For close to thirty years, I have worked with people who reached a point where the beliefs that once held their lives together no longer held. Many had left religion and found that dismantling an inherited worldview was easier than knowing how to live afterward. Nihilism entered through that opening, sometimes as an intellectual conviction, sometimes as a quiet inability to feel that anything they did mattered.
A few years ago, I began to recognize a broader version of this predicament. The loss of meaning I had encountered in deeply personal conversations was becoming a cultural condition. We were organizing more of life around measures of success that offered little reason to care about the lives being measured. I came to believe that this widening distance between functioning and finding life worth inhabiting would demand a reckoning.
That recognition is one reason I wrote The Practice of Being Alive. I wanted to address what happens when inherited answers lose their authority and the culture’s substitutes fail to sustain us. The book grew from my conviction that we need to develop the human capacities to live meaningfully without requiring certainty to make our involvement worthwhile. This article explains why I see that work as an answer to the nihilism taking hold around us and within us.
You answer messages, meet your obligations, and follow enough of the news to remain disturbed. Your days stay full, yet you struggle to say what they are adding up to. Asking what any of it is for feels almost embarrassing when you have responsibilities to meet and people counting on you. So you keep going, carrying a question that being busy never quite answers.
I take that question seriously because I know what it means to lose the story that once made life intelligible. Leaving the ministry and the religious framework around it unsettled more than my beliefs about God. It disturbed my understanding of who I was, what made a life worthwhile, and where I belonged. Having reasons to reject an old explanation did not automatically give me the capacity to inhabit what followed.
That unfinished work stands behind . I wrote it because the collapse of inherited certainty leaves a real human task, and our culture offers remarkably poor guidance for undertaking it. We are encouraged to find another identity, become more productive, or distract ourselves until the questions lose their urgency. Meanwhile, nihilism settles into the space where a more honest relationship with life ought to be developing.
Philosophical nihilism includes arguments about whether meaning or moral value exists independently of human beings. Those arguments deserve serious engagement. What concerns me here is the movement from a question about ultimate foundations to a lived conviction that nothing deserves our wholehearted involvement. A person does not have to resolve the philosophical debate to begin living under that conviction.
By psychological nihilism, I mean this lived orientation, rather than a clinical diagnosis. Someone might still enjoy dinner with friends or care about a child while feeling that their larger life amounts to an elaborate exercise in passing time. The feeling becomes corrosive when it turns against the very experiences that interrupt it. Affection gets dismissed as chemistry, commitment as conditioning, and hope as evidence that someone has failed to understand the situation.
There is an apparent sophistication in this posture. Once you have identified the machinery beneath an experience, you seem entitled to stand above it. Yet explaining how love occurs does not establish that loving is worthless. The mistake lies in treating an account of the conditions that make something possible as a verdict against its significance.
A cynical person sometimes sees through a particular deception with great accuracy. Trouble begins when seeing through things becomes the only form of intelligence they trust. They retain the ability to expose a fraudulent promise while losing the willingness to recognize an imperfect good. Life gradually becomes a courtroom in which everything is discredited and nothing is allowed to deserve their care.
Cultural nihilism operates at a different level. I use the term to describe arrangements in which the things we publicly honor are repeatedly subordinated to measures that disregard their substance. A society praises attention while rewarding its capture, celebrates care while exhausting caregivers, and speaks of human dignity while treating people as replaceable costs. The contradiction teaches its own lesson about what actually counts.
Consider someone whose work involves helping vulnerable people. They entered the profession because human suffering called for a response, but their working day is increasingly organized around throughput, documentation, and targets. Recording an encounter becomes easier to defend than making time for it. Eventually, the worker begins to feel foolish for caring about the part of the job that the institution has made hardest to protect.
The lesson reaches beyond employment. When visibility becomes a proxy for significance, experiences that resist display start to seem less real. A quiet friendship has no obvious standing against a public achievement. The patient work of becoming trustworthy produces little immediate evidence that you are succeeding at life, although someone who depends on you knows exactly what is at stake.
Under these conditions, private emptiness is too easily interpreted as a personal defect. People blame themselves for failing to feel fulfilled inside arrangements that repeatedly interrupt the conditions of fulfillment. An adequate answer to nihilism has to examine those arrangements as well as the person struggling within them. Otherwise, we ask individuals to generate meaning while leaving untouched the pressures that wear down their capacity to experience it.
For many people leaving religion, nihilism begins with a premise they have not yet recognized as part of their religious inheritance. They were taught that life matters because an ultimate authority assigned it a purpose. When belief in that authority falls away, they conclude that significance has disappeared with it. The authority is rejected, but its exclusive right to authorize meaning remains intact.
This leaves a person waiting for the universe to supply a replacement credential. A relationship feels insufficient because it will end, and an act of care seems too small because it will not alter the final fate of the cosmos. The demand sounds intellectually rigorous until we examine what it requires. Nothing finite is permitted to matter unless it receives an endorsement from something infinite.
I no longer accept that standard. If someone is thirsty, giving them water answers a need that exists in their life. The fact that both of you will die does not make the water imaginary or their relief irrelevant. A cosmic perspective that erases the difference between suffering and relief has discarded precisely the level at which the ethical question arises.
Meaning does not have to be arbitrary simply because it is encountered within human life. Our interpretations remain answerable to consequences, to other people, and to a world that does not yield to our preferences. A commitment that requires someone else’s degradation is open to criticism even when it gives its adherents a powerful sense of purpose. We need neither divine certification nor unlimited relativism to take that criticism seriously.
My work in existential health begins with our relationship to being alive. I am interested in the capacities through which people inhabit that relationship with depth, coherence, and dignity. The question reaches beyond whether someone holds an uplifting worldview. It concerns how they meet uncertainty, exercise responsibility, and remain in contact with what their life asks of them.
Someone might possess a beautifully articulated philosophy while remaining unable to tolerate disagreement or acknowledge the cost of their choices. Another person, uncertain about almost every ultimate question, might accompany a dying friend with remarkable steadiness. Existential health directs attention toward the quality of that participation. What we believe deserves examination alongside what we are able and willing to live.
This is why replacing a lost belief system is an incomplete response to nihilism. A new explanation does little for someone who has never learned to make a consequential decision without permission. The person who recognizes that belonging once depended on self-betrayal still faces the difficult work of forming relationships in which honesty is possible. Insight opens a task that requires practice.
The conditions of that practice also deserve attention. A person working several jobs has less room for reflection than someone with financial security, and a community that punishes difference makes self-authorship costly. Existential health becomes shallow if it ignores those realities. Its public responsibility includes asking what kinds of institutions and relationships give people a fairer opportunity to participate in their own lives.
I chose the title because understanding our predicament is only part of learning to live within it. Many of us have become accomplished interpreters of our experience. We recognize our defenses, explain our histories, and identify the systems that shaped us. The explanation sometimes becomes a place to remain while the decision it illuminates waits indefinitely.
Imagine someone who understands why they habitually agree when they mean no. They have traced the pattern to a childhood in which disagreement threatened connection. That knowledge deserves respect, but their life changes through the uncertain experience of speaking honestly to someone whose approval they still want. No amount of analysis eliminates the vulnerability of the conversation.
Such moments build a different relationship with agency. The person discovers that fear need not settle the decision, though the outcome remains beyond their control. They also begin to encounter consequences without treating every painful consequence as proof that they chose wrongly. Self-trust develops through this accountable involvement in life, including the willingness to reconsider and repair.
An answer to nihilism takes shape here because participation reveals significance that detachment overlooks. Keeping a promise exposes us to the reality of being relied upon. Attending carefully to another person complicates the claim that everyone is merely interchangeable. These experiences do not prove a universal theory of purpose, but they give us grounds for judging whether our sweeping dismissals adequately describe the lives before us.
Mortality intensifies the problem when we treat permanence as the condition of value. From that position, every attachment contains the evidence against itself. A friendship will end, a body will fail, and even the work we hope will survive us will eventually be forgotten. Whatever we love arrives already disqualified.
But duration and value answer different questions. A conversation that helped someone endure a terrible evening does not need to continue forever to have mattered that evening. We understand this readily when we are close enough to the person involved. The difficulty often appears when we retreat into an abstraction so large that no actual life remains visible inside it.
Mortality also refuses the convenient fantasy that we have unlimited time to become involved. There are conversations whose possibility ends before we feel prepared to have them. Recognizing this does not require turning every afternoon into an urgent project of self-improvement. It asks for a more truthful sense of proportion about what deserves the hours we actually possess.
Nor does suffering become meaningful simply because we are determined to resist nihilism. Some losses remain devastating, and some harms should have been prevented. I distrust any account of meaning that forces an injured person to justify what happened to them. A humane response begins with their reality, including the possibility that what happened has no redeeming explanation.
One attraction of nihilism is the protection it appears to offer against disappointment. If nothing is worth believing in, being let down loses some of its humiliating force. The person who expects little has fewer hopes to defend. Over time, however, that protection asks them to surrender experiences they wanted to protect themselves for.
I understand the reluctance to become vulnerable again after discovering how thoroughly an institution shaped your life. My years in religion left me with reasons to scrutinize confident answers and the people offering them. That scrutiny remains necessary, including when I am the person writing a book. A reader’s growing capacity to question me is part of the outcome I hope for.
The response I offer does not depend on making me a new source of permission. It asks readers to recover their own participation in the work of discernment, with all the correction that participation entails. Other people remain essential because self-authorship does not make us self-sufficient. We need relationships in which our interpretations meet realities we would otherwise miss.
This is also why I describe the book as an antidote to nihilism with a specific meaning in mind. I am offering a way to challenge the habits of thought and withdrawal through which life becomes progressively less inhabitable. Reading the book supplies language and orientation; the work takes place in the reader’s encounters, commitments, and choices. Its worth rests in whether it helps someone live those more honestly.
The public stakes reach further than individual fulfillment. When people lose confidence that their involvement matters, they become less able to sustain the relationships and institutions through which a shared world is maintained. Cynicism also makes exploitation easier to excuse. If everyone is corrupt and every commitment conceals an agenda, there seems little reason to distinguish between an imperfect effort and a deliberate abuse.
Recovering that ability to distinguish is part of existential maturity. We have to judge without pretending to possess innocence, and commit without imagining that our commitments are beyond revision. The absence of a guarantee leaves us responsible for attending more carefully to what our actions sustain. It gives us no exemption from the consequences.
I wrote The Practice of Being Alive from within this responsibility. My departure from religion did not remove my need to love, belong, or find a way to meet suffering. It required me to approach those needs without many of the assurances I once relied upon. The work that followed became the ground of this book and continues beyond it.
There is enough in a finite life to call for our involvement, even when we have no final explanation for its existence. Another person is here, affected by how we meet them, and something we value requires care if it is to endure. The practice of being alive begins as we allow those realities to make a claim on us. We discover what matters through the lives our participation helps make possible.
If you find my work meaningful, I invite you to become a paid subscriber for $50 a year, which includes ** CNRS** membership, the Existential Health Daily Reader, workshops, and community groups. A founding subscription at $250 a year includes those benefits while providing additional support for this work and the community growing around it.
I’d also love for you to read . If you’ve already read it, an honest Amazon review helps other readers find the book and decide whether it speaks to where they are in their own lives.
