Can we truly speak of a reality if we are unable to distinguish between an objective truth and a deception? We are currently facing an unsurfaced threat in which misinformation continues to grow and fabricated realities are being accepted. Algorithms designed to manipulate our response are becoming more sophisticated, reducing individuals to mere data points. Platforms continue to profit at the cost of limiting our access to transparency. How can we find a solution when we are blinded to a modernity where truth is merely a luxury rather than a right?

Technology has become inseparable from humanity, fundamentally redefining our reality. It fosters global connectivity, enabling the rapid spread of messages and knowledge across borders. We have evidenced boosts in productivity, growth in the availability of education and scientific advancements, such as tools to counter climate change. These advancements also empower citizens to hold leaders accountable by amplifying their voices in the public sphere, enabling them to demand justice and expose wrongdoing, such as whistleblowing against powerful entities.

It is commonly known that knowledge is power—an asset that allows an entity to deviate and deceive the masses to serve their own interests. Today we face a dangerous information asymmetry, where those who control access to knowledge have the power to shape our reality. It should be emphasized that what we do as citizens, with our current comprehension, defines our ideals, beliefs, and trust. Thus, clarity and objectivity are fundamental to human progress, ensuring both individual autonomy and societal stability. Accuracy allows us to make informed decisions, whether in personal relationships, governance, or scientific advancement. Without truth, medicine could not advance, laws would be built on deception, and history could be rewritten to serve the interests of the powerful. 

In a world where information is easily concealed or distorted, our actions risk fueling exploitation and deepening inequality. Our exposition has grown immensely and personal data has become the new currency. In the technological oligarchy we inhabit small groups of powerful tech companies or individuals dominate key areas of society, including information, communication, and even governance. In this system, we are not the customers, rather the product. In this context surveillance capitalism thrives; every click, search, location, and interaction is tracked. Our patterns are analyzed, this key information is commercialized and most users are unaware of the extent of their digital footprint. 

This commodification of personal data feeds directly into the rise of AI-driven disinformation, where we can identify clear symptoms of this dilemma. For example, AI-generated images and videos can convincingly rewrite historical events, erasing inconvenient truths or manufacturing entirely new realities. Deepfakes, synthetic voices, fake news challenge our innate ability to discern truth from deception. Social media platforms amplify engagement over accuracy, reinforcing echo chambers where false narratives flourish. We continue to depend even more on technology, falling susceptible to a significant loss of privacy, hence our freedom. AI's capacity to deceive, manipulate, and spread disinformation becomes a powerful and dangerous tool in the wrong hands. The line between the real and the fake continues to blur, becoming even more indistinguishable. 

Moreover, automation can generate misleading yet authoritative-sounding information, eroding trust in institutions and scientific consensus. When truth becomes elusive, the foundation of informed decision-making crumbles, leading to societal fragmentation and distrust. Across the globe, societal polarization is rising at an alarming rate among society. This phenomenon puts a stop to advancements on solutions to problems we are facing, even to the point where these opposing beliefs have fabricated such hatred, they are unable to communicate. 

Why is it that misinformation continues to persist and fake news becomes more relevant than verified information? Our society responds to confirmation bias, where we choose to reinforce what we believe, and we are guided by an availability heuristic – we assume something is true if we hear it frequently. A lack of media literacy and critical thinking skills leaves many unable to recognize bias or question the information they encounter. Authority figures are granted certain legitimacy which can easily supersede evidence. Moreover, humanity is driven by fear and uncertainty in crises allowing unchecked answers to rise. These deeply rooted factors are even more entrenched in the fertile context of innovation, questioning whether the expression and growth of technology is more relevant than preserving the truth.

Suppression of our reality not only crumbles certain elements of our society like consensus and trust; we lose it as a tool to safeguard individuals against manipulation and oppression. Historically, twisting and redefining have been one of the most significant methods to insert control. This manipulation is evident in everyday life, for example, scare tactics in advertising promote unverified claims, while propaganda weaponizes nationalism to sow moral uncertainty and rally support. In a world without honesty, people rely on emotions, biases, authority, or misinformation, leading them to act in ways that may not be in their best interests. 

We are entering an era where truth is no longer an unquestioned necessity but a contested battleground. The accelerating power of technology continues to erode our defenses against deception, making misinformation an unavoidable force in our lives. The very tools that have connected humanity and expanded knowledge are now being used to manipulate and distort. If we fail to recognize this growing crisis, we risk allowing deception to shape not only our beliefs but our future. In a world where deception is easier than ever, how can we reclaim truth?

Does technology clear our path toward purpose, or does it plunge us into a stream of distractions that only reinforce the illusion of progress? At first glance, this question might seem simple to answer, yet it opens the door to a realm where solidity crumbles, uncertainty spreads its wings, and the very notion of meaning appears to vanish. In such an atmosphere, “The Meaning Mirage” stands as an invitation to reflect on our place in contemporary modernity, and to ask ourselves what price we truly pay for relentlessly chasing what we typically call “success.”

In earlier times, the quest for meaning was tightly bound to a sense of stability and progress. What once was an ideal intertwined with economic prosperity, social mobility, and the fulfillment of personal goals through hard work belonged to an era that sociologist Zygmunt Bauman deemed “solid modernity.” That time was defined by seemingly unshakable institutions, robust family structures, and a relatively clear path to self-realization. These enduring pillars nurtured effort, perseverance, and determination, while promising rewards such as establishing a home, maintaining a united family, and securing a stable job.

Yet, solid modernity gradually yielded to what Bauman described as “liquid modernity.” In this new phase, certainties evaporate and everything turns volatile. Personal relationships morph into fragile bonds, institutions no longer serve as the unyielding axis of identity, and the search for meaning becomes unsteady. A clear example is work: once a firm stepping stone for building a life, it now takes on a transient, precarious, and often ephemeral character. Technology, with its promise of instant gratification, only intensifies this fast-paced, volatile dynamic—making long-term projects ever more elusive.

Even amid such instability, we still yearn for a purpose to light our way. This is where Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning gains renewed importance. Frankl—a psychiatrist and survivor of third reich  concentration camps—told us how even under the most extreme conditions, one can find reasons to carry on if they discover a profound meaning to guide their existence. In today’s world of liquid modernity, Frankl’s lesson reminds us that meaning is not always born of material abundance or immediate satisfaction, but from the capacity to rise above circumstances and commit to goals beyond the tangible.

Nevertheless, can the search for meaning that Frankl so powerfully described—rooted in the will to endow life with transcendent significance—truly hold fast in an environment where nearly everything seems fleeting? On one hand, the relentless acceleration and the lure of instant rewards quickly sweep us from one stimulus to another, making deep reflection and long-term commitment increasingly difficult. On the other, some argue that the very instability that defines our era opens up fresh opportunities to reinvent personal meaning time and time again—preventing it from becoming shackled to a once-primitive purpose.

Simultaneously, the rise of virtual experiences and the growing power of public opinion have created contexts where reality itself is reshaped in collective, ever-changing forms. This can lead to a confusion about what is genuinely significant and what is merely an illusion crafted for immediate impact. Yet, if we return to Frankl’s vision, we find that meaning arises from an inner power that transcends circumstances. Even amid the storm, there always remains the possibility to choose—to assign our experiences a purpose that does not depend solely on external factors. In other words, despite the pervasive instability, the essence of our quest endures, even as it is constantly challenged by stimuli that tempt us toward dispersion.

Perhaps this is the greatest challenge of our modern age: to sustain our determination in a world of relentless change. Frankl’s proposal takes on fresh relevance here: each individual, in their own reality, can assume the responsibility of finding reasons to move forward, even when the outside world turns bewildering. Although material, technological, and cultural conditions have transformed dramatically over time, the fundamental question remains: are we capable of uncovering a purpose that propels us to persevere, even when nothing appears stable? Today’s landscape does not cancel out this possibility—it merely reconfigures it. It offers tools that, paradoxically, can either fortify our will to find meaning or bury it beneath the inertia of immediacy. Ultimately, the final decision rests with us: to choose to infuse our lives with meaning or to surrender to the notion that everything is transient and devoid of significance.

We’ve all been there. Whether it’s a presentation, an assignment, a piano recital, or a soccer match. We’ve all held our breath for that moment when, figuratively – or literally – the curtain rises and the audience watches in anticipation. There are many factors that can influence your performance, but one thing is undeniable: merely facing this experience already makes you better. Behind every success lies the note you played wrong a thousand times, the word that got tangled on your tongue, or the technique that had to be polished until it practically flowed on its own. External perspectives help us improve time and time again, guiding us through quantifiable mistakes in a realm where right and wrong exist, and there is a clear boundary between the two.

The concept of feedback has been recently popularized, but it refers to an ancient practice. It has been present in humanity’s greatest advancements: in the evolution of our ideas, in decisions that altered the course of history, and even in our own physiology. Its inherent value allows us to build upon what we’ve learned. In its most fundamental form, the process is always the same: take out a piece and replace it with a new one, or stay exactly the same. In the architecture of our personal development, it’s quite a simple process.

However, no concept exists in isolation, and it must be reexamined in light of new paradigms. It’s 2025 and for decades we have been interconnected in ways once unimaginable. Today’s generations are born with the world at their fingertips, and grow up under the illusion that they know what to do with it. The abundance of available content feeds the self-serving nature of digital platforms. Users, exposed to so many opinions, lose the ability to analyze them qualitatively, and they dissolve into background noise. In a face-to-face exchange, each person knows who they are speaking to, making it easier to read between the lines. In the virtual world, individual context fades; different cultures, religions, and histories converge into a single thread, under the comfort of anonymity.

Moreover, social media has evolved in such a way that any post invites external opinion. The interaction ecosystem becomes oversaturated, and certain consensuses emerge about what content is acceptable. Without realizing it, you submit fragments of your everyday life to judgment – your new job, your vacation plans, or the outfit you wore to dinner. These are all your choices, and even the most insignificant ones stem from the depths of your identity.

Indeed, our existence has become performative. Society is a permeable system, and we are growing increasingly accustomed to the omnipresence of external perception. Continuous evaluation in educational and professional settings constantly exposes our performance to outside scrutiny, shifting our focus toward how work is presented rather than the work itself. We avoid medical check-ups while adopting the latest self-care, diet, or exercise trends. Even the way we consume art has changed – each piece is reduced to a product made for mass consumption, corrupting the vulnerability that defines creative expression.

Once again, external validation is not a new concept. But it has never been this pervasive. In recent times, it has embedded itself into the cracks of our humanity, distorting what is genuine and true to meet the standards of a false democracy. At first glance, contemporary feedback appears to be a good thing, as it constantly provides us with guidance on how to improve. The problem is that now there’s no end in sight, and we are operating on our own machinery. When we are shown that there is something defective about who we are, we understand that we must sacrifice a portion of our authenticity, because that is how feedback works. You take out a piece and replace it.

The issue is not just how the feedback loop affects us but also how we sustain it. We are a key component of this cycle, and with that comes both the challenge and the opportunity to regulate it. If we want to look towards the future, now is a good time to ask ourselves how we actively differentiate feedback that adds value from feedback that does not. Perhaps drawing a clear line is impossible, or perhaps all it takes is an attempt.

After all, no one can deny that the process works. If you let yourself be shaped by the thread of perception, it is almost inevitable to fit into today’s success parameters. However, this premise is what makes us all connect to the same network, adhere to the same standards, and produce increasingly similar outputs. This is how the world becomes monotonous, less rich in color and idiosyncrasies. And then, of course, there is also the matter of living the rest of your life with a piece inside you that will never quite fit.