Existentialism: The Dread of the Awakening and the Soar for Freedom
Introduction:
Existentialism is the first and foremost step of an awakened mind. It is the immediate result of the soul looking through the glass cage which entraps and lies the body. Inasmuch as it is immediate, it is lackluster; imperfect is our response to the sight we bare-witness; our response is the awaits in meaning or the seek thereof. At one point, we reach the end, not of a road, but of our journey in which we tread—the endless path. The sum of this journey is the embodiment of existentialism, our crisis marks the beginning of the end to the subject. In a world which we must tread, so endlessly, we can only continue pointlessly; or end it in vain, and feign meaning in our endings.
Chapter 1: the pseudo-nihilist
In our conscious, physical world, everything has its meaning: the flower between a crack of the concrete road; the dust on the window frame carried by the gust of wind; the strange stranger whose presence you may forget. To many, the flower is a metaphor of life, the perseverance amid a dire situation in hopes of prosperity. Or the dust that needed to be cleaned off, but that very dust is composed of the essence of life, the endless cycle of sediments, or the makeup of human’s skin, or even human’s sin if the dust is the byproduct of pollution, all carried by mother nature. Even the strange stranger which you’d likely forget, he may be the backbone of society, perhaps a hard worker whose country relies on. Therefore, I must conclude, everything has its meaning; but whether that meaning has any meaning is what determines life and its suffering.
You may disregard the flower’s story of perseverance, the essence of life in dust, or the stranger whose work isn’t recognized. If all three of the above mean nothing to you, the inherent meaning within them, however meaningful it can be—is meaningless. Akin to gold, its reversal in supply and demand makes it valuable; but to an anti-materialist who rejects its material and valuable worth, the existence of this gold and his possession of it makes an indifference. A pound of gold in his possession by mere chance is no different than the thousands of pebbles in his local river. Perhaps, you are an anti-materialist, to whom life and its meaning have no value. The meaning of meaning that every object in life is entitled to is no different than the value of gold which is imposed through societal means.
Life and suffering are inevitable; one cannot comprehend a life without suffering. Until death, our suffering clings onto us like our shadow, sometimes it is apparent as daylight, or others it hides in the night. Sometimes it is slim, and small, others it is consuming. Cutting our own shadow is like a cat chasing its own tail. One way or another, suffering will find another way to get to us, our embracing of this shadow is the only way to overcome it. To live along, and forget your own shadow. We cannot rid of our own suffering, perhaps we can minimize it through the meaning of life, maybe we could use the value of gold to purchase a source of light to chase away our shadow (metaphor for accepting meaning of meaning). To reject the meaning of life (meaning of meaning that every object is entitled with), is to deny living. If you are an anti-materialist in the value of life (a nihilist): what’s good in living if life and suffering are inevitable? If there’s no meaning in life, what’s the point in living? You may need not deliberately end your life, but why prolong it? You may not jump off a building, because what’s the point of that? To aim to die? Seeking meaning in death? On the other hand, what’s the point of providing your body with its essentials, such as water and food, what for? To aim to live? Why provide your body its essentials, and perpetuating the never ending suffering?
If there is no meaning in meaning, you neither need to live nor to die. To die as in deliberately delivering your own death. If you so to deliberately kill yourself, you are no longer a nihilist. You may live passively, in a vegetated state, you may starve yourself to death. But within the confine of your solitude, and the ticking time, gradual and, even the smithers of rumination (a single, perhaps impulsive thought of waiting to die), which in turns strive for death, the moment you die, you no longer see no meaning in meaning; but rather, you saw a meaning in death.
It is only without rumination, without consciousness, a nihilist's death is only is. When the nihilist wills to neither live nor die, he must neither deliberately end his life, nor even attempt to. He must not deliberately prolong his life, or even strive for it. He must starve himself, and void himself of any air, an action, in a way, must remain separately of his very consciousness, of his very innate abilities. He must not innately eat, drink, or breathe; yet, willfully do neither of any of the above as well. He must confine himself within his solitude, without his thinking, nor freedom. He must even cut off his thoughts, for even just the smithereens of striving for death could turn him into a pseudo-nihilist. In this way, without conscience, without intent, without a will, he can only die. Such death is impossible.
To reject all meaning of meaning is impossible—nihilism is impossible. You are not merely asked to just reject all meaning—but all meaning of meaning. You must numb yourself spiritually, shut your conscience and blind your consciousness. You can neither live nor die; you can neither prolong nor halt your existence. There is absolutely nothing you can do, nothing you can achieve; even if all of which resulted to an indifference, in nothingness, in a soft void and cozy darkness that is death. To will nothingness is not enough, you must not will at all. The act of not willing, is to will nothingness. And to will at all, is to exist. Hence, it is impossible to not have will at all; because as you exist, you are willing; and the denial of your own existence is matter of fact a will. Hence, you live a life of a pseudo-nihilist, in which you will a meaninglessness to the meaning of meaning.
So what about a pseudo-nihilist and as he does so to yet still will nothingness but deny every meaning of meaning? He provides his body with essentials while denying all meaning of meaning. What there is left for him is never ending suffering as he perpetuates his cycle of life, if he chooses to desire so, he must accept the fact of a pseudo-nihilist that lives in endless suffering. As he can neither deny the existence thereof, as it is humanly impossible to live a life without suffering, nor could he minimize his suffering through the meaning of meaning. That, or he could will death; which brings me into my contemplations, parts of me think, a pseudo-nihilist cannot will death, for he can no longer live to will nothingness; but at the same time, his will to death is what differentiate his pseudo-nihilism to that of the authentic (which is impossible). If he no longer exists, could he be recognized as a nihilist, or even a pseudo-nihilist for that matter? Through time, his existence is to be forgotten. Perhaps, through willing death, it is the highest form of a pseudo-nihilist, or the lowest form of pseudo-nihilism; the closest to nihilism humanity can achieve, yet going awry of it.
Truly, the only escape for a pseudo-nihilist besides death is to end his journey of existentialism; it puts an end to his crisis in vain, for he feigns his meanings in life.
By using meaning of meaning, it alludes to the conclusion that the meaning of life is to reduce suffering. But that is far too shallow; the meaning of life is our free will to choose so, to will death, to give up; to will suffering, or the minimization thereof. And for those who decided to not tread the path of a pseudo-nihilist, the next chapter explores freedom.
Chapter 2: The pursuit of freedom
In this essay, Freedom will be characterized by our autonomy to will both mentally and physically, to be free is to be abstracted from societal construct. The construction of a social norm, is an action of the free; but, to follow is not freedom, it is indoctrination, it is, even in the freest society, a directed-freedom—a pseudo-freedom. Now this mental and physical state of autonomy isn't used in accordance with a traditional sense. The physical states can characterize actions, or even feelings. Meanwhile, the mental state is used more so as a metaphysical term. Mental freedom is our conception of the self, breaking through the external impact, which every human had been impacted, inevitably due to the way we were raised. Thus, the only way to be free is to break this barrier and transcend above it while feeling free (physical autonomy).
Existing everywhere, hiding in plain sight, propaganda is merely a blown out societal norm. Existing everywhere, ingrained in the public's mind, Religion can be a propaganda. In a free country, one is free to follow god, and to believe in god; he isn't forcefully worshiping this god. So in a sense, he is physically free in his own terms with religion. But freedom requires that of mental and physical autonomy. If this religion is introduced to him by propaganda, that is, indoctrination by other beings, or social structure, his belief is mentally instilled by the structure of society. Therefore, his practice in religion is not freedom—it is an inheritance. It isn't only religion which holds this value: communication, language, media, interactions, all forms of beings exist within this pseudo-freedom. Everything has an agenda, and to become free, is to break out of this propaganda; in that way, you are at last mentally autonomous.
The mental autonomy is only a first step to freedom. Social norms act so that, in a way our physical actions feel natural (as they are norms, it feels normal to perform norms). I will conduct my claim with these two questions:
When we feel free, do we have freedom?
And when we have freedom, do we feel free?
Some norms in which we perform make us feel free, such as a hobby—say painting. An artist may feel free while painting, but do they have freedom? Creative freedom is in a way a fabrication, what I mean is that: sure, they have creative freedom over their projects, for they feel 'free' on creating the project; but the root of creativity is reinforced and strengthened by social norms. Suppose a semi-abstract landscape painting, there needs a creative freedom, in which individuality and creativity is necessary for this painting; but, the individuality and creativity are merely a product from feedback loops fabricated from their social environment through their individual upbringings. Hence, the artist may feel free, but to their very ends, they are merely products of society, just like their art pieces—a reflection of 'themselves'.
Now, that answers the first question, at times we feel free, even though we truly aren't free, because we feel free through physical autonomy (this includes even creativity), but our freedom is constrained without mental autonomy that exists beyond our immediate consciousness (it is akin to Kant's a priori). This mental autonomy could feel natural, could feel free...but more often than not, it requires a movement, perhaps a resignation of the old belief, all of which could go against the norms, and feel unnatural to perform. As you are resigning this old belief that was instilled by society—you are rejecting it.
Let us suppose an ex-Christian whose childhood is developed from a very conservative, and traditional Christian household, in which she was taught to be reserved, and 'lady-like' (whatever that interpretation of it means within her society). For she must act not only in accordance to her sex, but also her belief, in which she abandons this value as a resignation, a movement as she grows up. This abolishment of her old beliefs can feel liberating, but it could instill fear, uncertainty, and unfamiliarity, all of which are parts of this movement. It is not because she was in doubt, but is, because she is having a metamorphosis from her enslavement of society. Thing such as her gender performance (Judith Butler), premarital sex, casual sex, or the consumption of certain meat or meat as a whole (for certain religions) may feel uncertain, and it may contradicts all the feelings she is expected to feel when she is 'freed'. This does not mean she isn't free, it doesn't mean she is free either (yet), she is thriving towards her mental autonomy during this transition phase, but her physical state is far from it. Which brings me back to my second question, in which this individual is free, but they do not feel free.
It is only when this individual is free mentally, which she had already achieve through resigning her old belief that was instilled by other beings (mental freedom), and that she also must feel free, emotionally, and autonomously following her actions without coercion (physical freedom), that she is truly free. Similarly, the artist from the first question, which he must transcend beyond social reinforcement for his creativity and individuality: as such he produces art for not the audience but himself; not for money or external interests but merely as an expression of his freedom; and he must feel free post-transition—that he is truly free.
Thus, it is more common than not to see people live a life of pseudo-freedom. Most of whom lack the mental autonomy to realize, and break beyond the instillment that society imposed upon them. This imposition can be abrupt, or gradual; religious doctrine and colonialism is an important topic oftentimes isn't talked about together enough, mainly due to its controversy. Most parts of the world, colonialism is no longer; traditional slavery was abolished, but at what cost?
The majority of the colonized countries and their next generations are still enslaved mentally by the religious doctrine that missionaries of the past violently imposed upon them. This relationship can only be described as similar to the parasitoid wasp and its victim, in which it lays eggs inside a host, other arthropods, and gradually, its offspring harness nutrition through the body of its forefather's victim, and ultimately killing them for the prosperity of the offspring. However, religious indoctrination is much worse, the colonizer wholly embodies that of a wasp: oppressive, strong, and has a purpose. Both achieved their ends through the violation of autonomy of its victims, in which the colonizers forcefully occupy, rape, and kill their victims during the process of indoctrination. But the colonizer is far worse, as their oppression doesn't stop at the host; it continues forward down the host's bloodline. Even if somehow the colonizers stop existing as a whole, its oppression lives on, through fabricated imposition of God and his ideals.
The liberator can be nobody else, but the people themselves whom the 'wasp' indoctrinated. To still follow a deity that was forcefully fed to their forefathers through sheer violence is no better than being physically enslaved. Now, worshipping 'their' god, they may feel free, but ultimately, still merely a host for the parasitic wasp.
Chains and shackles are not the most crucial part of slavery; people can only be oppressed explicitly for so long until an inevitable revolt manifests itself. It is the very feeling of freedom that is the most perpetuating factor of the slave mindset. It is credited to Fyodor Dostoyevsky that he wrote, “The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he’s in prison.” This prison, or slave mindset is possessed by every individual in various forms. Still, it is mind boggling to me that this apparent enslavement exists so prosperously, how could an action so vile and immoral not only live on, but does so flourishingly? It is, as if, the hosts of the parasitoid wasp not only embraces its eggs, but also willingly pass down (the eggs) to its next generation, and the next generations are ‘inheritor of faith’; and it has been doing so for hundreds of years. From an outsider perspective, it is apparent to point out a peculiar egg on the body of a host to whom it does not belong. But for the host, that was their way of life ever since it began; and I mean this in two ways, from the historical perspective in which this oppression began, and from the personal context in which this person was born. And dichotomously, the easier it is for me to see the above, the harder it is for the host; for I simply cannot tell them, "you're worshipping a god that was forcefully indoctrinated upon you through colonialism." As faith, as Kierkegaard wrote, "The movement of faith must be made by virtue of the absurd." In which this faith is something beyond rational, something beyond comprehension. But within context is where the two differ, these people are not knights of faith, they are inheritors of faith, in which they do not willfully believe in, but rather a fragment of the oppression that lives on. It is only when this mindset is broken, and the mind is transcending into mental freedom that this irony can be seen internally within the oppressed.
It is a long and arduous process of discovery and doubting that makes this transcendence possible. Still, even after achieving it, we must feel uncomfortable with our newfound freedom; it is the foremost proof of our enslavement. No bird knows its immediate destination as it is freed after its whole life living in confinement; a mere entertainment for the uncaged—the oppressors; and its existence is justified not to the gods, not to themselves, not to its offspring, but merely for its aesthetic, for nothing else other than the mere fact that it exists. Even in spite of its ability to soar upon the skies and spread its wings beneath the clouds, this ability provides no real value insofar as this confinement’s persistence remained unabolished.
Make no mistakes, the oppressors gain not from their indoctrination but mere entertainment and aesthetic purposes. Must there be an emphasis that they did not act out of a saving grace; the white savior complex is merely a mask for their will to power, the will to inflict ultimate cruelty. Thus, the oppressed serves no purpose in life insofar as they are perpetuated to be enslaved to this fragmentation of colonization, even despite their capability to achieve their own freedom and find meaning in life—it is all in vain. For the possibility of the first time to once soar again, the feeling of uncertainty and the fear of the same oppressing force may be dominating; but eventually, it will overcome, and rejoice this freedom, rejoicing its ability blessed by nature to find its own destination.
The pseudo-nihilist and the inheritor of faith suffer the same tragedy, in that their existence is significantly reduced (not stripped because it still has some meaning) of its meaning. Neither is better than the other. The pseudo-nihilist achieved mental freedom, but is unable to escape the movement and find (physical) freedom, i.e. the feeling of being free. Thus, he is stuck in this perpetuated state of mind in which he loathes his mental liberation, in a sense wills cruelty upon himself through the process of denying all meaning of meaning. On the other hand, the latter inherited the slave mindset, but it also comes with faith, faith although used to characterize the religious indoctrination, it no longer meant in that sense. Rather, this faith is hope, to be caged is to inherit this hope to achieve the mental and physical freedom—a complete sense of freedom. A hope to transcend and surpass the movement and not be caught stuck such as the likes of the pseudo-nihilist.
A pseudo-nihilist can once be an inheritor of faith, and the inheritor of faith is at risk to become a pseudo-nihilist. Regardless, to not make the movement like most inheritors of faith, and to be caught within the movement are both wicked tragedies with the only way out is to complete the movement and achieve true freedom, or otherwise succumb to suicide. Nevertheless, both tragedies can be solved, with the former being a much brighter option. As previously mentioned, the pseudo-nihilism can end his journey in vain and feign meanings in his life; and the inheritor of faith can complete her movement and achieve her ultimate freedom.
Chapter 3: The Heavenly State, and soft-determinism
A possibility at an awakening is to reframe how we view goodness and its dichotomy.
Goodness, or rather the state of “Good” is the state of neutrality insofar as Bad, or “Evil” exists no longer. Supposed a world freed of any evil-deeds, and in it and of itself an objectively Good world. A world in which the standard of Goodness is measured by none of its dichotomy, as there would be no wrongs for its rights. This world, constant goodness will only be a state of neutrality. The scale will be toppled and inevitably we will only see one side of the coin, eventually, that side will be accustomed to us and our knowledge of the other side will cease from its existence. Anyhow, our sense of “right” is blinded by our fear of “wrong.” Stop and ask yourself a question, do we acknowledge the good in people because they are good in a world full of wicked tragedies? Or do we acknowledge the good in people for their standalone good nature, and if so what does this ‘good nature’ consist of? It is up to interpretation but I believe this acknowledgement of whomever is because our surroundings are full of tragedies–full of devils and their evildoings. We do not acknowledge a ‘hero’ for their inherent good acts, because if there was such; if the world is inherently good, there would be no state of good, but rather simple neutrality, for we do not acknowledge. Our society is evil; we are not inherently good; there is no inherent goodness but mere naivety. We do not praise one for their state of neutrality but we do so in their lack of their inherent evil (‘goodness’, the neutral state) within their praise-worthy acts. Being “good” is simply a state of neutrality in a given utopia, and we do not live within a utopia—for we perceive it as positive. The lack of negativity is not positivity; it is a state of neutrality. So next time you praise a “hero,” remember you are not praising their inherent good, but rather their absence of evil.
I shall continue this claim using the example of everyday interpretation of Heaven especially of the western world:
The interpretation of heaven is embodied by its lack of badness; therefore, heaven is often seen as good. Because in relative to our realm, evil doings are abundant, and the lack thereof immediately qualifies heaven as good. But insofar as heaven exists, the lack of evil doings or likewise bad, heaven is merely a state of neutrality; it is good only in comparison to mortal’s life, for it is standalone neutral. A good book is only good because there are countless of poorly written ones around. The interpretation of heaven is arbitrary; I would like to interpret heaven, or its existence thereof as requiring a transcended state of mind, a different being beyond our comprehension. It is a place to put our questions of existentialism at ease. Such state, or place is ultimately to reassure our existence; we exist, not in the sense of now, but in the sense of reaching this state of ‘heaven’, in which it reassure our existence, until this contemplation is reassured, we cannot know if we truly exist, or even what existence is. A place of neither good nor bad, but merely neutral; therefore, this place isn’t for everyone, it is absurd, it may not even exist. Which leads us back to my point earlier, we cannot know if this heaven exists, therefore, we cannot reassure ourselves we exist, therefore, is our existence real? I cannot tell you until either of us reach this heavenly state of mind.
Concluding remarks:
Picking up from the last chapter, akin to the simulation theory in which the universe is a fabricated simulation created by a higher being, if we truly question our very existence, it will lead us to a nihilistic state of mind, in which we are to will nothing. Because if nothing is real, nothing truly exists, therefore nothing matters. But this state of nihilism is impossible, we can only merely fabricate it through pseudo-nihilism, in which we suffer endlessly, for why, and for whom we do not know. All we know for certain is our uncertainty in our existence, and our apparent suffering which has no ends. But in turns, this uncertainty partially satisfies our existence, it is enough (for most) to not feed into pseudo-nihilism, it is a just enough justification for our apparent suffering. We may even find content in this, it is a way of liberating our mental freedom, in which even if we were to reply to this uncertainty in having us worship a god that was imposed before us by violence, it is fine. It is fine insofar as a movement was made to acknowledge our enslavement. For we are no longer inherently slaves, but are willingly subjecting ourselves to our own slavery, for we have finally completed our movement, filling a hole of uncertainty. This is, what I conclude, as the slave of faith, a being, who had undergone the movement of their inherent slavery to alas enslave themself. In an alternate universe where Icarus soared above the sun (completing his movement), in which he found nothing and jumped to his death. Icarus, in this universe, is both the inheritor of faith and a pseudo-nihilist.
The inheritor of faith and slave of faith are both enslaved, but the slave of faith fell, to fall is to once have flown. Unlike the inheritor of faith, the slave flew. He had once tasted freedom before, too, resigning it. A double movement in which one resigns their old belief and their newfound freedom.
Everybody is enslaved by their unique upbringing, and that slavery is a mental state, whether it is colonialism, hegemony, or modern societal norms. Regardless, they must break such a state of mind, to achieve freedom, while feeling free.
As many of you may have noticed, this would circle itself, an ouroboros so unavoidable, it is as if it is inevitable. This cycle of life, circle of existentialism, a sphere with no escape, what’s next? I cannot tell you to embrace your life until an unknown heaven reassures your very existence; that would make no difference than telling you to worship an unknown entity—a false deity. I cannot tell you to eat your own tail until it is wholly eaten either; that is no different than the endless suffering a pseudo-nihilist embraces. I won’t repeat the point that many thinkers of the previous generations stated, such as Kierkegaard in the leap of faith, to become the knight of faith; or Camus absurd hero, to make the most of the absurdity of existentialism. But I can tell you to embrace your will, whether it is free or enchained by external factors, embrace in your ability to will or otherwise pseudo-freedom. Even if it is eating your own tail, or praying to a false deity. Our will is the foremost reassurance of our very existence, even if it proves otherwise through nihilism. To will nothing, is better than not willing; to exist, or even to stop existing, is better to have never existed.