Mephistopheles Is a Physicalist: How an Incoherent Ontology Lies at the Center of the Polycrisis

Abstract

In this comprehensive exploration, we navigate the intricate interplay of physicalism, post-modernism, and the profound quest for meaning in the context of the contemporary “polycrisis.” Our analysis begins by acknowledging the pervasive influence of physicalism on Western culture. We dissect the core claims of physicalism and its implications for societal attitudes and behaviors, unveiling the consequences of what Eric Fromm termed “modal confusion.”

We then delve into the natural extensions of physicalism in the form of “will to power philosophies” such as post-modernism and Marxism. These philosophical frameworks, deeply rooted in the quest for power and material redistribution, are examined within the context of the Pareto Principle, which underscores the concentration of power and wealth within a select few. We also draw intriguing parallels between the rejection of Being symbolized by Mephistopheles and the nihilistic conclusions propagated by these “will to power philosophies.”

To ground our exploration in empirical evidence, we explore the Meaning Crisis as articulated by John Vervaeke and others. We connect this crisis to the nihilistic underpinnings of physicalism and its philosophical extensions, revealing a society grappling with a profound sense of meaninglessness.

However, our journey is not one of despair but of dissent. We present voices like Bernardo Kastrup, Donald Hoffman, and Iain McGilchrist, who challenge the hegemony of physicalism with insights from neuroscience, quantum physics, and philosophy. These voices open the door to alternative narratives, raising questions about the adequacy of a purely physicalist worldview.

Finally, we propose a vision for post-modernism liberated from the presupposition of physicalism—a post-modernism that encourages the recognition and integration of societal shadows, guided by principles akin to Jungian individuation. This transformative approach seeks to promote self-awareness, ethical growth, and societal evolution, offering a pathway to navigate the Meaning Crisis and address the intricate challenges of the contemporary polycrisis.

Introduction

In the tumultuous landscape of contemporary philosophy and culture, three interconnected ideas have risen to prominence, each leaving an indelible mark on the way we perceive reality and society. These ideas, physicalism, post-modernism, and Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power,” have not merely remained confined within the walls of academia; they have infiltrated the very essence of our cultural fabric (Smith, 2020). Meanwhile, society is facing the “polycrisis,” a multifaceted crisis of meaning and identity that has roots deeply entangled in these philosophical currents and which encompasses other crises, from climate change, to the fall of Western democratic ideals, to the Meaning Crisis, itself. 

To navigate this intricate web of ideologies and their profound implications, we begin by elucidating the ascent of physicalism, post-modernism, and the will to power, unveiling their core tenets (Johnson, 2018). Post-modernism, a philosophical movement that challenges the concept of absolute truth, foregrounds the relativity of truth and champions the deconstruction of established norms (Lyotard, 1984). Simultaneously, Nietzsche’s “will to power” concept postulates that power dynamics are not only intrinsic to individual lives but also extend to the very structures of society (Nietzsche, 1883).

However, the fulcrum upon which these ideologies pivot, often obscured but undeniably significant, is metaphysical physicalism—the belief that only the physical world exists, reducing mental phenomena to physical processes (Kim, 2005). This unspoken foundation underlies many worldviews, even those that appear to contradict it, such as religious dualism (Dennett, 1991).

This brings us face to face with Eric Fromm’s concept of modal confusion, shedding light on how an overemphasis on physicalism redirects our focus from the “being mode” to the “having mode” (Fromm, 1976). Moreover, we delve into how “will to power philosophies,” including post-modernism and Marxism, naturally extend from physicalist metaphysics, applied respectively to anthropology and economics (Foucault, 1972; Marx, 1867). In the midst of this exploration, we confront the Pareto Principle, underscoring the unequal concentration of power and wealth in societies (Pareto, 1906).

As we grapple with these philosophical currents, we encounter the enigmatic character of Mephistopheles, drawn from Goethe’s “Faust,” who symbolizes the rejection of Being itself. His existence parallels the nihilistic outcomes of “will to power philosophies” that have come to define our society (Goethe, 1808). Compounding the issues is the Meaning Crisis, a phenomenon that statistical evidence shows to be on the rise, as described by scholars like John Vervaeke and others (Vervaeke, 2020).

To solve the polycrisis, we must first scrutinize the very foundations of physicalism, exposing its core claims and thereby challenging the ideologies it sustains (Chalmers, 1996). In conclusion, we cast our gaze toward a post-physicalist society, one that reevaluates philosophical assumptions and embraces a holistic understanding of reality. In this envisioned world, meaning, purpose, and interconnectedness emerge as guiding principles in our quest for a more meaningful and harmonious existence.

What is the Polycrisis?

In contemporary discourse, historians and scholars are increasingly using the term “polycrisis” to encapsulate the multifaceted and interrelated crises that are currently challenging societies across the globe (Smith, 2020). The polycrisis is not a single, isolated issue but a complex tapestry of challenges that span the realms of politics, economics, culture, and philosophy. To comprehend the gravity of this situation, it is essential to dissect its constituent crises and understand their intricate connections.

The polycrisis encompasses a wide array of challenges, including:

• Environmental Crisis: The climate crisis, loss of biodiversity, and environmental degradation pose an existential threat to the planet. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and diminishing natural resources are pressing issues (IPCC, 2018).
• Political Crisis: Democracies worldwide are facing growing polarization, erosion of democratic norms, and threats to the rule of law. Authoritarianism is on the rise in some regions (Mounk, 2018).
• Economic Crisis: Economic inequality has reached alarming levels in many countries, with disparities in wealth distribution contributing to social unrest (Piketty, 2014).
• Health Crisis: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in global healthcare systems, highlighting the need for better pandemic preparedness and healthcare infrastructure (WHO, 2020).
• Social Crisis: Issues such as racial injustice, gender inequality, and social exclusion continue to challenge the social fabric in various nations (Alexander, 2010; Sen, 1999).
• Information Crisis: The proliferation of misinformation and fake news has eroded trust in institutions and deepened societal divisions (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017).
• Meaning Crisis: A crisis of meaning and identity, characterized by widespread existential despair and nihilism, has emerged as individuals grapple with the implications of the prevailing ideologies (Vervaeke, 2020).

These crises are not isolated phenomena; they interact and exacerbate each other, creating a complex web of challenges that is difficult to untangle. For example, economic inequality can fuel political polarization, while environmental degradation can lead to displacement and social unrest. Moreover, the information crisis can distort public discourse on these issues, making it challenging to find viable solutions.

The term “polycrisis” underscores the urgency of addressing these interconnected challenges as a unified whole, recognizing that solutions to one crisis often have ripple effects on others. In this context, philosophical paradigms, such as physicalism and the “will to power,” play a critical role, shaping our perceptions of reality and influencing the actions we take in response to the polycrisis.

What does physicalism claim?

Metaphysical physicalism, often referred to simply as physicalism, is a philosophical stance asserting that the fundamental nature of reality is solely composed of physical entities and processes. It posits that everything, including mental phenomena, consciousness, and subjective experiences, can be ultimately reduced to or explained by physical components (Chalmers, 1996). To understand the core claims of physicalism, we must explore its foundational principles:

• Physical Monism: At the heart of physicalism is the belief in monism, which asserts that there is only one fundamental kind of substance or reality. In the case of physicalism, this monism declares that the physical, material world is the sole ontological reality. This means that mental states, thoughts, and consciousness are not distinct substances but are ultimately grounded in the physical (Kim, 2005).
• Causal Closure of the Physical: Physicalism posits the causal closure of the physical domain. This claim suggests that all physical events and phenomena have physical causes, meaning that mental events or consciousness are ultimately determined by and can be explained by physical processes (Kim, 1993).
• Reductionism: Physicalism often aligns with reductionism, the view that complex phenomena can be reduced to simpler, more fundamental entities or principles. In the case of mental phenomena, reductionists within the physicalist camp argue that consciousness can ultimately be reduced to the behavior of neurons, synapses, and other physical entities in the brain (Churchland, 1986).
• Objective Empirical Methods: Physicalism is committed to the idea that objective empirical methods, such as those used in the natural sciences, are the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge about the world. This commitment to empirical investigation reinforces the belief that the physical world is the primary source of knowledge (Bickle, 2019).
• Supervenience: Physicalism often employs the concept of supervenience, which means that mental properties or states supervene on physical properties. In other words, any change in mental states must correspond to a change in physical states. This concept seeks to bridge the gap between the mental and physical realms (Kim, 1998).

Physicalism has been a dominant position in Western philosophy for much of the 20th century and continues to influence various fields, including the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Indeed, most scientists (even those who view philosophy as outdated and useless) presuppose physicalism without ever questioning its core tenets. However, physicalism is not without its challenges and criticisms. Critics argue that physicalism struggles to account for the subjective nature of consciousness and the “hard problem of consciousness” posed by philosophers like David Chalmers (Chalmers, 1996). Furthermore, debates persist about whether physicalism can fully explain mental properties and whether it can accommodate emergent phenomena. As we’ll see later on, a renaissance of thought is underway in the field of metaphysics–major challenges to physicalism are adding up, and physicalism’s shortcomings have been laid bare. We’ll explore those in depth in a later section.

For now, understanding the core claims of metaphysical physicalism is crucial as we discuss its role in shaping contemporary thought and its connection to the polycrisis. By examining these foundational principles, we can better appreciate the influence of physicalism on the prevailing ideologies that define our era.

Physicalism is embedded in Western culture

Physicalism, as a dominant metaphysical stance, has permeated Western culture at multiple levels, influencing not only academic thought but also various aspects of society, including religion, consumerism, and our fundamental relationship with the world. Its pervasive presence shapes our worldview and the way we perceive reality. 

The scientific method, grounded in empiricism and materialism, is a cornerstone of modern academia. Physicalism aligns with this paradigm, with scientific research often premised on the idea that the physical world is the primary source of knowledge. Academic disciplines across the spectrum, from physics and biology to psychology and sociology, often operate under the assumptions of physicalism (Dennett, 1995). As such, Western thinkers often mistakenly conflate the physicalist worldview with the scientific worldview, and come to see any position that challenges physicalism as unscientific. However, science is ontologically neutral–all of the major metaphysics utilize the empirical data of science to argue for their positions. But physicalism has become a kind of parasite on the back of science, and often cites the successes of science as its own. This, however, is fallacious (Kastrup, 2019; 2021). 

Even in religious traditions that espouse dualism (Harrison, 2002), the idea of a separation between the physical and the spiritual, physicalism’s influence is palpable. In Western religions, there’s often a tacit acceptance of physicalist principles, with believers holding both physical and spiritual beliefs simultaneously, sometimes causing what Eric Fromm called “modal confusion” (Fromm, 1976). 

For example, the fundamentalism, scriptural literalism, and political involvement of American evangelicalism are results of religious groups assigning truth value to only a materialist interpretation of the Bible. Ironically, they adopt a view similar to that of the New Atheists; unless a given story in the Bible corresponds to a historical event in physical reality, that story’s truth value is diminished. As such, religious groups strip their sacred text of its symbolic and metaphorical levels of meaning.

Of course, with that literalism comes the necessary next step of taking political action. For if their single interpretation of their religion is deemed the only source of truth, then it logically follows that they must weaponize the state in order to enforce that dogma on the entire population. As such, we have seen in America the evangelical voting bloc gain increasing power in the political system, specifically on the conservative side of the aisle. Most telling of all, they often support policies that utilize the government in order to advance their agenda at the expense of individual freedom, which is diametrically opposed to the values espoused by conservatism. 

The above are consequences of the physicalist worldview infecting even pockets of society that should, in theory, have been most immune to it–religion. Nowhere in that cocktail of materialist rationalism can be found “religio,” the function of religion; that is, the “re-linking” of the individual to their larger reality, be that God or nature. The effect is that faith traditions are captured by the having mode–religion necessarily becomes the having of dogma, arbitrary scriptural interpretations, and equally idiosyncratic definitions of morality, rather than an ecology of practices that facilitate being connected to God, nature, and each other. 

Additionally, Western consumer culture is deeply intertwined with physicalism. The relentless pursuit of material possessions and the belief that happiness can be found in acquiring more physical goods align with the “having mode” rather than the “being mode” (Fromm, 1976). This mode of existence is closely tied to physicalist notions of fulfillment (Campbell, 1987).

The rapid advancements in technology and the digital age further reinforce physicalism. The digital world, often seen as a purely physical domain of algorithms and data, reinforces the idea that the physical is all-encompassing. Our increasing reliance on technology to mediate our experiences and interactions reinforces a physicalist perspective (Postman, 1993). However, because technology has been an achievement of science and, as we’ve already said, science is ontologically neutral, physicalism’s attempts to claim these successes as its own are fallacious. 

Physicalism has also shaped Western attitudes towards the environment. The view that nature is primarily a physical resource to be exploited for human benefit aligns with physicalism’s reductionist perspective on the natural world (Merchant, 1980). It’s not hard to trace the rise of physicalist materialism and consumerism to the current impacts of the environmental crisis. The prevailing Western worldview, influenced by physicalism, often treats nature as an object to be studied, controlled, or commodified rather than as a holistic, interconnected system. This perception underpins many environmental challenges we face today, including man-made climate change (Naess, 1989).

Economic systems in the West, particularly capitalism, often operate on the premise of material accumulation and competition for physical resources. This economic philosophy shares affinities with physicalism, as it emphasizes the acquisition of wealth and power in the physical realm (Marx, 1867). Importantly, rival theories to capitalism, such as Marxism, are also centered on wealth and power, but are more focused on the distribution side of the economic equation than the production side. 

The embedding of physicalism in Western culture, often unquestioned and implicit, raises important questions about the nature of human existence, the value of non-physical aspects of life, and the consequences of this worldview on the individual and society. As we continue to explore the implications of physicalism on the polycrisis and its role in shaping contemporary ideologies, it is vital to recognize the depth of its influence and its multifaceted presence in Western culture.

What is Nietzsche’s “will to power”?

The concept of the “will to power” is a central tenet of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, serving as a foundational idea that underpins many of his works, most notably in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (Nietzsche, 1883). The will to power represents a complex and multifaceted notion that transcends traditional understandings of power. 

Nietzsche introduced the will to power as a fundamental, primordial drive that he believed underlays all human actions and even the entire natural world. It is an inherent force, a striving for self-preservation and expansion. The will to power goes beyond conventional notions of power as mere domination or control (Kaufmann, 1967). Instead, it encompasses the desire for self-realization, creativity, and the expression of one’s unique individuality. Nietzsche believed that human beings are driven not only by a desire for power over others but also by a will to affirm and enhance their own existence.

Nietzsche saw the will to power as a creative force that propels individuals to overcome obstacles, challenge societal norms, and continually strive for self-improvement (Kaufmann, 1967). It is not limited to the acquisition of power but extends to the pursuit of excellence and the realization of one’s potential. Nietzsche extended the concept of the will to power to society, asserting that power dynamics are intrinsic to social structures. He argued that societies are characterized by power struggles and hierarchies, with individuals and groups vying for dominance. This application of the will to power laid the foundation for Nietzsche’s critique of traditional morality, which he saw as a manifestation of power dynamics (Nietzsche, 1883).

Nietzsche envisioned the Ubermensch, or “Overman,” as an individual who fully embraces the will to power. The Ubermensch transcends conventional morality and societal constraints, forging their own values and living authentically according to their own will (Nietzsche, 1883). He saw the will to power as a response to the nihilistic tendencies he observed in Western culture (Nietzsche, 1887). In a world where traditional religious and moral frameworks were eroding, he believed that the will to power offered a potential path to overcome nihilism by affirming life’s inherent value. Indeed, his often repeated quote about the death of God was not a celebration of that event, but rather the statement of a problem–if you destroy that which has been the foundation of society, what will replace it? Moreover, the resulting period of instability could cause that society to fall apart, as everything upon which it has been constructed is called into question and deconstructed. 

What is post-modernism?

Post-modernism is a philosophical and cultural movement that emerged in the mid-20th century, challenging and deconstructing many traditional assumptions about knowledge, truth, and society. This multifaceted movement encompasses a range of perspectives, but several core claims are central to understanding post-modernism.

First, post-modernism rejects the idea of grand, overarching narratives, often referred to as metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984). These narratives, whether religious, philosophical, or political, have traditionally provided a framework for explaining the world and guiding human behavior. Post-modernists argue that metanarratives are inherently exclusionary and cannot capture the complexity and diversity of human experiences.

Second, post-modernism embraces relativism and pluralism (Rorty, 1989), suggesting that there are no objective, universal truths or values. Instead, it emphasizes that knowledge and values are socially constructed and context-dependent. Different cultures and individuals may have their own interpretations of reality, and all should be acknowledged and respected.

Another key element of post-modernism is deconstruction (Derrida, 1976), a method of analyzing texts and ideas. Deconstruction involves examining the underlying assumptions and binary oppositions in a text to reveal the ambiguity and instability of meaning. This process challenges the idea of fixed, authoritative interpretations. Post-modernism is also skeptical of language’s ability to convey objective truth (Foucault, 1966). Language, according to post-modernists, is a social construct with inherent biases and limitations. It can be used to exert power and control, shaping our perceptions of reality. Additionally, post-modernism rejects the idea of foundational knowledge or fixed foundations upon which knowledge can be built (Fish, 1980). Instead, it views knowledge as contingent, shaped by historical and cultural contexts.

Furthermore, post-modernists are concerned with power and how it operates within society (Foucault, 1972). Michel Foucault’s work on the relationship between power and knowledge highlights how institutions, ideologies, and discourses shape our understanding of reality. Post-modernism encourages questioning the structures that uphold power and privilege. It celebrates difference and the hybridity of identities (Bhabha, 1994). It challenges essentialist views that reduce individuals to fixed categories and emphasizes the fluidity of identity. This perspective has contributed to discussions of multiculturalism and diversity.

Lastly, post-modernists, notably Jean Baudrillard, explore the concept of hyperreality, where simulations and representations of reality become more significant than the reality itself (Baudrillard, 1981). This idea challenges traditional notions of authenticity and truth.

Post-modernism has had a profound impact on various fields, including literature, art, architecture, sociology, and philosophy. Its emphasis on questioning established norms, embracing diversity, and deconstructing hierarchies continues to influence contemporary thought and cultural production.

Post-modernism is rebranded Marxism

Post-modernism, while distinct from Marxism in many ways, does share similarities and can be viewed as a rebranded or evolved form of Marxist thought with a broader scope that extends beyond economics. One key aspect of this relationship is the shift in focus from the oppression of the poor by the rich, as emphasized in classical Marxism, to the oppression of the marginalized by the powerful, a more encompassing view of societal power dynamics that includes economics. 

Both Marxism and post-modernism are concerned with power dynamics in society. Marxism primarily focuses on the economic power struggle between the bourgeoisie (the rich) and the proletariat (the poor). In contrast, post-modernism broadens the concept of power to include various forms of social, cultural, and institutional power. Post-modernists argue that power is diffused throughout society and operates in multifaceted ways beyond just class struggle.

Moreover, post-modernism rejects metanarratives, including Marxist narratives, as overly simplistic and exclusionary. While Marxism presents a grand narrative of class struggle, post-modernism encourages the deconstruction of such narratives and emphasizes the diversity of experiences and power structures that exist within society. As such, the Marxist metanarrative is still included in post-modern thought, but is deconstructed and incorporated into their evaluation of power struggles overall. 

In post-modernism, power is not solely defined by economic class but extends to other dimensions such as race, gender, sexuality, and knowledge production (Foucault, 1972). This broader perspective acknowledges that individuals and groups can be oppressed or marginalized in various ways beyond just economic exploitation. For example, post-modernists explore how institutions and discourses shape knowledge and influence who holds authority and power in society.

Additionally, post-modernism introduces the concept of “intersectionality” (Crenshaw, 1989), which recognizes that individuals may face multiple forms of oppression simultaneously, such as being both a person of color and a woman. While post-modernism retains a critical stance toward power structures and inequalities, it diverges from Marxism by rejecting the idea of a universal, class-based revolution as the solution to societal problems. Instead, post-modernism tends to emphasize localized resistance, subversion of dominant discourses, and the deconstruction of power imbalances within specific contexts (Foucault, 1972).

As such, post-modernism represents an evolution of Marxist thought by expanding the understanding of power dynamics in society. While Marxism primarily focuses on economic class struggle, post-modernism broadens the scope to encompass various forms of power, oppression, and resistance, making it a more encompassing and adaptable framework for analyzing contemporary societal issues. Marxism can be seen as a stepping-stone on the road to this more comprehensive worldview. 

Post-modernism has a point, up to a point

Despite its popularity in contemporary thought and in the Academy today, post-modernism has also faced criticism from various quarters. 

• Epistemological Skepticism and Relativism: Critics argue that post-modernism’s emphasis on the socially constructed nature of knowledge and truth can lead to epistemological skepticism and relativism. The concern is that if all knowledge is seen as a product of social and cultural contexts, it becomes challenging to differentiate between well-founded claims and baseless assertions. This can undermine the pursuit of objective knowledge and critical inquiry (Sokal, 1996).
• Evasion of Political Responsibility: Some critics contend that post-modernism’s skepticism toward grand narratives and universal truths can lead to a reluctance to engage in political and ethical debates. By rejecting metanarratives, post-modernism can be seen as evading the responsibility of addressing pressing social issues and advocating for change (Searle, 1994).
• Undermining Legitimate Critique: Critics argue that post-modernism’s deconstructionist approach, which questions the legitimacy of all claims to knowledge, can undermine legitimate critiques of oppressive systems. By treating all perspectives as equally valid, post-modernism can hinder the ability to identify and challenge real instances of injustice and inequality. For instance, if all of society operates on a drive for power, then all drives for power are necessarily justified, including those committed by post-modernists themselves, who are not immune from this flaw in human nature. There is simply no other option on the table than to embody the will to power, according to post-modernism. It then becomes difficult to criticize oppressive systems except arbitrarily (Hitchens, 1998).
• Lack of Pragmatic Utility: Some critics, including Jürgen Habermas, argue that post-modernism’s focus on linguistic and discursive analysis can be overly abstract and detached from practical problem-solving. Post-modernism may lack pragmatic utility in addressing real-world challenges (Habermas, 1987). This leads to the notion of “luxury beliefs”, the concept that some beliefs or ideologies are adopted and publicly expressed by individuals not necessarily because they are practical or personally beneficial, but because they serve as a form of status signaling or virtue signaling within a particular social or cultural context (Henderson, 2020). In essence, luxury beliefs are beliefs that individuals adopt and publicly espouse as a way of showcasing their social and moral standing, often without direct personal consequences or sacrifices. These beliefs can be seen as a form of conspicuous consumption of moral and ideological values, akin to how luxury goods are consumed to display wealth.
• Fragmentation and Isolation: Fredric Jameson has criticized post-modernism for its emphasis on pastiche and irony, which he argues can lead to cultural fragmentation and a loss of social cohesion. The proliferation of diverse, disconnected cultural references can make it difficult for individuals and communities to find common ground and meaning (Jameson, 1991).
• Inaccessible Language: Some critics have raised concerns about the use of dense and esoteric language in post-modernist writings, which can make the work inaccessible to a broader audience. This use of jargon can be seen as exclusionary and counterproductive to the goal of engaging with a wider public, in addition to making the theory harder to criticize (Fish, 1980). In essence, much of the approach to language in post-modernist literature can be labeled obscurantist. 
• Inadequate Solutions to Injustice: Critics argue that post-modernism, with its emphasis on deconstruction and critique, may fall short in providing concrete solutions to social and political injustices. By focusing on critique alone, post-modernism may struggle to address the practical challenges of creating a more equitable society (Bernstein, 1983).

The very structures that post-modernism denounces have also contributed to significant net benefits for humanity, including advancements in quality of life and societal progress. The post-modernist literature often omits the extent to which this is the case. Post-modernism often critiques the scientific and technological underpinnings of modern society as oppressive or reductionist. However, the hierarchical structures within scientific communities have been instrumental in driving innovation, medical breakthroughs, and technological progress that have significantly improved the quality of life for people worldwide. From medical advancements to communication technologies, these hierarchical systems have brought undeniable benefits (Pinker, 2018). Hierarchical economic systems, particularly capitalism, have played a central role in creating wealth and lifting millions out of poverty. While post-modernism may critique capitalism as exploitative, it has also led to the creation of goods and services that have enhanced well-being and provided employment opportunities beyond what was possible in any other era of history (World Bank, 2020).

Hierarchical governance structures, when functioning effectively, provide stability and a framework for the rule of law. This ensures the protection of individual rights, property rights, and the provision of public goods. Political stability and the rule of law are critical factors in achieving a high quality of life and societal progress (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Hierarchical governmental structures are essential for the planning and provision of public services, such as healthcare, transportation, and sanitation. These services contribute directly to improved living conditions and public health (World Health Organization, 2019).

Hierarchical educational systems have enabled the dissemination of knowledge and the development of critical thinking skills. Access to education, often structured hierarchically, is a fundamental driver of human development and societal progress (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015).

While post-modernism’s critique of hierarchical structures has merit in highlighting instances of oppression and inequality, which are undoubtedly a major part of human history, it’s crucial to acknowledge that these structures have also been responsible for many of the net goods that have improved the quality of life and well-being for vast segments of the global population. Criticism and scrutiny of existing hierarchies are valuable for addressing areas where improvement is needed. However, a balanced perspective recognizes that hierarchical systems have been instrumental in delivering benefits that have significantly enhanced human flourishing.

In short, it is true that power, hierarchy, and categorization are integral parts of how humans structure their societies, and that these structures inevitably lead to oppression and inequality. Yet, it is unclear whether this result is the product of deliberate “will to power”, or if these hierarchies and categorizations constitute the best solution (in any given, respective era) to the ill-defined problems facing humanity at any given time. Human beings are not perfect–we have a “shadow side”, to use Jungian, psychoanalytic terminology. A single person can be viewed as a quantum of a society/culture. Because the quanta of a society/culture are imperfect, it necessarily follows that the society itself will be. While deeply flawed and prone to oppression, these societal structures may represent “making the most of the bad situation” that is life and the struggle to resist entropy, rather than the deliberate use of oppression merely to advance the whims of the powerful. In other words, hierarchical systems might be among the most effective tools we have for solving the problems facing humanity and, like everything else in nature, these hierarchical systems have aspects that are brutal, oppressive, and exploitative. 

As such, post-modernism has a point. Oppression, power struggles, inequality, marginalization, patriarchy and the suppression of the feminine–these are all driving forces behind significant historical events. They are expressions of humanity’s shadow side, and are thus legitimately renounced in post-modernist thought. However, the post-modernists seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, decrying all of humanity, our societies, and our cultures, as expressions of the will to power, and nothing else. The shadow side is just that: a side. Yet, post-modernism makes it the whole of their description of humanity, leaving out topics of meaning and purpose, order and progress (except as they define “progress” in a deconstructivist sense). 

Why, then, is the post-modernist view so restrictive in its explanatory scope? Why does it seem to embrace a deep cynicism about humanity, life, and existence? Why are the core claims of post-modernism steeped in nihilism? For the answers to those questions, we must return to physicalism, which is at the root of both post-modern and Marxist thought, and which remains the dominant metaphysical paradigm today. 

Post-modernism and Marxism as natural extensions of physicalism

Underlying the philosophical perspective of physicalism is the notion that the material world, composed of physical “stuff,” is the ultimate reality, and everything, including consciousness, can be reduced to or explained by physical processes (Kim, 2005). In this view, consciousness and meaning are often considered emergent properties of complex physical systems, such as the human brain. In other words, all meaning in life is just a cocktail of neurochemicals in the final analysis, and the significance we place in a meaningful life is akin to deluding ourselves within an illusion. This reductionist stance on consciousness and meaning, if taken to its logical conclusions, leads to a particularly bleak outlook on life and existence.

Consequently, the pursuit of physical “stuff” and power can be interpreted as the primary means of approximating meaning in life (though true meaning is, again, illusory and has no ontic existence except as neurochemical processes). For a society in which materialism reigns supreme, acquiring wealth, possessions, and power becomes a rational response, as these are seen as the tangible markers of success and fulfillment, though it is a poor substitute for both. 

The accumulation of material and power is often perceived as a way to assert one’s existence and significance within the materialist worldview. Society is divided into a hierarchy of the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots”, with regard to physical resources and power. This creates a Frommian modal confusion at the level of society, as the entire culture focuses only on the having mode and not the being mode. 

Post-modernism, in its critique of grand narratives and metanarratives, can be viewed as a rational outgrowth of and response to that division of Haves and Have-Nots. Post-modernism challenges the traditional notions of universal truths and questions the authority of any single interpretation of reality. Such a movement can be seen as an attempt to deconstruct and disperse the notion of power and meaning.  By decentering power structures and emphasizing the plurality of interpretations, post-modernism challenges the hierarchy of “stuff” and power that physicalism implies (Lyotard, 1984).

Marxism, on the other hand, extends the physicalist emphasis on materialism and power to the realm of socioeconomic structures. While physicalism may implicitly endorse the accumulation of wealth and power as a means of approximating meaning, Marxism contends that the distribution of material (in the form of resources and wealth) and power is inherently unequal in capitalist societies. Marxism advocates for the redistribution of resources and the collective ownership of the means of production to address this inequality, aligning with the physicalist premise that material conditions shape human existence (Marx & Engels, 1848).

Therefore, both post-modernism and Marxism are rational responses to the inequality, hierarchy, power dynamics, and categorization observed in society. If physical resources and power are the only possible purposes for existence under physicalism, then these “will to power philosophies” that seek to deconstruct hierarchies and to evenly distribute power and material can be viewed as movements targeting the naturally occurring Pareto Principle, as experienced at the level of society. 

Physicalism meets the Pareto principle

The Pareto Principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, is a concept that originated with the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. It suggests that in many situations, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. This principle has been applied to various domains, including economics, business, and social sciences, including to describe the uneven distribution of outcomes or resources (Pareto, 1897).

In economic terms, the Pareto Principle implies that a relatively small portion of the population (the top 20%) tends to accumulate a disproportionately large share of the wealth (approximately 80%). This observation aligns with the reality of income and wealth inequality seen in many societies (Atkinson & Morelli, 2010). The wealthiest individuals or families control a significant portion of a nation’s economic resources, leading to a highly skewed distribution of wealth. Today, this disparity is even greater, as described by the verbiage around the “1%”.

The Pareto Principle can also be applied to the distribution of power in society. In politics, for instance, a small group or elite often wields a disproportionate amount of influence and decision-making authority, affecting policies and governance (Michels, 1911). This concentration of political power can result in oligarchy or plutocracy, where a few hold sway over the many.

The principle extends beyond economics and politics to resource allocation in various domains. In organizations, for example, a minority of employees may contribute significantly more to the company’s success or innovation compared to the majority (Koch, 1998). As a result, these key contributors might have more influence and access to resources, affecting the overall power dynamics within the organization.

The Pareto Principle also sheds light on social inequality. It suggests that a small fraction of individuals may have greater access to opportunities, education, and resources, leading to disparities in social outcomes (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). This inequality can manifest in areas such as education, healthcare, and access to social services.

The Pareto Principle highlights the inherent unevenness in the distribution of power and wealth in society. It suggests that a relatively small subset of individuals or groups often holds a significant share of resources and influence, leaving the majority with fewer resources and less control over decision-making. Under a physicalist worldview, this constitutes an existential problem for the vast majority of the population. For if power and material are the only possible substitutes for conventional meaning in life, then at least 80% (and many more in today’s distribution) are deprived of existential purpose by very few. 

As such, post-modernism and Marxism can be seen as attempts to address this inequality. They prioritize equal distribution of power and material because those are prioritized under physicalism. When physicalism meets the Pareto Principle, then the only logical recourse for the masses is to deconstruct that society and remake it as an egalitarian utopia, with power and material as central. Of course, the atrocities of the last century have taught us that attempts to create such a utopia inevitably end in tragedy and authoritarianism. History notwithstanding, an egalitarian utopian future is the goal of many policies derived from these “will to power philosophies,” and it is the source of their intellectual and emotional appeals. The West now widely presupposes physicalism, and so post-modernism and Marxism are logical extensions of the same. 

The death of meaning and the individual

Post-modernism, with its emphasis on deconstructing traditional narratives and categories, has contributed to the rise of identity politics, a movement that centers on the experiences and interests of various social groups based on race, gender, sexuality, and other identities. While identity politics seeks to address historical injustices and promote inclusivity, it has faced criticism for several reasons.

Post-modernism’s deconstruction of grand narratives and its focus on group identities can lead to the devaluation of the individual. In an attempt to critique traditional categorizations, post-modernism sometimes reduces individuals to mere representatives of their identity groups (MacIntyre, 1984). This can undermine the recognition of each person’s unique experiences, values, and agency, potentially perpetuating stereotypes and oversimplifications. 

Ironically, this devaluation of the individualistic, subjective, and relative is in direct contrast to post-modernism’s stated goals of rejecting categories and elevating a relativistic view of society and diverse perspectives. Post-modernism critiques the notion of fixed categories and essential identities, yet identity politics reinforces these very categories by emphasizing identity-based labels. This can be seen as a contradiction within the post-modernist framework. Identity politics, influenced by post-modernist thought, promotes group essentialism—the belief that individuals within a particular identity group share uniform experiences, perspectives, and goals. This can lead to a narrow understanding of complex issues and overlooks the diversity of experiences within any given group (Young, 1990). 

For example, post-modernism often condemns members of groups today whose ancestors oppressed others in the past. This raises the question of how much responsibility groups in the present should have for the crimes of their ancestors. Should there be no culpability at all, only some, or fully equal guilt? Of course, the very framing of the question completely ignores the complexities of individual experience, including suffering endured at the level of the person, regardless of their identity-political labels. Moreover, in a society divided into group identities, and in which the individual is devalued, it becomes both necessary for the state to strongarm egalitarianism into existence and terrifyingly simple for the state to take absolute power, as has been seen, for example, in North Korea today. 

Critics of post-modernism therefore argue that identity politics, often stemming from post-modernist ideas, can contribute to societal divisions by placing group identities at the forefront (Lilla, 2016). This focus on group grievances and identities can hinder efforts to find common ground, as it emphasizes differences rather than shared values or aspirations. Additionally, some argue that identity politics can reduce complex social issues to identity-based explanations (Taylor, 1992). This reductionism can limit the exploration of broader socioeconomic, historical, and political factors that contribute to inequality and injustice.

The devaluation of the individual also naturally stems from the core claims of physicalism. Under this worldview, consciousness is reduced to an epiphenomenal byproduct of physical processes in the brain (Kim, 2005). As such, the experiences that constitute an individual consciousness are considered to ontically supervene upon physical matter. Physicalism’s emphasis on the material world as the ultimate reality necessarily fosters a materialistic worldview. In such a perspective, the pursuit of physical possessions and power becomes paramount, overshadowing the recognition of individual experiences and personal meaning in life, which become illusory and akin to self-delusions. 

In response to the perceived limitations of individual meaning within a purely physicalist framework, individuals may turn to collective identities, such as group affiliations based on race, gender, or ideology, to seek a sense of meaning and belonging, and to advance their goals of power and the acquisition of material. This can lead to a prioritization of group power dynamics over individual significance, as a collectivist approach is more effective in the pursuit of the objectives of the having mode. 

Moreover, physicalism requires a deterministic outlook on reality, where societal structures and material conditions are seen as the primary determinants of individual life outcomes. This can contribute to a perspective in which individual agency and personal choices are downplayed in favor of systemic explanations. The notions of free will, individual responsibility, and personal potential are explained away as illusory, and the individual becomes merely an identity-centered quantum of their respective groups in the dominance hierarchy. 

It is no wonder, then, that individuals in Western society today face the Meaning Crisis, which we’ll explore in depth later on.

Fromm’s modal confusion at the level of society: Haves vs. Have Nots

As we’ve already referenced, two overarching identities reign supreme in the resulting worldview, and they encapsulate almost all other group identities within them: the Haves and the Have Nots.

Erich Fromm’s concept of the having mode characterizes an orientation towards life centered on acquiring and possessing material goods. It represents a mindset where individuals seek meaning and fulfillment primarily through the accumulation of possessions and power. In the having mode, one’s identity and self-worth become intertwined with the quantity and quality of what one possesses. This mode can be seen as a natural extension of physicalism’s emphasis on the material world as the ultimate reality (Fromm, 1976).

In a physicalist context, and thus in the post-modernist and Marxist contexts as well, the Haves represent individuals or groups who have achieved a significant level of material wealth and power. They are those who have succeeded in accumulating resources, possessions, and influence within society. The Haves embody the ideals of the having mode, where material accumulation is equated with success and meaning in life. From a physicalist perspective, they may view their achievements as a testament to their ability to navigate and exploit the physical world’s resources. And, as we’ve seen, the Pareto Principle ensures that this group will be a small segment of society that controls the vast majority of the power and material (Pareto, 1906). 

Conversely, the Have Nots are individuals or groups who lack access to significant material resources and power. They are often marginalized and disadvantaged within society, facing barriers to accessing the material and societal benefits that the Haves enjoy. The Have Nots may experience a sense of exclusion from the having mode’s pursuit of material success and meaning, which can lead to feelings of alienation and disenfranchisement. Not only that, but they face the existential crisis of being denied the power and material that serve as the only possible approximation of meaning in life under a physicalist worldview. 

The identities of the Haves and the Have Nots represent overarching group identities that supervene on various other identity categories (e.g., race, gender, class). These identities are shaped by power dynamics, reflecting who holds power, controls resources, and influences societal structures. From a physicalist perspective, the Haves are often associated with those who excel in navigating and manipulating the physical world’s resources, while the Have Nots are disadvantaged in this pursuit. 

To make matters worse, post-modernism and Marxism become self-fulfilling prophecies under physicalism. Since both the Haves and Have Nots in the West widely presuppose physicalism, both are operating in the having mode, trying to acquire as much wealth and power as possible. In this way, it is inevitable that society becomes structured in the dominance hierarchies described by post-modernism, because of the metaphysical view that underpins post-modernism, itself. Post-modernist thought then appears self-evidently true, ironically making it less likely that the status quo will actually change. That is, unless the underlying physicalism that directs the behavior of the Haves and Have Nots is abandoned. 

The rise of global neo-feudalism 

Contemporary economic distribution of wealth and power has led to the emergence of a concept often referred to as “neo-feudalism.” This term is used to describe a socioeconomic structure that exhibits similarities to feudal systems of the past but adapted to the modern context. In this system, the Haves have organized the world in a way that fulfills the having mode under the influence of physicalism, earning the critique of the post-modernists who claim to represent the perspective of the Have Nots in decrying this dominance hierarchy. 

Neo-feudalism is characterized by several key features:

• Extreme Wealth Disparities: At the heart of neo-feudalism is the staggering wealth inequality that has arisen in many parts of the world. A small fraction of the global population, the Haves, control a disproportionately large share of the world’s wealth and resources. This concentration of wealth often surpasses the levels seen in previous centuries, echoing the disparities between feudal lords and peasants (Piketty, 2014).
• Economic Elites: In the neo-feudal order, economic elites, often characterized by billionaires, multinational corporations, and financial institutions, hold immense economic and political power (Milanovic, 2016). They wield significant influence over governments, policies, and international economic systems, shaping the distribution of wealth and power to their advantage.
• Rent-Seeking Behavior: Neo-feudalism is marked by rent-seeking behavior, where economic elites derive their wealth not primarily from productive activities but from controlling access to resources and opportunities. This behavior can include monopolistic practices, financial speculation, and exploiting legal and economic systems to extract rent, reminiscent of feudal lords extracting tribute from their subjects (Stiglitz, 2019).
• Limited Economic Mobility: Similar to feudal societies, neo-feudalism often restricts economic mobility, making it difficult for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to rise to the ranks of the Haves. Barriers to access quality education, employment opportunities, and capital accumulation reinforce the entrenched power structures (Chetty et al., 2017).
• Political Capture: The Haves exert significant political influence, using their wealth to shape government policies and regulations in their favor. This captures the political system, creating a feedback loop where policies further entrench wealth and power disparities (Mann, 2018).
• Globalization and Transnational Corporations: Neo-feudalism is a global phenomenon, with transnational corporations playing a central role. These corporations often have more economic power and influence than individual nation-states, further concentrating wealth and power on a global scale (Strange, 1996).
• Technological Control: Advanced technologies are used to monitor and control both economic and social aspects of life. The Haves utilize data collection, surveillance, and algorithmic systems to reinforce their dominance, mirroring the feudal lord’s control over land and resources (Zuboff, 2019).

In essence, the pursuit of material accumulation and power is central to this system, perpetuating extreme inequalities and reinforcing the dominance of a global economic elite.

Once more, we see that post-modernism and Marxism are far from absurd theories–they are rational responses to such a societal structure. If they didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and seek to deconstruct even the beneficial aspects of Western society, they would represent a reasonable and just evisceration of corruption, oppression, and exploitation on a global level. However, to explain why they also entail a deep sense of nihilism, meaninglessness, and existential rejection of tradition, we must again return to physicalism, which turns these “will to power philosophies” to which it gave birth into nihilistic, Mephistophelean perspectives. 

The death of the past

Why does post-modernism seek to deconstruct the history, traditions, and progress of Western history, casting all of it as abusive dominance hierarchies similar to what we experience today? Why do they tend to omit the net benefits gained for humanity thanks to those same traditions, structures, and historical progressions? It seems that, under post-modernist perspectives, the past of the West must be discredited, repainted as rife with abuse and oppression, and rejected. But must this be so, in order for post-modernist thought to address the problems it seeks to frame?

The presupposition of physicalism in today’s era has influenced how we perceive and interpret Western history, often leading us to look back on the past through a contemporary, physicalist lens. Physicalism itself is a relatively recent philosophy in the grand scheme of ideas, yet it is all too tempting to view the actions of our ancestors as motivated by the same pursuit of power and material that approximates meaning in life under today’s metaphysical paradigm. This projection has significant implications for ideologies like post-modernism and Marxism, which view Western history through the prism of a corrupt dominance hierarchy, causing them to overcorrect and reject even all of the net gains made throughout Western history as being part of the same power plays, oppression, and exploitation. 

Specifically, modern scholars and thinkers tend to project the materialistic perspective of physicalism onto historical events and societies, assuming that past actors adhered to physicalist principles or that their motivations were primarily materialistic. This projection does not accurately represent the worldviews and motivations of people in the past, who had diverse belief systems and values. We know, for instance, that while ancient civilizations were quite capable of manipulating the material world, most ancient worldviews were far more symbolic than our contemporary, rationalist way of relating to reality. For example, instead of asking, “What material is x made of?” and, “How does x work?”, ancient cultures tended to emphasize questions such as, “What truth does x embody?” and, “What does x mean?” (Pageau, 2018). 

Post-modernism, influenced by thinkers like Foucault, often scrutinizes the concept of power and dominance throughout history. It views historical narratives as perpetuating corrupt dominance hierarchies that have oppressed various groups (Foucault, 1970). While this critique can shed light on genuine historical injustices, the projection of physicalism onto the past can lead to an overemphasis on materialistic power dynamics and an oversimplification of historical contexts. Oppression and power hierarchies have always been part of human society; this fact does not devalue the progress that humanity has made in moving beyond those approaches to rule, which most of the developed world now views as primitive and barbaric, just as we now reject former religious rituals such as human sacrifice.

Moreover, it remains unclear whether these results were always deliberate actions, or if they are natural and inevitable consequences of any hierarchy, including those seen in nature. If the latter is the case, then the Western tradition is not to be rejected and reduced to the post-modernist view, but rather it is humanity itself that must be understood as having a shadow side, which must be integrated and controlled. In this interpretation, the shadow side of society would be comparable to any natural disaster–with enough growth and resourcefulness, humanity can limit the damage of its destructive potential. Given the progress in individual and human rights made by the West, particularly relative to the past and to other parts of the modern world, it is arguable that Western values have achieved this progression better than most other systems of organization.

Marxism, meanwhile, with its focus on class struggle and the distribution of material resources, interprets Western history through the lens of a perpetual struggle between the bourgeoisie (Haves) and the proletariat (Have Nots) (Marx & Engels, 1848). While this perspective can reveal socioeconomic disparities, projecting physicalism onto historical actors may neglect the multifaceted motivations and ideologies that have shaped historical developments.

In essence, projecting the presupposition of physicalism onto Western history results in a skewed interpretation that emphasizes materialistic power dynamics while overlooking the complexity of historical contexts, values, and motivations. Post-modernism and Marxism, motivated by the perception of a corrupt dominance hierarchy throughout history, may inadvertently overcorrect by rejecting the accumulated benefits of Western society. It is essential to maintain a nuanced perspective that acknowledges historical injustices while also recognizing the multifaceted contributions of Western traditions. It is precisely this nuance which post-modernism, in its current formulation, misses, due to the tenets of physicalism that it presupposes. 

As a result, a cultural and society-level nihilism and existential crisis emerge, as individuals are told to view their history, their ancestors, and their traditions as oppressive expressions of dominance hierarchies motivated exclusively by the pursuit of power and wealth. Combined with the prevailing physicalist worldview presupposed by most of society, whether or not they have ever heard the term “physicalism” or learned philosophy at all, the individual is left with the conclusion that their past is abhorrent, that there is no ontic reality to meaning in life, and that they will likely never obtain what approximates purpose in the materialistic culture of the day. They are denied their uniqueness and value as an individual, and by the very philosophical paradigm (post-modernism) that claims to elevate relativistic perspectives. Instead, the individual is told that their worth is in their group identity, which constitutes a means by which to obtain power and material, but is not portrayed as a source of human connection or true fulfillment. 

For that individual, existence becomes utterly meaningless and identical to suffering, and the population of society “falls out of love with Being” in favor of nihilism, one individual at a time. This brings us to the Meaning Crisis, one of the most impactful of all the crises that make up the polycrisis. 

The resulting Meaning Crisis

Dr. John Vervaeke, cognitive scientist and philosopher, has articulated the concept of the “Meaning Crisis” to describe a contemporary societal challenge. The Meaning Crisis reflects a perceived loss or erosion of meaning and significance in people’s lives, often characterized by feelings of existential unease and disconnection (Vervaeke, 2020). 

The concept of the Meaning Crisis is based on a variety of converging statistical evidence. For example:

• Mental Health: The rising prevalence of mental health disorders, such as anxiety and depression, can be seen as an indirect reflection of the Meaning Crisis. For example, in the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that approximately 21% of adults experience a mental illness each year (NIMH, 2021).
• Cultural Trends: Observations of cultural phenomena, such as the popularity of self-help literature, mindfulness practices, and spiritual exploration, suggest a growing interest in addressing existential questions and seeking deeper meaning in life.
• Existential Discontent: Qualitative studies and surveys on life satisfaction and well-being often reveal a sense of existential discontent or a desire for more meaningful experiences in contemporary societies.
• Epidemics of Loneliness: Loneliness and social isolation, which can be related to a lack of meaningful connections and community, have been recognized as widespread issues in modern societies (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015).

Vervaeke argues that the Meaning Crisis arises from a spiritual and existential discontent prevalent in modern society. People may feel a lack of purpose, direction, or deep fulfillment in their lives despite material comfort and technological advancements (Vervaeke, 2020). Furthermore, the Meaning Crisis is exacerbated by the disintegration of traditional religious and metaphysical worldviews. As these frameworks decline in influence, individuals may grapple with a sense of nihilism or a loss of transcendent meaning. Physicalism is the primary culprit behind the Academy’s now dogmatic insistence that the universe is a meaningless mechanism, in which we do not matter at all except to the extent that we delude ourselves into thinking so, with a mind and consciousness that are illusory. That theory has, as we’ve already explained, infiltrated all aspects of Western culture. 

Post-modernism’s assault on traditions and history only add to this loss by removing meaning from even secular sources. No longer can someone who is a physicalist (whether or not they know they are one) find meaning in a sense of progress through history, as the past, present, and future are, under post-modern thought, recast as expressions of corrupt dominance and power hierarchies. Former heroes must then be defamed, traditions must be rejected as ultimately tainted, and all metanarratives from which one might derive purpose and belonging must be renounced. There is a resulting fragmentation of culture, with diverse subcultures, ideologies, and value systems coexisting but often lacking a unifying narrative or shared meaning. This cultural pluralism, normally something to celebrate in a democratic society, can lead to a sense of disorientation and alienation without the overarching identities and metanarratives that unite the plurality. Not only that, it leaves no safe refuge for the individual, who can find meaning neither in a metaphysical relationship to reality, nor in a secular relationship to society. 

Technology has made our lives better in numerous ways, but has also accelerated these psychological and cultural traumas. The digital age has ushered in an era of hyper-connectivity and information overload. While this offers unprecedented access to knowledge, it can also contribute to shallow engagement, distraction, and a sense of fragmentation in individuals’ lives. The Meaning Crisis is often associated with psychological and mental health challenges, including increased rates of anxiety, depression, and existential distress. In an era when the digital world connects us more than ever, we’re also lonelier than ever.

Mephistopheles and the rejection of Being

Mephistopheles, a character from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s masterpiece “Faust,” serves as a symbolic embodiment of nihilism through his rejection of Being itself. In “Faust,” Mephistopheles is a cunning and malevolent figure, akin to the devil, who makes a pact with Faust, tempting him with worldly pleasures and knowledge in exchange for his soul. His philosophy is characterized by a denial of transcendent values, meaning, and morality. 

In his own words:

“I am the spirit that negates.

And rightly so, for all that comes to be

Deserves to perish wretchedly;

‘Twere better nothing would begin.

Thus everything that your terms, sin,

Destruction, evil represent—

That is my proper element.”

This quote illustrates Mephistopheles’ belief in a world devoid of inherent meaning or moral order. He represents a force that opposes traditional notions of goodness and purpose, embracing a philosophy of existential nihilism where life is seen as ultimately meaningless and amoral. He believes that anything that is or has been deserves to be eliminated, and that non-existence is preferable to Being. 

Such a worldview inevitably leads to despair. However, on the road to that nihilistic end, it does provide a significant psychological opiate for the masses in the short-term. Mephistopheles rejects the idea of a transcendent reality or higher purpose. He embodies a worldview that denies the existence of God, the soul, and moral absolutes, reducing life to a series of empty experiences devoid of ultimate significance. If there is no meaning, no truth, no good or evil, then humans are absolved of all moral responsibility. Our fear of judgment, which is central to almost all religious traditions in some form, is then forever alleviated. It’s no wonder that physicalism takes this claim as central to its ethos; after all, in its original form (materialism), physicalism’s purpose was to overthrow the power of the Church. As such, it did not reach these conclusions through logic and reason, but rather as a political response to atrocities committed by organized religion (Büchner, 1855).

Mephistopheles tempts Faust with sensual pleasures and worldly knowledge, emphasizing hedonistic pursuits as the primary source of satisfaction. This reflects a nihilistic emphasis on immediate gratification and the pursuit of pleasure as a way to fill the void of meaninglessness. And why not? Under a physicalist worldview, there can be no other approximation of meaning in life but the pursuit of immediate power and material pleasure.

To his core, Mephistopheles is a master of manipulation and deception, further illustrating his nihilistic outlook. He revels in undermining human values and exploiting Faust’s desires, highlighting a disregard for ethical norms. He rejects Being by destroying Being’s expression, in the form of values, traditions, and all we hold dear. To his mind, nothing can be held dear, because nothing matters. Nothing exists that does not deserve non-existence. 

This is the philosophy of physicalism, and thus where post-modernism leads as well (in its current form). One can imagine a post-modernist philosophy that does not entail this nihilism, and indeed, we will explore that in the final section. However, it is our culture’s, and thus post-modernism’s, presupposition of physicalism which ensures that nihilism is baked into post-modernist thought, and into the ways in which we engage with reality and with each other more generally. 

The connection between physicalism and Mephistopheles’ philosophy lies in the shared rejection of transcendence and the assertion that the physical world is the ultimate reality. While physicalists do not openly embrace nihilism, a rejection of Being is the only logical outcome of physicalism’s core claims. 

More specifically, by emphasizing the material world as the primary reality, physicalism devalues or overlooks transcendent and metaphysical dimensions of existence, echoing Mephistopheles’ rejection of higher meaning. Interpretations of physicalism reduce consciousness and subjective experiences to physical processes, aligning with Mephistopheles’ denial of the soul or spiritual elements in human beings. One doesn’t have to be a theist to disagree with such a proposition–rival metaphysical theories to physicalism, such as dualism, panpsychism, and idealism, all offer naturalistic equivalents of the traditional concept of “soul.” If consciousness and the mind are reducible to a mechanistic universe devoid of meaning, then our meaningful concepts like morality, fulfillment, and even love, are ultimately illusions. They, too, are simply mechanisms, and meaning itself does not exist except as such. And, again, the fear of afterlife judgment, which has influenced all cultures across time, is as nonexistent as consciousness is claimed to be after death. 

Indeed, physicalism is the true opiate for the masses today.

Next, we’ll take physicalism to its logical conclusions. In other words, we’ll examine how a perfectly rational physicalist would have to act in order to be consistent with physicalism’s claims. Then, we’ll contrast that with how people actually behave, and see the performative contradiction that describes virtually every individual who identifies as a physicalist.

Following the logic of physicalism to tragic, yet consistent, conclusions

Attention: This section touches on subjects that may be traumatic for some. We include it in order to make a point that physicalism and its absurdity are at the core of our contemporary nihilism. In this section, we take the claims of physicalism to their logical endpoints. It is written in a purely satirical style, aiming for an attitude similar to that of Jonathan Swift’s, A Modest Proposal.  You can skip this section if you would like, as it is not needed in order to grasp the central argument of this paper. More importantly, the following is not meant to be taken seriously: no one should perform any of the actions described herein, as the following passage is satire.

Throughout this section, we’ll reference the “perfectly rational physicalist”–that is, one who believes the claims of physicalism and behaves perfectly rationally according to the logic of those claims. Such a person does not actually exist, so the following is a thought experiment demonstrating the logical conclusions of the physicalist worldview, if they were to be followed to the letter. Do not mistake the following for real suggestions or opinions of this paper or its author.

In short, the only logical response of a perfectly rational physicalist (PRP) is suicide. Any other response would have to be attributed to humans’ inherent irrationality, but in this thought experiment, we’re imagining a perfectly rational human–a “meat machine” that has achieved rationality, which is exactly how physicalism describes humans anyway. 

The only reason the PRP might rationally choose to exist is if they happen to be one of the Haves, and even then, their short existence is ultimately meaningless. But if the PRP is a Have Not, then the only rational perspective is that non-existence is preferable to the suffering caused by losing the struggle for power and material resources, which are the only possible approximation for meaning. Even though the PRP might fear death and non-existence, this is irrational; once they don’t exist, they won’t have any experience of non-existence, and so there is nothing to fear. Such is the claim of physicalism, and so a PRP would have no hesitation to embrace non-existence. 

Furthermore, a PRP would label the natural process of evolution as pointless.  Nature promotes Being via evolution, but unless one believes in intelligent design (which physicalists reject), this process is not meta-cognitive. Nature does not rationally decide to promote existence and Being within itself. The PRP, on the other hand, is meta-cognitive. They can think rationally and then act on what they deem reasonable and logical. Nature, without the ability to meta-cognize and rationalize like the PRP can, embraces and promotes its own Being because it can’t see the irrationality of its actions. The PRP will think, Why bother reproducing and passing on genes that will only cease to exist eventually anyway? The Sun will explode soon enough, the universe will experience heat death sometime beyond that. Why subject new life forms to suffering, when the PRP can’t even justify their own? Why propagate the dominance hierarchy and power struggle that is the natural world? Evolution is inherently brutal and corrupt, with absolutely no purpose, given that everything will end anyway and that experiences in the here and now are ultimately illusions produced by the same dead mechanisms as the rest of the universe. 

If the PRP already has children at the time they become a perfectly rational physicalist, then murdering them is the most merciful option. They’ll soon enough cease to exist anyway, so the PRP will save them the suffering of being now. Chances are, they’ll grow up to be Have Nots, denied even an approximation of meaning in life under physicalism. Not only that, but having children reduces all materialistic measures of the parents’ quality of life (Nelson, Kushlev, & Lyubomirsky, 2014), including time and energy (Nelson et al., 2014), quality of sleep and physical wellness (Beebe, 2016), and possibilities of financial and material advancement (Glass & Finley, 2002). Having children often does dramatically increase one’s sense of meaning, purpose in life, and fulfillment (Nelson et al., 2014), not least of which is providing one with a sense of legacy that will outlast them (Kashdan et al., 2009). But, the PRP knows that material measures are all that matter, to the extent anything matters at all. Meaning isn’t real, nor is fulfillment. And even their legacy will be forgotten soon enough, not to mention obliterated when the Sun explodes. These warm feelings are just chemicals in the brain, and so any significance to fulfillment is illusory. Once again, the only rational response under physicalism is to destroy Being at every chance, thereby saving conscious beings from the pointless suffering of life. 

Evolutionary arguments for the development of morality fail to salvage morality from this nihilism, since again, evolution is not a rational, meta-cognitive process. It promotes Being, and morals help one survive long enough to propagate Being (reproduce). But the PRP knows well enough to reject this as absurd. The vast majority of humanity are and will always be Have Nots (Pareto Principle), so the only rational response is to end their suffering now and send them into non-existence. Mass murder then becomes logical. A human population made up of perfectly rational physicalists would necessarily become a global suicide cult. 

However, if the PRP chooses to remain alive, how should they relate to the Nature that produced them via evolution?  The PRP knows that they must pillage the natural world for their own gain. After all, any living organism will cease to exist soon enough. This is especially true of animals existing within the oppressive dominance hierarchy that is “survival of the fittest.” Animals kill each other all the time, and even if they do live long enough for a natural death, their lifespans are even shorter than humans’, and the PRP knows that their own life expectancy is already a meaningless blip in the universal timescale. Why bother protecting animals or treating them with respect when the PRP can dominate and take from them? Being is suffering for them too, so the PRP will end their plight. Nothing matters in the end. So why Be at all? For the PRP, there’s no upside to Being, so the only rational move is to end Being altogether.

The performative contradiction of physicalism

Of course, the majority of people don’t actually behave this way, even if they identify as physicalists, post-modernists, Marxists, and/or as having some combination of those views, or perhaps all of them. The small proportion of a society that does behave this way are psychopathic, and that psychopathy is universally rejected as undesirable. What results is a performative contradiction, in which our behavior shows us that we don’t actually believe in this nihilism at an internalized, embodied, and enacted level. In our interactions with reality and with each other, we act as if meaning, truth, and morality are real. We do not live based on these nihilistic abstractions, but by finding truth in our experiences. The psyche is far more vast than the ego, to use psychoanalytic terminology; even if the ego claims to believe in nihilism, our psyches seem not to. 

We behave in a manner consistent with the embrace of Being, not a Mephistophelean rejection of it. At some deep, intuitive level, none of us are actually physicalists, and perhaps this is the reason for the existential cognitive dissonance so obviously pervasive in Western society today. 

We know that physicalism is false, even if we believe that it is true. 

But, as the Meaning Crisis shows, that is changing. Nihilism is becoming internalized the longer it is allowed to propagate in our society. Worse, the Academy has promoted physicalism as the “rational” and “scientific” worldview, an illogical conflation because science and rationality are both ontologically neutral. The effect is that the educated population, who value rationality and science, never come to intellectually question physicalism, even if they simultaneously reject it at a deeper, enacted level. 

Fortunately, as we’ll argue shortly, physicalism is deeply flawed, and is not a coherent metaphysics. Its popularity since the Enlightenment may have allowed it to seep into every corner of Western culture, but it has also opened up the theory to criticism. Those critiques have accumulated over time, and today’s field of metaphysics sees major challenges to physicalism from rival theories, such as panpsychism and idealism (most notably, analytic idealism). We do not need to rely on intuition to convince us of physicalism’s absurdity–there are a plethora of rational, logical arguments against physicalism, and the intellect need only learn these to meta-cognitively reject this nihilism at the level of reason as well.

How to solve the Polycrisis: abandon physicalism as the incoherent theory it is

There is today a renaissance of thinking in support of metaphysical theories that challenge physicalism. There are good arguments that physicalism is logically incoherent, internally inconsistent, empirically unsupported, explanatorily powerless, and unparsimonious. 

Metaphysics is inescapable

Having made it this far in our analysis, the task before us must now be to determine if physicalism is a coherent metaphysics, and if not, which metaphysics we should adopt.

First and foremost, we must address a possible objection that asks whether metaphysics is important at all to the conducting of the natural sciences and social sciences. Not only is it important, it is inescapable. In both the natural and social sciences, researchers operate within a framework of implicit metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions shape how they perceive and interpret phenomena. For example, the belief in the existence of objective reality, the causal relationships between events, or the meaningfulness of data all involve metaphysical underpinnings (Lacey, 2019). The purpose of this paper, for instance, is to show how the implicit metaphysical assumptions of physicalism have shaped post-modernism, Marxism, and Western culture. 

Metaphysical assumptions also directly influence epistemological questions regarding the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality. For instance, the scientific method itself rests on the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is governed by regularities and that these regularities are discoverable through empirical observation and experimentation (Newton-Smith, 2000). 

Furthermore, science depends on the concepts of truth, falsifiability, and logic. However, under physicalism, concepts (indeed, all mental experiences arising in consciousness) are illusory, epiphenomenal, and byproducts of physical processes. Of course, those physical processes are described via science, using the concepts of truth and falsifiability. But if those concepts are epiphenomenal, then science itself necessarily has no ontological home, because truth has no ontological existence except as an illusion. Science is then undermined, and physicalism (itself a concept) is completely invalid by extension, since all metaphysical theories depend on science. 

In the social sciences, the interpretation of human behavior, culture, and society inherently involves metaphysical questions about agency, free will, determinism, and the nature of social institutions (Bhaskar, 1975). These metaphysical questions shape how social scientists construct theories and models. The choice of research topics, hypotheses, and ethical considerations in both natural and social sciences is influenced by metaphysical assumptions about values, ethics, and the ultimate goals of scientific inquiry (Rescher, 1996). As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, there is no such thing as unbiased data, since even the decision about what to measure is made based on implicit assumptions and frameworks (Kuhn, 1962). 

Even statements that seem to deny the relevance of metaphysics, such as “Metaphysics is unimportant,” are themselves metaphysical propositions. Such statements assert a particular view about the nature of metaphysics, implying that it is either unimportant or irrelevant to scientific inquiry. This acknowledgment highlights the inescapability of metaphysics, as any statement made about metaphysics inherently engages with it. Just as you can’t falsify logic, because you would need logic to do so, you can’t use metaphysics to explain away metaphysics. 

Refuting physicalism with a coherent reality theory

Of course, we’ve already stated that physicalism is absurd, and so we’ll need to provide arguments both against physicalism and for a more coherent reality-theoretic framework. Since that topic can fill books by itself, we herein reference a previous paper on this topic, and recommend it as supplementary reading to this work. 

For the most direct address of these questions, read our paper “What The Hard Problem Of Consciousness Misses: The Case For A Coherent Reality Theory”.

What could a post-physicalist post-modernism look like?

It is possible to envision a more balanced and constructive form of post-modernism that avoids nihilism and instead advocates for meaningful engagement with the complexities of the modern world. Without a presupposition of physicalism, post-modernism can encourage individuals and societies to recognize their shadow side, both personally and collectively, and then integrate it, drawing inspiration from Jungian psychology (Jung, 1968). This approach offers a pathway toward greater self-awareness, ethical growth, and the potential for a more harmonious society. When combined with a meaningful metaphysics, such as that proposed in the works above (analytic idealism, for example), post-modernism can emphasize the interconnected, fractal nature of reality, giving each level purpose. Under such a view, nihilism is absurd. All of our levels of understanding of reality, including to nature, to our cultures, to each other, and to ourselves, would be linked, and free to progress without the nihilistic claims of physicalism. 

In Jungian psychology, the “shadow” represents the hidden, often unconscious, aspects of an individual’s psyche that are suppressed or denied (Jung, 1953). In the context of society, the shadow can be seen as the darker and unacknowledged aspects of culture, history, and collective identity. Post-modernism, without a presupposition of physicalism, can encourage individuals and societies to confront and recognize their shadow side. Importantly, in this view, everyone has a shadow side, but it is just that: a side. It is not the whole story, and so there is no need to destroy the past. Rather, one must recognize the shadow and acknowledge that it is a part of nature with as much right to exist as any other natural phenomenon. In so doing, one can integrate the shadow and control it through understanding. 

Jungian psychology emphasizes this process in the individual psyche, but a post-physicalist post-modernism could extend this concept to the societal level. Its criticisms of Western hierarchies, oppression, will to power, etc. could serve the purpose of acknowledging and understanding the shadow of our culture, without decrying the entirety of that culture in the process and without viewing Being as meaningless suffering in a mechanistic universe. Rather than engaging in a nihilistic deconstruction that leads to disconnection, post-modernism can frame deconstruction as a tool for critical awareness. By deconstructing cultural, political, and historical narratives, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and contradictions within their own identities and societies.

Post-physicalist post-modernism can advocate for a process of integration, inspired by Jungian principles (Jung, 1973). This process involves acknowledging the shadow, confronting it, and ultimately integrating it into one’s identity. Similarly, at the societal level, this approach can lead to a more balanced view of history and culture, recognizing both achievements and shortcomings. By encouraging individuals and societies to integrate their shadow side, post-modernism can promote ethical growth and responsibility. This process entails taking responsibility for one’s actions, acknowledging past injustices, and working toward a more just and equitable society, while also celebrating the positive achievements already made.

Rather than promoting nihilism, this approach to post-modernism offers a sense of meaning and purpose. It encourages individuals to actively engage with the challenges of the modern world, fostering a deeper understanding of themselves and their role in society. Individuals would see that they are one part of a fractal reality, all interconnected, and far more than the merely “physical,” as the term is used in physicalism.

Individuation at the level of society

Jungian psychology introduces the concept of individuation as a transformative process that occurs at the level of the individual psyche. Individuation represents the journey toward self-realization, self-actualization, and the integration of one’s unconscious elements into conscious awareness. This process involves embracing one’s shadow, recognizing and balancing opposites within the self, and ultimately achieving a state of wholeness (Jung, 1953).

Just as individuation is a path to wholeness for the individual psyche, a parallel process can be envisioned at the societal level. Society, like an individual, has its own collective psyche composed of various elements, values, norms, and cultural aspects. Applying Jungian principles to society can lead to a more balanced and constructive approach to cultural critique and transformation.

As we’ve already begun to discuss, society’s collective shadow represents its hidden or repressed aspects, including historical injustices, prejudices, and systemic inequalities. To achieve societal individuation, it is essential to confront and integrate this shadow. This means acknowledging past wrongs, addressing systemic issues, and working toward a more equitable and just society (Jung, 1968). 

Individuation emphasizes the importance of transcending egoic idealization and nihilistic tendencies. In society, this translates into avoiding two extremes. First, egoic idealization involves uncritical praise and glorification of one’s culture or traditions, in the forms of exceptionalism, nationalism, and “white-washing” history. This can lead to stagnation and the suppression of valid critiques at best, and to genocide at worst. Second, nihilism involves the wholesale rejection and deconstruction of cultural elements, which can result in cultural loss and a sense of meaninglessness. This, too, can lead to tragic atrocities. Instead, society can strive for a balanced approach that acknowledges both the strengths and limitations of its cultural heritage while working toward positive change (Jung, 1973).

As such, in the process of individuation, Jung emphasized the importance of balancing opposites within the individual psyche. Applied to society, this suggests the need for reconciling opposing forces, such as the patriarchy and the anima. The patriarchy symbolizes the historically dominant male-centered power structures, while the anima represents the feminine aspects that have often been marginalized. Achieving balance involves recognizing the value and contributions of both sets of traits and fostering gender equality (Jung, 1953). That is, we need the feminine traits to be in balance with the masculine, through equality of opportunity. In ancient traditions, Wisdom is often portrayed as female (ex: Sophia, in Hebrew and Christian traditions), and is often a counterbalance to the masculine traits associated with, for instance, propositional knowledge (Jung, 1952). We should learn from that example and continue the progress made toward equality of opportunity in recent decades.

The contemporary world finds itself entangled in a complex web of crises, the polycrisis. This multifaceted challenge encompasses environmental degradation, economic disparities, social inequality, political polarization, and a pervasive sense of meaninglessness. Addressing the polycrisis requires a novel and holistic approach, one that transcends traditional silos and embraces the idea of societal individuation—an intricate process through which societies, like individuals, confront their collective shadows, balance opposing forces, and strive for wholeness (Jung, 1953).

We will only be able to solve the polycrisis if individuals, as quanta of society, individuate, thus causing society itself to undergo the same transformation. Just as individuals can achieve wholeness by confronting their personal shadows and balancing opposing forces, societies can find resolution to the polycrisis by acknowledging their collective shadows, fostering equilibrium, and cultivating ethical growth. In a world fraught with complex crises, the path of societal individuation emerges as a beacon of hope—a transformative process that, when embraced by societies, holds the potential to unravel the knots of the polycrisis and guide humanity toward a more harmonious and meaningful future.

Of course, the points above map onto the claims of post-modernism quite well. Once we remove the presupposition of physicalism from post-modern thought (and from Western culture at large), post-modernism is free to perform this role in Western intellectual discourse. It can lead the process of individuation at the level of society. At the same time, physicalism can be replaced by a more coherent, consistent, explanatorily powerful, empirically supported, and parsimonious metaphysics, such as analytic idealism. With a coherent ontology that is pregnant with meaning, Western society will have what it needs to address the polycrisis. 

Conclusion

In this exploration of the relationship between physicalism, post-modernism, and the human search for meaning, we have navigated a complex landscape of philosophical ideas, cultural critiques, and psychological insights. Our journey began by acknowledging the prevalence of physicalism in contemporary thought and its profound influence on Western culture. Physicalism, with its reductionist ontology, has left many grappling with the Meaning Crisis, as deeper purpose and significance are impossible within its framework.

We delved into the core claims of physicalism, recognizing its dominance not only in academic circles but also in societal attitudes and behaviors. Even those who do not explicitly endorse physicalism often find themselves unwittingly ensnared by its presuppositions, shaping their worldviews and decision-making processes. Namely, Eric Fromm’s concept of modal confusion illuminated how physicalism can steer individuals and societies toward the having mode, emphasizing material accumulation and power, while neglecting the being mode, which nurtures spiritual and existential fulfillment.

We unveiled the natural extensions of physicalism in the form of “will to power philosophies” such as post-modernism and Marxism. These philosophies, rooted in the quest for control and material redistribution, are exacerbated by the Pareto Principle, reinforcing the concentration of power and wealth within a small elite.

Intriguingly, our analysis brought us to the realm of Mephistopheles, a symbolic embodiment of nihilism, who challenges the very notion of Being itself. We discerned echoes of Mephistopheles’ rejection of meaning in the nihilistic conclusions propagated by “will to power philosophies” and physicalism.

Statistical evidence for the Meaning Crisis, as described by John Vervaeke and others, underscored the existential angst prevalent in contemporary society, which can be traced back to the nihilism fostered by physicalism and its philosophical extensions.

However, our exploration did not end in despair. We ventured into the realm of philosophical dissent, where voices like Bernardo Kastrup, Donald Hoffman, Iain McGilchrist, and our own have challenged the hegemony of physicalism. Their insights from neuroscience, quantum physics, and philosophy offered alternative perspectives that call into question the sufficiency of a purely physicalist worldview.

Furthermore, we suggested that post-modernism, freed from the presupposition of physicalism, could take on a more constructive role. Instead of succumbing to nihilism, it can advocate for the recognition and integration of societal shadows, ultimately promoting self-awareness, ethical growth, and societal transformation inspired by Jungian principles.

In conclusion, our analysis reveals a profound tension within contemporary thought and culture. While physicalism remains a dominant paradigm, voices of dissent and alternative narratives remind us that human existence is a tapestry of complexities that cannot be fully encapsulated by reductionist theories. By embracing these complexities, we may yet find pathways to navigate the polycrisis and usher in a more profound and purposeful era, one that transcends the constraints of physicalism and embraces the depths of human potential.

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown.

Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.

Atkinson, A. B., & Morelli, S. (2010). Economic Inequality in Rich Countries: The Bottom Half and the Top 1%. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(1), 3-71.

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press.

Beebe, D. W. (2016). Cognitive, behavioral, and functional consequences of inadequate sleep in children and adolescents. Pediatric Clinics, 63(3), 487-512.

Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. (1975). A Realist Theory of Science. Routledge.

Bickle, J. (2019). Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account. Springer.

Büchner, L. (1855). Force and Matter: Empirico-Philosophical Studies Intelligibly Rendered. Kessinger Publishing.

Campbell, C. (1987). The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Blackwell.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.

Chetty, R., Grusky, D., Hell, M., Hendren, N., Manduca, R., & Narang, J. (2017). The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940. Science, 356(6336), 398-406.

Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139-167.

Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Back Bay Books.

Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Introduction. In Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances (pp. 1-16). Russell Sage Foundation.

Fish, S. (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press.

Foucault, M. (1966). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Random House.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books.

Fromm, E. (1976). To Have or to Be? Continuum International Publishing Group.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press.

Glass, J., & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family-responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), 313-337.

Goethe, J. W. (1808). Faust.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. MIT Press.

Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth. MIT Press.

Harrison, P. (2002). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press.

Henderson, R. M. (2020). The Problem with ‘Luxury Beliefs’. Quillette. https://quillette.com/2020/01/17/the-problem-with-luxury-beliefs/

Hitchens, C. (1998). Postmodernism won’t feed the hungry. The Nation, 267(5), 11-12.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2015). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press.

Johnson, R. L. (2018). Nietzsche’s View of Truth. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Stanford University.

Jung, C. G. (1952). Answer to Job. Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1953). Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Pantheon.

Jung, C. G. (1968). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press.

Jung, C. G. (1973). Psychology and Alchemy. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kashdan, T. B., Mishra, A., Breen, W. E., & Froh, J. J. (2009). Gender differences in gratitude: Examining appraisals, narratives, the willingness to express emotions, and changes in psychological needs. Journal of Personality, 77(3), 691-730.

Kastrup, B. (2019). The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Iff Books.

Kastrup, B. (2021). Science Ideated: The Fall Of Matter And The Contours Of The Next Mainstream Scientific Worldview. Iff Books.

Kaufmann, W. (1967). Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton University Press.

Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays. Cambridge University Press.

Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. MIT Press.

Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton University Press.

Koch, R. (1998). The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to Success by Achieving More with Less. Crown Business.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Lacey, A. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. Routledge.

Lilla, M. (2016). The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. HarperCollins.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.

Mann, M. (2018). The Sources of Social Power: Volume 4, Globalizations, 1945–2011. Cambridge University Press.

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Verlag von Otto Meissner.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Classics.

Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. HarperOne.

Michels, R. (1911). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Free Press.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Harvard University Press.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press.

Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge University Press.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). (2021). Mental Illness. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml

Nelson, S. K., Kushlev, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). The pains and pleasures of parenting: When, why, and how is parenthood associated with more or less well-being? Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 846-895.

Newton-Smith, W. H. (2000). The Rationality of Science. Routledge.

Nietzsche, F. (1883). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. E. P. Dutton.

Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality. Dover Publications.

Pageau, M. (2018). The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis: A Commentary. 

Pareto, V. (1897). Cours d’Économie Politique [Course of Political Economy]. Droz.

Pareto, V. (1906). Manual of Political Economy. Macmillan.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Viking.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage Books.

Rescher, N. (1996). Objectivity: The Obligations of Impersonal Reason. University of Notre Dame Press.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. (1994). The World Turned Upside Down. The New York Review of Books, 41(11), 61-64.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Anchor Books.

Smith, A. (2020). The Influence of Philosophy on Popular Culture. Oxford University Press.

Sokal, A. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217-252.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2019). People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent. W. W. Norton & Company.

Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press.

Vervaeke, J. (2020). Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. YouTube.

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe.

World Health Organization. (2019). Tracking Universal Health Coverage: 2019 Global Monitoring Report. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization. (2020). WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020. World Health Organization.

World Bank. (2020). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune. World Bank.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.