In philosophical and scientific disputes, the word “illusion” often sounds like a final argument. It seems that after it is uttered, everything becomes clear: the phenomenon has been “exposed,” the dispute closed, and truth restored.
But closer analysis reveals the opposite: in most cases the word does not explain the mechanism but performs the function of classification and hierarchization.
1. Why “It’s an Illusion” Is Usually Not an Explanation
When we call something an illusion, we usually do not answer the key questions:
- how the observed effect arises;
- where the source of the effect is;
- what processes produce it;
- why it is subjectively experienced in precisely that way.
The formula “X is an illusion” usually means only one thing: “X is not fundamental.” But the origin of X remains undisclosed.
Typical examples:
- “free will is an illusion”;
- “the self is an illusion”;
- “meaning is an illusion”;
- “consciousness is an illusion.”
In all these cases, the term often conceals a gap in the explanation.
2. What the Word “Illusion” Actually Does
In discussion, it often works as an instrument for lowering ontological status:
phenomenon → declared an illusion → its status is lowered
The hidden message is: “This is not real reality; the real thing lies deeper.” For example:
atoms/fields — reality
experiences — illusion
The problem is that this operation is permissible only if a more fundamental level has already been demonstrated and the mechanism of transition between levels has been shown. Otherwise, this is not a conclusion but a declaration.
3. The Paradox Built into the Term
The concept of illusion presupposes at least two levels:
- what appears to be;
- what is real.
The classic example: a mirage is not “nothing,” but the erroneous recognition of conditions (hot air) as water.
But if someone claims “the subject is an illusion” or “consciousness is an illusion,” the question arises: to whom exactly does it appear?
If an illusion exists, there must be:
- a bearer of experience;
- the experience itself;
- a distinction between “seems” and “is.”
Without these, the term loses its meaning.
4. Why This Move Is So Popular
The word “illusion” is convenient because it simultaneously allows one to:
- preserve a theory, without rebuilding it to accommodate an inconvenient phenomenon;
- bypass explanation of the mechanism, replacing it with “it only seems that way”;
- devalue the phenomenon, lowering its status in the hierarchy of reality.
That is why in some discussions “illusion” serves as an intellectual plug.
5. Is Inversion Possible?
If we approach the matter symmetrically, we can reverse the familiar scheme.
Usually people say:
matter — fundamental
consciousness — derivative/illusion
But the very concept of “matter” is formed in experience: through perception, thought, language, and models. That is, access to “matter” is always mediated by consciousness.
Then the symmetrical thesis sounds like this:
matter — model of experience
experience — primary fact
This is not a final resolution of the dispute, but an important reminder: lowering the status of one side is possible only with rigorous justification, not through rhetorical labeling.
6. “Illusion” and Other Substitute Words
Other broad terms often perform a similar function:
- “emergence”;
- “information”;
- “complexity”;
- “evolution”;
- “neural processes.”
Each can be part of a real explanation. But without an explicit mechanism, they turn into “containers” that create a feeling of understanding without actual clarification.
7. Important Clarification: A Different Meaning of “Illusion” in the Buddhist Tradition
In Buddhist philosophy, “illusion” usually does not mean “nonexistent.” Rather, it is a thesis about an incorrect interpretation of the mode of existence:
things exist
but not in the way we grasp them through naive interpretation
For example, “I exist,” but not as an independent, unchanging entity. This differs substantially from the crude assertion that “nothing exists.”
Conclusion
In many disputes, the word “illusion” is not an explanation but a rhetorical operation:
- lowering a phenomenon’s ontological status;
- protecting a theory from inconvenient data;
- devaluing the phenomenon instead of analyzing it.
A rigorous approach demands the reverse: if something is declared an illusion, one must show the mechanism, the levels of description, and the criterion of distinction between what “appears” and what “is real.” Otherwise the term explains not the phenomenon, but merely the speaker’s position.
