Freedom and purpose are not mutually exclusive, but there can be conflict between each other.
Nihilism does not ensures freedom, but a nihilist can be free in some aspects and yet constrained in others. — Josh Lee

Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ).

If the nihilist is emotionally comfortable in their mentality, then the mental state is resolved.
However, if the nihilist is emotionally uncomfortable in their mental predicament, then some sort of resolution is required. The emotional discomfort provides the impetus for change - towards a more integrated and emotionally comfortable mentality.

I haven’t seen the Joker, but I would be willing to bet he is trying to satisfy some sort of emotional need, or reach an emotionally comfortable state . Batman achieves this emotionally comfortable state through different means.

We need to be emotionally comfortable with and optimistic about our conceptions of reality, and self.
If you have something like this understanding as a basis, then you can explain freedom and purpose in terms of it.

Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ). — Pop

Curious what happens when you dissociate emotional state? Like you become somewhat stoic or like a monk. Does that mean that every action happens out of your mental state?

Does that mean that every action happens out of your mental state? — Josh Lee

In the absolute sense yes, but there may be trivial actions where mental states don't count for much.
However for the important decisions, where purpose and freedom are in conflict we tend to choose that which brings the most net happiness. This is sensible and even crucial, as depression is the absence of enjoyment in life, and it is not conducive to survival.

Stoics conquer desire, monks have eternal happiness in the afterlife. We all put it together differently, but to much the same end.

However for the important decisions, where purpose and freedom are in conflict we tend to choose that which brings the most net happiness. — Pop

Haha I like the term net happiness, I know we subconsciously do it, however when used like that, I imagine playing The Sims where there’s a happiness meter.

Stoics conquer desire, monks have eternal happiness in the afterlife. We all put it together differently, but to much the same end. — Pop

Ahhh ok, thanks for the clarification.

In response, I would say that purpose at its core involves meaning, — Mickey

I agree.

and meaning in general presupposes beliefs and assumptions. — Mickey

This may be backwards. Don’t beliefs and assumptions presuppose meaning?

Assumptions and beliefs are in essence delimiting. They describe the boundaries of some limit, which is always based on a set of axioms which can never be proven but are typically apparent in some manner or another. — Mickey

Can you give me an example of this? I’m having a hard time following what you mean. I’m not understanding how believing something limits freedom. I believe I exist. How does this belief have any impact on my ability to do what I want (freedom)? To establish that you would need to show that because I believe I exist it limits my ability to act in some way. Even if you use a different belief, let’s say that lying is wrong. That doesn’t limit my ability to lie. It happens quite often that people’s actions contradict their stated beliefs. Besides that, we always have the freedom to change our beliefs.

So, meaning and purpose are limiting in essence and based on something apparent which seems to conflict freedom, which is not limited by the boundaries inherent in meaning. — Mickey

Freedom itself contains meaning, right? So actually without meaning there could be no freedom.

Sorry to complicate things, but IMO any mental state has an associated emotional state ( qualia ). This emotional state provides the impetus for action / inaction ( purpose ). — Pop

Very well put. I agree.

If the nihilist is emotionally comfortable in their mentality, then the mental state is resolved. — Pop

I think this is what category I would fall under. My belief that there is no inherent meaning does not seem to effect how I feel about life and living.

However, if the nihilist is emotionally uncomfortable in their mental predicament, then some sort of resolution is required. — Pop

I assume you would agree that this is basically what an existential crisis is. And a resolution would consist of something akin to the Joker, or a rejection of nihilism. Would you consider it possible for the emotional state to disappear completely as a result of believing in nihilism? This type of state is what I was referring to earlier when I said that practicing nihilism is virtually impossible, because if you remove all meaning (mentally and emotionally) you remove all impetus for action.

Meaning is that which is typically thought of, for example, when we talk about the essential underlying nature of things, which distinguish one thing at their core from another, irrespective of whether we take meaning or beliefs to be derivative of one another. However, when we analyze the meaning of something, we are able to deduce that it is neither inherent nor fixed. In other words, it is not intrinsic to things and it is not constant or concrete, as some to think it seems to be. Freedom thus underlies the meaning of things. We are continually defining and redefining ourselves because at our core we are free. They can conflict with one another if meaning is taken in a fixed or inherent sense. Further, it is not that we can do away altogether with meaning, but that we are able to see it for what it is, and not take it as something that is ultimate or fundamental, and rather as a create process we engage in. In other words, we can engage in meaning freely without being attached, defined, or limited by it. It is our freedom that attests to something more fundamental in us than meaning.

Would you consider it possible for the emotional state to disappear completely as a result of believing in nihilism? — Pinprick

I don't think your emotional state can disappear regardless of the philosophy you follow, for the reasons we agree on, but it can be improved by it. Every consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, so must devise a unique solution for itself. You state you are a nihilist, but I would bet you have a personal spin on what that means, and what is wrong with that provided it works for you?

I like Yogic Logic ( my personally spun version ) - There, happiness can be had for no reason at all. All it takes is the understanding that you always create your own personal reality, cannot escape it, and that being the case why not create a joyous one? Learning to control your mind / emotions can lead to better mental states. Switching your mind off has a joyous qualia to it - for me anyway:smile: