The nihilistic view of the world; is it sustainable?
In the modern age of the world, technological advancement has helped countries to develop at a rate that has never been seen before. Of course, all this development and progression is currently narrowly defined to materialistic measures such as GDP, stock market and other financial instruments; all of which does not really capture the humane side of development. Are we becoming relatively happier than people from 20 years ago? Has our mind and thinking evolved for the better as how the Darwinian concept preaches? These are all big and tough questions to answer. Moreover, it is unlikely that we are able to agree on a conclusion at the end of this discussion. However, let’s work on what we have!
Let’s start with the differences of some measures; suicide rate, diagnosed Mental Health diseases and, healthy life expectancy. The suicide rate among the newer generations for example, has saw an unnatural increase amounting to 6.7% i.e. by 817 000 annually in 2016 from 1990. This is true especially among men. Diagnosed mental health diseases have also skyrocketed in the past 20 years. So, why are all these happening when GDP per capita is rising (which means people on average are getting richer), when technological advances have been extravagant, and the entertainment industry has grown and became a very large industry? Are these not supposed to bring the opposite effect? Or maybe we left out other important variables? Most definitely. Well, let’s take a look at the change in the general public philosophy; from modernism (late 19th century to early 20th century) to post-modernism (now).
Post-modernism
A stark contrast between post-modernism and modernism is the idea of deconstructing the existing meta-narratives instead of the creation of meta-narratives. It is really good that people start asking questions as to why these meta-narratives took place to begin with and not blindly follow what is already a ‘social-construct’. This indicates that our thinking has evolved and that we require reasons and proofs as to why these meta-narratives are necessary, if they are. Tradition, culture, religion, and hierarchy are the most substantial meta-narratives that post-modernism tries to tackle.
However, in doing so, post-modernism also fails to come up with a united front in what their stance is because meta-narratives differ at different places, thus, the decoupling of it, results in contradictions everywhere. Hence, it could be argues that to post-modernists, everything is simultaneously a meta-narrative and not. Thus, don’t you think a post-modernist will only decouple certain meta-narratives to justify themselves and align themselves with the truth of their choosing? The matter at hand is that deconstructing meta-narratives just for the sake of freedom (liberalism) and not because of the pursuit of truth is just pathological. Psychologically, it is obvious that people do this to lie to themselves and lighten the ethical load that one must carry thus reducing cognitive dissonance. Technology has also caused an acceleration of the idea where people justify their feelings and actions through these new contradicting ideas on social media. This begs the idea of whether these arguments exist just to justify what they feel and think and not what is inherently right. This is largely possible because the morality principle derived from postmodernism is not able to be proven from first principles.
When they regress via the deconstruction of meta-narratives, they will arrive at the question ‘what is the meaning of life’ since it is essential to have a moral philosophy to base it on. This then, in my opinion, produces the idea of existential nihilism among the masses. Some would argue it is the other way around, which I don’t necessarily disagree with because the idea of nihilism was brought up as early as in the 18th century. However, personally, I believe that the mass of society in this era would come to the idea through postmodernism. The important thing is to notice that all of this boils down to materialism; a construction of importance mainly defined by the liberal west. Materialism posits that everything that matters lie only in the physical/material realm. Consequently, the focus of morality would be on the material e.g. wealth accumulation. This restricts and directly makes material ideas to be the goal of many when in fact there are other essential immaterial goals that are as important if not more.
Existential Nihilism
Is it possible that there is no inherent meaning to our very existence? If that is truly the case, then do we have a purpose in life? What if life is just a complex simulation, in which all our actions are just a unique algorithm which fills a code bringing us to the next unique set of problems to which there is no right answer to? This argues against the fundamental principle of human existence which includes but is not limited to meaning, morality and knowledge, all of which I will call the ‘Objective Truth’ moving forward.
A simple way to summarize the argument is that the Objective Truth is subject to the Münchhausen trilemma which then makes it void. This trilema argues that there are only three ways in completing a proof;
The Circular argument
The proof of some proposition pre necesitate the very proposition whereby it becomes a circular logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what it is trying to end with. A simple example would be one must obey the law because it is illegal to break the law. There is no valid evidence besides A proves B.
The Regressive argument
Proposition requires a justification in which the justification given also needs a justification to itself. Hence, it is the infinite regress fallacy. A simple example for this would be eggs exist because they are laid by chickens and, of course, the chickens are hatched from eggs. This argument is endless on its own.
The Dogmatic argument
Arguments which rest on accepted precepts which are merely accepted rather than defended. This is also known as Foundationalism which concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief and certain axioms. A simple example would be 1+1=2, which is an abstract argument proven to be true assuming certain axioms (unfalsifiable).
Hence, because these are the basis of the Objective Truth derived throughout time, then, all of them are flawed and are nowhere justified! Well, at least that's what they argue. Some would argue that the argument itself is also subject to the Münchhausen trilemma hence making it untrue on its own basis. However, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume all of these arguments are true! Is it not still contradictory though? The claim is that there is no universal truth and therefore nothing is objectively true. Then, wouldn't it make existential nihilism the objective truth that it claims to not exist? It is a paradox in itself, hence, at best it is an extremely flawed interpretation of the Objective Truth and at worst, pathologically untrue. Regardless, let’s focus on how sustainable it is, which arguably is far more interesting than playing with words as what we did till now.
Sustainability of nihilism
Life has two types of meanings, the first being the meaning in life, and the second, meaning of life. Let's start with the former! What is our meaning in life? What is our objective? What do we want to achieve in life? These are hard questions with never-ending answers that differ between people. Let’s take an example of a nihilistic person who does not believe that there is meaning in life, inherently. Would they set goals in their life? Definitely not! Why would they if they really believe that there is no meaning in life? Economists would term this as irrational. It is not a Nash Equilibrium. Why would we strive in life if there is no Objective Truth, if there is the will to nothingness? Wouldn't that be stupid?
If that’s really the case though, let’s see if it is sustainable. If everyone does this - believe in nihilism - then there would be no advancement in life. People will not strive in life, no innovations, no technological improvement and if a disease surfaces, there would be no motive to find a cure for it. Will this not bring bigger and more worrying problems in life? Is this not sad and pathological? Some would argue, by merely doing these comparisons, I am dismissing and ignoring the truth. However, I would like to think I am not dismissing the truth as I argued against the idea of nihilism itself early on, plus, I think it’s best if we perform our weakly dominated strategy (game theory) which is striving in life rather than giving up life in its entirety due to an unfounded and unproven possibility that there is nothing to life in the end because at best, we are right and our actions maximizes our payoffs, and at worst, there is nothing to life at the end but our mind which believes otherwise makes us happy to pursue our goals and defined meaning and also maximizes our payoffs relatively given the circumstances. It’s interesting that Friedrich Nietzsche, a famous German philosopher and critique of nihilism said:
‘a man who has a why can bear almost any how’
He believes that men should find their own meaning in life as a cure of nihilism with his idea of ubermensch. He provided a solution (temporary) to nihilism which he sees is spreading; the solution can be encapsulated in the phrase “ life has no meaning, create your own and power through.”
However, I also believe that one could not find a sustainable meaning in life and persevere if one does not believe that there is a meaning of life which enters my second type of meaning. The difference is that the meaning of life is exogenous, meaning the reason does not depend on yourself; it goes beyond ourselves whereby it is ultimately a given reason. It is the question of ‘Why do we want to achieve them?’. The meaning in life on the other hand is dependent on and structured in line with the meaning of life. Why would one make up or find a meaning in life if there is no meaning of life? Don’t you think it’s nonsensical? There is no motivation to do so. Don’t you think that the idea that one could act without direction is irrational. Every action must have a meaning that leans towards a direction. How would one know how to act if there is no direction? The meaning of life that I am talking about is essentially what religion is; the existence of God, the afterlife, and our duty to Him in life.
Now, I am not going to go off topic and write about the proof of God's existence or which religion is the right one. However, I am going to take an example of a nihilist who strives for success. Now, how do they stay motivated to achieve success in life when they believe that there is no meaning of life? John Forbes would again point out that it is not a Nash Equilibrium. For example, assuming someone is rational and truly believes that there is no meaning of life, it is definitely not their best course of action to strive for success. Obviously, they have created a sense of meaning and purpose for themselves. And obviously, they want to have a good life and they believe that one who strives for success will be more likely to achieve that outcome. Why do they want to have a good life? Well, maybe it’s for themselves or for the sake of their parents or family in general. Well notice that all these are not necessarily dispensable and it begs the question, is this sustainable? If these stakeholders, that one strives to accommodate for are lost, where would one end up?
Let’s say one is able to hinge the meaning only to oneself. Hence, the creation of meaning is for oneself, but if one ultimately truly believes in nihilism, then the meaning that one created for oneself is knowingly meaningless whether one admits it or not. I am aware that I am talking in an ideal world with strict definitions, so let’s loosen up the definition of a nihilist. For example, now it is easy to see a nihilist being able to succeed just by moving on in life, succumbing and consuming oneself with entertainment and materialistic properties that the world has to offer such as money, wealth, and power, knowingly detaching oneself from purpose and meaning. You know what? It looks like it may actually be sustainable. The strive for money, wealth, and power is not necessarily a bad thing since it promotes competition hence innovation, efficiency and developments in our life. But to make it the ultimate goal of life is just straight out an absurdity, don’t you think? One with a meaning could still strive for all of these by making it merely a mechanism or avenue in effort to achieve their purpose. Plus, don't you think it's more sustainable because it is going to be done with the best of intentions, and hence in the so-called right way. It will necessarily rule out corruption, the oppressive nature of developments and pollutants making it more sustainable. Hence, don’t you think it’s meaningless to pursue materialism? I do. There’s no moral conviction, no taming of desire by reason but only the compulsion of fear and greed. I believe one should face the fact and believe that there should be a purpose in life. It is just sad to not think of it that way. Why? Well, I’ll let your mind wander around that question. Maybe you’ll agree with me or maybe not.
Now, I am aware that I made a lot of bold statements in this article. This is my current view on the matter and it definitely will always change and evolve as I grow older since I am trying to find and comprehend the truth myself, not knowing what is truly right. Regardless, I really believe that this is a very good stepping stone for one to think and ask important questions.
‘A man who has a why could bear almost any how’