Everlasting No

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Going One God Further
Atheism
Icon atheism.svg
Key Concepts
Articles to not believe in
Notable freethinkers

The Everlasting No is the name given by philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle in his 1832 book Sartor Resartus to an attitude of aggressively malicious unbelief he claimed to find in some people. It is deliberately opposed by Carlyle to the Everlasting Yea, a spirit of resolute faith without a definite object, but it is important to note that the Everlasting No was more than idle atheism. It instead expresses a determination to mock and malign every aspect of the noblest sentiments of humanity.

Carlyle felt that the truest proof for the existence of the divine could be found in the high feelings and ambitions of mankind, and that a persistent atheism could only exist and grow through the Everlasting No - e.g. by tearing down those high feelings and ambitions. Similarly, the most ideal form of the Everlasting Yea (in Carlyle's opinion) was only to be found through devout opposition to the grim nihilism.[note 1] In this way, the Everlasting No and Everlasting Yea each actually owed their existence to the other, and were necessary to each other.

In Sartor Resartus, the character of Diogenes Teufelsdröckh[note 2] sets forth the malicious Everlasting No in his initial absurd philosophical ramblings (of which Carlyle "translates" some parts) before venturing through a transformative period of neutrality and eventually accepting the Everlasting Yea. Teufelsdröckh at his most dour seems a predecessor of some of the more grim New Atheists - or at least a predecessor of how they are often perceived, rightly or wrongly. He sneers:

"By what strange chances do we live in History? Erostratus by a torch; Milo by a bullock; Henry Darnley, an unfledged booby and bustard, by his limbs; most Kings and Queens by being born under such and such a bed-tester; Boileau Despreaux (according to Helvetius) by the peck of a turkey; and this ill-starred individual by a rent in his breeches,—for no Memoirist of Kaiser Otto's Court omits him. Vain was the prayer of Themistocles for a talent of Forgetting: my Friends, yield cheerfully to Destiny, and read since it is written."[1]

Of course, when Carlyle wrote the novel, his intended targets were chiefly early German philosophers (like the school of Hegel) and the abusive landed gentry of England at the time, and was written while he himself was going through a stormy crisis of faith (which many believe led him to atheism). The whole novel is set up partly as an attack against the type of rhetoric he saw as constantly paying lip service to God while making no philosophical insights of any kind, thereby making a person hostile to God himself. Nevertheless, the next generation of German philosophers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche greatly admired Carlyle, despite being atheist.

The novel contrasts the "Everlasting No" with an "Everlasting Yes" that seems to constantly approve existence without requiring a belief in a definite deity.

This cartoonish nihilist resembles in many ways the straw man caricatures of modern atheists described by some theists (such as Deepak Chopra[2]), but has few real imitators.

External links[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. Although Carlyle didn't call it that because "nihilism" as a worldview had not yet been invented
  2. "Teufelsdröckh" means something like "Devilshit" or "Devildirt" in German. No kidding.

References[edit]