Nihilism is the only freedom. — Josh Lee

I imagine you know - or think you now - what nihilism is - or really is. But "freedom" is the tough one, here. What do you imagine that is? Or even what Fromm thought it was - but I'm more interested in your thinking.

You read the book; for the rest of us there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom

I’m amazed at how quick the reply was, so thanks for just engaging in the discussion!

My basic understanding of nihilism is the notion that life is meaningless and have no purpose. So when nothing has meaning your choices can’t be influenced in any way.

Haha so yeah it’s one of the random thoughts that keeps looping in my mind, keeping me up at night, so decided to see what others thoughts are. :)

Nihilism is the only freedom — Josh Lee

Hence the only way to be truly free is that we have no purpose. — Josh Lee

What about when we freely choose a purpose? It seems that purpose and freedom don't connect in a way that a lack of the former entails the latter. :chin:

Your initial choice for that purpose may be considered free, however your subsequent choices will be restricted by that choice.

I pardon the comic reference but it seems valid in such case. An example would be Batman and Joker. You could say Bruce Wayne freely chose to be Batman, his purpose is to save Gotham and to distinguish himself from criminals, he does not kill. That purpose now restricts his decisions as now he subconsciously is not free to kill others. Meanwhile, when looking at the Joker, who sometimes is seen as a nihilist, he does not care about anything as he has no purpose, he just does things, hence in The Dark Knight he says,” The only sensible way to live is without rules.” And the interrogation scene Batman is constantly tempted to break his one rule, but he does not do so because he has a purpose.

I understand your point that a lack of purpose will give you freedom, but my point is that purpose takes away your freedom. I hope this clarifies, and please keep the discussion going! :)

Where would you propose a nihilist would get their motivation from?

It wouldn't be from anything meaningful hence powerful. From primal pleasure? A bottle?

That I see as a restriction.

That I’m not so sure, however correct me if I’m wrong, may I propose that a nihilist has no motivation, he does things randomly without much meaning and purpose. He is free to whatever he want.

Going back to the Joker example, you could say his motivation is to destroy life, but his acts are random. Out of the blue he kills someone for no reason.

It could be that we don’t understand a nihilist motivation or maybe he doesn’t have one.

What freedom is seems to be the crux of the issue at hand. If by freedom you mean the ability to do whatever you want, then I think lack of purpose would equate to lack of freedom. Without meaning/purpose, there is nothing you will want to do, therefore you will do nothing. You virtually lose all ability to act. Whatever current state you find yourself in when you lose all purpose/meaning is the state you would remain in until you died. I suppose involuntary actions would still be performed, and at some point I would say that your biological needs or processes would override your “will” to do nothing. For example, if everything is meaningless, then your life is meaningless. And, assuming that action requires meaning, any action is undesirable. So, you will immediately find yourself in the position of deciding whether or not to breathe. Breathing has no meaning, so there’s no reason for you to breathe, but it’s physically impossible to not breathe (hold your breathe) until you die. Your body will force you to exhale. So part of this discussion revolves around the limitations of “will.” At what point will your actions be considered willful, and at what point involuntary? If you’re starving to death and eat something, was that choice willful, or did your body force you to do so?

Now, aside from this, I basically consider myself to be a nihilist. But to me nihilism is strictly an intellectual pursuit. My freedom isn’t constrained or expanded due to this belief. I simply accept that all my actions, feelings, and things I find meaningful are irrational or illusory. But since everything is meaningless, I also have no obligation to act or think rationally. So practically speaking I do whatever I want, same as always.

purpose takes away your freedom — Josh Lee

Well, if I choose to be, say, a doctor then I would, subsequently, acquire a purpose and even if being a doctor restricts my options these restrictions are basically those that I've freely chosen to bear.

You have a point I guess, when people willingly submit themselves to a leader, they somewhat unintentionally also chose to bear the consequences.

You have a point I guess, when people willingly submit themselves to a leader, they somewhat unintentionally also chose to bear the consequences. — Josh Lee

I remember very vaguely that existential nihilism rejects any purpose to life itself and that, I guess, includes every one of us. I was left with the impression that that, in a way, frees us to chart our own destinies which, paradoxically, is, by your logic, like coming out of one cage and getting back inside another.

I was left with the impression that that, in a way, frees us to chart our own destinies which, paradoxically, is, by your logic, like coming out of one cage and getting back inside another.

That’s a great way to put it, thanks for opening the concepts for broader discussion!

Without meaning/purpose, there is nothing you will want to do, therefore you will do nothing. You virtually lose all ability to act. Whatever current state you find yourself in when you lose all purpose/meaning is the state you would remain in until you died.

@Pinprick

I never thought of Nihilism in this manner, maybe is the portrayal of Joker (idk he is awesome) that got me to perceive a Nihilist as one who just do things as random, when questioned, he usually has no justification for it as his acts has no ulterior motives of greater purpose.

How I perceive Nihilism can be portrayed in the case below:
When let’s say a Nihilist faces a choice of A or B, people who have purpose will gravitate towards one or another to reach closer to their ideals. However a nihilist doesn’t consider the outcomes, he is ok with either A or B, a “whatever both has no meaning” attitude, maybe he leave it to chance or just simply choose one. What you propose is that a Nihilist will choose neither, which is a possible option. Fascinating and interesting! Your point really got me thinking!

My freedom isn’t constrained or expanded due to this belief. I simply accept that all my actions, feelings, and things I find meaningful are irrational or illusory. But since everything is meaningless, I also have no obligation to act or think rationally. So practically speaking I do whatever I want, same as always.

- @Pinprick

Just to add on, this seems more of absurdism than nihilism. I’m not completely sure about this, just a though. It just resonates with the story The Stranger by Albert Camus, and the the concepts of it.

I never thought of Nihilism in this manner, maybe is the portrayal of Joker (idk he is awesome) that got me to perceive a Nihilist as one who just do things as random, when questioned, he usually has no justification for it as his acts has no ulterior motives of greater purpose. — Josh Lee

We share an affinity for the Joker. He does purport to act randomly or irrationally, but it’s obvious he takes delight in the consequences of his actions, and dislikes everything Batman represents. To me that’s evidence of him having motivations for his actions, and deriving meaning in them.

However a nihilist doesn’t consider the outcomes, — Josh Lee

I just think that lack of all meaning, intellectually, is different from lack of all meaning emotionally. I will still feel hunger no matter what I believe. I can acknowledge that this feeling is intellectually meaningless (irrational), but I will still be hungry and have to decide to eat or not eat. Both options are meaningless, but one of them still fulfills a need, and therefore is preferable to the other. So maybe choices could be made strictly by consulting your desires or feelings, and not necessarily the outcomes? I’m not sure, I’m basically just thinking out loud, so to speak.

Just to add on, this seems more of absurdism than nihilism. I’m not completely sure about this, just a though. It just resonates with the story The Stranger by Albert Camus, and the the concepts of it. — Josh Lee

You’re more familiar with this than I am. I’ve actually read very few philosophical books, and just have a half-assed Wikipedia understanding of some of it. That said, is it possible to be both? To me absurdism is a reaction to the fact of nihilism.

Nihilism- Everything is meaningless.

Absurdism- Therefore the situation of life is absurd, and we should act in such and such a way.

Nihilism itself doesn’t seem to provide a reason to support any particular stance or course of action, because it still can’t bridge the is-ought gap.

To me that’s evidence of him having motivations for his actions, and deriving meaning in them. — Pinprick

I may have neglected that, but sure it’s a point worth considering. His motivation may be to break the Bat mentally. But many times he does say that he doesn’t have an end goal, so his motivations are questionable.

Both options are meaningless, but one of them still fulfills a need, and therefore is preferable to the other. — Pinprick

I’m not familiar with nihilism, from my view, if everything is meaningless, both options seems equally possible as both won’t have an impact in any way. This is an area I’m trying to grasp about Nihilism, I’m unable to understand how a nihilist make decisions (or maybe they don’t). Anyone who can help enlighten me on this point is greatly appreciated!

You’re more familiar with this than I am. — Pinprick

Haha I don’t claim to be familiar to this topic, you probably have more experience and knowledge in this field than me. But I am trying to understand Absurdism a bit more.

Nihilism itself doesn’t seem to provide a reason to support any particular stance or course of action, because it still can’t bridge the is-ought gap. — Pinprick

I don’t quite understand what you mean by is-ought gap. Are you referring to moral obligations and purpose?

If we consider the Kantian notion of freedom as autonomy, which, by necessity, entails the selection of a particular 'purpose', I would argue that the negation of meaning and purpose (on grounds of nihilism) would eventuate in a negative freedom (in the sense of: free from determination) rather than a positive one (freedom to autonomously "subscribe" to purpose x) and, thus, constitute an utterly meaningless freedom, which, since nihilism negates any meaning whatsoever, cannot justifiably be more valuable than a state of unfreedom (since a differentiation would presuppose some form of objective standard) and therefore confine the individual (of which freedom ought the be the opposite) to randomness (negative freedom) on grounds of a notion of freedom, which appears to be somehow exempt from the nihilistic negation.
I would thus argue that the autonomous option (which always entails the option of freely choosing to discontinue the pursuit of purpose x) is, in fact, more consistent with a genuinely free state of being, as opposed to the nihilistic stance, which would be truly unfree in the sense that one has to obsess himself with the extermination of anything that would 'infringe upon' this freedom and hopefully realize that the underlying notion of freedom is more dogmatic and restrictive than any purpose or meaning one may choose to pursue.
The existentialist stance, as far as I am acquainted, does not conflict with this, because the initial realization of meaninglessness is the very thing that enables (and necessitates) creation of meaning through action, which, subsequently, necessitates some (postulated) purpose (because one must act towards something).
Hopefully, this does not distort your argument in any way; if so, please correct me.

I’m not familiar with nihilism, from my view, if everything is meaningless, both options seems equally possible as both won’t have an impact in any way. This is an area I’m trying to grasp about Nihilism, I’m unable to understand how a nihilist make decisions (or maybe they don’t). Anyone who can help enlighten me on this point is greatly appreciated! — Josh Lee

I would agree that both, or all, options are possible, in that they are available to choose. They do still have an impact, it’s just that the nihilist doesn’t care about the impact. Which to me means why would he care to make a choice at all? If there is no motivation/meaning, and nothing is forcing him to choose (like biological needs or involuntary actions), then how could he choose? Normally we either make rational choices because we believe they will achieve a desired end, or irrational choices based on emotion. A nihilist does not desire any particular end or outcome, so rational choices seem unavailable. Irrational choices may be a possibility, but I think it would be very difficult to determine where to draw the line between them. I find it hard to find a choice that is completely devoid of feeling. So determining whether or not a choice was caused by emotion or reasoning seems difficult. It depends on how strong the emotion is, I suppose. But like I said, I don’t really think nihilism has any practical application in everyday life.

I don’t quite understand what you mean by is-ought gap. Are you referring to moral obligations and purpose? — Josh Lee

Yeah. You can have a fact about the world (what is), but that fact by itself can’t inform you about what to do (ought). That I am hungry may be a fact. It may also be a fact that if I do not eat I will die. However these facts do not mean that I should eat. The only reason I would eat is if I found my life to have meaning and value, but it doesn’t (nihilism). The fact that I feel my life has meaning and value is irrational because it is solely based on emotion. There is no justification for this belief. And even this fact does not logically justify eating. Even if nihilism was false, and we could prove that life was inherently meaningful, we still couldn’t justify acting.

Hopefully, this does not distort your argument in any way; if so, please correct me. — Gilbert

Haha no worries, it’s a well structured argument, and since (I assume) everyone in this forum is very knowledgeable, you do bring up some valid counterpoints!

I would thus argue that the autonomous option (which always entails the option of freely choosing to discontinue the pursuit of purpose x) — Gilbert

This may be a point which I may have overlooked. It’s quite true that when a choice conflicts with your belief, you are free to choose which one you want to follow.

truly unfree in the sense that one has to obsess himself with the extermination of anything that would 'infringe upon' this freedom and hopefully realize that the underlying notion of freedom is more dogmatic and restrictive than any purpose or meaning one may choose to pursue. — Gilbert

This I’m not so sure, I don’t think a nihilist will obsess himself over anything as he will find it meaningless to do so. Then again my knowledge on nihilism is quite limited as I’m not one myself, so it’s somewhat hard to view it from ones perspective.

From what I understand from your view, you do not decline that nihilism does bring some form of freedom (negative freedom as you stated). But you also pointed out that other philosophical views have their own freedom in other ways. That’s something worth considering deeper, and I guess that’s the complexity of philosophy, there’s no one right answer as each have their paradoxes and issues.

A nihilist does not desire any particular end or outcome, so rational choices seem unavailable. Irrational choices may be a possibility, but I think it would be very difficult to determine where to draw the line between them. I find it hard to find a choice that is completely devoid of feeling. So determining whether or not a choice was caused by emotion or reasoning seems difficult. It depends on how strong the emotion is, I suppose. But like I said, I don’t really think nihilism has any practical application in everyday life. — Pinprick

Ahahahaha, I found this very amusing. After going through whether to choose rationally or irrationally, I can imagine a nihilist thinking,” Hmmmm, should I choose or don’t choose?” Which goes into a never ending cycle. Hence

But like I said, I don’t really think nihilism has any practical application in everyday life. — Pinprick

concludes it nicely.

Even if nihilism was false, and we could prove that life was inherently meaningful, we still couldn’t justify acting. — Pinprick

I guess we all roughly understand nihilism, but I don’t seem to quite get the mechanics of a nihilist. Maybe this is a different topic of psychology but I still think it’s worth exploring. Possibly from psychoanalysing a group of nihilist, we may get some answers. Anyways thanks for sharing, really broaden my view on nihilism.

Well I guess it would depend on the life purpose of the individual. Sure, some life purposes are very restricted and limit ones behaviour so as to not digress from the path for example "I want to win a gold medal in swimming in the Olympics." Obviously you would have to dedicate the large majority of your time to training and competitions etc to get to that level. If theres one thing we can be sure of is that our time and energy for achieving a purpose in life is limited (by the fact that our lifespan is).

But what about someone who's life purpose is to speculate, to question everything? What if one were to dedicate their life to the pursuit of knowledge or to simply defining a purpose worth achieving in the first place? Then the boundaries to which path they take is essentially limitless as theres always more knowledge to attain -Philosophy being an inherent and unending quest to argue reason and which seemingly has many answers.

Purpose can be plural of course. And in that case your life purposes can be added and subtracted from your current state of ambition as you see fit.
Consider the purpose "I want to create a masterpiece of art". Firstly how many ways are there to do this? Secondly when is the masterpiece completed? And thirdly who determines when or if it is a masterpiece? In purpose there is an element of ones own perception of success as well as others perception of their success. I may have achieved my purpose without anyone else agreeing with me or they may believe I have achieved numerous things and I may be overwhelming dissatisfied. In that case where is the restriction.


In my opinion it comes down to this; a decision "defines". When you direct or focus your energy and willpower in a certain direction you have defined it as a directed motive has parameters. The minute a purpose is defined there will naturally be actions and behaviours that negate , supress or hinder it which you must overcome and similarly those which will perpetuate encourage and amplify it. Limits are useful for concentration of effort but as you said...provide a means to restrict. The key is to know where to place them and when to revise them.

I think that it is important to recognize, as the nihilist does, that there is a conflict between freedom and purpose. However, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Once you have chosen a course of action, as long you initially freely chose it, it is a free action. And one is free to choose otherwise at any point in time. As so often happens, our ideologies or beliefs or values that we hold so dearly conflict with an event that occurs in our lives. When this happens, we are presented with the opportunity to reevaluate and choose again, and redirect our purpose, which we now hold of higher value.

On another note, I do believe it is possible to live without purpose and not maintain a nihilist position. I agree with the nihilist that it is our attachment to meaning/purpose that confines us. Ideologies tend to limit the scope of our perception and action, and they are the driving force being purpose/meaning. Our ability to fashion an ideology is, in some sense, our ability to create meaning in our life. So it is not that meaning does not exist. It is rather that it limits our freedom. The problem is the tendency to propose a gloomy alternative to living a meaning filled life. Without religion or morality or ideology or a grand story about the universe, what is left?

The simple answer for us humans is our humanity. Our sensitivity to life itself, apart from meaning. It is a sort of reversal of the proposition "I think, therefore I am" to "I am, therefore I think." Life is happening, has been happening, and continues to happen irrespective of our attempt to make sense of it or make it meaning. The point of life is just to live and to cultivate your awareness of it.

I don’t seem to quite get the mechanics of a nihilist. — Josh Lee

If you mean how a nihilist acts or behaves, then I would say the nihilist acts in spite of his belief. A true nihilist sincerely believes that all action is meaningless, but he acts anyway. Practically speaking, he feels his actions are meaningful, and therefore feels his life has meaning. He willingly deceives himself, in that his actions betray his beliefs.

The minute a purpose is defined there will naturally be actions and behaviours that negate , supress or hinder it which you must overcome and similarly those which will perpetuate encourage and amplify it. Limits are useful for concentration of effort but as you said...provide a means to restrict. — Benj96

I think it’s important to note that all limitations are self-imposed, aside from physical/biological limitations of course. I always have the absolute freedom to choose, regardless if that act is good/bad, rational/irrational, purposeful/purposeless. So if you choose to have a purpose(s), you aren’t necessarily choosing to limit your freedom. Contradicting your purpose is always an option.

I think that it is important to recognize, as the nihilist does, that there is a conflict between freedom and purpose. — Mickey

What if your purpose is to be free? Is that an oxymoron?

On another note, I do believe it is possible to live without purpose and not maintain a nihilist position. — Mickey

The opposite is also true. It is possible to live with purpose and maintain a nihilist position.

Ideologies tend to limit the scope of our perception and action, and they are the driving force being purpose/meaning. — Mickey

Perhaps ironically, nihilism is an ideology.

Our ability to fashion an ideology is, in some sense, our ability to create meaning in our life. So it is not that meaning does not exist. It is rather that it limits our freedom. — Mickey

The ability to create meaning, and having inherent meaning are two different things. Existentialism presupposes nihilism. So you can be a nihilist and say that life has no inherent meaning, and also be an existentialist and say that therefore you choose to create your own meaning in life. Also, if you’re free to create meaning, then meaning doesn’t limit freedom, because you’re always free to create different meaning, or to not create meaning. The choice is always yours to make. Nothing forces you.

The point of life is just to live and to cultivate your awareness of it. — Mickey

I don’t think this can be logically proven. It’s just a baseless assertion. Life is pointless.

Your

But what about someone who's life purpose is to speculate, to question everything? What if one were to dedicate their life to the pursuit of knowledge or to simply defining a purpose worth achieving in the first place? Then the boundaries to which path they take is essentially limitless as theres always more knowledge to attain -Philosophy being an inherent and unending quest to argue reason and which seemingly has many answers. — Benj96

This seems to be the message of Absurdism, you acknowledge the absurdity of life but embrace and try to rebel it by finding in meaning in the search of meaning.

In my opinion it comes down to this; a decision "defines". When you direct or focus your energy and willpower in a certain direction you have defined it as a directed motive has parameters. The minute a purpose is defined there will naturally be actions and behaviours that negate , supress or hinder it which you must overcome and similarly those which will perpetuate encourage and amplify it. Limits are useful for concentration of effort but as you said...provide a means to restrict. The key is to know where to place them and when to revise them. — Benj96

Yup this well concludes your points and I agree with it, every action has a consequence, and you have to acknowledge that what you do will affect you in the long run.

I think that it is important to recognize, as the nihilist does, that there is a conflict between freedom and purpose. However, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Once you have chosen a course of action, as long you initially freely chose it, it is a free action. And one is free to choose otherwise at any point in time. As so often happens, our ideologies or beliefs or values that we hold so dearly conflict with an event that occurs in our lives. When this happens, we are presented with the opportunity to reevaluate and choose again, and redirect our purpose, which we now hold of higher value. — Mickey

Your first statement well explains the question, I guess the issue most people have is that they believe freedom is being able to choose everything without sacrificing anything, that may be the initial thought I had when coming up with this statement, but your point is worth taking note.

Our ability to fashion an ideology is, in some sense, our ability to create meaning in our life. So it is not that meaning does not exist. It is rather that it limits our freedom. The problem is the tendency to propose a gloomy alternative to living a meaning filled life. Without religion or morality or ideology or a grand story about the universe, what is left? — Mickey

Haha there’s somewhat irony or paradox in that statement. [Nihilism: Everything has no meaning.] Wait there’s some meaning in that statement. Some in goes in a never ending loop I guess

Life is happening, has been happening, and continues to happen irrespective of our attempt to make sense of it or make it meaning. The point of life is just to live and to cultivate your awareness of it. — Mickey

Again, this is somewhat Absurdism. Acknowledging that there’s no meaning to life and embracing it by finding meaning in the search itself.
Apologies for repeating myself, it’s basically the best answer to all of this that I can think off.

He willingly deceives himself, in that his actions betray his beliefs. — Pinprick

I never thought of it that way, it’s an interesting concept where a nihilist is leaving in denial of the meaning of life. This goes back to human nature where we somewhat rationalise our actions after doing them. So after a nihilist does something, he shoots down the idea of why he did it and accepts that it was meaningless.

Overall well structured arguments for both side, however I feel that this discussion is like a möbius strip where the arguments are flowing into one another in a never ending cycle.

I’ll try to briefly conclude the points being said.
Freedom and purpose are not mutually exclusive, but there can be conflict between each other.
Nihilism does not ensures freedom, but a nihilist can be free in some aspects and yet constrained in others.

If anyone has anything to add to the above statements please do so. I appreciate everyone who have contributed, I’ll be less active in this discussion, but feel free to add more pointers to it if you have anything extra to contribute. Thanks!

If you got your purpose right, you will find the freedom to execute. It is not about having resources, it is all about being resourceful.

In response, I would say that purpose at its core involves meaning, and meaning in general presupposes beliefs and assumptions. Assumptions and beliefs are in essence delimiting. They describe the boundaries of some limit, which is always based on a set of axioms which can never be proven but are typically apparent in some manner or another. So, meaning and purpose are limiting in essence and based on something apparent which seems to conflict freedom, which is not limited by the boundaries inherent in meaning. Because we are capable of creating and recreating meaning, I would say it is neither fixed nor fundamental to life, I would also suggest our free will attests to something more fundamental in us than meaning and purpose, something more consistent with our humanity and life.