the turn to Nyarlathotep—bringing the void to birth

The observant reader will have noticed that “Leibniz, Raised by Wolves” was categorized under “Anti-Humanism”, amongst other things. This anti-humanism is not explicit in the post, but I think it follows quite naturally—especially in light of the fledgling comments on logos and telos at the post’s tail end. The distinction between logos and telos is a subtle one, I think, but its delineation (or lack thereof) has important consequences for ontology. Therefore, I would like to expand along that line of thought.

Logos, as I said before, is the force that gives birth to the object. The logos-force is therefore the morphogenic principle—the ontic chemical responsible for the origination and arrangement of the object’s structure. As a being-in-process, the object is always evolving, such that its structure is best described as a growing-form. The growth-object is always-forming according to the capacity for creation of the logos. The logos, then, is a formal cause without a target form, without an end of formation. It is the compass pointing north, not the destination that determines and demands arrival.

Telos, on the other hand, is this destination. It is Aristotle’s final cause, the termination of movement. It is also, therefore, the total cessation of life—purpose become nihilism. After all—when all is finished—being would lurch to a halt, the point of absolute zero, and succumb to nonexistence. Dead and buried, dirt in the ground.

Yet, life is creative, generative of further life. It does not limit itself, but constantly flows beyond its extremities. It is only possible, then, that a limit be imposed through the violent usurpation, and transmutation into telos, of logos. But because it naturally destroys itself upon consummation (ah! la petite mort!), telos is virtual, as fleeting as the power that established it.

Based on the above, I cannot embrace humanism. As Michael writes in the comments to The Horror of Humanism, humanism can be one or both of the following: (a) “that which emphasizes the magnificence of humanity” and/or (b) “that which claims ‘there is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity.” As a telos-assigning species, humanity introduces death—or the collapse of being—into its morphology. This is far from magnificent, rendering humanity ineligible to fulfill the condition of humanism a. Luckily, as Dr. Ian Malcolm once said, “Life will find a way.” Were human being to reach extinction, as it is so desperately endeavoring to do, life would carry on, and the universe would hardly know the difference. Thus, humanism b also fails to obtain on my view, thereby demonstrating fidelity to anti-humanism.