Erol Göka
If people are moral and morality is revolutionary, then we must stand by people, traditions, and society; trust in humanity, defend its freedom, believe in the spontaneous transformation of society, and resist any ideology imposed upon it. That is why, when discussing the evils of the technomediatic world and the harm it inflicts upon us and our relationships, we emphasize our trust in love and morality.
The views I will express below under this heading are taken from an article I wrote following a spiritual transformation in my youth. These are ideas I have firmly upheld since then and continue to defend today. There is no reason to abandon the theses presented in this article, which assert that “the moral essence is present in every human being, in every historical period, in every tradition and culture, and that it is this essence, connected with the Creator and the Divine, that is truly revolutionary, transformative, and liberating.” However, as we expressed in Kalpten: Varoluş Merkezimiz Kalp ve Temel Eylemi Merhamet (From the Heart: Our Center of Existence is the Heart and its Fundamental Action is Mercy) (Kapı Publishing, 2020), what was missing in our youthful article was a focus on where morality originates within a human being.
For some time now, I have been thinking that every human being possesses not only a “material heart” but also a “spiritual heart,” and that the pursuit of truth and the inclination toward morality and beauty thus manifest as an ontological reality in human life. I believe that if the following youthful text had been reformatted around the concept of the “spiritual heart,” it would have been more convincing—both in terms of the fundamental dynamics of change residing within each individual and their connection with the Creator, and in demonstrating that what hinders spiritual maturation in individuals and a just transformation in society ultimately depends on human will.
Looking back today, I can more clearly see that until I fully grasped the significance of the “spiritual heart” and assigned a distinct place in my thought system to the “heart,” which resides in all humans and embodies the seeds of universal moral values, I found myself stuck between the analyses of modern psychological sciences on one hand and the “tradition” that refers to the past and historical continuity on the other. Although I consistently emphasized that I was “not in favor of nostalgic anti-modernism,” I ultimately found myself aligned with it, unable to go beyond stressing that the solution lay in reviving the past. However, had I fully comprehended the concept of the “heart,” I would have been able to express more clearly that the remedy does not lie in returning to the past but in returning to the “heart”—that only in this way could the severed bonds with tradition be restored and historical continuity be maintained. I could have articulated more effectively that “returning to the heart” means prioritizing spiritual maturity and personality development, and making morality the foundation of family, politics, economy, and every aspect of life.
If we had centered our perspective on the “heart,” I could have more effectively conveyed that overcoming the evil within us, infusing love with sacrifice and humility, and dismantling the axis of sociopathy in society are only possible through morality. For this, we must keep our heart—the domain of morality and virtues—free from ailments and in a sound state.
Had I fully grasped the essence of the “heart,” I would have regarded keeping it pure and untainted as our foremost duty. I would have sought to deepen our sense of compassion, which entails viewing others—all living beings and all of existence—as God’s creations and treating them with care and reverence. I would have been deeply fearful that, if we lost our compassion, our heart would darken and fall into a diseased state.
Morality, at its core, is about the other—it is the question of how we treat others. One of the fundamental principles of this land, “to embody the morals of Allah,” means to pass our actions through the filter of our heart. Recognizing the importance of morality yet failing to connect with the heart is not merely a matter of misfortune.
I believe that failing to truly understand the heart is the reason why I, along with many others in the past, ultimately prioritized politics and social transformation over personal moral maturation, attributing more significance to politics than it actually deserves.
After this self-reflection, I leave you with my youthful article, promising that in my future writings, I will explore the workings of the spiritual heart, with a special focus on its fundamental act—compassion.
Morality is Revolutionary!
Dostoevsky’s protagonist’s famous quote, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” is proof of a strong bridge between art and philosophical thought. Inspired by this idea, Nicolai Berdyaev developed a highly original Christian existential philosophy based on Dostoevsky’s novels. The idea that everything is permissible represents the dissolution of values and a profound moral crisis, which in philosophical terms is called nihilism. These words from Dostoevsky’s protagonist, thanks to the novelist’s insight, help us grasp one of the key problems of modern philosophy.
Modernity, which began in the West two hundred years ago and laid the foundation for today’s technomediatic world, can be seen as a process corresponding to the death of God (Nietzsche) and disenchantment (Weber). The death of God and disenchantment refer to the shift in which human beings are no longer bound to shape their way of life according to revelation but rather according to their own reason and what is perceived as free will.
Enlightenment thinkers welcomed the death of God as a remarkable opportunity for humanity to determine its own destiny. They envisioned that humanity would embark on a completely new path of scientific and technological progress, as well as moral development, without considering the possibility that everything would now be permissible.
Nietzsche, who undertook a noble fight against all manifestations of modernity, was still strongly aligned with the Enlightenment and felt a deep connection to its utopia. What frustrates him deeply is modernity’s betrayal of this utopia and, in a way that vindicates Dostoevsky, its descent into nihilism.
According to him, God is indeed dead, but the tragic man of Ancient Greece, capable of determining his own destiny, has failed to re-emerge and shape history. On the contrary, Christian ethics—denying life itself—and nihilism have become dominant, manifesting in the form of guilt, ascetic ideals, and a morality of resentment among the herd-like masses, whose existence has been colonized by rationality.
There have been a number of proposed solutions to the crisis of modern nihilism. The first of these, advocated by Nietzsche, is to withdraw into aesthetic passivity—that is, to immerse ourselves in the creative embrace of art, especially music, which allows for authenticity in the face of reason’s constraints.
The notion that enriching individual experience through the aestheticization of morality could offer a solution to moral dilemmas has resurfaced in recent post-modernist debates.
The most well-known solution to prevent the dissolution of values or the emergence of a modern form of idolatry in the realm of values has been to cultivate an ethics of responsibility by emphasizing the roles of politicians and scientists. Concepts such as “political ethics” and “scientific ethics” have emerged as byproducts of this approach.
At first glance, these concepts may appear reasonable, but upon closer examination, it quickly becomes evident that they lack credibility and amount to little more than empty rhetoric. To date, no convincing evidence has been provided on how ethics can be grounded in science or how scientists might feel compelled to adhere to the decisions of a scientific ethics committee.
Thus, despite its intellectual appeal, this second proposed solution to the moral vacuum—advocated by thinkers ranging from Weber and Comte to Freud, and from Marx and Lenin to liberal philosophers—ultimately lacks a solid foundation.
The third of the so-called remedies against nihilistic destruction is nostalgic anti-modernism, which we consider most significant and which has significantly shaped our own stance. Nostalgic anti-modernism claims that all the best times belong to the past and that modernity has shattered everything.
According to them, the “Age of Bliss” has long passed, and those golden days can never return. It advocates rejecting modernity and returning to the religious and social practices of traditional life, which were once the foundation of morality.
The profound influence of this nostalgic anti-modernism can be observed across a broad spectrum of thinkers: from Heidegger, who longed for the pre-Socratic Greek world, to traditionalist scholars such as René Guénon, Fritjof Schuon, and Mircea Eliade, who frequently referenced the pre-Renaissance traditional world; from sociologists like Ferdinand Tönnies to philosophers like Alasdair McIntyre; and from fundamentalist Protestants to certain Islamic perspectives.
We view nostalgic anti-modernism as a stance disconnected from reality, one that embraces the impossible. However, we also acknowledge that such ideas remain highly impactful.
These ideas perceive moral ideals not as a utopian state to be achieved in the future, but as something that reached perfection in the past and has since deteriorated over time. It is almost inevitable for a person of faith to feel a certain affinity toward these ideas—particularly those upheld by Muslims—even though they offer no concrete alternative for humanity beyond a messianic, perpetual anticipation.
For nostalgic anti-modernism is entirely justified—both in its nostalgia and in its rejection of modernity—at least from an emotional and reactive standpoint. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that nostalgic anti-modernism does not offer a viable solution, as emotional and reactive justifications alone are insufficient for shaping long-term attitudes.
The legitimacy of emotions and reactions can only serve as a true hope for humanity when they are put into practice, accompanied by a thought capable of addressing the “now” and solving the “everyday problems of today.”
To adopt a stance that transcends the shortcomings of nostalgic anti-modernism in response to the modern nihilism of values, the first thing we must grasp is the nature of moral values. Moral values are not merely distant, rigid norms and commands from the past, detached from human experience. They shape human relationships—with others, with nature, and with the Creator—across generations, making them in this sense ahistorical. They originate from a source so intimately connected to humans that it is “closer than their own jugular vein” and possess the vitality and dynamism to flourish anew in every shifting historical and social context.
Morality is an inner force that empowers humans to resist both their own inner evils and the injustices of the world. In this sense, morality is the driving force of positive transformation in the world and the only truly revolutionary power. Morality is like the phylogenetic essence of a tree, taking root in different forms across diverse geographies and climates.
This is why struggles for justice around the world today share a universal moral foundation. The phrase “If the oppressor has tyranny, the oppressed has God” best encapsulates our argument.
It is this revolutionary nature of morality that allows us to uphold both values and the causes of social change and liberation simultaneously.
If people are moral and morality is revolutionary, one must stand with people, traditions, and society; trust in humanity; defend freedom; believe in the spontaneous transformation of society; and resist any ideology imposed upon it.
That is why, as we describe the evils of the technomediatic world and its impact on us and our relationships, we emphasize our trust in love and morality.
This is why we emphasize morality so much—because the solution to the problems in relationships between men and women, love, and intimacy can only be found in a truly revolutionary understanding of morality.