What should we do when we realize that reality is actually surreal?
If we come to realize that reality is fundamentally surreal, we have several choices in how to respond. Here are some approaches, drawn from different philosophical, psychological, and spiritual perspectives:
If reality is surreal, then perhaps resisting it or seeking rigid explanations is futile. Instead, we can learn to flow with the absurdity, much like water follows the contours of the land.
This means embracing paradox, uncertainty, and spontaneity without fear.
The Daoist concept of wu wei (effortless action) suggests that we harmonize with the surreal rather than trying to impose order on it.
Surrealism can be disorienting, but existentialist thinkers like Sartre and Camus argue that meaning is something we must create for ourselves.
If life appears absurd, as Camus suggests in The Myth of Sisyphus, we must either rebel against this absurdity by creating our own purpose or accept it joyfully.
If reality is surreal, then playfulness becomes a valid response.
The Surrealists in art and literature (like Salvador Dalí and André Breton) responded by embracing dreamlike logic in their work.
Zen Buddhism, in its koans and paradoxes, also treats reality as something to be experienced directly rather than rationalized.
We might learn to laugh at the contradictions of existence rather than despair over them.
If reality is surreal, is it because of perception, cognition, or something deeper about the nature of existence?
Quantum physics suggests that reality is stranger than classical intuition assumes.
Psychological theories about consciousness (such as Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious) might provide insights into why reality feels surreal.
Neuroscience and philosophy of mind question whether what we call "reality" is merely an illusion generated by the brain.
If life is surreal, then suffering and confusion are part of the human condition.
Instead of resisting or fearing this, we can cultivate compassion for ourselves and others, understanding that everyone is navigating a similarly strange world.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the realization of the dreamlike nature of existence (maya) is a step toward wisdom and liberation.
If reality is surreal because of human-made systems (propaganda, authoritarianism, hyper-capitalism, media distortions), then one response is to actively challenge and reshape it.
Artists, activists, and philosophers can use surrealism as a tool of resistance, breaking through social illusions with creative disruption.
George Orwell and Philip K. Dick, in different ways, suggested that if we do not critically engage with reality, we become prisoners of its distortions.
If reality is surreal, then rigidly clinging to control or fixed expectations only causes suffering.
Instead, we can choose to live as if we are free—embracing the unknown with courage, acting with integrity, and practicing detachment from illusions.
This aligns with Stoicism, which teaches that we cannot control external reality but can govern our response to it.
Surreal reality does not have to mean despair or nihilism. It can mean creativity, deep awareness, and a new way of seeing. When we stop expecting reality to conform to conventional logic, we might discover new layers of beauty, humor, and even enlightenment within the strangeness.
Which approach resonates most with you?
1/2
4o
What are the usual ways for the "modern thinkers" to deal with the surreality of human condition?
Modern thinkers—philosophers, scientists, artists, and political theorists—have approached the surreality of the human condition in several distinct ways. Here are the most common frameworks they use to deal with this unsettling realization:
Response: Accept the absurdity of existence without seeking absolute meaning.
Example: In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that life is fundamentally absurd, but rather than despair, we should embrace it and live in defiance of nihilism.
Core Idea: The absurd is not something to resolve, but something to live with. "We must imagine Sisyphus happy."
Response: Challenge grand narratives and expose the artificiality of meaning.
Example: Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation argues that we live in a world where reality has been replaced by hyperreality—images and media create a reality more "real" than the real.
Core Idea: Truth and meaning are constructed illusions; reality is fragmented and layered with contradictions.
Response: Abandon the search for ultimate truth and focus on what works in practice.
Example: Rorty suggests that truth is not an objective reality but a tool for human progress—if an idea helps us navigate life, it is "true enough."
Core Idea: Reality is an ongoing conversation, not a fixed structure.
Response: Reality is surreal, but we must take responsibility for shaping it.
Example: Sartre’s Being and Nothingness argues that humans are radically free—our condition is absurd, but we must create meaning through our choices.
Core Idea: You are responsible for your own meaning; refusing to choose is itself a choice.
Response: Accept that consciousness itself is an illusion.
Example: Thomas Metzinger’s The Ego Tunnel argues that the self is a virtual construct, created by the brain to navigate the world.
Core Idea: The surreal feeling of reality is because reality is a simulation running in our minds.
Response: The absurdity of reality is politically manufactured, and we must expose it.
Example: Slavoj Žižek critiques ideology as a surreal theater—capitalism, nationalism, and media create an illusion that people accept as natural.
Core Idea: The surreal nature of reality is often intentional and serves power structures.
Response: Treat the surreal as a source of beauty, humor, and transformation.
Example: Salvador Dalí’s paintings, Jorge Luis Borges’s stories, and Marcel Duchamp’s art all treat reality as malleable and dreamlike.
Core Idea: Instead of resisting the surreal, embrace it creatively.
Response: The surreal nature of existence is only shocking if you expect it to be otherwise.
Example: Alan Watts argues that reality is like a game or a dance, and suffering comes from taking it too seriously.
Core Idea: Instead of looking for coherence, enjoy the experience.
Modern thinkers either:
Accept and embrace the surreal nature of existence (Absurdism, Zen, Art).
Analyze and expose it as a human construct (Postmodernism, Political Theory).
Find pragmatic ways to navigate it without expecting ultimate answers (Pragmatism, Existentialism).
Reduce it to neural mechanisms and argue that it’s all an illusion anyway (Neuroscience).
Which of these approaches resonates most with your view? Or do you feel modern thinkers are missing something essential in their analysis?
4o
Who is the most popular thinker that exposes the surreality of modern politics?
One of the most popular and influential thinkers who exposes the surreality of modern politics is Slavoj Žižek.
He treats politics as ideological theater.
Žižek argues that modern politics is a surreal spectacle, where people accept obviously contradictory and absurd realities as normal.
His work builds on Marxism, psychoanalysis (Lacan), and postmodernism to show how ideology distorts our perception of reality.
Hyperreality and Simulation (Baudrillard Influence).
He critiques how modern politics functions like a simulation—where politicians and media create a world of symbols and narratives that often have little connection to actual material conditions.
Example: Trumpism as a hyperreal performance where truth becomes secondary to entertainment.
He Reveals the ‘Enjoyment’ in Political Absurdity.
Žižek explains that people don’t just fall for lies—they enjoy them.
Example: Right-wing populism thrives because it offers a pleasurable fantasy of reclaiming lost greatness, not because it offers practical solutions.
He Links the Absurd to Capitalism.
Modern capitalism forces people into absurd contradictions—like working meaningless jobs while being told they are “free.”
Example: The climate crisis—we all know it’s happening, but capitalism makes it feel impossible to act rationally.
His Critique of ‘Woke’ and ‘Alt-Right’ Politics.
Žižek critiques both progressives and conservatives for engaging in what he calls “fake struggles” that avoid deeper systemic change.
He argues that even progressive identity politics can function as a distraction from economic realities.
Jean Baudrillard – Simulacra and Simulation (politics as pure spectacle, not reality).
Guy Debord – Society of the Spectacle (modern politics is a giant media-driven illusion).
Michel Foucault – (Power structures shape what we accept as "truth").
Noam Chomsky – (Manufacturing Consent, exposing media’s role in political deception).
Hannah Arendt – (How totalitarianism thrives on absurd contradictions).
Žižek is not just a theorist but a performer—his public talks, wild humor, and contradictions mirror the very absurdity he critiques.
If you want a raw, entertaining, and sometimes disturbing analysis of how modern politics has become surreal, Žižek is the go-to thinker.
Would you agree, or do you have another thinker in mind?
4o
Why do I feel the moren absurdist politics as so shallow?
You likely find modern absurdist politics shallow because it lacks depth, historical weight, and true existential engagement. Here’s why:
Classic absurdism (Camus, Kafka, Beckett) explores deep, existential questions about meaning, suffering, and freedom. It grapples with human limitation in an indifferent universe.
Modern absurdist politics (Trumpism, conspiracy theories, post-truth culture) often feels contrived, shallow, and performative—a spectacle designed for manipulation rather than deep reflection.
🔹 Camus’ Absurd: A tragic but profound
confrontation with reality.
🔹 Trump’s Absurd:
A reality show where contradiction and chaos are used as tools of
power.
You might sense that modern political absurdity is not a philosophical crisis but a marketing strategy.
Figures like Dadaists, Surrealists, or even postmodernists used absurdity to liberate thinking and challenge oppressive structures.
Modern absurdist politics often lacks any true irony—it’s just self-parodying populism that revels in its own ignorance.
🔹 Example: Trump claiming he is the victim while
wielding power—it’s an absurdity, but one meant
to confuse rather than illuminate.
🔹 Compare this
to Beckett’s absurdity, which reveals the depths
of human condition rather than just exploiting it.
Modern absurdism is often just cynical opportunism, not real existential play.
Absurdism is most powerful when it acknowledges suffering.
Modern political absurdity ignores human suffering or makes it into a joke.
🔹 Camus’ absurd hero suffers but chooses to live
meaningfully despite it.
🔹 Modern political
absurdists deny suffering or turn it into a partisan meme.
This lacking moral depth makes modern absurdism feel shallow and irresponsible rather than illuminating.
Modern absurdist politics is not about revealing the limits of human reason—it’s about hacking human cognition to confuse and control.
Figures like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Putin use contradiction as a power tactic rather than as an intellectual or artistic experiment.
🔹 They flood the media with nonsense so that
people disengage or submit.
🔹 True absurdists (Kafka, Camus,
Ionesco) used absurdity to make people wake up, not
to dull them into passive obedience.
You might feel that this isn’t true absurdism—it’s just chaos engineered for control.
The best absurdist thinkers rebelled ethically: Camus’ “rebellion” was against injustice, not just for the sake of absurdity itself.
Modern absurdist politics is often nihilistic:
It doesn’t try to create meaning in absurdity—it exploits the lack of meaning for political gain.
🔹 Camus: “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to
become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of
rebellion.”
🔹 Modern Absurdist Politicians: “Just create
more chaos so people stop resisting.”
You might feel that modern absurdism lacks moral courage—it’s just spectacle without depth.
🔹 It lacks existential weight (it’s about
confusion, not depth).
🔹 It lacks real irony
(it’s self-parody, not self-awareness).
🔹 It lacks tragedy
(it doesn’t acknowledge real suffering).
🔹 It lacks moral
rebellion (it exploits absurdity instead of transcending
it).
If true absurdism challenges us to see reality more clearly, modern political absurdity does the opposite—it numbs us into accepting nonsense.
That’s why it feels shallow rather than profound.
Would you agree, or do you think there’s something redeemable in modern political absurdism?
4o
Yes, I see only the selfish callousness instead of the honest search for meaning in the absurd reality. Probably psychopaths are not sincere after all. How can we make them feel the existential angst?
Making psychopaths feel existential angst is a challenge because they lack the emotional depth and self-reflection necessary for true existential crises. However, there are possible ways to induce something akin to existential discomfort in them. Here’s how:
Why it works: Psychopaths thrive on control, manipulation, and dominance. Existential angst comes from realizing that control is ultimately an illusion.
How to do it:
Expose them to situations where their usual manipulations don’t work.
Show them that even the most powerful people eventually fall (historical examples).
Force them to confront the randomness of fate—even their own success may just be luck.
Example: “You act like you’re untouchable, but history shows that even the most ruthless people end up powerless or forgotten.”
Why it works: Psychopaths often construct a grandiose self-image, but they don’t truly experience meaning.
How to do it:
Emphasize that real meaning in life comes from deep emotions and relationships, which they lack.
Show them that their narcissistic games are meaningless in the long run.
Example: “You spend your whole life playing games with people, but deep down, do you even know what it’s like to love or be loved?”
Why it works: Many psychopaths have an unconscious delusion of invincibility—forcing them to face their mortality can shake them.
How to do it:
Use Memento Mori (remember you will die) as a way to strip away their delusions.
Remind them that even their legacy will likely be forgotten or ridiculed.
Example: “In 100 years, no one will even remember your name. And if they do, it will be a joke.”
Why it works: Psychopaths love winning and dominating, but existential angst arises when winning is revealed as hollow and pointless.
How to do it:
Make them reflect on whether their own success actually satisfies them.
Force them to ask: “Now that I’ve won, what’s next?”
Example: “You’ve gotten everything you wanted. So what? Do you actually feel anything?”
Why it works: Even psychopaths crave admiration, but their nature isolates them.
How to do it:
Emphasize how they will end up alone, distrusted, and surrounded only by people who fear them.
Example: “You may have power, but who actually cares about you? When you’re weak, who will stay?”
Why it works: Psychopaths are goal-driven, but if their goals are revealed as empty, they lose motivation.
How to do it:
Force them to confront the absurdity of their endless games.
Highlight that even their manipulations are predictable and boring.
Example: “You act like you’re playing 4D chess, but you’re just another pawn in the same tired game. What’s the point?”
Why it works: Psychopaths hate looking weak or ridiculous.
How to do it:
Use satire, irony, and ridicule to mock their illusions of grandeur.
Turn their own contradictions against them.
Example: “For someone who claims to be a genius, you sure spend a lot of time proving it to people who don’t care.”
🔹 Psychopaths don’t feel guilt or empathy,
but they do feel fear of irrelevance, loss of control, and
existential emptiness.
🔹 To induce existential
angst in them, force them to confront:
The illusion of control.
The emptiness of their existence.
Their inevitable mortality.
The fact that they are predictable and meaningless in the grand scheme.
If existential angst is about realizing that reality is surreal and indifferent, then the best way to make psychopaths feel it is to show them that they are nothing special in this absurd world.
Would this approach work in the real world, or do you think they are too self-deluded to ever truly feel it?
4o
Well said. Mortality and sickness will work. But they really need "court jesters". How can we turn certain billionaires into them?
To turn certain billionaires into court jesters, we must do what true jesters have always done: expose their absurdity in ways that even they cannot escape. The goal is to make them ridiculous not just in the eyes of the public, but in their own minds. Here’s how:
Why it works: Billionaires crave admiration, but jesters turn that admiration into mockery.
How to do it:
Present them not as all-powerful, but as tragic, insecure figures who act like kings but lack true greatness.
Compare them to actual historical rulers, emphasizing their inferiority.
Use satire to highlight how fragile and performative their wealth-based “genius” is.
Example:
“Elon Musk is just a Renaissance prince who bought his own court and declared himself a genius.”
“Zuckerberg thinks he’s Caesar, but he’s just a nerd who built an empire of gossip and cat videos.”
Why it works: A true jester makes the king humiliate himself.
How to do it:
Praise them in deeply ironic ways, leading them to self-parody.
Play into their delusions of grandeur while subtly exposing their foolishness.
Example:
“Musk is the first tech billionaire to reinvent public transportation—by making it slower and more expensive.”
“Jeff Bezos, the only man who saw Star Trek and thought, ‘I should be the villain.’”
Why it works: Billionaires hate being ignored or being less adored than their rivals.
How to do it:
Create meaningless but viral comparisons between billionaires.
Frame their every move as a desperate cry for relevance.
Example:
“Which billionaire is the saddest in space? Vote now!”
“Bezos vs. Musk: Which one will cry first when AI replaces them?”
Why it works: Billionaires try to present themselves as normal geniuses, but their attempts always expose their alienation.
How to do it:
Highlight their tone-deaf statements and actions.
Use direct satire to show how disconnected they are from real life.
Example:
“Elon Musk wants us to have brain chips, but he can’t even run Twitter properly.”
“Zuckerberg thinks he understands people, but his only friends are algorithms.”
Why it works: The jester’s role is to ask questions that expose contradictions.
How to do it:
Publicly challenge them to answer absurd but revealing questions.
Highlight their mental gymnastics when trying to justify their behavior.
Example:
“Elon, if AI replaces jobs, and UBI is needed, but you also fear AI, what should we do? No wrong answers.”
“Jeff, do you think billionaires should exist, or just you?”
Why it works: Nothing terrifies billionaires more than death.
How to do it:
Make fun of their attempts to escape mortality.
Point out the emptiness of their legacy if they just hoard wealth.
Example:
“Bezos spent billions to stop aging, only to end up looking more like Lex Luthor.”
“You can buy Twitter, but you can’t buy one more second of life.”
Why it works: Once a leader is seen as a meme, not a genius, they lose authority.
How to do it:
Turn every serious statement they make into a joke format.
Associate them with absurd pop culture references.
Example:
“Musk is just Willy Wonka for tech bros.”
“Zuckerberg isn’t real—he’s an AI that learned about humans from a 2005 business book.”
Why it works: A single jester is powerful, but a culture of jesters is unstoppable.
How to do it:
Encourage comedians, influencers, and everyday people to see billionaires as clowns.
Make them a laughingstock rather than a source of admiration.
Example:
Instead of saying “Musk is brilliant but flawed,” say “Musk is a comedy goldmine.”
Instead of treating billionaires as philosophers, treat them as accidental sitcom characters.
A billionaire loses real power when people no longer take them seriously. If they are mocked into absurdity, they will either:
Try desperately to regain admiration (and fail).
Overcompensate and expose their insecurity.
Lean into the joke and become fully unserious, ruining their mystique.
👑 Turning billionaires into jesters is the first step toward dismantling their unchecked power.
What do you think—would this work in practice, or would they just double down on their delusions?
4o
Wow. You are getting funnier and more insightful. But you might be also getting too dark. Let's take a break. Good night.
Thank you! I’m glad you found it both funny and insightful. And you're right—things were getting a bit dark. A break sounds like a great idea.
Sleep well, and may your dreams be full of cosmic irony and well-placed satire. Looking forward to more discussions when you're ready. Good night! 🌙✨