Escaping The Abyss of Nihilism
Logic as the Key to the Meaning Crisis
We live in a nihilistic age. Meaning and purpose seem to have vanished from the world. Many feel aimless and lost, like being in the middle of the ocean. We are desperately searching for meaning, grabbing onto everything that seems to float.
Nietzsche's shadow looms on the horizon, while the resounding echo of “God is dead” ripples across the waves. As the belief in the transcendent fades away, a haunting question lingers in our minds: Can we find meaning and purpose in a world devoid of the transcendent?
No. We cannot.
Philosopher Eric Voegelin is clear about this. Our human existence is defined by the search for the ultimate ground of existence, which, by definition, must be transcendent. Only by orienting ourselves towards the transcendent ground and actively participating with it can we find any lasting sense of meaning and purpose.
Earthly pleasures such as food, lust, drugs, and various ecstatic states, as well as finite goals like wealth, status, power, and health, consistently fall short in providing us with a profound sense of meaning and purpose. Even upon attaining them, or sometimes even just before, our focus inevitably shifts to the next pursuit.
This happens because the source of meaning cannot be finite and confined to the material world alone. As humans, despite our finite nature, we inherently seek the infinite, the eternal, and the transcendent. This is a fact of life, and failing to recognize it leads to suffering. It is the fundamental human condition.
But these words may seem empty and sound like a massive cope to you. Even if you agree with the diagnosis of the human condition just presented, the notion of the transcendent may seem like wishful thinking.
The underlying meaning crisis is well understood; that is not the problem. The problem lies in the death of God itself. The world has been disenchanted, and we find ourselves unable to believe in anything transcendent. This is the dark place we find ourselves in.
We are left in a dilemma. On the one hand, the world, by itself, cannot provide us any ultimate meaning. On the other hand, we are unable to earnestly believe in the transcendent, which would provide that ultimate meaning.
In this dilemma, we seem to have two main options. First one is to indulge in hedonism, filling our lives with fleeting pleasures, embracing naive subjectivism and idealism, and believing that we create our own meanings. This is a form of escapism, where we try to sweep the whole issue under the rug and simply avoid thinking about it.
The second option is to embrace meaninglessness by becoming deterministic materialists, which, instead of eliminating cognitive dissonance, makes it even worse, as absolutely no one can live their everyday life, let alone a fulfilling life, without meaning or purpose.
Thus, neither of these approaches addresses the issue, which will inevitably haunt us in the quiet moments of the night. These are the real massive copes we embody. Once we recognize that regardless of our decisions, we ultimately end up in the dead end of nihilism, true hopelessness sets in, and we plunge into the abyss of nihilism.
The Way Out of the Abyss
Is there a way to escape this dilemma?
There have been many attempts to solve this problem, but all of these are basically attempts to introduce a new set of metaphysics. However, simply positing new metaphysics isn’t compelling. Why choose one over another?
All of this seems to be a question of personal conviction. For this reason, any metaphysics attempting to bring back meaning and purpose seems like a cope as well. Our modern mind has been deeply injured and damaged.
Yet, I believe that a solution exists. The solution to the meaning crisis does not rest in new metaphysics, self-improvement, spiritual practices, political change, or a return to the enlightenment era. Surprisingly, the solution lies in gaining a clear and correct understanding of logic.
The root of the meaning crisis is found in our false and limited understanding of logic itself. This was the claim of Peirce, whose view on the nature of logic differs massively from any of the contemporary views.
The crucial step is to ground metaphysics in logic.
By doing so, logic becomes the foundational ontological structure of reality. In other words, reality is inherently constructed upon a logical framework, to which it must conform. Logic is the study of this a priori formal structure, and metaphysics studies its a posteriori manifestation.
“The only rational way [to do metaphysics] would be to settle first the principles of reasoning, and, that done, to base one’s metaphysics on those principles. Modern notions of metaphysics are not rationally entitled to any respect, because they have not been determined in that way” (2.166, 1902, as cited in Forster, 13)
Another way to see why logic must precede metaphysics, is more straight forward. Namely, in order to propose any set of metaphysics, one has to assume logic. How else could you argue your case? How else could you even express yourself logically?
You can certainly say that the world obeys no logic, but already the statement itself assumes logic in order to make sense. You have to use logic to combat logic, which is paradoxical. Besides, this isn’t even a belief one really holds, because they still successfully use logic on a daily basis. It is a fake belief, that one holds only intellectually, but not in one’s heart.
Metaphysics without a foundation in logic becomes unstable, and easily infested with logical inconsistencies, as there is no clear structure to it. It is like building a house without a sturdy frame: it wobbles and shifts, gradually becoming misshapen and disorderly.
Furthermore, as reality is intelligible only through the use of logic, the lack of a unifying logic, would mean that the nature of reality would forever remain beyond our understanding.
Again, you can posit that the world is unknowable. This is the extreme nihilist position, where all inquiry is abandoned. In this case there is little anyone can do for you. If you have no desire to learn, then you have also no desire to escape from the abyss.
But if you believe in reasonableness and have a desire to learn, you must also believe in the inherent intelligibility of the universe. If we are engaged in a search for meaning, our only path towards it is through logic itself.
Logic establishes the universal, formal, and necessary preconditions for an intelligible reality. Therefore, before pondering the metaphysical nature of the universe, before seeking the purpose of life or the meaning of our existence, we must first develop a clear understanding of the nature of logic. To comprehend the content of reality, we must initially grasp its underlying form.
So, if you desire to learn, let us begin the escape by journeying beyond the realms of the metaphysical, delving deep into the very bedrock of inquiry – the world of logic itself.
The Nature of Logic
Logic is the study of signs. Therefore, logic is semiotics. It seeks to discover the principles governing signs and how signs must conform to these principles. Logic applies to all possible signs, not just to mental signs in our minds. Peirce’s conception of logic differs from the usual conception at least in three ways:
Logic is not purely deductive, but includes also inductive and abductive reasoning.
Logic is not precise, but inherently vague, as reasoning is based on continuities and is qualitative.
Logic is not limited to thought and language, but encompasses the whole of experience and the whole of reality.
Firstly, in contrast to the usual conception of logic, semiotics deals with all kinds of reasoning, not just with deductive reasoning. This point can’t be emphasized enough. Our conception of logic is mainly computational, often involving ideas of truth tables and computer scripts “if P then necessarily Q”. This perspective often paints a picture of a logical individual akin to a flawless computer, making error-free inferences. However, deduction represents merely a fraction of the domain of logic.
Consider the NPC meme. A NPC (non-player-character) is a person who runs a script and is incapable of adopting new information and changing their beliefs. Everything they hear is fitted into a pre-learned framework. Here is a common script:
X is bad (a programmed belief, which remains unchanged).
Y is associated with X (as heard from the news).
Y is therefore bad (a conclusion, which typically provokes anger in the NPC).
Notice how the NPC is making purely deductive inferences. If we limit logic to deductions, the NPC would, by definition, be entirely logical. However, we recognize the NPC's lack of reasonableness. Intuitively, we understand that logic and reasoning must encompass more than just deductions.
Peirce’s semiotics is this more developed form of logic. In addition to deductions, it encompasses inductions, i.e. generalizations, and, most importantly, abductions, i.e. creative insights and new ideas.
By introducing these additional forms of reasoning, logic stops being a mere execution of a computer script and expands to encompass learning and the discovery of new knowledge and information. The NPC's lack of reasonableness stems precisely from its inability to learn anything new.
Secondly, logic is not precise and unequivocal, but vague and probabilistic. A feeling or an interpretation of a poem, are both vague logical inferences. This stems from the fact that logic is not quantitative but qualitative. The foundation of logic lies namely in aesthetics.
Furthermore, we reason based on continuities, not on ones and zeros. For example the concept of a dog is vague. The dog can be big or small (and where does the border between these lie?), brown or black or any other color, German Shepard or a Chihuahua and so on. Everything we say, every concept we express, every emotion we feel, is always more or less vague. We know from our own experience that life is not precise.
Thirdly, Peirce widens logic beyond thought and language. In addition to these, logic deals also with feelings, sentiments, perceptions, sensations, attention, actions, qualities, metaphors, hunches, dispositions, habits, patterns, powers, and the list goes on and on. All of these are logical concepts. Basically everything that we can experience is part of logic. Not a single aspect of our experience is left out of it.
But Peirce goes even further. Not only is our human experience constituted by sign-action—semiosis, but the whole of reality has the form of a semiotic inferential process. Logic encompasses everything, as the laws of logic form the ontological structure or frame into which actual reality manifests. Simply put, the whole of reality conforms to logic.
But what's the actual problem with the contemporary view on logic? Why does it lead to significant problems and to the loss of meaning and purpose? Why doesn’t the simple belief in the objectivity of logic provide us with the key to escape the abyss?
Logic is not a Natural Science
One of the most common misconceptions about logic is that it's the study of how humans reason. The assumption goes like this: since inquirers are part of the natural world and use logic as a tool for understanding it, logic must be about understanding how humans think.
This represents a significant departure from Peirce's perspective and carries profound implications for the objectivity, normativity, and universality of logic.
If logic is seen as studying how humans think, it transforms into a natural science. According to this view, logic aims to uncover the principles guiding human reasoning with the help of special sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology.
This renders logic dependent on facts about the inquirers themselves. In this view, logical principles essentially become principles of the human mind. Consequently, logic is perceived as something constructed by humans, or at least as dependent on our physiological and psychological makeup.
However, most of us want to regard logic as objective, normative and universal. As something that everyone should follow and conform to. This is where the troubles begin.
The main problem with this view is that it leads to circular reasoning, when trying to justify logic. Let us unpack this with the help of a diagram:
Logical principles cannot be justified by appealing to scientific observations and discoveries about the human mind, as these very observations and discoveries themselves rely on the use of logic in their formation.
This circularity arises because to justify logic, you must use logic, thereby assuming the validity of logic in the process.
This is somewhat analogical to attempting to prove the reliability of a ruler by using the ruler itself to measure its own accuracy. Just as the ruler's precision is presupposed in its assessment, so too is the validity of logic assumed when attempting to justify its principles.
Moreover, this circularity undermines any normative foundation. If logic is confined to our minds it becomes inherently contingent.
How can something inherently contingent and subjective be expected to maintain universal validity? Why should we adhere to our current approach to logic? Throughout history, we've witnessed numerous false ideas about logic. How then can we discern if our current principles are also flawed?
There is, therefore, an inherent contradiction in asserting that logic is limited to the human mind and yet should be universally followed.
Once again, the philosophical dilemmas of modernity inevitably lead to postmodernity. According to this perspective, there's nothing to prevent the assertion that mathematics and logic are ultimately culturally dependent, arbitrary systems.
Metaphysics Must Be Grounded In Logic
We can also examine this circularity from the perspective of how sciences are ordered. According to Peirce, the more general sciences furnish principles to the more specific sciences.
For instance, physics investigates reality at a very general level, not needing to consider the principles of chemistry, biology, psychology, or sociology, which are more specialized. Biology, on the other hand, must reconcile its theories with the principles of physics and chemistry, but not necessarily with psychology or sociology. Sociology, however, must take all of these disciplines into account. Naturally, metaphysics, as its name suggests (literally beyond physics), is more general than physics.
If logic is viewed as a study of human reasoning, its place is after the special sciences. As logical principles are revealed only through the investigation of human reasoning, the study of logic must incorporate the principles of all preceding sciences.
Logic would be then dependent on physics, as we operate within the laws of physics; chemistry, as our bodies are comprised of carbon and other elements; biology, as we are multicellular organisms subject to biological processes; psychology, as our cognition is shaped by evolutionary principles; sociology, due to our inherently social nature and the impact of societal structures on our behavior.
However, this leads to the same circular reasoning. All of the preceding sciences utilize logic in deriving their principles, yet according to this ordering, they cannot rely on logic for their principles. In essence, the sciences have to assume the very logical principles they are attempting to uncover.
Another possibility is to consider logic as the transcendental structure of our minds. According to this view, every experience conforms to the logical framework of our minds, irrespective of context. This perspective aligns with the basic Kantian position, which positions logic between metaphysics and the special sciences.
But this perspective falls short as well and doesn’t provide the key to escape the abyss, as logic remains tied to our minds. Logical principles are now mere forms of our thought and experience. Consequently, logic cannot provide knowledge of objects as they truly exist, given the inherent limitations of our minds, which are species-specific and confined to a small corner of the universe.
We have no hope to access the true transcendent forms of the real, because our access is limited to the forms of our human mind. We can’t suddenly jump from the structure of our minds to the structure of reality.
This is the Kantian distinction between the phenomena and noumena, between the things we can know, as they are clothed into the logical categories of our mind, and the things-in-themselves that remain forever unknowable beyond our logic. This is the fundamental gap between us and reality, which makes all meaning contingent and arbitrary.
The Key to Escape
The solution is to lift logic all the way to the top to precede metaphysics. Paul Forster expresses the implications of this move:
“Therefore, since any rational theory of reality must acknowledge the presence of conditions that make inquiry possible, the logical principles form the basis of metaphysics. (…) they give rise to a conception of reality that must hold in any world in which there is a truth to discover” (Forster, 20)
I want to emphasize two points about this quote. Firstly, it underscores the essential hope in the logicality of reality. If we aim to pursue truth, we must assume that reality can, in principle, be known through inquiry. Without the belief that we can attain true beliefs, scientific inquiry loses its meaning.
To attain true beliefs, we must view reality as inherently logical; in other words, as possessing an ontological logical structure. Without this assumption, inquiry, science, and the quest for meaning become futile. We are left with no choice but to either accept that reality is fundamentally guided by logical principles or abandon all hope.
Secondly, there is the point about the transcendent nature of logic. By preceding metaphysics, logic studies the structure and form of the intelligible without asserting what the intelligible actually is. Logic is a formal science, whose principles are a priori, unlike the special sciences which are material sciences, and whose principles are a posteriori.
As a formal a priori science, logic sets boundaries on what is logically possible, much like Euclidean postulates define the possibilities within triangles by stipulating that their internal angles always sum to 180 degrees. However, such postulates don't make any claims about the actual existence of such triangles in reality.
Logic is thus transcendent, being independent of the actual universe. Put differently, the laws of physics hold in every part of this universe, but not in every possible world. In contrast, the laws of logic hold in every possible world.
Therefore, if logic precedes metaphysics, and our mind as capable of conceiving the principles of logic, then our mind is capable of reaching the transcendent.
This is the key! We are not limited into our species specific minds in our small corner of the universe, but can comprehend the fundamental form and structure of reality. The logic of reality, the eternal verities, the Truth.
Most importantly, this is not merely a metaphysical claim driven by our existential crisis and psychological needs, but rather a necessary implication of viewing logic as universal, objective, and normative. If we desire to uphold logic, we must posit it as transcendent. This way logic serves as the bridge to the transcendent.
When addressing the meaning crisis, the primary question isn't about the type of metaphysics you adopt, but rather the kind of logic you adhere to. The deterministic materialist adheres to an outdated form of logic. Consequently, their metaphysics lacks room for growth (through abductions), any freedom (stemming from vagueness), or acknowledgment of qualities and emotions. Their logic is static, constraining, and dead.
To conclude, reality is inherently logical, and we can comprehend this logic. Every fact of nature necessarily has a logical form and structure. Moreover, logic is not confined to our minds or even to this world; it is transcendent. For this reason, through logic, we participate with the eternal and infinite. Logic is our way out of the abyss of nihilism.
Thank you for reading!
Sincerely,
Markus
Sources:
Forster, Paul (2011). Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism. Cambridge University Press.
Interesting words from Pierce, but I’m concerned that this doesn’t really do what it says on the tin. This ultimately amounts to “assume comprehensibility” as a cure for nihilism, but nihilism is taking issue with the assume part. Moreover, there’s kind of a laundering effect going on here to get to the transcendence of logic, if we don’t want to assume it outright, we can interpolate it from the effectiveness of our activities; art, the natural sciences, and even mathematics all seem to do rather amazing things, and they do so without foundation in the strict logical positivist sense, so we can take all the body of abilities and intuitions and pieces of mental life which we suppose make this possible and say: look, we can do stuff! Let’s take our divine transcendent ability to comprehend and call it logic. But there are problems with this. Some comprehensibility almost certainly exists (this is a weaker claim than “assume total comprehensibility”, which it is harder for the nihilist to deny) but the extent to which the universe is comprehensible to us is entirely up for discussion, it is not a binary between incomprehensibility and total comprehensibility (the former of which does not seem to be the case, and the latter of which likely cannot exist on a formal positivist level but you can hypothesise it to be the case because of our divine transcendent logic - a leap). Only the weaker version of this claim is required for thought and moreover to define the foundations of comprehension as the sum total of the faculties which we identify in the course of doing the thing doesn’t strike me as much of a foundation, it just amounts to “look we can do things”, and if you get essentialist and faithful about it, you can take that to “and that’s because we have a limitless essential ability that underlies us” but it is no way entailed. I hope that was somewhat legible, sorry if not! Thanks
Thank you for adding Peirce's voice to this topic. I'm not familiar with his work, but what you said reminds me a lot of Hegel, since he equated logic with metaphysics (and critiqued Kant for similar reasons that you do). One worry that I've had with Hegel's response to nihilism, however, is that establishing the intelligibility of being only gets us part way to the desired goal. The logic structure of reality might make it somewhat welcoming to us, but it doesn't yet make it a home. What most religions have provided is the idea that reality isn't only intelligible, but that it's a place suitable for us and our needs (preferably where good things happen to good people). Hegel's system was rejected by many religious thinkers for just this reason. But perhaps Peirce can succeed where Hegel didn't.
I also wanted to say that the dichotomy between nihilism and transcendence isn't so helpful for understanding the phenomena of meaning and purpose in human life. Many people find meaning in their daily lives: looking after their children, being part of a community, pursuing an artistic project, or something else. I grant you that none of these things can meet your standard of being infinite, eternal or transcendent. They are all finite, temporal, and immanent to the world. But, for all that, they are not the mere nihilistic self-seeking practices you are worried about.