Conflict between Freedom and Purpose
Backstory (skip if you want): Hi, I’ve recently started to get deeper into philosophy and psychology during this quarantine period. Due to the overwhelming amount of free time, I’ve been able to contemplate philosophy and life purpose in general.
So recently I was reading Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom), and combined with other philosophical ideas, I came up with this idea: Nihilism is the only freedom. The briefly explain, our life purposes confine and restrict ourselves to certain choices in order to fulfil our life goals and missions. Hence the only way to be truly free is that we have no purpose. Disclaimer, I’m not a nihilist myself, just found this idea fascinating to discuss. Cheers! Feel free to roast me or engage in a friendly debate.
PS I’m from timezone GMT +8 and also currently schooling. Replies may not be as prompt as you might hope, I understand that it has to be a 2 way convo so I’ll try my best! Thank you
So recently I was reading Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom), and combined with other philosophical ideas, I came up with this idea: Nihilism is the only freedom. The briefly explain, our life purposes confine and restrict ourselves to certain choices in order to fulfil our life goals and missions. Hence the only way to be truly free is that we have no purpose. Disclaimer, I’m not a nihilist myself, just found this idea fascinating to discuss. Cheers! Feel free to roast me or engage in a friendly debate.
PS I’m from timezone GMT +8 and also currently schooling. Replies may not be as prompt as you might hope, I understand that it has to be a 2 way convo so I’ll try my best! Thank you
Comments (38)
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. :)
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s a great way to put it, thanks for opening the concepts for broader discussion!
@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!
- @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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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!
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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!
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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 Quoting Pinprick concludes it nicely.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
What if your purpose is to be free? Is that an oxymoron?
Quoting Mickey
The opposite is also true. It is possible to live with purpose and maintain a nihilist position.
Quoting Mickey
Perhaps ironically, nihilism is an ideology.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Mickey
I don’t think this can be logically proven. It’s just a baseless assertion. Life is pointless.
YourQuoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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!
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.
Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ).
If the nihilist is emotionally comfortable in their mentality, then the mental state is resolved.
However, if the nihilist is emotionally uncomfortable in their mental predicament, then some sort of resolution is required. The emotional discomfort provides the impetus for change - towards a more integrated and emotionally comfortable mentality.
I haven’t seen the Joker, but I would be willing to bet he is trying to satisfy some sort of emotional need, or reach an emotionally comfortable state . Batman achieves this emotionally comfortable state through different means.
We need to be emotionally comfortable with and optimistic about our conceptions of reality, and self.
If you have something like this understanding as a basis, then you can explain freedom and purpose in terms of it.
Quoting Pop
Curious what happens when you dissociate emotional state? Like you become somewhat stoic or like a monk. Does that mean that every action happens out of your mental state?
In the absolute sense yes, but there may be trivial actions where mental states don't count for much.
However for the important decisions, where purpose and freedom are in conflict we tend to choose that which brings the most net happiness. This is sensible and even crucial, as depression is the absence of enjoyment in life, and it is not conducive to survival.
Stoics conquer desire, monks have eternal happiness in the afterlife. We all put it together differently, but to much the same end.
Quoting Pop
Haha I like the term net happiness, I know we subconsciously do it, however when used like that, I imagine playing The Sims where there’s a happiness meter.
Quoting Pop
Ahhh ok, thanks for the clarification.
I agree.
Quoting Mickey
This may be backwards. Don’t beliefs and assumptions presuppose meaning?
Quoting Mickey
Can you give me an example of this? I’m having a hard time following what you mean. I’m not understanding how believing something limits freedom. I believe I exist. How does this belief have any impact on my ability to do what I want (freedom)? To establish that you would need to show that because I believe I exist it limits my ability to act in some way. Even if you use a different belief, let’s say that lying is wrong. That doesn’t limit my ability to lie. It happens quite often that people’s actions contradict their stated beliefs. Besides that, we always have the freedom to change our beliefs.
Quoting Mickey
Freedom itself contains meaning, right? So actually without meaning there could be no freedom.
Very well put. I agree.
Quoting Pop
I think this is what category I would fall under. My belief that there is no inherent meaning does not seem to effect how I feel about life and living.
Quoting Pop
I assume you would agree that this is basically what an existential crisis is. And a resolution would consist of something akin to the Joker, or a rejection of nihilism. Would you consider it possible for the emotional state to disappear completely as a result of believing in nihilism? This type of state is what I was referring to earlier when I said that practicing nihilism is virtually impossible, because if you remove all meaning (mentally and emotionally) you remove all impetus for action.
Meaning is that which is typically thought of, for example, when we talk about the essential underlying nature of things, which distinguish one thing at their core from another, irrespective of whether we take meaning or beliefs to be derivative of one another. However, when we analyze the meaning of something, we are able to deduce that it is neither inherent nor fixed. In other words, it is not intrinsic to things and it is not constant or concrete, as some to think it seems to be. Freedom thus underlies the meaning of things. We are continually defining and redefining ourselves because at our core we are free. They can conflict with one another if meaning is taken in a fixed or inherent sense. Further, it is not that we can do away altogether with meaning, but that we are able to see it for what it is, and not take it as something that is ultimate or fundamental, and rather as a create process we engage in. In other words, we can engage in meaning freely without being attached, defined, or limited by it. It is our freedom that attests to something more fundamental in us than meaning.
I don't think your emotional state can disappear regardless of the philosophy you follow, for the reasons we agree on, but it can be improved by it. Every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, so must devise a unique solution for itself. You state you are a nihilist, but I would bet you have a personal spin on what that means, and what is wrong with that provided it works for you?
I like Yogic Logic ( my personally spun version ) - There, happiness can be had for no reason at all. All it takes is the understanding that you always create your own personal reality, cannot escape it, and that being the case why not create a joyous one? Learning to control your mind / emotions can lead to better mental states. Switching your mind off has a joyous qualia to it - for me anyway:smile: