Barking Mad: The Philosophy of Wilfred

The FX show “Wilfred” is one of my all-time favorite shows. I never saw the original Australian version, but the American one struck a chord with me. I’ve watched and re-watched it several times. It’s philosophical. It’s stoner comedy. It’s dark. It’s all the things I love.

On the surface “Wilfred” is a stoner comedy where Ryan (played by Elijah Wood), is a clinically depressed ex-lawyer who tried to kill himself, but instead found himself talking to his neighbor’s dog, who appears to him as a full-grown man in a dog costume. Hijinks ensue. But beneath the bong smoke and profanity lies something far more profound: a surreal meditation of identity, sanity, and the human condition.

At its core, “Wilfred” is about the search for meaning in a meaningless world. Ryan’s life is sterile, scripted, and empty. He’s alienated from his family, his former profession, and himself. Enter Wilfred: a creature who embodies chaos, instinct, and the id run wild. He shits in Ryan’s neighbor’s boots, humps teddy bears, and goads Ryan into ever-more reckless behavior. But Wilfred is also, somehow, Ryan’s guide — his Virgil through a very shaggy Inferno.

The question that hovers over every episode: Is Wilfred real? Is Ryan insane? Does it matter?

This is classic absurdism. Think Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus: the recognition that life has no inherent meaning doesn’t lead to despair — it leads to freedom. Wilfred doesn’t hand Ryan answers. He hands him paradoxes, jokes, and humiliations. But in doing so, he forces Ryan to confront the absurdity of his own life and to choose whether or not to keep pushing the boulder.

Philosophically, Wilfred could be read as Ryan’s shadow self — Carl Jung’s idea of the hidden, repressed parts of the psyche. Wilfred says the things Ryan won’t say. He acts on the desires Ryan suppresses. He’s at once friend, enemy, conscience, and saboteur. It’s like Fight Club if Tyler Durden wore a dog suit and loved Scooby Snacks.

Freud would have a field day here. Wilfred is all id — sex, aggression, pleasure, impulse. Ryan, meanwhile, is ego — repressed, neurotic, obsessed with doing “the right thing.” Their interactions often mirror Freud’s model of the mind in conflict. And the battleground? Reality itself.

But what makes the show so intriguing is that Wilfred isn’t just destructive. He’s also deeply wise in a perverse way. He teaches Ryan how to feel, how to trust, and ultimately how to live, not by giving him control — but by forcing him to let go of it. Just as Tyler Durden said to the Narrator in Fight Club: “Just let go!”

In a society that values productivity over introspection, “Wilfred” dares to ask: what if your mental breakdown is the most honest moment of your life? What if the voice in your head isn’t something to silence, but something to listen to, especially when it’s telling dick jokes?

Wilfred represents the part of us that refuses to play along with the farce of normality. He sniffs out the hypocrisy in Ryan’s family, the cowardice in his friends, and the rot at the heart of every polite interaction. He is, in many ways, Ryan’s subconscious revolt against a life lived on autopilot.

It’s no accident that Ryan meets Wilfred at his lowest point. He’s suicidal not because he wants to die, but because he doesn’t know how to live. Wilfred doesn’t save Ryan with self-help cliches or pharmaceuticals, he drags him through absurdity until Ryan sees the game for what it is. Not a test to be passed, but a joke to be told well.

In the final season, the show doubles down on ambiguity. Wilfred might be a hallucination. Or a trickster god. Or some ancient being teaching Ryan spiritual lessons in the only way Ryan will accept. Or he might just be a dog and Ryan is insane.

The brilliance of “Wilfred” is that it never tells you the answer. Like any good philosophical riddle, it trusts the question to do the work. It doesn’t resolve — it disturbs. It doesn’t comfort — it challenges.

And maybe that’s what makes it feel true.

In a world screaming for certainty, “Wilfred” howls for ambiguity. It’s a show that understands mental illness not as a glitch to be fixed, but as a symptom of something deeper: a culture that has lost touch with play, instinct, and wonder.

So if you ever find yourself talking to a man in a dog suit, don’t panic. Sit down. Light a joint. Listen. He may not be real. But he might just be right.

Why I Broke Away from Nietzsche

Like a lot of people, I discovered Friedrich Nietzsche in high school. Call it teen angst or whatever you will, but he felt dangerous, electric, liberating. While everyone else was parroting morality or chasing grades, Nietzsche was telling me to reject the herd, smash idols, and carve my own path. It felt like rebellion with a brain.

However, over time I outgrew him. Not because I stopped caring about meaning or individuality, but because I realized what kind of individualism he was selling, and who else was selling it.

Nietzsche championed the “Ubermensch,” the one who rises about the herd to create new values. Ayn Rand gave us John Galt, the genius industrialist who shrugs off society to build his perfect world. It hit me one day that these two weren’t as far apart as I once thought. Both glorify the exceptional individual. Both sneer at the masses. Both turn their back on solidarity.

What started as an inspiration to think freely began to feel like an excuse to disengage. Nietzsche was attacking morality from above. Rand was doing it from the boardroom. Either way, it ended with contempt for the people I now wanted to fight alongside.

I’m sure my readers know by now, but what really broke the spell was Camus. The Myth of Sisyphus didn’t offer me transcendence (or male and femalescendence for all you transphobes out there.) It didn’t demand I become a god. It simply asked me to imagine Sisyphus happy. That small act of rebellion — accepting the absurd and refusing to despair — hit harder than a thousand pages of will to power.

I realized I didn’t want to overcome the herd. I wanted to organize it. I didn’t want to create values in a vacuum. I wanted to challenge the systems that crush people every day. Nietzsche gave me the tools to reject inherited meaning, but he had nothing to offer once the dust settled.

Nietzsche lives in the realm of aesthetics: life as art, suffering as transformation, truth as personal creation. But when you’re watching the wealthy elite hoard resources, cops brutalize communities, and working people drown in debt, aesthetics isn’t enough. You need ethics. You need justice. You need solidarity.

Nietzsche taught me to question everything, and in turn, I had to question him too.

I didn’t reject Nietzsche because he was wrong about everything (did that with Rand.) I rejected him because he wasn’t enough. He lit the fire. Camus gave it direction. Socialism gave it purpose.

If Nietzsche taught me to become who I am, then breaking with him was part of that becoming. And maybe that’s the most Nietzschean move of all.

Two Books That Changed My Life

I know I posted my top five favorite books, but I thought I’d post the two books that changed my life in impactful ways and discuss them a little. Coincidentally, they’re both from my top five list.

The Stranger by Albert Camus has affirmed my sense of absurdity. Meursault (main character)’s indifference, his refusal to feign emotion for society’s sake resonates with my own misanthropy. His detachment from norms helped me feel less alien in a world that demands people fake performances of meaning and morality. The book’s cold eye on things like funerals, justice, and religion strengthened my distrust in institutions, and it gave me permission to question the systems we’re told to respect–even if they’re hollow.

Camus’ exploration of life’s absurdity–the idea that existence lacks inherent meaning–has sharpened my anti-natalist views that bringing new life into a meaningless, and often cruel world is unethical. Life isn’t a gift. It’s an imposition.

Meursault doesn’t pretend to be anything but himself, even when it might save him. That’s the kind of integrity I aspire to, even if it makes me weird. As far as the ending of the book–Meursault accepting the absurd and facing death without illusions–it mirrors my own attempt to live authentically in a chaotic world.

The Myth of Sisyphus, also by Albert Camus, had an even deeper influence on me than The Stranger. It gave me a way to live with absurdity. Before Camus, absurdity felt like a huge weight, a realization that life has no inherent meaning and that could easily lead to despair and eventually suicide. This book showed me another path: instead of seeking meaning or collapsing under nihilism, I can simply accept life’s absurdity and keep pushing forward.

It also reinforced my rejection of false hope. Camus’ critique of “philosophical suicide”–the way people escape absurdity through religion, ideology, or forced optimism–resonated with me deeply. I refuse to cling to comforting illusions, whether it’s capitalism’s promises or religious dogmas. I used to suppress illusions with drugs and alcohol. Now, I choose to face reality, no matter how bleak.

It has also helped with my political views. Sisyphus’s struggle isn’t just personal, it’s an act of defiance. Pushing the boulder, knowing it will never stay at the top, mirrors my approach to wanting to fight capitalism. I’m aware the system is monstrous, victories are temporary, but I choose to fight anyway, and not because I expect some final triumph, but because the struggle itself is worth it.

And lastly, it aligns with my misanthropy and humor. My messing with people politically and my sense of humor fit within Camus’ absurdist outlook. I want to weaponize absurdity and turn meaninglessness into a playground.

A List of My Heroes and Influences

Albert Camus

Camus resonates with me because of his embrace of the absurd. The Myth of Sisyphus especially hit home for me–the idea of imagining Sisyphus happy reframed how I see struggle. Instead of falling into despair, Camus argues for rebellion against the meaningless of life but finding joy in the absurd. He grounds his philosophy in a deep concern for justice and dignity. His resistance to both authoritarianism and passive resignation speaks to my own drive to disrupt capitalism and push people toward action.

Bill Hicks

Hicks has a sharp political critique with dark humor and a deep disdain for bullshit. His attacks on consumerism, corporate control, and political hypocrisy align with my own frustrations with capitalism and the absurdity of American politics Hicks didn’t just argue against the system; he ridiculed it in ways that exposed its ridiculousness. His jokes weren’t just shock humor, they were a brutal deconstruction of how capitalism co-opts everything, even rebellion. His no-holds-bar critique of America and the American system hits home for me.

Emil Cioran

Cioran strips existence down to its raw, unfiltered absurdity, much like how I see the world. His work speaks to my anti-natalism, misanthropy, and skepticism of grand ideological solutions. Cioran embraces despair with a poetic, almost darkly comedic flair I long to fight capitalism and push people into action, but I also find it exhausting. Cioran embodies that paradox. He was fully aware that everything is meaningless, yet he was still compelled to write, express, and dissect existence with a razor sharp wit.

Doug Stanhope

He blends brutal honesty, dark humor, and a deep contempt for societal norms. His raw no-bullshit take on life, politics, and human stupidity aligns with my own misanthropy, especially his disdain for blind patriotism, capitalism, and pro-natalism He doesn’t care about being a hero or inspiring people, he just calls out the bullshit for what it is.

Che Guevara

He wasn’t just a theorist, he was a man of action. He saw capitalism and imperialism as global enemies that needed to be dismantled everywhere. That kind of commitment resonates with my own view that capitalism just isn’t a local problem, but a systemic one that requires radical disruption. His image represents defiance, struggle, and an unrelenting pursuit of justice.

Malcolm X

Malcolm X wasn’t interested in playing nice with the system or begging for incremental change. He wanted radical transformation just like with my own frustration with passive leftism and half-measures. His ability to evolve is also great. He started as a staunch Black nationalist but later expanded his vision to a broader fight against oppression worldwide.

Arthur Schopenhauer

His view that the “will to live” traps people in a cycle of pointless striving aligns with my belief that bringing new life into the world is ethically indefensible. Unlike other philosophers who try to find meaning in suffering; Schopenhauer just lays it bare: existence is a cruel joke, and the best we can do is minimize suffering. His radical honesty about the bleakness of life, combined with his sharp wit and refusal to engage in false hope makes him a natural fit for my worldview.

Thomas Ligotti

His work embodies a philosophical commitment to cosmic horror and existential dread that mirrors my own views on the futility of existence. Ligotti sees the world as fundamentally indifferent, even hostile to human life. His vision of reality as an empty, uncaring place aligns with my own anti-natalist and absurdist leanings. His writing acknowledges the darkness I find both intellectually and existentially compellling.

Stephen King

This may comes as a shock to you, but Stephen King is a hero of mine because he’s the one who got me to love reading. I started with his books then branched out into others on government, philosophy, other people’s beliefs, etc. His deep cynicism about small-town America and institutions speak to my own skepticism toward power and the status quo. And honestly? He’s just fun to read. His mix of horror, dark humor, and no-nonsense storytelling makes him one of the few mainstream writers who doesn’t feel watered-down, which is something I respect.

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is a relentless critic of capitalism and U.S. imperialism and he backs up his arguments with deep historical and political analysis. He doesn’t just complain, he provides historical context, logical arguments, and a roadmap for action. His work exposes how power operates from corporate media manipulation to government-backed atrocities. His views align with my own desire to challenge capitalism and push for real change.

Peter Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin showed me that cooperation — not competition — is what can keep society alive, and that real power comes from the bottom up, not the top down. He helped me unlearn the propaganda of capitalism and see that solidarity is not naive — it’s revolutionary.

Top 5 Favorite Books

I’ve always told people I have a top five list of favorite books. I thought I’d post them here and why I love each of them.

The Stranger by Albert Camus

It’s the perfect mix of existentialism, absurdism, and detachment, which are three things that resonate with me. Mersault’s indifference and refusal to play along with society’s expectations, and his ultimate acceptance of the absurdity of life align with my own views.

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus

This book gave me a framework to make peace with the absurd. Instead of drowning in nihilism or clinging to false meaning, Camus handed me a third option: defiance. I don’t have to pretend life has inherent meaning, but I also don’t have to collapse under that realization. I can push the boulder up the hill, knowing it’s pointless, and still find joy in the act.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

It’s a chaotic, sprawling, brilliant mess, just like the world it critiques. It takes on capitalism, addiction, entertainment, and the crushing weight of modern existence, all with a mix of absurd humor and gut-wrenching sincerity.

At it’s core, it’s about resistance. Against addiction, against passive entertainment, against the numbness that capitalism and media try to impose.

Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy

Pure, unfiltered chaos — violence, fate, and the raw, indifferent brutality of the universe laid bare. It doesn’t try to comfort you; it forces you to stare into the abyss and see it staring back. It doesn’t just tell a story. It drags you through hell and leaves you to make sense of it yourself.

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

One of the most powerful indictments of capitalism and injustice ever written, and it does so with raw emotion and unflinching truth. It isn’t just about suffering; it’s about resistance, solidarity, and the idea that even in the face of crushing exploitation, people can come together and fight back.

Steinbeck’s anger at the system is palpable, but he doesn’t preach; he shows. He makes you feel the desperation, the hunger, the betrayal by a system designed to grind people down, but at the same time there’s that threat of quiet, unwavering defiance.