Barbarism today

Introducing Michel Henry, and his relevance for us

This is a short text, explaining in very simple terms the core tenets of Michel Henry’s phenomenology of Life, and why his thought is of relevance for us. I have written about Henry and the themes laid out here before. This text is an attempt to simply explain Henry, again, in light of some recent concerns about the state of the world. Michel Henry (1922 - 2002) was a French philosopher, who created what he called a “Phénoménologie de la Vie.” In a more radical manner than any other phenomenologist, Henry proclaimed that the absolute consists in nothing more than life. That is, in our own subjectivity, in our feeling ourselves feeling. For Henry, this ‘life’ is the great un-thought of Western philosophy. So enamoured by the world outside, by seeking knowledge of the objects outside, the philosophers have lost sight of the living subjectivity that is carrying out this seeking. In his later writings, Henry claimed that in the future, what he called barbarism: life turning against life, would attempt to destroy subjectivity itself. It seems that things are not getting better, so perhaps we should lend an ear to Henry.

Michel Henry

What is life? This is the only question that concerns Michel Henry. Well, what is it that we call life? We give the name life, to all that is living. What is living, what is alive? I am living, you are living, this bird is living, that tree is living. But not all is living. This table on which my hands rest, is not alive. This wall at which I look, is not alive. What makes us say, that the first things are living, and the second are not? It is simply because we postulate that the first are in possession of the possibility of sensibility, of feeling. I am not only, I feel myself being. This bird is not merely, it feels the air against its feathers. The table and the wall, do not have this property of feeling. That which has the possibility of feeling, of being aware, is what is living. Being aware, not in any rational-reflective sense, but merely in the most basic sense of being aware of something’s presence, ‘feeling.’ 

Now, if life is characterized by this ability to feel, then where do we find life? How are we able to know life? One would say, in a laboratory, under a microscope, or on a walk through nature. Here we observe all sorts of things that are in possession of this ability to feel. But is this truly so? In fact, life cannot be observed in such a manner. What happens is that we observe things: animals, bacteria, viruses, etc., and we postulate that they are aware, because we recognize in them something that we know from ourselves. We know, in a direct manner, what it feels like to feel oneself feeling. Because we ourselves feel ourselves feeling. We know intuitively what it means to ‘feel’, and we postulate that these things we see: the birds, the trees, etc., must also have this quality of feeling. But we never see this quality, this ‘life.’ In truth, we never see life. It is an impossibility to observe life. We only know life, as this primal capacity of feeling, because we ourselves experience ourselves feeling. This is the only manner in which we know life, and this is the only ‘place’ where we will find life; in our own awareness of feeling ourselves feeling. This intuitive awareness of what life is like, can never be placed in-front of us, because we are this intuitive knowledge. It can never be seen, because it is that which feels itself seeing. ‘sentimus nos videre’, says Descartes. This is why we can never see life under a microscope, and why we can never see life in a forest.

This leads to the quite funny situation, that we find ourselves sitting there, looking, through a microscope or into the forest, looking closely in order to find life, all the while not realizing that we have already found life, for it is in this feeling that we have of ourselves looking. We look at the world to find life, but life is already there, looking at the world. 

Our own subjectivity, this is where life is found, and this subjectivity is how life is known. Most basic, simple, stuff. Henry’s is the most simple philosophy you will ever encounter. This makes up its brilliance, for those who like simplicity. For those who adore complexity, like the inhabitants of the French milieu in which Henry wrote, this makes it a horrible philosophy. It is a choice you have to make for yourself.

In subjectivity, in life, life is known. Yet, Henry postulates that in our time, we have lost sight of this life, and we have fallen into a condition that he calls ‘barbarism’, which is the turning of life against life. Life, as we saw, is subjectivity. But if a subjectivity no longer knows itself to be as subjectivity, if a subjectivity no longer has sight of itself, it will theoretically decide to no longer see this subjectivity as real, and it will, consequently, seek to be done with this subjectivity. This is obvious, the entire ‘you are your brain’ idea that has been floating around for some time, as an example. Life starts falling outside the theoretical gaze. Why? Well, knowledge is knowledge of what is objective, of what is visible, says the modern mind. What is objective? This is what is known about the object, when all sensible subjective manners in which we experience this object are put to the side. And what is objective, is what we can all agree on, because it is unmarked by each of our own specific subjectivities. True knowledge is objective knowledge of what we see, of what we can observe, we say, and so we proceed to undo all our knowing from any subjective coloring. This is the modern guise of the scientific intention, and for Henry it is at the root of barbarism. The scientific intention, deems subjectivity as less real than objectivity. And consequently, postulates that the objective is real, and the subjective is a mere epiphenomenon, or even an illusion. Our philosophers no longer believe in subjectivity, and seek to be done with it. Our scientists only see life in a laboratory, etc. This is the condition of ‘barbarism’. A harsh name, for a simple theoretical framework, in which objectivity is valued more than subjectivity, no? Yet, this theoretical decision—subjectivity is illusory, real is what we discover through the objective-scientific method—, is not innocent for Henry. For if subjectivity is an illusion, then why would we value it? If our desires, our feelings, our wants, as feeling beings, are an illusion. Then why would we value them? Exactly, there is no longer any reason to value subjectivity. We, thinkers, value knowledge above all, so why then would we value an illusion? And why would we care for something which we do not value? Why would we care for the survival and well-being, of what we don’t value? And more; if the search for objective knowledge is the most important thing there is, and we think that subjectivity (which is an illusion), gets in the way of knowing objectively, then why would we not actively seek to destroy subjectivity? This is barbarism, and this is why Henry states that the fight between objective knowledge and the knowledge of life, necessarily ends in a fight of life against life. First, theory denies life. Secondly, the life possessed by life-denying theory destroys life. The two steps of barbarism. 

Where does this start? When did we start denying the knowledge of life? For Henry, this started with Galileo, the first to postulate that what is found out through the mathematical-scientific method is more real than our subjective experience. With Galileo, the transcendental subjectivity that carries out the scientific method, will be seen as less real than what is found out through the scientific method. A paradox. Yes, but barbarism is a paradox; life turning against life. Self-sabotage, so you will. It makes no sense, this is precisely the point. At first a merely theoretical turning against life, but afterwards, also a real turning against life, an active destruction. Sure, there were others besides Galileo who sought the ‘mathesis universalis’, and knowledge of the object, outside of our grasping of it through subjectivity. For example Descartes. But never does Descartes think that what is found out through the scientific method, is more real, more certain, or more valuable, than the subjectivity carrying out the method. With Descartes, method is just method. With Galileo, method becomes real, method becomes madness. 

Galileo lived long ago. What about us, where do we stand? Generalising, we have fallen into barbarism head-on. We trust, what is found out through scientific method, more than our own experience. And if what is found out through method does not correspond with our experience, we do not adjust the method, no, we deny our experience. “Studies say this food will kill me, but I feel great when I eat it, and feel like shit when I don’t eat it. I must be delusional, let’s stop eating this food.”, “studies show these pills I’m taking are safe and effective, but I feel like shit, and they aren’t helping. Let’s keep taking them, they must be doing something…” We trust more the world and its studies, than we trust our own subjective knowledge. For why would we not? Haven’t we learned, that what science finds out is real? And that my subjective experience only produces illusions? It makes perfect sense, from the decision of barbarism, from the decision of a life to turn against itself, to value what is other than itself more than itself. We are like a painter, so enamoured with the self-portrait we just made, that we start valuing the portrait more than ourselves. We are so enamoured with the scientific method we have created, with the ‘smart’-technologies we have made, that we value the judgement of these tools, more than our own judgement. 

Method; for Descartes still a useful fiction, by which we can gain approximate knowledge of nature. For Descartes, what is found out through method will never perfectly correspond to reality as it is. We cannot know all of God’s reasons. The idea of God, is here still protecting us from stupidity. We today, we have no God, and we have no subjectivity. We have only science. But this is a paradox, it is an impossibility. All thinking, scientific or other, presupposes a subjectivity that is carrying out this thinking. To then, with this thinking, deny the existence of this subjectivity that is necessarily presupposed, is ludicrous. Hence, barbarism is a paradox, life turning against itself. The scientists will then say, “yes this is true, but this is insignificant, that a transcendental subject has to be presupposed.” This might feel insignificant, agreed, too simple? Perhaps, but because it is simple and evident, this does not make it less true. Descartes always complains; these thinkers, these philosophers, they always prefer the complex over the simple, and this is their downfall. The ‘speculative materialists’, as they are called today, say “oh yes transcendental subject is presupposed, of course, but this is insane! Do you then deny that we know dinosaurs existed? They existed before any ‘transcendental subjectivity’ ever lived! We know this through science! Aha, gotcha!” Well yes, of course, but all this discovering that dinosaurs existed, still presupposes a subjectivity doing this discovery. This offers interesting problems yes, but it is not because something becomes difficult, that we have to throw it away. Balance —simple, complex. 

Now, if you think of the results of barbarism in our day and age, this is not insignificant at all of course. For believing in the scientific models/methods, if one follows the wrong model, can easily lead to one’s death. But here is the problem, with barbarism, how can we judge models or methods? And how do we judge these models or methods? The same here goes for technologies, how do we judge if we want to use a technology or not use it? The answer would be simple; we use a model if it gives us knowledge that helps us traverse this life better. Better, that is; healthier, stronger, wiser, etc. ‘Us’, that is, the subjectivities that we are. If the method delivers knowledge that helps us, to survive, to grow, to express ourselves, etc., then we use this method. But the value of the method, always refers back to living subjectivity, to life. Life is the judge of method. But with barbarism, as we said, life becomes an illusion. So who will judge the method? Precisely, no one. Who judges if a technology is warranted or not? No one. Henry speaks of a ‘loneliness of science.’ Techno-science, separated from the knowledge life has of itself by itself, is completely alone, and has only itself to rely on. But there must be judgement, right? There must be, the question is how judgement will occur, if it is not life that judges in the interest of itself. If we want an answer here, we must take Henry very seriously, we must for a moment really think that barbarism is real. Think, if barbarism is real, if life has turned against itself; at first, not believing that it itself exists, secondly, actively seeking to be done with itself, then who judges on whether we use this method or that method? There are only two possibilities.

1. No one judges. A method is possible? Let’s do it! Our technological advancements have made it possible to make this new technology, a new type of smartphone, a new type of earbuds, electric cars, a brain-implant, new type of medicine, etc. Let’s make it! No one judges, things are just created, without anyone ever asking whether this technology is useful for life or not, whether it is destructive to life or not. Why would anyone ask this question? Life does not exist for barbarism. If you have been reading this far, you must think: “this Michel Henry, he must have really hated science.” But with what we just said, you must notice that this ‘barbarism’ is harmful for science itself. Why? If no life judges a method as to its veracity, think the example of trusting the study more than experience, then why would we ever advance in our methods? Precisely, there is no reason for doing so. Say we conduct a study for a medicine, and first we use a certain computer model to predict what the results of the study will be. Our model says that the result of the study will be very good, everyone will feel really good, and it will prove that the medicine works as we expect. So, we try the new medicine on the people in the study. The medicine works as we expect, it treats the illness we set out to treat, but a lot of people get nasty side effects, they don’t feel good with it. But, with barbarism, why would we listen to these people, and why would we trust these people? The method worked, we did the study, we have our results. That’s it. No one asks, “hmm, if all these people are sick, we better make a better medicine or adjust our computer-model.” We do not care about the subjective evaluation. There is no incentive to make a better medicine. With barbarism, science does not allow itself to be judged, for it believes itself precisely to be beyond judgement. For what is judgement, but a modality of our subjectivity? A way in which we evaluate. We say this is ‘bad’, ‘this is good’, this is ‘good’, this is ‘evil.’ Science does not know good and bad, only living subjectivities do. 

This is one possibility is which a model or technology is judged, or rather, not judged. But it can get worse… 

2. The method is chosen that leads us furthest away from subjectivity. If barbaric science believes that truth is to be found in the objective, and illusion to be found in the subjective. If subjectivity gets in the way of the objective knowledge that scientific method seeks, then what will this scientific intention seek to create? It will seek to create technologies that actively destroy subjectivity. Of course, this would mean suicide. But this is extreme, only for the few, most would like to just be as little alive as possible while still remaining alive. We must take seriously, philosophically, the many suicides we are seeing. But for most, a sort of ‘death within life’, is preferred. “Just give me this pill, I don’t want to be reminded of my symptoms, telling me to change my ways. I don’t want to listen to the feeling. I want it gone.” This is barbarism in action. Medicine and health are interesting domains to observe barbarism. In my example, I say ‘symptom.’ What is a symptom? Well, very simply, it is an unpleasant or simply odd subjective experience that signals to us that something is wrong. That is a symptom. But with barbarism, what will we do when we have such a symptom? Well, with barbarism, we no longer believe that our subjective experience can tell us the truth, so we will no longer listen to the symptom, to listen for what it is signalling. No, we do not listen to this. We listen to the science, and seek to be done with the symptom. The failures of allopathic medicine, ‘only treating the symptom’, etc., it is all here. In our daily lives, confronted with all sorts of symptoms, barbarism shows its face; we seek to silence the knowledge of life, of which the ‘symptom’ is a most primal example. You know these people, ‘oh hey, how are you feeling? Still have the headache?’, ‘yes’, ‘what did the doctor say?’, ‘he said my blood-work is fine, there is nothing wrong.’ Well, they still have the headache, so something must be wrong. But no, “Science” said nothing is wrong, so nothing is wrong. This is the stupidity of barbarism in full force. These are the basic examples of barbarism we see in everyday life, but I think we will see much worse things. We will see these things I believe, whether barbarism is the cause as Michel Henry would think, this is an open question. I think about the ‘trans-human’ technologies we see emerging, who knows what will happen. People more knowledgeable and more powerful than me proclaim we will be able to hack brains. Why would you want to hack brains? Well, simple, we are flooded with all sorts of propaganda in this world, all sorts of misinformation. It is terrible, and made much worse because of the information-revolution, internet, et cetera. So we should implant a chip in your brain, that filters out misinformation, that protects you from your own subjective judgement. I am not making this up, these ideas are proposed very seriously in the WEF’s annual meetings, among others. If this happens, this is barbarism in full force, life turning against itself. Well, it doesn’t even have to happen for this to be the case, the intention is already there. This idea, this ‘chip’ or ‘implant’, if one takes such a thing, what does this presuppose? This presupposes that one would trust no longer one’s own subjective experience, one’s own ability to judge whether a thing is true or not, one’s own feeling whether a thing is good or bad. If one takes this, one trusts the algorithm of the chip, more than one trusts oneself. One trusts the model of the world the chip is supposed to grant you, more than one trusts one’s own subjective experience. Barbarism says; one’s own subjective judgement is false, it is an illusion, and produces only illusions, produces only ‘misinformation.’ Consequently, barbarism proposes we have to replace this judgement, with an artificial judgement of our own making. 

Henry is not joking, when he says that barbarism is literally seeking to destroy life. Suicide for some, ‘death within life’ for most. So is it an insignificant fact, that the subjective experience that we have of life, is prior to all theory, is prior to all objective knowledge? Is subjectivity insignificant and old-fashioned? Is it insignificant, that we feel ourselves feeling? Maybe. But when there are people, who seek to destroy this connection we have to ourselves, who seek to destroy this knowledge of life that we intuitively have, who seek to make us mistrust this subjective knowledge that we have, and who seek to destroy this feeling that we have of ourselves feeling, I beg to differ.

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Triumph of Death. c. 1562.