Nihilism originated around the mid-1800s, it was a shift from the social philosophy of that period which saw life as having a purpose and meaning usually found in God, or some doctrine religious, yet nihilism is the philosophy that dictates the meaninglessness of life; it leaves a hollow and empty existence. Nihilism is usually associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is often, although not a nihilist himself, Nietzsche wrote a considerable amount regarding nihilism and its implications as a philosophy. Nietzsche saw nihilism as a growing problem. He believed that if the world became aware of nihilism it would destroy all morality and meaning that man had created, this was because he would realize the senselessness of it all. Nietzsche argued that nihilism would destroy society, as it would eradicate any meaning or purpose that man sees in the world and create a society devoid of morality, chaotic and brutal, which would lead to the end of humanity. While nihilism takes and empties all meaning from all objective reality it fails to address the subjective meaning that exists. Nihilism suggests that an empty and meaningless reality would mean a halt to chaos without progression, or at least that's what Nietzsche warned us about. However, any observation from everyday life is a great example that contradicts this. A religious person for example is someone who lives a life full of meaning, now, while that meaning may depend on individual or subjective thinking, it is still positioned in how an individual's life is lived. The very idea of ​​people living life every day suggests that the actions of choosing to live must mean that people have at least some subjective meaning, be they religious, atheist or nihilistic... middle of the paper... and enough to conceive of Sartre's freedom and does absolutely nothing to help those who need help achieving "true" freedom that is, living life the way you choose. I think Marcuse makes very valid criticisms of existentialism; I don't think they deny existential philosophy but rather render it of very limited use. The strongest point I think Marcuse makes is against Sartre's portrayal of freedom, Sartre argues that we are all free, but how valid is this freedom when people are born into a reality that doesn't even give them the basic rights of food and water . The fact that people die due to social injustices such as hunger, disease and war does not excuse us who are more fortunate not to intervene since these people are not truly free and, more importantly, existentialism does not help those who face these problems.