Jon Stewart: Capitalism wants us to see each other as competitors, but this flatly contradicts our natural sentiment of love and affection for one another
KapitálWhat meaning does human life have in a world where traditional answers can no longer be taken for granted? In conversation with Peter Daubner, American philosopher Jon Stewart explores the roots of modern nihilism and reflects on the tension between humanity’s cosmic insignificance and the infinite value of one’s own life. He discusses Marx’s theory of alienation, the critique of capitalism, and the need for radical thinking. He also addresses Søren Kierkegaard’s relationship to existentialism, changing conceptions of the human being, and the ecological crisis in the Anthropocene. Finally, he reflects on hope, cooperation, and mutual aid
What meaning does human life have in a world where traditional answers can no longer be taken for granted? In conversation with Peter Daubner, American philosopher Jon Stewart explores the roots of modern nihilism and reflects on the tension between humanity’s cosmic insignificance and the infinite value of one’s own life. He discusses Marx’s theory of alienation, the critique of capitalism, and the need for radical thinking. He also addresses Søren Kierkegaard’s relationship to existentialism, changing conceptions of the human being, and the ecological crisis in the Anthropocene. Finally, he reflects on hope, cooperation, and mutual aid
In A History of Nihilism in the Nineteenth Century: Confrontations with Nothingness (2023), you investigate the roots of modern nihilism. You examine nihilism as a broad cultural problem extending across philosophy, poetry, drama, and religious thought, situating it within the development of Enlightenment science, the emergence of a secular worldview, and the resulting “crisis of meaning.” Why did the question of life’s meaning become such an urgent problem in nineteenth-century Europe, and why does it continue to trouble us today?
This is an important question since many people today struggle with feelings of meaninglessness, despair, and nihilism. In my book I tried to argue that there were specific social-historical reasons for why this problem became widespread in nineteenth-century Europe. Our cultural situation today is quite different from what it was in the nineteenth century, but the problem persists and takes different forms. Prior to the Enlightenment, Christianity played a central role in Europe. It provided the basic points of orientation for different aspects of life. At the center of every town and village, there was a church. Religion gave people a fixed world-view that provided comfort and stability. However, the emergence of Enlightenment science in the eighteenth century called all of this into question. The Enlightenment’s criticism of Christianity undermined fundamental beliefs such as the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and salvation. Deprived of these basic points of orientation, many people in the nineteenth century experienced a strong sense of meaninglessness or nihilism. In the eighteenth century, strong claims were made that science would replace religion. But these claims were never realized since it became quickly clear that science could not supply answers to the deepest of human questions, such as the question of meaning. With the religious world-view refuted and the scientific world-view offering no replacement, people in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have been left on their own in their search for meaning.
Against this background, what can we say about the meaning of human life in the twenty-first century?
For the reasons I just mentioned, it is difficult to answer this question. This can no longer be answered in a general way by appealing to a common world-view or foundation. It seems impossible to find a generally agreed upon view of what this meaning is or could be. Likewise, science cannot help us here. This leads me to the conclusion that the question of meaning is largely a personal one.
How do you personally approach this question? Where do you find meaning in your own life?
If the question is about me personally and my personal life, I think that the response must be dialectical. On the one hand, from the large perspective of the universe, my life is infinitely tiny and insignificant. Whether I live or die or whatever I accomplish in my life has no significance at all in this picture. But, on the other hand, from the smaller, personal perspective, my life has an infinite value since it is mine and it is the only one that I have. This means that, for me, everything that I do is important in one way or another. The trick is to keep these two contradictory perspectives together in a harmonious manner and not to fall victim to a one-sided view. If one takes the macrolevel position as the only one, then one risks falling into despair and nihilism. But if one takes the smaller perspective as the only one, then one risks lapsing into self-importance, egoism, vanity, and arrogance, not to mention self-delusion. I think that one should try to maintain the truth of both views since they can serve as a natural control on each other and can help one to maintain a balance and realistic self-image that one needs in life.
You describe a balance between our cosmic insignificance and the infinite value of our own lives. How do you try to maintain that balance in moments of loss, failure, or despair?
In such moments the dialectical approach can offer some consolation. If I experience some big failure or fiasco, I might well feel emotionally devastated and lapse into depression. But if I keep the perspective of my cosmic insignificance, then my failure or fiasco—regardless of how big it was—in fact doesn’t really matter at all. So there is no reason for me to get hung up on it. I should just try to learn what I can from it and move on.
In Hegel’s Century: Alienation and Recognition in a Time of Revolution (2021), you examine, among other subjects, the various forms of alienation in Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. How did Marx understand alienation in the nineteenth century, and how should we understand it today?
As the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts make clear, Marx was inspired by Hegel when developing his theory of alienation. Hegel talks about how the human mind “makes itself external” by means of work, which produces all human culture. When humans create something in the world, they in effect place a part of themselves in the external sphere. There is a movement from what was first an idea in the mind of the person to actuality when the idea takes form in space and time, thus moving from the mind into the world. In his analysis of labor at the time of the Industrial Revolution, Marx developed this idea. He compares the traditional work of an independent craftsman with work in the factory which had become predominant in his time. The craftsman creates a product that he chooses. He does so in the way that he thinks best. He uses his own tools and methods of production. When he is done, the product belongs to him, and he can decide what to do with it. This model fits with Hegel’s idea. The craftsman can truly see himself in the product of his labor. It represents his own inner self in the external world. In this sense the craftsman identifies with the product of his labor, which is the very opposite of alienation.
How does this relationship between workers and the products of their labor change with the rise of factory production?
With factory work in the Industrial Age, things look very different. Workers are compelled to take jobs in factories since there are few other jobs available for people without much formal education. They are then forced to work for a fixed wage to create a product which the owner of the factory decides. They are compelled to work with the tools and machines provided by the owner instead of being able to choose their own means of production. The result is unhealthy and dangerous work conditions that the worker would never choose for himself. When the final product is completed, it does not belong to the worker but to the factory owner. Marx points out that on this model the relation of the worker to his product is entirely different than on the previous model. The factory worker cannot identify with his product since it does not belong to him. He did not plan it nor did he create it using his own tools and means. The product thus appears to him to be a foreign thing and not a part of himself. The factory worker is alienated from his own product. He cannot see himself in it. This is the opposite of the craftsman who identifies himself with his product.
To what extent does Marx’s analysis still help us understand alienation today, and where does it need to be reconsidered?
I have always found this an insightful analysis that we can learn a lot from. The question of alienation today is more complex. I think that Marx’s analysis is still relevant for us in many ways since after all most of us are indeed wage laborers. We sell our time and energy, while the product of our labor belongs to our employer. But our modern capitalist economy differs considerably from that of Marx’s time; indeed, it has become considerably more complex. Marx could hardly have imagined how great sums of capital could be generated simply by moving money around, with no actual labor involved at all. I am happy to see scholars today trying to update Marx’s theory to make it fit better with our own economy today. In this way it is possible to keep his keen insights while expanding them into new areas that he could not have envisioned in his time.
Can Marx be regarded as a radical philosopher?
In his time Marx was certainly regarded as a radical philosopher. Anyone who is openly calling for revolution and is arguing for a complete replacement of the social-political system must be regarded as radical. I think that we need radical philosophers who make us think critically about our institutions and practices that are usually taken for granted. We need radical thinkers like Marx to point the spotlight at injustices in our modern world so that people cannot look away and pretend that they don’t exist. We still have a long way to go if we are to live up to our ideals. The first step is identifying the many problems that need to be addressed.
You argue that we need radical philosophers who challenge what we take for granted. Which assumptions underpinning contemporary capitalism most urgently need to be questioned?
This is a big question that we could talk about for a long time. I think that most people today take it for granted that capitalism is the only viable economic system, and so whether we like it or not, we are obliged to continue with it. This reasoning is dubious since there are potentially many other possible economic systems that might work much better but they are never given a chance. Another unexamined assumption is that poverty is inevitable, and there is nothing that can be done about it. The first part of this is true in a sense: poverty is indeed inevitable in a capitalist system. It is the natural result of a system that is based on the accumulation of wealth. The capitalist system by its very nature produces a large class of impoverished people. A different kind of economy based on principles of equality might well be able to eradicate poverty. Yet another unquestioned assumption is that capitalism is a just system which encourages heathy competition and rewards hard workers with success. This is simply a myth. Capitalism is not a level playing field due to the fact that some people start with the huge advantage of coming from a wealthy family. They have not earned this by their hard work or any particular skill or ability that they have worked to attain. They received it at birth. The result of this inequality is exactly what one would expect, people coming from wealthy families tend to be successful in the system, and the cycle of poverty continues among the poorest. I will leave it there, but many more examples could be given.
You are an expert on the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who places at the center of philosophical inquiry the individual who makes decisions, experiences anxiety and love, bears responsibility, and searches for meaning in life. Can Kierkegaard be regarded as the founder of existentialism? Does his philosophy remain a source of inspiration today?
One often finds in introductions to philosophy or existentialism statements such as this. In fact, for a long time it was taken for granted that Kierkegaard was the founder or the father of existentialism. It seemed obvious since if existentialists such as Sartre said it, then it must be true. But in the last two or three decades, Kierkegaard scholars have begun to call this label into question. In 2011 I published the anthology Kierkegaard and Existentialism. In my Preface to this collection, I tried to examine this issue briefly. While doing research for this, I came to a greater appreciation of how complex this problem is. In fact, when one begins to explore the question, it dissolves into several different problems.
What kind of problems?
In order to claim that Kierkegaard was the founder of existentialism, it is necessary to determine what exactly existentialism is as a school. Even apart from Kierkegaard’s relation to it, defining existentialism has proven to be an impossible task. Many of the best-known existentialists rejected the label. Moreover, they frequently disagreed with one another, and it has proven impossible to determine a set of doctrines that they all subscribe to. Most attempts nowadays tend to point out continuities of interest, such as freedom, anxiety, and individuality. But none of these really determines anything since they would suit equally well many other philosophers from other times. So without a definition of existentialism, it is impossible to say if Kierkegaard was its founder.
Apart from this, what other problems did you find?
In order to claim that Kierkegaard was the founder of existentialism, it is necessary to determine what exactly is meant by being a “founder” or “the father of” existentialism. Does this mean that Kierkegaard established a set of doctrines that the later existentialists came to subscribe to? Or conversely, does it mean that the key tenets of existentialism can be traced back to Kierkegaard? If so, then it cannot be the case that Kierkegaard is the founder of existentialism since many of his views, flatly contradict the views of the existentialists. Indeed, he would reject Sartre’s famous claim that “existence precedes essence,” which is often used as the very definition of existentialism.
How, then, would you describe his relationship to the thinkers associated with existentialism?
It is impossible to claim without many qualifications and exceptions that Kierkegaard was the founder of existentialism. The nature of his thought and the history of its reception are simply too complex. It is more accurate simply to say that many of the authors associated with existentialism read some works by Kierkegaard and were inspired by some of his ideas that they went on to develop in their own ways. This inspiration does not mean that they were Kierkegaardians or that Kierkegaard was an existentialist. These issues need to be explored individually in individual authors. Unfortunately, the history of philosophy rarely provides simple, straightforward answers.
Beyond his influence on existentialism, does Kierkegaard’s philosophy remain a source of inspiration today?
There is no doubt that this is the case. The field of Kierkegaard studies has grown enormously over the past three decades. People from around the world with very different backgrounds, religions, and interests continue to be interested in and inspired by him. This also is true of leading philosophers, such as Jacques Derrida, Sylviane Agacinski, and Jürgen Habermas, who have produced important works on Kierkegaard. It should also be noted that the surge of interest in Kierkegaard’s thought is not limited to philosophy but also extends to several other fields, such as psychology, religious studies, literature, drama, and the visual arts.
You are an expert in philosophical anthropology. Can you tell us something about your work on the question of what is a human being?
I am very interested in philosophical anthropology, and this is one of my main areas of current research. In my recent manuscript, which is now under review, I argue that the idea of a human being or humans in general is just that, an idea. This means that it is not something given absolutely but rather a product of human thought. But human thinking has of course changed radically over the course of time. This suggests that the idea of what it is to be human has also changed. Our current view of what a human being is differs considerably from views in antiquity.
How do you trace these changing understandings of what it means to be human?
In my work I try to trace these changes through time in order to understand how our modern view came about. My methodology is to explore different cultures, which naturally reflect the ideas at the time they were created. In these ideas, it is possible to understand how ancient peoples thought of themselves. This involves questions such as how humans are thought to be related to nature or to the gods. With these points of contrast, it is possible to discern what these peoples considered to be characteristic of human beings.
What is at stake in these definitions of the human, particularly in relation to human rights?
This is a very important issue today since our modern conception of human rights is attached to it. In order to qualify for these rights, one must be human. If one is not human, then one has no rights. History is the sad story of suffering, exploitation, subjugation, and enslavement of people who have been considered somehow less than human. For me, it is necessary to regard every human being as something sacred and irreducible. Every person should be given the same rights as everyone else. This view did not always exist. In fact, it has come about, in historical terms, very recently. I am keen to trace the story of how we arrived at this over millennia.
How does your research relate to contemporary attempts to extend rights beyond human beings?
I am also keenly interested in recent trend that wish to extend rights to the non-human other. I take this to be a very important development.
Does the ecological crisis in the Anthropocene require us to rethink what it means to be human, particularly the idea that humans occupy a privileged position in nature?
Yes, the environmental crisis requires that we radically begin to think of ourselves and our relation to nature in an entirely different manner than has been done historically. It has long since been clear that human beings are necessarily connected to the earth. We need what it provides in order to exist. We need a healthy environment to live. The earth and its products are not something that we can exploit forever. Our economic system is based on the principle of growth. But it cannot grow indefinitely since it requires the finite resources of the planet, which, qua finite, will one day be exhausted. The exploitation and destruction of nature create many problems: the by-products of the methods of production have polluted the water, the land, and the air. This has led us to the dangerous and indeed critical situation that we find ourselves in today.
Finally, I would like to ask you, as a historian of philosophy: What can the history of philosophy teach us about hope without encouraging either naïve optimism or resignation?
I strongly believe that the history of philosophy has much to teach us not just about hope but about many other things as well. It can remind us of the power of human agency when accompanied by critical thinking. We are free, and we can to a large extent determine our own fate. If we work together collectively, I believe that there is room for a rational hope. Once again, our economic system wants us to see each other as competitors and rivals, but this flatly contradicts our natural sentiment of love and affection for one another. It is blind to the fact the survival of the human species is due not to competition but to cooperation and mutual aid and assistance. Without this, the human race would long since have gone extinct.
The text was produced with the support of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Representation in the Slovak Republic.