Pop Culture and Weak Thought pt. 1

Introduction and overview of weak thought


I don't know how many of these posts I've started with "Lately", but it seems like a lot. Get ready for another one.

Lately I've been thinking about the hell-bent speed of pop culture, and was interested when I contrasted its pace and prevalence with the concept of weak thought. In this piece I will be exploring my thoughts on this, but before I delve too far let me first give a decent explanation of what my interpretation of "weak thought" entails.

2000 years ago, humanity as a whole had a structure of belief that differed greatly from what we believe now. 100 years ago –similarly- beliefs were different from how they are today. In looking at human belief and its ebb and flow over time, one major takeaway is the fact that beliefs that once were held as infallible and absolute are now cast by the wayside, left to be strange anecdotes and embarrassing facts about our colorful history as a people. These occurrences are present in almost all realms of thought, whether it's history, science, philosophy or religion. It was once thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once thought that Gods lived at the top of mountains. It was once thought that there was a distinction between mind and body. It was once thought that certain cultures and races of the world were inherently less capable than others.
I say these things as though they are beliefs that no longer exist, but many of them still do, albeit in greater and greater obscurity. As a race, as a collective culture, humanity has run a vast and often troubled gamut of belief, captured at one extreme in the belief that all things have an irrefutable divine purpose and at the other by the belief that nothing is sacred.

Though nihilism was never adopted wholeheartedly as a doctrine by many, its presence in the global cultural conversation is nonetheless there, just as a bombshell development in the ongoing conversation between any two people would affect their discourse. Imagine a girl finding out that her boyfriend had cheated on her or a friend finding out that another friend had stolen money from them. These are occurrences and realizations that impact a relationship for a long time to come, and they must be resolved if the parties involved are ever to develop a healthy relationship again. Problems like these are similar to the mental state we find ourselves in as a culture because they involve trust, belief and intention (amongst other things), all three of which are under assault in an age of pluralism whose undercurrent involves moving entirely away from metaphysics. Nihilism’s wake in the mind of humanity requires reconciliation, as it has presented an eventuality of human thought which is unhealthy to neglect, let alone manifest.

It is here that numerous developments in postmodern thought come to pull us back in, to protect us from the staggering weight of a world in which nothing has meaning or value. Weak Thought is one such stopgap; an attempt to cull ourselves back towards a more rational, working belief of our structured thought and functional purpose. As a belief, nihilism is not “wrong” in the sense that it is not applicable to a given state of affairs, because there is nothing about it which stands in direct contrast to universal laws. A belief in nihilism does not turn orange objects purple, nor does it make objects dropped rise from the ground. Similarly, a belief that the world is only 6,000 years old is not “wrong” in any universal sense. The person who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old is still allowed to do and act in an expansive way, just as the nihilist is allowed to do and act in whichever way they decide to do so. The problem of these convictions is inherent in the hamstringing of their believer, limiting them in their experience to that which their core values will accommodate. The believer in Earth’s extraordinary infancy is unlikely to find themselves working in the field of quantum mechanics and relativity while the nihilist (if diehard) is not likely to find themselves working on much of anything. This effect becomes detrimental as things like doing and believing begin to wear on the nihilist, with the opportunities in their life being increasingly limited by a strong, unwavering belief that everything they see and experience is false or purposeless, giving them an inclination towards what society would generally label “lethargy” (I don’t know if there’s a nice way to approach the nihilist). The Christian becomes similarly deluged by science, the realm of God finding solace in increasingly small corners of universal conception.

I’d like to take a brief tangent here and touch on the relationship between religion and science as I’m trying to present them here, because I’d hate for someone to be given the impression that I’m against religion and believe science is irrefutable, though the greater meat of this explanation will have to be saved for another piece (which I constantly find myself pushing back). My view on religion is this: as a titled concept, it is something that needs to be pushed further and further back from the forefront of our global conversation. There are not many Jews or Mormons in China, and simple concessions like these are ones we need to be willing to accept without criminalization. I do not mean to say that people should abstain from trying to grow their religion or allow a blatant assault on their religious beliefs. What I do mean is that rallying around the dismissive belief that “Christian” or “Muslim” accurately summarizes someone’s beliefs, intentions and character is something that doesn’t help a global culture thrive. Weakness in these areas is desperately needed, and this might be one of the areas where Weak Thought is best exampled. In moving away from titles and archetypes, we’re allowed to take a more thoughtful, intricate approach to understanding the scope and actions of others. Where “Christianity” or “Judaism” are the common grounds of many now, taking a moral by moral approach (i.e. people of different religions agreeing that thievery is wrong ) rather than a titled one allows us to find similarities amongst each other and attain parts of the camaraderie religion produces on a wider scale.

As for science, I feel its place in our society is far too expansive. In the wake of postmodernism, science has been called upon to provide the answers for everything in life instead of religion, and its results as a makeshift God have been equally dysfunctional. Simply put, the drive for a unifying theory which explains everything in the universe won’t provide the end those who pursue it are looking for, which is a Godlike knowledge of the present and future. Using science as our God, as the padding which calms our fears and tells us that things will be alright is an approach which lacks romantic fruition. Scientific data lacks the creative flair we look for in the world, and instead gives us a cold, calculated approach that leaves our emotional selves desiring more. Even if we could unify all scientific doctrines, the scope of our mental landscape wouldn’t allow us to comprehend the universe as an entirety. We’d still find ourselves using quantum physics to address small particles and conventional physics to address the speed of a falling apple. It’s like two different screwdrivers, one designated for use on small electronic components and one meant to torque large screws into wood. They’re similar in premise, but different in applicable uses. As tool using creatures, we need to accept that our thought is structured in a very similar way. The chances of us finding an “omniknowledge” which allows us to think and confront problems in exactly the same way every time is extraordinarily slim. More likely is the continuation of our hodge-podge form of logic in which older, less effective ideas are replaced by newer and more functional ones.

Whether it is unfortunate that we find people more heavily invested in disbelief than strong, irrefutable belief is anyone’s guess, but neither is likely to promote the camaraderie and patience that an increasingly hectic world needs. Weak thought is thus presented as an acknowledgment and apology for mistakes in brashness and underestimation of the past, and offers itself as a means for navigating an increasingly connected, hectic and inclusion-starved global culture. As a concept, weak thought is something we’ve always accommodated ourselves with, but it’s previously been done without a name or direct acknowledgment. Just as the nihilist eats to survive or cherishes something he or she owns, the Christian takes a lax view of Jesus’ word and never actually gives all their worldly belongings to the poor to become a true disciple of Jesus. Both parties claim a staunch, universal position, an irrefutable belief that they refuse to release, but both parties actually labor under the contemporary and relative, the nihilist in their lacking effort and the Christian in their stance on numerous social issues as against “God’s word”.

In establishing ourselves as a culture that is practicing weak thought, who acknowledges the flow of time and ideas, we concede that the beliefs and values we hold are contemporized and in no way eternal or absolute. We are willing to move past the idea of becoming the age that “got it right” irrefutably and instead focus ourselves on doing the best with the information we have, which varies and causes us to change constantly. In the next piece, I will explain how pop culture effects the information we are given and how it relates to weak thought.