Continuing with self-critique (cf. Part 1), I turn my attention to other articles I’ve written, offering responses and analyses. A key aspect of my approach is the intentional blurring of lines between critique and source material. This method reflects a unique type of consciousness, characteristic of what is known as ‘free indirect discourse’. In this style, the speaker and the addressed remain ambiguous, facilitating a more holistic type of criticism.
To provide context, I’m revisiting the very first article published on my blog, titled “Why We Need Negation“. This piece serves as a mission statement, setting the tone and direction for my subsequent writings. By examining this foundational article, I aim to uncover and understand the underlying themes and assumptions that have shaped my writing. This introspective journey is not just about revisiting past content but also about reassessing the philosophical and conceptual frameworks that have guided my thinking and expression.
Absolute Negation as Bias
In my inaugural article, I began with a provocative statement: the essence of reality is negation. This assertion often fails to impress, as a philosophical system focused solely on identifying flaws and shortcomings in humans and their environment appears ill-equipped to withstand the realities of everyday life. Our world, which demands functionality and often a façade of positivity, seems at odds with this perspective. Positive psychology, while often perceived as a tool for corporate advancement, is more than that—it’s a necessity for individuals to survive in hyper-competitive environments like the job market, family, or social circles.
This framing sets up a dichotomy: negation is aligned with truth, and positivity with a mirage or façade. This view reflects a sort of ivory tower elitism, positing that absolute truth lies in negation—a continuous chain of negations—while societal norms are mere overcodings via inauthentic positivity. In Lacanian terms, negation aligns with the ‘real’, the unvarnished truth of existence, whereas positivity corresponds to the ‘imaginary’ or ‘symbolic’, representing illusions or social constructs.
This perspective underscores a critical view of societal norms and expectations, suggesting that what is often considered positive or desirable might be superficial or misleading. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of reality and truth, and the role of societal structures in shaping our understanding and perception of both. However, this approach may also run the risk of oversimplifying the complex interplay between individual perception, societal expectations, and objective reality, potentially dismissing the multifaceted nature of human experience.
Positivity Framed as Consumer Capitalism
The article posits that people generally fear negation because it confronts them with the real, as opposed to the illusory comforts of their everyday lives. These lives are characterized by the need to function like machines, fulfilling a barrage of real-life constraints and demands. This theme is particularly highlighted in the context of top executives climbing the corporate ladder, symbolizing the broader entwinement of individual lives with consumer capitalism, deception, and self-deception.
In this framework, positivity is depicted as false, unreal, and deceptive, while negation is upheld as the bearer of absolute truth and reality. The article begins with a bold claim of possessing this absolute truth through negation. It then situates itself within the context of Western post-modern society, drawing a contrast with other parts of the world, such as certain regions in Africa and Asia, where conditions are perceived as even more challenging. This comparison is used to underscore the universality of the human struggle against demanding circumstances.
This approach raises important questions about the nature of truth and reality in a consumerist and capitalist society. By framing positivity as a façade, and negation as the path to truth, the article challenges conventional perceptions and societal norms. However, this dichotomous view may oversimplify the complex nature of human experiences and societal structures. It risks reducing the vast spectrum of human emotions and responses to a binary of negation and positivity, potentially overlooking the nuanced interplay between individual agency, societal influence, and existential realities.
The article argues that in societies worldwide, including Westernized post-modern ones, there is an intense demand for individuals to function effectively. This demand leads to the negation of negation, as societal norms prioritize a kind of overcoding of demands on individuals. Everyone, regardless of the development level of their society, is compelled to adopt personas and wear masks to fit into this system. In this context, they become cogs in a larger machine governed by an enforced positivity.
Positivity as Oppression
In this narrative, positive psychology is portrayed as a distortion of an underlying current of negation. Negation is understood here as aspects like animal instincts, individual deviations from societal norms, and socially undesired traits. These traits, which represent individuality and divergence, are oppressed by societal structures like religion, the state, and family systems. Consequently, positivity is directly associated with oppression.
The article then explores the tension arising from this perspective, suggesting that everyday people find little value in a negative psychology. The preference, it argues, is to conform to the system and become part of the ‘greater machine’. This framing views society as the embodiment of the positive, and it fails to acknowledge the possibility of a more constructive or beneficial form of positivity. It presents a dichotomy where the machine (society) is seen as intrinsically positive and oppressive, while individual deviations and instincts (negation) are considered real but suppressed. This perspective might be overlooking the complex ways in which individuals navigate and find meaning within societal structures, and how positivity can be genuine and empowering, rather than merely a façade.
Reflecting on the themes in my original article and the tendency to focus exclusively on negation, I recognize a missed opportunity to explore a different kind of positivity. This alternate positivity wouldn’t necessarily be the societal overcoding or oppression of individual traits (negation), but rather a higher form of positivity that integrates and transcends negation.
Alternate History: Absolute Affirmation
In this context, it’s worth questioning why the Hegelian dialectic of sublation should be limited to sublating into negation. The same dialectical process could potentially sublate into positivity. Imagine an alternative history where I, with a similar mindset but different philosophical orientation, had written a blog titled “Absolute Affirmation” or an article called “Why We Need Positivity”. This hypothetical blog would explore the idea of sublating from a position of affirmation, as opposed to negation.
This insight highlights a key point: the choice between sublating into negation or affirmation is not clear-cut at a high meta-structural level of analysis. The dialectical process isn’t just a simple polarity between negativity and positivity but involves a more complex interplay between negation and affirmation in a technical, logical, and ontological sense. This realization opens up a broader spectrum of philosophical exploration, suggesting that the fundamental nature of reality and our understanding of it could be framed not only in terms of negation but also through the lens of affirmation. Such a perspective would offer a more balanced and inclusive view of the complexities of human existence and experience.
In questioning the practicality of a negative philosophy, the article raises a valid concern: How does focusing on negation help us build resilience, maintain composure, and navigate chaotic environments without succumbing to fear or panic? This question, as I previously explored in articles like “Why Do We Need Fear but Not Mass Panic” and in discussions about information hazards and Golem, remains unresolved. The concern is whether a negative philosophy might induce fear rather than foster a positive attitude towards life.
Unity of Affirmation & Negation
In the original article, I argued that it’s not the focus on the negative per se that causes struggle; rather, it’s the inability to accept the negative as an inherent part of reality. This stance makes a strong ontological claim: reality is inseparable from negation. This view is foundational in metaphysics, positing that negation is a fundamental aspect of reality and that there is no conceptualization of the real as an absolute unity.
However, this assertion faces a self-defeating paradox. By affirming itself as absolute negation, it must also acknowledge the negation of its own absoluteness. This leads to the conclusion that absolute negation must allow room for absolute affirmation. If absolute affirmation were to sublate absolute negation into itself, it would suggest a more integrative, holistic view of reality. This perspective would balance the roles of negation and affirmation, proposing that both are essential components in understanding the complexity and depth of reality. Such a balanced view might offer a more nuanced approach to philosophical inquiry, recognizing the interplay and mutual dependence of negation and affirmation in shaping our understanding of the world.
The core idea in my first blog post reveals a fundamental contradiction not born from mere oversight but from the structural nature of the argument itself. This contradiction reflects a philosophical crossroads, leading to two divergent paths: absolute negation and absolute affirmation. However, a deeper analysis reveals that these paths are not mutually exclusive but inherently interconnected.
In affirming absolute negation, one must also acknowledge the negation of absolute negation, which logically leads to absolute affirmation. Conversely, in affirming absolute affirmation, one must include absolute negation to maintain the absoluteness of the affirmation. This dynamic creates a philosophical loop, necessitating a dialectical approach to understand the deepest nature of reality.
This concept, while complex, is crucial for understanding the underpinnings of my blog and the subsequent practical implications. The metaphysical exploration of reality’s nature in this blog serves as a foundation for deriving practical conclusions. By examining the ontological aspects of reality, I aim to optimize our understanding and behavior within the real world. This approach underscores the importance of a comprehensive view of reality, integrating both negation and affirmation, to navigate the complexities of existence and inform our actions and decisions in everyday life.
Unity: Thinking aka. Feeling
In my attempt to align with the truth of reality through metaphysical analysis, I confront a fundamental philosophical question: Can we truly know the nature of things as they are, the so-called ‘noumenal’ or ‘thing in itself’? Immanuel Kant famously argued that the ‘thing in itself’ is unknowable, sparking a long-standing debate about the limits of human knowledge and understanding.
Critics often challenge thinkers like me, who lean towards the notion of absolute objectivity or at least entertain it theoretically. On the other side of this philosophical divide are those I might categorize as romanticists, irrationalists, or emotionalists, but perhaps more neutrally as unity thinkers. These individuals advocate for a holistic understanding of reality, emphasizing the merging of the unreal with the real and valuing the imaginative and symbolic. They argue against the possibility of ever attaining any objective truth in a scientific sense, criticizing science and logic as inherently flawed. Instead, they propose that deeper truths are accessible through transcendent or mystical states.
This perspective is crucial to consider, as it challenges the foundational assumptions of my approach. It suggests a reality that is more fluid and subjective, where scientific and logical methods may not be sufficient to grasp the full spectrum of human experience and understanding. In acknowledging this viewpoint, I aim to present a more comprehensive and balanced philosophical exploration, considering both the potential for objective understanding and the importance of subjective, holistic experiences in shaping our perception of reality.
Fractality & Paradox
In my discourse, I’ve noticed a fractal pattern in my self-critique, where the process of continually analyzing and questioning leads to a kind of philosophical ‘oblivion’. This recursive nature of dialectic analysis, though potentially disorienting, is integral to the methodological approach here, revealing deeper layers of understanding and contradiction.
The practical aspect of the original article critiques the societal efforts to combat negativity by replacing it with a universal positive through various means like entertainment, media, designer clothes, and food. This critique aligns positivity with consumer capitalism, suggesting that the pursuit of positivity as facilitated by marketing, self-help culture, and the media is essentially illusory, a kind of ‘Maya’ from the Buddhist perspective. It portrays this chase for positive emotion as a decadent state, superficial and devoid of genuine fulfillment.
This perspective is intriguing as it challenges conventional notions of positivity. The article suggests that what is often marketed as positive—consumer goods, entertainment, self-optimization—is in fact a distraction from a more profound, authentic experience of reality. This view aligns with a critique of consumerism and superficial societal values, proposing that the relentless pursuit of these ‘positive’ experiences may prevent individuals from engaging with deeper, more meaningful aspects of life. However, this approach might also be seen as overly critical of the role of positivity and enjoyment in human life, potentially overlooking the genuine value and satisfaction that can be found in these experiences. The challenge, then, is to strike a balance between recognizing the limitations of consumerist-driven positivity and appreciating the role of positive experiences in enhancing human well-being and happiness.
Suffering & Authenticity
The article’s perspective on positivity, when viewed through different philosophical lenses, reveals complex and varied interpretations. From a Christian perspective, the concept of suffering, as exemplified by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, is seen as a profound truth. This notion valorizes self-sacrifice and suffering as pathways to deeper understanding or enlightenment. Similarly, in Buddhism, the path of asceticism and self-denial is often highlighted, with the pursuit of detachment from worldly desires seen as a route to spiritual growth.
These perspectives suggest that what society gives as the positive – such as identity formation through consumerism – is merely a distraction from the (negation-based) pursuit of deeper, more authentic experiences.
However, this argument can be inverted. Instead of seeing the pursuit of positivity as a mirage, one could argue that what consumer capitalism and marketing sell as positive is, in fact, negative. They offer a false positivity that masks the true negativity of shallow, materialistic pursuits. The real positivity, then, could be found in the authenticity and individuality of a person living outside societal norms and expectations.
This analysis shows that the dichotomy between negation and affirmation is not fixed but can be reinterpreted and shifted. The value judgments of what constitutes negative and positive experiences can vary significantly based on philosophical, cultural, and individual perspectives. This fluidity challenges us to reconsider our assumptions about positivity and negation, leading to a more nuanced understanding of these concepts and their roles in our lives.
In representing a potential reconfiguration of the parameters we’re working with, I’m not necessarily advocating for one perspective over another, but rather illustrating how the concepts of positivity and negativity can be reinterpreted. This reconfiguration is connected to my critique of transhumanism, which I have previously coordinated with Buddhist philosophy and other articles on this blog.
Technology, Transhumanism, Buddhism
In the first article I critique the contemporary emphasis on the biomedical model in psychology, suggesting that the focus on neuroscience and medication as ultimate solutions represents a form of ‘bad positivity’. This perspective aligns with the idea that technological and pharmaceutical interventions, often seen as progress or self-optimization, might actually be leading us away from a more authentic understanding of reality. This notion echoes the Heideggerian critique of technology, where the relentless pursuit of technological advancement is seen as distancing us from the ‘truth of being’.
This critique raises important questions about the nature and direction of progress, especially in the context of mental health and human enhancement. It suggests that while technological and pharmaceutical interventions can be beneficial, an overreliance on them may obscure deeper psychological and existential truths. This perspective advocates for a more balanced approach that recognizes the value of traditional psychological insights, such as those from Freudianism, and the importance of understanding the human condition beyond mere biological or neurological terms.
The juxtaposition of these views highlights the ongoing tension between technological advancement and the pursuit of authenticity in understanding the human condition. It challenges us to consider the implications of our reliance on technology and pharmaceuticals, not just for individual well-being but also for our collective understanding of what it means to be human.
The critique in my first article, drawing parallels with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber’s view of post-industrial society and technology, reflects a deep skepticism about the potential of technology to lead to positive outcomes. This perspective suggests that human beings cannot transcend their nature without negative consequences, and that attempts to do so might lead us away from a state of truth. It embodies a fear of the unknown and the future, seeing technological transcendence as inherently dystopian.
However, this view might be limiting. By focusing solely on negative outcomes, it could potentially close off paths toward a positive, utopian resolution. The question arises: in emphasizing dystopian possibilities, are we neglecting to explore and pursue potential utopian futures?
Paradigmatic Assertion of Lack
The article’s assertion of a ‘philosophy of lack’ posits that human beings are inherently incapable of experiencing a state of pure positive emotion. It suggests that there is always an underlying lack or negativity. This perspective aligns with certain existential and psychoanalytic theories, which propose that a sense of lack is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.
While this viewpoint offers a profound exploration of human psychology and desire, it may also be somewhat one-sided. It risks ignoring the capacity of humans to experience genuine fulfillment and contentment. Acknowledging the possibility of both lack and fulfillment in the human experience can lead to a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of human nature. This approach allows for the recognition of the complexities and contradictions inherent in the human condition, without defaulting to a purely negative or positive perspective.
The article posits that the fundamental truth about human beings is always rooted in negation, never in positivity. This viewpoint argues that humans are inherently incomplete, constantly grappling with a sense of lack or incompletion. In this light, it scrutinizes the portrayal of life on social media, where people often signal a seemingly perfect existence. The article questions the value of such portrayals by highlighting the high suicide rates in affluent Western countries, suggesting that economic status and a glamorous social media presence do not necessarily equate to a fulfilling life.
This perspective raises the question of whether suffering is necessary for a meaningful life. It implies that the apparent positivity and satisfaction showcased on platforms like social media are superficial and do not address the deeper, more existential aspects of human experience.
(Some) Suffering Might Be Unnecessary
However, this argument can be contrasted with transhumanist or Buddhist views, which propose that it might be possible to eliminate unnecessary suffering while still leading a meaningful life. These perspectives suggest that a life devoid of certain kinds of suffering could still be rich in gratifying, satisfying, and profound experiences. This view challenges the notion that suffering is an essential component of a meaningful life, proposing instead that the depth and quality of experiences, rather than the presence of suffering, are what give life its value.
The transhumanist and Buddhist arguments offer a more optimistic outlook, suggesting that human potential and well-being can be enhanced without necessitating suffering. This more positive approach argues for the possibility of transcending traditional limitations and exploring new dimensions of human experience, where fulfillment and meaning are not inherently tied to suffering but are found in the richness and depth of life’s experiences, whether they are marked by joy, contentment, or even the challenges we overcome.
Reflecting on the original article, it’s evident that while it effectively deconstructs the superficiality of consumer capitalism and a vain society, it lacks in providing positive alternatives to these critiques. The focus is predominantly on negation and critique, without offering constructive solutions or visions for a more fulfilling and meaningful societal structure.
The History of Negation (and Affirmation)
Shifting to a historical analysis, the article explores the roots of modern psychology in the philosophies of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Schopenhauer’s perspective is characterized by universal pessimism, viewing life as an endless cycle between pain and boredom. Nietzsche, on the other hand, introduces the concept of the ‘will to power’ (WTP), suggesting that the fundamental human drive is the desire for power. This drive is seen as a unifying force for humans, propelling them in a constant struggle to gain control in an inherently uncontrollable environment. For Nietzsche, WTP evolves into the ultimate metaphysical principle.
Psychoanalysis, as introduced by Freud, synthesizes elements of both Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s ideas. Freud views society as a necessary but fundamentally flawed construct, rife with negative emotional conflicts. He places the collective of egoic agents at the center of this framework, emphasizing the complex interplay of individual desires, societal norms, and inherent conflicts.
This historical perspective provides a deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of modern psychology. However, it also reveals a certain bias towards a negative view of human nature and society, one that emphasizes conflict, pain, and the struggle for power. While these perspectives offer valuable insights into the human condition, they may also benefit from being balanced with more optimistic or constructive philosophical viewpoints. These could include exploring the potential for human growth, fulfillment, and the capacity for positive change, thereby offering a more holistic view of human psychology and society.
In the article, Freud’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s WTP is conceptualized as two basic drives: the sex drive and the death drive. The sex drive, or libido, is seen as a positive, childlike expression of the will, aligning with Nietzsche’s ideas. In contrast, the death drive, characterized by a desire to dominate and destroy, represents a more negative, warrior-like aspect of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Freud suggests that these drives, while seemingly distinct, are essentially different expressions of the same underlying essence.
This historical analysis of psychology, starting with Schopenhauer and moving through Nietzsche to Freud, offers valuable insights. Schopenhauer’s influence is notable for his introduction of Eastern philosophies into Western thought, particularly from the Vedic and Buddhist traditions. His interpretation of the world as a monistic entity, with the will as the thing in itself, laid important groundwork for subsequent psychological theories.
While the choice to start the history of psychology with Schopenhauer might be somewhat arbitrary, it is a relevant and influential starting point. Schopenhauer’s ideas about the will and his incorporation of Eastern philosophical concepts significantly impacted later thinkers like Nietzsche and Freud. This analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the philosophical origins of modern psychology, tracing the evolution of key concepts like the will to power and the human drives.
This approach helps contextualize contemporary psychological thought within a broader historical and philosophical framework. It demonstrates how foundational philosophical ideas have shaped our understanding of human nature, influencing the development of psychological theories and practices. By examining these philosophical roots, we gain a deeper appreciation of the complexities and nuances in our understanding of the human psyche.
Schopenhauer con(tra) Nietzsche
Schopenhauer’s emphasis on collective suffering and empathy, influenced by Eastern philosophies, sets a foundation for understanding human drives and motivations. His vision of a collective Nirvana, akin to reaching a Bodhisattva state, highlights a desire for universal empathy and elevation.
Nietzsche, in contrast, can be seen as negating Schopenhauer’s will with his own concept of the will to power, representing an affirmation of absolute negation through the idea of the eternal return. This juxtaposition between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche offers a dynamic view of human nature and its driving forces.
The article then insightfully recognizes its own limitations by suggesting that both libido (aligned with absolute affirmation) and the death drive (aligned with negation) are essentially different perspectives of the same underlying essence. This acknowledgment is crucial as it signals an inherent contradiction in trying to reach an absolute metaphysical state. Such an endeavor inevitably leads to the unification of paradoxical structures.
This realization within the original article reflects a deeper understanding of the complexities of human psychology and existence. It suggests that any attempt to define human nature in absolute terms—whether through affirmation or negation—must grapple with inherent contradictions and complexities. This nuanced view challenges us to consider the multifaceted nature of human drives and motivations, recognizing that they may not be as diametrically opposed as they initially appear. Instead, they may represent different aspects of a singular, complex human essence.
Closing Remarks
Reflecting on this journey of self-critique, it’s clear that we’ve reached a pivotal point in exploring the paradox of positivity and negativity. By engaging in a dialectical process that delves into the historical interplay between these concepts, we’ve uncovered deeper layers of understanding.
Moving forward, the next step in this exploration will involve a more in-depth examination of positive psychology. This approach will not only involve a critical analysis but also an attempt to steelman the arguments in favor of positive psychology. The goal is to give this field the consideration it merits, particularly in the context of a blog that has predominantly focused on ‘absolute negation’.
By integrating insights from positive psychology into our framework, we aim to broaden our philosophical toolbox, incorporating elements of ‘absolute affirmation’ alongside our existing focus. This approach will allow for a more balanced and comprehensive exploration of human psychology and existence, acknowledging the value and contributions of both positive and negative perspectives.
I hope this exploration has been thought-provoking and insightful. Wishing you a pleasant day and looking forward to continuing this intellectual journey in future discussions. Take care.
Absolute Negation 
Leave a comment