In his study The Nature of Evil (1931), Radoslav A.

Tsanoff cites a terse

reflection set
En su estudio La Naturaleza del Mal (1931), Radoslav A. Tsanoff cita
una breve reflexin
down by the German philosopher Julius Bahnsen in 1847, when he was
seventeen years
escrita por el filsofo alemn Julio Bahsen en 1847, cuando tena
diecisiete aos de
old. Man is a self-conscious Nothing, declared the young man. Bahnsen
was not, of
edad. El hombre es una Nada auto-conciente, declar el joven. Por
supuesto que
course, the first to arrive at a dour appraisal of his own kind. For
millennia, humanity has
Bahnsen no fue el primero en arribar a una afirmacin tan severa como
la suya. Por milenios, la humanidad
been the butt of epigrams and tantrums that do not portray it with favor.
Nevertheless, the
ha sido el blanco de epigramas y que no la retratan favorablemente. Sin
embargo,
reigning sentiment expressed on the subject more often ranges from
qualified approval to

el sentimiento reinante expresado en la materia la mayora de las veces

oscila entre la aprobacin cualificada
loud-mouthed braggadocio. In general, we have given ourselves rather
high marks as a
y la charlatanera fanfarrona. En general, nos hemos dado a nosotros
mismos una calificacin bastante elevada en cuanto a
form of life and are not chagrined by flattery, especially if it is cleverly
devised to
forma de vida y no estamos a disgusto con esta fanfarronera, en
especial si est claramente concebida
forefend our blushing with pride for being the standout guinea pigs in
natures laboratory.
para mostrarnos nuestro encanto con el orgullo de ser el cerdo de
Guinea destacado en el laboratorio de la naturaleza.
Anyone pursuing an audience, or even a place in society, might profit
from the following
Cualquiera que persiga una audiencia, o tan solo un lugar en la
sociedad, bien podra beneficiarse con el siguiente lema:
motto: If you cant say something positive about our species, then say
something
Si no puedes decir nada positivo sobre nuestra especie, entonces di
algo equivocado

equivocal. These facts, in themselves, are neither cause to ridicule the

judgment of the
Estos hechos, en s mismos, no son ni la causa para ridiculizar el juicio
de la mayora ni
majority nor grounds for conforming to it uncritically. Tending toward the
negativity of
los fundamentos para conformarse a ellos acrticamente. Tendiendo
hacia la negatividad
the latter mind-set, Bahnsen went too far, as if to assure himself a
lasting obscurity.
de la ltima postura(segunda actitud/disposicin), Bahnsen fue muy
lejos, lo suficiente para

asegurarse a s mismo una oscuridad

perdurable.
While Bahnsen does not figure in the following pages, I should say that
his negative spirit
Mientras Bahnsen no figura en las siguientes pginas, no obstante,
debera decir que su espritu pesimista
is nonetheless present in this work, the brunt of which is concerned with
how blind we
est presente en este trabajo, en el impacto de lo que concierne a cun
ciegos estamos
are to the horrors of our existence as well as how adept we have become
at sloughing

ante el horror de nuestra existencia y a cun adeptos nos hemos vuelto

a desembarazarnos de l.
them off. In short, my foregone conclusion is that our positive estimate
of ourselves and
En breve, mi inevitable conclusion es que la consideracin positiva sobre
nosotros mismos y sobre nuestras vidas, est slo y totalmente en
nuestras cabezas.

our lives is all in our heads. As with many propositions that shoot for
loftiness (To be or

not to be), this one may be mulled over but not usefully argued. The
few who have gone

to the pains of doing so might as well have not existed. History proves
that people will

change their minds about almost anything, from which god they worship
to how they

style their hair. An exception to this rule, probably the only one, is that
humanity has

never seriously doubted its good opinion of itself or the value of its
existence. Should

demurral to the self-contentment of the masses then be renounced?

That would be the

brilliant decision. To be silent when no one is listening should be the first

rule of

dissenters, with special reference to those who are not giddy about
being members of the

human race. The second rule should be: if you must open your mouth,
steer away from

argumentation. Money and love may make the world go round, but
logical disputation

with that world cannot get it to budge. In the words of British author and
Christian

apologist G. K. Chesterton, You can only find truth with logic if you have
already found

truth without it. (Example: every debate over the existence of God is
won by His

defenders.) And if your truth is not the same as that of Chesterton and
his like, you might

as well pack it up and go home. It will blow up in your face the second it
is heard by

those who have already found a truth that is not yours, which in my case
will be all but a

few fellow miserablists. Still, for those who would lob a bomb at received
illusions,

logical or quasi-logical arguments are lusciously alluring. As far as the

tedium and

inutility of argumentation goes, it may be alleviated by gut-level

revilements, personal

idolatries, peevish blow-ups, rampant pontifications, and tons of

pretension. To organize

this unruly fusion of the rational and the irrational, I will borrow heavily
from a
11
prefabricated thesis of another foreign philosopher, one who anticipated
my complaints

before I was born . . . and wished I had not been. For the time being, I
would like return

to the above-cited obloquy from a teenage Bahnsen.

Man is a self-conscious Nothing. Taken at face value, this statement is

a paradox and a

horror. Being self-conscious and being nothing should rule out each
other. Instead they

are coupled to suggest an unreal monstrosity, an existential chimera on

the order of the

undead. The greater community of self-conscious mortals will tell you

they are

something, not nothing. The suicidal will tell you they are something but
wish they were

nothing. What almost no one will tell you is that they know they are
nothingliving

puppets helpless to act except as bidden by powers unseenbut, being

self-conscious,

suffer the illusion that they are something. They believe this is how it is
with everyone

that all of us are living the same paradox, the same horror. They also
believe we will do

anything to keep this knowledge out of our heads because if we did not,
how could we go

on living? And why would we replenish the world with more selfconscious nothings,

more puppets?

Take a moment to consider the puppet. It is an object made somewhat in

our image that

does not know what we know . . . or believe ourselves to know, which

amounts to the

same thing. Undeniably, our minds have wanton moments when a

puppet seems as if it

can come to life, hop up like a human being, know things that we know
and perhaps other

things that we do not. Then an insoluble psychological conflict erupts, a

dissonance of

perception that sends a tremor of supernatural horror through our being.

(Anthropomorphobia is the term for the anxiety evoked when inanimate

forms begin to

disport human qualities.) Whether we believe or suspend belief in

supernatural

manifestations, they terrorize us because by habit we think of ourselves

as natural beings

living in a natural world, which is why we tend to equate the

supernatural with horror. A

puppet exists, but it cannot know how or why it exists. It is a knownothing. And still it

may have something to tell us about the natural and the supernatural.

Effigies of ourselves made by our own hands and minds, puppets were
created to be

actors in a world of their own, one that exists inside of ours and reflects
back upon it.

What do we see in that reflection? Only what we want to see, what we

can stand to see.

Through the prophylactic of self-illusion, we hide from what we fear to let

into our heads.

But puppets have nothing to hide. They are more than willing to betray a
secret too

terrible for us to know. Our lives are full of baffling questions that
virtuosos of

speculation trifle with and the rest of us forget about. Naked apes or
embodied angels we

perhaps may be, but not self-conscious nothings. We are somebodies

who move freely

about and think what we choose. Puppets are not like that. They have
nothing in their

heads. They are unreal. When they are in motion, we know they are
moved by an outside

force. When they speak, their voices come from elsewhere. Their orders
come from

somewhere behind and beyond them. And were they ever to become
aware of that fact,

they would collapse at the horror of it all, as would we.

When we are through playing with puppets, we put them away. They are
only objects

like a corpse in a casket. The dead do not return except in horror stories
and nightmares.

12
Ghosts and such are faulty transmissions from haunted minds. If they
were not, our world

would be a paradox and a horror in which no one could be certain of

anything, not even

of whether we were just puppets whose orders came from somewhere

behind and beyond

us. All supernatural horror depends on a confusion of what we believe

should be and

should not be. As scientists, philosophers, and spiritual figures have

attested, our heads

are full of illusions; things, including human things, are frequently not
what they seem.

Nevertheless, one thing we know for sure: the difference between what
it natural and

what is not. Another thing we know is that nature makes no mistakes so

untoward as to

allow things, including human things, to swerve into the supernatural.

Were it to make

such a mistake, we would do everything to keep this knowledge out of

our heads. But to

all appearances, thank God and nature, there is nothing to worry about.
Almost everyone

believes we are natural beings whose lives have an inborn value. No one
can prove that

our existence is a paradox and a horror. Everything is all right with the world.