hans jonas niilismo e gnosticismo nietzsche
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
1/24
GNOSTICISM AND MODERN NIHILISMAuthor(s): HANS JONASReviewed work(s):Source: Social Research, Vol. 19, No. 4 (December 1952), pp. 430-452Published by: The New SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40982356.
Accessed: 06/10/2012 13:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The New Schoolis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40982356?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40982356?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschool -
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
2/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
BY HANS
JONAS
i
-LNI
ETZSCHE,
n
his
time,
aid
that
nihilism,
the
most
ncanny
of
all
guests,"
stands efore
he door." Meanwhile
he
guest
has
entered
nd is no
longer guest,
nd,
as far s
philosophy
s
concerned,
xistentialisms
trying
o live with
him.
Living
n
such
ompany
s
living
n a
crisis. The
beginnings
f
the
crisis
reach
ack
nto
he
eventeenth
entury,
here
he
piritual
itua-
tion
fmodern
mantakes
hape.
Among
he features
etermining
his
ituation,
he one that
Pascalfacednall its wful
mplications
nd
expounded
ith he
full
force f
his
eloquence
s man's oneliness
n
the
physical
ni-
verse f modern
cience. "Cast into
the infinite
mmensity
f
spaces
f
which am
ignorant,
nd whichknowme
not,
am
frightened."
Whichknowme not": more hanthe
overawing
infinity
f
he
ilent
paces
nd of
imitless
osmic
ime,
more han
the
quantitative
isproportion,
he
insignificance
f
man
as a
magnitude
n
this
astness,
ore
han
hese t
s theutter
ndiffer-
ence of theCopernicanniverse ohuman spirationsthenot-
knowing
f
things
uman
n
the
part
of
thatwithin
which li
things
uman
have
preposterously
o
be
enacted
which
onsti-
tutes
he
utter oneliness fman n
the um
of
things.
As
a
part
f this
um,
man
s
only
reed,
iable to be
crushed
at
any
moment
y
the
forces f
an
immensend
blind
universe
n
which t
is
but a
particular
lind accident. As
a
thinking
eed
he
is
no
part
f
the
um,
not
belonging
o
t,
but
radically
iffer-
ent, ncommensurable,ortheresextensa oes not think,nd
nature
s
nothing
ut resextensa
body,
matter,
xternal
magni-
l
Der
Wille
zur
Macht,
34.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
3/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
431
tude. If
he rushes
im,
hedoes
o
unthinkingly,
hile
e,
being
crushed,
s
aware f
being
rushed.
He alone
thinks,
ot
because
of
but n
spite
f
his
beingpart
f nature.
If
he
has no share
n
nature's
randeur,
hichhas
become
foreign
pectacle,
ature
has none
in
his
inner
oncerns.
Thus
that
which
makes
man
superior
o
all
nature,
is
unique
distinction,
ind,
no
longer
results
n a
higher ntegration
f
his
being
nto
the
totality
f
being, ut on thecontrary arks
he
unbridgeableulf
etween
himself
nd the est f
existence.
Estranged
rom
he
ommunity
of
being
n one
whole,
his
consciousness
nly
makes
him a
for-
eigner
n the
world,
nd
n
every
ct
oftrue
eflectionells
f
this
stark
oreignness.
This is
thehuman ondition.
There s
no
longer
he
cosmos
withwhose
mmanent
ogos
my
own can feel
kinship,
o
longer
theorder
f the
wholewhich
ives
meaning
o
man's
part
n
it,
and
therefore
o
his
place
n t. That
place
ppears
ow
s a
sheer
and brute ccident. "I am
frightened
nd shocked,"ontinues
Pascal,
at
being
hererather
han
there;
orthere s no reason
why
ere
rather han
here,
hy
nowrather han hen."
There
had
always
een
a
reason
efore,
o
long
as
the worldhad been
regarded
s life's osmic
ome. But Pascal
peaks
f
"this
emote
corner
f
nature" n which
man
has to
"regard
imself
s
lost,"
of
"the ittle ell
in
which
he
finds
imself
odged,
mean
the
universe."The utter
ontingency
fman's
xistence
n
the cheme
depriveshat cheme fanyhuman ense s a possible rame f
reference
orman's
understanding
f himself.
But there s more to thissituation
han
the
mere
mood of
homelessness,
orlornness,
nd dread.
The indifference
f nature
also
means
hat
nature
as
no
referenceo
ends. With
the
ejec-
tion
f
teleology
rom he
ystem
f
natural
auses,
ature,
erself
purposeless,
eased
to
provide
ny
sanction o
possible
human
purposes.
A
universe ithout n
intrinsic
ierarchy
f
being,
s
the Copernican niverses, leavesvaluesontologicallynsup-
ported,
nd the elf s
thrown ack
ntirely
pon
tselfn
its
quest
for
meaning
nd value.
Meaning
s no
longer
found,
ut
is
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
4/24
432
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
"given."
Values
are
no
longer
beheld
in the vision of
objective
reality,
ut are
posited
s
feats f valuation. As functions
f the
will
they
re
solelymy
own
responsibility.
Will
replaces
vision;
temporality
f the act ousts
the
eternity
f the
"good
in
itself."
This
is
the Nietzschean
hase
of the situation
n which
European
nihilism breaks
the
surface.
Now
man is alone with
himself.
The world's
gate
To desertstretchingute nd chill.
Who
once has
lost
What
thou
hast
ost stands
nowhere
till.
Thus
spoke
Nietzsche
(in
Vereinsamt)-
losing
the
poem
with
the
ine,
"Woe
unto
him
who
has no home "
Pascal's
universe,
t is
true,
was still
one created
by
God,
and
solitary
man,
bereft
f
all mundane
props,
could
still stretch
is
heart
out toward
he transmundane
od.
But this God
is essen-
tially
n
unknown
God,
an
agnostos
heos,
nd
is not discernible
in the
pattern
fhis creation. The universedoes not reveal his
purpose
by
its
order of
created
things,
r his
goodness
by
their
abundance,
or his wisdom
by
their
fitness,
r his
perfection
y
the
beauty
f thewhole
but
reveals
olely
his
power,
y
ts
magni-
tude,
its
spatial
and
temporal
mmensity.
And
though
the
con-
tingency
f
man,
ofhis
existing
ere nd
now,
s
still
contingency
upon
God's
will,
that
will,
which
has cast
me into
ust
"this
remote
corner
f
nature,"
s
inscrutable,
nd the
"why?"
f
my
existence
s
here ust as unanswerable s atheistic xistentialismmakes t out
to be. The deus
absconditus,
fwhom
nothing
ut will
and
power
can
be
predicated,
eaves
behind
as his
legacy,upon
leaving
the
scene,
he homo
absconditus,
concept
f
man
characterized
olely
by
will
and
power
the
will
for
power,
he will to
will.2
The
point
that
particularly
matters
for the
purposes
of
the
present
iscussion
s that
change
n the
vision of
nature,
hat
s,
2
The
role
of
Pascal
as
the
firstmodern
xistentialist,
hich
have here
very
roughly ketched s a starting oint,has been morefullyexpoundedby Karl
Lowith
n his article
n
"Man Between
nfinites,"
n
Measure,
A Critical
Journal
(Chicago)
vol.
i
(1950),
from
which
also the
quotations
romPascal
have been
borrowed.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
5/24
GNOSTICISM
AND MODERN
NIHILISM
433
of the
osmic
nvironmentf
man,
s
at thebottom f
thatmeta-
physical
ituation hich
has
given
ise
to modern
xistentialism
and
to its
nihilistic
mplications.
ut
f this s
so,
f
the
essence
of
existentialism
s
a
certain
ualism,
n
estrangement
etween
man nd
the
world,
ith
he oss fthe dea
of
kindred osmos
in
short,
n
anthropological
cosmism
then
t is not
necessarily
modern
hysical
cience
lone
which an create
uch condition.
A cosmic ihilismssuch, ywhateveristoricalircumstances
t
may
avebeen
begotten,
ouldbe
the ondition
n which
ome
f
thecharacteristic
raits
f
existentialism
ight
volve.
And
the
extent o which
his
s found o
be
actually
he case
wouldbe a
test or herelevance hichwe attribute
o thedescribed
lement
in theexistentialist
osition.
There s one
situation,
nd
one
only
hat know f
n
the
his-
tory
f Western
man,
where
on a leveluntouched
y
anything
resembling
odern
cientific
hought
that
condition
as been
realized nd lived outwith ll the vehemence f a
cataclysmic
event. That is
the
Gnostic
movement,
r themore
adical
nes
among
he
variousGnostic
movements
nd
teachings,
hich
he
deeply
gitated
irst
hree
enturies f
the
Christian ra
prolif-
erated
n
theHellenistic
arts
f
the
Roman
mpire
nd
beyond
its eastern
oundaries. From
them, herefore,
e
may
hope
to
learn
omething
or n
understanding
f that
disturbing
ubject,
nihilism,
nd I
wish
o
put
theevidence efore hereader
s
far
as this anbe done nthe paceof a brief ssay.
n
The existence f an
affinity
r
analogy
cross
he
ages,
uch s is
here
lleged,
s
not
o
surprising
f
we
rememberhat n
more
han
one
respect
hecultural
ituation
n
the Greco-Roman
orld
f
the
first hristianenturies
hows road
parallels
with
he
mod-
ern situation.
Spengler
went
o
far s to
declare he
two
ages
"contemporaneous/1nthe ense fbeing dentical hasesn the
life
ycle
f their
espective
ultures.
n
this
nalogical
ense
we
would
nowbe
living
n
the
period
f the
arly
aesars.
However
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
6/24
434
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
that
may
be,
there
s
certainly
more
than mere
coincidence
n
the
fact that we
recognize
urselves
n
so
many
facetsof
later
post-
classical
antiquity.
Gnosticism
s one of
those
facets,
nd here
recognition,
ifficults
it is
rendered
by
the
strangeness
f
the
symbols,
omes
with the shock of the
unexpected,
ecause
it
fits
neither
he
picture
of
an
age
which
a
superficial
istorical
on-
sciousness haracterizes
ostly
y
Stoicism
nd
Epicureanism,
or
the
picture
of
modernnihilism s
in line with
the
Nietzschean
definition
essentially
post-Christian
henomenon.
In the
following
iscussion
refer o
existentialism
s more or
less
a
known
quantity.
Unfortunately
cannotdo
the
same
witti
Gnosticism.
It
lies
off
the
main road of historical
knowledge,
and
philosophers
o
not
usually
come
across
t.
I
am therefore
compelled
to dwell
much more
on
the
Gnostic
ide of
my
subject
than
a
just
balance
in
the
comparison
would warrant.
In
the
circumstances,
owever,
do
not see
how this
opsidedness
n
my
presentation
an be avoided.
The
term Gnostic
refers o
a
group
of
religious
doctrines
t
the
beginning
f
our
era
which
either
explicitly
dentified hem-
selves
by
the word
gnosis
or
implied
t as a central
point
of
their
message.3
Gnosis
means
knowledge,
nd the historical onnota-
tions
f
the
term
ave
caused
many
bservers,
ncient
nd
modern,
to see
in
Gnosticism
he
nroad of
Greek
philosophy
nto Oriental
religious
thought.
In
content,manner,
nd
aim,
however,
he
"knowledge" fthe Gnostics aslittle o do withrational hought,
and
the
Hellenic
associations
f
the name
are
more
misleading
than
enlightening.
Also
easily
misleading
s
the
fact
that the
majority
of
the
recorded
Gnostic
ects
ppear
within
the still
fluid
boundaries
of
the
early
church,
hus
nvesting
he
very
name,
in
the
minds of
observers,
ith
the
meaning
f
a Christian
eresy,
mere
epiphe-
3
What
follows
s a brief
summary
of certain
basic features of
Gnosticism.
The
full argumentfor the view presented here, which differsfrom the conventional
one,
may
be
found
in
my
Gnosis
und
sptantiker
Geist,
vol.
i
(Gttingen
1934).
Note
also
two
articles
of
mine
on
this
subject
in
Theologische
Zeitschrift
Basel)
:
vol.
4,
no.
2
(1948)
,
and
vol.
5,
no.
1
(1949)-
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
7/24
GNOSTICISM AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
435
nomenon o
Christianity.
odern
esearch,
owever,
as shown
the xistencef
non-Christian
nostic
eligions
s
well,
oincident
with
he
riseof
Christianity
n the
declining
ncient
world,
nd
there
s
evidence venof
pre-Christian
nosticism.
As a matter
of
fact,
he
Gnostic
movementsuchwe
must all
t was a
com-
prehensivehenomenon
n
those ritical
enturies,
eeding
ike
Christianity
n
the
mpulses
f a
widely
revalent
uman itua-
tion, nd thereforeruptingn manyplaces,manyforms,nd
many
anguages.
The salient eature o
be
emphasized
ere
s the
radically
ual-
istic
mood
which nderlies
he
wholeGnostic ttitudend unifies
the
widely
iversified,
ore r
less
systematic
xpressions
hich
that
ttitude
ave
tself
n Gnostic
itual nd literature. t is on
this
rimary
uman oundation
f dualistic
mood,
passionately
felt
xperience
f
man,
thatthe formulated
ualistic octrines
rest. The dualism s between
man
and the
world,
nd
concur-
rently
etweenheworld nd God. It is a
duality
otof
supple-
mentary
ut of
contrary
erms,
polarity
f
incompatibles,
nd
this act ominates
nostic
schatology.
asic
to it
is the
feeling
of n absolute ift etween
man
nd that
n
which e
finds
imself
lodged:
he
world. The
feeling
s
explicated
n
terms f
doctrine.
In
its
theological
spect
t states
hat
heDivine
has no
part
nd
no
concern
n
the
physical
niverse;
hat
he true
God,
strictly
transmundane,
s not revealed
r
even
ndicated
y
the
world,
andis thereforeheUnknown,hetotally ther, nknowablen
termsf
nyworldlynalogies.
Correspondingly,
n
ts
osmologi-
cal
aspect
t
states hat heworld s the
creation
ot
of
God
but
of
ome
nferior
rinciple;
nd,
n
its
nthropological
spect,
hat
man's nner
elf called
the
pneuma
is
not
part
of
the
world,
of nature's
reation
nd
domain,
ut,
within
hat
world,
s
as
totally
ranscendent
nd
as
unknown
y
all
worldly
ategories
s
is
ts
ransmundane
ounterpart,
heunknown
od
without.
That theworld screated ysomeonesgenerallyotdoubted
in the
mythological
ystems
though
n
some
f he
ubtler
ystems
a sort
f
dark
utogenesis
rom
rts f
divinity
s
contemplated).
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
8/24
436
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
But
whoever
as created he
world,man,
according
o
Gnosticism,
does not owe
him
allegiance;
and
neitherhis
creation,
though
incomprehensiblyncompassing
man,
nor
his
proclaimed
will
offers
he standards
y
which
man
can
set
his course.
Since the
true God cannotbe the creator f
that to which
selfhood
eels
o
utterly
stranger,
ature must
have
been created
by
a
lowly
demiurge, power
farremoved
rom he
supreme
ource
of
Being,
a
perversion
f
the
Divine,retaining
f
it
only
the
power
to
act,
but to act
blindly,
without
knowledge;
he created
the world out
of
ignorance
nd
passion.
Thus
the world s
the
product,
nd even
essentially
he embodi-
ment,
of the
negative
of
knowledge.
What
it reveals
is
unen-
lightened
nd
therefore
malignant
force,
proceeding
from
the
spirit
of self-assertive
ower,
from
he will to rule
and coerce
which,
s
spiritual,
s foolish
nd
bears
no relation
o
understand-
ing
and love.
The laws of
the universe
re
the aws
of this
rule,
and not of divinewisdom. Thus the essenceof the cosmos s
ignorance
agnosia).
In
this
negativity
he
idea of
knowledge
(gnosis)
finds ts
first
pplication,
n
application
n
the
privative
mood.
The
positive
complement
s
in
the fact
that the
essence
of
man
is
knowledge:
hisdetermines
he situation f
man
as that
of
the
knowing
n
the midst
of
the
unknowing,
f
light
n the
midst
f
darkness,
nd
this
relation
s
at the bottomof his
being
alien,
without
ompanionship
n
the darkvastness f the universe.
That universe asnone ofthevenerabilityfthe Greekcosmos.
Contemptuous pithets
re
applied
to it: "these
miserable
ele-
ments"
paupertina
haec
elementa),
this
puny
ell
of the
creator"
(haec
cellula
creatoris)
both
quotations
rom
Marcion,
he
second
offering
iterally
he
same
expression
hat we
found
in
Pascal.
Yet
it is
still
cosmos,
n
order
but
orderwith
a
vengeance.
Not
only
s the name
cosmosretainedfor
the
world;
it
is
called that
now
with a new
and
fearful
mphasis,
n
emphasis
t
once
awed
and disrespectful,roubled nd rebellious,forthat order s alien
to
man's
aspirations.
The
blemish
of nature
ies not in
any
defi-
ciency
of
order,
but
in
the all too
pervading
ompleteness
f it.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
9/24
GNOSTICISM AND MODERN
NIHILISM
437
Far from
eing
haos,
he reation f
the
demiurge,
hat
ntitype
of
knowing,
s
a
comprehensive
ystem,overned
y
law.
But
cosmic
aw,
nce
regarded
s
the
xpression
f
reasonwith
which
man'sreason
an
communicate
n the act
of
cognition,
s now
seen
only
n
its
aspect
f
compulsion
hich
hwarts
an's
free-
dom.
The cosmic
ogos
f the
Stoics s
replaced
y
heimarmene,
oppressive
osmic ate.
This
heimarmenes
dispensed y
the
planets,
r
the stars
n
general,
he
mythical
xponents
f the nexorablend hostile aw
ofthe
universe.The
change
n the motional
ontent
f
the erm
cosmos
s nowhere
etter
ymbolized
han
n
this
depreciation
of
the
formerly
ost
ivine
art
f
thevisible
world,
he
elestial
spheres.
The
starry
ky
which
rom lato to
theStoics
was the
purest
mbodiment
f reason
n the cosmic
ierarchy,
he
para-
digm
f
ntelligibility
nd therefore
fthedivine
ature
f
reality
as such now tared
man n theface
with hefixed
lare
f alien
power
nd
necessity.
ts rule is
tyranny,
nd not
providence.
Deprived
f the
venerability
ithwhich
ll
sideric
iety p
to
thenhad invested
t,
but still
n
possession
f
the
prominent
nd
representativeosition
t had
acquired,
his stellar
firmament
becomes
ow the
symbol
f all that
s
terrifying
o
man
n
the
towering
actnessf
theuniverse.
Under his
pitiless
ky,
which
no
longer
nspires orshipful
onfidence,
an
becomes onscious
of his utter
orlornness,
f his
being
not so much
part
of,
but
unaccountablylaced n andexposed o, he nvelopingystem.
And,
ike
Pascal,
he
is
frightened.
is
solitary
therness,
is-
covering
tself
n
this
forlornness,
rupts
n the
feeling
f ele-
mentary
read.
Dread as
a fundamental ood of
being-in-the-
world
first ecame
articulate
ot in existentialism
ut
in
the
Gnostic
writings.
t
is
the self's eaction
o the
discovery
f ts
situation,
ctually
tself
n
element
n
that
discovery:
t
marks
the
awakening
f
selfhood
rom he slumber r
intoxicationf
theworld;t stheway n which he nmostpirit ecomes rigi-
nally
ware
f tself nd
of the
fact
hat t
is not
really
ts
own,
but
s
rather
he
nvoluntary
xecutor
f
cosmic
esigns.
Knowl-
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
10/24
438
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
edge, gnosis,might
iberate
man from
this
servitude;
but
since
the cosmos s
contrary
o
life,
the
saving
knowledge
annot
aim
at
the knower's
ntegration
nto
the
cosmic
whole,
cannot
aim
at
compliance
with the laws
of
the
universe,
s did Stoic
wisdom,
which
sought
freedom
n
the
knowing
affirmation
f
universal
necessity.
For the
Gnostics,
ontrary
o
the
Stoics,
man's aliena-
tion is not to be
overcome,
ut is
to
be
deepened
and
pushed
to
the extreme
orthe
sake
of
the self's
edemption.
in
Before
oing
ny
further,
et
us
stop
to ask
what
has
here
happened
to the old idea
of
the
cosmos
s a
divinely
rdered
whole.
Cer-
tainly othing omparable
o modern
hysical
cience
was nvolved
in this
catastrophic
evaluation
or
spiritual
denudation
of
the
universe. We need
only
observe
that this universe
became
thoroughly
emonized
n
the Gnostic
period.
Yet
this,
aken
with
thetranscendencef the acosmic elf, esultedn curious
nalogies
to
the
phenomena
f existentialism
n
the
vastly
ifferent
odern
setting.
If not science
nd
technology,
hat
aused,
for he
human
groups
nvolved,
he
collapse
of
the cosmos
piety
of classical
civi-
lization,
n which
so
much
of its
ethics
was
built?
The
answer s
certainly omplex,
but at least
one
angle
of
it
may
be
briefly
ndicated.
The
classical
ontological
doctrine
of
whole
and
parts
according
o which
the
whole
is
prior
to
the
parts, s better hantheparts, nd is that forthe sake ofwhich;
the
parts
are and
wherein
they
find
the
meaning
of
their exist-
ence
had lost
the
social
basis of
ts
validity.
The
living
example
of such
a whole
had
been the
classical
polis,
whose citizens
had
a
stake
in the
whole,
and
could
affirmts
superior
status
n the
knowledge
hat
hey,
he
parts,
owever
assing
nd
exchangeable,
maintained
t with
their
own
being,
and that their
ctions
made
a difference
o
the
being
and
perfection
f
thewhole.
This
whole,
the conditionforthe existence nd wellbeingof the individual,
was
thus
n addition
the
framework
or the
fulfilmentf
man's
aspirations.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
11/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
439
The
ontological
rinciple
urvived
he conditions f its con-
ception.
With he
bsorption
f
he
ity
tatesnto he
monarchies
of the
Diadochs and
finally
nto the Roman
empire,
which
deprived
he
polis
ntelligentsia
f ts constructive
unction,
he
relation
no
longer
held
politically.
But Stoic
pantheism,
he
physico-theology
f
post-Aristotelian
onism,
ubstitutedor t
the relation
etween he
ndividual
nd
the
cosmos,
he
arger
living
whole.
By
this ubstitution
heclassical octrine fwhole
and
parts
was
kept
n
force ven
hough
t
no
longer
eflected
he
actual
situation f
man.
Now the
cosmos
was declared
o
be
the
great
city
f
gods
nd
men,"
nd to be
a
citizen f the
uni-
verse,
cosmopolites,
asnow
considered
o
be
the
goal by
which
otherwise
solated
man
could set his
bearings.
He
was
asked,
s
it
were,
o
adopt
he
causeof
the
universe s
his
own,
hat
s,
to
identify
imself ith hat
ause
directly,
cross
ll
intermediaries,
and to relate
is
nner
elf,
o relate
his
ogos,
o the
ogos
f
th
whole.
The
practical
ide of this dentification
onsisted
n
his
affirm-
ing
and
faithfully
erforming
he
role
allotted o
him
by
the
whole,
n
just
that
place
in
which
osmic
estiny
ad
set him.
"To
play
ne's
part"
that
igure
f
peech
n
which
toic
morals
dwelt
o
much
unwittingly
eveals
he
fictitiouslement
n
the
structure.
A
role
played
s
substituted
or
real
function
er-
formed.The actors n
the
tage
ehave as if"
they
cted heir
choice,nd"asif"theirctionsmattered.What ctuallymatters
is
only
o
play
wellrather han
badly,
with
no
genuine
elevance
to
the
outcome.
The
actors,
ravely
laying,
re
their
own
audience.
In the
phrase
f
playing
ne's
part
there
s a
bravado
that
hides
deeperdespair,
nd
only
shiftn
attitude
s
needed
to
view he
great pectacle uite
differently.
oes
the
whole
really
care,
oes t concerntself
n
the
part
hat s ?
The
Stoics
verred
that tdoesbyequatingheimarmeneithpronoia, osmic ate
with
providence.
And
does
my
part,
however
play
t,
really
contribute,
oes
t make
differenceo
the
whole?
The
Stoics
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
12/24
440
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
averred
hat t
does
by
their
nalogy
between
he cosmos
nd the
city.
But the
very
omparison
rings
out the
artificiality
f
the
construction,
or
in
contrast
o what s true
n the
polis
no case
can
be made out
for
my
relevance
n the
cosmic
cheme,
which s
entirely
utside
my
control nd
in
which
my
part
s
thus
reduced
to a
passivity
hich
n the
polis
it
had
not.
To
be
sure,
the strained
ervor
y
which
man's
integration
n
the whole was
maintained, hrough
his
allegedaffinity
o
it,
was
the
means of
preserving
he
dignity
f
man and
thereby
f
saving
a sanction
for a
positive
morality.
This
fervor,
ucceeding
that
which had
formerly
een
inspired
by
the
ideal
of civic
virtue,
represented
heroic
attempt
n the
part
of
the intellectuals
o
carry
ver
the
life-sustaining
orce
of
that
deal
into
fundamen-
tally
changed
conditions.
But
the
new atomized
masses of
the
empire,
who
had
never
shared
n that noble
tradition
f
arete,
reacted
very
differently
o
a
situation
n
which
they
found them-
selves
passively
nvolved: a situationn which the
part
was
insig-
nificant o the
whole,
and the
whole
alien to
the
parts.
The
Gnostic
aspiration
was
not to
"act
a
part"
in this
whole,
but
in existentialist
arlance
to "exist
authentically."
The
law of
empire,
under which
they
found
themselves,
was
an
external
dispensation
f
dominating, napproachable
orce;
nd,
for
them,
the
same
character
was assumed
by
the aw of
the
universe,
osmic
destiny,
f which
the world
state was
the terrestrial xecutor.
The very onceptof law was modifiedn all its aspects natural
law,
political
aw,
moral
aw.
I leave
it to
the
reader to
draw
whatever
nalogies
there
are
between his
alienation
of
man
fromhis
world
and
the
situation
of
atomized
ndustrial
ociety.
Such
analogies,
am
sure,
would
supplement
rom he
social
angle
the effects
have
attributed o
the
cosmology
f
modern
cience,
n
the
testimony
f Pascal.
As
in
late
antiquity,
o
today,
he term
world" contains
wo mean-
ingsat once: nature n general, nd social reality. And it may
well
be
the
latter
which
preeminently
etermines
man's relation
to
"the
world,"
the sum
of
things.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
13/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
441
IV
The subversionf
the dea
of
law,
of
nomos,
eads to
a moral
consequence
n
which
he nihilistic
mplications
f
the
Gnostic
acosmism,
nd
at the
same
timethe
analogy
o
the
Nietzsche-
Heidegger-Sartre
train
f
existentialism,
ecome
ven
more bvi-
ousthan
n
the
osmological
spect:
he
ntinomismfGnosticism.
To
begin
with,
t
is to be conceded
hat ntinomism
the
rejec-
tion f ny bjective orm f conduct isargued nvastlyiffer-
ent heoreticalevels
n
the
wo
ases,
nd that ntinomisticnos-
ticism
ppears
rude,
nd
perhaps
ess
profound,
n
comparison
with
he
subtlety
nd
pitiless
istorical
elf-elucidationf
anti-
nomisticxistentialism.
hat
s
being
iquidated,
n
the ne
case,
is
themoral
heritage
f
a thousand
ears
f ancient
ivilization;
added
to
this,
n
the
other,
re
two housand
ears
f Occidental
Christian
metaphysics
s
background
o the dea of
a moral aw.
Nietzschexpressedhe rootofthe nihilisticituationn the
phrase
God is
dead,"
meaning
rimarily
he
Christian
God.
The
Gnostics,
f
asked
to summarize
imilarly
he
metaphysical
basis f
their wn
nihilism,
ould
have
aid
only
theGod of the
cosmoss dead" is
dead,
hat
s,
s
a
god,
has
ceased
o
be
divine
for
us
and thereforeo
affordhe odestar
or ur lives. Admit-
tedly
he
catastrophe
n
this
ase s less
comprehensive
nd thus
less
rremediable,
ut the vacuum
hatwas
left,
ven f
not so
bottomless,
as
felt o ess
keenly.To Nietzsche he
meaning
f nihilism s that "the
highest
values
become
devaluated"
or "invalidated"),
nd the
cause
of
this
evaluation
s "the
nsight
hatwe
have
not he
lightest
ustifi-
cationfor
positing
transcendence,
r
an 'in
itself of
things,
which s
divine/
which
s
morality
ncarnate." This
utterance,
takenwith hat
bout the deathof
God,
bears
out
Heidegger's
statement
hat
the
names
God
and Christian od are
in
Nietz-
sche's
hought
sed to denote
he
transcendental
supra-sensible)
world n general.God is thenamefor he realmofideas and
4
Wille
zur
Macht,
23,
24;
cf.
ibid.,
4,
"to live
alone,
withoutGod and
morals.'
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
14/24
442
SOCIAL RESEARCH
ideals"
(Holzwege,
p.
199).
Since
it is from
his
realm
alone
that
any
sanction
for
values can
derive,
ts
fading,
hat
s,
the "death
of
God,"
meansnot
only
the actual devaluation
f
highest
alues,
but
the
loss of the
very
possibility
f
obligatory
alues as such.
To
quote
once more
Heidegger's
interpretation
f
Nietzsche,
"The
phrase
God is dead* means
that the
transcendental orld
is without
ffective
orce."
In
a
modified,
ather
paradoxicalway
this statement
pplies
also to the
Gnostic
position.
It is
true,
f
course,
hat
ts
extreme
dualism s
of itself he
very
pposite
of
an
abandonment
f tran-
scendence.
The transmundane
od
represents
ranscendence
n
the
most
adicalform. In him
the
absolute
beyond
beckons cross
the
enclosing
osmic shells. But
this
transcendence,
nlike
the
"intelligible
world" of
Platonismor
the
world
lord of
Judaism,
does not
stand
n
any
positive
relation
to the sensible
world. It
is not the
essence
f
that
world,
but its
negation
nd cancelation.
The GnosticGod, as distinct romthe
demiurge,
s the
totally
different,
he
other,
he unknown.
Like
his inner-humanounter-
part,
the acosmic
self
or
pneuma,
which,
otherwise
idden,
also
reveals
tself
nly
n the
negative xperience
f
otherness,
f
non-
identificationnd of
protested
ndefinable
reedom,
his God
has
more of
the
nihil than
the
ens
in
his
concept.
A
transcendence
withdrawn rom
ny
normative
elation o
the world s
equal
to a
transcendence
hich has
lost its effective
orce.
In other
words,
forall purposesof man'srelation to existing eality, his hidden
God is
a
nihilistic
onception:
no
nomos emanatesfrom
him,
no
law
for
nature
nd thus
also no law
for
human
conduct
as
a
part
of
the
natural
order.
On this
basis
the
antinomistic
rgument
f
the
Gnostics
s as
simple
as
for
nstance
hat
of Sartre.
Since
the
transcendent
s
silent,
Sartre
rgues,
ince
"there
s no
sign
in
the
world,"
man,
the
"abandoned,"
reclaims
his
freedom,
r
rather,
annot
help
taking tuponhimself: e "is" thatfreedom,manbeing"nothing
but
his
own
project,"
nd
"all is
permitted
o him."5
That this
5
L'existentialisme
st un
humanisme,
p.
33
ff.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
15/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
443
freedom
s
of
desperate
ature,
nd,
s a
compassless
ask,
nspires
dreadrather han
xultation,
s a different
atter.
In
Gnostic
easoning
e sometimes
eet he
merely
ubjectivist
form f the
antinomistic
rgument: othing
s
naturally
ad or
good,
things
n
themselvesre
indifferent,
nd
onlyby
human
opinion
re
actions
ood
or bad.
Spiritual
man,
n
thefreedom
of his
knowledge,
as the ndifferent
se
of
them
ll. Whilethis
reminds ne of
nothing
more
han
of classical
ophism,
hereal
metaphysical
ackground
o
this
uperficially
keptical
ubjectiv-
ism omes
o
light
n
the
deeper
Gnostic
eflection
n
the ource
of
such
human
pinions.
The
ultimate
ource
urns
ut
tobe nothuman ut
demiurgical,
and
commonwith
hat f
the order f nature. Its
product,
he
"law/1
s
thus
ot
really
ndifferent,
ut s
part
f
the
great esign
upon
our
freedom.
Being
nomos,
he moral code
is
but the
psychical
omplement
o the
physical
omos
nd,
as
such,
the
internal
spect
fthe
all-pervading
osmic ule. Both emanate
from
he
ord of the world s
agencies
f
his
power,
nified n
the
double
aspect
f the
Jewish
God as
creator nd
legislator.
Just
s the aw
of the
physical
orld,
he
heimarmene,
ntegrates
the
ndividual
odies nto
the
general ystem,
o the moral
aw
integrates
he
ouls,
nd thus
makes
hem
ubserviento thedem-
iurgic
cheme.
For
what
s
the
aw either
s revealed
hrough
oses nd
the
prophetsr as operatingn theactualhabits nd opinions f
men
but he
means f
regularizing
nd
thus
tabilizing
he
mpli-
cation
of
man n
the
business f
the
world
nd
worldly
oncerns;
of
setting y
ts
rules he
eal of
seriousness,
f
praise
nd
blame,
reward
nd
punishment,
n
his utter
nvolvement;
f
making
his
very
will a
compliant arty
o the
compulsory
ystem,
hich
thereby
ill
functionll
themore
moothly
nd
nextricably?
n
so
far
s the
principle
f thismoral
aw
s
ustice,
t
has
the
ame
characterfconstraintn thepsychicalidethat osmic atehas
on
the
physical
ide. "The
angels
hat
reated
he
world
stab-
lished
just
ctions/
o ead
men
by
such
precepts
nto
ervitude"
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
16/24
444
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
(Simon
Magus).
In the normative aw
man's
will is takencare
of
by
the same
powers
that
dispose
of
his
body.
He
who
obeys
t
has
abdicated the
authority
f his
self.
It is not
possible
here to
go
into
the anarchical
nd sometimes
libertinistic
onsequences
f this
attitude.
Incidentally,
he
con-
sequences
an be either ibertinisticr
ascetic,
nd
actually,
xcept
for
brief
period
of
revolutionary
xtremism,
hey
have
probably
more
often
been the
latter han
the former.
But
the
two seem-
ingly
pposite
ttitudes
re
really
of
the
same
root,
nd
are
capa-
ble of
strange
ombinations.
The same
basic
argument
upports
themboth. The
one
repudiates
oyalty
o nature
through
xcess,
the
other
through
bstention. The one
sometimes
makes of
the
permission
o
do
everything
positive
bligation
o
perform
very
kind
of
action,
with
the
idea
of
rendering
o
nature ts
own and
thereby
xhausting
ts
powers;
the other
flouts
hose
powers
by
denying
them
opportunity
nd
reducing
commerce
with them
to the minimum. Both are livesoutsidethe law. Freedomby
abuse
and
freedom
y
non-use,
qual
in
their
ndiscriminateness,
are thus
only
alternative
xpressions
f the
same acosmism.
The
reference
o
thisroot
makes t
clear
that,
far
beyond
what
the
merely keptical
rgument
f
"subjectivism"
uggests,
here
was
a
positivemetaphysical
nterest
n
repudiating
llegiance
to
any
objective
norm.
It
was
the assertion
f
the
authentic
reedom
of the
self.
But
it
is
to be noted
thatthisfreedom
s
not a matter
of the "soul," which s as adequatelydetermined y the moral
law as the
body
s
by
the
physical
aw;
it is
wholly
matter f
the
pneuma,
the indefinable
piritual
core
of
existence,
he
foreign
spark.
The
soul,
psyche,
s
part
of
the natural
order,
reated
by
the
demiurge
o
envelop
the
foreign neuma,
and
in
the
norma-
tive
aw
the creator
xercises
ontrol
ver
what
s
legitimately
is
own.
Psychical
man,
definable
n
his
natural
essence,
or
nstance
as
rational
animal,
s still
natural
man,
and is
no more
admitted
to be theauthenticallyxisting elfofthepneumathanin mod-
ern existentialism
ny
determinative
ssence s admitted
o
prej-
udice
authentic
xistence.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
17/24
GNOSTICISM AND MODERN
NIHILISM
445
It
is
pertinent
ere to
compare
n
argument
f
Heidegger's.
Against
he
classical efinition
f
man as the rational
nimal,
Heidegger,
n
his
Letter n
Humanism,
rgues
hat
hisdefini-
tion
places
man within
nimality
pecified
nly
by
a
differentia
which
fallswithin he
genus
"animal"as a
particular
uality.
This,
Heidegger
ontends,
s
placing
man oo ow.
I
suspect
here
is a
verbal
sophism
nvolved
n
thus
arguing
rom he
term
"animal" s used
n the
lassical
efinition.
ut
apart
rom
hat,
in
his
rejection
f
the
concept
f
any
definable
nature" f man
whichwould
ubject
his
sovereign
xistence
o a
predetermined
essence
nd thusmakehim
part
f
an
objective
rder f essences
in
the
wholeof nature
in
this
whole
onception
f trans-essen-
tial,
freely
projecting"
xistence
there s a
significantnalogy
to
the Gnostic
oncept
f the
trans-psychical
egativity
f the
pneuma.
This
pneuma
s
thebearer
f
a
knowledge
eculiar
o
itselfwhich s
radically
ifferent
rom herational
nowledge
f
the
psyche.
Psychical
man,
hrough
isreason, wesallegiance,
indeed,
o
themoral aw
aid
down
by
his
creator,
he
demiurge,
and
in
obediently ulfilling
t
he
has
the
only
chance
f
being
just,
that
s,
properly
adjusted"
o the
externally
stablished
order,
nd
thus f
playing
is
allotted
art
n the
cosmic cheme.
But
the
pneumticos,
spiritual"
man,
s above the
aw,
beyond
good
and
evil,
and a law unto
himself
n the
power
of his
"knowledge."
Onlyin passing wish to remark hatPaul's antinomism,
though
haring
n the
general
limate f the
Gnostic
ne,
is
a
vastly
ifferent atter.
It
certainly
oes
not
grant
freedom
from
he aw to
any
superior
knowledge."
v
But
what s this
knowledge
bout,
his
ognition
hich
s
not
of
the oul
but
of the
pirit,
nd
in which he
piritual
elf
indsts
salvationrom osmicervitude? famous ormula ftheValen-
tinian chool
hus
pitomizes
he
ontent f
gnosis:
What
makes
us
free s the
knowledge
ho we
were,
whatwe
have
become;
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
18/24
446
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
where
we
were,
wherein
we have
been
thrown;
whereto
we
speed,
wherefrom e are
redeemed;
what is
birth and
what
rebirth."
A real
exegesis
of this
programmatic
ormula would
have
to
unfold the
complete
Gnostic
myth.
Here
I
wish
to make
only
a
few formal bservations.
Firstwe note
the
dualistic
grouping
f the
terms
n antithetical
pairs,
and the
eschatological
ension
between
them,
with
ts irre-
versible
directedness
rom
past
to future.
We further
bserve
that
ll the terms sed
are
concepts
ot of
being
but
of
happening,
of movement.
The
knowledge
s of
a
history,
n
which
it
is
itself critical
vent.
Among
hese
erms f
motion,
he one
of
having
been
thrown"
into
something
trikes
ur
attention,
ecause
we
have
been
made
familiar
with it
in existentialist
iterature.
We are
reminded
of
Pascal's
"Cast nto
the
nfinite
mmensity
f
spaces,"
of
Heideg-
ger's
Geworfenheit;
having
been
thrown,"
which
with
him
is
a fundamental haracter f theDasein, of the
self-experience
f
existence.
The
term,
s
far
as
I
can
see,
is
originally
Gnostic.
In the Mandaean
literature
t
is
a
standing
hrase:
life has
been
thrown
nto the
world,
ight
nto
darkness,
he
soul
into
the
body.
It
expresses
he
original
violence
done
to
me
in
making
me
be
where
am and
what
I
am,
the
passivity
f
my
choiceless
mer-
gence
into an
existing
world
whose
law
is
not mine.
But the
image
of the
throw
lso
imparts
dynamic
haracter
o
the whole
of the existence hus nitiated. In our formula his s takenup
by
the
image
of
speeding
toward
some
end.
Ejected
into
the
world,
ife
is
a
kind
of
trajectory
rojecting
tself
forward
nto
the
future.
This
brings
us
to
the
last
observation
wish
to
make
apropos
the
Valen
inian
formula:
that
in its
temporal
terms
t
makes
no
provision
or
present
n
whose
content
nowledge
may
dwell
and,
in
beholding,
tay
the
forward
hrust. There
is
past
and
future,wherewe come fromand wherewe speed to, and the
present
s
only
the
moment
of
gnosis
itself,
he
peripety
from
e
Clemens
Alex.,
xc.
ex
Theod.,
78,
2.
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
19/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
447
the ne to the
other n
a
supreme
risis
f the
schatological
ow.
There is this o
remark, owever,
n
distinctiono
all
modern
parallels:
he
contextmakes
t
clear
that,
hough
hrown
nto
temporality,
e
had
an
origin
n
eternity,
nd so
also have an
aim
in
eternity.
his constitutes
metaphysical
ackground
o
innercosmicihilismwhich s
entirely
bsent
from
ts modern
counterpart.
To
turn
once more to the
modern
ounterpart,
et me
put
before
ou
an observation hichmust trike heclose tudent f
Heidegger's
ein
und
Zeit,
that
most
profound
nd still most
important
anifestof
existentialist
hilosophy.
n this
book
Heidegger
evelops
n
ontology
f
the elf
ccording
o
the
modes
in which t
exists,
hat
s
to
say,
n
which t constitutests
being
by
ts
existing,
nd these
modes re
explicated
n a
number f
fundamental
ategories
hich
Heidegger
refers
o call "existen-
tials." Unlike he
objective
ategories
f
Kant,
hey
efine
truc-
turesnotof
reality
utof realizationof theactivemovement
of
nwardness
y
which world
f
objects
s
entertainednd the
self
riginated
s
a
continuous
vent.
They
have,
herefore,
ach
and
all,
a
profoundly
emporal
meaning.
The
'
'existen
ials" re
categories
f nternal r
mental
ime,
he
ruedimension
f
exist-
ence,
nd
they
rticulate
hat imension
n
itstenses.
This
being
so,
they
must
exhibit,
nd
distribute etween
hemselves,
he
three
orizons f
time
past,present,
nd future.
Now fwetry oarrangehese 'existenials,"Heidegger'sate-
gories
f
existence,
nder
hese hree
eads,
s
it
s
possible
o
do,
we
make a
striking
iscovery
at
any
rate
one that
truck
me
very
much
when made
t
many ears go
(at
the
ime
ven
going
so
far s to draw
p
a
diagram,
n the lassical
manner
f a
"table
of
categories").
his is
the
discovery
hat
hecolumn
nder
he
head of
"present"
emains
racticallympty.
I
must
hasten
o
add
that his
tatement,
nd
what
ollows,
s
an
extreme
bridge-
ment.Actuallygreat eal s said bout he xistentialpresent."
But
it is
nothing riginal
n
its
own
right.
As far
s
the
term
is
meant o
denote
n
aspect
of
genuine
existence,"
t
is
the
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
20/24
448
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
present
of the
'
'situation/'
which is
wholly
defined
n termsof
the
self's relation to
its
"future" and
"past."
It flashes
up,
as
it
were,
in
the
light
of decision when
the
projected
"future"
reacts
upon
the
given
"past,"
and
in this
meeting
onstitutes
hat
Hteidegger
alls
the "moment"
(Augenblick):
moment,
not dura-
tion,
s the
temporal
mode of
this
present
a
creature
f the other
two horizons f
time,
function
f
theirceaseless
dynamics,
nd
no
independent
dimension
to dwell
in.
Detached, however,
from hiscontext f
inner
movement,
y
itself,
present"
denotes
precisely
he renouncement
f
genuine
future-past
elation
in
the "abandonment" or "surrender" o
talk,
curiosity,
nd
the
like
(Verfallenheit):
failureof
the tension
of true
existence,
kind of
lazinessof
being.
Indeed,
Verfallenheit,
negative
erm
which also
includes
the
meaning
of
degeneration
nd
decline,
s
the "existential"
proper
to
"present"
as
such,
showing
t to
be
a derivative nd "deficient"
mode
of existence.
To return, hen,to our
original
statement,we findthat all
the
relevant
ategories
f
existence,
hose
having
to
do
with
the
possible
genuineness
f
existence,
fall
in
correlate
pairs
under
the heads of either
past
or
future:
"facticity," ecessity,
aving
become,
having
been
thrown,
re
existential
modes
of
the
past;
being
ahead of
oneself,
nticipation
of
death,
care
and
resolve,
are existential
modes of
the
future.
No
present
remains
for
genuine
existence
o
repose
n.
Leaping
off,
s
it
were,
from ts
past, existenceprojects tself nto its future;faces its ultimate
limit,
death;
returns
rom
his
eschatological
limpse
of
nothing-
ness
to its sheer
factness,
he
unalterable
datum of
its
already
having
become
this,
here
nd
then;
and carries
his
forward
with
its
death-begotten
esolve,
nto
which
the
past
has
now been
gathered
p.
I
repeat,
there
s
no
present
o dwell
in,
only
the
crisis
between
past
and
future,
he
pointed
moment
between,
balanced
on
the
razor's
edge
of
decision
which
thrusts head.
This breathless ynamism olds a tremendous ppeal for the
contemporary
ind,
and
my
generation
n
the German
twenties
and
early
thirties
uccumbed
to
it
wholesale.
But
there
is a
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
21/24
GNOSTICISM AND
MODERN
NIHILISM
449
puzzle
n
this
vanescencef the
present
s
the
holder f
genuine
content,
n
its
reduction o
the
nhospitable
ero
point
of
mere
formal
esolution.What
metaphysical
ituation
tands
ehind
t?
Here an
additional bservations
relevant.
There
s,
after
ll,
besides
he
existential
present"
f
the
moment,
he
presence
f
things.
Does
not the
co-presence
ith
hem fford
"present"
of differentind?
But
we
earn
rom
eidegger
hat
hings
re
primarilyuhanden,hat s,usable (ofwhich ven
"useless" s
a
mode),
and therefore
elated
o
the
"project"
of
existence,
thereforencluded
n the
future-past
ynamics.
Yet
they
an
also
become
merely
orhanden
standing
efore
me),
that
s,
indifferent
bjects,
nd
the mode
of
Vorhandenheit
s an
objec-
tive
ounterpart
o whaton
the
existential
ide
s
Verfallenheit,
false
present.
Vorhanden
s what s
merely
nd
indifferently
"extant,"
he
"there" f
bare
nature,
here o
be looked
t out-
side
the relevance f the
existentialituation nd
of
practical
concern.It is
being,
s it were,
tripped
nd alienated o the
mode
of neutral
bject.
This is
the
status
eft o
"nature"
a
deficient
mode of
reality
and the
relation
n
which
t is so
objectified
s
a
deficient
odeof
existence,
ts defection
rom he
futurity
f care
into the
spuriouspresent
f mere
onlooking
curiosity.
This
existentialist
epreciation
f the
concept
f nature
the
absence
f
"nature"
s
a relevant
opic
from
Heidegger's
hi-
losophys in itself revealing act) bviouslyeflectstsspiritual
denudation
t
thehands
f
physical
cience,
nd t has
something
in common ith
heGnostic
ontempt
or ature. No
philosophy
has
everbeen
ess
concerned
bout
nature,which,
or
t,
has no
dignity
eft o
it: this
unconcern
s
not to
be
confounded ith
Socrates'
efraining
rom
hysical
nquiry
s
being
bove man's
understanding.
To look at what s
there,
t nature s
it
is
in
itself,
t
Being,
the ncients alledbythenameofcontemplation,heoria. But
the
point
here s
that,
f
contemplation
s left
with
only
the
irrelevantly
xtant,
hen
t loses
the noble status t once had
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
22/24
450
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
as does the
repose
n
the
present
o which
it holds
by
the
pres-
ence
of its
objects.
Theoria
had
that
dignity
because of its
Platonic
implications
because it beheld eternal
objects
in
the
forms
of
things,
transcendence f immutable
being
shining
through
the
transparency
f
becoming.
Immutable
being
is
everlasting resent,
n
which
contemplation
an
share
in
the
briefdurations
f
the
temporalpresent.
Thus
it is
eternity,
ot
time,
that
grants present
nd
gives
it
a status of its own
in
the flux of
time;
and
it
is
the loss
of
eternity
hich
accounts
for the loss of
a
genuine
present.
Such
a
loss
of
eternity
s
the
disappearance
f
the world of
ideas and
ideals
in which
Heidegger
sees
the
true
meaning
of
Nietzsche's
"God
is dead":
in
other
words,
he absolute
victory
f
nominalism
over
realism.
Therefore he same
cause which
s at
the root of
nihilism
s also at the root of the
radical
temporality
f
Heideg-
ger's
scheme
of
existence,
n
which
the
present
s
nothing
but
themoment ftransience rom
past
to future. If values are not
beheld
in
vision
as
being (like
the Good
and the
Beautiful of
Plato),
but
are
posited
by
the will
as
projects,
hen
ndeed exist-
ence
is committed
o
constant
futurity,
ith death
as the
goal;
and
a
merely
ormal
esolution o
be,
without
nomos for
that
resolution,
ecomes
a
project
from
nothingness
nto
nothingness.
In
the words
of
Nietzsche
quoted
before,
"Who once
has lost
what
thou
hast
lost
stands
nowhere
still."
VI
Once
more our
investigation
eads
back to the
dualism
between
man
and
physis
s
the
metaphysical
ackground
f the nihilistic
situation.
There
is
no
overlooking
one
cardinal
difference
between
he Gnostic
nd the
existentialist
ualism:
Gnostic
man
is
thrown
nto
an
antagonistic,
nti-divine,
nd
therefore
nti-
human
nature,
modern
man
into an
indifferent
ne.
And
only
the atter ase representsheabsolutevacuum,thereallybottom-
less
pit.
In the
Gnostic
conception
he
hostile,
the
demonic,
s
still
anthropomorphic,
amiliar
ven
in
its
foreignness,
nd
the
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
23/24
GNOSTICISM
AND
MODERN NIHILISM
451
contrast
tself
ives
direction
o existence a
negative
irection,
to
be
sure,
ut
one that
has behind t the
sanction
f the
nega-
tive
transcendenceo
which
he
positivity
f
the
world
s the
qualitative
ounterpart.
Not
even
this
antagonistic
uality
s
granted
o
the
ndifferent
ature
fmodern
cience,
nd from
hat
nature
o
directiont
all
can
be
elicited.
This
makesmodern
ihilism
nfinitely
ore
adical nd more
desperate
han
Gnostic ihilismvercouldbe,for ll itspanic
terror
f the
world
nd its defiant
ontempt
f its laws. That
nature oesnot
are,
ne
way
r
the
ther,
s the
rue
byss.
That
only
man
cares,
n
his finitude
acing
othing
ut
death,
lone
withhis
contingency
nd the
objective
meaninglessness
f his
projecting eanings,
s
a
truly
nprecedented
ituation.
But
this
ifference,
hich eveals he
greater
epth
f modern
nihilism,
lso
challenges
ts
self-consistency.
nostic
dualism,
fantastics
it
was,
was
at least
self-consistent.he
idea of a
demonicnature
gainst
whichthe self s
pitted,
makes ense.
Butwhat
bout n indifferentaturewhich
everthelessontains
in its midst
omething
o which ts own
being
does make a
difference?
he
phrase
f
having
been
flung
nto indifferent
nature
s a
remnant rom dualistic
metaphysics,phrase
o
whose se
the existentialists'wn monistic
eliefs
ive
them
no
right.
What
s the
throw
without
he
thrower,
nd
without
beyond
whence
t started?Rather houldthe
existentialist
ay
thatife conscious,aring, nowingelf has been"thrownp"
by
nature. If
blindly,
hen he
seeing
s a
product
f the
blind,
the
aring
product
f the
uncaring,
teleological
ature
egot-
ten
unteleologically.
Does
not
this
paradox
ast doubt on the
very
oncept
f an
indifferent
ature,
hat bstractionf
physical
cience?
So radi-
cally
has
anthropomorphism
een
bannedfrom
he
concept
f
nature
hat ven
man
must
ease to be
conceived
nthropomor-
phicallyf he is justan accident fthatnature.As theproduct
of the
ndifferent,
is
being,
oo,
must e
indifferent.
hen
the
facing
f his
mortality
ould
simply
warrant
he
reaction
Let
-
7/26/2019 Hans Jonas Niilismo e Gnosticismo Nietzsche
24/24
452
SOCIAL
RESEARCH
us
eat
and drink
for
tomorrowwe
die."
There is
no
point
in
caring
orwhathas
no sanction ehind
t
n
any
creative
ntention.
But
if
the
deeper
nsight
f
Heidegger
s
right
that,
facing
our
finitude,
we find
that we
care,
not
only
whetherwe
exist
but
how we exist
then
the
mere factof
there
being
such
a
supreme
care,
anywhere
within
the
world,
must also
qualify
the
totality
which
harbors
that
fact, nd,
having
given
rise
to
it
physically,
cannot
be
only
the
indifferent
xternality
of
a-teleological
science.
The
disruption
etween
man
and total
reality
s
at the bottom
of
nihilism.
The
illogicality
f the
rupture
makes ts fact
no
less
real,
or
its
seeming
alternative
more
acceptable:
the stare
at
isolated
selfness,
o
which
it commits
man,
may
seek
release
and
has
found
t
in a monistic
aturalism
which,
long
with the
rupture,
would
abolish
also
the
idea
of
man as
man.
Between
that
Scylla
nd
this
her
twin
Charybdis,
he
modern
mind hovers.
Whether third oad is
open
to it one bywhichthefatal dual-
ism
can
be overcome
nd
yet
nough
of
the
dualistic
nsight
aved
to
uphold
the
humanity
f
man
philosophy
will
have to
find ut.