What is illusion, and why is it that we cannot live without it? In his Four Quartets, poet T. S. Eliot writes, “humankind cannot bear too much reality.” Through our restless search for truth, we may arrive at some semblance. Illusion helps the human mind carry the reality that overwhelms us. It serves as a siphon, drawing from the vast expanse of knowledge and reality to which we are exposed. Illusion has social and political consequences. However, the nature of this expanse allows human creativity to develop freely because we are not limited to absolute truths. We must not fear the implications drawn from seeking an absolute truth through dialogue and free inquiry.  

The postmodern proposition is that truth is not objective, present and universal; rather, it is culturally determined and fragmented. French philosopher Jacques Derrida, as an example, suggests language is a process and does not pin eternal truth but rather acts as an unstable medium to convey and interpret. He suggests:

The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. It’s matrix — If you will pardon me for demonstrating so little and for being elliptical in order to come more quickly to my principle theme — is the determination of Being as presence in all sense of this word.

Essentially, language is the tool we use to understand reality.

Truth in flux

If truth dissolves in language, how can meaning exist? With truth in flux, does it actually exist at all? The postmodern vision submerges into the post-truth reality where truth does not exist. Even interpretation is futile because it is not concrete. In the political realm, this leads us to binaries where each ideology bears its own facts. There are no lies; there are simply different angles at which to view the fact. If truth is not a present reality, can facts exist? Why is reality so hard to pin? 

Can truth and reality be understood as a kind of fluid dynamics? Is this why we fear it? It is an object in continuous revelation to us, but we suffer the human limitation of wanting something eternally present. Each moment is sustained by the previous and subsequent reality factors into this continuum. Time distinguishes our angle from another’s. Dialogue with someone of differing character can be tricky because it invites cognitive dissonance. This brings us to the political dimension of illusion.

If we struggle to grasp reality, we also have trouble discussing it. There must be a shared body of facts for an understanding to emerge from dialogue. Is such a corpus itself truth or is it merely representational? Does it exist outside our perception of it? Why would it not, if we must experience it? Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand offers this piece of wisdom: “He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.”

Thoughts from the past

One strange contradiction of human nature is that we desire the utmost freedom for ourselves, our desires and expressions, but we seemingly want to limit such things for others. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes notes that without government, society would be a state of war; yet power is indeed an “aphrodisiac” in the words of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and can often corrupt absolutely. German philosopher Karl Marx also notes the contradictions of our social nature, which he blames on the capitalist mode of production that contrasts with our inherent cooperative nature.

These contradictions of self and other, safety and freedom, capital and labor, provide human nature with continual flux. Greek philosopher Heraclitus states, “Everything changes and nothing stands still.” Why do we construct meaning in the first place if nothing stable exists? 

Psychologist Viktor Frankl suggests meaning is essential to surviving human existence. In the internet age, when information is broadly available and richly diverse, our minds may be confused by the flow of perspectives and ideas. 

Somehow, we are still led by the idea that reality can be pinned objectively and that some interpretation is “truth.” Reality seems bifurcated, too complex and dynamic to suggest what this “truth” is. Can freedom even exist for the mind if external reality does not validate multiple points of view? Our views of reality are more rooted in our individual nature and emotional disposition than in the apprehension of facts. This article asserts that “ideology is about 40% heritable.” 

Perhaps meaning is not found through grasping, but through release. It seems reality is tricky to pin down because it is constantly shifting, saturated with perplexity and bifurcated. The path to meaning is puzzling. Maybe the path out of this conundrum is Wu Wei or zazen instead of critical analysis.

[Elliott Frey edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.