What do you think?
Rate this book
The Experience of Nothingness
"Michael Novak is a truly creative thinker at a time when American religious thought is dominated by fads His book bears rare fruit for the contemporary student of man." --The Nation In this book, Michael Novak has two First, he shows the paths by which the experience of nothingness is becoming common among all those who live in free societies. Second, he details the various experiences that lead to the nothingness point of view.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
147 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
11 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
About the author
Michael Novak
197 books35 followersMichael Novak is an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. He is George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute
Novak served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1981 and 1982 and led the U.S. delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1986.
In 1993 Novak was honored with an honorary doctorate degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín] due to his commitment to the idea of liberty. In 1994 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
Novak served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1981 and 1982 and led the U.S. delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1986.
In 1993 Novak was honored with an honorary doctorate degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquín] due to his commitment to the idea of liberty. In 1994 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
February 10, 2008
i clung to this book when my father died. i was 19. it helped to know that alienation, isolation and meaninglessness could be a peak spiritual experience.
April 27, 2018
"The experience of nothingness teaches a man the poverty and the limitations of all symbols. It teaches him to look with skepticism upon perceptions and values that others take for granted. Thus those who have shared the experience of nothingness are the most profoundly subversive of all dissenters; for they deny, not this or that institutional arrangement, but the prevailing sense of reality. Their conscience is out of tune with the conscience of the dominant elites, as well as out of tune with the corresponding conscience of those ordinary people who still have faith in the elites."
A really interesting read that speaks to a subject that tends to elude description.
"The experience of nothingness arms a man against his own puritanism, his desire to be perfect, and his despair at not being able to be honest, courageous, free, or brotherly. Who is he (who is at his center nothing) to be dismayed because his actions prove his worthlessness? The self is not at the center of the universe. The sun shines no less brilliantly, the skies are no more thickly gray because he has betrayed his resolve."
A really interesting read that speaks to a subject that tends to elude description.
"The experience of nothingness arms a man against his own puritanism, his desire to be perfect, and his despair at not being able to be honest, courageous, free, or brotherly. Who is he (who is at his center nothing) to be dismayed because his actions prove his worthlessness? The self is not at the center of the universe. The sun shines no less brilliantly, the skies are no more thickly gray because he has betrayed his resolve."
July 24, 2023
It was over for me as soon as I started personifying the author as “this asshole.” A lot of his points were good. A lot of his language was overcomplicated (or maybe I was feeling lazy, I’ll never tell). I was impressed and saddened by how much held up since publication, but I didn’t take much away from this.
August 23, 2017
First, before discussing this, let's agree on the author's use of the term Nothingness. His use of the term - and he says so in the book -is synonymous with nihilism. Nihilism - in this context - is the belief that life and the universe has no objective, purpose or instrinsic meaning to it.
The experience of nihilism, how it effects people and society in general is an interesting topic. But that's precisely what you don't get in this book. I will admit that there is the occasional interesting passage on Nothingness. But this quickly degenerates in to page after page of meaningless drivel which is just the authors personal opinions. No attempt is made to justify, reason or argue anything in this meaningless book. In addition, the author's opinions quickly gravitate to the whole - "everything is shit" point of view. Nothing is spared from this relentless scathing torrent. Which again would be all very well if some justification for these ideas were offered?
In many areas it drifts rather obviously to the post-modern theories, where everything is "just a story". The author uses the words "myths", but the idea is the same.
While i basically agree that life is without any external meaning, I think it's interesting that Science has revealed so much about the universe around us. Why is that? What is special about science? What is wrong with focussing on ordering our own human society, in order to bring as much happiness as possible to people? The cynicism of this book is relentless, and after a few chapters I found myself skimming it. I guess it's my fault for choosing a book like this, but in my opinion there are better books on nihilism.
The experience of nihilism, how it effects people and society in general is an interesting topic. But that's precisely what you don't get in this book. I will admit that there is the occasional interesting passage on Nothingness. But this quickly degenerates in to page after page of meaningless drivel which is just the authors personal opinions. No attempt is made to justify, reason or argue anything in this meaningless book. In addition, the author's opinions quickly gravitate to the whole - "everything is shit" point of view. Nothing is spared from this relentless scathing torrent. Which again would be all very well if some justification for these ideas were offered?
In many areas it drifts rather obviously to the post-modern theories, where everything is "just a story". The author uses the words "myths", but the idea is the same.
While i basically agree that life is without any external meaning, I think it's interesting that Science has revealed so much about the universe around us. Why is that? What is special about science? What is wrong with focussing on ordering our own human society, in order to bring as much happiness as possible to people? The cynicism of this book is relentless, and after a few chapters I found myself skimming it. I guess it's my fault for choosing a book like this, but in my opinion there are better books on nihilism.
November 14, 2012
I enjoyed this book, mainly because Novak did a good job of capturing emotions and thoughts I've been grappling with for some time now. He made arguments about democracy and capitalism, and its effects on American society, i.e., the effects it has on us morally and intellectually. This topic seems to have been in fashion during the 1970s. He evinced the importance of Aristotelian ethics in contemporary society as a palliative for his diagnosis of American culture. Diagnosis: we have fallen prey to technological abstractions, and the guise of equality, which have limited our ability to act on our beliefs and evaluate our beliefs, whole-heartedly. This, along with the innate 'drive to question' that all humans possess, plainly stated, is where 'the experience of nothingness' is born.
He contends that apathy generally follows from the powerlessness that one experiences upon realizing that the political and cultural machines that affect our lives, and erroneously concluding that our ability to shape the world around us, even our very lives, is limited to the point of immobility. What we ought do, is use the experience of nothingness in tandem with the drive to question as impetuses to foster a sense of self that is conscientious, courageous, and craves honesty when dealing with all levels of human society, e.g. individual, group, institutional, governmental.
He contends that apathy generally follows from the powerlessness that one experiences upon realizing that the political and cultural machines that affect our lives, and erroneously concluding that our ability to shape the world around us, even our very lives, is limited to the point of immobility. What we ought do, is use the experience of nothingness in tandem with the drive to question as impetuses to foster a sense of self that is conscientious, courageous, and craves honesty when dealing with all levels of human society, e.g. individual, group, institutional, governmental.
February 26, 2017
Important and clearly written apologetic of nihilism. Exhilarating to consider but empty and hopeless in the end.
July 16, 2024
A SURPRISINGLY "EXISTENTIALIST" EARLY BOOK FROM THE CATHOLICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER
Michael Novak (born 1933) is an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. Initially a seminarian, he eventually became a reporter who attended the Second Vatican Council, married, and had children. He has written many other books, and also authored the famous 1983 essay, 'Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age,' which was his response to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' pastoral letter, 'The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.'
He wrote in the Preface to the paperback edition of this 1970 book, "Today, the experience of nothingness is simply a fact: many of us have it... what shall I do with it?... This book, then, is at most an invitation. Notice, it says, everything you can about what is happening to you... So doing... It becomes a source of further actions, actions which are by so much without illusion."
He states early on, "Boredom is the first taste of nothingness. Today, boredom is the chief starting place of metaphysics." (Pg. 6) Later, he observes, "It was the fashion of the generation before our own to aspire to 'live without myth.' But what else is my acute sense of reality but my peculiar myth, my peculiar way of ordering my experience?" (Pg. 30)
He suggests that the source of the experience of nothingness "lies in man's unstructured, relentless drive to ask questions." (Pg. 45) He poses the question, "Granted that I must die, how shall I live? That is the fundamental human question, which fundamental myths aim to answer." (Pg. 48) Later, he expands by saying, "Granted that I am empty, alone, without guides, direction, will, or obligations, how shall I live? In the nothingness, one has at last an opportunity to shape one's own identity, to create oneself. The courage to accept despair becomes the courage to be." (Pg. 61)
He argues that to choose with "less consciousness than we might" is to allow our choices to be made by others and by events than by ourselves; instead, we should leap from "the drive to question to conferring VALUE upon their exercise." To turn these facts into values is a creative act, "whose starting place is the experience of nothingness." (Pg. 57-58)
Novak, of course, later turned away from such purely theological/philosophical discussions; but his early musings remain of interest to philosophically-minded students of theology.
Michael Novak (born 1933) is an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. Initially a seminarian, he eventually became a reporter who attended the Second Vatican Council, married, and had children. He has written many other books, and also authored the famous 1983 essay, 'Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age,' which was his response to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' pastoral letter, 'The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response.'
He wrote in the Preface to the paperback edition of this 1970 book, "Today, the experience of nothingness is simply a fact: many of us have it... what shall I do with it?... This book, then, is at most an invitation. Notice, it says, everything you can about what is happening to you... So doing... It becomes a source of further actions, actions which are by so much without illusion."
He states early on, "Boredom is the first taste of nothingness. Today, boredom is the chief starting place of metaphysics." (Pg. 6) Later, he observes, "It was the fashion of the generation before our own to aspire to 'live without myth.' But what else is my acute sense of reality but my peculiar myth, my peculiar way of ordering my experience?" (Pg. 30)
He suggests that the source of the experience of nothingness "lies in man's unstructured, relentless drive to ask questions." (Pg. 45) He poses the question, "Granted that I must die, how shall I live? That is the fundamental human question, which fundamental myths aim to answer." (Pg. 48) Later, he expands by saying, "Granted that I am empty, alone, without guides, direction, will, or obligations, how shall I live? In the nothingness, one has at last an opportunity to shape one's own identity, to create oneself. The courage to accept despair becomes the courage to be." (Pg. 61)
He argues that to choose with "less consciousness than we might" is to allow our choices to be made by others and by events than by ourselves; instead, we should leap from "the drive to question to conferring VALUE upon their exercise." To turn these facts into values is a creative act, "whose starting place is the experience of nothingness." (Pg. 57-58)
Novak, of course, later turned away from such purely theological/philosophical discussions; but his early musings remain of interest to philosophically-minded students of theology.
Read
October 5, 2024Fairly straightforward existentialism, the key difference is novaks stressing how much the existential crisis is a culturally conditioned reaction, with American values and the political climate of the late 60s (a climate very similar to the contemporary) being particularly ripe for it.
Another key difference betwen this and the French existentialists is where Sartre takes Descartes' maxim and Camus the irreconcilable barrier between self and experience as the one disolluble truth from which they base their philosophies, Novak denies even the solidity of identity. He instead posits the self as permeable and in constant dialogue with the world around us, and thus itself subject to the same crisis of awareness as to the arbitrariness of its construction.
From here there is little possibility of definite answers of solutions, and he instead gives a set of guiding aristotelian virtues, with an important addendum that the sort of spectrum interpretation traditionally given to aristotelian ethics is misleading, and the critical principle of application is "that which increases wisdom" This is admitted to be a hard to define and apply sort of criteria. But the major contention I think against existentialism generally is the impossibility of proving you are "doing it right" as its basis of action is always rooted in an internal attitude.
But I think good philosophy should be more of a dialogue between the reader and the text, and perfect articulation either from the text or between us and others should not be the benchmark, as it so often is.
That said I do wish he had spent a little more time on elucidating these values and what he thinks as "increasing wisdom". But this is an interesting little book, and to my knowledge no one has really taken up with his key points on the sort of phenomenology of the existential condition.
I did not read nor was I aware of the "revised and expanded edition" but it was the only one on goodreads, so my analysis and criticisms should be noted to be only applied to the original
Another key difference betwen this and the French existentialists is where Sartre takes Descartes' maxim and Camus the irreconcilable barrier between self and experience as the one disolluble truth from which they base their philosophies, Novak denies even the solidity of identity. He instead posits the self as permeable and in constant dialogue with the world around us, and thus itself subject to the same crisis of awareness as to the arbitrariness of its construction.
From here there is little possibility of definite answers of solutions, and he instead gives a set of guiding aristotelian virtues, with an important addendum that the sort of spectrum interpretation traditionally given to aristotelian ethics is misleading, and the critical principle of application is "that which increases wisdom" This is admitted to be a hard to define and apply sort of criteria. But the major contention I think against existentialism generally is the impossibility of proving you are "doing it right" as its basis of action is always rooted in an internal attitude.
But I think good philosophy should be more of a dialogue between the reader and the text, and perfect articulation either from the text or between us and others should not be the benchmark, as it so often is.
That said I do wish he had spent a little more time on elucidating these values and what he thinks as "increasing wisdom". But this is an interesting little book, and to my knowledge no one has really taken up with his key points on the sort of phenomenology of the existential condition.
I did not read nor was I aware of the "revised and expanded edition" but it was the only one on goodreads, so my analysis and criticisms should be noted to be only applied to the original
June 11, 2020
Novak did a very good job of communicating the ideas described in his book, and for that alone I would give him five stars. His writing, however, is very dry. For those fascinated with his ideas this may not be a problem, but if you are not it may be a slog.
May 8, 2012
You probably think, having read the title, this book is a complete downer. Maybe it is. Depends on your point of view. For me, it was actually rather uplifting. It's kind of like a handbook for rebranding existentialism. Or, how to reframe emptiness as fullness. (How's that for twisted optimism?)
If this quote speaks to you, it might be worth a real read:
"The choice to remain faithful to the drive to question (the fertile source of the experience of nothingness) brings with it an obscure joy. For to be faithful to that drive...is to be constantly expanding one's horizon, constantly losing one's life, and constantly regaining it. It is to be as alert to other persons, to situations, and to events as one can: to their fragility and terror, as well as to their obscure coherence and often veiled beauty. To be faithful to the drive to question is to accept despair as one's due, to accept risk as one's condition, and to accept the crumbs of discovery as joy. [...] The darkness is habitable...Those who accept the darkness as their lot are instantly secure, not through some newfound solidity but through the perception that insecurity is man's natural state, a truthful state, a healthy state."
If this quote speaks to you, it might be worth a real read:
"The choice to remain faithful to the drive to question (the fertile source of the experience of nothingness) brings with it an obscure joy. For to be faithful to that drive...is to be constantly expanding one's horizon, constantly losing one's life, and constantly regaining it. It is to be as alert to other persons, to situations, and to events as one can: to their fragility and terror, as well as to their obscure coherence and often veiled beauty. To be faithful to the drive to question is to accept despair as one's due, to accept risk as one's condition, and to accept the crumbs of discovery as joy. [...] The darkness is habitable...Those who accept the darkness as their lot are instantly secure, not through some newfound solidity but through the perception that insecurity is man's natural state, a truthful state, a healthy state."
June 7, 2014
Overall I found Novak's central argument(s) compelling and well-researched but he often lost me in his roundabout, somewhat convoluted train of thought.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews