The Eradication of Value & The Objective Failure of Subjectivity: How Can We Move Beyond Post-Modernism?

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? – Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in. – CS Lewis, The Abolition of Man

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Genesis 2:7, King James Bible

A rose is a rose is a rose. – Gertrude Stein

Are we good enough as we are or must we rewrite ourselves into something “better”? Is time ushering man forth to something greater than himself or rather are we merely seeking to be whomever we already are? Did God create man or is man creating God? These are the real questions of our day for we live in an age of great subjectivity. If we look around at our media, our technologies, and the political suppositions being bantered and lobbied about we can see just how pressing and relevant these questions are today. Who are we exactly? And how do we even know that? The truth, as is often the case, is more easily discovered right before our eyes. It lies in the ubiquitous and the mundane. The perennial aspects of life, the dirt and mud beneath our feet. These are rife with life and truth and vitality. They are precisely who we are in a higher form. Or perhaps would it be better stated that they can direct us towards our own higher forms? Henry David Thoreau recounts his own transcendental experience with mud in Walden where he describes the exposed earth on the side of the railroad tracks and in so doing peers into the original creation of all mankind.

The material was sand of every degree of fineness and of various rich colors, commonly mixed with a little clay. When the frost comes out in the spring, and even in a thawing day in the winter, the sand begins to flow down the slopes like lava, sometimes bursting out through the snow and overflowing it where no sand was to be seen before. Innumerable little streams overlap and interlace one with another, exhibiting a sort of hybrid product, which obeys half way the law of currents, and half way that of vegetation. As it flows it takes the forms of sappy leaves or vines, making heaps of pulpy sprays a foot or more in depth, and resembling, as you look down on them, the laciniated, lobed, and imbricated thalluses of some lichens; or you are reminded of coral, of leopard’s paws or birds’ feet, of brains or lungs or bowels, and excrements of all kinds. It is a truly grotesque vegetation, whose forms and color we see imitated in bronze, a sort of architectural foliage more ancient and typical than acanthus, chiccory, ivy, vine, or any vegetable leaves; destined perhaps, under some circumstances, to become a puzzle to future geologists.

Here by the loose banks of railroad tracks Thoreau can attest that indeed God made man from the mud of the earth just as the Book of Genesis describes. He is fascinated and in awe of how the minerals and vegetation interplay down the hillsides the railroads haphazardly formed. As a transcendentalist he perceives truth upturned out of the earth, “bowels and excrements of all kinds.” The modern railroad was not so much a call to environmentalism for Thoreau, but rather an opportunity to perceive deeper into the underbelly of the creation of earth and likewise by extension the creation of man. He observed a multiplicity of actions in those boring railroad banks (how many of those do we have today!), and from that multiplicity he was able to piece creation together into a larger, more unified whole. Out of the many, one. Whether it was the sand with “every degree of fineness and of various rich colors” or the “innumerable little streams…exhibiting a sort of hybrid product” he discovered the first creation of plants, animals, and man – “you are reminded of coral, of leopard’s paws or birds’ feet, of brains or lungs or bowels.” Out of the elements, all of life coagulated before him, congealing into a primordial grotesqueness, oozing with profound significance, ultimately elevating to truths beyond one’s self.

Religiously we don’t take much contention with the idea of being analogous to dirt and mud – ashes to ashes, dust to dust. We are after all fallen and sinful. Others tend to prefer the term “imperfect” or “flawed,” but they all point to the same conclusion – accusatory or not – that on our own we simply are not enough. We are inadequate, unable to accomplish perhaps even meager ventures without the Divine Grace of God – the Mercy of the Lord. Even simply breathing is impossible without the breathe of life that God sparks within us as our living soul. This bag of bones is nothing without the spirited action of breathing. I suspect that most people today have contentions with Christianity or Judaism or religion in general because they see the traditional trappings and rituals performed as admittedly strange and unusual to the uninitiated. Why the capes and gowns and hats? Why the repetitions? Why this and that and the other thing? The list goes on. And then of course there’s the horrible hypocrisies and injustices of religions. All too many accusations are indeed founded and scathing without question, some are perhaps more contextual or timely, while others may just be flat out false. But nevertheless whenever a man let alone an institution stands for greatness, so too shall that same greatness be used as its bludgeon. That which we stand for shall often be that which crushes us to our knees, and sometimes as Christ said, it is even sealed with a kiss. We are in fact our own worst enemy and so perhaps in a fit of incredible genius Jesus was repeating himself when he said to “Love thine enemy” and to “Love thy neighbor as thy self.”

In many conversations I have and observe, I notice people debating the truth. It often manifests in innocuous ways with phrases like, “in my view,” “as I see it,” or even “in my experience.” We seek to always couch ourselves over with a film of subjectivity. What is truth? It is one question Pontius Pilate asked of the Lord. To which the Lord seemingly gave no reply. If that is any indication of the real answer to such a meaningful question then perhaps my own words here are in vain. Can we know truth? Does truth in fact even exist? And if so how may we decipher it from the false? Can truth exist in degrees? Can one truth be more truthful than another truth? And if so how shall we distinguish them?

These are the questions and answers that I find when reading CS Lewis’s piercing book called The Abolition of Man. As you may imagine his insights are discriminating, particular, and wide-ranging. The implications of his thoughts arc far and can be applied to much of life today, even though his essay was written in 1944. In the book he argues that there are objective truths and values which are universal, natural, and permanent. Already we can see that his positions and arguments directly anticipate, let alone challenge (and arguably defeat), the entire post-modern movement that is alive and maybe even in its final stages today. Each age has large scale cultural theories which tend to govern it. For example in the 18th century we saw the Age of Enlightenment, in the first half of the 19th century there was Romanticism and then we saw Victorianism which then morphed into Modernism. American Transcendentalism was a sort of composite blend of all three in different stages. And then from Modernism was of course born Post-Modernism. I am considering, so long as time and patience allow for it, in putting together future posts which discuss in more detail these various ages and some literature that is emblematic of the time. But for now let it suffice that we first briefly define Modernism so that we can ultimately define Post-Modernism, so that all in all we can then place the ideas of CS Lewis in their proper context which then allows us to perceive more clearly how The Abolition of Man is so prescient and applicable to the more post-modern predilections and anxieties we struggle with today.

To put simply Modernism posits that Truth does indeed exist, but we may not be able to fully grasp it, obtain it, or manifest it. There are objective Truths, a real Reality if you will, which mankind is able to, if only imperfectly or partially, perceive, grapple with, and align himself and his actions. Man, through study and thought and valor, can achieve a status closer to or farther from the Truth. There are many interesting aspects to Modernism much of which make it a very fascinating time for literature, stories, and characters, but for now let us be satisfied with this general understanding. This should help to clarify what Post-Modernism may mean, if it means anything at all. For to be literally beyond Modernism, then we must be beyond Truth. And so what does that in fact look like? Well to the post-modernist it looks like a multiplicity of things that essentially refuse to amount to any one thing. In other words objective reality is no longer objective – it is simply just one reality among a slew of other possible realities thereby creating a multiplicity. I have found that examples in architecture help to elucidate the point best. Below you will see a few examples of Post-Modern architecture.

In these buildings we see a diversity of styles classical and modern often times in conflict with each other. One voice is challenging another disparate voice or is perhaps attempting to harmonize in some awkward or unusual fashion with them. All of these styles require a multiplicity of ideas. Is one style “better” than another? Is one “more true” than another? Post-Modernism boldly claims “No.” They are just different. Each is equally real, equally valid, equally just, equally true, and beyond that it attempts to avoid the very term post-modernist as that in and of itself is just one more voice. With architecture we can see these disparities more clearly. Now let us view things philosophically.

The Abolition of Man begins with CS Lewis discussing how he read in a boys grammar book an apparently well-known story of Samuel Taylor Coleridge looking upon a waterfall with two tourists by his side. One tourist refers to the waterfall as “sublime” and the other refers to it as “pretty.” Coleridge heartily accepts and agrees with the description of the waterfall as sublime but flatly rejects and even condemns the statement that it is pretty. Now the grammar book which is telling this waterfall story makes a few bold statements which launch the premise for CS Lewis’ book. Namely as Lewis puts it, the grammar book states, “he [the man who said the waterfall was sublime] was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings…We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.” Now these two statements are the basis for which The Abolition of Man argues to the contrary, and in my own humble opinion quite convincingly. But the main point that I wish to make with you here, is that these statements the grammar book is making are essentially Post-Modern. I suspect, since this was taking place in 1944, that this grammar book may in fact be one of the earliest buds of Post-Modernism sprouting into the culture, and CS Lewis in his own imitable style sought to stamp it out immediately. The contention is that in fact the waterfall is not actually sublime at all. Only you experience it as sublime. That isn’t a description of the waterfall, it is a description of you. You’re just one voice among many where none of them are any more real than another. It is my contention that as soon as we concede this ground of subjectivity in our intellectual theorizing, we have already lost the argument, because from then on nothing can exist any longer. God no longer exists, truth no longer exists, only your feelings exist, and even those are confined to you and you alone. To apply the idea elsewhere, Thoreau didn’t perceive all of creation made manifest in those mundane railroad hillsides – that was simply his feeling about it. It was simply his perception of things. There was nothing real or true about it. Now I will admit that Modernism itself does focus on the flaws and failures of mankind, and man’s inability to fully connect with another person or with God or Truth, but it still contends that God, Truth, and that other person do in fact exist objectively. But now with Post-Modernsim we can’t even agree on objective reality. The objective has been swallowed up by subjectivity. If one looks around and listens to the world, to our fellows and friends, and to our so-called leaders I think we shall often find the pervasiveness of subjectivity routinely clashing with the stalwart stance reality does in fact hold in our lives. Admittedly, I find precious little value in the theories of Post-Modernism. In literature I find its contributions to be more vapid, shallow, and distracting more than anything else. When the only truth is a cacophony of voices, sooner than later all those voices fail to hold much meaning beyond their mere presence or articulation. One’s mere existence becomes reason enough for celebration or sympathy even if there is nothing particularly triumphant or touching to report.

A tweet is a tweet is a tweet. Social media is a perfect example of post-modernism made manifest in our culture today. We have a plurality of voices all converging upon one another, vying for audience and attention, no one voice seems to carry more weight than any other, particularly in terms of the business models for these tech companies (advertising dollars simply follow numbers). All that matters is the voice. All you need to do is post. It doesn’t matter what is being said, it doesn’t matter if one statement is more accurate than another, or if one is more respectful or more asinine than another. All that matters is that they exist on the platform and speak. Truth or even some higher ideal or vision is not being pursued, and if in fact there is a group dedicated to Truth, they are simply just one more voice among all the others. Wisdom equals absurdity. Virtue equals licentiousness. God equals the diabolical. And even those one-to-one mirrored relationships begin to fall apart in this multiplicity, and we find new equations connecting variables even more disparately. Jesus equals sex. Life equals hatred. Sports equals corruption. America equals death. These connections don’t exactly equate linearly let alone logically but they do seem to resonate in our larger cultural mind. This is Post-Modernism run amok. This is what CS Lewis called the abolition of man, and what I call the eradication of value. When all things are equal in all respects, nothing is of value. And whatever force it is that raises all things up in value – say for example a sprawling poetic voice like Walt Whitman’s which finds great value in all of creation – even then that force is to be held in equal esteem to something of far lesser value or greatness. There is no path out of this matrix of equality. There is in fact nowhere to go because there is actually nothing really happening. Jacob’s ladder ascending up and down heaven and earth has been leveled down. The path of progress or transcendence mankind naturally pursues has been eradicated. In fact what tends to happen with post-modernism is that it seeks to subvert the natural value structure and secretly replace it with a new value system altogether. Although post-modernism claims all things are equal and nothing is true, in actual fact there is still a hierarchy of order. It is simply upending the old order of things in hopes to replace it with a new one. In post-modernism for example it can certainly be observed that more traditional, canonical, and historical voices are supplanted and devalued over new, progressive, pioneering ones. Even within post-modernism’s facade of plurality, there are skews and bends. The scales are in fact weighted. Some sort of truth apparently does hold sway even to post-modernists.

This gradual leaning towards a new, progressive form of thought and away from the more traditional and canonical would theoretically not be problematic if that was in fact what the movement stood for. But post-modernism claims to hold a multiplicity, a plurality, a fractured narrative voice where no true truth exists and so no real sides are taken. All is equally wrong, all is equally right. Take either side. Join them together however you wish. In the end it doesn’t matter. But in reality even the post-modernist cannot maintain such a razor thin balance without soon spilling over to one side or the other. Eventually humanity catches up with itself. To attempt to not claim any truth at all and live solely through some form of subjectivity is actually an attempt at redefining the nature of man altogether. In the late 19th century Nietzsche conceived of the “ubermensch,” which translates from German as “super man.” He claimed this super man would be the new form of mankind which must be created in lieu of a belief in God. This superman was to create new values, new systems, and new incentives for mankind to aspire to. In Latin the word “super” means beyond or above. So to be an “ubermensch,” that is a “superman,” is to literally be “beyond man.” According to Nietzsche, now that “God is dead,” everything, including mankind itself, needs to be altered and re-made. Mankind is no longer man at all. But can we in fact move beyond ourselves? We are human. Can that be changed? Is that supposed to be changed? Is the purpose of humanity to no longer be itself? Not only are such ideas frightening in their implications, they were also inspiration for none other than Hitler and his evil conceptions of the Aryan race and Nazi dominance as well as the eugenics movement more generally. Such a heinous history is more than sobering when considering the validity of these concepts and ideas. We can clearly see the abject horrors that manifest when attempts are made to go “beyond” humanity, “beyond” God. When God is dead, mankind is more than doomed. To make matters worse, these same nihilistic concepts and visions can also be seen underlying post-modernism today as well as a general trend towards a new, more progressive, system for perceiving reality and the world around us (assuming reality exists in the first place according to the post-modernist). Nihilism cannot birth something of value. It was only after God “moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2) that the “dark and formless void” could organize itself. Once accomplished, God then commanded, “Let there be light.” To be human is to be holy. Being ordinary is the prerequisite to our being extra-ordinary. The example we see in Christ shows us that our humanity is in fact our strength. As we embrace, love, and accept our human flaws, then can God work more closely with us, bring us ever more closer to Him, to His Word, the Holy of Holies. God fashioned us as we are so that He may commune with us evermore. Without our flaws, without our humanity, the Grace of God has nowhere to go, no way to take up residence with us, and to reside in all of our being. We fit into the majesty of God’s creation just as we are like lock and key. The attempt to remove these primal truths from mankind is literally an attempt to destroy mankind writ large. The question then for post-modernism is not if it is progressive – the searing question is what exactly is it progressing towards?

In The Abolition of Man, CS Lewis notes that throughout the ages humanity has always lifted up and prized the truth. From Plato and Aristotle to Confucius and Christ to Virgil and John Locke, humans have always perceived great truths and sought to articulate them. Throughout his book Lewis refers to these timeless wisdoms as “the Tao,” and they represent for him all that is true, objective, and real which humanity keeps articulating, re-articulating, and building upon age after age. The Tao is as much a vital aspect of humanity as is the heart or the lungs or the need for a family. It is a part of who we are. If that is true, then how can subjectivity and post-modernism even setup an assault against the truth? How can it attempt to lay claim to what certainly it cannot prove or maintain? Lewis notes most perceptively that in order for the ideas of subjectivity to denounce, reject, and defeat objectivity it actually must accept and utilize aspects of the Tao’s own wisdom to justify its position. Lewis explains:

If the Tao falls, all his own conceptions of value fall with it. Not one of them can claim any authority other than that of the Tao. Only by such shreds of the Tao as he has inherited is he enabled even to attack it. The question therefore arises what title he has to select bits of it for acceptance and to reject others. For if the bits he rejects have no authority, neither have those he retains: if what he retains is valid, what he rejects is equally valid too….The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves.

Subjectivity then as well as Post-Modernism at large is in fact defeating its own premise for it rests upon that which it attempts to destroy. In short it is its own contradiction and hypocrisy, and even if it were to embrace that fact it would then be delivering its own death blow, for then we shall see precisely how meaningless and fractured its positions really are. All things have truth within them, and there is a sort of transcendence and relief in admitting that we are all subjective, fractured beings, as post-modernism insists. It is similar to how the religions contend that we are sinful and imperfect. Through humility we do find relief. Post-modernism and subjectivity in general do provide a space to allow ourselves whatever creativity and imagination (or lack thereof) we wish to inhabit and express, but that private safety and security is quickly obliterated when reality and objectivity shine their glaring lights deep into that maze of seemingly unconnected subjective caves and tunnels. God is multiplicitous. But even that multiplicity always revolves itself around the fact of life, the supremacy of God, the truth that does indeed set us free. Creativity lives in diversity, but without values and definition that diversity cannot be cohesive. All things rally behind God. All things eventually salute the Truth.

This is not to say that we cannot nor should not keep improving our value structures, question the meaning of life, or continue to update our great moral codes and understandings of universal human virtue and truth. In fact it is certain that we will and always shall. Humans are built broken so it would stand to reason that our ideas can always find room for improvement. Just as the previous ages and ideas that came before us shaped where we are today, so too do we now shape where we are going into the future. Regardless if it is shallow or vapid, Post-modernism is one more phase in this human continuum of thought. Many more shall follow. However the optimal way to critique or improve upon this continuum proves to be more fruitful when done first through the acceptance of the Tao, those universal maxims we have learned collectively up to now. Again to quote from The Abolition of Man, CS Lewis proclaims:

Those who understand the spirit of the Tao and who who have been led by that spirit can modify it in directions which that spirit itself demands. Only they can know what those directions are. The outsider knows nothing about the matter. His attempts at alteration, as we have seen, contradict themselves. So far from being able to harmonize discrepancies in its letter by penetration to its spirit, he merely snatches at some one precept, on which the accidents of time and space happen to have riveted his attention, and then rides it to death – for no reason that he can give. From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao…. An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. … Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else.

By attempting to remove itself from the Tao, from this human continuum, and from truth, post-modernism is actually forfeiting whatever value it may in fact be attempting to articulate. Whatever good post-modernism can offer us philosophically, it shall only become valuable when it is founded upon these timeless truths that humanity has always held close, praised, and used like a ratchet to lift itself ever higher. In order for us to benefit from post-modernism we must pull its own premises back away from itself. Ironically the very notions of post-modernism render its own premises invalid. It nullifies it’s own nullification. By working from within the Tao and known human virtue, post-modernism would be better positioned to advance justifiable critiques and criticisms, however in order to accomplish that post-modernism must embrace truths which it’s very premise refuses. The paradox is complete then. To render itself of value is to destroy itself. This adolescent “anti” position or “non” position is the position post-modernism stands upon (though never quite admitting that in typical post-modern fashion), leaving the rest of humanity wondering precisely how, if at all, we are supposed to reconcile it, work with it, and incorporate it into the larger body of human thought and advancement.

Nietzsche was right in one sense when he claimed that God is dead . He was perceiving, as well as contributing towards, the coming age of Post-Modernism, scientific materialism, and atheism more generally. When all of these theories are taken to their utmost, it does in fact kill God which in turn decimates the Truth, which then has the effect of eradicating all value, and without value humanity cannot sustain itself. When everything is reduced to a material composition nothing is really left at all. The waterfall cannot be sublime. It is simply water, falling. The sandbank along the railroad track cannot be the furnace of creation. It is simply plants and dirt. Life becomes empty, devoid of meaning, purpose, and significance. Perhaps through the multiplicity of post-modernism we can at least allow for various voices and ideas to be expressed, but in the end, they all are reduced down to a subjective point of view, “your feelings” and “my experience,” which ultimately can never be reconciled, verified, or shared in any codifying or meaningful way with the larger world around and beyond us. It is God that unifies us. The truth is how values are instilled, families created, and communities constructed. All that is good springs forth from that which is true, that which is real, and that which is God; what CS Lewis referred to universally as “the Tao.” Many thinkers for over a hundred years now have been bearing witness to the coming Post-Modern cultural catastrophe and anxiety. They have been analyzing it and deconstructing its flaws and inconsistencies. Seventy-five years ago CS Lewis witnessed its emergence and eventual effects. Today we can clearly see those results in full manifestation throughout our culture and society. Restoration comes through humility and education. We must humble ourselves to the reality that with post-modern materialism we have strayed too far from shore. These waters are tempestuous. We cannot survive as a culture nor as a people in such conditions. We must set our sails astern and return to land. We do not have to take up harbor wherever we were last, in fact we cannot go back there at all, but we do carry all that we are and all that we have been. Nothing is left behind. We must carry on and chart a new course for ourselves, perhaps even erect an archipelago just a ways off the coast, but we must turn back now. Our toes need to bury themselves into sand once more – that same sand Thoreau observed by the side of the railroad tracks. Our eyes need to witness more waterfalls alongside Coleridge. We need to gather our bearings once again and like beleaguered pilgrims plant our feet strong upon a new shore so that we may lay claim to the same humanity we have always been and shall always be forever more. So help us God.