Not So Optimistic About ‘Optimistic Nihilism’

Letters from O'Brien #24

I recently watched a well known video entitled ‘Optimistic Nihilism’. Uploaded by a well known science-oriented YouTube channel, it was - as one would expect from reading the title - a shallow rallying cry emanating from the New Atheist movement. The channel in question is Kurzgesagt, a pop science outlet producing animated edits showcasing scientific abstractions. It is essentially the Utopian atheists version of the BibleProject.

While this is certainly not the most pressing issue of the day, I feel compelled to write down a few reasons as to why the ‘optimistic nihilist’ movement is nothing more than a hollow attempt to justify the rejection of divinity. I really don’t want to focus on the video, nor the predictably one-dimensional comments left underneath it in its support - neither deserve promotion.

REASONING

The pseudo-intellectual assumption (for most who watch or listen to such lectures) is that ‘God does not exist’ and therefor there is no transcendent meaning in life. The very utility of so called ‘optimistic nihilism’ rests on the presupposition that there is no divine being, purpose nor meaning to our existence. This in itself is a poor, low-resolution argument for obvious reasons, but since I have already addressed the ‘new atheist’ movement in previous letters, I will not waste more time on it here.

The follow on thought - usually voiced by those who have a deeper ‘philosophical understanding’ of the idea - is that the questions “what do we do?” or “what do we not do?” are ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. This is where the ‘positive’ element comes in. It is said that this means that previous mistakes do not matter, and that one can easily move forward without kicking themselves for their past failures, allowing him to enjoy life more fully (the enjoyment of life being the ultimate goal – remember Fahrenheit 451?). However there is a problem; namely that the optimism is unfounded, it’s a terrible way of viewing the world which will - as the Biblical scriptures ironically put it - lead to destruction. The entire argument that one would be liberated from judgement and failure if he were to accept the nihilistic outlook is in itself detrimental, since it essentially nullifies the idea that judgement, failures, and other such ‘negatives’ are actually useful, teaching moment to turn man away from stumbling blocks and back on to the well worn, and safer, track. If man ignores these ‘negatives’, he does not grow to overcome them.

It is essential to understand that what one does has an immediate impact not only on himself, but on those around him. His failures and achievements are not meaningless, but rather they ripple outwards and cause unseen changes on the societal environment, some of which may be so huge (and abstracted from the original action) that one may never even know that he was the progenitor of said change. It’s complexity theory at work, it’s the butterfly leading to the tornado (OK, so that may be a bit hyperbolic, but you get the picture). The idea that each action, interaction, and movement has no meaning (let alone a deeper meaning) is more than ‘changing one’s philosophy’, it is to reject reality itself in an attempt to justify a clearly false premise. Nihilistic thinking in this regard is blind, since it assumes that things simply happen in a meaningless randomness, but how often do the actions of others meaningfully impact us? The answer is always. In the same way, the actions of any individual are important and bear weight, and thus to move in the world is fundamentally an act of change and impact. There is no denying this, since practically every action is at least in some part compelled either consciously or unconsciously by the actions or movements of others. Therefore, it is important to understand that things do matter, and not just some things. Even if one does not believe in God as a being, the mere fact that actions results in reactions proves that things are inherently meaningful, and thus alludes to a grand narrative akin to that described in the biblical scriptures. Even if one rejects the idea of God as ‘a being’, there is no denying that God as an idea (or ‘the nature or character of God) is certainly around us. There cannot be an absence of this, since it contradicts observable reality. If the nihilists were correct, and there is no God, then action would not result in reaction, subject would not need object, and individual would exist in the infinitude of isolation.

Perhaps this is a rather pessimistic critique, but I believe that the nihilists are aware of this - at least on a subconscious level - and that the choice to pursue a nihilistic worldview for many is an informed act of laziness. I wonder why so many radical nihilists and atheistic nihilists come from Christian or Jewish backgrounds. Do they seek the utmost justification for wilful ignorance? I guess it is easier to claim that everything is meaningless than to uphold meaning in everything. Why? Perhaps for a culture primarily raised in prosperity, seeing meaning in everything is simply too hard? I think the rejection of meaning is essentially a rejection of the path taken in The Heroes Journey, and the rejection of the heroes journey is a rejection of the calling of reality itself. Campbell was onto something!

REALITY?

The common claim by those who adhere to these nihilistic ideas is that it is merely the ‘harsh reality’ of the way things are, and that religion was essentially a coping mechanism devised by ancient man in order to bring comfort to himself. I don’t believe this is evident in the slightest. Nihilism essentially assumes a return to nothing upon death. It is the ultimate comfort, since - supposedly - action does not result in reaction, and responsibility does not eminent from meaning (which supposedly only exists if one makes it). Religion - particularly Judaism/Christianity/Islam - assume a fate worse than death if the transcendent values which hold the world together are not upheld. In this way, it is actually an inversion of the claim made by the nihilistic atheists, and I believe this is deliberate, since the acceptance of transcendent values means that one also accepts the reality of the consequences if one were to take the path of destruction. By refusing to accept this paradigm (despite subconsciously believing it), the ‘optimistic atheist’ is playing a childish game, covering his eyes in the hopes of reality itself conforming to his own vision, despite his own logical senses telling him he is wrong and will eventually have to face reality. This could be described as the Thanatos - or death drive - which is evidently also the mover behind Utopian socialism.

Now comes responsibility and meaning itself. It is easy to say that life is without meaning, and that by extension responsibility is no more virtuous than irresponsibility (there is no virtue anyway). But no, this is not true. Why is it that so many terrible events have unfolded over the past century, and in almost all cases those behind it were essentially nihilistic collectivists? Perhaps it could be that - since all is meaningless - nothing is off the table. Stalin certainly didn’t seem to have a problem with killing millions of Ukrainians in order to force the region into conformity. Pol Pot happily scarified a quarter of his entire population in order to establish a ‘better society’. However in all cases, since nothing means anything, the actions of these leaders supposedly should amount to nothing. Add to that the subjective morality espoused by the ‘optimistic nihilist’ movement and it could be argued that they were neither good nor evil, rather they simply were what they were. Maybe they were just overly optimistic!

But what about the other arguments… For example, the claim that nihilism essentially strips life down to its ‘core’; that nothing is meaningful, but as a result one should try and ‘be a good person’, enjoy life to the fullest, and let everyone else do the same. This is - to put it bluntly - a childishly naive outlook on the world. To begin with, what compels a nihilist to even consider another individuals longing for happiness, let alone try and be ‘a good person’ (which assumes objective morality)? The answer: a fractured acceptance of transcendent value. Straight off the bat, the nihilist claim falls flat and relies on preexisting religious ideas and objectivity, but lets continue. The next claim is that life should be enjoyed, and that the same should be the case for all. Yet again this is a naive, ridiculous claim. If one looks around at the world, it is immediately evident that enjoying life for one individual looks entirely different to another, to the extent that these ideas often fall into contradiction and conflict. Not only that, but to enjoy life properly is to accept the inherent responsibilities and meanings which hold reality (and by extension society) together. Or are we going to argue that man can ‘make his own values’? Good luck, it will inevitably contradict reality and fail upon the slightest resistance.

The latter point does seem to be an epicentre of conversation for the everyday nihilist. As I delved deeper into online discussion, I found that ‘making’ or assigning value is essentially part of the modern ‘optimistic nihilist’ outlook. One may feel that he is wasting his life by partaking in - lets say - endless partying. The optimistic nihilist says; ‘this is fine! He simply must realise that what he is doing is OK since he enjoys it, and since nothing matters, it is no different than working hard for thirty years in a positive impact profession’. Yet in actuality, this is nothing more than another poor take on hedonism, in which the pursuit of ‘joy’ is paramount (maybe this, and not religion, is the ’opium of the people’). And again, who’s joy? Should a serial killer be allowed his portion of joy? ‘Oh no’ they would answer, ‘that is clearly wrong’. But even then, why would it matter? Is not morality subjective?

Likewise, the shortsightedness of hedonism is also ignored by practically all whom I have seen partake in this philosophical garbage. They don’t understand that hedonism does not inspire creativity and rarely looks to the future, it’s an unproductive dead end. The societal preconditions which allow modern university students to make such arguments, in their comfortable yet insulated classrooms, did not come about by chance – it was a result of blood, sweat, and tears, as they say, over the course of hundreds of years. Hedonism focuses on temporal pleasures, and can only be upheld on a societal level for a very short time before the inevitable collapse bought about by impulse and the proclivity for the easiest path forward. In contrast, the divine idea of ‘picking up ones cross and bearing it’ inspired entire nations to strive towards higher ideals, often requiring sacrifice, suffering, and prolonged effort. Or to put it in more simplistic terms; a nihilist won’t be responsible for the next great innovation, let alone the next great generation.

In this way, nihilism truly is a curse on society. The nihilist himself acts on impulse and does not adhere to higher ideals than whatever his own impulse dictates. He has no motive for sacrifice, no willingness to better himself or the world around him, and in any case, only feels compelled to move in any one direction at the behest of his own ego.

POSITIVE NIHILISM?

Much of this still leaves out the obvious claim made by the ‘optimistic nihilist’ movement, and that is that nihilism itself can be a net positive if someone accepts its preconditions. I believe that any form of nihilism is fundamentally negative, and can only be momentarily propped up by the claim of positive outcome. If an entire society were to embody a ‘positive nihilistic’ mindset - as I believe many in the west are - then the result will speak for itself; mass depression, lack of creativity and drive, a stalled economy, suicides, and an erosion of culture and depth. Why would this happen? Again, because ‘positive nihilism’ is essentially a temporal coping mechanism - a lack of meaning, responsibility, and drive for greatness will eventually eat away at oneself over time, and in due time will push people over the edge.

Since the topic is on nihilism, why not some insight from the worlds most famous (and misunderstood) nihilist; Nietzsche… he said that nihilism would emerge in force as a result of the ‘death of God’ (wrongly, and rather comically, misunderstood out of context and used by atheists as a rally cry), and that the results would not be pleasant. As people began to doubt the idea of divine presence and transcendent value and meanings, they would fall into nihilism. This nihilism - as we see today - would be pushed as a good thing. However, it would be the opposite, and over time this very nihilism would become unbearable. He then predicted that people would turn to authoritarianism as a way of escaping the pain of nihilistic thinking, and essentially - although Nietzsche doesn’t explicitly say this - establish the authoritarian state as a new god, complete with commandments, values, and instructions on how to go about living. Now Nietzsche himself fell short in this regard, as even he believed that man essentially existed in what was essentially happenstance, and that he needed to create new values to move forward. As mentioned earlier, this doesn’t seem to be possible, since values themselves flow from something transcendent which is not easy to describe.

I have seen many people claim to be either nihilists, or ‘optimistic nihilists’ and practically all of them have fallen into the same categories: They are either young people from a western nation, in out of touch university faculties, or atheist thinkers. In all cases they are in positions which are largely out of touch with the happenings of society, and the felt impacts of decision making. A university faculty member is payed by an institution that essentially allows him to throw around abstractions while feeling few of the consequences. The same can be said of public intellectuals. In this way, the out of touch thinker can claim that nothing matters, and that we must simply enjoy life to the fullest, but upon contact with reality, these ideas quickly evaporate.

It is also worth highlighting that nihilistic people have a tendency to find errors in others far more than they should. That is, since meaning is essentially nullified in the nihilistic individuals head, the inevitable suffering he will experience as a result is diverted into something that somehow comes as a result of others. A good way of visualising why none of this is possibly true, but rather objectively false and in contradiction to reality is to imagine these ideologies portrayed in films or stories. Imagine a narrative in which the protagonist lives a life of hedonistic nihilism, moving from one impulsive dopaminergic hit to the next. From playing video games, to watching sport, to eating chips, and repeat. This is not entertaining, nor would it resonate with what we perceive as the nature of things. Compare this to any of the most well received films of all time, such as Lord of the Rings, which is both entertaining and pulling at a deeper sense we have of reality (even though it’s fantasy). The characters accept higher ideals, sacrifice comfort, and head into a great adventure in order to preserve the divine ideal and save the world in the process. It is the Heroes Journey, and it is wired into us on a deep psychological level which cannot be explained, to the point where it has been universally used throughout human history to tell engaging narratives. If this is the case - which it is - then that means that even our conscious and subconscious analysis of the world accept the reality of their being transcendent values, divine meaning, and objective truths (including morality).

Over all, the idea of ‘optimistic nihilism’ is essentially a more absurd take on existentialism, with arguments and justifications crushed down into comical one-dimension simplicity. But nevertheless, many appear to have fallen under its spell, further propagating the idea within the existing culture. I do not see any bright path forward for the nihilists, who in their rejection of divine value and blind acceptance of hedonistic pleasure seeking have essentially solidified a destiny of continual self-coping and unfulfilling impulse-chasing. Any hope of moving forwards dies with the acceptance of nihilism. To bring new light into the world requires that we turn ourselves back towards transcendent meaning.

Perhaps the best way to end this is with a reading recommendation, perhaps the best argument made against the nihilist ideology, and that is Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment.