Nihilism Is Good Actually
The Argument For Why Admitting Humanity Has No Meaning, No Purpose, and No Objective Morality Is Freeing For The Soul
What if the most liberating thing we could do is admit that life has no meaning at all — and then choose to live it anyway?
Nihilism and absurdism are, to me, two sides of the same coin. Both seek to confront the meaninglessness of existence, but while they may be thought of as despair-filled malarkey, I’d like to offer a different perspective. Admitting that life is meaningless makes life better. It frees the soul of its shackles and allows us to live as we were meant to: free and with joy knowing beauty is in the fact we exist at all.
Humanity has grappled with our purpose for as long as we have had a frontal lobe to think critically (and perhaps even before that). Meaning and morality play centrally to the idea of being a human. What is our purpose? Why are we here? What is morality? Do we even have morality? Is it objective? And so on. Questions without clear answers, but we try to answer them anyway.
Both nihilism and absurdism argue that life has no intrinsic meaning. They are almost an antithesis to the religious views that say we were hand-crafted or made in the image of a deity for a purpose (often beyond our comprehension).
The nihilistic view often frames life as meaningless and offers the chance for liberation and personal freedom, rejecting the imposed religious frameworks that often imposes meaning onto the individual rather than the other way around.
Here, we seek to answer a simple thought on why admitting humanity has no meaning, no purpose, and no objective morality is freeing and why it offers personal liberation.
Nihilism
Entropy is the natural state of the universe, and chaos reigns supreme. We are tiny specks which inhabit a tiny fragment of dust floating inside of a universe that is beyond our comprehension. We are insignificant on the grand scale of things. This is, of course, our burden to bear.
Nihilism is a belief which leans into this realization and states that life has no inherent meaning, purpose, or objective morality. Nihilism holds that everything is contingent and that no ultimate purpose or cosmic order exists.
This viewpoint was brought around by Nietzsche who declared, “God is dead, and we killed him,” in response to the detachment of Christianity from its belief system. Nietzsche noted the idea of a cultural shift in the way that God was no longer the central force in shaping people’s lives and their moral systems. People had begun to see the world less and less through a religious lens, and therefore, the moral and meaning frameworks espoused within religion began to decay in society as well. To this point, Nietzsche pointed out that this vacuum of morality would lead to widespread nihilism and cause, what I call, a purpose void.
Without God, Nietzsche assumed people would feel a sense that life was devoid of meaning, purpose, or objective value. In the absence of a deity, there would be no higher moral law and everything would become subjective and arbitrary. The death of God, however, would lead to a new idea: the Übermensch. The idea that man could rise above nihilism and create their own value and meaning in life.
The Übermensch was to be a “superman” and would be the solution to the crisis of meaning and was someone who would transcend traditional religious and moral values, enabling them to create their own value systems and live more authentically (or, for the purpose of my argument, liberated).
Humanity must grapple with the decline of religious belief and the inherent nihilism that arrives in the vacuum created. For many years, people have noted the discordance within religion from an ideal perspective to the frameworks actually espoused. This is the decline that breeds nihilism in Nietzsche’s view.
In a world without God, traditional religions hold less and less moral fibre and offer less of a value proposition to the meaning and purpose of life. Nihilism challenges the authority of religious institutions and aligns with the agnostic and atheistic views which have seen a groundswell over the 20th and 21st centuries.
Naturally, the traditionalists, conservatives, and religious will view nihilism with a negative lens because it confronts their understanding of life, morality, and purpose. Many religions, therefore, view it to be a dangerous outlook which leads to despair and/or moral collapse.
However, I argue no. I think nihilism’s rejection of the divine can be liberating and freeing much in the spirit of Nietzsche’s Übermensch idea. I believe man can create value and meaning outside of traditional religious frameworks.
Yet, nihilism has a rosier-tinted cousin, so it’s not all doom and gloom to believe life has no inherent meaning.
Absurdism
Albert Camus is the man who articulated the idea of absurdism. He is most closely associated to this belief system. In essence, absurdism recognizes the absurd conflict between humanity’s search for meaning and the “unreasonable silence” of the universe’s response to our questioning. While absurdism proposes — like nihilism — life has no inherent purpose, it also states we ought to continue to live and create meaning in defiance of this absurdity.
Camus argues that once we recognize the absurd, we are free (read: liberated) to live fully and authentically. Embracing life as it is, without the need for religious frameworks to provide answers, allows us to live in a personally liberated manner. In a sense, absurdism serves as a natural, optimistic evolution of nihilism. Where there was once despair, there can now be joy through creating our meaning – just as Nietzsche described.
In perhaps my favourite existential analogy, Camus wrote a philosophical essay which examines absurdism through the Myth of Sisyphus. You see, the myth of Sisyphus in short is: Sisyphus was punished by the old gods and was forced to roll a boulder up a hill and, upon reaching the top, the boulder would roll back down for Sisyphus to push it back up, and repeat for eternity.
Camus presents the endless and meaningless labour as a metaphor for the futility we experience in our day to day life. It is only when Sisyphus, according to Camus, realizes the situation and the futility of it (i.e. the absurdity) that Sisyphus can reach a state of acceptance and even contentment.
It is here where Camus concludes that one must imagine Sisyphus happy. This acceptance, then, is also key to our own happiness with regard to rectifying our own futility and meaninglessness.
Absurdism ties back into the religious in a similar manner as nihilism. It offers a criticism of religious systems as frameworks of morality in an absurd world. To an absurdist, religion offers false, comforting answers in place of non-answers from the indifferent, silent universe.
Absurdism does not promise to offer any sort of comforting answers or eternal salvation or a grand purpose beyond what we can comprehend. Instead, absurdism proposes that the path to meaning is for individuals to embrace life fully and without illusion or delusion, choosing to live life authentically and liberated in defiance of the absurdity.
Perhaps in an opposite manner to the despair often assigned to nihlism, absurdism becomes more palatable. The rejection of religion does not lead to inherent despair or an attitude where nothing matters. Absurdism then becomes a brand of nihilism flavoured with a dash of hope.
By rejecting religious frameworks on morality and meaning, we the individual are free to create and assign our own morals and meanings. Without the constraints of dogmas, we the individual can become fully actualized on our own merit – and either absurdism or nihilism helps us attain this actualization.
Understanding
Both nihilism and absurdism share a similar foundation. Each of these views reject inherent meaning and objective purpose in life. They both aim to confront the human condition of meaninglessness, the idea that life does not come with a built-in significance. We are not special to exist; we simply exist.
Nihilism’s view centres around the idea of a vacuum or void in the wake of God’s death and the decline of religion. It offers a passive response to meaninglessness, where one recognizes a purpose void but may struggle to find a way to live authentically without a higher purpose. This can lead to feelings of despair as well as a sense of detachment (and maybe even a small ego death – as a treat).
In contrast, absurdism presents a much more active response to meaninglessness. By knowing that life is absurd, an individual can therefore rebel against this absurdity by continuing to live fully, with passion, and authentically. This liberates the person and frees the soul by any measure. Choose to live intensely even if the universe offers no answers. Camus wants us to be rebels.
Neither of these “life is meaningless” outlooks try to make an argument that life is not worth living either. I think that is an important delineation to make. In fact, I would argue both implore us to live – but they each want us to live on our terms, not through the terms handed down by religious authority. Neither of these view advocate for suicide or rampant carelessness. They propose the opposite. It is our destiny to choose how we live in this chaotic universe.
Interplay with Religion
Religion, under both of these lenses, appears to offer order in a universe which is entropic and indifferent to the plight of humanity’s pondering. Therefore, both views challenge this proposition and propose that religious frameworks are an easy truth to a hard reality. Nihilism and absurdism suggest religious systems obscure the truth of a meaningless universe and impose false meaning which, in turn, limits personal liberty and freedom of the individual.
Nihilism actively challenges religious systems as it was devised more as a means of explaining the death of God and decline of religious frameworks. It rejects the idea that God or religious authority can define a purpose or morality for the individual and, therefore, religious frameworks become an oppressive force rather than a liberating one. The end goal of nihilism is Nietzsche’s idea of an Übermensch as the means of personal liberation.
Absurdism rejects religious frameworks but focuses more on the tensions found between humanity’s loud questions and the universe’s unreasonable silences. Absurdism questions religion as an escape and suggests that true personal liberation comes from embracing life as it is. The end goal of absurdism, then, could be Camus’ idea that we ought to imagine Sisyphus as happy for ourselves to reach a state of contented acceptance regarding our own futility.
Imposition
Religion imposes meaning from some divine being(s) to humans. Many religious systems offer a framework of purpose to the followers of that religion and often connects ideas like salvation, the afterlife, and destiny/fate. These ideas, through religion, provide a sense of existential security. How often have we heard “it’s all a part of God’s plan” for instance? It is through religious frameworks that God gives purpose to an otherwise meaningless existence.
Religion imposes morality onto humans from the same divine being(s). The frameworks offered by religion usually come with hard-coded morals and virtues. This can be seen in things like the Ten Commandments. They are objective moral laws passed down from the divine to humanity and are the foundation of some universal truth. These moral codes, grounded in divine will, serve as our guides for how to live a meaningful life — while skipping on the “authentically” part.
Frameworks
Part of what makes religious frameworks so limiting — especially to me — is that they impose an external meaning on my internal landscapes. Religious texts — and to a lesser extent the very people who teach them — impart an understanding and particular interpretation of the world and human existence. This can severely limit personal liberation and individual freedom and the ability for an individual to determine their own purpose and value.
Further, by providing an external and pre-determined meaning, religion can stifle personal creativity and autonomy. Individualism is henceforth weeded out in place of the moral edicts pushed by the prevalent dogma. The individual then becomes bound to a set of beliefs and moral codes dictated by religious authorities through the authority’s interpretation of religious texts. Therefore, the individual becomes one of many, a collective now conformed.
In the olden days, going against the framework would leave people ostracized as a heretic. Religious authorities often ended up forcing people to conform this way which caused the individual to lose their autonomy and self-actualization. This fear of damnation — both from humans and deity alike — helped to enshrine an anxious guilt in anybody who dared live outside of the traditional framework. Concepts like eternal punishment, corporeal torture, and death sentences all fed into the idea that people had to live in accordance to the framework. This fear means people will fail to live authentically as they are more concerned with aligning their morals and beliefs to a religious framework.
Nihilism and absurdism, therefore, offer a source of personal liberation from the constraints found within the religious framework. These meaningless beliefs allow individuals to set aside the imposition of religion and reject the objective by questioning it for themselves and offers an avenue for individuals to explore meaning without the burdensome expectations placed on them by religious authorities.
With religious imposition pushed to the side, individuals become free to create their own meaning, their own morality, and find their own value in existence. Both nihilism and absurdism emphasize that meaning is not something to simply be handed down by religious authority either but something that each individual must create for themselves (as we see with Nietzsche’s Übermensch and Camus’ rebel) based on unique experiences and insights afforded to them through this newfound personal liberation.
Naysayers
As with any belief system, there are naysayers. Look at me, I’m naysaying religious frameworks as a source of objective morality and meaning right now.
Let’s examine the common critique that nihilism leads to despair. Many spiritual and religious critics have said that nihilism is no more than despair (disguised as something less sinister perhaps). It leads to a sense of hopelessness. However, as I hope I have explained here, nihilism can lead to an immense sense of self-liberation and individuals creating their own morality and meaning. Nihilism offers freedom from restrictive, external sources of moral and belief systems and allows individuals to define their own purpose. Not all nihilists are downtrodden and hopeless.
A second issue is that absurdism asserts, even in fruitless toil, we should be happy. Of course, the idea of Sisyphus is a metaphor for futility in life and not that we should be happy in times of strife and peril. That would be, well, absurd. Maybe there’s a future Camus out there poised to tell us just that though. However, with absurdism, the toiling is a stand-in for futility and the endless silence of the universe to our questions. We have no meaning, but we can derive joy, purpose, and morality without an external framework.
Third time’s the charm: religion provides comfort and meaning. This one I actually do agree with. I think religion offers a comforting narrative to fold into morality and purpose. What I don’t agree with is that the comfort provided outweights the loss of personal liberation and, therefore, the loss of personal autonomy. Religion may offer comfort and meaning, but confronting what that means and embracing the meaninglessness of existence can help to set us free by enabling us to derive our own meanings and morals for ourselves without the external framework. That is what I believe to be the path to true happiness and self-actualization.
Finally is the assertion that morality without God cannot exist and that morality must be objective. This sparks a two-pronged answer in the sense of one: have you ever seen a group of people following their objective morality without fail, and, more importantly, two: have you ever heard of the idea of rational morality?
Rational morality is my main point here. It asserts a very simply premise onto the question, “Without God, how can we have morality?” Easily. It’s called not being an asshole.
The golden rule is named such for a reason. Treat others how you would like to be treated. I go by a rational philosophy that you should not cause purposeful harm to other people. That is to say, I don’t like getting punched, therefore, it is immoral to punch other people. See how you don’t need religious frameworks to be moral? You can use critical thinking to devise morality without the need for external frameworks to guide you. That is the whole idea here: personal liberation from the framework is what helps to set us free. It actualizes the self in a way that external frameworks simply do not and can not.
Duly Noted
Both nihilism and absurdism offer a departure from the traditional, religious frameworks that have long imposed their values, morals, and beliefs onto human life.
While nihilism embraces the purpose void, rejecting all inherent meaning and objective morality, it also liberates the individual from the constraints of external values and allows for the freedom to create personal significance. Absurdism, in contrast, encourages a rebellious attitude toward the meaninglessness of existence within the indifferent universe.
Together, these outlooks empower individuals to live authetnically, free from the restrictions imposed by religious frameworks. And while religion offers a sense of comfort and security, it also often inhibits personal liberation and the actualization of a true self, of a “superman” or rebel so to speak.
By rejecting these impositions, nihilism and absurdism offer a path to existential freedom — that being the freedom to define one’s own life in the face of an indifferent universe devoid of purpose or meaning. These views offer not despair but liberation, a freedom to live as the individual dictates.
Liberation
Nihilism can be a profound source of liberation. By acknowledging that life has no meaning or purpose, we can be free of the weights from external expectations. Without the need to conform to some divine orderly way of being, we are henceforth free from the burden of that imposition on us. One is liberated and can be empowered to establish their own meaning, purpose, and morality from within on their own terms. This self-deterministic pathway allows the individual to live authentically.
Nihilism and absurdism, then, offer the possibility of living a life defined by the choice to live on one’s own terms rather than by some authority telling the individual how to live and what to think. Deconstructing purpose allows us to define what purpose means to each and every one of us.
A Final Point
Then, I must ask: Is it so hard to not do unto others what you would not want done unto you? Is it not enough to exist? To be happy? To make others happy in our short time here together? Must there always be more in a spiritual sense? A threat of something attained or unattained? Must there always be the threat of someone watching in order for you to do the right thing or to feel valued? Is it not in the quiet moments of intricate beauty where we find our meaning to live anyway? Is it not in holding the hand of a lover? Or holding your newborn child? Is it not in the laughter of friends or the taste in good food? Is it not in a job well done? Is it not in a laugh of defiance despite the indifference of the universe? Is it not enough to exist in a world which does not care that we do?
I believe vehemently that absurdism and Nietzsche’s end-state goals are imperative to a functioning morality framework in a world where the religious framework plays less and less of a role in our belief systems on a societal scale.
I believe, much as Nietzsche did, that religious framework is declining still to this day, and in the vacuum, we must rectify our own personal idea of morality and meaning. And, like Camus, we must wrestle with the idea of futility and pointlessness. We must imagine Sisyphus happy and accept our role in a silent, unreasonable, and indifferent universe and be joyful and driven despite the absurdity of it all.
We do not need morality and meaning imparted on us from some higher entity to live a happy, fulfilling life filled with purpose and rational morality.
We can choose to live authentically.
We, the manifestation of sheer happenstance or of divine creation, are perfectly able to devise, create, and espouse our own values, morals, and purpose. We, as Sisyphus, must then imagine ourselves happy. Then, we will be free.
Yours truly,
D.
P.S. You can find my socials here and donate to my Ko-fi here.
