Dreams or Delusions

Written as part of the 2025 UIL Invitational A (Ready Writing). Completed in 2 hours.

Throughout western philosophical thought, emphasis has always been placed on the seemingly sanctimonious idea of truth: from Plato’s original justified true belief theory to Wittgenstein's characterization of philosophy to “show the fly the way out of the fly bottle,” the quixotic goal of achieving superior understanding has oft been left unrealized. In essence, though theoretical truths have been proposed by every self-proclaimed philosopher or sage, oftentimes living by those same maxims is simply unrealistic in a pragmatic sense, thus forcing the moral to abandon naive notions of perfection for realistic progress.

Consider prolific American author John Steinbeck’s analysis of self-deception through his work Of Mice and Men. Forged in the heart of the oppressive Dust Bowl, the work conveys the desperation of fictional characters George and Lennie as they delude themselves with ultimately unachievable dreams of property and happiness, slaving away on the selfish Curly’s ranch. Though the disabled dreamers’ wide-eyed fantasies are never achieved, their self-deception enables their continuous struggle in the face of endless poverty.

The use of dreams as a coping mechanism, whether due to boredom or societal oppression, Steinbeck suggests, is actually beneficial to the discouraged: although deception may seem inherently immoral and lacking confidence, dreams can serve as an escape from the chores of daily life — a life which otherwise may seem unbearably pointless. Ironically, through this assertion Steinbeck himself settles for a pragmatic approach rather than inner moral truth; the contemplative author encourages belying oneself rather than achieving total morality through condemnation.

This idea is furthered in the ever-divisive works of philosopher Albert Camus, through which he explores the concept of purpose in a reasonless, wandering life. Beginning with his work The Plague, Camus explores the various responses to the seemingly undeserved punishment of death through illness in a town. Whether it be the priest, who deludes himself into believing that the plague was a deserved punishment, or the doctor, whose naivety leads to eventual failure, the majority reject higher truth for delusion.

This exploration of the meaningless is only furthered by the innovative thinker’s infamous declaration that one “must imagine Sisyphus happy,” to find their own motivation in life. If we are to assume that life is meaningless — a conclusion many find, though I personally don’t endorse — it can often lead to a state of wandering. Suddenly left without a higher guiding purpose, the ‘wise’ are left to contend with a lack of intrinsic impetus to strive for success — whether monetarist or moral.

To reconcile two undeniably contradictory certainties — being forced to work to survive despite finding survival itself meaningless — Camus' assertion oft becomes reality. The once abstract thinker shifts to pragmatism, choosing to find meaning in small tasks or hobbies rather than become a nihilistic shell of a human.

Immanuel Kant, however, ever the hypothetical thinker, would rather condemn these pragmatic realities as immoral. The categorical imperative, Kant’s notion that a moral action must maintain its morality regardless of context, has been the subject of debate and controversy throughout philosophical research.

Notably, thinker Christine Korsgaard’s The Right to Lie invokes the famous ‘murderer at the door’ thought experiment: if a killer was standing outside one’s doorstep, would it not be moral to lie to them if it meant saving lives in the process? Though lying would go against the essence of Kantian morality, practicality necessitates a short deviation from ethical convictions for human survival — an innate sense of life which occupies the brain above all else. Ultimately, the realist chooses to lie, betraying their paramount beliefs for the sake of survival.

Despite this, an application of Kant’s extreme convictions to reality is seen through Chinese artist Ai Weiwei’s repeated clashes with the East Asian country’s infamous CCP regime. Specifically, in response to the deadly Sichuan earthquake — an event tirelessly covered up by the Chinese government — Weiwei published a blog revealing victim names, leading to his spotlight as a Chinese freedom fighter.

Rather than settle for an accepted reality pushed by authorities, Weiwei risked — and continues to risk — his own life for accordance with the truth. Though his actions haven’t been without consequence — slander, beatings, imprisonments, and starvation are all everyday characteristics of his life — the creative artist has achieved something greater: self-actualization.

According to famed psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the needs of the common man begin with the innate lust for sustenance and shelter, extending to more abstract requirements including love and affirmation. Eclipsing this hierarchy is the complete attainment of one’s aptitude — a term Maslow dubbed “self-actualization.”

When individuals have already achieved the basic necessities of life, they begin to face the same existential crisis that confronted Camus: lacking a ‘next step’ or plan to guide them, they begin to wallow in self-imposed reflection. Yet rather than concluding in delusion, Maslow’s hierarchy offers an alternate path: ultimate biological and psychological fulfillment.

Thus begins a climb of Everest-level challenge. By sacrificing sustenance for time and rejecting relationships for focus, those striving for actualization neglect personal commitments for a chance at something greater. Weiwei, Gandhi, Mandela, King Jr. — names of power, dedication, and sacrifice — names of those who have attained Maslow’s theoretical ideal.

Despite a higher moral goal to abstain from ignorance, I myself, as I am writing this essay, am unable to fully convey my holistic analysis of self-imposed cognitive dissonance, leading to disappointed acceptance of its current state. If I were to nitpick each and every sentence, crafting beautiful syntax with unparalleled clarity and diction, I would never finish — which would surely be worse than dissatisfaction, no?

Yet I still wonder: do these words of self-recorded wisdom truly represent reality? Or are they just another layer of self-imposed illusion?

Regardless, I must accept my current state, condemning myself to meaningless labor, never achieving my true higher goals —

Or do I?

Is it possible to find a compatibilist approach to delusion and reality? Should I continue to naively dream in hopes of eventual perfection? Or will doing so strip life of its basic canon: love, strife, anger, fear, success?

Ultimately, life is about the journey, not the destination, so maybe it is best to relax and let myself enjoy the process, right?

Or at least that’s what I’ll tell myself.