There is no meaning to existence or anything in the universe. Life is an accident and has no divine significance (though it’s obviously important to the living).
- Nonetheless, many living beings give meaning to the universe. It’s just not inscribed in the things themselves.
- All life will pass away and be erased. Our sun, for example, will eventually expand and devour all life and culture in a fiery end. It’s unlikely that inter-stellar travel will ever be realistic or possible given the vast distances of space, so all sentient life and artifacts of culture will be gone when this happens.
- There is no afterlife in any meaningful sense (yes worms will use our corpses as food to continue their life but that’s not me). When you’re dead you’re dead and that’s it (though maybe the trans-humanists are right and we’ll develop computer technologies capable of uploading selves and thereby establishing a materialist immortality; I doubt it, but who knows).
- There are no purposes in being (in the Aristotlean, Platonic, and Christian Sense), nor is there any goal or aim of history. All eschatologies are thus shams. With that said, organic and technological beings arise in nature that appear to create purposes and goals for themselves.
- There is no plan to being, but rather it’s all anarchy and accident.
- There is no supernatural causation of any kind, nor any genuinely mystical experiences (e.g. astrology and merging with the totality of things) so anything that posits deep meanings, supernatural causes, purposes, and so on ought to be treated with disdain and ignored.
- Nonetheless, people do have “mystical experiences”. They just aren’t caused in the way they suppose and are perfectly ordinary natural/neurological events (the oneness with everything that certain epileptics describe after a seizure resulting from all their neurons more or less firing at once). Buddhist meditation is therefore a good psycho-neurological therapy.
- Dark ontologists experience wonder, awe, and a reverence for things precisely because everything is an accident and meaningless and therefore irreplaceable. There’s nothing “spiritual” about this, unless one wishes to abuse language and, indeed, spirituality often dulls our ability to experience wonder at things such as the existence of life despite its improbability because it thinks there’s a designer behind these things.
- Nothing takes place in being that doesn’t have a physical or material substrate. There’s no magic.
- There’s no particular wisdom of the ancients. They just had techniques for producing effects in the minds of others through a different form of transference.
- The Greeks don’t hold a candle to the accomplishments of the last three hundred years in the sciences, social and political thought, mathematics, art, etc. Heideggerian and hermeneutic reverence for the pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle is therefore silly and myopic. The Greeks should live up to us, not we to them.
- Everything is in nature, including culture.
- No God will save us.
- We’re very likely have ringside seats for the end of this particular chapter in evolutionary history because it’s not clear how we can respond to the crisis of climate change.
- If, as Caputo says, religious texts are like comic book stories that provide valuable life stories and ideals, we’d do better to draw our examples of such things from great literature than horribly written and poorly organized sacred texts that invite superstitious, non-materialist brutality and ignorance.
- There will never be a progressive form of spirituality as any discussion of the divine is always recouped as a justification for various forms of oppression (e.g., fundamentalists enlisting Hawking’s and Einstein’s statements about God for their own cause). As a result, moderate believers are often worse than fundamentalists as they enable these dynamics of power.
- It’s cynical to say people are dopes and need to believe these things so we should make political use of them. The people we say this about also sense that’s what we think.
- The worst abuses of history arise from believing that we’re acting on behalf of a goal or aim of history or an afterlife. Once the permanence of death is erased in thought, the most horrific abuses of life are all justified as this world doesn’t matter, and when we say that history has a goal we justify doing anything in the present to reach that goal.
- This world is all we have.
May 14, 2013
May 15, 2013 at 12:56 am
Sounds like a condensation of the great atheist traditions from Lucretius to present…
Interesting manifesto, Levi!
May 15, 2013 at 12:58 am
Appendix 1)
With that said, organic and technological beings arise in nature that appear to create purposes and goals for themselves.
Any ontology that fails to explain why such organic and technological beings arise is half-assed, and a cop-out
May 15, 2013 at 1:06 am
Dejan
, god in the gaps arguments are always worthless. They just mean we don’t know *yet*.
May 15, 2013 at 1:25 am
and there it is…
May 15, 2013 at 1:31 am
There what is?
May 15, 2013 at 1:32 am
I like what you have to say here.
The combination of 7, 8 and 9 sort of tweak my whiskers a little bit. They are the least succinct and therefor the most shaky.
If, as it may be, it is a fact that “there is no supernatural causation of any kind, nor any genuinely mystical experiences” (#7) and yet “people do have ‘mystical experiences'”(8) then there seems to be a largely semantic distinction at work.
If the Universe which gave rise to a planet capable of supporting “life” as we know it was born from an un-directed chaotic state, it seems to me an *even more* profound recognition to acknowledge the existence of a ‘persistent self’ among all that chaos. That act of recognition in itself is a “spiritual” act.
To gain awareness of ones existence and then gain such perspective on the state of ones relative scale and impact in this chaotic mess comes with such a sense of “wonder, awe, and a reverence” (9) that it is effectively no different from what many have considered “mystical” or “spiritual” experience. The large distinction being the modern context and perspective gained from several hundred years of rigorous scientific investigation.
I would argue that, while it may be true that “there’s no particular wisdom of the ancients” and “everything is in nature, including culture”, the cocoon of society provides us a certain innate protection from making these recognition on our own. Really we have just deluded ourselves into a myth of separation from nature and any deep-seated understanding (or presumed understanding) of our place *within* nature is a form of spiritual recognition even without the illusory guise of a dogmatic or “traditional” spiritual cult.
All of that not withstanding, #14 and #20 pretty much say it all.
May 15, 2013 at 1:38 am
Leeevay, there could also be organic or inorganic beings in this world that act as a God. You have no grounds to dismiss such a possibility.
May 15, 2013 at 1:39 am
Mystical experience makes an epistimic claim about what causes affective-cognitive mystical states. They’re wrong about those causes but genuinely experience what they say they’re experiencing.
May 15, 2013 at 1:40 am
Appendix 2
Atheism is frequently anally retentive defense against profound belief
May 15, 2013 at 2:05 am
Agreed. Claiming the ‘know’ the cause of any experience defies the reality of the incomprehensible chaos of existence. Perhaps I’d simply like to see “spiritual” reclaimed as a description of a certain type of experience. The sort of experience which pertains to the perceived self as isolated from physical experience and dealing with recognition or epiphany regarding the nature of the self’s existence within reality. This lends a great deal of validity to much of human experience and condition without dragging us into the morass of mystical thought.
May 15, 2013 at 2:13 am
Ssdd,
I don’t think that’s remotely reflective of how the vast majority relate to their religious beliefs and is a highly academic rationalization of what those beliefs are about. They’re far more literal than you suggest. We don’t need the divine, spiritual, or mystic to appreciate the wonder of this meaningless existence, and bringing those things into the mix is, I believe, deeply counter-productive. Few things have been more historically destructive than giving cover to these things.
May 15, 2013 at 2:14 am
Not sure about 3.
We simply have no idea whether there is life elsewhere in the Universe, including very very far away. Or in other universes. Or what life actually is.
May 15, 2013 at 2:15 am
Dejan,
The religious seem to have an exceedingly difficult time understanding non-belief in any terms other than their own belief. As in the case of your remark here. Sorry, but it’s in no way a reaction formation to harbored belief.
May 15, 2013 at 2:36 am
Dave,
No disagreement. There’s Prolly life elsewhere every bit as doomed and accidental as life here. I was speaking to our future fate.
May 15, 2013 at 2:38 am
Dejan,
There’s also no reason to entertain that possibility, either. Probabilistic reasoning, my old friend. I could smoke three packs a day and I might live to be 100, but the numbers aren’t in my favor if I do. The numbers are even less favorable for what you suggest.
May 15, 2013 at 2:59 am
The Seven Principles of my Spirit Stick
http://www.foxchasereview.org/10AW/JRussell.html#2
May 15, 2013 at 8:22 am
I’m just curious, but I’m wondering how you reconcile these axioms (about which I mostly agree) with your comments in the intro to Adam Miller’s ‘Speculative Grace’. You raised some pointed questions in the intro, to be sure, but also points toward Miller’s non-theosical (anti-deificational?) theology as a possibility for a progressive theological in which God is “one object among many.” Some of the axioms you mention here, as they’re written, would seem to preclude the productivity of Miller’s thought. It doesn’t disavow all forms of ‘grace’ after all; it does make use of spiritual concepts and texts that you explicitly disdain. Just wondering if there’s an intersection between your comments there and here, or if you’ve rethought some of what you wrote in the intro.
May 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
Axiomatisation of ontology shoudn’t be based on probability, right?
May 15, 2013 at 11:02 am
Or does there exist some kind of conditional axiomatisation based on empirical evidence?
May 15, 2013 at 11:30 am
J,
Read the preface again. I criticize Miller for seeing religion as necessary for these things. No one denies that as acsocial and political institution religion can have certain effects. It just happens that religion’s ontological claims are all mistaken.
May 15, 2013 at 11:33 am
MJJ,
“Axiom” is here used in the sense of a constraint or rule of discourse.
May 15, 2013 at 11:45 am
good to stake out some parameters of conversation/research, here is a related thought from Kurt Vonnegut’s son Mark on seeking terra firma by attending to the inner voices:
“Part of what happens when one goes crazy is that there’s a grammatical shift. Thoughts come into the mind as firmly established truth. There is no simile or metaphor. There is no tense but the present. The fantastic presents itself as fact.”
May 15, 2013 at 11:54 am
Didn’t religion invented dark ontology, i.e. Ecclesiastes?
May 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
[…] There is nothing to disagree with in Levi Bryant’s short nihilistic manifesto. In fact, all I can add is that Levi has summed up the nihilism that opens us up to the necessity of developing a post-nihilist praxis. This is the important work ahead. The post-nihilist impulse is born out of agreement and recognition with the points that Levi lists, but instead of considering them a form of darkness it considers them causes for celebration and for the movement out of constant mourning towards the joy of finiude. This world is all we have; but that is a super abundance more than we readily recognise. Read the mini-manifesto here. […]
May 15, 2013 at 2:06 pm
These are not axioms, but dogmas. They are credal statements. None of these are necessary nor self-evident like what we ordinarily mean by “axiom.” Even if they were true, in what sense would they be true? To use D. M. Armstrong’s language, what is the truthmaker of these truthbearers (if they are)? If they are hypotheses (such that the first premise cannot be proven), and they are not necessary absolutely, they would be on par with any hypotheses. In other words, they would be no more, no less hypothetical than hypotheses that contradict them, such as, for example, “It is not the case that there is no meaning to existence or anything in the universe” and “It is not the case that life is an accident and has no divine significance (though it’s obviously important to the living).”
May 15, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Zegreus,
Every religious text has it’s moments of insight and wisdom just like Homer’s Illiad. That doesnt entail we need to embrace it’s theological metaphysics.
May 15, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Derek,
The term “axiom” took on a new meaning with modern mathematics. It no longer signifies a “self-evident truth”, but rather a constraint or rule for a particular type of mathematics. If you don’t like the term “axiom” in this post, you’re free to replace it with “thesis”. In my view, all of these propositions are well confirmed by where we’re at in the current state of knowledge today. Are they true self-evidently? No, but empirical research has largely confirmed them. Is it possible that their converse is true? Perhaps, but with a very low degree of statistical probability. Just as you wouldn’t go to a doctor who had repeatedly injured his patients on the grounds that there’s a minute possibility that this time he might succeed, there’s currently no reason to entertain the possibility that the converse of these propositions are true.
May 15, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Alex Rosenberg wrote this book a few years ago, it’s called “The Atheists Guide To Reality”, maybe you should take it out of the library and read it some day – or buy it and keep it on your bookshelf; whatever works best for you.
May 15, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Storyteller,
Care to say more about the book?
May 15, 2013 at 4:30 pm
I’d like to play Joss Whedon to your Christopher Nolan, but I’m too much the miserabilist: dark phenomenology, dark future. Bring it on!.
May 15, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Sure, larvalsubjects, I’d love to tell you about the book. Please, I ask that you bear with me here as it’s been over 3 years since I last read it and right now I’m skimming through the Table of Contents to catalyze my memory. As far as I remember, Rosenberg is trying to advance the idea that “the physical facts fix all the facts.” This leads to claims of Scientism, which, yeah, I can kind of agree with. But, we move on from here: as far as I remember he makes claims that things aren’t meaningful, that we’re all an accident, that physics tells us all there is to know, that thoughts aren’t actually about things but that they’re neural processes that give us meaningfulness, that we’re all going to die a miserable heat-death when the sun expands and so on. In fact, he even makes a little question and answer thing which I’ll post here for comparison:
Is there a god? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul, is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance.
What happens when we die? Everything goes on pretty much the same as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral
(skipping two goofy ones here)
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It is full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer if it ever had any to begin with.
Now, obviously some differences between what Rosenberg is saying and what you are saying, but, at least in my opinion, lots of handholding between the both of you as well. Hope that helped.
May 15, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Wow, I guess it hasn’t been 3 years because it came out in 2011 – but it feels like 3 years. Sorry about that.
May 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm
sorry, ‘it’ being a statement resembling the strain of post-nihilism Arran and I are cultivating in the lab. Virulent, corrosive and dark: welcoming everyone to the apocalypse.
May 15, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Storyteller,
I haven’t read Rosenberg’s book, but it’s interesting that such a claim is critiqued as “scientism”. The findings of the natural sciences will have consequences for how we think about certain issues. For example, once we learn that depression is a neurochemical disorder, we can no longer think of it as a moral failing as the medievals did when treating sloth as a sin. The idea of treating such a thing as a moral issue arises from believing that will, choice, and intentionality are at work in living a “slothful” life. Similarly, modern physics and astronomy show us that astrology cannot be true, while neurology shows us that we don’t have anything like souls as conceived in the Christian tradition. Evolutionary theory shows us that humans have no privileged place within existence because all species evolve by accident and without purpose. We’re just the latest experiment. This, I don’t think, is scientism, but merely the recognition that our philosophical questions need to be posed within a framework consistent with what we know about the world. Philosophy has always taken this stance.
May 15, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Why should other life forms elsewhere in the universe be doomed on the face of it? If we don’t know what life is, how can we assume that, in the big game of go, destruction has the last laugh?
May 15, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Levi,
I find these propositions intriguing but I have a few questions I would like you to address if you can.
You stated in two of the responses that you’re using ‘axiom’ not as ‘self-evident truth’ but as ‘constraint or rule w/in types of math’ and that if the term ‘axiom’ is unsatisfying then feel free to replace it w/’thesis’. Two questions: one, if axiom is used with little or no problem and in this instance for types of ontological issues, how would axiom as ‘constraint or rule within types of mathematics’ apply here? When referring to axioms of set theory for example, there are procedures (and I’m not using that term in any badiouian sense) and operations I could do; there are problems to be solved, and so forth such that it makes sense that this constraint, rule, or what have you productively governs my behavior as it pertains to specific types of mathematics. Here though, #12, and #15 for example, I’m not aware of how if they constrain certain moves within a discourse or are rules w/in a discourse that could do anything; be operationalized. How would they do any work? Like, how would #12 change discursive behavior? Would we stop singling out the Greeks in terms of past civilizations; would attempts to retrieve aspects of the past that some find potentially beneficial in a non-christian/post-christian setting be deemed/regarded as non-helpful? Same w/no. 15, would admitting the inability to resolve the climate crisis (or even alleviate it), do anything, produce an effect, in the way that certain rules within specific mathematic discourses produce effects?
Second question: if ‘axiom’ gets changed to ‘thesis’, what then occurs? How is thesis being used here? If thesis is simply retaining its’ everyday, colloquial use or meaning, then aren’t there supposed to be examples, or arguments, evidence of some sort, or just something to “back this up”? I mean how do you back-up number 12, or 15, or 16? Classicists view a lot of religious texts simply and utterly as literature, and isn’t it reasonable to suppose that a majority of religious believers view other religious folk’s text(s) as simply literature when reading them (albeit they don’t see their own as just literature)? Plus, a lot of literature comes from these prior texts. If I use ‘thesis’, should I be thinking ‘claims/propositions given where various knowledge-projects are currently’ or more ‘hypotheses’, or maybe, ‘speculations’?
May 15, 2013 at 10:25 pm
Dave,
Because all systems revolve around stars and interstellar travel is likely impossible. All stars eventually die and swallow their solar systems as they expand, grow cold in a whimper, or go nova.
May 15, 2013 at 10:44 pm
well this is damn good fun.
Re. no.10 – can we have a definition of ‘physical’ or ‘material’ please? There seems to be no single concept of matter in the hist of thought. Is there matter all the way down in this manifesto? There’s just no end to it. What is the causality that enables things to move themselves rather than be solely reactive.
May 15, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Paul,
I await the scientists to tell me what matter is. The being of matter is not something that can be known a priori. Minimally, there has to be something physical for anything to take place anywhere. That’s all I’m committed to. I’ve yet to see a compelling argument as to why I shouldn’t embrace that position.
May 15, 2013 at 11:05 pm
I agree about interstellar travel being unlikely. I was responding to your doubts about other forms life being doomed as well. The implications of the recent confirmation of the Higg’s boson apparently suggest the possibility of other universes. I’m not a scientist but I think the jury is still out on the fate of life in ths respect. The alternative is to extrapolate from our form of life, which seems to go against the basic tenets of a wilderness ontology. No? There’s an epistemic aspect that I haven’t covered, though.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
May 15, 2013 at 11:25 pm
I guess I’m just working from the implications of entropy. Everything falls apart eventually because energy required to sustain it disappears.
May 15, 2013 at 11:39 pm
Yeh, that’s a strong position. I guess the wager is on whether the same entropic implications will hold up under subsequent discoveries. Or the larger wager: between Brassier’s extinction and Meillassoux’s hyperchaos.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
May 15, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Why would the laws of physics and thermodynamics be different elsewhere in this universe?
May 15, 2013 at 11:51 pm
[…] https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/axioms-for-a-dark-ontology/ […]
May 16, 2013 at 1:43 am
It’s not that I contest the validity of science. It’s just that I think the universe may still have some surprises in store for us. Two years ago, for example, astronomers discovered that stars in the later phase of their existence can eject organic material.
May 16, 2013 at 1:55 am
Sure, but we go with the best and most well validated theory available at the time.
May 16, 2013 at 10:14 am
well, I’m expecting any unanimity from ‘scientists’ any time soon. Particles and fields can ‘scientifically’ come out of ‘nothing’ – and some would claim that they must do so – when quantum gravity becomes important we know nothing -‘here be dragons’ as Peter coles puts it in his useful ‘ Cosmology: a v. short introduction.
We do not know how the universe began and the idea that there has always been ‘matter’ seems frankly unlikely….I certainly wouldn’t base axioms on it – but of course you are free to do that. The idea that ‘science’ will one day ‘explain’ how the universe come into being seem highly controversial – the whole point about fundamental forces is that they are discovered – not explained…….
May 16, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Paul,
That’s a “god in the gaps” argument and isn’t valid. Such arguments run “we haven’t explained x yet, so God!!!” All that’s entailed is that we haven’t explained x yet, not that we therefore must admit god into our ontology. Given the success of naturalistic explanation heretofore and the overwhelming failure and vacuousness of all theological explanation, there’s no reason to suppose the phenomena we don’t yet understand will not have a naturalistic explanation as well.
May 16, 2013 at 2:50 pm
[…] the beginning, there was nothing. No ground. And then things began to come together – literally come together. Through the […]
May 19, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“It’s unlikely that inter-stellar travel will ever be realistic or possible given the vast distances of space, so all sentient life and artifacts of culture will be gone when this happens.”
I found the inclusion of this statement to be quite interesting in so much as it is unnecessary. Even if inter-stellar travel is realistic (as it well might be) that doesn’t change the fact that all sentient life and artifacts of culture will disappear. It just changes the timeline a smidgen.
May 20, 2013 at 9:03 pm
[…] of this prolific blogging tears again, including a couple posts listing axioms for a dark ontology (here and here). You can read through them all of course, but here are the ones that interest me the […]
May 31, 2013 at 1:10 am
[…] Axioms for a Dark Ontology (larvalsubjects.wordpress.com) […]
June 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm
[…] Larval Subjects, Levi Bryant has published two posts (1, 2) outlining 41 axioms relevant to his project. To clarify his purpose in giving these axioms, he […]
June 1, 2013 at 5:53 pm
[…] Re-Petitions, Dean has a nice post up ruminating on on my “Axioms for a Dark Ontology” (here and here). In retrospect, I think my use of the term “axiom” was misleading. That […]
October 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm
[…] for a Dark Ontology” and “Post-Nihilist Praxis and Some Further Axioms” (see here and here). While I do not have the space to go into each of the axioms, it might be worthwhile […]