There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| Going One God Further|
|Articles to not believe in|
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."
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.
- Sartor Resartus, full text at Project Gutenberg
- Although Carlyle didn't call it that because "nihilism" as a worldview had not yet been invented
- "Teufelsdröckh" means something like "Devilshit" or "Devildirt" in German. No kidding.
- Sartor Resartus, Chapter VII