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.