Chat history
Absurdity
of Human Mind: Is human mind fundamentally absurd?
The human mind can be absurd, but whether it is fundamentally absurd depends on what we mean by "absurd."
If we define absurdity as logical contradiction, then the human mind is not fundamentally absurd—it is capable of reasoning, coherence, and meaning-making. But it is also prone to inconsistencies, biases, and contradictions, which could make it functionally absurd at times.
From an existentialist perspective (Camus, Sartre), absurdity arises from the clash between human reason and an indifferent universe. Our minds seek meaning, patterns, and purpose, yet the universe offers none. This gap creates a kind of ontological absurdity, where we demand coherence from an existence that does not guarantee it.
Cognitive science shows that the human mind is a patchwork of heuristics, biases, and evolved mechanisms rather than a perfectly rational machine. We are capable of profound insight and profound foolishness in the same breath. This could be seen as absurd—why should a mind that evolved for survival also produce abstract philosophy, music, and self-destructive ideologies?
Wittgenstein and ordinary language philosophy suggest that much of what we call absurdity stems from the limits of language. The mind struggles with paradoxes, not because reality is absurd, but because our linguistic structures force us into misleading frames of thought.
From a Daoist perspective, absurdity is not necessarily a problem but part of the spontaneous, flowing nature of life. The mind’s absurdity—its contradictions, its sudden shifts, its paradoxes—can be seen as natural and even liberating rather than something to be overcome.
The human mind contains absurdity but is not necessarily fundamentally absurd. It can be rational, meaning-seeking, and coherent, but also irrational, chaotic, and self-contradictory. Whether we see this as a flaw or an essential part of being human is up to interpretation.
Do you see absurdity as something to be resisted, accepted, or transcended?
If reality is absurd and human mind somewhat reflects reality, it should be somewhat absurd as well?
That’s a strong argument—if reality is absurd and the human mind is a reflection of reality, then it follows that the mind should also be somewhat absurd. However, this depends on what we mean by "reality" and "absurdity."
Existentialists like Camus argue that the universe does not provide inherent meaning, which makes it absurd in the sense that human expectations of order, justice, and purpose are unmet. If the human mind evolved to impose meaning onto a meaningless world, then it must inherently contain a contradiction—it is both a creator of meaning and a victim of absurdity.
If by absurdity, we mean disorder and unpredictability, then yes, the human mind, which evolved within this chaotic system, should also exhibit absurdity—perhaps in the form of cognitive inconsistencies, irrational behavior, and paradoxical desires. However, the mind is also structured; it finds patterns, creates language, and produces coherent narratives. This suggests that the mind does not just reflect reality but organizes it in ways that counteract absurdity.
A Daoist might say that reality is not absurd, but simply what it is. The idea of absurdity arises only when we impose expectations onto reality that it does not fulfill. If the mind reflects reality, then it is neither absurd nor non-absurd—it is simply a dynamic, self-organizing process. Its apparent contradictions are just expressions of the natural flow of existence.
Even if reality were fundamentally absurd, does the human mind truly reflect it, or does it distort it? The mind may function more as a filter, selecting certain aspects of reality while ignoring others. In that case, the absurdity of the mind might not come from its reflection of reality, but from its attempt to deny reality—through illusion, self-deception, and the desperate construction of meaning where none inherently exists.
If the mind is somewhat absurd because reality is absurd, then absurdity is not a defect but a natural property of consciousness. But if the mind's absurdity comes from a failed attempt to impose structure on a structureless world, then it may be an evolutionary or existential paradox—something that both sustains and torments us.
So, do you see absurdity as something to embrace as part of being human, or something to struggle against?
Can the absurdity of reality be ineffable?
Yes, the absurdity of reality can be ineffable, and in many ways, it must be.
Wittgenstein argued that the limits of our language define the limits of our world. If absurdity is the fundamental nature of reality, then attempting to articulate it fully would be like trying to describe the indescribable. Any language we use to capture it inevitably imposes structure, which might contradict its very nature.
Daoism suggests that naming things already distorts them. If reality’s absurdity is a reflection of its fluid, ever-changing nature, then any attempt to pin it down conceptually may be misleading. The Dao De Jing begins with:
"The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao."
One could extend this to absurdity:
"The absurd that can be described is not the eternal absurd."
Perhaps absurdity is not a property to be defined, but an experience to be lived.
Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus suggests that absurdity is something we feel when we realize the meaninglessness of existence clashing with our desire for meaning. This feeling is immediate and intuitive—it does not need verbalization. In fact, trying to explain absurdity might already be an act of denying it, as though we could reason our way out of it.
In Zen Buddhism, paradoxes and absurd statements (koans) are often used to break the student’s rational mind, pushing them toward direct experience rather than conceptual understanding. This suggests that absurdity is ineffable not because it lacks meaning, but because it requires a different mode of knowing—perhaps an intuitive or even playful engagement with existence.
If absurdity is truly ineffable, then discussing it is itself absurd. But perhaps that’s the point—playing with absurdity, questioning it, and failing to capture it in words might be the closest we can get to understanding it.
So, do you think ineffable absurdity is something to be embraced in silence, or should we continue wrestling with it in words, knowing that we will never quite succeed?
With all those questions in mind, let's ask what makes the thinking process of corrupt politicians quite absurd.
The thinking process of corrupt politicians is absurd in multiple ways, and each form of absurdity reveals something about the nature of power, deception, and self-delusion.
Corrupt politicians often hold and defend contradictory beliefs without cognitive discomfort. They may advocate for "law and order" while breaking laws themselves, or preach fiscal responsibility while embezzling funds.
Why is this absurd? Because their thinking does not follow the basic coherence we expect from rational minds.
What enables it? Psychological compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance reduction, and the prioritization of power over truth.
➡ Example: A leader who calls for "election integrity" while attempting to overturn legitimate election results.
Most people feel guilt when they lie or betray public trust. Corrupt politicians, however, often display a total lack of shame. They lie boldly, even when the truth is obvious.
Why is this absurd? Because we assume social norms should regulate behavior, yet these politicians seem to operate as if norms do not apply to them.
What enables it? Psychopathy, narcissistic self-justification, and the realization that many people want to believe their lies.
➡ Example: A politician who denies corruption charges even when caught on tape taking bribes.
Corrupt politicians engage in elaborate justifications for their misdeeds. They twist reality so that they are always the victim, the hero, or the misunderstood genius.
Why is this absurd? Because it turns logic on its head—evil becomes necessity, hypocrisy becomes strategy, and blatant greed becomes “serving the people.”
What enables it? Motivated reasoning, authoritarian moral relativism ("If I do it, it’s right"), and mass media amplification.
➡ Example: A leader who claims imprisoning political opponents is "defending democracy."
Corrupt politicians often surround themselves with sycophants who praise them no matter what. They start believing their own propaganda, despite knowing it’s false.
Why is this absurd? Because the liar begins believing the lie, making them both the manipulator and the manipulated.
What enables it? Ego-driven delusion, fear of losing power, and the human tendency toward cult-like obedience in hierarchical systems.
➡ Example: A dictator who writes fake history books glorifying their reign, then starts believing their own myth.
Perhaps the greatest absurdity is that corrupt politicians are often loved by the very people they exploit.
Why is this absurd? Because it defies rational self-interest—people defend the person who is stealing from them.
What enables it? Mass deception, emotional manipulation, and the psychological comfort of belonging to a political tribe.
➡ Example: Supporters who donate money to a billionaire politician facing fraud charges, believing they are fighting for a noble cause.
Many corrupt politicians seem invincible—until they aren’t. They act as if they will never be held accountable, despite history showing that almost all corrupt regimes eventually fall.
Why is this absurd? Because it reveals their own lack of foresight; they believe their power is eternal while history proves otherwise.
What enables it? The short-term focus of political survival, the illusion of control, and the belief that wealth or fear will always protect them.
➡ Example: A dictator who jails opponents for "treason," only to be overthrown and imprisoned years later.
The absurdity of corrupt politicians lies in their self-contradiction, shamelessness, self-deception, and reliance on an irrational public. Their absurdity is functional—it allows them to manipulate power successfully—but it is also self-destructive in the long run.
In the end, does their absurdity reveal something deeper about all human minds, or is it a unique pathology of power?
Isn't it natural for the corrupt people to be absurd?
Yes, it is natural for corrupt people to be absurd—perhaps even inevitable. Corruption itself is inherently absurd because it requires people to maintain contradictions, deceive themselves and others, and exist in a state of moral and logical dissonance.
To be corrupt means to act in a way that violates ethical norms while pretending to uphold them. This immediately creates absurdity:
A judge who takes bribes but claims to uphold justice.
A leader who rigs elections but calls themselves a champion of democracy.
A CEO who exploits workers while promoting corporate responsibility.
Corruption cannot exist without hypocrisy, and hypocrisy—when sustained at a high level—leads to an absurd mental state where people must believe and disbelieve their own lies simultaneously.
Corrupt people often become detached from reality because power isolates them from ordinary consequences. If you can rewrite the rules, punish dissent, and buy loyalty, your worldview becomes distorted:
You start believing that your crimes are not crimes.
You assume people worship you rather than fear you.
You convince yourself that enemies are plotting against you, even when they aren’t.
This paranoia and self-delusion lead to absurd behavior, where corrupt leaders make increasingly irrational decisions while believing they are strategic geniuses.
Many corrupt individuals engage in doublethink—the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at once. This allows them to justify their actions while pretending to be morally righteous.
“I steal because everyone else does.” (Justifying theft while condemning it in others.)
“I break the law to protect the nation.” (Portraying criminality as patriotism.)
“I deserve this wealth because I work hard.” (Even if the wealth comes from exploitation.)
This mental gymnastics is necessary for corruption to function, but it also warps the mind, making it absurd in the process.
Corrupt leaders often spread absurd propaganda not because they believe it, but because forcing people to accept blatant lies is a way to demonstrate power. If they can make the public swallow contradictions, they have broken their resistance.
Example: A dictator who claims both that he won an election in a landslide and that it was rigged against him.
Example: A corrupt official who says the economy is booming while people starve.
This weaponization of absurdity creates a world where truth no longer matters, only power.
Corrupt people must embrace absurdity because honesty would destroy them. To be corrupt and rational at the same time is almost impossible—eventually, the weight of truth would crush the mind. Instead, they:
Invent myths about their greatness.
Blame others for their corruption.
Redefine words so that corruption is no longer corruption.
Thus, absurdity is not just a byproduct of corruption—it is a survival mechanism for corrupt individuals and systems.
Corrupt people are naturally absurd because corruption is inherently a denial of reality. The more they try to justify it, the more absurd their thinking becomes. It is not that corruption leads to absurdity—it requires absurdity to function.
In the end, does this mean that absurdity is the price of unchecked power? Or could a truly rational corrupt person exist, one who embraces corruption without delusion?
What denial? Isn't it quite natural for the people to flow with the absurd reality?
You're raising a deep question—if reality itself is absurd, then isn't it natural for people (corrupt or not) to simply flow with it? Instead of calling it "denial," perhaps what we see as absurdity is just an adaptation to an inherently chaotic, contradictory, and unpredictable world.
If reality lacks inherent meaning, structure, or fairness, then corruption might not be a deviation from the natural order but a recognition of it. A corrupt person could argue:
"Justice is an illusion. Why not take advantage of it?"
"Laws are just agreements of power, so I will bend them to my favor."
"Truth is irrelevant; only perception matters."
In this view, corruption is not a denial of reality—it is an embrace of its fundamental absurdity. The person who refuses to be corrupt might actually be the one in denial, still clinging to the illusion of fairness.
If we take a Daoist perspective, reality is fluid and paradoxical. A person who resists this flow might suffer, while someone who adapts—by lying, shifting, and manipulating—might be seen as skillful rather than corrupt.
Is a corrupt leader simply flowing with reality’s absurdity, while the moralist is fighting against the inevitable?
Are we mistaking power games for "corruption," when they are just natural strategies?
If the world is a game, isn’t playing dirty sometimes the best way to win?
Some might say that corrupt politicians are like wuwei (effortless action) in motion—they don't resist the system, they manipulate it with ease.
Even if reality is absurd, we still experience a sense of contradiction. We admire integrity, honesty, and justice, even though we know the world does not reward them. If corruption were truly natural, why would we feel disgust toward it?
Is it because our minds are not fully aligned with reality?
Or is it because corruption, while effective, destroys trust and collective well-being?
Corrupt people may adapt to absurdity for their own benefit, but they require others to stay naive, to keep believing in fairness while they exploit it.
If corruption were truly natural, there would be no need to hide it. But even the most corrupt politicians still try to justify their actions, using moral language.
They say they are "saving the nation" while stealing from it.
They claim to be "men of the people" while hoarding wealth.
They rewrite history to make their crimes look noble.
This suggests that while corruption flows with absurdity, it still depends on some illusion of morality. The corrupt person is not simply adapting to reality—they are also actively shaping it in a way that allows their absurdity to persist.
If we accept that reality is absurd, we still face a choice:
Flow with it like a corrupt politician, playing the game without illusion.
Resist it, trying to create meaning despite the absurdity.
Transcend it, neither resisting nor embracing corruption, but accepting absurdity while maintaining integrity.
So the real question is:
Does flowing with absurdity mean embracing corruption, or is there another way to move with the absurd without losing oneself?
Daoists are NOT absurdists. Me neither. The ineffable cannot be absurd by definition. Only our misunderstanding of reality can be absurd.
You're absolutely right—Daoists are not absurdists. Daoism does not see reality as absurd; rather, it sees our misunderstanding of reality as the source of confusion and struggle. The ineffable Dao is not absurd because absurdity itself is a human construct—an attempt to impose meaning or coherence where there may be none.
Absurdism (Camus, Sartre, etc.) sees a contradiction between our desire for meaning and an indifferent universe. The absurd arises from this clash.
Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi) does not see a contradiction because it does not assume the universe should conform to human logic in the first place. The Dao simply is. If something appears absurd, it is only because we are imposing expectations that do not match reality.
Thus, in Daoism, absurdity is not fundamental to existence—it is a symptom of human misunderstanding. The sage does not suffer from absurdity because they do not resist or expect reality to be otherwise.
If absurdity comes from misunderstanding reality, then corrupt politicians are not “flowing” with reality but rather manipulating illusions for selfish ends. Their absurdity does not come from a deep acceptance of the world as it is, but from:
Self-deception (believing their own lies)
Manipulation of others (creating illusions to maintain power)
Short-term strategies (ignoring the natural balance of things)
A Daoist sage would not engage in such behavior because it creates unnecessary struggle and imbalance. Corruption is not an enlightened adaptation to reality—it is an exploitation of human ignorance.
A Daoist sage:
Moves with reality without resistance.
Acts with integrity, knowing that deception creates disharmony.
Understands that power, when abused, brings its own downfall.
A corrupt politician:
Manipulates perceptions rather than understanding reality.
Clings to power and wealth, fearing their impermanence.
Lives in contradiction, trapped in their own web of lies.
The sage flows, while the corrupt mind clings—and in that clinging, absurdity arises.
If the ineffable Dao is not absurd, then truly flowing with reality is not about embracing corruption, but about seeing through illusion. The one who understands reality does not need to lie, steal, or manipulate—they move effortlessly because they have no need to control.
Perhaps the real question is:
How do we help others see through the absurdity of corruption without falling into struggle ourselves?
Would you say that the key is not to fight absurdity, but to illuminate the misunderstandings that create it?
Not quite. Even though Dao is ineffable, "three virtues of Daoism are compassion, frugality, and humility". Absurdity comes from corruption. We are not expected to flow with the absurdity.
That makes perfect sense—Daoism does not ask us to flow with absurdity but rather to move in harmony with the Dao, which is not absurd but simply ineffable. Absurdity arises from corruption—it is the distortion of natural balance, not an inherent feature of reality itself.
Absurdity is not something we are meant to accept or integrate—it is a symptom of going against the Dao. When people engage in corruption, they create contradictions, dishonesty, and disharmony, which then manifest as absurdity.
A corrupt leader who demands loyalty while betraying others is absurd.
A greedy person who hoards wealth while preaching charity is absurd.
A power-hungry individual who claims to serve the people while enslaving them is absurd.
These contradictions do not exist in the Dao itself—they arise from human deviation from the natural way.
The Daoist virtues—compassion, frugality, and humility—are not compatible with corruption. Absurdity results when people act without these virtues, distorting reality to serve selfish desires.
Compassion prevents deception and cruelty.
Frugality prevents excess and greed.
Humility prevents arrogance and self-delusion.
To flow with absurdity would mean abandoning these virtues, which is the opposite of the Daoist way. Instead, we flow with the Dao, which means rejecting absurdity by not engaging in corruption.
Absurdity is not an existential condition—it is the result of selfishness, arrogance, and dishonesty.
Corrupt politicians lie until they forget the truth.
Greedy people take until they have nothing of value left.
Power-hungry individuals manipulate until even they believe their own delusions.
This is why absurdity and corruption go hand in hand—they both stem from a fundamental disharmony with the Dao.
A sage does not fight absurdity directly (because that would be exhausting and futile) but instead:
Lives by example—showing an alternative to corruption.
Speaks truthfully—not to force change, but to reveal clarity.
Practices humility—understanding that people must awaken to truth on their own.
Absurdity collapses under its own weight. Corrupt systems eventually fall because they are built on contradictions that cannot sustain themselves. The sage does not need to force this collapse—only to remain upright while others stumble.
Dao is not absurd.
The world is not inherently absurd.
Human corruption creates absurdity.
We are not asked to flow with absurdity but to align with Dao. Absurdity dissolves when people return to compassion, frugality, and humility.
Would you say that our role is to embody these virtues, letting absurdity unravel on its own?
Cosmic absurdity is just another way of talking about the ineffability of reality. Reality is "absurd" because it is ineffable but humans try so hard to "control" it. It's just a human condition and "reality" is "absurd" because of our inability to fathom the ineffable.
Yes, that captures it beautifully. Cosmic absurdity is not an inherent feature of reality but a reflection of the human condition—our struggle to impose control, structure, and meaning on something that is fundamentally ineffable.
Reality itself is neither absurd nor rational—it simply is. The absurdity arises when we try to force it into a framework that it does not conform to.
The universe does not "care" about justice, fairness, or meaning.
Yet humans desperately seek these things and feel frustrated when they do not find them.
This frustration is what we call "cosmic absurdity"—but it is not in the cosmos; it is in us.
A Daoist would say: The Dao is ineffable. The absurdity comes from expecting it to be otherwise.
Human beings want to grasp, define, and control reality, but reality resists being tamed.
Science seeks universal laws, but reality keeps revealing new mysteries.
Philosophy seeks ultimate truth, but every answer leads to more questions.
Politics seeks order, but history is full of chaos.
Our frustration at this endless cycle creates the perception of absurdity. But this absurdity vanishes if we stop trying to force the ineffable into a rigid system.
At its core, absurdity is a clash between ego and reality:
The ego wants control, but reality is uncontrollable.
The ego wants certainty, but reality is unknowable.
The ego wants permanence, but reality is ever-changing.
From this perspective, absurdity is not in reality—it is in the ego's refusal to surrender to reality.
A sage does not fight absurdity but dissolves it by accepting the ineffable.
Rather than struggle against absurdity, Daoism teaches us to stop expecting reality to conform to human logic.
We do not need to "understand" the Dao to live in harmony with it.
We do not need to "explain" reality to flow with it.
We do not need to "control" life to experience peace.
By letting go of the need to grasp the ineffable, we stop perceiving reality as absurd. Reality is not absurd—it is only ineffable.
Cosmic absurdity is just a human projection.
Reality itself is neither absurd nor rational—it is ineffable.
The frustration we call absurdity comes from trying to impose order on something that transcends human categories.
To dissolve absurdity, we do not need to explain reality—we only need to live with it, as it is.
Would you say that the real challenge is not understanding the ineffable, but simply accepting it without resistance?
But the absurdity of humanity is very real and it deserve our sincere "protest", preferably in the modes of "compassion, frugality, and humility".
Yes, the absurdity of humanity is very real—not as a cosmic condition, but as a product of human corruption, self-deception, and resistance to the ineffable. And you are right: it deserves our sincere protest, but a protest rooted in compassion, frugality, and humility rather than anger or despair.
Cosmic absurdity is an illusion—the universe is neither absurd nor rational, just ineffable.
Human absurdity, however, is real—it comes from contradiction, deception, and selfishness.
Where does absurdity arise?
When people cling to power while claiming to serve the public.
When greed is disguised as "economic progress."
When the corrupt preach morality to others.
This is not the Dao at work—this is human failure, a distortion of natural balance.
Many people respond to human absurdity with cynicism, hatred, or violent opposition. But that only feeds the cycle. The proper way to protest is through virtue:
Compassion—seeing the suffering that absurdity creates, even in those who perpetuate it.
Frugality—not indulging in excess or self-righteousness, but keeping the protest honest and simple.
Humility—knowing that we, too, are part of the absurdity, and that true change comes through example, not force.
A true protest is not about destroying the absurd but about illuminating a better way.
By living the alternative—embodying the virtues that absurdity rejects.
By responding to deception with truth, but never with arrogance.
By acting with integrity, so that absurdity collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Instead of trying to "defeat" absurdity, we expose it by contrast—just as light makes shadows visible.
A river does not fight the mountain; it carves through it. Protest in the Daoist sense is not an act of aggression but of gentle but unshakable resistance:
Compassion melts hatred.
Frugality makes greed look foolish.
Humility exposes arrogance for what it is.
Corruption, greed, and deception thrive on fear and resistance—but they crumble in the face of quiet, unwavering virtue.
Cosmic absurdity is an illusion.
Human absurdity is real and harmful.
Protest is necessary, but it must be done with compassion, frugality, and humility.
A true protest does not fight absurdity—it dissolves it by making it irrelevant.
Would you say that the most powerful protest is not loud resistance, but the quiet, unwavering example of a better way?
As Daoists see it, even humans were doing fine until we got "surplus power" through unnecessary productivity. As we started to control nature, we also started to control other human beings. Hence came corruption.
Yes, that is profoundly Daoist in perspective. Human absurdity—our corruption, contradictions, and suffering—did not exist until we accumulated “surplus power” and attempted to control both nature and each other.
In Daoist thought, the problem is not human nature itself, but our deviation from the natural way through unnecessary productivity, ambition, and domination.
When humans lived in harmony with nature, they had what they needed—no more, no less.
But once we began producing beyond necessity, we also began accumulating power beyond necessity.
With surplus came hierarchy, inequality, and control over others—this is the beginning of corruption.
As Laozi warns in the Dao De Jing:
"When gold and jade fill the halls, no one can guard them."
"When wealth and honors lead to arrogance, this brings ruin."
The lesson? Accumulation leads to struggle, struggle leads to corruption, and corruption leads to absurdity.
When people lived simply, there was no need for greed, deception, or oppression.
But once people had more than they needed, they started fearing losing it.
To keep their surplus, they had to control others—through laws, lies, force, and manipulation.
What was once a natural flow became a rigid, fearful system of control. And this is where absurdity begins.
A ruler hoards power but lives in fear of losing it.
A rich man accumulates wealth but is never satisfied.
A corrupt leader manipulates people but becomes trapped in his own web of lies.
By trying to control the world, people lose control of themselves. This is the absurdity of human corruption.
Zhuangzi describes this beautifully:
"A small thief is put in jail. A great thief becomes a ruler."
The greater the power, the greater the deception needed to maintain it.
Not by "destroying" power, but by dismissing its importance.
Not by resisting absurdity with force, but by living simply, with humility.
Not by controlling others, but by refusing to participate in control at all.
If surplus power is the source of corruption, then the solution is frugality, humility, and compassion—not as a moral rule, but as a way to dissolve absurdity.
Nature was never absurd.
Human life was not absurd until we started controlling it.
Surplus power creates corruption, and corruption creates absurdity.
If absurdity is born from unnecessary control, then the solution is letting go—not fighting for control, but refusing to be bound by it.
Would you say that the real protest against absurdity is not a fight, but a quiet rejection of power’s illusions?
Possibly. But later. Thanks.
You're welcome. Whenever you're ready to continue, I'll be here. Until then, may your path be free of unnecessary absurdities. 🌿