The Nihilist’s Hermeneutic

”Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."-- Caius Cornelius Tacitus ,Roman Senator, 120 A.D..

The Same Suspects

I want to discuss the use, or more accurately the misuse, of language that the Right-Wing propagandists Frank Luntz employed to construct political talking points for the Republican Party. His methodology has its roots in Language Analysis epistemology that treats language like a behavioral machine and focuses on form rather than content—they focus on the ‘Is’ of the text rather than the “Ought” of ethics. The goal of Luntz’s analysis is to “clarify” how language is actually used by the common man in the street. Critical observations on language analysis and a critique of Luntz can easily be applied to Originalism. This is no mere accident; both language analysis and Luntz’s research share the same epistemology thus making this critique inherently integrated. I want to restate three important points about Luntz’s modus operandi prior to examining Originalism.

1. Luntz is a radical empiricist. As a classical empiricist there are only two kinds of language propositions: propositions of fact and propositions of definition. Propositions of fact can be verified as true or false by observation. Definitions are tautologically true. So if one said that a garden is shaped like a regular triangle, they would only have to measure all three internal congruent 60-degree angles. And it may be true or false that the garden is shaped like a regular triangle. However, if I say all regular triangles have three internal congruent 60-degree angles, we don't have to measure anything because it is true by definition--no observation is necessary. The first statement "The garden is an regular triangle” is a "synthetic” proposition. The proposition, "A regular triangle has three internal congruent 60 degree angles" is an "analytic" proposition. In logical positivism all propositions are either analytical (definition), or synthetic (factual). Later on normative (prescriptive) statements were recognized as another kind of meaningful proposition for analysis. And many others proposition types were added by Wittgenstein that were not normally the object of philosophical analysis such as “…reporting an event, speculating about an event, forming and testing a hypothesis, making up a story, reading it, play-acting, singing catches, guessing riddles, making a joke, translating, asking, thanking, and so on”(Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1953, paragraph 10)--but I digress.

2. Luntz avoids all value statements or ethical propositions. He always avoids words like “truth” “good” “right” “wrong.” This is because prescriptive statements are neither synthetic proposition nor are they analytic. In Analytic Language Analysis ethical statements are only “prescriptions.” If I say, “X action is right,” I am merely prescribing an action as the way people should act. When I state, “Always keep a promise” I am really saying “No one should never break a promise.” I am only prescribing a certain kind of behavior. The same with the “prescription” that one should never murder children. The prescriptive proposition is merely a personal preference. This is because there are only three kinds of meaningful statements: statements of fact, ethical statements uttering a prescriptions, and tautologous definitions. There is a huge body of philosophical writings by this school of thought presenting this very argument.

For example, if one said to another, “What you do is immoral,” an ethical nihilist would say, “You are only saying ‘I don’t like X (gambling),’or ’I like Y (gaming),’ and ‘I want Z.’ ” Ethical nihilists consistently avoid the language of ethics. This ideology understands itself not as immoral, but amoral. One would expect an “ethical argument” but we only get the language of convention, appetite, emotion, preference, and sense impression—synthetic statements. Nihilism consistently avoids the language of ethics because they believe there are no values.

3. Luntz’s ideology is inherently conservative. In the discussion on gambling, for example, Luntz can only appeal to how language ‘is’ used—not its validity or truth. He avoids ethical questions but instead appeals to the status quo--how a word ‘is’ used in general--because there is no other real standard for determining the question. One can only appeal to polls, focus groups, to convention, or the unconventional. This static and limiting form of extreme empiricism, nihilism, and conservatism is the politically safe ideology promoted by academia, science, business, and government. Language analysis’ mission is only to “clarify” words and meaning then describe as a passive observer how language is used by the common person.

Language Analysis makes a metaphysical desert and then calls it truth—and sometimes does not even admit that it is truth. This nihilistic instrumental reasoning is anti-human because it is anti-divine. We will see these same theoretical, and ultimately, political tendencies in Originalism’s formalistic and inflexible judicial linguistic interpretation of the constitution. Textualism is to legal theory what Skinnerian Operand Behaviorism is to psychology. De-realization of ethical concepts ultimately leads to de-sacralization and de-humanization of society. Chris Hedges recently quoted a passage from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book “Ethics.” Here is a short excerpt:

”…Breaking away from all that is established, it is the utmost manifestation of all the forces opposed to God. It is nothingness as God; no one knows its goal or its measure. Its rule is absolute. It is a creative nothingness that blows its anti-God breath into all that exists, creates the illusion of waking it to new life, and at the same time sucks out its true essence until it too disintegrates into an empty husk and is discarded….”(Chris Hedges, an ordained Presbyterian minister, gave this sermon Jan. 20, 2019 at Christ Church Cathedral in Victoria, British Columbia, in Canada).

Couperin - "Les Baricades Mystérieuses "