The philosopher Hubert Dreyfus and his former student Sean Dorrance Kelly have a story to tell, and it is not a pretty tale for us moderns. Ours is an age of nihilism, they say, meaning not so much that we have nothing in which to believe, but that we don’t know how to choose among the various things to which we might commit ourselves. Looking down from their perches at Berkeley and Harvard, they see the “human indecision that plagues us all.” In All Things Shining they offer readings of classic texts to show both how we got into this mess and how we can overcome it.
Though brief, this is an ambitious book, offering insightful readings of authors including Homer, Dante, Descartes and Kant, as well as the novelists Herman Melville and David Foster Wallace. Dreyfus and Kelly believe that great books are the “gathering places” where the major forces of a culture are focused, and so they are able to chart our descent from Homer’s gratitude before many gods to Wallace’s paralysis before a plethora of choices.
All Things Shining is not a book that asks, though, which Greeks would have been filled with gratitude, or which Americans have so many options that they are overcome by indecision. The philosophers stay very general, so everyday religious practices, poverty and gender dynamics play no role. This is especially unfortunate because it undermines their call to pay attention to, and be grateful for, the ordinary things around us.
Like Allan Bloom and Harold Bloom, and more recently David Denby and Alain de Botton, Dreyfus and Kelly think that classic texts point the way out of our contemporary malaise. They focus on philosophical issues, relying heavily on a version of Martin Heidegger’s narrative of cultivated despair with our technological age. Once upon a time in the West, way before Socrates and Plato kicked off what we now think of as philosophy, people were open to the wonderful variety of things. When we began to look for the Truth, however, we got locked into a cycle of certainty and skepticism.
Our desire for an Essence or a God to anchor the world made us increasingly oblivious to our experience of it. As our monotheistic quest for the foundation of meaning fell short, we slid down the slippery slope toward nihilism, toward the sense that nothing had any sense at all. As we strove to get out of this morass, we only slipped further, since striving was a big part of the problem.
For Heidegger, particularly after his awful alliance with the Nazis, finding a way to listen to great works of art and philosophy, to hear the lessons of the poets and craftsmen, was our only hope for turning away from contemporary emptiness and oblivion. Dreyfus and Kelly provide an Americanized version of Heidegger’s narrative: Wallace and Melville play crucial roles, and the book ends by extolling the openness to communal feelings Americans display at sports events.
Dreyfus and Kelly see in the Homeric past a world in which “the highest form of human excellence” is “to recognize, be amazed by, and be grateful for whatever it is that draws you to act at your best.”
They say that Homer’s heroes were able to open themselves to a variety of gods, to “whatever stands beyond us that requires our gratitude.” In the authors’ reading of Homer and other texts, they rely heavily on Heidegger’s concept of “attunement,” which conveys how receptive moods allow us to acknowledge meaning in the world. We get out of tune when we pursue monotheism, the notion that there is a unifying principle at work in the world, because we then try too hard to make the universe reveal its secrets or serve our interests. When we try too hard, we lose touch with the world.
Great books are there to reconnect us. Dreyfus and Kelly admire Dante’s focus on the saving power of various forms of desire, but find that his ultimate emphasis on the overwhelming bliss of contemplating God “makes all other earthly joys irrelevant.” Dante’s achievement turns out to be “not the answer to nihilism but another step in its direction.” Similarly, the philosophical focus after Descartes and Kant is on the autonomous self as the basis for knowledge, but the authors explore how the idea of a human subject able to bestow meaning on inert objects winds up undermining our openness to the world.
The reading of Moby-Dick is the most exciting and provocative part of All Things Shining. The authors see Ahab’s determination as “the wicked core of his monomaniacal monotheism,” and they understand the novel as a stirring critique of the modern search for an existential foundation.
“At the center of Melville’s understanding of the whale is the idea that there is no meaning to the universe hidden behind its surface events, that the surface events themselves” are all there is. This is vital and important, but Dreyfus and Kelly undercut their own message by claiming that “a whole pantheon of gods is really there.” Why invoke these gods when the surface events are supposed to be enough?
Dreyfus and Kelly invoke these gods because they want us to receive something really deep and powerful, and they give the example of being overwhelmed by emotions in crowds. But then they awkwardly depart from their poems, novels and plays to cite feelings of oneness in a crowd watching Roger Federer play tennis! Can privileged, happy spectators really stand as an antidote for the general affliction of modernity? Is “whooshing” along with a crowd the philosophers’ cure for nihilism or just its expression?
In what seems like an afterthought, they try to distinguish between sharing joy at a game and at a Nazi rally. The authors say more than once that they want their readers to be able to recognize “when to rise up as one with the ecstatic crowd and when to turn heel and walk rapidly away.” But they fail to show how what they call the “higher-order skill” of reverence will help in this regard, and they don’t even consider that fighting the Nazis might be an alternative to either joining or walking away.
Despite its shortcomings, All Things Shining repays attention and reflection. It is a fascinating read and deserves an audience far beyond the borders of academia. Even if you don’t agree that we are caught in an age of nihilistic indecision, if you attune yourself to the authors’ energetic intelligence and deep engagement with key texts in the West, you will have much to be grateful for.
Michael Roth is the president of Wesleyan University and the author of ‘The Ironist’s Cage.’
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
Peter Brighton was amazed when he found the giant jackfruit. He had been watching it grow on his farm in far north Queensland, and when it came time to pick it from the tree, it was so heavy it needed two people to do the job. “I was surprised when we cut it off and felt how heavy it was,” he says. “I grabbed it and my wife cut it — couldn’t do it by myself, it took two of us.” Weighing in at 45 kilograms, it is the heaviest jackfruit that Brighton has ever grown on his tropical fruit farm, located