|
July 1, 2008
How should one deal with what is passing away (or with what remains present,but at the price of being treated as non-contemporaneous)? In Vanishing Worlds: On Dealing with What is Passing Away in Telos ( Summer 2002) David Gross says that there appear to be four ways in which to respond to historical evanescence. The first,
and arguably [the] most prevalent response today is the one presciently described by Nietzsche more than a century ago: i.e., pushing what is already falling....The main reason why this aggressive stance has won acceptance is that many people now believe that only by getting rid of the old can the new come into its own. The regulating assumption is the following: Because the new is almost by definition a good in itself, it needs to be encouraged and nourished. But so long as old attitudes, worldviews, or practices stemming from the past continue to be honored, such encouragement or nourishment is impossible. Thus, the antiquated or out-dated must be dispatched as quickly as possible so that the new can gain a foothold, which means that a virtual war needs to e waged against all remainders from previous but now surpassed ways of being, thinking, and experiencing.
Rather than grasp on to what is waning, it seeks to abolish this dead-weight in the name of either the best possibilities of the present or the best possibilities of the future.
Gross says that the second way to respond to evanescence is very nearly the reverse of the first:
Instead of letting go of the past or attempting to erase it entirely, this option clasps on to exactly what is fading away or has just departed, and not only invests in it emotionally, but makes it the locus of value itself. The assumption embedded in this position is that individuals need some foundation, some grounding to hold their lives together, since without something firm and dependable to rely on, everything falls apart and existence becomes little more than pure contingency
If this response seems to recognize that the need for roots is real, then its shortcomings are more salient. Gross says that or one thing, there is the danger that the evanescent will be idealized and fetishized, which could in turn induce one to become overly invested in it, even to the extent of making it a sine qua non of one’s existence. For another, there is the risk that one might become not just concerned about, but pathologically obsessed with what is waning, for when so much from the past drops away, life may come to seem depleted or meaningless.
Gross says that the third way to respond to what is waning, holds that both of he positions mentioned so far need to be rejected: the first, because it is too brutally dismissive of what is passing away, and the second, because it is too uncritically accepting of what has survived.
A more credible position than either of these, or so it is claimed, is one which (1) accepts the truth of most of what has been said so far (i.e., that the present is slipping into the past at a more quickened pace than ever before, that this slippage cannot be slowed down, and that consequently the experience of evanescence is necessarily an experience of deprivation, since it implies the gradual loss of so many of the meanings, symbols, or practices that once seemed so comforting), but then (2) goes on to establish a more discriminating position regarding the numerous losses that unavoidably accompany late modernity.
If what is departing is something “good”, then one should assume a completely different attitude toward it; one not of affirmation, but of sadness or despondency. A process of mourning ( not melancholia,) is the mode of relating to loss strongly defended by those who espouse the third response.
|
|
Like everything in theory each presents their own position with grace.
Of them all I'm more inclined towards Nietzsche as the better or more productive approach. That which is good or bad does not really define it as that which is current or productive.
If a concept was in touch with it's time and valid, for better or worse, it should be able to survive if not thrive on its own strength, drawing to it generations and rebirthing its support.
Many concepts fail because idealism and realism are destined to conflict. That which is good and right loses power by being stubborn, unrealistic and unable to see that no matter how beautiful and poetic the theory, its reality and its ability to grown in the world are hindered by the loss of connection to the times it moves into. These ideas die and clinging to them, mourning their passing is nothing more than clinging to the shards of shattered failures.
Theory learns more from the graves and tombstones of old theories. The new attacks the old, picks at its bones and looks for the weakness and arrogance that undid them. In doing so the modern theorist themselves become developers, and improvers or refiners of the past. New names, new claims to glory but each new concept derived and built on those of old. Whether in agreement or in conflict with previous works, each new work is bound to those gone before and each new philosopher owes a debt to those who came and went.
Nietzsche was correct in that dying concepts and ideas help feed new ones and make progress of thinking possible. If the old remained strong forever then it would stand challenge by dominating the intellectual scene and overshadowing everything that tried to step away from those ideas, much like the canons of old.
Acedemic process continues, ideas are bounced around, challenged, found wanting and the new generation eventually garners voice and support to cast down the powerful philosphies of the age before. Progress is progress and whatever progress it, good or bad, it will never be denied.
In the modern age of cynics and critic this becomes more prevelant than ever.