experiencing life through an always-nuanced worldview.

In a previous post on “Convictions, interconnectedness, and getting out of despair,” I wrote about the conflicting rationales of Ivan’s ways of thinking and my own identification with various aspects of Ivan’s philosophy. I was troubled by Ivan’s inability to deal with his suffering and wavering convictions. I have been meaning to follow up with this post on him and my perceived analysis behind his philosophy, because the next paper I did for this existentialism class infused Nietzsche’s “passive” and “active” nihilist views and Ivan’s “convictions.” Whether or not I “correctly” read Nietzsche’s nihilist philosophy is, as always, in question, but it makes sense to me and I am glad I think I resolved this conflict in my mind… So I went back and re-read parts of my paper and am going to share some of them here now…

However, Ivan’s positing of his world as the truth is problematic: the “escape” Ivan creates is one of wavering conviction. In the progression of the novel, Ivan’s convictions come back to haunt him via the Devil in his nightmare. Ivan characterizes the Devil as his “illness…, the incarnation of…only one side of [him]…, the nastiest and stupidest of [his own thoughts]” (Dostoevsky 592). In his self-proclaimed belief of absolute nothingness, much like a passive nihilist, Ivan gets into a feeling of despair. Ivan claims everything to be “disorderly, damnable, and perhaps devil-ridden chaos” (207-208). Later on, all the worlds of God and Satan are “not proved, to [his] mind” (597). Ivan clings onto the need for proofs, rationality, and logic in order to justify his true world he has created. However, Ivan’s despair and confusion is the natural result of the “escape” that follows from the first two psychological stages of nihilism.

Ivan develops his philosophy by relying on reasoning, logic, and rationality. However, he does not realize that “the strength of knowledge does not depend on its degree of truth but… on the degree to which it has been incorporated” (The Gay Science; 169). Ivan has not incorporated his knowledge and philosophy into his character and his being. He created his beliefs through logic, on the notion that there exists nothingness and that faith in a higher being cannot and does not provide value for him. Logic and reason, however, prove faulty for the basis of “truth.”

…

What Ivan would have needed was to reach the third psychological state of nihilism. This last state begins with the realization that the reason one must invent and create a new true world is derived from one’s psychological needs (The Will to Power), just as “achieving,” “becoming,” and “aims” are psychological needs. Thus, one then concludes that one has “absolutely no right” to the truth one has created, by which one can then realize that “the reality of becoming…[is] the only reality” and there remains no reason to convince oneself that there exists a “true” world. When aim, unity, and being – the highest values – devaluate themselves, Nietzsche argues that one should become an active nihilist in order to truly grasp and take advantage of life…[Ivan] did not want to discover another world because he became obsessed with trying to find meaning and make sense of the one sun, the one world he was in.

Ivan should have embraced the realization that there is no truth by becoming a free spirit and living life dangerously. When Ivan’s god began to die – began to lose its meaning –  Ivan slipped into further despair and confusion; an active nihilist, in hearing that the old god is dead, would feel “as if a new dawn shone on [him]” and his heart would overflow with “gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation” (The Gay Science; 280). The active nihilist would view the old god’s death as a wonderful opportunity to venture out into the unknown, into the “open sea,” and embrace “what is beautiful, strange, questionable, terrible, and divine” (346).

Herein lies where, in the past 6 months (however long ago it was that I wrote this paper/took this class…) I think I’ve come to my own understanding of “life” and reconciling the seemingly “meaningless” world with an amazing, “beautiful..terrible..divine” life I am living. So this is my new sun, and while I am relishing in this “new sun” I am going to embrace the meaning I derive from it, until one day — if ever — my god/sun/meaning begins to die or devaluate itself…by which point it will be time to venture onto a new sea.

Having immigrated to the United States when I was 8, I had to learn English and simultaneously assimilate to American society. While I was busy attempting to do all of that, my peers seemed always one step ahead of me. And in a way, they still are — culturally. Because I had to learn English at 8 years old, and because I had to learn how to live in a new country at that age, I missed out in the years that followed on what many of my peers learned. Some–if not most?–of this ‘pop culture knowledge’ or what is deemed as ‘common knowledge’ is, in fact uncommon to me. I could not count the number of times I’ve gotten the incredulous looks alongside the “how do you not know that?” or “where were you growing up?” comments when I admit that I do not know some pop culture or “American culture” references.

Of course, I am open to learning and discovering what I may have missed out on when I was at home and not allowed to watch TV because I had to do homework. Don’t get me wrong — I’m not blaming all of my “confusedness” in certain aspects of American culture on my immigration, but it plays a pretty major role in why I may not know what people are talking about when they refer to characters of TV shows that were popular in the 1990′s. Most of the time, I respond to people’s glances and remarks with the “I wasn’t even in the States until 1997″ answer.

Pop culture references aside, I think there’s more at work here than the mere “wow, you don’t know that?” comments. It becomes a question of assimilation and just how much “assimilating” is “enough.” In one of my classes last semester, I learned about the assimilationist policies adopted by the Bureau of Indian affairs in dealing with the American Indians, and the assimilationist attitudes of the Mexican American movement, before it gradually became the Chicano movement. These policies attempted to erase the cultural traditions and ways of life of each respective racial group and called for them to be distinctly “American.” We often covered the topic of cultural authenticity: just what exactly is “American,” anyway? The rest of the world, when they think “American,” they think of what we term “WASPs” — White Anglo Saxon Protestants. But that’s not always the case, obviously. The US as a country prides itself on racial and ethnic diversity, cultural diversity, etc. etc.; at the same time, there seems to exist certain societal expectations of immigrants assimilating to “American society.”

Take the Asian population, for example. Here, I will refer to the “Asians” as one large population, but obviously the different ethnic groups apply here as well. For one, if an Asian is “too Asian” (of which we will define as those who may speak their Asian language to their Asian friends, focus mostly if not solely on Asian pop culture), we refer to them as “fobs” and with that, the expectation for them to assimilate into “American society” seems to be lowered. On the other hand, for the Asians who may have “completely” assimilated into American society (of which we can say those who know nothing of their Asian culture, may not have learned or have forgotten their Asian language, focus solely on American pop culture), we call them “white washed.” And then there are others in the middle — which is where I view myself — who have, for the most part, assimilated to the American society but nonetheless would like to retain (or do retain, because it’s partially ingrained in us) aspects of our Asian culture. Along this middle-part of the spectrum, we are neither “too white” nor “completely fob,” where people would expect you to know enough about American ‘traditions’ and ‘pop culture.’

There is a fine line between not being exposed to certain aspects of American society/pop culture references and plain ignorance, but from my experience these two areas have become mixed. I don’t think people have in mind per se that I am an ignorant person for not knowing X and Y about some aspect of American culture, but yet I don’t think people take into account that different cultural knowledge and traditions are emphasized during one’s childhood.

This goes back to the question of cultural authenticity: just how “authentic” can one be? Especially in a country of such a diverse background and population, there exists misconceptions and judgmental expectations for just what exactly every “American citizen” should know about “America.” But I see this, on a less major but still significant level, as the American assimilationist policy at work here, perpetuated by the American people. What does it actually mean to be American, anyway? We boast of our “melting pot” or perhaps the “salad bowl” population, but this assimilationist attitude is really calling for all of us to be “melted” into the pot instead of accepting the “salad bowl” that exists instead. There is no “the distinct American identity”; there are only versions of it. Until we as a population decide to acknowledge the indistinct American identity, I think that we will continue to hold the assimilationist attitudes instead of adopting an accepting attitude towards individuals residing in America.

And, at the end of the day, we will all still grapple with the question of “cultural authenticity.” What a marvelous world it is!