Customer Reviews

Genealogy of Nihilism (Routledge Radical Orthodoxy)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

A very important book in the Radical Orthdoxy series, and probably my favourite of those I've read so far. Conor Cunningham does a wonderful job not only in tracing back through the history of modern nihilism, but also of making sense of all the philosophical writings of the many key figures he surveys as he shows that the main feature of nihilism is the "nothing as something."

Cunningham begins with going back to Plotinus, showing that his theory of the One is very much a pagan one, drawing directly from Hesiod's Theogony which is a pagan myth of the creation of the world. From there he makes moves to Avicenna, Henry of Ghent, William of Ockham, and then, of course, to John Duns Scotus, the first Christian thinker to incorporate Plotinian and Avicennian ideas into his thought. Scotus to Spinoza, to Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Derrida.

Contrary to Milbank's Theology & Social Theory, after reading each section I could think to myself, "I understand Scotus," "I understand Spinoza," or "I understand Hegel"; in Milbank's magnum opus, I often found myself lost in his murky language and his assumptions that I've read as much as he has. Cunningham does not fall back on this assumption and provides an overview with the understanding that readers may not have necessarily read each philosopher. He endnotes every section heavily, working through each philospher's thought, re-explaining it, and then each time offering an even further clarifying "in other words" to illuminate each philosopher's thought in light of his thesis of the nothing as something.

In the second half of the book called "The difference of Theology," he provides a final survey of nihilism, showing that it tries to make everything the same, creating an indifference to all difference. In so doing, he shows that modernity can no longer speak meaningfully, especially in the observation that it often cannot see any difference between a holocaust and an ice cream cone. On the other hand, Cunningham shows that theology does not want to get rid of difference but affirm it in love, making a very Trinitarian move.

The final chapter ties everything together beautifully, making two points. The first point is that the meontotheological logic of nihilism's nothing as something is actually very similar to theology's creation ex nihilo. Cunningham admits to stumbling upon this similarity not intentionally. The second point, based upon the first, emphases that as the gift of creation we are to be co-creators with God in the giving and receiving of the Church, we are to find and be love where there is hatred, find form in the formless, and therefore create something where there is nothing. This "co-creation" is not articulated in the sense that God needs us to be his "co-pilot", but in the sense that God is so indescribably loving that God creates (creation and thus humans as a part of that creation) and desires us to participate in that divine gift of love that gives.

This is an absolutely amazing book that is often overlooked in the Radical Orthodoxy series. I highly recommend it.

I really did not enjoy this book. Cunningham identifies the "logic of nihilism" as a consequence of a univocity of a non-being that results from an un collapsible, dualistic aporia and reads this model into everyone from Plotinus to Badiou. According to Cunningham, the logic of nihilism cannot adequately "provide" (he develops a "technical" understanding of this term)a cosmological account. The solution to this problem? The trinity and the christian god.

The book is obscure, jargony and full of appeals to authority, most infuriatingly to the bible. It offers nothing new to the discourse on nihilism (like most contemporary books on the subject, excluding Brassier's work) and ultimately,unconvincingly and uninterestingly shows why nihilists (a category Cunningham reduces and abuses so heavily that it ends up applying to all philosophers who do not accepts christ as god in person blah, blah, blah...) and theologians cannot agree: Philosophers who do not accept god cannot give a satisfactory theological account of creation. He completely neglects the fact that nihilism is, in the hands of many, a weapon to be used against this kind of reductive and childish christian ideology.

Ultimately, this book is of a very low quality and a high price. Do not buy it unless you've already drank the christian cool-aid.

I am no professional philosopher of any kind but I am an amateur study. I think they did a good job in this book of explaining nihilistic philosophies in ways but the whole refutation is simply a baseless assertion in belief to "imagine" one's self out of the valid issues that nihilistic philosophers bring up. The authors bring up the UTILITY of comfort that the belief in Christ and absolute value through God, but they do not really establish the solidity of such a thing. It is a placeholder, a fragile bridge over the chasm of meaninglessness that could never span the full breadth of reality. But the utility of it is indeed there nontheless. The effect of believing in God is the effect of believing in God, not the effect of God.

Ultimately only useful to people who still have Christian faith. I wouldn't recommend it otherwise.

This is a difficult book, but truly superb - hence the difficulty! I had my doubts about "Radical Orthodoxy" but this book has removed many of them.