Introduction

In nineteenth-century Frankfurt, a bitter old philosopher sat alone in a café, eating his lunch in silence, glaring at anyone who dared interrupt his thoughts. His name was Arthur Schopenhauer. He was famous for two things: his brilliance, and his contempt for the human race.

He once said that he preferred the company of his poodle to the company of most people. Why? Because, in his eyes, the poodle never said anything foolish.

Schopenhauer was not alone in this frustration. Centuries earlier, in the crowded streets of Athens, a barefoot philosopher named Socrates wandered the marketplace asking questions that made powerful men look like fools. And decades after Schopenhauer, a sickly professor named Friedrich Nietzsche warned that the greatest danger to a thinking man was not his enemies. It was the constant, grinding noise of stupidity around him.

Three very different minds. One shared problem.

How do you survive in a world full of people who cannot think clearly?

This is not a modern complaint. It is ancient. And these three men, in their own ways, built a kind of armor against it.

Schopenhauer: Silence Is a Form of Superiority

Schopenhauer believed that most human conversation was noise dressed up as meaning. He watched people argue, gossip, and boast, and he saw very little real thought behind any of it.

His advice was blunt.

Do not expect people to be reasonable. Expect them to be vain.

He believed that most people do not want truth. They want to feel important. And once you understand this, arguments become much easier to avoid.

Schopenhauer compared foolish people to poorly tuned instruments. You cannot fix them by shouting louder. You cannot fix them by explaining more clearly. The flaw is not in your explanation. The flaw is in the instrument itself.

He put this thought into a single sharp line:

“A man’s face as a rule says more, and more interesting things, than his mouth, for it is a compendium of everything his mouth will ever say.”

In other words, you often know who you are dealing with before the argument even begins.

So what do you do?

You stop trying to tune instruments that were never built to play your music.

This sounds harsh. But there is a strange relief inside it. Because once you accept that not everyone can be reasoned with, you stop carrying the exhausting burden of trying.

This is why he valued solitude so highly. Not because he hated people entirely, but because he refused to let foolishness drain his energy. Silence, for Schopenhauer, was not weakness. It was self-preservation.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Nietzsche: Contempt Is a Dangerous Weapon

Nietzsche took this idea somewhere darker and somewhere sharper.

He believed that stupidity was not just annoying. It was contagious.

Spend enough time around small minds, he warned, and you begin shrinking to fit inside their world. You start lowering your standards just to be understood. You start simplifying your thoughts just to be accepted.

Nietzsche called this the slow poison of mediocrity.

His solution was not gentle patience. It was distance.

He believed that a strong mind must protect itself the way a lion protects its territory. Not every creature deserves entry. Not every voice deserves influence.

Nietzsche warned of this danger directly:

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

The lesson is simple. Fight foolishness with too much anger, and you risk becoming just as small as the thing you are fighting.

But Nietzsche also warned against something else, something many people overlook.

He warned against contempt itself.

Because the moment you begin mocking foolish people, feeling superior to them, enjoying your own cleverness in comparison to their ignorance, you have already lost something valuable. You have let their stupidity define your identity.

Nietzsche believed that true strength does not need an enemy to measure itself against. A powerful mind does not need to look down on weaker minds to feel tall.

So his real teaching was this.

Walk away, not because you are better than them, but because your energy belongs somewhere higher.

Do not fight fools to prove your intelligence. Fighting them proves nothing except that you were willing to enter their arena.

Socrates: The Wisdom of the Question

If Schopenhauer taught withdrawal, and Nietzsche taught distance, Socrates taught something almost the opposite. He taught engagement, but engagement on his own terms.

Socrates rarely argued directly. Instead, he asked questions.

When a man claimed to understand justice, Socrates asked him to define it. When another claimed to understand courage, Socrates asked him to explain it clearly. Slowly, patiently, the man’s own confidence would collapse under the weight of his own contradictions.

This was not cruelty. It was a mirror.

Socrates understood something profound about foolish confidence. Most foolish people do not know that they are foolish. They believe they already understand the world. And you cannot pour wisdom into a cup that someone believes is already full.

So instead of lecturing, Socrates questioned.

Instead of declaring people wrong, he let them discover their own confusion.

This is perhaps the most disciplined form of dealing with foolishness. Not silence. Not distance. But calm, careful questioning that reveals the truth without ever raising your voice.

Socrates is remembered for one humble admission above all:

“I know that I know nothing.”

And he offered a second warning worth carrying into every difficult conversation:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”

This single idea carried more power than any argument he ever won. Because true wisdom begins with humility, and foolishness almost always begins with false certainty.

Three Paths, One Lesson

Schopenhauer withdrew into silence. Nietzsche demanded distance. Socrates used gentle questioning as a mirror. Different methods. Same core belief.

You cannot force wisdom onto an unwilling mind.

Every day, the world offers endless opportunities to argue. Social media, family debates, workplace disagreements, strangers online who are certain of things they barely understand. And every single time, you face the same choice these three philosophers faced centuries ago.

Do you fight? Do you walk away? Do you question calmly and let the other person see themselves clearly?

There is no single correct answer. But there is a single correct principle underneath all three approaches.

Guard your mind first. Everything else is secondary.

Because the true danger of stupid people is not their opinions. It is what those opinions can do to you if you let them in unguarded. Anger. Frustration. Wasted hours. A mind pulled downward into noise instead of rising toward clarity.

Conclusion

Not every fool deserves your silence. Not every fool deserves your questions. And certainly, no fool deserves your anger.

Schopenhauer would tell you to walk away. Nietzsche would tell you not to shrink yourself to their level. Socrates would tell you to ask one simple question and let them hear their own confusion.

Three different men, three different centuries, one shared understanding.

The mind that reacts to every provocation is a mind that is never truly free.

And so the real skill in life is not learning how to defeat stupid people.

It is learning how to remain wise in their presence, without losing yourself to their noise.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee.☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

There is a particular kind of person who has spent their entire life carrying a weight they never agreed to hold. Not the weight of failure. Not even the weight of loss. Something quieter. Something that started so early they no longer remember a version of themselves without it. The weight of what everyone else believed they would become.

A parent’s unspoken hope. A teacher’s off-hand comment that became a verdict. A family’s need for someone to be the reliable one. The successful one. The one who finally makes it, so that the weight everyone else was carrying could finally be set down on someone new.

And so it was set down on you.

You didn’t choose this. No one sits a child down and asks whether they consent to becoming the vessel for other people’s unmet dreams.

It simply happens in small increments, in the space between what was said and what was implied. A look of pride that only appeared when you achieved something. A silence that only broke when you failed. You learned faster than you should have had to that love in your household came with conditions attached, even when no one ever spoke the word condition out loud.

That silence taught you more than any lecture could have. You became fluent in reading rooms before you were fluent in reading yourself. You knew what your presence needed to look like at the dinner table, in the classroom, in front of relatives who measured you against cousins you never asked to compete with. You performed competence before you understood what competence even meant to you personally, separate from what it meant to everyone watching.

The Mask You Learned to Wear

This is not ambition. This is architecture.

Carl Jung spent decades studying what he called the persona, the mask a person constructs to meet the demands of the outside world. He believed the persona was not inherently dishonest. It was necessary, even useful, a kind of social skin that lets a person move through the world without constant exposure. But he warned of something specific, something most people never fully absorb until the cost has already been paid.

He said,

“The danger is not wearing the mask. The danger is forgetting there was ever a face beneath it.”

You built your mask early. You built it well. It was praised, rewarded, reinforced at every stage because it was exactly the mask everyone around you needed to see.

The high achiever, the dependable one, the one who never causes problems, who exceeds expectations quietly without complaint, without asking what any of it costs. No one asked what it cost. Because the mask works so well that eventually even you stopped remembering it was a mask.

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that doesn’t come from doing too much. It comes from doing the right things for the wrong reasons for so long that you lose the ability to tell the difference between your own desire and the desire that was installed in you before you could object.

You chase achievements and feel nothing when you reach them. You receive praise and feel a strange hollowness underneath it because the praise was always for the mask, never for whatever remains underneath it. That hollowness is not a flaw in you. It is information.

It is the part of you that has been trying quietly and for years to tell you that the life you were building was not entirely designed by you. And that voice does not go away simply because you ignore it. It waits. It gathers weight of its own. A second weight running silently underneath the first until one day, usually without warning, it becomes loud enough that it cannot be ignored any longer.

The moment it becomes loud enough usually doesn’t announce itself as a crisis. It arrives disguised as something smaller. A promotion you worked years for and the strange emptiness that follows it. A relationship everyone approves of and the quiet dread you feel when you imagine spending the next 40 years inside it. A milestone that should have felt like arrival and instead feels like standing in a room you don’t recognize. Wearing clothes that were chosen by someone else.

You look around at the life you built and ask a question you were never permitted to ask before.

Whose life is this?

It is a dangerous question, not because the answer will destroy you, but because the answer might implicate everyone you love. It might mean the parent who sacrificed so much did so while quietly shaping you into someone who could repay a debt you never incurred. It might mean the approval you spent your whole life chasing was never actually about you at all. It was about them, about their own unmet longing, projected forward onto a child who was simply too young, too dependent, too eager for love to say no.

Children rarely say no to the people who feed them. So you said yes again and again in a thousand small ways until yes became the only word you knew how to offer the world.

Yes to the career they wanted for you. Yes to the version of success that photographed well at family gatherings. Yes to the partner who fit the picture even when something quieter inside you sensed a mismatch it did not yet have language for.

And here is the part almost no one tells you. Saying yes for long enough doesn’t just shape your choices; it reshapes your desires. You stop wanting what you actually want and start wanting what you were trained to want so thoroughly that the two become indistinguishable.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

When Expectation Becomes an Inner Voice

This is not weakness. This is conditioning. Operating exactly the way conditioning is designed to operate quietly, invisibly, for years until the person doing the conditioning is no longer even necessary. You do it to yourself.

Now you’ve internalized the expectation so completely that you police your own desires before anyone else has the chance. You became your own warden.

Jung had a phrase for the layer of the mind that absorbs these external demands and turns them into internal law. He called it the super ego’s shadow cousin. Though psychologists after him gave it other names. What matters is not the label. What matters is the mechanism.

A voice forms inside you early, built from every expectation you were ever handed. And it speaks in the first person. It says,

“I should.”

It says,

“I have to.”

It says,

“I’m not allowed to want that.”

And because it speaks in your own voice, using your own pronouns, you mistake it for the truth of who you are.

It is not the truth of who you are. It is an occupying force dressed convincingly as your own conscience.

This is where the discomfort deepens because recognizing an occupying force means recognizing how long you’ve mistaken its commands for your own will. Every career decision made to satisfy a parent who will never truly be satisfied because their dissatisfaction was never actually about your performance. Every relationship maintained out of obligation rather than genuine want. Every version of yourself you presented at holidays, at reunions, at moments when the family gathered to admire the product they had collectively built.

You were not raised. You were curated. And curated things exist for an audience, not for themselves.

There is a specific kind of relationship most people never examine closely enough. And it is the relationship between expectation and love. Not the grand romantic notion of love, but the daily transactional version that operates inside families and workplaces and friendships without ever being named. The version where affection arrives on schedule, tied to performance, and withdraws just as predictably when performance falters.

You learned this economy before you learned arithmetic. You learned that a report card determined the temperature of a household for days afterward. You learned that a choice of career path could either secure a parent’s pride or detonate it entirely. You learned that certain topics, certain desires, certain versions of yourself were simply not welcome at the table, and so you left them outside quietly, the way you might leave muddy shoes at a door, without ever being told explicitly to do so.

No one had to tell you explicitly. The silence was instruction enough.

And here is where the pattern widens because it was never only your parents administering this economy. It became everyone.

The manager who rewarded overwork with approval and punished boundaries with subtle coldness. The partner who loved the version of you that accommodated and grew distant the moment you asserted a need of your own. The friends who enjoyed your reliability so much that your one moment of vulnerability was met not with support but with the quiet discomfort of people whose expectations had been disrupted.

People rarely tell you they preferred the mask. They simply reward it and punish its absence and let the pattern speak for itself.

The Hidden Economy of Love and Approval

Most relationships don’t end when respect disappears. They end when awareness appears. Because once you notice the economy, you cannot unnotice it. You start to see it everywhere and in every interaction that once felt like simple affection.

You begin to ask quietly and with a kind of dread whether anyone has ever actually wanted you, the unfiltered version, the one that exists before the performance begins, or whether every relationship you’ve built was actually a contract negotiated in childhood, renewed without your consent every single day since.

This is the point where most people flinch and look away. It is easier to keep performing than to sit with the possibility that the performance was never truly seen. Easier to keep achieving than to ask what happens to your worth the moment you stop. Easier to keep saying yes than to discover through the simple act of saying no that some of the love you thought was unconditional had a price tag attached the entire time.

Jung wrote about a particular kind of psychological death that must occur before genuine growth becomes possible. Not a literal death, but the death of the false self, the persona that was constructed to satisfy an audience rather than to express a person.

He believed this death was necessary and also without exception terrifying because the false self is not simply a costume you remove. It is loadbearing. Entire relationships, entire family systems, and entire careers are built on the assumption that you will keep performing it. Remove the mask and you are not simply revealing a face. You are threatening an entire structure that was built around its absence.

This is why the people who claim to love you the most sometimes resist your growth the hardest, not out of malice, out of dependency. They build their own sense of stability around the predictable shape of who you agreed to be. And when that shape begins to shift, when you begin tentatively to want things that were never approved of, the resistance you encounter is not really about you at all. It is about what your change costs them.

This is the part that most people cannot bring themselves to say out loud. So they let it live underneath every difficult conversation instead.

When you finally set down the expectations you were never meant to carry, you are not just disappointing a person. You are dismantling a role they had grown comfortable occupying. The parent who needed you successful in order to feel their own sacrifices had meaning. The partner who needed you accommodating in order to avoid confronting their own capacity for conflict. The friend who needed you dependable in order to never examine their own instability.

Your compliance was loadbearing for other people’s identities. And so the moment you stop supplying it, something in them destabilizes. And rather than sit with that discomfort, rather than examine what it reveals about their own foundation, they turn the discomfort outward onto you.

You become suddenly selfish, difficult, different, somehow changed and not for the better. According to people who benefited quietly from the version of you that asked for nothing, they will rarely phrase it this honestly. Instead, it arrives as concern, as worry about who you’re becoming, as nostalgic comments about the person you used to be delivered with just enough warmth to disguise the function underneath, which is control dressed as care.

People don’t resent your growth. They resent what it exposes about their own stagnation. Because if you could change, if you could finally stop performing a role that no longer served you, then the excuse they’ve been using, the one that says people simply don’t change, the one that has protected them from ever having to examine their own unexamined life, quietly collapses.

Your transformation becomes evidence against their own inertia. And evidence, when it implicates someone who was not prepared to be implicated, rarely produces gratitude. It produces resistance.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

The Unlived Lives We Inherit

This is where the psychological weight becomes almost unbearable because you begin to understand something that cannot be unlearned. The expectations you carried were never really about your potential. They were about other people’s need to see their own unlived lives finally realized through you.

Jung wrote extensively about this exact phenomenon. Though he rarely used language this direct, he observed that nothing exerts a stronger psychological influence on a child than the unlived life of a parent. Not their explicit teachings, not their stated values, their unlived life, the version of themselves they abandoned, the ambitions they buried, the identity they never got to become.

That unlived life does not simply disappear when a parent sets it aside. It goes looking for a vessel. And children, dependent, eager for approval, biologically wired to seek connection with the people who feed and shelter them, make extraordinarily willing vessels.

You did not choose to carry someone else’s unlived ambition. You were simply the nearest available container at the exact moment a grieving, unfulfilled adult needed somewhere to place what they could no longer bear to hold themselves.

This reframes everything.

The pressure you felt was never really about you being insufficient. It was never a referendum on your worth. It was the quiet transference of someone else’s unresolved longing delivered to you before you had any capacity to recognize what was happening, let alone refuse it.

You spent years believing you were failing to meet a standard. You were actually succeeding brilliantly at absorbing a burden that was never yours to carry in the first place. That is not the same thing as failure. It is the opposite. It is a kind of unwilling heroism performed by a child who did not yet understand what they were being asked to sacrifice.

Understanding this intellectually is not the same as feeling it settle into the body. And this is where most people stop too early, satisfied with the insight, believing the insight itself is the cure.

It is not.

Insight explains the mechanism. It does not dissolve the years spent operating inside it. You can know with complete clarity that the expectations were never yours and still feel your chest tighten the moment you disappoint someone. You can understand the entire architecture of inherited longing and still flinch at a parent’s disapproving silence the way you did at 8 years old, at 14, at 25.

The nervous system does not update on intellectual understanding alone. It updates on repeated felt experience. And you have decades of felt experience telling you that disappointing others is dangerous.

That fear is not irrational. It was accurate once. It simply outlived its usefulness.

And here is the disturbing part. The part that requires a particular kind of honesty most people avoid indefinitely. If the expectations were installed rather than chosen, then some of what you call your personality is not entirely your own.

Some of your ambition is borrowed. Some of your fear of failure belongs to someone else’s unspoken terror of insignificance, inherited and worn as if it were native to you. You have been living in part as a kind of psychological tenant occupying a life whose blueprint was drawn before you had any say in the matter.

This does not mean nothing about you is real. It means the work is separating what is genuinely yours from what was simply handed down and never questioned.

Individuation: Discovering What Is Actually Yours

Jung called this process individuation, and he was careful to distinguish it from simple rebellion. Rebellion is still organized around the thing it opposes. It is reactive, defined by what it refuses, and therefore still shaped entirely by the original demand.

Individuation is quieter and far more difficult. It requires sitting with a question rebellion never bothers to ask.

Not what do I refuse, but what do I actually want?

Absent any audience at all.

Most people cannot answer this question honestly on the first attempt. The habit of performing for an audience runs so deep that even in private, even alone, you may find yourself imagining how a choice would be perceived. Whether it would earn approval, whether it fits the story that has already been told about who you are.

The audience does not need to be physically present to still be watching. You built them a permanent seat inside your own mind.

That seat is the shadow you have not yet confronted. Not darkness in the dramatic sense, simply the unexamined presence of every expectation you absorbed so thoroughly that you forgot it was ever externally sourced.

Confronting it does not mean destroying it violently. It means naming it precisely every time it speaks until its voice becomes distinguishable from your own.

I should becomes whose voice is this?

I have to becomes was this ever actually true or only ever repeated.

This process is slow, undramatic, and largely invisible to the people around you, which is itself a kind of loss because you will not receive credit for doing the hardest psychological work of your life. There is no ceremony for setting down an inherited burden.

No one applauds the quiet moment when you finally stop chasing an approval that was never actually available to you on any terms you could survive meeting. You do this work in silence, mostly alone and mostly unseen.

That is not a flaw in the process. It is simply its nature.

What waits on the other side of that silence is not triumph. It is something quieter and more durable than triumph, which tends to fade the moment the next expectation arrives to replace it.

What waits is simply a life that finally belongs to the person living it.

However modest that life might look from the outside, however far it strays from the picture that was drawn for you before you had any say in the matter. It might mean a career that disappoints people who wanted something more impressive from you. It might mean a relationship that ends because it was only ever sustained by your compliance.

It might mean years of quiet distance from people who cannot forgive you for no longer supplying the version of yourself they depended on.

None of this is failure. It is simply the cost of finally living a life that was actually chosen rather than assigned.

Setting Down What Was Never Yours

And the strange disorienting truth is that this cost was always going to be paid by someone. Either you pay it now consciously with clear eyes and full understanding of what it means, or you pay it later unconsciously in the form of a life quietly resented. A body slowly breaking down under the weight of expectations it was never designed to sustain. A self so thoroughly buried beneath performance that even you eventually forget it was ever there to find.

Jung believed that the psyche does not forgive indefinite neglect. What is not consciously integrated does not simply vanish. It resurfaces usually at the worst possible moment and in the form of collapse, illness, sudden rupture, or a midlife reckoning so severe it cannot be ignored any longer.

The weight you are asked to carry does not disappear because you refuse to examine it. It simply waits patiently for the moment your capacity to keep carrying it finally runs out.

Better to set it down deliberately than to be crushed by it eventually.

This is not an invitation to blame the people who handed you this weight. Most of them were simply repeating a pattern handed to them by someone else. An unbroken chain of unlived lives, searching for the next available vessel, stretching back further than anyone in your family has the language to trace.

Blame keeps you organized around them. What you actually need is separation, quiet and complete, not from love, but from obligation disguised as love.

The two are not the same thing, and confusing them is how the weight gets passed on in the first place.

You were handed something you did not ask for and you carried it with a devotion that deserved to be recognized even if it never was. That devotion was never wasted. It simply needs to be redirected finally toward a life that is actually yours to build.

The most unsettling realization is not that the expectations were false. It is that you were strong enough to carry them for this long and stronger still to finally understand you never had to.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Most people just want to be good at one thing. And honestly, there’s nothing wrong with that. But some of us, we want more. We want to know it all. We’re not like everyone else. We’re like Leonardo da Vinci, a man whose to do lists didn’t say buy groceries or clean the house, but things like get a human skull, measure the city of Milan, what does the tongue of a woodpecker look like? For Leonardo, this wasn’t strange. This was life. He filled over 7,200 pages of notebooks with questions, sketches, and experiments. A living testament to his relentless curiosity. And this, combined with his habits and mindset, is what made him history’s ultimate polymath.
Today, I’m going to share 14 steps to becoming a polymath like Leonardo da Vinci. Don’t skip a single step. Grab a diary. Take notes, because this article might just be the thing that will make you a genius like never before. So, let’s get into it.

1st step

Leonardo da Vinci’s genius didn’t come from talent alone. It came from a relentless, almost childlike curiosity that refused to rest. He filled his notebooks with endless questions. Why do people yawn? How do birds take flight? What makes shadows blur at their edges? He wanted to know the texture of a crocodile’s jaw, the movement of water in rivers, the structure of a fetus in the womb, and even the tongue of a woodpecker. Nothing was too trivial or too strange for his attention. This curiosity wasn’t just a trait. It was a way of life, a daily discipline of wonder. He studied optics to paint light more realistically, anatomy to capture every muscle, and engineering to imagine machines centuries ahead of their time. He woke up each day not chasing wealth or recognition but simply asking:

What can I learn today?

To live like Leonardo, curiosity must become a habit. Follow your questions. Study widely. Stay playful. Turn curiosity into action. Be fueled by wonder, not utility.
Curiosity is the seed of polymathy. It’s the force that turns ordinary observation into extraordinary insight. Like Leonardo, we can choose to live in a state of awe where every object, every shadow, and every sound is a door to discovery.

2nd Step

Leonardo da Vinci wasn’t obsessed with utility. He was obsessed with understanding. He dissected cadavers to study the intricate mechanics of heart valves, not because it would make him rich or even because he needed to for a painting, but because he simply had to know. He climbed mountains and examined fossils to understand why seashells were embedded in rock at high altitudes.
He filled thousands of notebook pages with sketches of flying machines that would never fly and geometry puzzles that solved nothing practical.
Yet, it was this very curiosity free of agenda that expanded his mind beyond the limits of his time. Leonardo’s life teaches us something profound. Not all learning should be transactional. Knowledge is not just a tool. He studied birds, rivers, anatomy, engineering, music, and art, not because he was told to, but because he was utterly fascinated. It was this fascination that made him a polymath, weaving insights from seemingly unrelated subjects into revolutionary ideas.

3rd Step

Leonardo da Vinci believed that true understanding begins not with the big picture but with the smallest pieces. In his notebooks, he warned that a page cannot be understood in a single glance. You must read word by word, step by step. He applied this principle to everything he studied. A single muscle in the arm, the curve of a leaf, the shadow on a cheek. He wouldn’t move on until he could sketch that single detail from memory. This obsessive focus on parts before the whole gave his art lifelike precision and his inventions unmatched depth. For Leonardo, details weren’t boring. They were portals to mastery. The tilt of an eyebrow could reveal human emotion, and the angle of a feather could unlock the mystery of flight. He knew that rushing to see the whole without fully understanding each element would lead to shallow knowledge. That’s why his notebooks, thousands of pages long, are filled with endless studies of small things, seeds, hands, water ripples, gears. If you want to think like him, slow down and train your eye to see the unseen. Break everything into parts. Repetition builds mastery. Diagram your thoughts. Memorize and teach.

For Leonardo, details weren’t boring. They were portals to mastery.

4th Step

In his early years, Leonardo da Vinci was not yet the legendary inventor or anatomist we know today. He was an entertainer. He designed stage sets, pageants, and theatrical performances that blended artistry with engineering. His shows featured roaring mechanical lions, angels suspended as if flying, and dragons spewing smoke.
This playful work became a secret training ground for his mind, teaching him how to merge observation with imagination.
By conjuring entire worlds for the stage, Leonardo trained himself to see more than reality. He saw possibilities. That same habit of imaginative vision defined his later masterpieces. He didn’t just study what was visible. He chased what was hidden, unknown, and yet to be discovered.

5th Step

Leonardo da Vinci was the ultimate deep diver of ideas. When something fascinated him, he didn’t just scratch the surface. He tunneled down so far he practically created new worlds. In one notebook, he attempted to square a circle not once or twice, but 169 times, filling page after page with sketches and calculations. In just eight pages of his Codex Leicester, he documented 730 separate observations about water. And in another notebook, he compiled 67 different words to describe moving water. He obsessively measured every proportion of the human body, then did the same for horses, and even studied whirlpools and waves so carefully that his paintings of hair and rivers still feel alive today. His rabbit holes were playgrounds of discovery.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

6th Step

Leonardo da Vinci was often criticized for being easily distracted, abandoning projects midway or drifting into unrelated studies. Some lamented that this left the world poorer because of unfinished masterpieces.
But that criticism misses the point. Leonardo’s distractions weren’t wasteful. They were fertile ground for genius. By letting his attention roam freely, he built a mind overflowing with unexpected connections.
In the middle of painting The Last Supper, he might spend hours dissecting an ox’s heart. While studying geometry, he’d suddenly switch to designing water lifts or sketching birds.
These tangents gave his work a richness few could match. His so-called distractions were actually cross-pollination, a way to feed one project with the insights of another. To think like Leonardo, you need to embrace distraction strategically. See tangents as fuel, not failure. Let curiosity lead you wide, but return with purpose. Switch tasks to refresh your mind. Capture fleeting thoughts. Balance discipline with play.

7th Step

Leonardo da Vinci’s genius didn’t rest solely on imagination. It was anchored in a relentless respect for reality. Long before Galileo or Bacon formalized the scientific method, Leonardo was already experimenting, testing, and correcting himself. He refused to cling to comforting beliefs when observation proved them wrong.
For example, he once thought the earth’s underground water flowed like blood in veins. But when his studies contradicted this, he abandoned the idea without hesitation. His willingness to change his mind made him not just a visionary, but a true pioneer of critical thinking.
Leonardo’s notebooks reveal a man unafraid to challenge tradition. Instead of trusting ancient authorities, he dissected bodies to study blood flow, sketched rock layers to understand geology, and measured nature instead of theorizing blindly. His humility before facts was one of his superpowers. He would rather be corrected by evidence than be comforted by assumptions.

8th Step

Leonardo da Vinci turned procrastination into an art form. While working on The Last Supper, he would sometimes stare at the wall for an hour, add a single brush stroke, and walk away. To his patron, Duke Ludovico, this wasn’t laziness, but a creative necessity. Leonardo believed that great ideas need time to marinate.

Men of lofty genius sometimes accomplish the most when they work least,

he explained, because even in moments of stillness, his mind was actively refining ideas before committing them to the canvas. This approach is what separates idle procrastination from purposeful delay. Leonardo collected knowledge, studied every detail, and then allowed his ideas to simmer until they were ready to emerge. That’s why so many of his masterpieces feel timeless. They were given time to breathe.
This approach is what separates idle procrastination from purposeful delay.

9th Step

But Leonardo da Vinci’s relentless pursuit of perfection is both inspiring and cautionary. He famously abandoned The Battle of Anghiari and The Adoration of the Magi because he felt he couldn’t execute them exactly as he envisioned. Even with finished masterpieces like St. Anne or the Mona Lisa, he carried them with him for years, constantly refining and layering details. For Leonardo, a work of art was never truly complete. There was always another subtle adjustment waiting to be made. To apply this principle in our own lives, we have to balance Leonardo’s uncompromising standards with the need for progress. Know when to polish. Set a high bar for craftsmanship. Don’t rush the vision. Balance perfection with shipping. Aim for timelessness, not quick wins. Leonardo teaches us that perfectionism, when used wisely, is a superpower. It can elevate your craft beyond trends and time, but only if you also know when to release your work into the world.

10th Step

Leonardo da Vinci’s genius wasn’t grounded in abstract equations or complex formulas. He wasn’t a mathematician in the traditional sense. Instead, he turned problems into pictures. Whether studying proportions, mapping reflections in mirrors, or transforming one shape into another of equal size, he drew his way to understanding. Visualization became his superpower, allowing him to see concepts others could only calculate. When most people memorize formulas, they often lose the beauty and logic behind them. Leonardo refused to separate learning from imagination. His notebooks show countless diagrams. He drew cross-sections of skulls, gears, and rivers, making ideas tangible. Even his early understanding of optics and geometry came from sketches rather than dry theory. By illustrating everything, he merged science and art into a single language.
Visualization became his superpower, allowing him to see concepts others could only calculate.

11th Step

Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks are a testament to audacity of thought. He dreamed of flying machines centuries before planes, sketched diving suits before submarines, and designed war machines that looked like science fiction to his peers. He even attempted the mathematical impossible, trying to square a circle with just a ruler and compass. Many of these projects were never realized, but they weren’t failures. They were training grounds for genius. By stretching beyond what was possible, Leonardo expanded his understanding of the world and paved the way for ideas far ahead of his time.
Many of these projects were never realized, but they weren’t failures.

12th Step

Leonardo da Vinci was as much a dreamer as he was a scientist. His notebooks overflow with impossible machines, a massive crossbow larger than a house, armored turtle-like tanks, flying contraptions powered by men, and designs for a perfectly planned city. These weren’t failures. They were playgrounds for his imagination. He blurred the line between fantasy and science, and that freedom fueled breakthroughs. Even his studies of flight began not with equations, but with a childlike imitation of birds’ wings, imagination sparking innovation.
These weren’t failures. They were playgrounds for his imagination.

13th Step

We love the image of the lone genius, isolated and struck by lightning bolts of brilliance. But Leonardo’s life tells a different story. He flourished in collaboration. His early years in Verrocchio’s studio were spent learning shoulder-to-shoulder with other painters and sculptors, sometimes on the very same canvases. Later, he ran his own studio like a Renaissance startup. Students executed parts of paintings while Leonardo added the final master strokes. His most meticulous anatomical sketches emerged from partnerships with medical experts like Marc Antonio della Torre, and his theatrical designs thrived in creative teams at the Sforza court. Polymathy is not just mastery across fields. It’s knowing when to invite others into your genius.

14th Step

Leonardo’s curiosity was vast, but he kept it organized. His notebooks are full of lists that read like windows into his restless mind. Calculate the size of Milan’s cathedral. Ask the Benedictine friar about hydraulics. These weren’t mere reminders. They were a discipline of curiosity. Every thought, no matter how odd, was captured. To think like Leonardo: keep a question journal. Break ideas into action steps. Record everything, even tangents. Track your skills. Reflect regularly. Lists are more than productivity tools. They’re maps of your intellectual landscape, guiding your curiosity over years.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

It helps an independent writer keep creating, stay independent, and continue sharing ideas without chasing algorithms or trends.

Every cup of coffee helps fuel the next piece worth thinking about.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

When the Mind Starts to Crack

How many more blows can your mind take before it starts to crack inside? How many nights have you spent lying in the dark, staring at the ceiling, dragged down by thoughts that spin endlessly like a broken fan? And the strangest thing is that even when everything seems to be in order on the outside, inside there is a heaviness, a kind of emptiness that you can’t explain. You keep going to work. You keep talking to others. You even manage to have a laugh, but deep down something isn’t right. If anxiety is consuming your days and sadness has become that silent companion that walks alongside you, perhaps it’s because there’s a part of you that’s been ignored for too long.

What the Shadow Says

Carl Jung, one of the greatest psychologists of the last century, said that mental suffering is not a mistake or a fault, but a message from the unconscious trying to be heard. What we call depression, anxiety, or anguish could be the shadow of everything you’ve repressed, knocking on the door with increasing force. But are you really ready to look at it head-on? Jung’s vision confronts us with something uncomfortable. What if what you feel is not something to be fought or eliminated, but understood?

Instead of taking sleeping pills and trying to distract your mind with TV shows, alcohol, or social media, Jung would suggest another question: If your pain could talk, what would it tell you? Perhaps it would tell you that you’ve been living up to expectations that were never yours. That you’ve spent years trying to please everyone—to be the perfect professional, the impeccable father, the unshakable man. And in the process, you silenced desires, wishes, and even traits of your personality that didn’t seem to fit this character.

Depression for Jung is like a lady in black who shows up at your door. He used to say,

“If she comes, don’t kick her out. Invite her to sit down and listen to what she has to say.”

And what she might say is that your essence has been suffocated. It could be that old dream of becoming an entrepreneur, of moving to another city, of reconnecting with something creative, but which you’ve put aside in order to fulfill a role.

Symptoms and Signals

Sometimes your sadness is exactly a reflection of this, of a life that, however functional it may seem, has lost touch with what is true. Anxiety, on the other hand, stems from fear of the future, fear of losing control. It’s the discomfort of postponing decisions, carrying guilt, and trying to maintain an image that no longer matches who you are on the inside. The fear of failing, of changing, of disappointing—all of this accumulates until it becomes this tightness in the chest, this restlessness that takes away sleep. At the end of the day, it’s just trying to tell you that you need to change something.

Trying to look invincible is one of the silliest ways to get sick inside. Many men spend years maintaining an image that deep down no longer holds up—always being strong, available, reliable, even when everything inside is crying out for rest, for space, for truth. Anxiety in this case doesn’t come as a punishment, but as a siren from the unconscious—warning: no one can maintain a mask indefinitely without it coming at a cost.

This constant restlessness can be a reflection of a deep disconnection between what you show the world and what you really feel. Jung’s message in this context is clear: it’s not a question of eliminating anxiety or sadness, but of listening to what they have to say. The problem isn’t feeling; it’s running away. And the more we run away, the more these feelings grow stronger in the shadows.

Note: This newsletter is created by one person and will always remain free for readers. If you’d like to help keep it running, please consider supporting the work— you can buy me a coffee.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Projection, Persona, and the Shadow

Jung invites us to exchange repression for listening—to look head-on at the parts we avoid, the fears we push under the carpet, the emotions we suffocate in order to maintain an image of control. How many times have you found yourself angry, exhausted, or wanting to disappear and not been able to explain why? The answer may lie in what you’ve been avoiding feeling. Perhaps you’re ignoring accumulated frustrations, emotional fatigue, or a desire to change that seems incompatible with the life you’ve built.

It’s not uncommon to see men who spend all day solving problems at work, meeting family demands, being productive and responsible, but who, when they find themselves alone, face an emptiness that is difficult to name. And it is precisely in this silence that the shadow appears. Jung defined the shadow as everything we reject in ourselves—traits, emotions, or desires that don’t match the image we construct in order to survive socially. It comes from years of trying to fit in, from opinions you’ve learned to swallow, from desires you’ve had to hide in order to be accepted.

But what has been pushed into the dark doesn’t disappear. It just changes shape. The shadow can manifest itself as disproportionate reactions, self-sabotage, irritation for no reason, or a deaf sadness that accompanies the days. A man who tries to please everyone, for example, can develop anxiety because his shadow carries unexpressed anger—a legitimate desire to impose limits, to say no, to stop being nice all the time. Another who has become accustomed to never taking risks may feel a growing restlessness because they have repressed for years the desire to seek something different, to break the routine, to allow themselves to try.

These feelings are not defects. They are calls. They are parts of your being that are asking to be seen, heard, and integrated. And the more you ignore them, the more your body and mind will scream. Sometimes the emptiness you feel doesn’t come from something that has gone wrong, but from something essential that has been left behind. Think about how many times you’ve swallowed your desire to create, to experiment, to say something sincere because you thought it wasn’t the right time or that it wouldn’t be valuable.

Many people grow up in environments where creativity is seen as a waste of time, where expressing emotions is a sign of weakness, where being too direct sounds like rudeness. And so you learn to avoid conflict, to not cause problems, to follow the most acceptable path. But those parts that have been repressed don’t go away. They stay there, hidden, until they turn into a deep sadness that seems to have no reason. Jung believed that this kind of suffering is a message from the soul saying that you have disconnected from what is essential. It’s not just a lack of joy—it’s a lack of connection with what makes sense to you.

When we ignore our own impulses for too long, the body begins to show symptoms. It’s not just physical pain, but emotional states that are difficult to name. That constant feeling of tiredness, the irritation that comes out of nowhere, the exhaustion that doesn’t go away with rest—all this could be the shadow acting behind the stage. And the greatest danger, as Jung warned, is not the content of the shadow itself, but the illusion that we can go on living without facing it.

The more you try to be just what others expect, the further away you become from who you really are. And when that happens, the process of projection begins. In other words, you start to see in others what you don’t want to see in yourself. You criticize those who allow themselves to rest because you don’t allow yourself to stop. You reject those who show themselves to be vulnerable because you’ve learned that weakness is something to be hidden. But everything that irritates you most in others may be precisely what your shadow is trying to show you.

Facing the Shadow

The path proposed by Jung is not comfortable, but it is liberating. Facing the shadow doesn’t mean giving in to negative impulses, but recognizing them and giving them a place. This requires courage and a radical willingness to look at oneself honestly.

One possible exercise is self-observation without judgment—noticing the moments when you overreact or feel something that doesn’t make sense. These moments are clues. Another way is to pay attention to dreams. For Jung, they reveal hidden truths about the state of the mind. A strange, disturbing dream could be the unconscious trying to communicate something that is being ignored in waking life. In addition, writing can be an ally. Recording thoughts that you normally avoid can help you understand what’s really going on inside.

Because in the end, the shadow is not the enemy. The real risk is not in facing what you keep in the dark, but in pretending it doesn’t exist. Because as long as the shadow is ignored, it will find ever more intense ways of manifesting itself.

Carl Jung saw this process as an inevitable part of something bigger: the journey of individuation. It’s not about finding a new hobby or making small superficial changes. It’s about becoming who you really are behind the layers of obligations, social images, and external expectations.

This process doesn’t happen in times of peace. It reveals itself in times of crisis—when everything that previously seemed stable begins to crumble. It is in these moments, when anxiety explodes, when sadness paralyzes, when nothing seems to make sense, that the soul begins to demand a reunion with its inner truth.

Questions to Begin

From an early age, we learn to repress parts of ourselves in order to be accepted. Whether at school, in the family, or at work, we shape our personality to fit into ready-made molds. Jung called this social construction a persona. It’s a character you put on to live in the world, but it doesn’t represent the whole of you. The problem is that over time, this persona can stop being a tool and become a prison.

How many men put up with roles they can’t stand? How many continue in careers that don’t fulfill them, relationships that exhaust them, routines that no longer make sense, just because they believe that to change would be to fail? The body feels it before the mind admits it. Anxiety appears as a warning sign. Something inside you needs to change. But the fear of going off script keeps you paralyzed. Restlessness comes when there is a gap between what you feel and what you show.

A simple example: a guy who has followed all the right steps—college, a stable job, a family—but feels a tiredness that won’t go away. An irritation that can’t be explained. He may be living a life that makes sense to others, but not to him. In the same way, someone who has built up the image of the strong man who solves everything, who cannot falter, may be collapsing inside because he has never learned to ask for help. And his unconscious is warning him. He can’t live like this anymore.

Jung suggests that in these moments, the essential question is not

“What is wrong with me?”

but

“What in me is trying to emerge?”

Anxiety is not a sign of weakness, but of misalignment. It indicates that there is a version of you that needs to be born and that the old self is no longer enough. An identity based only on duty, external success, and control is crumbling. And what is born from this can be much more authentic, but it requires going through discomfort.

It requires the courage to let go of what has been built up with effort, but which no longer represents you. The anxiety that keeps you awake can be much more than an isolated symptom. It can be a compass pointing to everything you’ve been putting off—that desire to change your life, to risk something new, to reconnect with something truer. When you spend years ignoring yourself, pretending that everything is fine, the body and mind come together to send the message. And if anxiety is the wakeup call, depression is the collapse.

Individuation and Change

Jung saw depression as the symbolic end of a cycle—the fall of an old self that no longer serves. It’s not just sadness. It’s the emptying of an internal structure that has lost its meaning. It’s the moment when everything that sustained your identity—the job, the routine, the role you played—begins to crumble and you suddenly don’t know who you are anymore.

Think of the man who loses his job after years of dedicating himself to his career. At first it seems that the problem is financial or professional. But then something deeper comes along. He feels that he has lost himself because his identity was entirely tied to the job, the status, the function. The same happens to those who have spent years looking after the family, solving everything for everyone, and suddenly find themselves alone with the house in silence. What emerges is not just loneliness but an absence of purpose.

The mind collapses not because something has gone wrong, but because what gave meaning to existence is no longer there—and the new has not yet appeared. This emptiness is not a sign of weakness but of transition. Jung described this as part of the individuation process—the symbolic death of the old self to make room for something more authentic. But this doesn’t happen smoothly. The pain comes because we resist the inevitable. The ego clings to what is known even when it no longer serves any purpose. Anxiety increases when we try to keep everything going as before, even though we feel we’re breaking down inside. And depression deepens when we ignore the call to change.

It is at this point that many believe they are failing when in fact they are being reborn. Ending a long relationship, for example, can cause excruciating sadness. But this pain also reveals the chance to rebuild an identity outside of that bond. Leaving a company after decades may seem like a fall, but it could be the start of something more in line with who you really are.

Jung said that the most difficult task in life is to discover who you really are—not what others expect, not the role you’ve learned to play, but what pulses behind it all. Anxiety and depression in this sense are portals. If you have the courage to go through them, you may find a version of yourself that has been forgotten for a long time.

Final Invitation

Facing your own shadow may seem scary, but ignoring it is what really breaks you down inside. Everything you avoid feeling, every emotion you push to the back of your mind, comes back in the form of anxiety, stress, exhaustion, or even an existential fatigue that is difficult to explain. Jung showed us that these symptoms are not failures but invitations—invitation to look deeper, to stop living on automatic, to rediscover parts of yourself that have been left behind.

And yes, it hurts. But pain has a role. It indicates that there is a transformation taking place. Anxiety and depression, far from being just disorders, are expressions of a deep psychological process. They are parts of the soul trying to reorganize themselves after years of living outwardly, trying to maintain patterns, roles, and expectations that no longer represent who you are.

Maybe you’re at that exact point right now. Perhaps you feel that you’ve lost control, that you can no longer pretend that everything is fine. But that doesn’t mean you’re broken. It means that something inside you is trying to be reborn. That discomfort you feel could be the start of a new cycle—the exact moment when life is pushing you out of what no longer serves you.

And the only way to get through this is to allow yourself to feel, to observe, to understand. Pain only becomes something useful when we stop resisting it and start listening to it. You don’t need to understand everything right now or make any big decisions right away. But you can take a step. You can start to look more honestly at the signals your body and mind are giving you. You can ask yourself:

“What is dying in me? What is trying to be born?”

And from these questions, rebuild a path that really makes sense. Because sometimes, in order to find yourself, you first have to lose yourself—not out of weakness, but out of courage. The courage to step out of character, to let go of the old script, to allow yourself to be whole.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

It helps an independent writer keep creating, stay independent, and continue sharing ideas without chasing algorithms or trends.

Every cup of coffee helps fuel the next piece worth thinking about.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

The Abyss of Choice

Standing at the edge of a cliff, staring into an abyss of infinite possibilities, one confronts the weight of choice and the profound uncertainty of existence. This sensation, a blend of fear and exhilaration, is at the core of Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy.

Kierkegaard known as the father of existentialism, he delves deep into the human psyche, exploring the raw, unsettling emotions that define our journey through life. His ideas challenge us to confront our deepest anxieties, embrace our freedom, and ultimately find meaning in a seemingly indifferent world.

“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”

Life and Intellectual Background

Søren Kierkegaard was born on May 5th, 1813, in Copenhagen, Denmark. The youngest of seven children, Kierkegaard’s upbringing was profoundly shaped by his father, Michael Pedersen Kierkegaard, a devout Christian who instilled in him a deep sense of religious inwardness and existential introspection. Kierkegaard’s early education included theology and philosophy, eventually leading to his enrollment at the University of Copenhagen.

The intellectual environment of 19th-century Denmark was rich with Romanticism and Hegelianism. Romanticism emphasized individual emotion and the sublime, while Hegelianism promoted a systematic rational understanding of history and reality. Kierkegaard’s philosophy emerged as a critique of both, emphasizing subjectivity and the often irrational aspects of human existence.

“What I really need is to get clear about what I am to do, not what I am to know.”

This context is crucial to understanding the radical nature of Kierkegaard’s ideas and their departure from prevailing intellectual trends of his time.

Existence, Individuality, and Subjective Truth

At the heart of Kierkegaard’s philosophy is the concept of existence and individuality. Unlike many of his contemporaries who sought to understand human beings through abstract systems and universal laws, Kierkegaard focused on the concrete lived experience of the individual. He argued that true understanding comes from a subjective perspective, what he termed subjective truth.

“Subjectivity is truth.”

This view posits that each person experiences reality in a uniquely personal way, shaped by their own choices, emotions, and perceptions. For Kierkegaard, existence precedes essence. This means that individuals are not defined by predetermined categories or external definitions. Rather, they define themselves through their actions and choices.

This idea was revolutionary, as it emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and freedom. Each person must confront the anxiety and uncertainty that come with this freedom, making choices that are authentic to their own self.

“To dare is to lose one’s footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”

One of Kierkegaard’s key contributions to this concept is the idea of existential choice. He believed that life is a series of choices that shape our identity and existence. These choices are not just ethical or moral decisions, but existential ones that determine the kind of person we become.

Kierkegaard’s insistence on the primacy of individual choice and responsibility laid the groundwork for existentialist thought, influencing later philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.

Note: This newsletter is written by one person and will always remain free. If you’d like to help sustain the work, buying a coffee is a simple way to do it.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Anxiety, Despair, and the Human Condition

In Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy, anxiety, or angst, is a central concept that reflects the profound human experience of facing freedom and potentiality. Unlike fear, which is directed toward something specific, anxiety is a more generalized feeling without a specific object. It arises from the awareness of our freedom and the realization of infinite possibilities.

“Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”

This existential anxiety is not merely a psychological state but a fundamental aspect of the human condition, deeply intertwined with the concepts of freedom, choice, and selfhood. Kierkegaard argues that anxiety is a necessary condition for authentic existence.

In his work The Concept of Anxiety, he describes anxiety as the dizziness of freedom. This dizziness occurs when individuals become aware of their capacity to make undetermined choices. This realization can be overwhelming because it highlights the responsibility each person bears for their actions and consequences.

The experience of anxiety reveals the potential for self-transformation and the creation of one’s identity. It is through facing and embracing anxiety that individuals can move beyond mere conformism and societal expectations to achieve authentic selfhood.

“The self is a relation that relates itself to itself.”

In this sense, anxiety is a catalyst for personal growth and existential development. It prompts individuals to reflect on their values, beliefs, and the direction of their lives, leading to a deeper understanding of themselves and their place in the world.

Kierkegaard also explores the relationship between anxiety and despair in his work The Sickness Unto Death. He posits that despair arises when individuals fail to reconcile their finite selves with their infinite potential. This misalignment often results from an inability to accept and integrate the freedom and responsibility that come with human existence.

“The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very quietly in the world.”

Anxiety in this context is both a symptom and a cause of despair. It reflects the struggle to find meaning and coherence in a seemingly indifferent or chaotic world. However, Kierkegaard views despair not as a purely negative state but as an opportunity for self-reflection and transformation.

By confronting and working through despair, individuals can achieve a deeper understanding of themselves and their existential purpose. This process involves embracing anxiety as a natural and necessary aspect of human life rather than something to be avoided or suppressed.

Kierkegaard’s insights into anxiety remain highly relevant in contemporary discussions of existential psychology and philosophy. In a modern context, anxiety is often viewed through a clinical lens, with a focus on its symptoms and treatments. However, Kierkegaard’s existential perspective offers a deeper, more nuanced understanding of anxiety as an intrinsic part of the human experience.

His emphasis on the constructive potential of anxiety challenges the common perception of it as merely a disorder to be cured. Instead, Kierkegaard encourages us to see anxiety as a sign of our freedom and potential for growth.

Faith, the Leap, and the Stages of Life

The leap of faith. Kierkegaard’s notion of faith goes beyond conventional religious belief. He introduced the concept of the leap of faith to describe the act of believing in something without rational proof. This leap is not an irrational denial of reason but a transcendence of reason.

“Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty.”

For Kierkegaard, true faith involves embracing uncertainty and making a personal commitment despite the absence of objective evidence. This concept is vividly illustrated in his work Fear and Trembling, where he analyzes the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac.

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, despite the moral and rational absurdity of the act, exemplifies the leap of faith. Abraham acts not out of ethical duty but out of absolute faith in God’s command. Kierkegaard calls this the theological suspension of the ethical, where ethical norms are suspended in favor of a higher divine purpose.

“The absurd is that I must believe.”

The leap of faith highlights Kierkegaard’s belief in the subjective nature of truth. Faith, for him, is a deeply personal matter, not something that can be fully understood or justified through rational discourse. This idea challenges the rationalist approach to religion and emphasizes the existential dimension of faith, where personal experience and inner conviction take precedence over external validation.

Stages on life’s way. Kierkegaard’s exploration of human existence is further elaborated through his theory of the three stages on life’s way: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. These stages represent different modes of living and ways of understanding one’s existence.

The aesthetic stage. The aesthetic stage is characterized by the pursuit of pleasure, beauty, and sensory experiences. Individuals in this stage seek to avoid boredom and pain by indulging in momentary pleasures. Life is seen as a series of episodic events with little regard for long-term meaning or commitment.

“Boredom is the root of all evil.”

Kierkegaard describes this mode of existence as ultimately unsatisfying, leading to despair and emptiness because it lacks depth and purpose.

The ethical stage. In contrast, the ethical stage involves a commitment to societal norms, responsibilities, and personal integrity. Individuals in this stage seek to live according to ethical principles and strive for moral development.

This stage represents a deeper engagement with life, where one’s actions are guided by a sense of duty and the pursuit of a coherent life narrative. However, Kierkegaard points out that the ethical stage, while more fulfilling than the aesthetic, is still limited because it relies on external standards and does not fully address the inner conflict of the individual.

The religious stage. The religious stage is the highest form of existence in Kierkegaard’s framework. It involves a personal relationship with the divine and a commitment to faith that transcends both aesthetic pleasure and ethical duty.

“The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.”

In this stage, individuals confront the paradoxes and uncertainties of life through a leap of faith, finding meaning in their relationship with God. This stage requires a deep inwardness and acceptance of the limitations of human reason.

Kierkegaard believes that true selfhood and authenticity are achieved in the religious stage, where individuals align their lives with their ultimate existential concerns.

Kierkegaard’s stages on life’s way provide a profound understanding of the different ways individuals can approach their existence. Each stage represents a progression in the quest for meaning, with the religious stage offering the most complete and fulfilling resolution to the existential dilemmas of human life.

Kierkegaard’s work challenges us to confront the existential realities of our lives, urging us to make authentic choices and embrace the uncertainties of existence. His thought remains a powerful tool for navigating the complexities of modern life, fostering deeper self-awareness and existential reflection.

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.”

In a world often dominated by external pressures and superficial values, Kierkegaard’s philosophy serves as a reminder of the importance of inner life and personal authenticity. By engaging with his ideas, we can cultivate a more profound and meaningful existence, embracing the existential journey with courage and conviction.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

It helps an independent writer keep creating, stay independent, and continue sharing ideas without chasing algorithms or trends.

Every cup of coffee helps fuel the next piece worth thinking about.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Introduction

Someone once told me that winning an argument with an intelligent person is difficult. But winning an argument against a stupid one is impossible. And this is just so true. Stupid people carry a strange kind of arrogance. They don’t argue to understand; they argue to win. And in doing so, they unknowingly create traps in every conversation. You step in thinking logic will guide the discussion, but instead you find yourself pulled into frustration, confusion, and eventually regret. And somehow they seem to win. Not because they are right, but because they drag the conversation to a place where reason no longer matters. The other person walks away angry, drained, and wondering why they even started the argument in the first place.

But why does this happen? Why is it so hard to win against them? And more importantly, is there a way to protect ourselves from falling into this trap?

In this article, I will explore exactly that through some uncomfortable insights of the pessimist thinker Arthur Schopenhauer.

Understand Why We Cannot Fix Them

There is a painful truth that most people learn too late. Some people cannot be changed, not because they refuse to listen, but because they genuinely cannot see what they are missing. This is where the real danger begins.

Psychology calls this cognitive blindness, often explained through the Dunning-Kruger effect, the idea that those with the least competence are often the most confident.

People with limited knowledge tend to overestimate how much they actually understand. They are not pretending. They truly believe they already know enough, and that is what makes them unreachable.

You cannot guide someone who is convinced they have already arrived.

Arthur Schopenhauer understood this divide deeply. He observed that men of very great capacity find the company of very stupid people preferable to that of the common run. What he meant was unsettling. The intelligent and the foolish often live in completely different realities. One sees complexity, nuance, and contradiction. The other sees a simple, fixed world and clings to it. You cannot fix someone who cannot even perceive the problem.

But it goes deeper than ignorance. Human beings are not wired to seek truth as much as they are wired to defend what they already believe. Modern cognitive science shows that reasoning is often just a tool for justification, not discovery. We don’t think to understand. We think to protect our existing beliefs. This is why foolish individuals become masters of what is known as confirmation bias. They actively search for information that agrees with them and reject anything that threatens their worldview. Even when presented with clear, overwhelming evidence, they will twist it, reinterpret it, or dismiss it entirely. Their mind is not a place of learning. It is a courtroom where every fact is forced to defend their pre-existing beliefs.

This is why arguments with such people feel exhausting and pointless. You bring logic, they bring resistance; you bring evidence, they bring reinterpretation, and in the end, nothing changes.

Psychologist Leon Festinger demonstrated this through the concept of cognitive dissonance. He found that when people are confronted with proof that they are wrong, they often double down instead of reconsidering.

The discomfort of being wrong is so intense that the mind chooses denial over growth. They would rather protect their ego than accept reality.

And that is where ego enters the battlefield.

For many, beliefs are not just ideas. They are identity. To challenge what they believe is to challenge who they are. This is why foolish people often respond with anger, mockery, or dismissal. It is not just disagreement. It is self-defense.

Admitting they are wrong would feel like destroying a part of themselves.

Schopenhauer captured this brutally when he said:

“The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.”

People do not seek truth as much as they seek comfort. They want to be reassured, not corrected. They would rather live in a pleasing illusion than face an uncomfortable reality.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. warned about this danger when he said:

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

The key word here is sincere. These people are not always malicious. They believe in what they are saying with complete conviction. And that sincerity makes them even harder to reach.

Finally, there is the problem of mental rigidity.

Foolishness often comes with a closed mind, a refusal to expand, question, or reconsider.

Schopenhauer noted that such individuals cannot see the interconnections between things. They perceive fragments, not the whole. And because of this, they often retreat into oversimplified or even irrational explanations. Their world is smaller, but to them it feels complete.

When you combine all of this—ignorance of one’s own ignorance, confirmation bias, ego protection, and a closed mind—you arrive at a harsh conclusion. You cannot fix them. Not with logic, not with evidence, not even with patience. Because the problem is not a lack of information. It is the structure of their thinking itself.

And that is the moment you must understand something crucial. The goal is not to change them. The goal is to protect yourself. And if you are trying to change them, there is going to be a cost, which I will discuss now.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

The Hidden Cost of Taking Them Serious

There is a cost to engaging with foolish people. A cost that is rarely visible at first but slowly eats away at your life. It is not just about losing an argument. It is about losing your energy, your time, and eventually a part of yourself.

One of the most overlooked consequences is stress. Dealing with stubborn, irrational people creates a form of chronic psychological strain. Your mind stays alert, irritated, and tense even after the conversation ends, and your body follows.

Research has shown that negative social relationships—those filled with conflict, hostility, and frustration—can actually accelerate biological aging. In simple terms, surrounding yourself with the wrong people doesn’t just feel exhausting; it physically wears you down. Your body reacts to these interactions as if they are threats. Stress hormones like cortisol rise, your heart rate increases, and over time, this constant tension begins to damage your health.

Every moment spent arguing with a fool is a moment you will never get back. Time is your most valuable resource. Yet, it is the easiest thing to waste when you believe you can fix someone who refuses to change. You think one more explanation will work. One more example will finally make them understand. But it never does.

There is an old warning: Do not cast pearls before swine.

Not because the pearls lack value, but because they will not be recognized. When you give your time and intellect to the wrong person, you are not elevating them. You are devaluing yourself.

That time could have been spent learning, building, creating, or simply finding peace.

Closely tied to this is emotional burnout.

Repeated exposure to ignorance and stubbornness drains your patience. At first, you try to remain calm. Then you become frustrated.

Eventually, you become exhausted.

Conversations that should have been simple turn into battles. And over time, you begin to carry that frustration into other parts of your life. The danger here is subtle. You start to lose your empathy. You become more irritable, more cynical, and less willing to engage even with people who deserve your attention.

What began as an attempt to correct someone else slowly begins to damage your own character.

When you argue excessively with foolish people, observers do not always see intelligence. They often just see conflict.

And worse, they may not distinguish between you and the person you are arguing with. As the saying goes:

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Carlo M. Cipolla captured this reality with brutal clarity when he argued that humanity consistently underestimates the destructive power of foolish people and pays the price for it. Wars, crises, and disasters are often not just the result of evil, but of unchecked stupidity combined with influence.

And that is the most dangerous part. When you start taking a fool seriously, you unintentionally strengthen their position.

But how can we prevent ourselves from all this? This is what I will discuss now.

The Art of Strategic Withdrawal

Now that it is clear that foolish people cannot be fixed and that engaging them comes at a heavy cost, the only rational response is withdrawal. Not out of weakness, not out of fear, but out of discipline. This is not surrender. This is strategy.

The first step is awareness. You must learn to recognize who in your life consistently drains your energy with ignorance, stubbornness, or unnecessary conflict.

Once you see them clearly, the next step is boundaries. And boundaries are not about controlling others. They are about controlling access to yourself.

This means learning to say no. It means limiting how much time, attention, and emotional energy you give. Not every conversation deserves your participation. Not every opinion deserves your response.

Sometimes the most powerful thing you can say is nothing at all.

You can excuse yourself politely, change the subject, shorten interactions, and create invisible rules for your own peace. No pointless debates, no late-night arguments, no engaging in topics that always spiral into chaos. You are not obligated to attend every argument you are invited to.

And more importantly, you must understand this. Protecting your peace is not selfish. It is necessary.

But withdrawal is not only external; it is internal.

Marcus Aurelius once wrote:

“Choose not to be harmed, and you won’t feel harmed.”

This is the essence of mental detachment. Foolishness only affects you if you allow it to. Their words only disturb you if you internalize them.

So instead of reacting emotionally, you begin to observe. Instead of arguing, you acknowledge and move on. You stop trying to correct every false statement and start protecting your inner state.

You can even imagine a mental barrier, a filter that lets words pass through without impact. Over time, this becomes a habit. You still value truth, but you no longer sacrifice your peace trying to enforce it.

Another powerful tool is indifference or even humor. Not everything deserves seriousness. When a foolish claim is made, you don’t have to dismantle it with logic. Sometimes a light response, a smile, or a simple “interesting” is enough.

Other times, ignoring it completely is even more effective.

Because here is the truth. Foolishness feeds on attention. The more you engage, the stronger it becomes. The less you react, the faster it fades.

This is why silence can be more powerful than argument. A fool cannot argue with someone who refuses to play.

And then comes perhaps the most important strategy of all: choosing your environment.

Arthur Schopenhauer observed that those who think deeply often find themselves disconnected from those who do not. There is a natural divide between meaningful conversation and empty noise. And you must decide which side you want to live on.

Surround yourself with people who challenge you to grow, not people who trap you in endless, meaningless debates.

Seek out curiosity, depth, and humility. When your environment is filled with thoughtful individuals, you no longer feel the urge to argue. You feel the desire to learn.

And when you cannot avoid foolish people, whether in family, work, or society, you adapt. You keep interactions brief, neutral, and controlled. You engage when necessary, but you never immerse yourself.

Finally, redirect your energy inward.

Every moment you stop wasting on trying to fix others becomes a moment you can invest in yourself. Read more, learn more, build something meaningful, grow in ways that actually matter.

Because here is the quiet truth. While you are trying to change a fool, you are standing still. But when you focus on yourself, you move forward.

There will always be people who refuse to think, refuse to learn, and refuse to change. That is not your responsibility. Your responsibility is to protect your clarity, your time, and your peace.

So, do not descend into their chaos. Do not fight battles that cannot be won. Step back, set your boundaries, and walk away with your dignity intact.

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

It helps an independent writer keep creating, stay independent, and continue sharing ideas without chasing algorithms or trends.

Every cup of coffee helps fuel the next piece worth thinking about.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Post-Truth: A Diagnosis

In 2016, Oxford Dictionaries chose the word post-truth as its Word of the Year during a time marked by Brexit debates and the U.S. presidential election. They defined it as an adjective describing situations where objective facts matter less than appeals to emotion and personal belief. It wasn’t just a new buzzword, it felt like a verdict on the modern age. Fake news flooded social media. Conspiracy theories went mainstream, and algorithm-driven echo chambers isolated people into alternate realities. Truth itself seemed to be losing its authority.

Historical Warnings

How did we end up here?
To find answers, we need to look decades back at thinkers who warned us this could happen. Writers like George Orwell, political theorists like Hannah Arendt, and philosophers like Michel Foucault all saw pieces of this puzzle. Together, their insights reveal how power, media, and technology have slowly unraveled our shared sense of reality.

In 1946, George Orwell wrote that political language was designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. He had watched totalitarian regimes in the 1930s and 40s weaponize language itself. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, understood that truth wasn’t something you debated rationally, it was something you manufactured through constant repetition. Radio broadcasts, posters, newspapers, reality became whatever the regime said it was. Orwell warned that when words lose their connection to reality, freedom itself is in danger.

He imagined a world in his novel 1984 where governments could rewrite history, erase facts, even control thought itself. He warned that when words lose their connection to real facts, freedom is in danger. If you can convince people that war is peace and 2 + 2 equals 5, you can control their minds. Orwell feared a future where speaking the truth would become a revolutionary act because the truth itself would be so completely subverted.

But a few years later, political philosopher Hannah Arendt described an even more disturbing scenario: What happens when people stop believing in truth at all? In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt argued that the greatest threat wasn’t just leaders lying, it was a society where the line between truth and falsehood completely collapses.

Arendt observed how totalitarian regimes bombard people with so many lies, contradictions, and propaganda that eventually people no longer know what to believe. When every narrative feels uncertain or deceitful, people can become cynical and stop trusting anything. In this kind of vacuum of truth, Arendt warned, authoritarianism thrives.

If citizens cease trying to discern truth, they become easy prey for demagogues who offer simple answers or scapegoats in the chaos. Arendt later wrote an essay, Truth and Politics, where she explained that healthy politics depends on a base of shared facts. We can have different opinions about those facts, but we need the facts as a common ground. If facts disintegrate, public debate becomes a theater of pure spectacle, a fight of competing illusions with no reality underneath.

She feared a world where politics becomes a battle of appearances and objective truth counts for nothing. In such a world, as she presciently noted, history can be rewritten overnight, and lies don’t need to be believed, they just need to create enough doubt that nobody knows what’s real. This cynical collapse of reality was Arendt’s worst nightmare, and unfortunately, it sounds eerily familiar today.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Power, Media, and the Manufacture of Truth

If Orwell and Arendt mourned the collapse of truth, Michel Foucault analyzed its machinery. Writing in the 1970s, Foucault flipped the question of truth on its head. In works like Discipline and Punish and essays in Power/Knowledge, Foucault argued that truth isn’t neutral or timeless, it’s produced by societal institutions and power structures.

Foucault said that each society has its “regime of truth,” a system of assumptions, media, and authorities that decide what counts as true. Schools, prisons, hospitals, governments, churches, these institutions don’t just discover truth, they define it. They establish the norms for what is considered normal versus deviant, sane versus insane, acceptable knowledge versus heresy.

“regime of truth,”

But it’s worth noting that Foucault was analyzing specific historical contexts rather than claiming every institution everywhere always works this way. Every society, he said, has mechanisms to enforce its truths and silence or exclude whatever challenges them.

For example, in the modern era, think about how the media works. A handful of powerful media corporations can effectively set the limits of public reality by choosing which stories to amplify and which to ignore. When a small group controls the flow of information, they wield immense power over what society regards as true or important.

As analysts Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argued in Manufacturing Consent, modern propaganda often doesn’t work by outright censoring opposing views — it works by drowning them out. In other words, those in power manufacture consent by deciding which voices and facts get heard the loudest until their version of reality is the only one most people ever encounter.

Under Foucault’s lens, truth is entwined with power. It’s less about logical proofs and more about who gets to speak and what stories we accept. And if Orwell’s blunt-force Ministry of Truth has evolved into a more subtle form, it’s one where media spectacle and expert institutions continuously produce a version of reality that serves certain interests.

This sets the stage for what came next, the age of data and the engineering of belief.

The Digital Turn: Data, Algorithms, and Microtargeting

In the digital age, power found new tools to shape our perception of truth: big data and personalized propaganda. A striking example was the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

In 2018, it emerged that a political consulting firm had harvested the Facebook data of tens of millions of users without consent. Why? To create detailed psychological profiles of voters. Using those profiles, they microtargeted people with tailored political ads and misinformation designed to trigger emotional reactions, fear, anger, tribal loyalty, rather than to present facts.

Voters in the 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit referendum, for instance, received thousands of variant ads and posts on their feeds, each customized to provoke an emotional reaction. If you were anxious about immigration, you’d see fabricated stories or exaggerated memes playing on that fear. If another person was upset about the economy, they’d see a different distorted message blaming some enemy. In this way, truth became something engineered and individualized.

As one whistleblower put it, Cambridge Analytica turned Facebook into a political weapon, exploiting people’s data to manufacture consent in a highly deceptive way.

It’s not only shady private firms. Governments have long practiced their own data-driven spin. Statistics that feel objective can be selectively presented or framed to tell a convenient story. For example, an administration might highlight a declining unemployment rate while quietly changing the definition of employment, or it might cherry-pick economic indicators that suggest success while ignoring data showing rising inequality.

As Foucault might say, power decides which numbers matter and what story they tell. We tend to trust numbers and graphs, but even those can be arranged to create an appearance of truth that masks underlying realities.

By the late 20th century, truth was no longer just reported, it was crafted and marketed. But the biggest change came when information systems stopped just delivering news and started deciding what we see.

Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X use complex algorithms designed to maximize our engagement. They learn what makes you personally click, pause, or share, and then they feed you more of that. The harsh truth is, what keeps people hooked is not careful nuance or accuracy. It’s content that provokes a strong reaction. Outrage, fear, and affirmation of one’s biases tend to generate the most engagement.

So the algorithms flood your feed with posts and videos that keep you emotionally invested, which often means more extreme or polarizing content over time. The result is the infamous echo chamber. Each of us ends up living in a personalized reality online. Your social feed becomes a mirror of your beliefs. Two people in the same country on the same platform can receive utterly different versions of the world.

For example, one person’s feed might be filled with climate change denial and conspiracy theories, while their neighbor sees mostly cat videos and science news. Each thinks they’re seeing what’s happening, but both are really seeing what the algorithm thinks will glue their eyeballs to the screen. As this process continues, our shared factual baseline diminishes. We can’t even agree on what the facts are because we’re not shown the same facts.

Philosopher Jean Baudrillard coined a term for this kind of condition, hyperreality. In a hyperreal world, simulations, images, media narratives, and online personas don’t just distort reality, they replace it. Reality becomes a collage of viral images, trending topics, and tailored feeds to the point that the boundary between what’s real and what’s manufactured blurs out.

In Myanmar, a far more devastating example unfolded. Social media, Facebook in particular, became a conduit for hatred and lies that spilled into real-world violence. UN investigators found that Facebook played a determining role in spreading hate speech against the Rohingya Muslim minority.

For years, Myanmar’s military and ultra-nationalists pumped poisonous fake stories and dehumanizing propaganda into Facebook feeds, conspiracy theories accusing the Rohingya of terrible crimes, fabricated images, and rumors inciting fear and anger. These went viral in a country where Facebook was practically synonymous with the internet. The result was beyond disturbing: a wave of atrocities that the UN later labeled a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Untruths on a screen contributed to mobs with machetes in villages. Reality itself, people’s perception of their neighbors, had been weaponized by those in power to justify genocide.

Orwell feared lies. Arendt feared cynicism. Foucault showed us how power manufactures reality.

Consequences and What Comes Next

So what comes next? Some argue we must rebuild trust in institutions, journalism, and science, places where facts can be verified and shared. Without some common ground, democracy itself begins to collapse. But others, influenced by postmodern thinkers, argue the dream of one universal truth was always an illusion. Throughout history, one group’s truth often meant another group’s suppression.

From this perspective, perhaps the goal isn’t returning to a single tidy narrative but rather building systems where multiple perspectives can clash openly without descending into chaos.

The problem is that when truth loses its authority, power takes its place, and history shows how dangerous that can be.

Orwell once wrote,

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

It sounds wise, empowering. Orwellian. The perfect way to end a article like this. There’s just one problem: Orwell never said it. It’s fake.

But it gets repeated in books, articles, and speeches because it feels true. And that’s the point, in a world where anything that sounds right can spread without question, even a fake Orwell quote about universal deceit can become universal.

Enjoyed this essay?

If you found value in this article and want to support more deep, meaningful, and thought-provoking writing, you can buy me a coffee ☕

Your support means more than just a tip.

It helps an independent writer keep creating, stay independent, and continue sharing ideas without chasing algorithms or trends.

Every cup of coffee helps fuel the next piece worth thinking about.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Intro

You’ve probably seen it yourself. Someone defending a politician who lies straight to their face. A celebrity doing something mind-numbingly dumb and still getting praised for it. People latching on to trends that make no sense, screaming outrage over things they barely understand. And you can’t help but wonder: how can someone be so confident and so wrong? Why do so many people proudly support things that are obviously stupid? The reasons are not very simple. There’s something deeper happening.

In recent years, a strange and unsettling phenomenon has been quietly unfolding. One that feels more like the plot of a dystopian novel than reality. The slow death of critical thinking. While our raw intelligence may not be declining, something far more important is slipping away: our ability to think clearly, reason logically, and stay intellectually humble.

What some are now calling a stupidity epidemic isn’t a sudden collapse of intellect. It’s more insidious than that. It’s a gradual erosion, one that’s led to a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth and outrage often drowns out reason.

But how did we get here? Why is this happening? And what forces are driving this growing epidemic of intellectual laziness? That’s what I’m going to discuss in this Blog, point by point.

Reason 1: Blind Tribalism.

Tribal outrage gives us a role to play, an enemy to fight, and a sense of purpose. Humans have always been tribal. Long before modern civilization, our survival depended on being part of a group. And while we’ve evolved in countless ways, this instinct to divide the world into us and them still runs deep in our psychology today.

This is at the core of what social psychologists call social identity theory, the idea that a significant part of our self-worth comes from the groups we belong to. When our group is praised, we feel pride. When it’s criticized, we feel personally attacked.

As a result, people don’t just disagree with opposing views. They treat them like threats to their very existence. And that’s where stupidity begins to spread. The more uncertain we are, the more tribal we become. In times of fear and confusion, the mind craves clarity. Tribalism offers that clarity in the simplest form: us versus them, right versus wrong, safe versus dangerous. It’s emotionally satisfying because it relieves us from the hard work of thinking. Instead of seeking truth, we start seeking validation.

Today, tribalism isn’t limited to politics or religion. It’s become about identity itself. It’s about defining who you are by defining who you’re against. And once you’ve joined a tribe, questioning its beliefs is seen as betrayal. Thinking for yourself becomes a kind of treason. That’s why people cling to the dumbest ideas even when those ideas are clearly false.

Because the truth is hard. It demands thought, reflection, and often discomfort. Anger, on the other hand, is easy. And when it’s shared by your tribe, it doesn’t just feel easy, it feels righteous, even if everything you’re yelling is completely wrong.

You can see the same pattern in George Orwell’s 1984. Every day, citizens take part in a ritual called the Two Minutes Hate. Together, they scream at the enemies of the state and praise Big Brother in perfect unison. There’s no reflection, no critical thinking, just a sea of people shouting the same slogans, thinking the same thoughts. Because deviation is dangerous. The tribe must be preserved, even if that means embracing lies.

And this is the heart of the stupidity epidemic: the death of independent thought in exchange for collective affirmation, the unwillingness or inability to challenge the group, to think critically, or to question popular delusions. We’ve stopped thinking for ourselves. We’ve chosen belonging over truth. And the cost is staggering.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Reason 2: Digital Echo Chambers And Engineered Distraction.

We are not thinking machines that feel. We are feeling machines that think. Tech platforms today aren’t neutral tools of information. There’s no denying they’ve been useful, but they’ve also become engines of manipulation. Built to maximize engagement at all costs, they don’t prioritize truth, nuance, or balance.

What captures attention isn’t careful thought. It’s outrage. Not reasoned analysis, but sensationalism. Not curiosity, but confirmation bias. These platforms have become highly efficient factories of intellectual decay. Their systems are designed not to inform you, but to keep you scrolling.

They feed you content that reinforces your beliefs and shields you from anything that might challenge them. Every click, like, and swipe teaches the machine what makes your brain light up, and it delivers more of it over and over again. Slowly, your digital world turns into a hall of mirrors. You’re not seeing reality. You’re seeing your own biases reflected back at you.

It’s like when someone said,

“When everyone is thinking the same, no one is really thinking at all.”

In this environment, stupidity doesn’t just survive, it flourishes. Not because we’ve lost the ability to think, but because we’re no longer being pushed to.

These digital systems reward emotional simplicity over intellectual depth. They don’t challenge us with complex ideas. They feed us memes, outrage clips, and tribal sound bites, and we keep consuming them. Psychologists call this confirmation bias: our tendency to seek out and cling to information that supports what we already believe. These systems exploit that flaw relentlessly. They don’t challenge us. They comfort us. They affirm us. And they keep us intellectually stagnant.

This isn’t just a theory. It’s something we were warned about. Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 envisioned a future where books were banned and burned, not simply because of tyranny, but because society chose ease over thought. People became addicted to wall-sized screens feeding them shallow entertainment. Independent thinking faded, and in a grim twist, it was the people themselves who stopped reading, stopped questioning, and willingly embraced their own mental sedation.

As Bradbury put it, you don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them. Today, we’re not burning books. We’re just ignoring them. We’ve traded critical thinking for instant gratification. We recognize memes more easily than we can finish a news article. We scroll endlessly, but rarely sit with difficult ideas.

Artificial intelligence doesn’t have to destroy human intelligence. It just has to distract us long enough for us to stop using it. Think about how often we outsource our thinking to machines. Even when driving, we rely on GPS, sometimes for routes we’ve taken before. I’ve done it myself. Followed directions so mindlessly that I arrived without knowing how I got there. Ask me to retrace the path without Google or ChatGPT, and I’m lost. It’s like we’re no longer navigating the world. We’re being navigated through it.

In this world, stupidity isn’t an accident. It’s a feature. And there’s still one more major force feeding this epidemic of ignorance.

Reason 3: The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”

In our hyperconnected digital age, where every voice has a platform and every opinion can go viral, a strange pattern keeps repeating itself. The loudest voices are often the least informed, and disturbingly, they are also the most confident.

This paradox is explained by a well-documented psychological bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, named after researchers David Dunning and Justin Krueger. At its core, the Dunning-Kruger effect shows how people with low competence in a subject tend to dramatically overestimate their abilities. Why? Because the same lack of knowledge that makes them bad at something also prevents them from recognizing their own ignorance. They don’t know enough to know what they don’t know.

But this isn’t just an academic curiosity. It has serious real-world consequences. Before the internet, if someone was misinformed, their influence was mostly limited to their immediate circle. But now, someone with almost no understanding of a complex issue can broadcast their half-baked opinions to millions. And the more confident or outrageous they are, the more attention they get. Meanwhile, actual experts, who often speak with nuance and humility, are drowned out in the noise.

This creates a terrifying inversion of credibility. The less you know, the louder you shout. And the louder you shout, the more influence you gain. This is especially dangerous because social media rewards confidence, not competence. Platforms don’t care if your take is accurate. They care if it’s engaging.

So, we end up in a world where uninformed certainty spreads like wildfire while well-researched perspectives go unnoticed. I won’t go into more detail here about the Dunning-Kruger effect itself because I’ve already made a deep-dive video on that very topic. You can find the link in the description if you want to explore this psychological trap further.

What matters for now is that this cognitive bias fuels a broader trend we’re seeing across society: the normalization of misinformation.

Reason 4: The Normalization Of Misinformation.

The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

In today’s digital landscape, the line between truth and falsehood is not just blurred. It’s under attack. We are no longer just dealing with ignorance. We are dealing with the systematic normalization of misinformation, where lies are repeated so often, so confidently, and so emotionally that they begin to feel true.

The rise of misinformation isn’t an accident. It’s the product of systems that reward sensationalism over substance. Outrage, not accuracy, drives engagement. Emotional appeal, not empirical evidence, fuels virality. And in a culture addicted to speed, simplicity, and instant gratification, thoughtful, nuanced perspectives get left behind.

The result is a world where dangerous falsehoods can become mainstream ideas.

Take the resurgence of the anti-vaccine movement. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety and importance of vaccines, misinformation campaigns have convinced millions to distrust them. This isn’t just an abstract concern. It’s had deadly consequences. Diseases like measles, once eradicated in many regions, have made a comeback, not because the science changed, but because people stopped listening to it.

This is just one example. The consequences of misinformation stretch far beyond public health. They erode trust in institutions, deepen political divides, and undermine our ability to solve collective problems. As people retreat into ideological echo chambers, shared dialogue collapses. The willingness to change one’s mind, a sign of intellectual maturity, becomes a rare and risky act.

Facts are no longer seen as neutral. They are seen as partisan weapons. As media scholar Gabriela Cosentino warned, we’re entering a post-truth era. In this world, truth is no longer defined by evidence, but by emotion. If something feels true, that’s enough. Reality becomes subjective, malleable, optional.

And when the loudest voices in the room are rewarded, the ability to think critically suffers. People become more vulnerable to scams, to dangerous ideologies, to groupthink. Society, in turn, begins making foolish, short-sighted decisions.

Just like in the 17th-century Tulip Mania, where people spent fortunes on flower bulbs, mass delusion can grip entire populations. The difference is today’s delusions are turbocharged by technology.

All of this stems from what we might call the decay of our cognitive immune system. Just like our bodies can be weakened by exposure to viruses, our minds are now weakened by constant exposure to junk information. We stop filtering. We stop questioning. We stop thinking.

And when that happens, stupidity isn’t just an individual failing. It becomes a systemic threat.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy the content, you can make a one-time donation via Buy Me A Coffee. Your support keeps this space alive and growing!

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Imagine a great thinker of the past, Friedrich Nietzsche, awakening today to survey modern times in the West. What would he see? A society led by the foolish. A culture flooded with shallow slogans, groupthink, empty celebrity, and hollow virtue, but lacking true greatness, depth, or vision. A world where stupidity isn’t just common, it dominates. But why? What changed over the course?

This is exactly what I will discuss through the eyes of the big mustached thinker himself. Why would he hate where we are now? What forces are dragging us into decay? And how do his brutal warnings from over a century ago speak directly to the madness we’re watching unfold today? So, let’s get into it.

Herd Instinct and Tyranny of Mediocrity

If Friedrich Nietzsche were to look out at the modern political landscape of the West, one of the first things he’d notice and utterly despise is the dominance of what he called the herd instinct. This was one of his most scathing critiques of mass society. The idea that human beings, instead of striving to rise as individuals, cling to the safety of the crowd. He warned that democracy and modern morality would increasingly train people to think alike, not because it is right, but because it is comfortable.

In today’s political culture, that warning has fully matured. What we now see across Western societies is a celebration of sameness. Deviation from the social script is punished, not debated. Outrage mobs demand apologies, cancellations, and compliance.

The pressure to conform is so strong that people begin to police their own thoughts just to avoid standing out. Nietzsche anticipated this flattening of thought in his critique of egalitarianism. He mocked the idea that everyone should be equal not in dignity or rights, but in value, vision, or capacity for greatness. As he put it:

everybody is everybody else’s equal.

To Nietzsche, this wasn’t virtue. It was decay. It was a sign that the mediocre were seizing control of the cultural spirit, dragging everything down to their level. At bottom, we are all herd and mob.

This is no longer a metaphor. Today, social media algorithms and political discourse reward the herd. What trends becomes truth. What goes viral becomes virtuous. And those who challenge that, who dare to question the popular narrative, are ridiculed or erased. In this climate, Nietzsche would see a society that punishes the exceptional and deifies the ordinary. Truth itself is now dictated by consensus, not discovery, not reason, not courage.

Political movements aren’t built on conviction or vision, but on slogans and emotional manipulation. Nietzsche would call this intellectual cowardice. He would see that the average citizen is no longer encouraged to rise above, to become what he called the Übermensch or overman.

This is the tyranny of mediocrity, where greatness is not just ignored but feared, and where Nietzsche’s greatest nightmare is realized: a civilization where the highest is brought low and the lowest defines the standard. And societies like this give birth to the last man, which I am going to discuss now.

LAST MAN and Death of Ambition

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche foresaw the arrival of a type of human who would mark the spiritual end of civilization, not through violence or tyranny but through complacency. He called this being the last man:

Lo, I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star? So asks the last man and blinketh. “We have discovered happiness,” say the last man, and blink thereby.

The last man is not evil. He is comfortable. That is precisely the problem. He has traded greatness for security, vision for contentment, and transcendence for routine.

Nietzsche feared this condition more than war, more than chaos. Because once people stop striving for higher things, they no longer need truth, freedom, or even dignity. They will accept anything that preserves their shallow peace.

Modern politics has become a theater for these very instincts. Leaders no longer challenge citizens to rise above themselves. Instead, they appeal to comfort, fear, and convenience.

The last man does not look to the stars. He mocks those who do. He blinks at creation and longing, thinking these are meaningless pursuits. He no longer asks deep questions. He no longer even understands why one would. And in this Nietzsche saw the death of the human spirit.

Our world, once vast and mysterious, has become small. Not because the universe has shrunk but because the modern soul has. The highest ambition for many is to be left alone, mildly entertained, and shielded from discomfort.

To be honest, I have tried to be that last man as well. And maybe I am. To the last man, any call to greatness, any suggestion that pain might be necessary for growth, is labeled toxic or dangerous. We have discovered happiness, they say, not out of triumph, but to justify their refusal to climb higher.

But Nietzsche’s criticism doesn’t end there. He warned that the last man doesn’t just reject ambition. He enforces mediocrity:

No shepherd and one herd. Everyone wanteth the same. Everyone is equal. He who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

In other words, everyone must think the same, feel the same, and want the same, or be cast out as crazy. Today, this enforcement doesn’t come from a dictator, but from the herd itself. The crowd now disciplines dissent. Those who ask uncomfortable questions are branded extremists, reactionaries, or conspiracists—not because they are wrong, but because they break the illusion of consensus.

Free speech isn’t suppressed by a tyrant. It’s snuffed out by thousands of blinking eyes, all blinking in unison, terrified of what lies beyond their comfortable norms.

The crowd doesn’t want prophets. It wants providers. It doesn’t seek greatness. It seeks anesthesia. And this, Nietzsche would argue, is the true catastrophe of modern times. Not collapse, but spiritual sedation. Not the fall of man, but his quiet surrender.

And in this chaos, weakness becomes a virtue, which I am going to discuss now.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

The Rise of Resentment

Friedrich Nietzsche saw it long before we did: a time when power would be demonized, greatness dismissed, and resentment would rise to rule the moral and political order. Those who are unable to rise to greatness instead seek to bring greatness down to their level.

In modern politics, this resentment has been rebranded as social justice, equality, and inclusivity. But Nietzsche would strip away the slogans and see it for what it often becomes: a cult of victimhood obsessed with punishing strength.

In such a system, Nietzsche would say the herd has weaponized morality. Those who dare to break away—the bold, the creative, the self-overcoming—are not honored. They are attacked. Whether it’s the entrepreneur, the artist, the whistleblower, or the independent thinker, anyone who stands out becomes a threat to the herd’s fragile order. And rather than refuting them with logic, society reaches for a different tool: shame.

Nietzsche warned of this inversion. He predicted that a society governed by resentment would eventually turn good into evil and evil into good. The elevation of vulnerability over excellence, emotion over truth, conformity over authenticity. These are not signs of progress in Nietzsche’s view. They are symptoms of a society run by the lowest common denominator, where the loudest voice is often not the wisest but the angriest.

We see this vividly in the modern political landscape. Policies and rhetoric are built not around the strong, but around the aggrieved. Those who feel wronged are given power not to heal but to control. The cry of justice becomes a tool of revenge. Instead of encouraging personal growth, the culture encourages collective blame.

Nietzsche would say this is not morality. It’s masked vengeance, where dissent becomes taboo, guilt becomes currency, and everyone must agree or disappear.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche mocks this very impulse through a powerful moment of irony. When the prophet Zarathustra tries to awaken the people to a higher possibility, the Übermensch—the overman—the crowd doesn’t rise. They shrink. They jeer. And then they cry out:

“Make us into these last men. Then we will make thee a present of the Superman.”

In other words, give us comfort, give us sameness, give us safety, and we’ll abandon greatness forever.

This is the paradox of modern society. We applaud progress, but recoil from challenge. The prophet is mocked while the herd cheers its own decay. To Nietzsche, this isn’t just frustrating, it is fatal. A culture of resentment cannot build anything new. It can only tear down, only level, only equalize downward.

It is terrified of hierarchy, allergic to excellence, and deeply hostile to anyone who dares to rise above. What remains is a society where truth is decided by feelings, morality is enforced through outrage, and ambition is treated as a threat.

So, what’s Nietzsche’s diagnosis? A civilization infected by resentment is one step away from collapse. Not because it is oppressed, but because it has forgotten how to strive. And one thing that’s helping this cause is what I will discuss now.

Truth, Power and Illusion of Facts

He once said:

“We have no organ at all for knowledge, for truth. We know or believe or imagine just as much as may be useful in the interest of the human herd—and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shall one day perish.”

To Nietzsche, that line wasn’t poetic exaggeration. It was a diagnosis. He believed that our so-called facts are rarely about truth. They’re about utility.

In today’s politics, we are living out this prophecy with terrifying precision. Facts are no longer facts. They’re tools. They’re twisted, curated, spun, and weaponized to serve narratives, not challenge them. Political tribes, news outlets, social media platforms—all filter truth through algorithms and ideology.

What emerges is not enlightenment, but an illusion of knowledge tailor-made to keep the herd pacified. Nietzsche would see this as a culture-wide self-deception masked as progress. The love of power is the demon of mankind. That demon, he would argue, now wears a suit and appears on television. It runs our political discourse. It floods our timelines. Politicians no longer speak to convince the wise. They speak to manipulate the masses. Truth is sacrificed daily on the altar of influence. And the herd, desperate for comfort, demands nothing more than confirmation.

We live in an era of fact-checks. Yet the real facts rarely survive the process. Nietzsche would mock this charade. To him, the institutions that claim to arbitrate truth today—whether newsrooms, universities, or government briefings—would be little more than modern-day priesthoods, not guardians of reason. Their goal isn’t clarity, it’s conformity.

Every side, left or right, claims to have the truth. But Nietzsche saw through this binary long before it became fashionable to pick teams. He would say both sides are playing the same game: the will to power. Both are more concerned with winning the narrative than discovering what’s real. And in this desperate battle for dominance, nuance dies.

Nowhere is that more obvious than in today’s culture wars. Complex issues—moral, biological, economic—are flattened into two shouting slogans. Ideas are judged not by their truth, but by their utility to your side. To Nietzsche, this wouldn’t just be annoying. It would be tragic.

He dreamed of a culture led by free spirits, individuals willing to suffer for insight, not those parroting the script. But what he would see today is a world drowning in information and starving for wisdom.

Nietzsche never believed that truth was easy. He believed truth was painful, lonely, often unbearable. That’s why very few people actually want it. They want certainty, applause, safety.

But Nietzsche warned:

“A society that hides from truth to protect its comfort is doomed.”

We now live in a paradox he foresaw. We have more data than ever before, more access to knowledge than at any time in history. And yet our politics are dominated by emotion, by tribalism, and by deliberate ignorance.

In this world, Nietzsche would not ask, “What’s the latest trending fact?” He would ask, “Who benefits from your belief?” Because behind every so-called truth today, there’s a hand pulling strings. And the herd, as always, is too distracted or too scared to notice.

And this death of culture will bring a catastrophe in weak men: the rise of nihilism, which I’m going to discuss now.

Nihilism and Death of Culture

Forgetting one’s purpose is the commonest form of stupidity.

The average citizen doesn’t hunger for greatness. They scroll, consume, and work jobs that lead nowhere. Not toward meaning, not toward the sublime, but toward a numb and shallow peace.

This is nihilism. Not screaming chaos, but the quiet rot of a civilization that has forgotten its soul.

He would look at our schools and media and ask, “Where is the training for greatness? Where are the calls to become more than you are?” Instead, students are taught shit. Workers are trained for productivity, not for self-overcoming.

Art is sanitized. Debate is tamed. Excellence is called elitist.

In this world, Nietzsche would not see culture. He would see a corpse animated by inertia.

The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends.

That quote isn’t about malice. It’s about courage. The courage to hold difficult truths, to break with the herd, even if it means walking alone.

But the modern West teaches the opposite: never offend, always agree, fear your enemies, and never disturb your friends. Nietzsche would call this not peace, but cowardice. A kind of moral anesthesia that kills any spark of heroic striving.

In his mind, the culture has chosen weakness over will, and that is fatal.

He wrote that true culture is created not by bureaucrats, politicians, or committees, but by a few towering individuals—artists, prophets, philosophers, warriors. The ones who suffer for vision. The ones who don’t blink when the herd laughs or scorns.

But modern Western societies mock these people, or worse, ignore them entirely.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy the content, you can make a one-time donation via Buy Me A Coffee. Your support keeps this space alive and growing!

Buy me a Coffee ☕

By now you’ve heard about ChatGPT, and of course Friedrich Nietzsche died long before AI became a thing, but Nietzsche did write about science and speculated on where it’s going, and more importantly he issued a warning to scientists, and this warning, it turns out, has become only more urgent with the development of AI.

But before we can understand Nietzsche’s warning to scientists we need to do a deep dive into our own psychology.

The ascetic ideal

The ascetic ideal is one of Nietzsche’s most important concepts and, paradoxically, one of the least explored. The entire final third of the Genealogy of Morals is dedicated to it. But in short, the ascetic ideal is that which promotes a movement away from the world, a negation of the material, and in Nietzsche’s view that means a negation of life itself.

It’s his thesis in the Genealogy that this ascetic ideal is the essential kernel, the foundational idea, the prime motivation behind a wide variety of human endeavors. What do we mean by this? Nietzsche finds the ascetic ideal in every aspect of culture, including art, philosophy, religion and, yes, even in science.

The example of religion is the most straightforward one. In Christianity, for example, many valorized practices focus on the spiritual life, meaning that they are opposed to the material form of existence. But of course for Nietzsche spiritual is merely a euphemism for life-denying.

Think of a Christian monk, the prime example of what a Christian should be. His big three activities are fasting, chastity and prayer. Fasting is all about not eating food. Chastity is all about staying away from sex. Prayer is all about not engaging with the world at all. And of course monks live in relative poverty; they don’t chase wealth or material possessions. This mode of being, where everything reminiscent of the flesh-and-blood material reality that we inhabit is banished or curbed, is the consequence of an adherence to the ascetic ideal.

Nietzsche’s argument in the Genealogy of Morals is that this instinct for the immaterial, the ascetic ideal, is the result of a psychological process that mankind has subjected itself to. It’s not the result of an honest and clear-headed search for God, religion, or the spiritual; it’s the result of a psychological, human, material condition. The religious life of the monks and our high praise for such a mode of being are simply one expression of this ascetic ideal. It also finds expression elsewhere; for example in art. Most infamously, Nietzsche criticized the late operas of Richard Wagner for their promotion of life-denial. He directed his ire primarily at Parsifal. Wagner’s final work, for Parsifal is a work of rancor, of revenge, of the most secret concoction of poisons with which to make an end of the first conditions of life.

It is a bad work. The preaching of chastity remains an incitement to anti-nature. I despise anybody who does not regard Parsifal as an outrage upon morality.

And of course Nietzsche found it in philosophy also. Look no further than Schopenhauer and his explicit promotion of the ascetic, saintly way of life:

to those in whom the will has turned and denied itself — this our world which is so real with all its suns and milky ways is nothing.

Nietzsche’s grand thesis in the Genealogy is that this nihilistic tendency, this world- and life-denial, finds its expression everywhere in modernity. In other words, it’s not confined to either philosophy, art, or religion, we find it even in science.

Scientific victories

All science nowadays sets out to talk man out of his present opinion of himself as though that opinion had been nothing but a bizarre piece of conceit.

Let’s talk about ChatGPT again for a little bit. If Nietzsche was still alive today, what would he think about his latest development in language models and AI? It’s actually not very hard to figure out. To be sure, it’s a completely new technology, but its development fits a pattern that Nietzsche discerned from the beginning of modern science up until his own time.

To see how ChatGPT fits into this pattern, let’s begin at the start. The trajectory of science, or of “scientific victories” as Nietzsche calls them, seems to bend towards pulling mankind away from the center of the universe.

Let’s be more specific. Before the advent of modern science, man had a very high opinion of himself: he was literally at the center of the universe, with the sun and all the planets and stars revolving around him; made in the image of God and elevated above the animal, he shared in a divine spark. But soon enough that opinion was about to change.

Copernicus discovered that we don’t live in the center of the universe, literally, that the world does not revolve around us. Our planet Earth is simply one of the many planets revolving around the sun. And even worse, as we went beyond our solar system we discovered that we live in some place called the Milky Way galaxy, where there are billions of suns with who knows how many planets just like Earth.

Worse still, it turns out that our Milky Way isn’t even unique. The universe is filled with other galaxies just like ours, each in turn filled with planets and suns and moons. We went from being at the center of the universe and everything that existed to being a speck of dust in a great cosmic ocean.

What’s so special about that? Well, at least we’re still unique creatures, right, made in the divine image after all. Except not really. Darwin showed us that we are little more than animals; we share a common ancestor with all living organisms on the planet. In this worldview humans are not special at all; they are simply animals, sure, maybe a bit more intelligent than the rest, but hardly special in a biological sense.

And even our intelligence has been belittled by science. It turns out that we’re hardly the objective, calculating, reasoning creatures that we think we are. Nebulous subterranean forces guide our actions and emotions; it turns out maybe even more instrumental in our decision making than our reason is our entire thinking, which is muddled with countless biases and fallacies. We don’t understand probability; we rationalize things after the fact; we suffer from cognitive dissonance. These are all scientific discoveries — scientific victories even. But as Nietzsche points out, the victories are over what?

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Nihilism in science

Earlier in the article we talked about the nihilism in science: ascetic ideal, vows of poverty and celibacy in religion, Wagner’s Parsifal and its incitement to chastity, in art Schopenhauer and renunciation of the will, and philosophy, they all go in one direction: away from the material world, and in doing so, away from mankind. Starving our bodies through fasting, withholding the pleasures of wealth and sex, sitting on our knees in prayer or meditation, disregarding the material body completely, moving away from the material world also involves moving away from the material body. In Christianity only the soul remains.

But what if we don’t believe in the soul? What’s left in that case? Nothing. This is why the ascetic ideal taken to its logical conclusion leads to nihilism. In fact, the terms are almost synonymous: ascetic idealism is nihilism. This is why Nietzsche says that Christianity is a nihilistic religion, however strange that may sound at first sight. How can a religion about God and the soul and heaven and doing good to others be considered nihilistic? The ascetic ideal is how. And even worse, God may be that, but the ascetic ideal is very much alive, it lives on in science.

The nihilistic tendency in man has found a new outlet: it has moved away from religion onto science. The death of God did not mean the death of the ascetic ideal; only that it has become more insidious, less explicit. No, this modern science, mark you, is at times the best ally for the ascetic ideal, and for the very reason that it is the ally which is the most unconscious, most automatic, most secret and most subterranean there is. Not for a single minute any victory of science over the ascetic ideal; rather was it made stronger, that is to say, more elusive, more abstract, more insidious. The current of nihilism now hides beneath abstractions and logical thinking. The ascetic ideal now takes the form of formulas and equations, assuming a mask of objectivity.

In Catholic mass, before Holy Communion, the faithful repeat a line from the Gospel of Matthew; it starts like this:

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof; I am not worthy.”

That is precisely the ascetic ideal in action, the ascetic ideal is that by which man belittles himself, makes himself unworthy. Of course, in modern science there is no such phrase or holy book to quote, but there is the Hubble Telescope picture and how it’s allegedly a reminder to us that we are insignificant little specks of dust in the great cosmic ocean. So our place in the universe is not special, just a speck of dust. Our ancestry is not special, just a bunch of animals. Our mind is not even special, just a bunch of biases and rationalizations.

Language, AI, and another loss of uniqueness

Is our language special? When this article is published it’s still Too early to tell where AI will go exactly and what it will do to us, but with the advent of large language models like ChatGPT we do get an indication of the direction it will probably go. It will, progressively, become more difficult to distinguish a human-written text from AI-generated text.

For now literature seems safe. Large language models, by their very nature, are incapable of true innovation, which seems to be the mark of genuine artistic creation. ChatGPT can only imitate; it cannot create. ChatGPT could probably write a paragraph in the style of Dostoyevsky, but it was trained on Dostoyevsky, it cannot produce artistic genius out of thin air in the way that humans can. But it can do a good enough job for the vast majority of texts that humans need and use, and that is the interesting part.

You can ask ChatGPT to write a heartfelt birthday message to your mother; it will do a good enough job. Perhaps your mom won’t even notice that you didn’t write it yourself. But we do tend to feel that we lose something special, the human element. The question is: will we still feel that way in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? What about emails from your boss or work colleagues, do you really care if these emails are written by humans or AI-generated?

But the overarching point here is that even our language doesn’t seem so special anymore. Something that we assumed makes us uniquely human, our ability to communicate complex ideas through language, seems to be not so human after all. If a well-trained language model can replicate it to the point of being indistinguishable in this way, AI, or rather large language models such as ChatGPT, seem to have taken away another piece of humanity.

In Nietzsche’s words, it has continued the pattern of science that

“sets out to talk man out of his present opinion of himself as though that opinion had been nothing but a bizarre piece of conceit.”

Science takes something that we held to be dear and special, our place in the universe, our creation in God’s image, the power of our reason, the complexity of our language, and it tells us: actually, it’s not special. You’re not special.

Nietzsche’s countermove: revaluation and the eternal return

It’s the ascetic ideal; it’s a nihilism in a new sophisticated form. It’s hard to see the future of AI going any other way, in any other direction than talking man out of his present opinion of himself. In fact, do we even still have that high opinion of ourselves that Nietzsche says we have, or have we already talked ourselves out of it?

It was Nietzsche’s project to put mankind back in the center of the universe, not physically, that’s not possible after all; Copernicus was right, Hubble was right, but if he can’t be important in a physical or a biological or a cognitive or a linguistic way, then at least in a philosophical way. Nietzsche says humanity is special after all. You are special after all. Your life is special.

Against the backdrop of this ever-encroaching nihilism, Nietzsche puts mankind back in the driver’s seat again, and he proposed a mode of living where you stop belittling yourself and your value. The ultimate test of this is the eternal return: are you living your life in such a way that you can honestly say to yourself, “I want to live this life again, exactly as it is, and will be, again and again for all eternity”?

In a way it’s the most anti-scientific question of all, but perhaps it’s also the most important question and the only one that matters, if nothing else matters.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy the content, you can make a one-time donation via Buy Me A Coffee. Your support keeps this space alive and growing!

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Imagine it’s 1849 and you’re 28 years old, standing in the biting cold of Russia’s harshest winter. Just five meters behind you, five soldiers are aiming their guns at your head, eager to pull the trigger. This is it—you’re about to die. Suddenly, you hear footsteps approaching and hushed whispers. To your astonishment, the soldiers lower their weapons and drag you back to prison. You’re then sent to a place many consider a living hell: Siberia.

Four years later, you emerge from this nightmare. Over the next two decades, you will transform into one of the most profound, popular, and influential writers and philosophers in history. This is the story of Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Use love and compassion to end evil

Dostoevsky believed that evil isn’t humanity’s default setting. In his gritty account of Siberian labor camps, Notes from the Underground, he delves into the complexities of human nature. He paints a vivid picture of how evil isn’t some distant concept, but rather a part of us all, lurking beneath the surface and emerging in various forms—addiction, pride, or ignorance.

Having lived through the hardships of Tsarist Russia, Dostoevsky couldn’t ignore the darkness within human hearts. He saw evil as a dormant trait waiting to awaken when people stray from moral goodness—or, in his case, from God. According to him, the baseline of human existence isn’t goodness but rather a potential for corruption. To be good, then, isn’t just about avoiding wrongdoing but actively resisting the urge to harm others or act selfishly. Dostoevsky saw compassion and empathy as crucial virtues because they offer a lifeline from the grip of evil within us. Essentially, being good means waging a constant battle against our darker impulses.

Improve your life for yourself, not for others

Dostoevsky once said:

“To go wrong in one’s own way is better than to go right in someone else’s.”

This idea is vividly illustrated in Crime and Punishment. The protagonist, Raskolnikov, yearns for greatness, but his desire is superficial—driven by a need for admiration. Dostoevsky critiques this materialistic mindset, stressing the importance of personal development for true happiness and self-discovery.

He advocates that the pursuit of knowledge should be motivated by intrinsic curiosity, rather than social status. Dostoevsky advises against letting social standing, pride, or flattery influence our quest for growth. Instead, we should identify our own goals and disregard external opinions. He also warns against overthinking and underscores the significance of living in the present. Characters like Prince Myshkin, who embody simplicity and joy in life, contrast with the overthinkers of the aristocratic class. Overanalyzing can prevent us from fully experiencing life, and emotional intelligence is as vital as rationality.

Key takeaways:

• Always make decisions based on bettering yourself, not to please others.

• Find beauty in the simple things in life and avoid overthinking—a trap often driven by external pressures.

Your support keeps the writing going — buy me a coffee to fuel the next piece.

Buy me a Coffee ☕

Enjoy suffering

Consider your life right now: the best moments often lie on the other side of suffering. Getting in shape involves physical struggle. Advancing in your career or business requires hard work. Building strong relationships takes effort—and sometimes heartache. Everything amazing typically involves some degree of suffering.

Dostoevsky consistently portrays suffering as an inherent part of the human condition—essential for truly feeling alive and fostering an inner drive to persevere. He encourages us to embrace suffering as integral to life. It’s through pain and hardship that we learn to appreciate happiness and peace—just as you can’t appreciate sunshine without experiencing rain.

Understanding and accepting suffering allows us to recognize life’s complexity. Though suffering brings depression, grief, sorrow, pain, and misery, Dostoevsky urges us to celebrate our humanity in experiencing these emotions rather than giving up on life. Suffering also gives rise to hope—a powerful force that propels us forward. We must hold on to the belief that suffering is temporary and that it will eventually lead to pleasure and improvement. Rejecting suffering means rejecting a significant part of the human experience and failing to find meaning in life. By accepting suffering as a necessary step in our journey, we can find solace and understand that it is worthwhile in the end.

Isolation results from excessive self-pride

Dostoevsky explores the complexities of human pride through the character of Rodion Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov, a smart philosophy student, thinks he’s above everyone else because of his intellect. This leads him to isolate himself, shutting out love and connection. He even goes so far as to justify murder as a twisted act of moral righteousness.

But Dostoevsky isn’t just critiquing Raskolnikov’s arrogance—he shows that intelligence doesn’t have to mean loneliness. As Raskolnikov’s journey unfolds, he learns to appreciate compassion and love, transforming for the better despite his remorse. The message here is that it’s up to us whether we let our smarts make us snobby and isolated. If we open ourselves to others, we can find happiness in both knowledge and connection.

How to apply this:

• See knowledge as a way to learn from others, not to look down on them.

• Remember everyone has value, regardless of their position in society.

• Prioritize kindness and empathy alongside rational thought.

Moral freedom is not absolute freedom

Dostoevsky had much to say about the idea that without a higher power, chaos reigns. In The Brothers Karamazov, he examines how religion shapes society. Take Ivan, one of the brothers and a skeptic: he rejects the divine but views God as a moral referee. Ivan argues that believing in God’s judgment gives us a reason to behave; without that, it’s open season for moral anarchy.

According to Dostoevsky, absolute freedom is a pipe dream—we need some rules to stop us from trampling on each other. He doesn’t insist on organized religion; any belief system that helps us stay on the straight and narrow without harming others will do. Without concepts like good and evil, life loses its flavor. Finding our moral compass—through spirituality, philosophy, or whatever floats our boat—is key to meaning in life.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy the content, you can make a one-time donation via Buy Me A Coffee. Your support keeps this space alive and growing!

Buy me a Coffee ☕