Nothing, and Then Nothing, and Then Nothing.
Part IV: The Dark Age of the Mind
Part I , Part II and Part III are also available on American Reformer
“Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada.” A Clean, Well-Lighted Place by Hemingway.
Nothing, and then nothing, and then nothing. In Hemingway’s short story A Clean Well-Lighted Place, we get the contrast of a younger man busy with married life, a middle-aged man beginning to reflect on the meaning of it all, and an old man who just wants light. The old man is wealthy but drinks alone and recently tried to kill himself.
The narrative descends into meaninglessness. Why? Because all is nothing. All of our efforts come out the same in the end, leaving us contemplating suicide–or assisted suicide. The efforts of the young turn into the middle-aged melancholy, which turn into the last moments of life grasping onto whatever light is left. The older waiter lets the younger one go home to his wife while he stays so that the old man can have some more time in a clean, well-lighted place before the end.
Trying to Think Without Essences
What does this have to do with the Darkened Mind at the American University? Everything. It is the perfect short story to describe the youthful graduate student/early professor “I will change the world with the same philosophy that broke the world,” the middle-aged “at least I get a paycheck and am surrounded by people who all think the way I do,” and the final stage of despair as the professor retires and faces final meaninglessness. These are the kinds of literary works we can read to learn about the human condition and become wise rather than the fool who rejects God and thinks they nevertheless will find meaning in life.
In the previous installment of The Darkened Mind series, I examined the anatomy of the darkened mind—a mind that rejects fundamental distinctions in reality, such as the distinction between Creator and creature. This confusion is not merely an innocent philosophical error made by someone grappling with a complex subject. Rather, it reflects a willful rejection of God’s commands and the consequences tied to them (“the day you eat of it you will surely die” and “the wages of sin is death”). This willful sin arises out of unbelief and the failure to know God. God has been exchanged for a lie. Such a person not only rejects God but also embraces a life of moral corruption (sin), actively suppressing the truths of God by ensuring his commands are not taught.
Can we truly say this applies to the atheist? After all, aren’t there moral atheists? This question can be approached either sociologically or logically. A sociologist might indeed observe that some atheists are more honest or virtuous than their theistic neighbors. However, our inquiry here is not sociological but logical. The question is whether the atheist has any rational foundation for morality after rejecting God and His warning: “The day you eat of it, you will surely die.” Without anything transcendent, having rejected the nature of things, and given over only to the flow of experience, there can be no universal moral laws on which to build a life.
The Darkened Minds at the American University have provided a telling example here. Gone are the days of the mythical philosophical materialist who remained faithful to his wife of 40 years and lived a life of virtue. During what I term the Marxist Era of the American University (1960–2020), these minds have actively championed sexual licentiousness and increasingly depraved and immoral acts. In fact, there appears to be no boundary to what such professors will celebrate—so long as it is consensual. We as a culture have come to shrug our shoulders at the sexual licentiousness of our universities and say, “That’s just how they are,” but we shouldn’t. Education is supposed to make a person wise and virtuous, not a foolish libertine.
The Fool Says in His Heart There is No God: The loss of all distinctions
This demonstrates that the Darkened Minds we encounter today are affirming the truth of the Psalmist’s words. In Psalm 14, we are told that it is the fool who declares in his heart, “There is no God.” The Psalmist goes on to describe this person as entirely corrupt—one who neither seeks God nor understands nor does what is right. The evidence of this corruption lies in their inability to grasp basic distinctions that, in earlier generations, even a child could understand.
If you recall kindergarten, one of the most socially important things to figure out was who were the boys and who were the girls. This wasn’t exactly rocket science—each group was convinced the other had cooties! Yet, the professor with a Darkened Mind, by rejecting the clear distinction between Creator and creature, also can’t seem to keep up with the clarity of a kindergartener. It’s almost as if the kindergartners are thinking at light speed compared to them. Did these intellectuals skip kindergarten? No—but they certainly seem to harbor some deep resentment toward the clear thinking that took place there.
While the contemporary humanities professors might object to discussing God in a secular university classroom (though I am not suggesting they are correct in objecting), they are remarkably bold in promoting their own agenda. However, this agenda is deeply confused. For example, within their worldview, they are unable to make even the most basic distinction between a man and a woman. Having exchanged the truth about God for a lie and having blurred the distinction between Creator and creature, they now lose any and all other distinctions such as “man” and “woman” and “human” and “non-human.”
Sartre: Existence Precedes the, you know, the thing.
What happened to them is that they encountered Sartre—or, more likely, their graduate professors did. His name is mostly forgotten, having sprung up like grass, he has withered away. Sartre’s existentialism asserts that “existence precedes essence,” meaning we are born without any predetermined nature, and it is up to us to decide who or what we are. According to this view, cultural constructs like “male” and “female” are imposed on us, robbing us of our existential freedom to define ourselves. This philosophy has deeply influenced the confused thinking we see in today’s academia. This is a direct rebellion against the idea that God creates us with a nature, and thus, God is the one who knows and commands what is good for us.
Existentialism places a high value on authenticity. For thinkers like Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky, this meant living authentically before God, and recognizing one’s accountability to the Creator. However, for materialist existentialists like Sartre and his intellectual heirs in today’s academy, authenticity means expressing the essence you feel within yourself. This idea was further developed by figures like John Money, who taught that humans are born gender-neutral and that each person must choose their gender, religion, political ideology, and even their entire identity. According to this view, we are not given a nature; we construct a nature. For some, this construction might extend to identifying as non-humans, “Who are you to judge?”
Here is who you are to judge: a human being with a rational soul. Yet these professors, having been given over to a Darkened Mind, have fallen so far that they can no longer even reason about what it means to be human or distinguish between a man and a woman. You can test this yourself, ask a humanities professor to define “human” and watch what happens. This is not merely cultural relativism; it is a full-scale denial of creation itself. In rejecting God the Creator, they must also reject His work. They must deny that “He made them male and female” and that everything was created “each after its own kind.” Their rebellion against God extends to a refusal to acknowledge the most basic truths of His design.
I don’t doubt that many professors and students who believe that “existence precedes essence” cannot articulate that belief and may never have heard of Sartre. However, what happens when you educate children from K-12 without teaching them how to discern the nature of things? What kind of understanding has their education equipped them with? Many high school graduates I speak with express the same frustration—they wonder what, if anything, their education has truly prepared them to do or understand.
We cannot live with meaninglessness
The professors promoting this agenda, despite their objections, are still persons created in the image of God. As such, they possess rational souls and cannot live with the notion of complete meaninglessness. However, because the Darkened Mind has abandoned anything transcendent or absolute, they are left to seek meaning in the process of change itself. Yet without a goal or higher purpose, change is just that—change. It is neither good nor evil; it simply is. Accepting this would drain their lives of meaning entirely.
To avoid this emptiness, they inconsistently reject God while simultaneously claiming to work for “progress” and a “better future.” The only framework available to them is Marxism. To soothe their consciences and find some sense of purpose that allows them to sleep at night, they convince themselves they are helping others live better lives—defined primarily as reducing economic hardship. This becomes their justification, allowing them to feel they are contributing to something meaningful, even as their philosophical foundation crumbles.
The Social Philosophy of the American University: Help the marginalized, oppressed, disadvantaged
Yes, terms like marginalized, oppressed, and disadvantaged are all action verbs that suggest something is being done to the subject, portraying them as passive recipients of external forces. This language suggests that the individuals described are powerless and not in control of their own lives. It reduces them to objects acted upon by others, stripping them of agency and the ability to take initiative or improve their circumstances. This perspective fosters a dependency mindset, suggesting that their only hope lies in being “helped” or “rescued” by those who hold power, rather than empowering them to take control of their own lives. Such persons must look to benevolent professors who will teach them there is no God, there are no natures, and find them a job as a “advocate.”
Indeed, in this framework, personal responsibility and free will are entirely removed. Economic differences are no longer seen as the result of individual choices—whether mine or my family’s—but are instead attributed solely to external oppression. Conversely, if I am doing well and considered part of “whiteness,” my success is reduced to nothing more than the color of my skin.
This overly simplistic model offers a convenient narrative for those unwilling to grapple with the complexity of personal responsibility, cultural dynamics, or the interplay of effort and circumstance. It is enough, at least for a time, to sustain the ideological fervor of younger professors, providing them with a sense of purpose and moral superiority, even as the cracks in the foundation of this worldview inevitably begin to show.
Like the young married man in Hemingway’s story, such professors neglect to see the connection between the failures of those who pursued the same solution before them and their own inevitable disappointment. Just as the old man drinking alone was once a hopeful young husband, such professors are blind to the trajectory they are on. The retiring Marxist, who has made no lasting positive difference in the world, was once a bright-eyed idealist, convinced she could reject God and still find meaning. Yet the end is always the same: disillusionment and emptiness, the natural fruit of a worldview severed from the Creator and His moral law.
I wish you’d stop loving me so much
Would you want to be one of the objects of these professors’ care? To accept their help would mean conceding that you have no free will, no agency, and no ability to shape your own life. Your actions would carry no real consequences because, in their view, nothing you do matters—everything in your life is caused by someone else. Moreover, your suffering would be reduced solely to economic terms. They would suggest that if only you had more money, you would be a better person and live a better life. This shallow view of human flourishing strips away the richness of moral, spiritual, and personal growth, reducing you to little more than a passive recipient of their pity.
It is no surprise that the Darkened Mind can offer nothing better than this. Having rejected God, they attempt to construct meaning for human life out of their own subjective intuitions. Lacking a transcendent foundation, they inevitably fall short. Instead, they promote what is explicitly warned against, both in their own lives and in what they teach their students. This cycle of rebellion and misguidance perpetuates the confusion and emptiness inherent in their worldview.
Now that you have been warned of the Darkened Mind, shown how it works, and considered the consequences of coming under its care, you have been sufficiently warned. Do you think it is wise to pay such an educational institution 60k to mentor you or shape your children into their image? You do have agency and choice. You can decide that it is time for a new American University that says goodbye to the Marxist era and demands professors who are accountable for teaching wisdom and virtue.
All of the education of a Darkened Mind ends in nada y pues nada y pues nada y pues nada . . . . We can do better and next time I will turn to how an education can make us wise and virtuous.
Image Credit: Unsplash