Günther Anders' Apocalyptic Phenomenology

16 Pages·2017·0.25 MB·English

by  Jason W. Alvis

religions
Article
Transcendence of the Negative: Günther Anders’
Apocalyptic Phenomenology
JasonW.Alvis
InstituteforPhilosophy,UniversityofVienna,Vienna11010,Austria;[email protected]
AcademicEditor:JustinSands
Received:12January2017;Accepted:26March2017;Published:7April2017
Abstract: Whentheapocalypticismarginalized,notonlyistheologyunderthreatofmalpractice,
but phenomenology is also, for at the core of apocalyptic thinking is the attempt to restrain the
totalitiesthatareatworkimplicitlyinoursocialimaginaries. Mosttotalitiesaresubtle,appearing
evenineffortsofunificationthroughglobalpeace. OnemightextractsuchinsightfromGünther
Anders,whodepictsanimmanent,apocalypticrealitybeyondthepaleofbourgeoisoptimismandthe
theologicalimaginariesthatenervateit. Wehavefallenoutofimaginativetouchwithoureveryday
activities,andthishasresultedinanapocalypticblindness(Apokalypse-Blindheit)andoptimism
rootedinabstraction. Suchblindnesshasdegradedour“conscience”into“conscientiousness”tothe
pointthateventheHiroshimabombercanabstractfromhisactionsandbeexemptedeasilyfrom
responsibility. Althoughakindofphenomenologist,Anderscriticizedcolleagueswho,inthenameof
“presuppositionlessness”andobservation,couldabstracttheirthoughtsfarfromtherealityinwhich
theylivedandacted. ThispaperprovidesageneralintroductiontoAnders’workandinterpretshis
“TranscendenceoftheNegative”inordertodemonstratethevaluesof“apocalypticphenomenology”
today. AndersextendsaLevinasianeschatologyofanticipation(whichispreciselyofthatwhich
one cannot “expect”) and demonstrates how transcendence, which typically is understood only
initspositiveelement, alsoholdsthecapacityforturningablindeyetothenegativesocialityof
action. Thistranscendenceoftenfuelsafalseoptimismforanorderofglobalpeaceandoneness,
whichinherentlybringsaboutanapocalypticage,foritendsat“one”andeliminatesany“outside”.
Apocalypticphenomenologycanbeonewaytodisruptthistendencyofblindabstractionbyattending
to“unveiling”(apokalypsis)itself,attuningour“conscience”tothelevelofconcernproportionateto
thethreatsthatstandbeforeit,andbecoming“restrainers”ofwhatAnderscalls“annihilism.
Keywords: GüntherAnders;apocalypse;transcendence;phenomenology;theology
“Godisnotnice.
GodisnotUncle.
Godisanearthquake.”—GillianRose(Rose1998)
“ApocalypticistheMotherofallChristianTheology—Sincewecannotreallyclassthepreachingof
JesusasTheology.”ErnstKäsemann(Käsemann1969;Käsemann1960,p. 180)
Theenigmaoftheso-called“oneworldorder”towhichRevelation13refersoften,isoverlookedin
favourofthebombasticdestructionandannihilationthattypicallyqualifiesourunderstandingof
the“apocalyptic”. Thelatterdoom-and-gloomprophecyalsohasbeendepictedinmore“secular”
terms, ranging from Mary Shelly’s The Last Man (1826), H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds (1898),
toRobertOppenheimer’sdepiction(1957)ofour“atomic”ageasone“wherethepossibilityofan
Religions2017,8,59;doi:10.3390/rel8040059 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions2017,8,59 2of16
apocalypseisomnipresent”.1 Yetperhapsevenmoredestructivethanthebombsthemselvesarethe
intersocialchangesthebombscommunicateandspawn. Thenuclearstand-offthathashunglikea
mushroomcloudovertheworldsincethe1960shasbeencreditedoftenforbringingpeace,oratthe
veryleastthelackofconflict;an“unproblematicity”asPatockamighthavereferredtoit. Indeed,as
Revelation13:7warns,theapocalypsehingesonorder,notsimplychaos. Thosewhoholdpowerand
“authorityovereverytribe,people,languageandnation”arecapableofwieldingpeacelikeasword.
Ourcontemporarycontextsofthissortof“peace”aredrivenbydeepnetworksofdemandsforcapital
anditstechnologicalinterfacesofcommodification. Thedemandstoavoidconflictandviolence,no
matterthecost,havebirthedadisarraythatmakesglobalsocietyswoonandsway,thuscallingfor
reflectionupontheapocalypticinanewway.
Onethinkerwhowasabletogobeyondtheaforementionedone-dimensionalunderstandingof
theapocalypticasmerelybombasticwasGüntherAnders,aninfluentialyetoftenoverlooked20th
centuryGermanthinkerwhoseJewishbackgroundpushedhimintohiding. OriginallyGüntherStern,
and under the recommendation of a newspaper editor to have a name that is not so “Jewish” but
somethingandersor“different”,hethusparodiedthisrecommendationandbecameGüntherAnders.
Naturally,thecontextofearly20thcenturyGermanypushedhimtowardsan“apocalyptic”thinking
thatsoughttobeareminderoftheconstantbeing-under-threatofwhathecalledthe“Nothingwill
have been”.2 Often blunt and bleak, he depicts an effective reality beyond the pale of bourgeois
Westernoptimismanditsensuingtheologicalimaginariesthatenervatethecontemporarycondition
ofhumankindasoutofimaginativetouchwithhiseverydayactivities. ForAnders,afterHiroshima,
contemporaryWesternsocietieshaveoperatedwithafundamentallynewunderstandingoftimeitself.
Wearelivingataspeedlikeneverbefore,onethatis“thecompletelynew,theapocalyptickindof
temporality, our temporality”.3 Anders’ realization of our lived experience of time, characterized
byanessentialontologicalambiguitymediatedbytechnology,inspiredhimtoreveal“therootsof
ourapocalyptic-blindness”(Apokalypse-Blindheit),whicharesurprisinglynotsostraightforward,and
gobeyondtraditionaltheologicalinterdicts. Inthisatomicagewelackmeansofunderstandingour
activities, andthereforesuccumbtoactionsineffigy. Wearemoreactivethaneverbefore, yetthe
compositelevelatwhichwecanunderstandandimaginethemeaningofsuchactivitiesandworkisat
itsheightofdisproportion.
Anderspushedtoitsextremeaclaimthatalsowasmadebyhisex-wife,HannahArendt,namely,
thattheconcentrationcampsteachussomethinguniqueaboutthehumancondition: itisnotenough
tosuggestsimplythatofficersfollowtheordersoftheirsuperiorsbecausetheyarestupid. Instead,
subjectivizationhaslostitspowertokeepnormalpeoplefromdoinghorriblyevilthings. Anders
blamedthisnotsomuchonNaziortotalitarianideology,but,innuceonthespeedoftechnological
advancementinWesternsocieties,andourinabilitytokeepupwithitinimaginationandknowledge.
Like Hitler’s workers in the death factories who had “done nothing” wrong, today we are not
responsibleforwhatwecreate,forwealsohavedone“nothingbutwork”and(andherecontrary
toKarlJaspers’interpretation)fulfilledourspecializedroleinsociety. Ourworkhasfreedusfrom
responsibility to know what we do, to the point that “even the mass murderer” can be exempted
1 RobertOppenheimer,quotedin(Schweber2008,p.229).AndersworkwasnotunlikethatofUmbertoEco,whoaddressed
thesignificanceofourentertainingourselvesintoalullofcomplacencyandapathyaswemovetowardstheendtimes.See
(Elisabeth2014)
2 Andersexpressesourapocalypticsituationinauniquelytemporalway:“Forifthemankindoftodayiskilled,thenthat
whichhasbeen,dieswithit;andthemankindtocometoo. Themankindwhichhasbeenbecause,wherethereisno
onewhoremembers,therewillbenothinglefttoremember;andthemankindtocome,becausewherethereisnoto-day,
noto-morrowcanbecomeato-day. Thedoorinfrontofusbearstheinscription“Nothingwillhavebeen”andfrom
within:“Timewasanepisode”.Nothoweverasourancestorshadhoped,betweentwoeternities;butonebetweentwo
nothingnesses;betweenthenothingnessofthatwhich,rememberedbynoone,willhavebeenasthoughithadneverbeen,
andthenothingnessofthatwhichwillneverbe.”(AndersandEatherly1961,p.11)
3 (Ibid.p.12).Anderscastthisproblemasatechnologicalone:“Themomentdeviceswerereplacedbymachinessignaledthe
beginningoftheobsolescenceofhumanbeings”.Seealso(Schubert1987,p.55).
Religions2017,8,59 3of16
fromhisguilt(Anders2014b). Ofcourse,normalpeoplealwayshavebeencapableofdoinghorrible
evilthings,yetwhatisuniqueaboutmoderntechnologicaladvancementsisthattheyhavehelped
contributetoamachinationthatkeepsusmoreunawareofouractionsthaneverbefore.
Anders attends to a genealogy of these sociological facts, and demonstrates how our present
optimismsareinherentlyapocalypticfortheyendintotality. Thekernelofapocalypticblindnessand
bourgeois,bad-faithoptimismistraceablebacktowhatAndersoncenamedthe“Transcendenceofthe
Negative”inhis“ThesisforanAtomicAge”.ThispaperintroducestheworkofAndersmoregenerally,
addressesthephenomenological–theologicalimportofhiswork, andinvestigatesinparticularan
apocalyptictime-consciousnessviathis“TranscendenceoftheNegative”todemonstratethenecessity
ofarenewedsenseoftheapocalyptictoday.HisworkinDieAntiquiertheitdesMenschen1(Sectionthree,
“ÜberdieBombeunddieWurzelnUnsererApokalypse-Blindheit”)(Anders2002a)and“Thesesforan
AtomicAge”areprovidedasanchorpointsthatindicateformsofuniqueandspecificeschatological
involvementthattodayareinneedofreimagining. Notonlyistheologyunderthreatofmalpractice
whenitmarginalizestheapocalyptic,butsoisphenomenology. Forifanticipationisessentialtothe
transcendentalhorizon,andis,asLevinasobserves,preciselythatwhichonecannot“expect”,thenthe
propheticandpredictive“tocome”harboursfarmore“unveiling”(apokalypsis)potentialforthought
thanusuallyisgivencredit. AsAndersnoted,thefearorconcernwithwhichweoperatetodayis
hardlyproportionatetothethreatsthatstandbeforeus.
1. PhenomenologyandTheology: TwoContexts
1.1. ApocalypticTheologyandKäsemann
Anders’ apocalyptic work can be addressed more closely by juxtaposing it with two distinct
movementswithin(especiallypost-war)20thcenturyGermantheology,andphenomenology. Asfor
theformer,Andersmaintainedanoftenvexedrelationshipwithhistheologicalcontemporaries. More
positively,hisbeingbefriendedbyPaulTillichcameasaconsolationinthelate1920safterAnders’
failedhabilitation,whichpreventedhimfrombeingabletotakeupaprofessorship.4 Morenegatively,
hecriticizedhisgenerationoftheologiansaccordingtowhathecalled“Scheler’sDictum”fortheir
culturalandpoliticaloptimismsrevealedhowthey“believedintheexistenceofgodbutnotthedevil”.5
ThisgenerationoftheologicaldevelopmentinGermanyrancontrarytothecenturies-longChristian
commitmenttoarobustsenseoftheapocalyptic,anunveilingofthatwhichhasbeenfullypresentall
along,yethithertoconcealed. Inorderforeviltoberetained,ithasbeenunderstoodthatanapokálypsis
(apo—from,kalyptein—toconceal)orgreatun-covering(notunlikea-lethia)isnecessary. Onlythrough
the striking disclosure of things unknown can one’s life be altered dramatically. “Apocalypse” is a
momentofbeingappropriatedbyallthatisdisclosed,andwhentruthisgiveninawaythathenceforth
onlyhadbeenunveiledinhintsandsuggestions.
Althoughitwasnotuntilthe1880sthatthewordtookonanymeaningoftheimmanentend
of the world, the Book of Revelation given to John on the isle of Patmos in a dream, had already
associated apocalypse with the coming end of the world. To the likely surprise of many modern
scholars today, this book was one of the earliest of Biblical literature to have been accepted into
the sacred canon by Christians, most likely due to its paradoxical depiction of redemption in the
second coming of Christ, which further acted as confirmation of Jesus as the messiah for a young
andpersecutedbandofhisfollowersduringthisnascentperiodofChristianity. Asthefirstlineof
thebookofRevelationindicates,thiswastheapocalypse,unveiling,and“revelationofJesusChrist”
(Revelation 1:1) that points to the unconditional reign of God eternal in an eschatological horizon
4 AndersgavealectureonKafkain1934attheInstitutd’ÉtudesGermaniques:“TheologywithoutGod”.InregardstoTillich,
see(Anders1987,p.29)
5 Anders’workwasnotcontrarytoeschatologicalhope,yetfoundittobeoftenapreventerofhumanactionintimesofcrises.
(Anders2002b)
Religions2017,8,59 4of16
beyond formal principle. As Pannenberg understood, the relation between this kind of historical
unveilingand“truth”areessentiallysuturedtooneanother. Truthisnotunchangingandishistorical,
andthusmyfuture-relationisthefocalpointoftruthcomingintomanifestation.
Despitemoderntheology’soptimisticdistastefortheapocalyptic,therewasonemovementwithin
20thcenturyGermantheologythatcriticizedanybourgeoisinabilitytoseethe“negative”throughthe
realismandMarxismofdialecticaltheology. AnessentialfigureintheseregardsisErnstKäsemann,a
historicaltheologianwhoclaimedhismore“hermeneutic”contemporaries(e.g.,Bultmann)lacked
any polemical concern for Christian theology. He found that they ultimately attempted to purge
Christianapocalypticismfromeschatology,first,inordertomakeitscallmoreacceptabletomodern,
humanistears,andsecond,todevelopamoresubjectivist(andlesssocial)accountofsinandjudgment.
YetforKäsemannthecosmosreflectsthestateorconditionofhumankind,theconditionsofexistence
are afflicted in conjunction with humankind’s own existential state (Martyn 1997). Justification
is not only a subjective phenomenon, but carries over into a visible and objective degradation of
the world. This is creation as kurios. St Paul’s reference to the Day of Judgement, according to
Käsemann,iscosmologicallyapocalyptic,notsimply“forensic-eschatological”,asBultmannwould
haveit(Bultmann1952).
This apocalyptic vision of the end of the world maps an impassable cesura between natural
revelation andthe Offenbarung of God; two formsof reason wemodern scholarsare quickto fuse
intoone. UnderKäsemann’sanalysisthe“apocalyptic”,asonecommentatorrecentlyputit,“isthe
engineofPaul’sentiretheologicalvision”(DavisandHarink2012, p. 42). FindingalibisinOverbeck’s
teachings that early Christians acted in accord with beliefs that the destruction of the world was
immanentandthereforerejected“worldly”knowledge6,Weiss’revivalofeschatology(“consistent
eschatology”movement)throughinterpretingtheapocalypticinJesus’sermons(Weiss1971),and
Schweitzer’sinsistencethatonemustchoosebetweenacompleteskepticismora“thoroughgoing
eschatology”7 (Schweitzer 1968), Käsemann arrived at the conviction that living apocalyptically
is essential to living Christianly. Although reliant on neither a Marixan/Hegelian optics nor a
God-createdend-time,GüntherAndersalsowishedtorevealthetrue,Janus-facednatureofabourgeois
optimismwhose“peaceful”commitmentstotechnologicalprogressweremoreviolentthananyone
hadgiventhemcredit.
1.2. PhenomenologyandLevinas’Eschatology
Inregardstophenomenology,itwasLevinas(coincidentally,thefirsttotranslateAnders’work
intoFrenchinthe1930s)whofirstdevelopedthequestionofeschatologyandanticipationinrelation
toself-transcendenceviaanadaptationofHusserliantime-relationortime-consciousness. Hedidnot
seekan“unknown”kernelwithinthehorizonoftheknown,capableofproducingahermeneutics
without end, but rather sought, in a non-mystical fashion, the not-yet-known in the production
of concrete experiences as they alter and take new shape. Time entails change of all that endures
(not only the subject), yet eschatology is not a “beyond” that culminates in a seamless totality of
history’sunfoldings(Levinas1990). ExpressedintheprefacetoTotalityandInfinity,moralityisunder
constantsuspensionintimesofbothwarandpeace;moralityhasdistractedfromthegoalofethical
responsibility,whichentailsacertainrelationwiththeother,whosepresenceimmediatelybringsmy
morality under question.8 He found that war and peace both attest to the fight to live. To sustain
oneself or “endure” (to live or persist) through time is to struggle not to come to an end. Levinas
6 FranzOverbeck,quotedby(DavisandHarink2012,p.25).Overbeckstatedtheprobleminratherunambiguousterms:
“ifChristianityisconsideredasareligion,thenitisratherthecasethat,likeeveryreligion,ithasthemostunambiguous
antipathytowardsrationalknowledge.Isay‘likeeveryreligion’,becausetheantagonismbetweenfaithandknowledgeis
permanentandabsolutelyirreconcilable”.Davisinterpretsthistobeanapocalypticantinomyofbeliefandknowledge.
(Ibid.,p.24).
7 (Schweitzer1968,p.328).Coincidentally,SchweitzerwasatonepointincorrespondencewithAnders.
8 ForamuchmoredetailedreadingofLevinasonthequestionofeschatology,see(Richter2008).
Religions2017,8,59 5of16
investigatesthemeansof“desiringinfinity”itselfasitrelatestosubjectivelife,withmetaphysical
desireoperatingasthemaintainerofthedistancebetweensubjectsandtheirhopesforfulfillment.
Eschatologicallifeplaysanessentialroleinovercomingtotalityinorderforthismetaphysical
desiretobereleasedfromthatwhichbindsit: “Eschatologyinstitutesarelationwithbeingbeyond
thetotalityorbeyondhistory”withoutultimatelyovercomingboth“thepastandthepresent”for
“[t]heeschatologicalasthe‘beyond’ofhistory, drawsbeingsoutofthejurisdictionofhistoryand
the future; it arouses them ... to their full responsibility”.9 Eschatological vision does not seek a
fulfillmentofitshistoricaltraditionsandmyths,and“doesnotenvisagetheendofhistorywithin
beingunderstoodasatotality,butinstitutesarelationwiththeinfinityofbeingwhichexceedsthe
totality”.10 Itthusprovidesaphenomenologically-inspired,now-centeredvantagepointforcutting
against the grains of totality, promising a “relation with a being” as a “surplus always external to
totality”.11 Eschatologicallifedoessobycarburettingtwotypesoftime“aninfinitetimeandatimeit
willbeabletoseal,acompletedtime”.12 Completedtimeisintermittentanddiscontinuous,while
infinitetimeismessianicandhope-givingviaitspermanenceandduration.13
Theethicalrelation,ofcourse,isessentialinthisregard:eschatologicallifeopensupontheinfinite
taskofunconditionallywelcomingtheotherwhodisruptsontologybeyondresponsibility.Eschatology
traversescompleted,historical,timeandasBergointerprets,“givesrisetoapositionfromwhichto
judgethehistoryofhumanconflicts”.14 Levinasunderstoodtheessentialroleeschatologicallifehas
fortotalitybeingtranscended,whichresultsinaliberationfrompaststhathauntandcrippleus,both
intheindividualandcollectivecontexts.15 Althoughtheremaynotbeanuttertranscendenceoftime
itself,consciousnessisable,becauseoftheeschatologicalrelation,totranscendthelimitsdiachronic
timehasplacedonourlivedexistence. AsHeideggernotedandsurelyLevinasunderstood,since
everybeingistemporal,“eventhenon-temporal’andthe‘supra-temporal’are‘temporal’withregard
totheirBeing”(Heidegger1962). AsDaseinrelates,withDasein’sbeing-thrown-into-the-world,it
doesnotwillitstranscendentalrelation,and“Beingisthetranscendenspureandsimple”.16 Itthus
becomesthequestionofhowwerelatewiththecomingfuturesornon-futuresoftimeasitpasses,or
doesnotcometopass,notonlybyattemptingtotranscendthetotalityofthings,butalsowiththe
willtotranscend,whichindeedcanhaveatotalizingfunction: totranscendtimeentirelyistobeinfinite.
Although Anders would likely not disagree with Levinas’ analysis, especially since both thinkers
soughttouncoverthelivedtemporalrelationthatmakeswaramoderncondition,Anders’approach
addressedabackdoorthroughwhichtotalitystillcouldenter;somethingLevinashadnotconceived.
ThetwobackdropsofLevinasianphenomenology,andapocalyptictheologyfurnishabroadcontext
forAnders’interdisciplinaryapproachtotheaforementionedproblems.
9 AsLevinascontinues,“Submittinghistoryasawholetojudgment,exteriortotheverywarsthatmarkitsend,itrestoresto
eachinstantitsfullsignificationinthatveryinstant:allthecausesarereadytobeheard... ”(Levinas1969,pp.22–23)
10 (Ibid.,pp.22–23).
11 (Ibid.,preface).
12 (Ibid.,p.261).
13 Bergoconceivesthisas“adiscontinuoustimetraversedbytheinfinite‘messianic’timewhichdeclaresthepossibilityofthe
good”.(Bergo1999,p.135)
14 (Ibid.,p. 114). Bergocontinues,“Eschatologyisresponsibility. Butitgivesrisetosomethingotherthanresponsibility.”
Levinas’eschatologyisnottobeunderstoodasan“other”oftime,for“Eschatologyreferstoamomentinwhichconflict
andcalculationarebroughtinexplicablytoahaltbyanunforeseeablewelcomingoftheother”andthat“Eschatology,then,
isnotalogos”.Thisisbecauseitdoesnotattempttoengageinstrumentalreasonthatseekstomasterbeings,butdisrupts
ontology.(Ibid.,p.49).
15 InthecontextoftemporalityandtranscendenceinLevinas’work,see(Klun2007,pp. 587–603)There,Klunwonders”
“Wouldgenuinetranscendencenecessarilymeananegationoftimeinthesenseofsupra-temporalityortimelessness?”
(Ibid.,p.587).Seealso(Klun2012,pp.659–83)
16 (Ibid.,p.63).
Religions2017,8,59 6of16
2. Anders’WorkinGeneral
Anders’masterwork,theyet-to-be-translatedTheOutdatednessofMan,addressesandsynthesizes
selectthemesintoacohesiveanthropologicalreflectionthatemphasizeshowhumankindisbringing
aboutitsownoutdatednesstoday,inatechnologicaland“atomic”age.17 Wepresumethereareaspects
ofourworldthatarenothingbut“means”,whichare“clearlyperceptible”yetnotsubjecttoaction.
It is these means that are in fact all the more dangerous, for they shroud themselves in their own
seeminglymeaninglessfunctions. Yetinthiscase, themoremeaninglessnesstheyseem, themore
dangertheypotentiallyharbour. Inreality,weourselveshavebecomethemeanstobringingabout
ourowndeath,asthequantityandqualityofouractionsfarexceedourabilitytounderstandthem.
ThisisthedistinctionAndersmakesbetweenhumankind’spenchanttendenciesto“abstraction”from
variousmaterialandfactualrealities,suchasthethreatsoftheendoftheworld. Anderswasawareof
thefactthattherearepresentlynomorethanfivepeople,distributedamongsttheworldpowerblocks
andnations,thatholdthekeysthatwouldallowthem,inamatteroffiveminutes,tolaunchenough
nuclearweaponstowipeawaythefutureofhumankind,andalongwithit,allhistory.
Howhumanityhasgottentothispointisexplicableintermsofournewrelationswithtechnology,
following the first industrial age, when humankind transitioned from using tools and devices, to
employingmachinestoreplacetheworkofhumankindalltogether. Thisalteredandconfusedthe
meansbywhichhumankindunderstooditsplaceinthecosmosofactivity.InBurningConscience,Anders
initiatescorrespondenceandaseriesofletterexchangeswithClaudeEatherly,thepilotresponsible
forpushingthebuttontodropthebombonHiroshima. Thisone,verysimple,flipofaswitchset
offaseriesofeffectsreflectiveoftheburnt-upconscienceofmanhimself. Itattestedtohowtoday
mechanicaltechnologyallows,withsuchincredibleanduncannyease,fortheeradicationofanysense
ofresponsibilityforouractions. Thelossofconscienceandmoralresponsibilityismerelyaproductof
ourowndoingaswepassoffresponsibilitytoourspecialistauthorities,whichintheendhasbecome
technologyitself. Technologyiscreatingthesystemsoutofwhichweoperate,andinourveryspecific
rolesinthesocietiesofhistory,weareallbuttonpusherswhocannotfathomthevastmagnitudeof
suchpushing.
All of this has lent to a complex of seemingly contradictory meanings for how everyday
life is described today. On the one hand, we are literally omnipotent enough to blow up suns
and worlds, yet on the other, such total omnipotence entails that we must, in employing these
characteristics,beimpotentandultimatelynon-existent. Thisomnipotence/impotencefactorispart
andparcelofhumankind’sobsolescence,antiquatedness,andoutdatedness. Wearethussubjectto
“apocalyptic-blindness”inpartduetohowwenowallowtechnologiesto“speakonourbehalf”and
thus“transformusintominorsandsubordinates”(Anders2002b)tothepointthatweareable,without
knowingittobringabouttheendoftimeitself.18
Technologycanbedefinedasthe-without-us. Asweactanddevelopourtechnology,itisgrowing
ever more powerful, making us more and more obsolete, in order to operate without our consent.
Althoughweexertourwillovertheuseofsomedevices,morecomplexmachinesamounttooperating
withoutourinterestorawareness. Explicationofthiswithout-usisanotionconsistentlydeveloped
throughouthisoeuvre, andconcernshowtechnologyisthenew“subjectofhistory”thusmaking
humankindonly“co-historical”. InacreativeapophaticexpressionofNietzsche’sübermensch(the
callformantoovercomehimself)Andersdemonstrateshowinfactmankind’sdevelopments,such
as the hydrogen bomb, have overcome humankind’s abilities and operate without consent. This
17 AsignificantaspectofthisworkofAnders’isacriticismofourformsofmediatoday,namely,thatthemassesareaddicted
towhatisartificialviacommodification,andthatthisconsumptionisablindingofone’sactualactionsintheworld.Anders
anticipatedmanyoftheobservationsmadebytheFrenchSituationists,suchasGuyDebordintheSocietyoftheSpectacle.
18 DawirdieMachtbesitzen,einanderdasEndezubereiten,sindwirdiHerrenderApokalypse. DasUnendlichesindwir.”
(Ibid.,239).
Religions2017,8,59 7of16
“technificationofourbeing”hasrenderedresponsibilityvoidandobsolete.19 Technologicalobjects
shroudthemeaningsoflabourprocessesandentertainusintoformsofillusoryconsumption,whichare
castmerelyasmeansto—generallyunknown—ends. Technological-beinghasmadeusapocalyptically
blindtoourownpendingdoom.20 Thereforehumansarealready“antiquated”,andthusalltimeisat
“theend”;wearealreadyliving“intheendtimes”(asZizekquitelikelyappropriatedthetermfrom
Andersforamoreeconomicallyorientedagenda). Thisismorethantheendtimes,however;itisthe
timeoftheend. Thispointstoaradicaleschatologyasapocalyptic: asaninversionofomniscience,the
impotenceofhumansleavesnotimelefttotranscend. Itisastonishingthatiteveryonecancontribute
tobringingthisendabout,whileatthesame,absolutelynoonefeelingresponsibleforit.TheHandlung
ofresponsibilityhasbeenextractedfromhumanaction.
3. AndersandApocalypse
Giventhisbackground,itistechnologicalprogressthatholdshumandevelopmentinsuspense,
replacingtheSocraticcareforthesoulwithacarefor(andsubsequentservitudeunder)ourmechanical
advancement. Whatonecaresforandaboutisobservableinhistoricalappropriation—forwhatone
is willing to live and die, and to take risks to protect and save. Section 3 of Die Antiquiertheit des
Menschen“ÜberdieBombeunddieWurzelnUnsererApokalypse-Blindheit”(Anders2002a)depicts
anindustrialrevolutiongonemad,withthebombasanewphilosophical“terrain”(Gelände)21that
hasatoncespatialandtemporalconsequencesforourinabilitytorelateanylongerwithwhatisto
come.22 Humankinddevelopsitstechnologiesinlieuofitself,andthispresentsachallengingparadox:
humankindfindsitselfimmortalandevenomnipotentinitsoutsourcingproxiesoftechnology,yet
thisomnipotencycanultimatelyendinhumankind’sobliteration. Inthissense,mankindactsasa
counter-balancingtoGod’screativepowerbyturningbacktimetothenever-would-have-been.
Thisiswhytechnologicalmanisnota“nihilist”butasAndersputsit,anannihilist: “diepotestas
annihilationis,direductionadnihil”.23 Forthefirsttimeinhistoryweare“LordsoftheApocalypse”
butconstantlyunderourownthreat, andthereforesimultaneously“thefirsttitans”and“thefirst
dwarfs”.24 Theomnipotenceforwhichwehavesolongawaitednecessarilyendsinourself-destruction
preciselybymeritofthisveryomnipotence.25 Thisproducestwodistinctimpulsestocope. Either
webecome“historic”andoperatefromasourceofpowerbaseduponourorigins,orweresignto
19 ForAnders“thechainofeventsleadinguptotheexplosioniscomposedofsomanylinks,theprocesshasinvolvedso
manydifferentagencies,somanyintermediatestepsandpartialactions,noneofwhichisthecrucialone,thatintheend
noonecanberegardedastheagent.Everyonehasagoodconscience,becausenoconsciencewasrequiredatanypoint.”
(Anders1956).Seeherealso(Müller2015,pp.42–57)
20 ForAndersthisamountstoa“‘technification’ofourbeing:thefactthatto-dayitispossiblethatunknowinglyandindirectly,
likescrewsinamachine,wecanbeusedinactions,theeffectsofwhicharebeyondthehorizonofoureyesandimagination,
andofwhich,couldweimaginethem,wecouldnotapprove—thisfacthaschangedtheveryfoundationsofourmoral
existence.Thus,wecanbecome‘guiltlesslyguilty,’aconditionwhichhadnotexistedinthetechnicallylessadvancedtimes
ofourfathers.”(AndersandEatherly1961,p.1)
21 Anderswantstostudythebomb“asaphilosophicalterrain:”“AlsphilosophischesTerrainistdieBombe—oderrichtiger:
unserDaseinunterdemZeichenderBombe,dendiesistunserThema—einvölligunbekanntesGelände.”(Anders2002b,p.229).
22 AsinterpretedbyBabich,“Time,aswehaveseenthatAndersalsoreflectsuponit,isalwaysfoundtohaveakindtopology,
aspatialdimensionality,completewiththetopographicfeaturesofaparticularlandscape.”(Babich2013)
23 Anderscallsit“Annihilismus”—theatombombisthenew“spielart”ofnihilism.(Anders1980,p.293)
24 (Ibid.,p.235):“DawirHeutigendieerstenMenschensind,diedieApokalypsebeherrschen,sindwirauchdieersten,die
pausenlosunterihrerDrohungstehen.DawirdieerstenTitanensind,sindwirauchdieerstenZwergeoderPygmäen,oder
wieimmerwirundkollektivebefristeteWesennennenwollen,dienunnichtmehralsIndividuensterblichsind,sondern
alsoGruppe;undderenExistenznurbisaufWiderrufgestattetbleibt.”(“Wetodayarethefirstpeopletodominatethe
Apocalypse,wearethefirstwhoareconstantlyunderitsthreat.SincewearethefirstTitans,wearethefirstDwarves... ”).
25 (Ibid.,p. 233). Anderscontinues,andreferstotheinfinityofman’spower,andthereforehisomnipotence: “Wennes
imBewußtseindesheutigenMenschenetwasgibt,wasalsabsolutoderalsunendlichgilt,sonichtmehrGottesMacht,
auchnichtdiemachtderNatur,vondenangeblichenMächtenderMoraloderderKulturganzzuschweigen.Sondern
unsereMacht.AndieStelleder,omnipotenzbezeugenden,_creatioexnihiloistderenGegenmachtgetreten:diepotestas
annihilationis,direductionadnihil—undzwarebenalsMacht,dieinunserereigenenHandliegt. Dieproetheischseit
langemerssehnteOmnipotenzist,wennauchandersalsoerhofft,wirklichunseregeworden.DawirdieMachtbesitzen,
einanderdasEndezubefeiten,sindwirdieHerrenderApokalypse.DasUnendlichesindwir.”
Religions2017,8,59 8of16
nihilism,whichgivesthesenseofpowertoliberateourselvesfrompastidentities. Thisnihilismisan
infinitedeferralthroughabstraction,afalsesenseof(whatLiessmanncalled)“omnipresenceinspace
andtime”.26 Thisrendersanuncannyfeelinginus,anembarrassmentor“Prometheanshame”aswe
compareourselvestothetechnologiesandmachineswehavecreated,whichinmanyrespectsarefar
moreadvancedthanweare.
4. BlindOptimism
One can detect at least four bases of our false optimism (which goes hand-in-hand with
apocalyptic-blindness)inAnders’work,allofwhichmaintainatheologicalelement. First,Promethean
shameisthecentralroot(“DieHauptwurzel”)ofapocalypticblindness. Yetthisfeelingofbelittlement
byourownmachinerytendstobesuppressed,andweinsteadbuck-uptothisfearwithanentirely
unrealisticoptimismaboutourowndevelopment,mistakingthedevelopmentoftechnologyforourown.
Thisrepetitiveprocesshasledtotheabsolute“inabilitytofear”.27 Todayitisnotfearfromwhichwe
shouldbeliberated,butrathermisplacedhope. Acertainkindoffearisthekeytoourliberation,one
that“correspondstothemagnitudeoftheapocalypticdanger”.28
Asecondcontributingfactorisour“Fortschrittsgläube”or“belief-in-progress”(Anders1980,
p. 268). The incessant insistence on development, which leads to this blindness is in part because
“man believes in no end, man sees no end”. Christian eschatologies of escapism founded in
non-tribulationalismanda-millennialismultimatelypreventconcertedattentiontopresentdangers.
Theologyhaslostitsapocalypticfear,whichwasatonepointusefulasasocial“retainer”tokeepthis
belief-in-progressatbay. Anderscallsforarevivificationofapocalypticfear,althougha“non-religious”
one(“Apokalypse-Angstgeradebeinicht-Religiösen”29),forweareinnoneedofsymbolizationor
hermeneuticinterpretationoftheologicalrevelationswhentheend-of-timeisathand;ourpresent
problems, as Babich put it recently, are in no “need of subtle divination”.30 The key is not to
propheticallyraiseourawarenessofahoped-forcomingkingdom,buttotrimawaythefalsehopeto
whichmansoeasilysuccumbstoday.
Athirdbasisofthisoptimismisatheologicalabstractionandreferencetothe“inaccessible”. The
mysticsoften“seektoopenametaphysicalregion”yetavoiditonaccountoftheirownself-referred
“metaphysically-inferiorposition”.31 ForAndersthisultimatelysuppressesthewillandabilitytosee
“objectively”thesentientthreatsthatshouldconcernus. Whatisnecessaryisnotthiskindofmystical
“transcendence”,butratheran“immanenttranscendence”rootedindasGefälleor“fallenness”.32 Our
26 Further,thisattemptedpower-grabbingisto“ensurehisprovenance.”(Liessmann2014,p.74)
27 Thisistheageor“ZeitalterderUnfähigkeitzurAngst”.(Anders1972,p.257).
28 Heputsthisinsimilartermsinhis“CommandmentsintheAtomicAge:”“Thetruthisratherthecontrarythatwelive
inthe‘Ageofinabilitytofear’.”“Forceyourselftoproducethatamountoffearthatcorrespondstothemagnitudeofthe
apocalypticdanger.”(Anders1961,p.14)
29 ForAnders“einerstmaligerFall: Apokalypse-Angstgeradebeinicht-Religiösen—dannistnichtdiegeringstePanik
zu registrieren.” Man glaubt kein Ende, man sieht kein Ende—Der Fortschrittsbegriff hat uns apokalypse-blind
gemacht.”(Ibid.,p.271).
30 AsBabichinterprets,“Farfromanysymbolism,theapocalypseforAnderscouldhenceforthhavenothingwhatsoever
todowithanykindofsecondcoming,anysortofnewReich,anylastjudgment,oranythingatallthatonemightneed
to‘interpret.’ Whatwenolongerhaveishermeneuticesotericism: thereisno‘meaning’inneedofsubtledivination.”
(Babich2013).
31 ForAnders:“Aberdasbedeutetnatürlichnicht,dassessichinunseremFalleumeineechtemystischeAktionhandelt.
Der Unterschied bleibt trotz der Typus-Ähnlichkeit fundamental: Denn waehrend sich der Mystiker metaphysiche
Regionen zu erschließen sucht und in der Tatsache, dass diese ihm gewoehnlich unerreichbar bleiben, selbst etwas
Metaphysischessieht(naemlichdieFolgeseinereigenenmetaphysisch-inferiorenPosition);geltenunsereVersucheder
ErfassungvonGegenstaenden,überdiwirverfuegen;javonsolchen,diewir,wiedieBombe,selbsthergestellthaben;von
Gegenstaendenalso,diekeineswegsunsunerreichbarsind,sondernalleinunsalsVorstellendenundunsalsoFühlenden.”
(Anders1980,p.267).
32 Wasüberbrücktewerdensoll,istalsodurchauskeinTranszendenz,sondernhöchstenseine“immanenteTranszendenz”,
dasheisst:das‘Gefälle.”(Ibid.,p.267).dasGefällecanbevariouslytranslatedasslope,chasm,orafalling.“Fallenness”in
thiscaseisnotaprohibitedtranslation,asAndersmakesconstantreferencetotheabsolutenecessityof“enlighteningour
defects.”Further“dieAufklärungunseresDefektesnötigist,mussdaherversuchtwerden.”(Ibid.,p.277).
Religions2017,8,59 9of16
theologies have not gained the insight that what we create, our technologies, go ahead of us and
work on our behalf. What we “have” is at work without us whether we know it or even want it:
“‘Having’... inthiscase... automaticallybecomes‘doing.’”33Weagainfailtoseethemetaphysical
essenceatworkinthelatticesofreality.
MoreatfaultthanthiskindofharmatiologyisaMonismrootedinpantheism,or“morerightly:
ina‘pan-atheism’”thatpre-approvedalldevelopmentasineffect“natural”andthereforeinherently
good. This theological view endorsed “automatically the movement of optimism of our age: the
conceptofdevelopmentisintegratedwithinourconceptofnature”.34 Itisbelievedthatnatureis
notdegrading(deszendenztheorie),buteverincreasinginquality,andsothereforeishumankind. This
“secret maxim” of the bomb is “identical to that of monism”35, which is inherently nihilistic for it
paradoxicallyturnsablindeyetothenegativebyclaimingtoliveinthepresentmoment,ignoringthe
“end”andtheendsofourproductions. Asaresult,wehavespawned“nihilismonaglobalscale”.36 It
hasbeenclaimedmistakenlythatAnderswasanihilist,yetheinfactcriticizednihilismandassociated
itwithapocalypticblindness(Palaver2014). HeclaimedthatamongChristianmassesand“atheists”
alikethereisanunconsciouslyprevalentnihilismthatdrivesthefatalisminherentwithinoptimism.
We“areevenincapableoflosinghope”as“incurablyoptimisticideologists”who“eveninasituation
ofutterhopelessness”willdriftintodarknessquietly.37 Itismisplacedoptimismthat,forAnders,isa
coreofapocalypticblindness.
5. TranscendenceoftheNegative
ThiscritiqueofoptimismisessentialforAnders’subtleinsightregardingthe“Transcendence
of the Negative”, which could be interpreted in two ways. Anders claims we need to imagine
nothingness—thetotalnonexistenceofnotjustthingswithinframeworks,but“thisframeworkitself,
oftheworldasawhole”. Wehavefailedatdoingthisbecauseofourpowersforabstraction,which
endintheaforementionedblindoptimismsdetachedfromtherealityofwhatwedoandwhatwe
havecreated:
“Such ‘total abstraction’ (which, as a mental performance, would correspond to our
performance of total destruction) surpasses the capacity of our natural power of
imagination: ‘Transcendence of the Negative.’ But since, as ‘homines fabri,’ we are
capableofactuallyproducingnothingness,wecannotsurrendertothefactofourlimited
capacityofimagination: theattempt,atleast,mustbemadetovisualizethisnothingness.”
(Anders2014b)
33 (Ibid.,p.285).Thisisinthecontextof“having”theAtomicbomb,whichprovesforusthatthethingswehave,despite
theirnotbeingemployedordeployed,arealwaysatwork:“Abergleich,obwirdieSchuldSehendenzuschreibenoder
Blinden—dasmoralischentscheidendeFaktumbestehtnatürlichnichtinderApokalypse-Blindheit,sonderninderBombe
selbst;inderTatsache,dasswirsiehaben.UnddahabenwiewirfrühergezeigthattenindiesemFalle,gleichobderHabende
eswünschtodernicht,automatischzum‘Tun’wird,bedeuteddas,dassdasFaktum,umdasermoralischhiergeht,die
BombealsTatist.”
34 (Ibid.,p.310):“derMonismusschillerte,imUnterschiedezumrussischen,ineinenenthusiastischenPantheismus,richtiger:
ineinen“Pan-Atheismus”hinueber. DievonderTheologieseitehundjebehaupteteIdentitätvonPantheismusund
AtheismuswurdedamalsalsowirklichzumEreignis.Dazukam,dassdieBewegungautomatischdenOptimismusdes
zeitalters:denFortschrittsbegriffinseinenNaturbegriffintegrierte—wiemandennueberhauptdieDeszendenztheory,
den,inderNatur‘nachgewiesenen’Fortschrittdazubenutzte,umdieuniverselleGueltigkeitderFortschrittkategorie
zubeweisen.”
35 (Ibid.,p.291):“DieGeheimmaximederBombeistidentischmitderdesMonismusbzw.Nihilismus;dieBombebenimmt
sichwieeinNihilist.”Und“derMassen-NihilismusunddieMassen-Annihilationgeschichtlichzusammenfielen,dasist
äuserstefrappant.”
36 (Ibid.,286):““DieHerrenderBombesindNihilisteninAktion.”“schuldigdesNihilismus;desNihilismusinglobalem
Maßstabe.” To the question “Was ist eigentlich “nihilismus?”“ Anders’ answers “der Nihilismus der Effekt eines
katastrophenhaftenEreignisses.”(Ibid.,p.289).
37 AnderscontinueswithareflectiononSamuelBeckett’s“WaitingforGodot”:“WhatBeckettpresentsisnotnihilism,butthe
inabilityofmantobeanihilisteveninasituationofutterhopelessness.Partofthecompassionatesadnessconveyedbythe
playspringsnotsomuchfromthehopelesssituationassuchasfromthefactthatthetwoheroes,throughtheirwaiting,
showthattheyarenotabletocopewiththissituation,hencethattheyarenotnihilists.”(Anders2014a)
Religions2017,8,59 10of16
Ourabstractionhascometoadangerousintermissioninwhichwemustfindawaytorespondthat
correspondstothethreatlevelourapocalypticsituationhascreated. Ourcapacityforimagination,
whichiscapableofprojectingfuturepotentialities,hasbeensquelchedbyalimitedsenseoftime. We
needtobroadenoursenseoftimeandthehorizonofourimaginationtoincludeavisionforhowthose
thingswehavecreatedaregoingaheadofus,workingwithoutus. Wemuststretchthiscapacityto
imagine“nothingness”itself.
Inafirstsense,“transcendenceofthenegative”isdescriptiveofourtrenchantabilitytoabstract.
The “negative” here is understood in the subjective genitive, as that which we mistakenly try to
“overcome”. Weareallescapistshidinginthe“ivorytowerofperception”,andphenomenologists
especiallyhavethespecialabilitytobuildandresideinsuchatower.38 Transcendencetypicallyis
understoodonlyinitspositiveelement;withtherootofascendenceorcrescendoorascension,andprefix
trans,or“goingbeyond”itispresumedtoentailapositivedevelopmentofshe/hewhotranscends.
Yet,centraltoitscoreisamovementbeyondthepaleofnormalitythatentrapsusinbarelife. Anders’
polemicaluseof“transcendence”inthiscontextpointstoakindofcapacityoftranscendentalactivity,
whichretainsanegativeelement. Thisisthedarksideofthecapacitytotranscend—toseekdistance
fromtherealitiesofourlessthanhopedforproductions. Thisiswhyweare“invertedUtopians”:
“whileordinaryUtopiansareunabletoactuallyproducewhattheyareabletovisualize,weareunable
tovisualizewhatweareactuallyproducing”.39 To“expandthecapacityofyourImagination”,and
theabilitytotranscendthetranscendenceofthenegative,means,inconcreto: “increaseyourcapacity
tofear”.40
Thecapacityofimaginationofthenegativeallowsustoseeourrelationswithourtechnologies
forwhattheyare.41 Onlythosewhocanlearnhowto“visualizetheeffectofhisdoings... hasthe
chanceoftruth”(Anders2014b). Thisimaginationinvolvesaphenomenologyofthingsthatinquires
into the effective reality of what our things “do”, as nothingness calls us to something greater as
asymbolforfreedom(Schraube2005). Sincenothingnessisthefinal,restinghorizonofnegativity,
itsideaofnon-beingcallsforonetonotbeboundbythecategoriesandlaminatesthathavecome
to define oneself. “Getting over” the negative is something usually celebrated, and often touted
todayaspreciselyreligiousandtranscendent. Onemustremainpositive. YetAndersconceivesof
“transcendence”notsimplyaccordingtoacontextoftheunconditionalorAbsolute,buttoacondition
of possibility and a movement of extension in general. The involuntary transcendence according
towhichweoperatetodayistheendowingofourtechnologieswiththetranscendentalfunctionof
“goingbeyond”onourbehalf,yetwithoutus.
Inasecondinterpretation,the“negative”herecouldbeunderstoodasanobjectivegenitive,which
wouldmakethenegativeameansofovercoming. Inwhichcase,thetranscendenceofthenegativeis
alsoaninvolution.Totranscendistoinfinitelygobeyond,andtonegate“thewhatis”inordertoarrive
atwhattrulyis. Inthephenomenologicalepoché,oneistoposit“nothing”andtooperatewithan
absenceofapositiveinordertoarriveata“pureobservation”. Intheend,transcendence,forAnders
isnotmerelytheecstasyofconsciousness. Itisnot,asLevinasalsounderstood,anopenself-projection,
a false transcendence or immanence manquée.42 Instead of transcending the negative, transcendence
isthenegativeandacomingtotermswiththefreedominherentwithinaphenomenologicaloptics.
Correspondingly,thetranscendentalperspective,properlyunderstood,wouldbepurenegativity.
Transcendence,then,wouldnotbean“overstepping”ofthatwhichnegates,butratheranactive
anticipation of being ahead of oneself. This can be read back into phenomenology. As Levinas
38 (Ibid.,thesis12).
39 (Ibid.,thesis9).
40 (Ibid.,thesis13).
41 Imaginingthenegativeisacapacityor“candoability”thatseekswhatisnot“done”.
42 ItisperhapsHeideggeragainstwhombothLevinasandAndersarecastingtheirthought. InSeinundZeitDaseinis
developedasa“being-free-for,”asanalwaysout-there.InthislimitedsenseDaseinisalwaysResTranscenens.