Postmodernism II: Another Thread, a Step Towards Something Else

Previously I mentioned Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche as three Davids who seemed to begin toppling the Goliath of modernism. However, this is only partly accurate, for they did less to topple him and more to indicate that he should be toppled, though they may have thought that they were toppling him. Sartre and Camus were similar to them in this sense. They also indicated the dilapidation of the modern project, but they did little to actually topple it. Indicating something as problematic and proffering a viable alternative to the problem are two different things. King Saul and David’s brothers knew that Goliath was a problem. In fact any ole bloke could have told you that. Sartre and Camus were in a similar situation. They expressed the results of the modern project, the dark mood pervading western culture. They were beacons that somewhere along the way something went wrong. Not to mention the severe tragedies of the World Wars were substantial evidence to indicate the guiltiness and incompleteness of the modern project. In fact Percy says that if he had to pinpoint the complete downfall of modernism, it would be the summer of 1914, “the year we began destroying ourselves.”

There grew a cloud of angst in the 20^th century. This angst is in part a modern germ. Sartre’s Nausea comments on this, though his short novel is, in my opinion, only a recapitulation of “Silhouettes” and various other passages from Either/Or volume one – “…this reflective sorrow…I call silhouettes, partly to suggest at once by the name that I draw them from the dark side of life and partly because, like silhouettes, they are not immediately visible.” In a similar vein, Camus’ The Stranger involves a disillusioned fellow who gets rapped up in an absurd murder and while in prison waits night and day for execution, for death. Individuals have been separated as parts of whole, isolated parts, estranged into the recesses of bewildered and lost autonomy. Sartre and Camus indicated, in part, the problem, the germ, the angst. But they offered little, if anything, as a distinct alternative.

Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche rebuked and scoffed at the modern notion of humanity. Sartre and Camus showed what the modern project left for humanity, estrangement and emptiness. None of these folks offered a completely different way forward apart from the modern project, for they each carried with them heavy modern baggage. Kierkegaard carried Descartes in his back pocket. Dostoevsky faithfully critiqued but did not formulate an alternative to modernism – his novel Demons (also translated The Possessed and Devils) epitomizes his critique of the modern isms sweeping across Russia. Nietzsche’s morality seems to have been an extreme example of conflated modern individualism – as a side note Tolstoy said Nietzsche’s claim regarding morality was analogous to someone standing up and with a serious expression on his face declaring to the world, “water is not wet.” Sartre remained bedfellows with Kant and Hume, among others. And Camus’ reaction to modern certainty and truth was that if there is truth to be known a person can probably not know it.

Thus, these brilliant philosophers indicated a problem; they showed contempt for the modern project, but they were only indicative. However, that’s not a bad thing. As Kierkegaard said, “it is an infinite merit to be able to despair,” for being conscious of the despair is to be onto something. And that is a step.