Since the dawn of time, or at least since the earliest years of recorded human history, there have been differing opinions on what the fundamental motivation for life was. Scientists, philosophers, and religious clerics alike have all been concerned with the question of an objective meaning to life with each school putting its best theory forward.
Up until the early 19th century, however, the generally accepted answer to the question of meaning was provided by religious beliefs. Many religions posited the concept of a utopic paradise as man’s final destination and the fundamental purpose of Being.
But as the age of enlightenment grew nascent, it brought with it widespread proliferation of intellectual and philosophical ideas that evaporated, in no small manner, these widely held religious beliefs that had for so long provided man with a why.
The denial of these long-held traditional values, however, gave rise to a much broader and more catastrophic kind of opposition — Nihilism: that is, the denial of all values, meaning, and truth. Nihilism asserts that the world itself possesses no fundamental value and that human existence is ultimately meaningless.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how much of a threat such a viewpoint poses to human societies as a whole.
And that is why much of modern thought since then, since the enlightenment, has been centered around finding a counterpoise to nihilism. Or more precisely: answering the question of how value, meaning, and truth can be found and restored to a world that has abandoned, or in some sense, lost all of its traditional values and certainties.
Many great writers and thinkers have lent their voice to answering the question of whether any meaning was to be found in life and if yes, how one should live in order to discover such meaning. None more so than Fredrich Nietschze. His life’s work contains numerous references to nihilism. He was particularly concerned with the problem of nihilism and how we could resist its allure without bowing to conventional morality.
Nietzsche’s take on Nihilism and his proposed solution.
I’ve come across very few writers who were as brilliant and insightful as Nietzsche was. His skill at shinning the light so accurately and encompassingly on the human condition is unparalleled even to date. His writings, although disparaged and ridiculed during his time, touched on almost every aspect of the human experience.
The depth of his writing set him apart from every other writer (and philosopher). But everything that can be a cure can also be poison. In the right hands, his implicit and deeply insightful allegories seek to enrich the readers' experience, while in the wrong hands, are often misinterpreted. There are very few historical figures whose life’s work has been misconstrued to the degree Nietzches’ has.
One such misconception is his popularized theory on “God’s death,” which has consistently been taken out of context and used to support the ill-informed notion that Nietzsche was an advocate for nihilism. Also, identifying as an atheist didn’t help his case. As it only helped further such assumptions — as atheism and nihilism are often taken to mean the same thing (although they have completely different meanings).
However, despite the susceptibility of Nietzsche's writings to nihilistic interpretations, a careful reading of his ideas reveals his thoughts on the concept of meaning. Although, admittedly, no other person, before and after, critiques with more severity the idea of conventional morality and religious values, Nietzsche did not believe that nihilism was a desirable end for society. He saw nihilism as a means to an end; as a temporary state that immediately followed man’s rejection of religious values. He saw nihilism as a bridge to a new way of Being.
For Nietzsche, the renunciation of these fundamental Christain values was not only unavoidable but was also necessary. Nietzsche was convinced, and rightly so, that religious (traditional) beliefs ultimately gave rise to what he termed ‘implicit nihilism.’ He believed such values were, in fact, nothing more than positive illusory ornaments that failed to accommodate, value, or represent the immediate world for what it was.
Nietzsche feared that faith in these values limited man from becoming all he could be as they exalted meekness and altruism above all else and as a consequence forced man to neglect his duties as conscious actors in the world and to adopt, instead, a passive and abhorrent outlook to life (as he had been made to believe that such attitude would be rewarded at the point of death in some otherworldly utopic paradise).
Immediately following the demise of these traditional Western values, Nietzsche posits two possible alternatives (one far more effective than the other).
The first, which is also the most common, was that people continue to hypocritically cling to these outdated belief systems. That is: go to church and confess belief in a God even though their actions were contradictory to their self-proclaimed beliefs (This choice is incompatible in the long term because if one is honest with himself, he eventually grows weary of such charade).
Alternatively, one could embark on what Nietzsche termed — revaluation of values, which is: the creation of new life-affirming values that were independent of the old. This, Nietzche proposed, was the antidote to nihilism.
However, he admitted that the task of creating new values was a daunting one and could only be attempted by a special type of individual — the “Ubermensch” or the Overman. Nietzsche believed that such an individual would primarily be motivated by what he dubbed “will to power,” which is the will to achieve mastery over one’s self and one’s environment.
To Nietzsche, the Ubermensch was an ideal for man to strive towards if he is to find meaning in the world, but unfortunately, this is where Nietzsche and I part ways as it relates to the conceptualization of the idea of meaning. Although I agree with his critique of conventional morality and its proclivity to veer towards implicit nihilism, I disagree with his proposed solution.
He fails to take into account two fundamental truths of the human experience. The first of these is that man cannot create his values as a result of his obvious limitations. He cannot derive an “ought” from an “is.” He can either discover his values or co-create them from the materials the universe has already provided (from Choas itself or from the constraints of mother Nature herself — depending on how you look at it). He cannot make up entirely new rules in a game that is already bounded by rules he cannot transcend.
The second truth Nietzsche fails to take into consideration is man’s primordial inclinations. It is in our nature to instinctively pursue pleasure and avoid pain. The path of becoming an Overman is not a path that many would voluntarily travel on as it involves overcoming. It entails embracing fully the limitations of Being and then taking responsibility for those limitations both for himself and others. The Overman must accept his nature and divert the energy of primitive impulses into creating meaning for himself in such a way that affects the rest of humanity.
But since man cannot create his own values independent of traditional values and also since the path of the Overman is an extremely strenuous and testing one, we must look beyond Nietzsche if we are to find a convincing answer to the problem of meaning.
Let us turn, now, to Viktor Frankl — author of the deeply insightful memoir: Man’s search for Meaning — to see if he provides, in his work, the answers we are searching for.
Viktor Frankl’s solution to the problem of meaning.
Written in nine days and released just months after his emancipation from a three-year stretch in several concentration camps, Frankl’s magnum opus documents his experiences during those three horrible years and the lessons he garnered about life, the human psyche, and as the name implies — our search for meaning.
He believed finding meaning was man’s primary motivation and not a ‘secondary motivation’ as is commonly believed.
He continued down Nietzsche's line of thinking and adopted many of the same presuppositions that Nietzsche built his ideas on. Like Nietzsche, he believed that with the proliferation of progressive ideas along with the widespread abdication of traditional values, came man’s increasing confusion about what to do with his newfound freedom and of his purpose in the world.
Frankl referred to this emergent phenomenon as “the existential vacuum.” It is what we feel when our search for meaning is continually frustrated and we are left feeling empty, aimless, without purpose, and adrift.
This existential vacuum, this feeling of intense hopelessness and frustration with the world is not different from nihilism. In fact, they are the same, albeit the former being of a more personal form.
And because of the sense of nagging emptiness we feel, we then attempt to fill the vacuum with things we hope will provide the ultimate satisfaction and relieve us from the accompanying negative feelings. Some try to fill their vacuums with unbridled pleasures — eating and drinking beyond reason or engaging in all manner of promiscuous sexual activities. Others try to fill it with the pursuit of wealth or power. Yet another group might pick up some vague cause in the world that temporarily distracts from the emptiness in their lives.
But we are quick to find out that whatever we do, it is never quite enough. Overindulging in life pleasures doesn't fill the gaping vacuum because after the hookers have all gone home and after you’ve climbed down from your high, you still have to live with yourself and with the realization that your overindulgence didn't make you feel any better. On the contrary, you feel worse off because now you also realize just how deep and unsatiable the vacuum actually is.
Frankl, however, proposed in his book, a solution to this very common human problem. He believed that since a lack of meaning was the fundamental cause of the existential vacuum, then logically it follows that discovering meaning is its cure.
He first urged us to rethink our conceptualization of meaning. Frankl believed that the way we approached meaning was wrong. Like Nietzsche, he believed that there was no objective meaning to life. But unlike Nietzsche, he didn’t think we could create our own meaning. He believed, instead, that we could discover meaning in the world.
He encouraged us not to look for an abstract meaning to life because there is no one answer. The meaning of life differs from person to person. Everyone is asked an individual question based on the uniqueness of his existence. A question only he can answer. So ultimately, we shouldn't just assume life inherently has meaning or look for an objective meaning to life, rather we should recognize that we are the ones being asked to provide meaning to life by taking responsibility for our lives.
The adoption of Responsibility as the Antidote to Nihilism.
The adoption of responsibility has never been more pressing than in today's world. A world where the gripping narrative of ‘victimhood’ has become increasingly popular; and where personal responsibility, self-improvement, and mental toughness have all been thrown out of the window in favor of a collectivist culture (whose ethos is centered on assigning blame to everything but themselves).
But the question yet remains: how does one adopt responsibility and what is its relationship to meaning?
Frankl was perhaps one of the first people to recognize the utility of adopting responsibility. He believed it was the antidote to life’s suffering and its intended consequences — nihilism included. His emphasis on responsibleness is reflected throughout his life’s work and is also the main ethos of Logotherapy — a school of thought he developed that is based on the premise that the primary motivational force of any individual is to find meaning in life.
He, therefore, came with the term: “the self-transcendence of human existence” to address such well-meaning questions.
According to him, adopting responsibility was a matter of rendering service to others rather than an isolated act or a closed system of self-indulgence. He believed that the more one forgets himself and his selfish desires and directs his attention towards something or someone — be it a problem to tackle and fix in the world or another person to take care of — the more engaged he is in the world and the more meaningful his life becomes.
Although the meaning of life is continually changing and differs from person to person, Frankl’s Logotherapy provides us with three ways (iterable across long spans of time) with which we can take responsibility and as a consequence discover meaning in life.
1. Finding meaning by creating a work or doing a deed.
This is perhaps the most ubiquitous source of meaning in the lives of most people and understandably so. Nothing orients our mind towards meaning more than being engaged in something that requires our time and effort as well as our creative abilities. The ability to impose order and create something meaningful out of the chaos of the universe is our connection to the divine. It is what gets us up in the morning with a sense of purpose. It is what fills each day with a sense of joyous agency. It is what keeps us occupied that we don’t even notice the passage of time.
The realization that we have something to contribute to humanity; that we have a future goal we deeply care about, Frankl observed, was what imbued most survivors — including himself — with the strength to withstand even the worst of conditions.
Nietzsche, too, posited that nothing else could see a man through the worst of hells except the knowledge that he had something meaningful to live for. He was the originator of the deeply insightful phrase that buttresses Frankl’s observation. “He who has a why can bear almost any how.”
2. By experiencing something or encountering someone.
There are very few phenomena humans experience that transcend rational comprehension. Goodness, beauty, and love make up that short-list. Frankl believed that observing and then appreciating the goodness and beauty of nature as well as experiencing another human being in his uniqueness — by loving him, was enough to give our lives meaning.
Recounting, in his book, a particularly difficult moment during his incarceration, Frankl describes the exact moment he realized the power of love — be it the love of a partner, of a family member, or a friend. He proclaimed that love was the ultimate and highest goal to which any man can aspire. In his words:
“A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth — that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.”
It was the love he felt for his wife — Gilly — and the hope of one day reuniting with her that gave Frankl strength and courage even in the darkest hour.
3. By the attitude we take towards unavoidable suffering.
With everything Frankl faced while imprisoned in different concentration camps, it’s no surprise that he posited ‘having the right attitude towards suffering’ as one of the paths to finding meaning. If there’s only one truth that could be said about the human condition then it is the fact that suffering is unavoidable.
We all suffer one way or another. We might not be imprisoned in a concentration camp, like in Frankl’s case. But in our lives, we face situations that can cause us immense suffering and drain us of all hope. It could be: being diagnosed with a terminal illness or losing a loved one or coming face to face with real malevolence.
Frankl reasoned, however, that since such suffering is inevitable, we must adopt the right attitude towards said suffering and must work on overcoming the anger and resentment that accompanies being forced to endure pain and suffering. He encouraged us not to give up or curse Being itself, rather, he believed that we could use such suffering to transform ourselves and then climb to greater heights from which even tragedy ceases to look tragic. In his words:
“We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one’s predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation. . .we are challenged to change ourselves.”
The world is a complex and difficult place to manage without functional simplification. The proper way to manage its complexity and simplify the vastness of reality has been the subject of many-a-debate. It appears, however, that what we experience as meaning allows for such simplification. It also appears that out of the many proposed solution to the problem of life’s complexities (and its resulting consequence — nihilism), finding a veritable source of meaning appears to me to be the only solution that extends positively over time and sustains the individual throughout an ever-changing world.
We need meaning to sustain us in life and the meaning has to be proportionate to the difficulty and suffering of existence. Without such meaning, nihilism beckons at the door. And although we can draw guidance from Nietzsche and Frankl and from many others who have reflected and written on the topic of finding meaning in life. Ultimately, we must answer the question of meaning ourselves. We must find our own path. No one else can do this for you.
