Within my lifetime, a slow realization has been developing since I started becoming more solitary, more self-restrained, and looking inward more often: that true freedom is never about having the most luxurious worldly possessions or holding the highest status, where you are admired by everyone.

And it's not the ability to accomplish endless possibilities and desires with no restriction of any kind, but rather a quiet sense of being grateful for your life while not being tied to it. You enjoy the world, but you do not worship it, nor attach your soul to it.

By freedom, I also mean the ability to pursue your own ambitions without becoming obsessed with them, without letting them define your entire identity, and without being indebted to the expectations of society or relationships. It means not having to suppress what makes you feel like yourself for the sake of it.

Furthermore, by grateful, I never meant settling for less or abandoning bigger goals. Having an individual goal you're proud of is, in itself, an expression of freedom. By "worldly desires," I meant something narrower: the shallow, dopamine-driven pursuits that offer nothing but moderate satisfaction and aren't worth investing a life in... because being controlled by something is the opposite of being free. It is a state where you are detached from earthly concerns that do not serve you, knowing that imbecilities like gossip, vanity, and resentment are too insignificant to disturb your peace of mind.

You are aware that some things in life will eventually come to an end; however, it does not kill the joy—it just makes it more controlled.

I interpret life as one vast art room, where every individual has his own canvas to put his human touch on. This means meaning exists... but remains subjective. It's up to each one of us to create his own meaning in his own lifetime.

Which raises a question: is everything in this world subjective?

My answer is no.

There is one matter that remains a responsibility... because if it got interpreted as a mere point of view or preference that one can simply dismiss, it risks eliminating peace and harmony between humanity: which is none other than morality.

 We judge actions based on the impact they leave, and thus, good and bad exist.

However, I came across a few philosophical claims that deny everything I've said, justified by the idea that existence itself is baseless or absurd. The concerning matter wasn't the ideology itself—I won't hold disdain for it just because it differs from mine. What concerned me was when it started getting superficially adopted by many people, who embraced treating the gift of life as hollow, and being pessimistic as a kind of intellectual aesthetic—as a shield that excuses them from the burden of striving, which is a misconception of the worldview itself.

If one believes a nihilistic statement like, "Murdering is not inherently good or bad," is deep... I get it. But I think it is mistaken.

When someone starts reading into nihilism, one of the first claims they run into is that murder is not inherently good or bad—which places it in the same category as neutral matters. But neutral matters don't carry unpalatable consequences. And unlike murder or any other wrongdoing, a neutral act is like a stranger eating a sandwich at the next table: no loss, no victim, nothing irreversible.

If someone were the one about to be murdered, would that person still think it is neutral?

I am aware that self-preservation and morality aren't identical, but agreeing to an act, even if its outcomes aren't palatable, is hard to defend. We cannot compare an external earthquake to a corrupted human, because we can neither stop an earthquake nor condemn it, because it doesn't have free will or a choice—it just happened. One cannot judge it. The murderer, on the other hand, knows what he is doing and uses his free will to bring misery, or death.

If one's whole ideology indicates that "nothing matters," but one still does not want to die at the hands of a murderer, and knows death is not as easy as taking a vanilla ice cream instead of a chocolate one—you eat it, wish for better, and move on—death is literally "game over." A big deal.

If one cannot tolerate such consequences, how on earth could one tolerate the action that produced it?

In the end, that art room has no rule painted on the wall saying, "Please don't ruin each other's paintings." That kind of morality is something we must collectively construct—determining right and wrong based on the impact an action leaves. Its purpose is to maintain justice, because without justice, there is only chaos. And chaos is not freedom; it is servitude to our own selfishness and resentment. That kind of chaos cancels freedom, both spiritual and life-based, because a person ruled by impulse is not free. He is owned by it.

Thanks for reaching ★

Leave your thoughts down in the comments :D