Optimistic Nihilism

(Note: This is an essay the author wrote for an assignment for their undergrad.)

The topic of ‘jihadi terrorists’ is of great concern to many academic fields, or even people in general in a post 9/11 world. It’s no wonder we see such diverse discourse among all the ideological camps. For example, when looking to Olivier Roy (2020) we see claims of nihilism. While at an entirely opposing camp, we see Anja Kublitz (2023) making claims of optimism. Who is right? Can both be right? I believe that upon careful analysis, greater insight can be achieved by an enmeshment or intertwining of these two ideas. Doing so requires us to first understand the terms ‘nihilism’ and ‘optimism’. These words have philosophical implications that aren’t as mutually exclusive as one is led to believe upon reading the aforementioned authors. So, first I will define these two terms after which I will show how they can be joined together. Only then will I show how this provides greater insight into the two chosen pieces. First off, ‘nihilism’.

According to the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy” entry on nihilism, “for most of the 20th century it has been associated with the belief that life is meaningless. Existential nihilism begins with the notion that the world is without meaning or purpose. Given this circumstance, existence itself–all action, suffering, and feeling–is ultimately senseless and empty.” (Nihilism, n.d.) I’ll refrain here from saying about Roy quite yet, but suffice it to say his definition would match ours as he makes his case regarding terrorism and their focus on death. What’s important to notice here is that ‘nihilism’ isn’t making any sort of moral or value judgment about life or the world. It’s simply questioning any purpose or meaning behind it, and the worldview one derives from this is still open for debate. What I’m saying is that pessimism or optimism are both still viable options. We move on now to defining optimism. On this topic, Wikipedia offers an astute definition, writing,

For some, this definition might be self-explanatory, but it’s useful when considered in the light of nihilism. Can things work out for the best and still be meaningless? More specifically, can things work out for the best and life have no meaning? Well, to make this enmeshment work, we have to consider a few more things. One, we’re using these terms in the context of violence and religion. The people being labeled as ‘optimists’ or ‘nihilists’ are also claiming quasi-religious motives. And two, I need to introduce you to something called optimistic nihilism.

While academic literature on this subject seems sparse, we’re not hopeless. Quite some years ago this idea came across my social media called ‘ominous positivity’. It was usually coupled with sayings like ‘You will be okay. You have to’ or ‘You have no choice’. It was more of a meme, or a short story writing prompt, just an interesting joke combining two words that feel out of place next to each other. But that’s exactly how optimistic nihilism sounds. It even supports and echoes those same sentiments. From a YouTube video called “Optimistic Nihilism” by a channel called Kurzgesagt - In a Nutshell we get this “You only get one shot at life, which is scary, but it also sets you free. If the universe ends in heat death, every humiliation you suffer in your life will be forgotten.” (Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell, 2017, 3:46) I’ll spare you all the elaborate implications of this, you get the picture. The ramifications we do need to focus on are the religious and cultural ones: jihad, terrorism, fundamentalism, etc.

Can you believe in an afterlife and still be a nihilist? Can you believe in an all-knowing god and still believe in free will? How can you be an optimist when you’re imprisoned within a divine plan? Does a lack of free will not sound oppressive? It all sounds so contradictory and bleak, but I promise you there’s a way out. Firstly, I don’t think every aspect of Roy’s and Kublitz’s arguments is compatible, but I typically disagree with them on those points anyway as I will show. We turn first to Roy, to modify his definitions and reshape his arguments.

Roy starts off by recounting the history of terrorism. During this, he shows how the death of the perpetrator is a ‘recent’ innovation. Despite the unique flavor of death-focused terrorism that has arisen, in which “it [death] is a central part of his [the terrorists’] plan” (Roy, 2020, p. 2) I wouldn’t say this arises from a place of nihilism or meaninglessness. At least not total meaninglessness as is suggested by the above definition. Instead, if we consider the afterlife we perhaps see how life here has no meaning. Nothing we do can ultimately change the outcome of things, because god’s plan will always come out on top. Jesus was always meant to die on the cross. How he got there is just a matter of narrative. All major events like this are predetermined when God lives outside time, but perhaps the threads of possibility (what our mortal mind views as free will) only lead to very few pre-selected outcomes. Accepting a radical worldview like this paints a picture where the “giving’ of one’s life is merely a blip on the radar of the eternal theological timescale. Viewing it in this way allows us to accept their “fascination for death” as merely that: fascination. (Roy, 2020, p. 18) It's important to note here that Roy also says, “terrorism does not arise from the radicalization of Islam, but from the Islamization of radicalism.” (Roy, 2020, p. 6) He actually does a great amount of work to remain precise and avoid ever attributing such atrocities to any one thing or group. However, I think this weakens his argument as we can tell that even the definition of terrorist or jihad is debatable and the phenomenon we’re talking about is somewhat niche. This is why we need Kublitz. Her work offers us more close-up accounts of authentic ‘jihadis’. Perhaps offering a more realistic picture of what ‘giving your life’ can actually mean as well.

In her piece “Optimism at the End of Time: Jihadists’ Struggles” Kublitz is in dialogue with Roy going against his claim that these people are nihilists. (Kublitz, 2023, p. 517) We also see her come to the same conclusion about the temporality of their lives saying, “I argue that God is pivotal for understanding my interlocutors’ actions, and that their apocalyptic imaginaries do not install a death wish in them, but rather introduce a different temporality into their lives.” (Kublitz, 2023, p. 517) While it’s obvious that Kublitz and I see eye-to-eye here, I need to restate my point that optimism is not mutually exclusive from nihilism. The opposite of optimism is pessimism, not nihilism. I will admit that they take a bit of reconciling, but as we further analyze Kublitz we’ll reach reconciliation. One thing Kublitz does an amazing job at is considering the ways in which violent attacks or war can be seen in light of a religious struggle; especially a religio-political struggle. Roy essentially argues that there’s a radicalization towards death and it’s wearing the veneer of Islam. It echoes what more moderate believers of Islam might say, ‘They’re not practicing true Islam/jihad’. Kublitz doesn’t make this mistake though. She realizes that their claims to jihad are equally valid stating,

Kublitz uses interesting wording at the end there, “divinely determined”. For something to be determined beforehand in such a way requires a belief in determinism. In a religious sense, it might be called fate, and science might call it physics, but it’s that same lack of choice that we mentioned before. The same lack of freedom that necessitates nihilism, but also frees us in other ways. Especially when paired with an afterlife, we can find peace in knowing God will always win. We have no choice in the matter. It’s that ominous positivity. Kublitz also highlights this “paradox between living in a world that one believes is determined by God, including when and how the world will end, and still believing one can affect it.” (Kublitz, 2023, p. 520) Roy isn’t silent in all this though.

Roy has something to say about our understanding of the word jihad. He wouldn’t agree that their jihad is as religiously valid. He says, “The notion comes from the Quran, and there is no point saying that it is primarily an effort made toward God, even if etymologically that is true. Etymology is never a reason for the meanings people give words, and jihad indeed had a military sense from the start as well.” (Roy, 2020, p. 12) His critique of etymology is valid however that’s not the claim Kublitz and I are making. Even Roy gives us the perspective of how to view these intersecting (and seemingly paradoxical) belief systems saying, “All levels must be considered simultaneously.” (Roy, 2020, p. 10, emphasis mine) Up until now, I’ve somewhat avoided getting into the complexities of the intersections between religion politics, and philosophy. On the one hand, I’m particular to Kublitz with her experience-near accounting of actual jihadists. Her arguments offer a robust explanation when compared to Roy's. On the other hand, Roy is doing a difficult thing in trying to understand terrorism and its underpinnings. There are real-life attacks happening that people want to understand and explain, and perhaps Kublitz doesn’t focus on that enough. In the end, I can’t say much about the politics and religion of it all. To me, the philosophical underpinnings need to be rectified, and then specific analyses of political or religious perspectives can provide more fruitful insight.

In conclusion, it seems nearly impossible to ever attribute a jihadist’s motivations to a specific religious or political ideology or underpinning. Solely calling them nihilists fails to recognize the hopeful accounts of Kublitz. However, they’re not solely optimists either. Terrorist attacks do occur, and their motivations are complex. It can be hard to even think optimistically about such a subject matter. Through it all though I’ve shown how an enmeshment of the two ideas allows for greater analytical space within the concepts offered by the two authors. Through the lens of optimistic nihilism we can see how regardless of politics or religion, a soldier or terrorist can have an optimistic outlook while still understanding the nearly meaningless part they have to play in the divine grand scheme.