The Last Messiah

by Peter Wessel Zapffe, Gisle R. Tangenes (Translator)

Den sidste Messias (English: The Last Messiah), published in 1933, is one of Peter Wessel Zapffe's most significant essays as well as concepts, which sums up his own thoughts from his book, On the Tragic, and, as a theory describes a reinterpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch.

It was translated into English by Gisle R. Tangenes for the March/April 2004 issue (Issue 45) of Philosophy Now magazine.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays, Psychology, Poetry, Theory, 20th Century

8 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1933

About the author

Peter Wessel Zapffe [pronounced ZAP-fe] was a Norwegian philosopher, author and mountaineer. He was well known for his somewhat pessimistic view of human existence and his philosophy is widely considered to be pessimistic, much like the earlier work of Arthur Schopenhauer, by whom he was inspired. His thoughts regarding the error of human existence are presented in the essay, The Last Messiah (original: Den sidste Messias, 1933). This essay is a shorter version of his best-known work, the philosophical treatise, On the tragic (original: Om det tragiske 1941). He called his brand of thought, biosophy, which he defined as "thinking on life".

(Source: wikipedia)

Reviews

[BlackOxford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reducing the Critical Global Glut of Cognition

I can’t find the flaw in Zapffe’s argument: There is only one way to save the planet from biological devastation. That is to eliminate the virus which is its cause: the species Homo sapiens.

Our species is not the apex of evolution but a cognitively overdeveloped branch of life, a diseased vector, which cannot cope with the consequences of our abilities, nor even with a full recognition of what our abilities are.

We spend most of our lives attempting to hide from ourselves through a repertoire of tactics - isolation, anchoring, distraction and sublimation - for limiting our consciousness of just how bad we have made things.

We are self-created spiritual morons. Foregoing these tactics leads to a simple and probably the least unpleasant solution:

“As long as humankind recklessly proceeds in the fateful delusion of being biologically fated for triumph, nothing essential will change... And humans will persist in dreaming of salvation and affirmation and a new Messiah... There is one conquest and one crown, one redemption and one solution. – Know yourselves – be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye.”

The fertility rate today is half what it was in 1963. So we’ve made a start. Since men are congenitally irresponsible, it’s up to you, girls, to keep up that stride across the finish line.

Postscript: The novelist, Thomas Ligotti, has produced an expanded version of Zapffe’s position: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Glenn Russell]

American author Thomas Ligotti is one of the greatest living writers of supernatural horror fiction. He isn't nearly as well known as novelist Stephen King since Ligotti sticks with his muse and literary inspiration by writing short stories. Nope, not even one novel from Thomas Ligotti.

However, Ligotti did write a work of nonfiction recently - The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. I'm listening to the audio book at the moment. Fascinating. Admittedly, although I don''t share the author's view that human life is one unending nightmare, I have been greatly enjoying his reflections. As part of his pessimistic thesis, Ligotti repeatedly refers to Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe and his essay The Last Messiah. I was intrigued, thus my review. Below are direct quotes from Zapffe's essay with my corresponding comments:

"A breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily – by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being."

The idea here is somewhere along the evolutionary line, in order to sustain our survival, we humans developed a consciousness that empowered us to envision the future and past, to conceptualize, to use symbols and language, to abstract. But, as it turns out, to our disadvantage, our developed human consciousness propels us into a world were we are forever attempting to construct meaning, a world were we are constantly yearning and fretting for what we don't have, a world where our stream of consciousness is endlessly spinning obsessively over a past we can't undo and a future we will never reach - in a word, perpetual suffering. Added to this, we are painfully aware of our own inevitable death.

"And yet he could see matter as a stranger, compare himself to all phenomena, see through and locate his vital processes. He comes to nature as an unbidden guest, in vain extending his arms to beg conciliation with his maker: Nature answers no more, it performed a miracle with man, but later did not know him."

Not one plant or mineral or animal shares in our uniquely human consciousness, thus on Planet Earth we are alone. By the way, this is much of the appeal of science fiction - making contact with other forms of "intelligent," somewhat human-like life forms.

Zapffe goes on to highlight four strategies we human take in order to shield ourselves from the ghastly truth of the reality of our human condition:

Isolation
"By isolation I here mean a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling."

In other words, we seal out the reality of our constant moving toward death and dying by packing such thoughts and reflections in a mental closet. The methods we use to keep the closet door shut are nearly infinite, from nonstop humming to obsessive TV watching to addiction to booze, tobacco and drugs to out-and-out denial.

Anchoring
"The mechanism of anchoring also serves from early childhood; parents, home, the street become matters of course to the child and give it a sense of assurance."

We wrap our individual identity up with some larger group or cause - family, friends, country, religion, sports team.

"The craving for material goods (power) is not so much due to the direct pleasures of wealth, as none can be seated on more than one chair or eat himself more than sated. Rather, the value of a fortune to life consists in the rich opportunities for anchoring and distraction offered to the owner."

According to Zapffe, the major appeal for owning more houses than we will ever use and having more money in the bank than we can ever spend is to ground ourselves in the identity of someone with great wealth. Sidebar: Ironically, the more wealth a person has, the more others tend to look forward to the death of that person so they can get their hands on the wealth.

Distraction
"A very popular mode of protection is distraction. One limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions."

A prime mode of distraction in our modern world: being a workaholic, making one's work the alpha and omega of life.

Sublimation
"The fourth remedy against panic, sublimation, is a matter of transformation rather than repression. Through stylistic or artistic gifts can the very pain of living at times be converted into valuable experiences. Positive impulses engage the evil and put it to their own ends, fastening onto its pictorial, dramatic, heroic, lyric or even comic aspects."

Ah, those artistic and literary types! To take suffering and death and use them as the topics for making a film or writing a novel or painting a tragic subject. The artist is facing up to suffering and death but at an aesthetic distance so as not to feel the full force of its brutal sting.

"Know yourselves – be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye.”

One solution Zapffe proposes: stop having kids! Not a popular position. Just take a gander at the statistics included in the link below.

Link to Zapffe's essay: https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/T...

Link to World Statistics: http://www.worldometers.info/


Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe, 1899 – 1990

[S̶e̶a̶n̶ · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a more modern version in English, see the translation by Peter Reed and David Rothenberg published on OpenAirPhilosophy.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

This profound work condenses a lot into a fairly short essay.

Especially insightful are Zapffe's four defense mechanisms humans use to protect themselves from the doom of existence: isolation, anchoring, distraction, and sublimation.

[Archer · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Last Messiah is an essay that deals with the weight of consciousness. Zapffe argues that human cognition is over-developed beyond the capacity of sustenance, comparing it to the antlers of long-extinct deer, the weight of which they could not carry. Now, the question that arises is this: how come humans have survived, if the human condition is far too much for us to bear? Here, Zapffe notes that we deal with this existential panic through one of four reactions, namely isolation, anchoring, distraction, and sublimation.

While there were some ideas expressed in a sublime fashion, I don't agree with a huge portion of the essay. It's true that I myself have toyed with the idea that mere consciousness can be a source of agony, but I don't support the conclusions Zapffe reaches from this premise (i.e., antinatalism). Anchoring and sublimation can provide a real source of meaning, they are not just defense mechanisms, and similarly, distractions can coexist with lucidity. The problem with his claim is that he treats it in an all-or-nothing manner, while moments of clarity or existential dread are bound to be experienced by almost all humans at some point in their lives.

Maybe it's because I have already been exposed to all of these views that I don't find it anything groundbreaking. There were also a few generalizations that do not take into consideration the nuanced reality. There's also this quote out there:

Women, in general less cognition-prone and hence more secure in their living than men, preferably use distraction.

[Hossein · Rating 4 out of 5]

«... اما بشارتت دهم به فتحی و تاجی، به نجاتی و چاره‌ای:
خود را بشناس. بی زاد و فرزند باش و بگذار تا بعد رفتنت زمین را آسایشی باشد.»

پیتر زاپفه فیلسوفی نرژوی بود که علاقه‌ی وصف‌ناپذیری به کوهنوردی داشت و از این باور دفاع می‌کرد که احتمالا بهترین گزینه برای ما انسان‌ها در این هست که فرزندانی نداشته باشیم. خوندنِ مقاله‌ی «واپسین مسیح»اش – با وجود این‌که با بخشی از حرف‌هاش هم‌نظر نیستم- اون‌قدر احساس خوبی داشت که به فکر ترجمه‌اش افتادم، اما دیدم که آپاراتوس به زیبایی ترجمه‌اش کرده. دلم می‌خواست متنی طولانی ازش بنویسم و با آدم‌ها درباره‌اش صحبت کنم، اما فعلا همین توضیح آپاراتوس رو اینجا میذارم که به بهترین وجه دیدی کلی از مقاله میده.

«در مقاله‌‌ی واپسین مسیح موعود ... او به مسئله‌ی پیدایش آگاهی در انسان از خلال فرایند تکامل می‌پردازد و با در نظر گرفتن خودآگاهی و عقل به‌مثابه جهشی ناخواسته و شمشیری دو لبه که از سویی به دوام گونه یاری می‌رساند و از سوی دیگر حیاتش را دردناک و زجرآور می‌سازد، به انواع روش‌هایی اشاره می‌کند که ما برای غلبه بر این خودآگاهی به آن‌ها رجوع می‌کنیم. سپس با برشمردن مشکلاتی که خودِ این مکانیزم‌های دفاعی به ناگزیر می‌آفرینند، ضعف و شکنندگی این دیوارهای محافظ بشر را یادآوری می‌کند و در نهایت فرارسیدن واپسین مسیح موعودی را بشارت می‌دهد که جسورانه پوچی زندگی را تصدیق نموده و پیغامش پیام انهدام و انقراض است.»
- به نقل از سایت آپاراتوس

لینک مقاله

[Ipsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

get fucked into oblivion. flesh IS salvation. read it in exactly the right kind of depressive haze.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are two lines in this text that I would like to delineate, as they vary greatly in quality.

Firstly, there is the poetic punch of the first few pages, this is in fact the premise of Zapffe's argument, which is the 2nd half of the text. The first part, as poetry - by which I mean something like: "the transmutation of an emotional state into words" - is brilliant. I can identify with that state, screaming into the void, recognizing one's situation in the cosmos.

Secondly, there is the philosophy, the deduction of the premises, and where Zappfe seems to believe they shall lead. This part however, is far from great. The argumentation is fine, but as I shall attempt to explain, the premise hidden in his poetry is false, and does not lead to the pessimistic conclusions that he presents. In fact, the very same premise, grasped from a different angle, can lead to ecstasy. That is the nature of cosmic awereness, its the orgasmic combination of a panic attack and pure bliss packed into one.


THE PREMISES AND THE PROBLEMS:
Essentially, Zapffe thinks, and righly so, of man as Anthropos - as risen above nature, man as naked, man as self-aware. This stepping-out-of-nature furthermore, is for Zapffe, a mistake, like a deer with overgrown antlers, caging the animal to the ground. In his words:
"He is the universe’s helpless captive, kept to fall into nameless possibilities. From this moment on, he is in a state of relentless panic. Such a ‘feeling of cosmic panic’ is pivotal to every human mind." This feeling of cosmic panic, despair, is a consequence of "a surplus of consciousness".

Does surplus of consciousness imply cosmic despair? Could it not entail precisely the opposite, ecstasy, bliss? Many mystics use similar language, yet what Zapffe thinks to be the very down-going of man, they seem to think of it as the quintessential experience of man.

Who is right? Both are right.

Look at a face in orgasm and you cannot tell whether the person is in bliss or pain. In spiritual circles one talks of reaching a higher state of consciousness, or awareness. What they don't tell you, is that this is a two-edged sword.

The unavoidable duality is that, as the tree grows further into heaven, the roots must reach deeper into hell. Becoming aware, being conscious, is equally frightful as it is blissful. What Zapffe has done here, is simply to describe the frightening, panick-stricken side of this duality.

One can access extreme states of consciousness by using natural tools. Doing so, one can experience absolute and all-encompassing fear, as one's idea of Self is radically transformed, seeing yourself as a meaningless speck of dust. That being intelligent enough implies suicide.

Equally, one can experience one's self expanding infinitely, filling every speck of dust. And that suicide as a concept is not only wrong, but meaningless.

THE POINT:
Poetically, Zapffe is brilliant, he shows how frightening cosmic consciousness, or awareness, can be. He only presents one side of the story however, because cosmic awereness can also be bliss.

On a less phenomenological note: Zapffe seems to feel that he came into this world, thus that he is alien to it. What is equally true however paradoxically, is that he grew out of it, and thus is perfectly at home.

[Abdul Raheem · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Last Messiah is an essay that encapsulates Zapffe’s view on the human condition and stands out as an important work in the sphere of philosophical pessimism. The views expressed can be classed as a kind of evolutionary existentialism, in that Zapffe propounds a view on the nature of human existence that incorporates an evolutionary perspective.

For Camus, human life is comparable to this absurd activity, in that our condition and the world do not meet our desires: we want meaning, a fundamental reason for our existence, but we are unable to find such a meaning or purpose. This is a point that Zapffe also underscores. The boulder is the meaning we try to construct (be it scientific, metaphysical, or religious), but they inevitably fail to meet our need for meaning (according to Camus, anyway), and this causes us to construct another meaning, with the process repeating itself, like in the case of Sisyphus.

"Man is a tragic animal. Not because of his smallness, but because he is too well endowed. Man has longings and spiritual demands that reality cannot fulfill. We have expectations of a just and moral world. Man requires meaning in a meaningless world."
-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

While the argument could be made that Zapffe is perhaps unduly pessimistic in his outlook, I do think he delivers a keen insight into the human condition by focusing on the evolutionary perspective. It seems clear that our biological, evolutionary imperatives do not always closely align with human well-being and, at least on some accounts, such imperatives seem diametrically opposed to our happiness. For example, in Buddhism, craving is cast as the root of human suffering, yet craving serves a crucial biological and evolutionary function; it makes us constantly feel unsatisfied with what is, projecting satisfaction on what could be, causing us to constantly strive, but never gaining lasting satisfaction, only temporary satisfaction. But this treadmill of desire is what keeps us motivated to survive and reproduce.

Zapffe refers to the human organism as a “biological paradox”, but actually, I think while his analysis of the human condition may hold true, it is not so hard to see why the human intellect is as it is, even if it leads to the unique human experience of existential angst. Evolutionary trade-offs are commonplace. There are countless examples of where an advantageous change in one trait leads to a disadvantageous change in another trait. In the case of humans, we can easily see that our degree of intellect as advantageous in a strictly biological context, but at the same time we can say that we have too much intellect and awareness, that it makes us prone to a wide spectrum of negative states, from rumination to horrific despair.

However, in evolutionary terms, we might posit that the benefits of our highly (or overly) evolved intellect outweigh the downsides, even if experientially, for the individual, those downsides entail existential panic and an indefatigable kind of discomfort. Zapffe notes, however, that most people avoid the real horrors of seeing the human predicament clearly, with “pure example of life-panic being presumably rare”. This is because “the protective mechanisms are refined and automatic and to some extent unremitting.” Evolution is not a perfect system of design, so even if the protective mechanisms don’t successfully work for all individuals or don’t work all the time, with life-panic sometimes rising to the surface, our overly evolved intellect is nevertheless beneficial overall, within a strictly evolutionary framework

-_--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

In one part of the essay, Zapffe postulates four methods humans have used for limiting the contents of their consciousness:


1: Isolation
which involves “a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling.” It is an avoidance of thinking about the human condition and the terrible truths that Zapffe believes this entails. He also describes the technique of isolation by quoting a certain ‘Engstrom’, whose identity remains uncertain: “One should not think, it is just confusing.”

2: Anchoring
which involves the “fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness.” This requires that we consistently focus our attention on a value or ideal (the examples Zapffe gives include “God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future”).

3: Distraction, which is when “one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions” – this prevents the mind from examining itself and becoming aware of the tragedy of human existence. It is easy to think of how we, in modern times, incessantly distract ourselves with external stimulation; some examples Zapffe gives include entertainment, sport, and radio.

4: Sublimation, which Zapffe calls “a matter of transformation rather than repression”. It involves turning “the very pain of living” into “valuable experiences”. He continues: “Positive impulses engage the evil and put it to their own ends, fastening onto its pictorial, dramatic, heroic, lyric or even comic aspects.” He also notes that the essay The Last Messiah itself is an attempt at such sublimation. For Zapffe, sublimation is “the rarest of protective mechanisms”. Most people can limit the contents of their consciousness using the previous three mechanisms, staving off existential angst and world-weariness. But when these forms of repression fail and the tragic cannot be ignored, sublimation offers a remedy, a way of turning the unignorable “pain of living” into creative, positive, aesthetically valuable works.
-------------------+.+.........+..+.....+...+....+....+....+.+

One potential criticism I would level against Zapffe’s essay is that the mind may already naturally repress consciousness, without any artificial methods of repression in place. This is known as the ‘reducing valve theory’ of the mind, expounded by philosophers such as Henri Bergson and C.D. Broad, and then later popularised by Aldous Huxley. This theory also appears to be with more modern research on human consciousness. For example, research has demonstrated that the human brain has evolved a large scale network called the default mode network (DMN) that represses consciousness, to limit the amount of information reaching conscious awareness. Thus, the repression of consciousness seems to be biological and inbuilt, and not just artificial, as Zapffe argues.

[Yules · Rating 4 out of 5]

Who wrote the Goodreads blurb for this? Kudos to you!

A short philosophic essay written with literary flair. Zapfee argues that nature has gone too far by creating human consciousness - our suffering is inevitable and we are morally obligated not to let it continue. (Since the world population has doubled within my mother's lifetime, and tripled within my grandmother's lifetime, it's certainly something to think about.) He took his own philosophy seriously (admirable) and never had children. I admit I laughed out loud at a few parts: "The terror of existence stares us in the face, and we realize with a staggering gasp that our minds hang suspended by a web of their own making, and that the abyss of hell gapes below." The anti-natalists can be so dramatic!

[Rinstinkt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quoted in Depressive Realism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, and Keeping Ourselves in the Dark, by Colin Feltham.
And The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror by Thomas Ligotti.

Similar ideas are mentioned/treated in/by:

Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind - dealing with human consciousness and theory of mind and possible reasons for the existence of reality-denial psychological mechanisms.

Another book that deals with the reason why self-deception might have been selected for, evolutionarily speaking, is The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life by R. Trivers (famous evolutionary psychologist). Haven't read this yet…

Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus - There is a peculiar part in this work. Very telling if one sees it from a certain (theological) angle, that of the evil creator/demiurge. (Demiurge is a term used in some philosophical and religious traditions to refer to a creator or craftsman of the material world, who may be ignorant, imperfect, or malevolent. See also Marcion(ism).) In this passage, Prometheus says that he gave humans not only fire, but also the concept of blind hope... the belief that something good will happen despite the lack of evidence.

Chorus: Did you perhaps go further than you have told us?
Prometheus: Yes, I stopped mortals from foreseeing doom.
Chorus: What cure did you discover for that sickness?
Prometheus: I sowed in them blind hopes.

Freud - precursor ideas to psychological defense mechanisms. Although most of the (other) things he is famous for, are total trash.

[Marcus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perennial in its relevance, this short masterpiece has been influential in its reach. Despite being written between the two world wars, it has been cited as a key reference for the Rust Cohle character in the acclaimed first season of The True Detective.

Sadly there is a paucity of translated Zapffe but this piece alone sees people travel internationally to pay tribute pilgrimages to his old Norwegian stomping grounds. These include the mountain summit that takes his name.

He curses the evolution of consciousness, comparing it to the stag’s unwieldy antlers, explores the subsequent necessary coping mechanisms and welcomes the instructions of The New Messiah: “Know yourselves – be infertile, and let the earth be silent after ye."

[Théo d'Or]

Is consciousness a curse leading to existential despair, ( Zapffe ) - or a blessing that enables the creation of new values and the revaluation of life itself ( Nietzsche ) ? I need to give my cat an answer, urgently. Any idea is welcome.

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The single most important bit of philosophy I've ever read.

[Sadra · Rating 3 out of 5]

همه راه‌حل‌ها فریب‌اند.
بی ربط اما با درد در این لحظه، 1404/09/09_10:40 AM

🔻A Little Tiny Upside-Down Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Person in a Paradoxical Void World

داشتم فکر می‌کردم که نکنه همه راه‌حل‌ها فریب باشه؟
قبلاً که تاریکی هجوم می‌آورد، به خودم می‌گفتم: نه صدرا ببین، الان فیزیک بدنت تغییر کرده، وایرهای مغزت دارند چرت‌وپرت می‌گن. دو ساعت دیگه حرفت را پس می‌گیری. و واقعاً هم کار می‌کرد. بدنم آرام می‌شد و می‌گفتم آن موقع احمق بودم که چنین حرفی زدم. ولی اگر قضیه برعکس باشد چی؟ اگر آن حال خوب و آن میل سگی به زندگی، دقیقاً همان فریب تکاملی باشد که زاپفه می‌گفت؟ شاید سلامت روان، فقط نام دیگر خوب گول خوردن است و افسردگی، لحظه‌ی درز کردن حقیقت.
احساس می‌کنم خیلی می‌دانم و دقیقاً به خاطر همین دانستن، مثل سگ می‌ترسم. بعد بلافاصله صدای دیگری در سرم پوزخند می‌زند: اگر واقعاً می‌دانستی، باید خیلی باهوش می‌بودی و کنکور را رتبه یک می‌شدی! این عدد لعنتی. میان صدهزار نفر. البته وسط کنکور دل‌درد گرفتم، ولی این‌ها بهانه‌ست. شاید دارم اشتباه می‌کنم که کی گفته کنکور هوش را تعیین می‌کند؟ شاید هوش واقعی، توانایی حل تست نیست؛ توانایی درک عمق چاه است.
همین‌جاست که گسست اتفاق می‌افتد. وقتی به توییتر، به خیابان، به آدم‌هایی که برای زندگی می‌دوند نگاه می‌کنم، حس می‌کنم یک روح سرگردانم. تعبیرم این است: مردگان را چه به دنیای زندگان؟ من مرده‌ام چون بازی را باور ندارم، و آن‌ها زنده‌اند چون هنوز قوانین را جدی می‌گیرند.
و این زندگان... ارسطو به آن‌ها می‌گفت حیوان اجتماعی. چه دروغ بزرگی! من آدمی را از آن قسمت اولیه‌ بودنش می‌بینم؛ جایی که هنوز زبان ندارد ولی احتمالا یک‌سری فکر و ذهن دارد. آنجا را نمی‌توانی بگویی اجتماعی است. ما دور هم جمع شدیم چون می‌ترسیدیم. اجتماع، ذات نیست، پناهگاه است. زبان، اولین فریب بود. ولی پارادوکس ویرانگر اینجاست: اگر این فریب (زبان) نبود، آیا الان می‌فهمیدیم که خیلی چیزها فریب است؟ ما با چاقویی که خود دروغ است، داریم شکم حقیقت را سفره می‌کنیم.
(در این قسمت پس از تأمل زیاد، پی به بیهوده بودن نوشته خود می‌برم. با این حال می‌نویسم چون باید عصاره جانم کشیده شود.)
ولی وسط این فلسفه‌بافی‌ها، پدرم می‌آید و با یک جمله همه چیز را خراب می‌کند: شرایط تو از شکم‌سیریه. و خب... راست هم می‌گوید. اگر هر روز مثل سگ دنبال نان شب بودم، وقت نداشتم به این اراجیف فکر کنم. نیاز، بهترین مسکن است. اما بدبختی من (و انسان مدرن) این است که از مرحله بقا رد شده‌ام. شکم‌سیری، درد را درمان نمی‌کند، فقط جنسش را عوض می‌کند. وقتی معده پر است، مغز گرسنه می‌شود و شروع می‌کند به جویدن خودش.
اصلاً چرا اینقدر درد می‌کشیم؟ مگر حیوان درد می‌کشد؟
شاید اگر خود را جای حیوانی بگذاریم چاره‌ای بیابیم. آیا اصلاً گذر زمان او را اذیت خواهد کرد؟
احمق نباشید! خیلی بدیهی‌ست که گذر زمان ما (و حیوان) را فرسوده می‌کند و به مرگ نزدیک‌تر. این جبر بیولوژی است.
ادعای بنده این است که خود خودآگاهی نسبت به زمان است که جهنم را می‌سازد. حیوان در زمان است، اما بر زمان آگاه نیست. ولی ما... ذهنم ناخودآگاه به دازاین هایدگر ارتباط کرد. انسان نمی‌تواند بپذیرد که محدود است و یکی از بی‌رحمانه‌ترینِ این محدودیت‌ها، آگاهانه در زمان بودن است. همین محاط بودن باعث زجر آدمیست.
حالا چه غلطی کنیم؟ به چه چیزی چنگ بزنیم؟ منطق؟
نه. قطعا به گا رفته‌ایم.
مسئله فقط این نیست که منطق نمی‌تواند همه چیز را ثابت کند، کمااینکه گودل آمد و همین را گفت؛ مسئله این است که یه خطا داریم. من محدودم. حتی منطق هم محدوده چون زاده ذهن منه. نمیشه نادانی خودمان را کتمان کنیم. شاید اصلا خشت اول کج باشه. شاید ابزاری که داریم باهاش جهان را متر می‌کنیم کج و کوله است و واقعیت چیز دیگریست.
اصلا ما کی هستیم؟ بخش خیلی کوچکی از تاریخ زمین را بشریت گرفته. ما فقط یک پاراگراف از کتاب قطور زمین هستیم که توهم زده کل کتاب را فهمیده.
درد دقیقا اینجاست: شاید در برهه‌ای هستیم که چون ابزارمان ناقص است، همه چیز را نیستی می‌بینیم. تو بگونه‌ای محکوم به دیدنِ نیستی هستی، درحالیکه شاید واقعیت چنین نباشد. ولی چه فایده؟ ما در این کوری گیر کردیم.
شاید اصلاً ما هدف نیستیم. شاید حق با نیچه بود؛ ما فقط یک پل هستیم. طنابی کشیده شده میان حیوان و ابرانسان.
شاید در برهه‌ای از تاریخ زمین هستیم که آگاهی مثل یک سرطان در ما رشد کرده و درد ما، درد زایمان چیزی دیگر است. شاید ما محکومیم که زیر بار این پوچی و ناتوانی له شویم تا موجودات بعدی رستگار شوند. ما قربانیان گذاریم. ما نسلی هستیم که فهمید هیچی مهم نیست و زیر آوار این فهمیدن، دفن شد.

[Dan'S_mind]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY_Y...

[Elari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whoever added The Last Messiah to GoodReads gave it an overly enthusiastic description that is really, really not in keeping with the tone of the essay itself: it is dark, it is gloomy, it is so handsomely depressing that one might just expire in disarray and in awe.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being the pessimistic nihilist I am, I love what Zapffe suggests in this essay.

“As long as humankind recklessly proceeds in the fateful delusion of being biologically fated for triumph, nothing essential will change.”

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short, and awesome.

[Cedric · Rating 4 out of 5]

a very short, but very thought-provoking book; interesting view on the essence of how people spend their time and deal with their existence. It is a rather depressing book, especially a good counter argument to current technocrats.

Other technical inventions enrich only the life of the inventor himself; they represent a gross and ruthless theft from humankind’s common reserve of experiences and should invoke the harshest punishment if made public against the veto of censorship. One such crime among numerous others is the use of flying machines to explore uncharted land. In a single vandalistic glob, one thus destroys lush opportunities for experience that could benefit many if each, by effort, obtained his fair share.

[Eadweard · Rating 3 out of 5]

He comes to nature as an unbidden guest, in vain extending his arms to beg conciliation with his maker: Nature answers no more, it performed a miracle with man, but later did not know him. He has lost his right of residence in the universe, has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and been expelled from Paradise. He is mighty in the near world, but curses his might as purchased with his harmony of soul, his innocence, his inner peace in life’s embrace.
---




Even as the child sets out on the river of life, the roars from the waterfall of death rise highly above the vale, ever closer, and tearing, tearing at its joy. Man beholds the earth, and it is breathing like a great lung; whenever it exhales, delightful life swarms from all its pores and reaches out toward the sun, but when it inhales, a moan of rupture passes through the multitude, and corpses whip the ground like bouts of hail. Not merely his own day could he see, the graveyards wrung themselves before his gaze, the laments of sunken millennia wailed against him from the ghastly decaying shapes, the earth-turned dreams of mothers. Future’s curtain unravelled itself to reveal a nightmare of endless repetition, a senseless squander of organic material. The suffering of human billions makes its entrance into him through the gateway of compassion, from all that happen arises a laughter to mock the demand for justice, his profoundest ordering principle. He sees himself emerge in his mother’s womb, he holds up his hand in the air and it has five branches; whence this devilish number five, and what has it to do with my soul? He is no longer obvious to himself – he touches his body in utter horror; this is you and so far do you extend and no farther.

[nero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting essay. I'm not an anti-natalist and this work did not manage to sway me, but it was good nonetheless. (Especially part I and V.)

He just HAD to throw in some sexism though. Very on brand for the "male 20th century philosopher" type.

[Ellis ♥ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Saggio oltremodo nichilista.

[Michael Martinez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Woe is me, woe is you, woe is us, if evolutionary theory is true and a must. That is really the main conclusion that one ought to draw from this essay, as the conclusion of it rests upon the assumption that Atheistic unintentional evolution is true. The essay is literarily very dramatic and enjoyable, a result of sublimation, but there is much to criticize among his many true and flowery words. Peter Wessel Zapffe argues that human consciousness was the result of over-evolving, something which dooms us if we do not remedy it. He draws the analogy to Irish elks, whose very mode of defense, their large and tough antlers, became their very extinction. Under this analogy, consciousness was a sort of self-destructive weapon that turns in on itself. One day, the beast wakes up as a man, a creature suddenly hyperaware of their existence—causing existential dread as he grapples with questions about who he is and what that means. This man walks out to hunt like the beast does to satiate his hunger, but is suddenly hyperaware of the suffering common to all living things, and this we call compassion, which brings him to sorrow and even more questions as his existential dread only continues. The cheetah does not think of the suffering he causes the gazelle, nor does the gazelle care for the starving cheetah when it runs away, but man does. Man must either succumb to his existential dread and kill himself, or, he saves himself in one of 4 ways, or a combination of them: repression, anchoring, distraction, and sublimation. Repression is intuitive, and everybody does it to some degree, but only when one does it beyond some unclear threshold do psychiatrists then consider it an issue. Anchoring is when one saves themselves from this dread by going out of themselves and putting their life (anchoring themselves) on things they consider greater than themselves, which acts as a wall around their conscious self-awareness; this manifests as religion, nationalism, a career, family, and so forth. Distraction is straightforward, and is just when one uses amusements to avoid facing themselves and their being. Many times when the joy fades, the individual is left with a bittersweet aftertaste that turns into existential dread once more; that “what am I doing with my life” moment at a party is a quintessential example of this. Women are more likely to use distraction as they are less cognitive, and less likely to have the sort of insecurity that brings a man to anchoring. Distractions are about immediate impressions, so the lowlier things, whereas anchoring is about the more abstract and highly. Sublimation is when one embraces that dread, and uses it as fuel for things like art, but the irony is that they have to get away from the very feeling that consciousness brings in order to do this, or else they succumb to suicide: “Unless the worst sting of suffering is blunted by other means, or denied control of the mind, such utilisation is unlikely, however. (Image: The mountaineer does not enjoy his view of the abyss while choking with vertigo; only when this feeling is more or less overcome does he enjoy it - anchored.) To write a tragedy, one must to some extent free oneself from - betray - the very feeling of tragedy and regard it from an outer, e.g. aesthetic, point of view.” I would argue that a lot of music works under this principle, such as a lot of metalcore or emo music. Although his diagnosis for the human condition is largely correct, the conclusion of anti-natalism he gives is incoherent as under his theory, nothing matters, so there are no oughts like anti-natalism, hence ending cosmic panic isn’t a clear ought, there is just nihilism. This essay is good as it inadvertently demonstrates that an atheistic evolutionary theory does in fact just logically bring one to nihilism, but again the assumption here is evolution. Zapffe just assumes that religion is false, and as he gives no argument for this, I will neither give a rebuttal, but simply say that if some religion is true, then anchoring becomes a valid response to existential dread, not a tragedy, but a legitimate choice to make; if some religion is true, and things that religion entails are true, then his nihilism comes crashing down, and suddenly many types of anchoring become valid if that religion says those things are good and that God or the gods (or whatever) approve or entail them. The words of Christ become true: “come to me all ye that labor, and I have ye laden.” The weight of that consciousness is given up to God, the only true savior, for in fact as this author rightly diagnoses, man cannot bare the weight of his own consciousness, hence the 4 methods to get away from that weight. What this essay vindicates is that under Atheism, if one sat down and rationally thought about their existence, suicide makes complete rational sense, and that individual would in fact be overcome by the dread of their consciousness and being, succumbing to it, lest they irrationally use one of the 4 methods that get them away from reality. It ought to be kept in mind however, that suffering itself is meaningless under this worldview, so even suicide to escape that suffering is not exactly the obvious answer (especially when the anxiety of what comes after is part of how consciousness tortures the man), it is just the natural result of that cosmic panic that comes from rationally contemplating self-existence.

[Atom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't believe that the surplus consciousness of the human condition inherently means we are destined for depression. there are opportunities for euphoria and elation as a byproduct as well, but I do believe that realizing you are a prisoner to the universe does cause a simmering despair we cannot avoid. there is beauty to acknowledge. it may not always be rainbows and butterflies but it's also not always shitbows and garbageflies. if I am cosmically homeless then the least I can do is be in awe of the galaxies around me.

[Clayton Dawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is almost 100 years old and it is so unbelievably poignant to the mess we have created for ourselves. Zapffe breaks down everything that humans rely on in order to stave off the crippling fear of death and the horrors of existence. He is not a charlatan, this does not try to feet you some holier than thou bullshit about meaning, it is a stone sober look at the unquestionable futility of existence, and it offers zero reprieve from this reality.

[Simon Schothans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Riveting, terrifying, and pessimistic beyond the point of no return. A work leagues ahead of its time, and one those who are not reassured in their life ought to stay away from.

[Bumbles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful essay, beautifully written and haunting.

[Ktulis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Wessel Zapffe delivers a poetic and grounded essay on the tragedy of human existence. Consider the following: all historical societies are devoid of any authentic emotion and we may as well read Nietzsche and still argue there's joy in life in one form or another; as if happiness is an unfinished business since fuck knows when. As long as this logic persists ignorance will be the guiding light through the fields of agony, paint some happy people stomping on the bloody earth and you'll get a view worth a few vomits. The Last Messiah reminds us that human suffering is the basis of the very nature of our species thus pointing to the right direction if someone still stupidly cares to "make things better". I know I do so 5 stars.

[K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully bleak. Reminds me of Pascal’s quote, “When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in an eternity before and after, the little space I fill engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces whereof I know nothing, and which know nothing of me, I am terrified. The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me…” Zapffe’s Last Messiah is the ultimate culmination and logical result of a world without the Eternal Logos. Descriptions like, “when it inhales, a moan of rupture passes through the multitude, and corpses whip the ground like bouts of hail” are vivid and powerful. I’d be this fucking depressed too if I didn’t believe in a Nazarene that healed brokenness. “He is the last Messiah. As son from father, he stems from the archer by the waterhole.”