must not claim that Vattimos description is the (one) objective
description of the state of things. The discourse of complete nihilism is merely one narrative
among others, a tall tale that can only be effective due to a certain rhetorical persuasiveness
just like any other story. (Vattimo 1997: 13) The peculiarity of Vattimos story is the
conscious acknowledgement of his own weakness, since within his hermeneutic thinking truthhas no other status than its rhetorical commitment within a particular discourse. Hermeneutic
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
3/7
3
reasoning is a rhetorical act that remembers its own external perspective and thus the
contingency of its own validity. Thus Vattimo attempts to consciously abate the internal
hegemonic pretensions of every discourse, including by repeatedly outlining, in his works,
family resemblances with other theories of cultural philosophy. A programme to which I
subscribe with both hands.
SLAID6
3. From epistemology to literature. In order to discuss the political function of literature, we
require if not a definition of literature, then at least a qualification of literature with respect to
non-literature. Briefly, the most general, institutionalised definition of literature goes
something like this: literary signification is fictional, fictive; literature createspossible worlds.
In this manner, literary utterances differ from such speech acts that describe or attempt to
change reality (e.g. scientific theories, political statements). On the basis of this distinction
rests Derridas claim that today literature has the right to say anything, which can, however,
be always taken back (Derrida 2008). To be sure, to proceed from this distinction does not
mean a complete isolation between fiction and reality; it generally acknowledged that literary
draws its subject matter from reality and in its turn affects reality. The front line of debates
about the political role of literature indeed mostly consists in settling the tensions between
literature and reality, such as when is it justified to ban literary works that impinge on the
rights of actual individuals? A widespread contemporary practice is to present as literature
those speech acts that aim to insult, in order to avoid litigation.
From the position of complete nihilism, the distinction between reality and fiction stands on
feet of clay. When we proceed from the rhetorical definition of truth, we must accept whatVattimo calls aesthetic consciousness (Vattimo 1986) and cast doubt on the possibility of
descriptions that correspond to reality (metaphysics, scientific realism). This disposition is
neither new in philosophy nor particularly unique to Vattimo: similar thoughts have been
expressed by Richard Rorty, Nelson Goodman and the post-Kuhnian philosophers of science
(Feyerabend, sociologists of science). Elsewhere I have called the rhetorical programme of
complete nihilist thought the fusion of philosophy and literature (Luks 2010a, 2010b). I will
now sketch the different poles of this attempted fusion.
SLAID7
The pole of philosophy: giving up the pretension as if philosophy (or any other theory) could
describe the world as it really is. The world is fabulated by intertwining different narratives
(Nietzsche: No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations, Nietzsche 1968:
267). Literature, philosophy, science, religion are all merely different genres of this
fabulation. True enough, this far the pursuit of clarity, the attempt to understand how things
fit together has been widespread (pragmatism has put its stakes on this). For me, the
foremost political task of complete nihilism is to sow confusion, to undermine all hegemonic
attempts at the field of fables, to propagate cognitive pluralism a la Feyerabend (such as by
pitting an alternative against theory, parasciences against science, anarchism against
democracy, etc.), and chaosophy in the vein of Guattari. To be sure, I have nevertheless no
basis to claim that nihilist thinking has achieved, once and for all, the status of a meta-
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
4/7
4
discoursethe field of fables is open and there always remains the danger of being absorbed
into other stories. Thus Vattimo, for example, has discovered for himself the kinship between
hermeneutic nihilism and early Christian thinking (Vattimo 1999) and in recent decades has
focussed precisely on dispelling violent discoursesa limitation that I currently do not share.
SLAID8
The pole of literature: getting rid of the notion that literary fiction resides all alone in a
unique ontological sphere. Literary fabulation also creates worlds, generates truth (understood
as openness). For example, it has been documented how the Estonian nation was
constructed in the 19th
century primarily through different literary works. Fictional and virtual
realities do not reside somehow outside reality: they are parts of reality. Since literature
uses language in a particularly non-mundane manner, it in fact has greater rhetorical potential
than dry scientific texts here Heidegger is correct about the function of poetry as
constituting the world (Heidegger 1977).
For the longest time, getting absorbed in fictions has been treated as playing a conventional
as-if game. This definition need not be generally valid nor lasting. On the one hand,
technological development intensifies the suggestive force of fictions (already, a fight that
started in Second Life has led to a murder in the First One). On the other hand, the critical
pathos of nihilist thinking undermines the persuasive force of everyday narratives. To be sure,
works of fiction are not limited to creating a world (that is, representations presented to
subjects); narratives create and reshape subjects themselves, their subjectivity.
Undoubtedly, the field of philosophy (and the field of scientific theories more broadly) and
the field of literature (art) have so far been sharply differentiated institutionally, for which
reason we need a politics of undecidability that would blur this boundary.
SLAID9
4. The political in nihilist thinking. My colleague Jri Lipping, who will also give a
presentation in this panel has emphasized in one of his recent papers the distinction, currently
much in vogue, between the concepts of politics and the political (Lipping 2010). Politics
refers to the customary practices of everyday political procedures; and the political to the
ontological dimension of antagonism that constitutes society itself (ibid: 189). Referring to
Oliver Marchart, Lipping places the political on the field of post-foundationalism, that is, a
constant interrogation of metaphysical figures of foundation such as totality, universality,
essence and ground. (ibid: 190). This definition completely coincides with the rhetorical
pathos of complete nihilism, for which reason it can be said that nihilist thought that puts its
stakes on undecidability is thoroughly political.
It is precisely because of the political, understood in this manner, that nihilist thinking can
have no concrete programme, nor a comprehensive list of required politics. Since the
configuration of discourses that lay claim to objective truth and its solitary power changes
over time and in space, the strategy of nihilist thinking must also change accordingly. In any
case, it is counter-thinking that has a large family resemblance to deconstruction. It should be
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
5/7
5
clarified that the rhetoric of complete nihilism is not confined to perpetuating antagonism
between subjects or discourses, but much like the Lacanian tradition thinks antagonism
internally: in every subject, text, or thought there is a chaotic plurality, always threatening to
disrupt identity and clarity.
At the conclusion of this presentation, I have a few words about the front lines of the politics
of undecidability, and I will put forth a couple of contingent tasks related to the fusion of
literature and thinking.
SLAID10
On the front line. It is important to understand that the debate does not take place on the
abstract level of thought, but on the level of practices. Thus for example the position of
science within a society does not at all depend on the debate about scientific truth between
realists and instrumentalists in philosophy of science. Science, which functions as an effective
network within a society and tends to displace other forms of cognition, does not need thehalo of pure truth for anything else than self-promotion for the masses. In order to convince
the masses, nothing else is required from science than to facilitate the standard of living on the
level of practice. The network-like functioning of power relations operating in todays world
was understood by Michel Foucault at the latest (although in fact Heideggers treatment of
technics already includes an image of the arbitrary functioning of the modern world). Thus it
is important to understand that the counter-thinking that characterises nihilism will have no
effect if it is enacted on the abstract level, as assaults on the foundations of theory (the top of
the so-called power pyramid). What is needed is to operate on the micro-level, against the
closest repression (Foucault 2000: 330).
SLAID11
Some contingent tasks of nihilist thinking:
1. To undermine the hegemonic pretension of science by way of texts that formally appear to
be scientific worksthis both on the level of the message and the form (blurring the message,
fragmentarity).
2. Counter-thinking against the hegemony of theories in both writing and teaching (by
demonstrating the philosophical premises of every theoretical position, and to relativizethem).
3. To interpret, under the cover of literary theory, precisely the kind of literature that, by its
very existence, casts doubt on widespread ideologies (democracy, ethics), and thereby to
amplify the power of literature to utter anything. Interpretations of undecidability in
contemporary thinking have commonly been ethico-religious (e.g. Levinas, Agamben), thus
the field of interpretations must be opened further, for example to the sublime of terror.
4. To thematise negativity in language the pursuit of pure poetry in literature. This task,
which I had no time to discuss in this presentation, is to cease to generate meaning and to letlanguage decay (e.g. sound poetry).
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
6/7
6
Leo Luks, Estonian University of Life Sciences
References
Badiou, Alain 1999. Manifesto for philosophy: followed by two essays: The (re)turn of
philosophy itself and Definition of philosophy. Albany: State University of New YorkPress.
Derrida, Jacques 2008. The Gift of Death & Literature in Secret. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Foucault, Michel 2000. The Subject and Power. // Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984.
Power. New York: The New Press, pp. 326-348.
Heidegger, Martin 1977. Der Ursprung des Kustwerkes. // Gesamtausgabe, I Abt, Bd 5,
Holzwege, pp. 1-74.
Heidegger, Martin 1978. Zur Seinsfrage. //Wegmarken. Frankfurt/M: Klostermann, pp 379-
419.
Heidegger, Martin 1999. Das Wesen des Nihilismus // Gesamtausgabe, III Abt, Bd 67,
Metaphysik und Nihilismus, pp. 177-267.
Kuhn, Elisabeth 1992. Friedrich Nietzsches Philosophie des europischen Nihilismus.
Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Levin, David Michael 1988. The Opening of Vision. Nihilism and the Postmodern Situation.London and New York: Routledge.
Lipping, Jri 2010. Souvereignty beyond state. //Hent Kalmo; Quentin Skinner (Ed),
Sovereignity in Fragments. The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept. Cambridge
etc: Cambridge University Press. PP 186-204.
Luks, Leo 2010a. Fusion of Philosophy and Literature in Nihilist Thought. Problemos, no. 77,
pp. 129-141.
Luks, Leo 2010b. Philosophy and Literature: Two Lines of Fusion. Problemos, no. 78, pp.125-142.
Nietzsche, Fiedrich 1968. The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books.
Rosen, Stanley 1969. Nihilism: A Philosophical Essay. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
Vattimo, Gianni 1986. Hermeneutics and Nihilism: An Apology for Aesthetic Consciousness.
// I. Wachterhauser; R. Brice (Ed) Hermeneutics and modern philosophy. Albany: State
University of New York Press. Pp. 446-459.
Vattimo, Gianni. 1992. The Transparent Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7/30/2019 Leo Luks Paper
7/7
7
Vattimo, Gianni 1994. The end of modernity : nihilism and hermeneutics in postmodern
culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Vattimo, Gianni 1997. Beyond Interpretation. The Meaning of Hermeneutics for Philosophy.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Vattimo, Gianni 1999. Belief. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Vattimo, Gianni 2004. Nihilism & Emancipation. Ethics, Politics & Law. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Weller, Shane 2008. Literature, Philosophy, Nihilism. Palgrave.