Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction

I am writing this review for the same reason I read Brassier's book: it's for class. But it is a fun class and the book is just as good, so don't let that fact discourage you from reading the remainder of this review. Lets just say that I would much rather read Brassier for a second time than read something boring like Descartes or some other dead guy or even the remainder of this review for a first time. That is not to say that this is a bad review (or a review that is bad). If I were assigned to review my review of Brassier's book I'd give it a 3/5, good at times but overly self-aware and a bit off-topic. I would rather read Brassier than this review. And I would rather read Chapter 7 of his book six more times than read the whole thing twice.Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction is dense in content and form. Brassier reads Paul Churchland, Adorno and Horkheimer, his colleague Quentin Meillassoux (if you haven't read much of this `speculative philosophy' stuff but want to continue I'd say you should definitely read Meillassoux's After Finitude), Alan Badiou, Heidegger, Deleuze, Nietzsche and some other names. He tries to acclimate you with the philosophers he critiques, but in some chapters I found myself wishing I were better acquainted with some of the primary literature. For example, I couldn't keep up with the chapter on Badiou to be honest. It was out of my range. There were certain parts in which I had to do that thing were you go back and reread a passage several times before concluding that you just don't get it. So it's not an easy read but it's well organized and very interesting.The format is very simple for the most part. The majority of the chapters are just illustrations of `this is what philosophy is doing wrong,' so you can technically read one and skip to the third part of the book. But don't, because they are all pretty interesting. Chapter 1 drags on for longer than it should, particularly for something that just illustrates the main concept but doesn't advance it. But it's an important chapter because it sets up the whole frame of the book (hence why it is the first chapter. Like I said, it has good structure and organization). Brassier promotes a form of eliminative materialism but at the same time tries to find a niche for philosophy in a world that has moved on without it. He basically wants philosophy to promote the scientific image, because otherwise philosophy will continue to be as obsolete as it has been ever since Kant. Science has advanced; philosophy must catch up and find itself a useful job.Here's a quick summary: Ray Brassier attacks the pervasive remnants of flawed human-centered ideology by delving into the consequences inherent in scientific calculations about the destruction of everything (including space-time). In other words, Brassier takes the prediction that the fabric of matter itself will eventually disintegrate and then investigates its implications on human self-understanding. His goal is to change the discourse of philosophy, a discourse that erroneously places consciousness and thought as the apex of all becoming. By looking at the inevitable implications of extinction he affirms the inconsequence of human existence.Brassier criticizes mainstream philosophy discourses because they obstinately hold on to the notion that humans are of consequence in the universe. He ridicules this visceral human yearning for cosmic importance, and chastises philosophers for softening the news in order to console "the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem" (Preface xi). Brassier wants none of this baby stuff. He demands that metaphysicians push nihilism to its most obvious conclusion: that extinction retroactively annihilates all meaning. He pierces into the depths of the bleak void of nothingness, stares at it in the eyes, and returns to tell us that extinction has "always already occurred." We are already dead.First of all reader, you must know that in "one trillion, trillion, trillion (10^1728) years from now the accelerating expansion of the universe will have disintegrated the fabric of matter itself, terminating the possibility of embodiment" (228). Not only does this imply that life, thought, space, and time will perish, it also logically proves that it has already happened. As Brassier puts it "everything is already dead" (223). The extinction of all has "retroactively" annihilated everything. This post-asymptopian state of "eternal and unfathomable blackness" already encompasses all diachronic events and forces us to confront implications that are far beyond them (228). Extinction pervades the present by encompassing "a future that has already been, and a past that is perpetually yet to be" (230). This eternal, ever-expanding nothingness is the only thing that exists. That is to say everything is already nothingness.Brassier's nihilism does not reduce human existence to some sort of subjectivism. On the contrary, it strips it of all its clutter. Nihilism allows us to observe a reality that "is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the `values' and `meanings' which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable" (Prefrace xi). It is this atavistic need to urgently hold on to the illusion of meaning that impedes intellectual progress, and it is only by accepting that extinction and its subsequent nothingness eternally pervade all reality that humans can frame their ponderings appropriately. It is the role of philosophy to clear the way for the advancement of science and to create a dialogue through which both can advance towards intellectual maturity.<tl;dr>It's a good book but it can be tough to read at times if you are not acquainted with some of the philosophers Brassier critiques. Chapter 6 & 7 are the best parts (particularly the sections on Nietzsche). Read it if you get a chance.

Nihil Unbound, written by Ray Brassier, is a fierce defense of pure Nihilism. As the title states, the Nihilism that Brassier will put forth is unbound. It is held back by nothing, it is limited by nothing, it is pure, cold, hard, (and maybe even cold-hearted), reason. This is Nihilism, as Brassier will argue, that is unheard of, unchecked and unlimited. What do I mean by all of this? Brassier says, "Philosophers would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity" (p. xi) All of which to say, life has no Meaning. What this does not say is that one day when i receive my B.A it will be meaningless, or at least i hope not. At base it will mean that i graduated college. So in that sense there is meaning. But this is not the type of meaning Brassier is talking about. When Brassier talks about meaning he is talking about Meaning. Capital M, Meaning. He is talking about an ultimate Meaning to existence or some sort of universal Purpose in life. A cross-gender, cross-cultural, cross-continental Reason for why we, we people or we anything for that matter, are here. Brassier views any and all attempts to formulate some sort of philosophy that would give life Meaning as pathetic, as i'm sure you noticed from the quote. But far from being some sort of snide remark, Brassier truly meant that when he said it and in fact the entire book is seemingly structured around proving that statement. What Brassier does is simple. He begins by explaining the claim of each and every philosopher. And in most cases he goes in to great detail about what he likes about their particular philosophy. And as you might suspect Brassier finishes each chapter by destroying what that person said. But Brassier goes through this exact same process with everyone, and he does so systematically as well as teleologically. What makes the book really predictable, however, is the fact that his problem or complaint with everyone is the exact same. Thirteen different philosophers and Brassier has the same complaint for them all. In the end everyone falls short of his radical standard. In their own particular way, each of these philosophers embrace and put forth nihilistic ideas. Some more than others, but all of them, at the last minute it seems, became afraid of where they were going and latched on to some idea or conception that one might find Meaning to existence in. For the perfect example of what I am talking about I will briefly explain Brassier's problem with the "perfect Nihilist," Nietzsche. Nietzsche was all about Meaninglessness. He even tells this little anecdote that Brassier quotes, in full, before the beginning of chapter 7. The story can be summarized as such. 'There once was a planet full of ignorant beasts. These beasts thought that they were special because they had invented this thing called thought. But one day their sun exploded and their planet with them and they all died. The Universe, meanwhile, remained completely unaffected by the one time existence of the beast and continued on as if nothing had ever happened.' That was my version of the story, please read his sometime it is way better written than mine. But you get the point. And the point is that one day our sun will explode and then what about us. No really, what about us? Nothing, that's what. We aren't special, Nietzsche says. The sun will explode, our planet will be vaporized, or whatever, and everything that has ever called it home will die with it. Everything will die and none of it will ever have mattered. Brassier reads this and says to himself, 'yes!' 'And anyone who thinks otherwise is pathetic.' But Nietzsche too fails Brassier in the end because of his, Nietzsche's, idea called the eternal occurrence. But i'll let you read that on your own. It's actually kind of interesting. So what I have just provided is a skeletal structure, more or less, for what the book is about as well as give the formate for how Brassier attacks the issue. I didn't give you the how because I neither have the time to do it nor the brain capacity to do it justice. Also, if you are remotely interested in reading this book you will do so not because you care so much about the end result but because what you really want is the how. You want read how Brassier deconstructs the arguments. And now a word about how I personally feel about the book. I am an unashamed and professing believer in Jesus Christ as both Lord and Savior. I believe in the Trinity, that Jesus is God, and that the Bible is the Infallible word of God. I'm also PCA for those who care. But with that said I agree with Brassier and his conclusion. I also absolutely love that rather lengthy quote of his that I gave at the very beginning of all this. But how can you say all that? Those are diametrically opposed beliefs and that makes you an idiot. One might say. So I'll clarify. Brassier writes what he does based on the premise that there is no God. He doesn't explicitly state that but I think i'm treading in safe waters by saying this, Brassier does not believe in God. It also should go without saying that philosophy for the last 200 years or so has pretty much agreed upon the non-existence of God. And I for one, two if we count Brassier, am sick of hearing philosophers deny the existence of God and then try to hold onto or straight make up some sort of universal Meaning to existence. If the big bang, for example, brought about our existence, there is no Meaning. There is then no Reason for our existence. The idea that our lives have Meaning or Purpose can only be maintained and are only consistent with a belief in an almighty creator. Fundamentally, I disagree with Brassier. I believe in God, he doesn't. I believe that there is Meaning and Purpose, he doesn't. And where Brassier insists that the Philosopher who is still looking for Meaning is a pathetic sop looking to boost their self-esteem, I insist that all people are looking for Meaning, God created us that way. But from a strictly philosophical perspective I find his logic compelling as well as consistent.

Brassier is an incredible thinker and this highlights that. Pushing towards new frontiers of thought while carefully parsing out where it has come from. Amazing albiet a very difficult read.

An interesting book, well written, interesting cover. Would read again.

Absolutely fantastic everything and more! worth every penny of the £21 I paid for it!