A Nonfiction Book
Are there differences between character in Hegel, Deleuze, EAF, Nietzsche…?
We will need to explore “The God Question,” but first let us review overlaps and distinctions between character as (im)possible in EAF and character as found in Nietzsche, Hegel, and Deleuze. We have explored the possibility of character and how a version of it might still be possible with EAF, but we have also pointed out through Hunter that this “foundation” may be one which defines character in terms of deconstructing “givens,” which leads to great trouble and ultimately proves self-effacing. However, we have also argued in Belonging Again that once we deconstruct “givens,” it is nearly impossible to bring them back, which means we must become “the children” of Nietzsche, Absoluter Knowers, and/or Deleuzian. But this runs the risk of us “creating our own values” and ending up isolated or unintelligible within our own “reality tunnels,” at which point the social order could prove impossible. Is this fate avoidable?
Character for Hegel entails “dialectically working through negativity,” and if this is not so readily emphasized in Deleuze, perhaps our emphasis should be on Hegel, Nietzsche, and Jesus (as we have discussed). I’m not sure, but the point is that Hegel would not accept EAF as popularly and commonly presented, even if Hegel would agree with some of the notions of EAF. We should indeed let people “undergo their own development” in peace, but it is also not the case that we can “dialectically work through negativity” if “everything is permitted.” Not really, no, because in this circumstance there is no social negativity we need to work through (after all, “everything is permitted”). We cannot say for sure what a person should work through, what a person should hold others responsible for, and what a person should sacrifice his or her will against. “Everything is permitted,” and so though we might theorize and claim there is a place for “working through negativity,” that negativity is ambiguous and hard to define. We cannot say for sure what is negativity, let alone what constitutes the negativity we need to “dialectically work through.” If we take a guess and try to work through “something,” the nagging doubt that we are suffering for “no reason” could hinder our ability to persevere, which suggests that the way EAF might render negativity “ambiguous” could hinder our capacity to be “Absolute Knowers.” We will have to identify “negativity” and commit to working through it without social support, but how then will our work translate into “social intelligibility?” Indeed, it would seem the social order would have to shift to “make space” for “Absolute Knowing” — a point which will require the second part of Belonging Again (“Address”) to consider.
As EAF overlaps with Hegel but still isn’t equivalent, the EAF is also like Nietzsche’s “child” in that everyone is “given space” to be themselves and “unfold,” but while the EAF emphasizes opposition to oppression and developing character through opposing social injustice, Nietzsche believes our values must not be primarily based on “externalities” we can oppose, which is to say that our values must be more “inward” and “intrinsic.” As I presented on in the “Thus Spoke Zarathustra Philosophy Portal Conference,” Nietzsche opposes “Bestow Centrism,” which is to say Nietzsche doesn’t want us to gain our values, inspirations, and motivations from entities external to us, but for us to instead create our values internally, through the realization of our own Will. Though Nietzsche would not necessarily oppose the goals of EAF or our desire to end oppression, he would warn that if opposing these forces is our only source of motivation, then we cannot overcome oppressions without losing our values. We need more.
There is no guarantee that working to correct “givens” will necessarily lead to us creating values for ourselves (which is the crucial step). Opposing “givens” actually means we might still indirectly derive character from “givens,” and yet do so in a manner that we don’t even benefit from the “existential stability” which “givens” can provide. The EAF risks being too “negative” and not “positive” enough, which is to say that in EAF we derive value from “opposing givens,” while in Nietzsche we derive value from “creating alternatives to givens.” Yes, EAF and Nietzsche can overlap, but the differences matter, and while EAF works to end oppression, Nietzsche’s child creates a life alternative to the oppression which “shows itself” as superior to the world causing the oppression, thus “attracting others into it” while also motivating them to create their own values. Nietzsche’s child must also “face negativity” to in fact be a child (which suggests a way Nietzsche and Hegel can be considered together), while in EAF an experience of negativity can be interpreted as an oppression that needs to be stopped versus “dialectically worked through.” In EAF, the emphasis against constraints and restrictions in honor of “the full realization” of the subject (according to the subject’s wants) results in a natural reaction against all feelings of “being held back,” which is to say that EAF will make it difficult “in practice” to make clear distinctions between “negativity” and “restriction,” meaning the EAF is prone to avoid or try to erase negativity, whereas Hegel and Nietzsche would have us develop character in suffering it.
Will in Nietzsche is crafted and earned, and this takes work, suffering, and “negativity,” while want is EAF seems more liberated and expressed, and this takes deconstructing the “givens” and “norms” which hold want back. Both play a role, and a world without one will prove problematic — it’s just that today our trouble seems more on the side of too much EAF than too much Will. Please note that mere “want” in Nietzsche is not necessarily a source of virtue, as isn’t mere purpose. To really rise to the occasion of our world today in which “givens” are deconstructed, we must do much more, which requires resources not readily available in EAF. Removing restraints and “givens” will not necessarily make the world a better place: if everything is cleared away and there are no “children,” the clearing will prove empty.
In my view, it does not seem the EAF can create a new CCE, but Nietzsche’s child or Hegel’s “Absolute Knower” seems able to oppose the oppressive “givens” of the day while at the same time creating values which makes possible a new CCE. However, there is still the question of “shared intelligibility” and how “Absolute Knowers” can avoid ending up in their own isolated “reality tunnel.” This is a dire question, and also we must wonder if it is actually possible for people to create their own values and those values have the same authority and power over them as did “God” in the past. Is this possible? Or do we not even need to be worried about something authoritative and “grounding” like “God?” Determining that and elaborating on the sociological function of “God” in CCE will be highlighted and explored next.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
