If you think about it a little more broadly, the advent of AI (as we call it) has completely "exploded" philosophy in the sense that it's required a lot of rethinking. Your post is very interesting, but the best commentator on your approach could be but he hasn't been around lately... I'd love to read his opinion.

Human dialogue, unlike dialogue with AI, implies participation and mutual interest, which builds empathy and a desire for exchange. Before asking questions, in my opinion, some interest in the dialogue is required (unlike with AI). If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle wrote something similar in his "Rhetoric." Regarding your question, before asking about morality or ethics, I recommend inquiring with the author of your notes yourself.

Why am I obliged to think within the given framework?

Didn't interest me.

Must I have?

I have nothing to object to in some of these assertions, but I sincerely believe that it is precisely philosophy, in its characteristic manner of undermining the fundamental principle or being amazed by the self-evident, that is capable of somehow resolving the current crisis. Or rather, not resolving it once and for all, but creating the groundwork for future crises.

I don't like the idea of ​​a state without a constitution.

I don't have an answer to your question with these initial data.
But I have another answer, in the spirit of processual ontology with elements of the Apokrisis approach, proposed in another thread, as well as a post-positivist approach.

In short, the idea is that there is no single author or factor that influences a constitution to a sufficient degree to merit the title of its author. A constitution is the result of the consensus of a very large number of participants. A constitution is often rewritten and supplemented, depending on the circumstances. A constitution is not the source of everything—it is merely a document that takes into account the interests of all its authors, including the invisible ones. And, most importantly, a constitution is not "given"; a constitution is not a substance or a matter. A constitution is an ongoing process. A very complex process determined by many factors (even the invention of AI or cryptocurrency can influence a constitution). If a constitution turns into a dead set of dogmas enshrined in the 18th century, its value is close to zero. A constitution must be constantly applicable.

I'd also like to point out that a constitution isn't exactly an ancient invention. The earliest known constitution in the modern sense is the US Constitution, adopted in 1787. Although similar documents existed before that (for example, the Magna Carta of 1215 in England), they weren't constitutions in the true sense, as they didn't establish a comprehensive system of government. So, that's 238 years. States, in the sense of organized political structures with centralized power, have existed for approximately 5,500 years. Clearly, a constitution isn't necessary for a state to exist. By this, I'd like to suggest that tomorrow, one might not be necessary.

What was the idea? You wrote a post in the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment, with elements of sentimentalism and romanticism (like Rousseau or Locke). But we're in the 21st century, the era of postpositivism, relativism, post-structuralism, and much more.

If your question is about a standard (like the standards at the Paris Chamber of Weights and Measures), that's one thing. But if we're talking about something practically useful and modern, that's something else entirely.

For the sake of fairness, I would like to add a few authors that you did not mention:

1. Philosophers and their ideas: The works of philosophers form the intellectual foundation, but they may be disconnected from the real needs of society.

2. External trends: Fashionable social formations influence constitutions, but they risk ignoring local characteristics.

3. Direct foreign intervention: Constitutions created under the pressure of external forces often serve the interests of foreigners rather than the people.

4. Historical traditions and cultural norms: Constitutions may rely on established traditions, but this can hinder reforms and innovations by perpetuating outdated structures.

This isn't really a question, but rather an empirical confirmation of our philosophical discussion. Philosophy is often criticized for building castles in the air; I simply checked the reality from open sources. Of course, the depth of my analysis is superficial; I don't claim a rigorous methodology.

But my question is this: What do you think philosophy could do in this situation? Where is the solution? Should we seek one? Or is the current state of affairs satisfactory, and will a new order emerge after a reassessment of the balance of power?

In the context of this discussion, I'd like to share a real-life example that's unfolding right before our eyes. This is a very sensitive topic, and I'll try to be as impartial as possible, but I'm afraid that what I write will not please either side. I'll discuss the protests in Georgia (October 4-5).
I'd rather not describe what's happening there in my own words; instead, I'll cite the opinions of media outlets, which have covered the events in completely different ways.

1. BBC. Main sources: article from October 5, 2025, "Georgia protesters try to storm Tbilisi presidential palace" and video "Watch: Protesters attempt to storm Georgia's presidential palace" (October 4). The article describes an attempt to break into the palace grounds, the use of pepper spray and water cannons by police to disperse them, and the arrests of five people. The protests are presented as "anti-government" and pro-European, with references to EU flags and an election boycott. This creates a narrative of a struggle for "freedom" against "authoritarianism," implying sympathy for the opposition without making any direct assessments. The impression of "repression" is carefully reinforced. The role of Georgian Dream as a legitimate force is minimized, while Russian influence, which supports the undemocratic government, is emphasized.

2. Russia Today Protesters are "storming" and "inciting unrest," arrests are a "legitimate response." Statements from the authorities predominate; the opposition is casually referred to as "pro-EU." Videos emphasize protester violence; the phrase "history repeats itself" implies the "artificiality" of the protests (a hint at external manipulation). Ignoring repression and focusing on "unrest," European influence is emphasized, presenting the protests as destabilizing.

This is how events are being presented right now globally. A typical standoff in the information space. Each side chooses which source to trust, but we see how widely different the presentations are, although this is not outwardly emphasized.

Of interest was the extent to which each of these parties participates in shaping public opinion in Georgia.

Based on available data as of October 2025 (from USAID, EU, NED, and other sources), the "democratic" pool (grants for civil society, human rights, independent media, anti-corruption, Trade flows from the West (US + EU + others) to Georgia amounted to $200-300 million in 2023-2024 (the opposition and related areas).

Russia and Georgia have increased trade and tourism over the past two years, following a thaw in relations. Currently, 22% of all tourism revenues for the Georgian economy come from Russian tourists, approximately $200 million in direct investment into the economy came from Russia, $2.04 billion in direct cash transfers from Russia to Georgia by citizens, and trade turnover between the countries has grown by approximately 15% over the past two years.

From these data, it follows that both Russia and Western countries have interests in Georgia. As can be seen from the sources, Western countries' interests lie in political partnership and influence, while Russia's interests lie in economic partnership and preventing a repeat of the Ukrainian scenario for itself.

This suggests that demonstrations and clashes on the streets of Georgia are taking place for economic reasons (one side advocates democracy and EU accession; the other side advocates (The economic benefits of good neighborliness)

We've all heard about the need to fight for our rights, take to the streets when there's disagreement, etc. But the question is different: does a successful democratic revolution (color revolutions) in a former Soviet republic lead to good or happiness? I didn't notice this in Ukraine.

But then, do other foreign states have the right to interfere in the affairs of another state by inciting ideological contradictions? I wondered - why doesn't the UN take care of this?

And here's what I found: in 2022-2023, Ukraine, Latvia, and Poland initiated resolutions in the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/RES/49/21, A/HRC/RES/52/24) calling for "combatting foreign sponsorship of disinformation." This indirectly concerned media funding, but Russia and China voted against it, calling it "Western censorship." The US supported it, but only for "hostile" media (like RT), not their grants.
Academics (Loyola University, Chicago) and some NGOs proposed a "Convention on Preventing Foreign Interference in Elections," including a ban on funding foreign media and political parties. This was discussed at the General Assembly, but hasn't gone beyond talk: the US, Russia, and China don't want to lose their leverage.

Judging by these data, the powers that be are content with this. Humans appear to be mere bargaining chips on the global stage. Major players are willing to calmly provoke, incite, and wage wars to advance their interests. We see how global powers, under the guise of good intentions, shape public opinion, support their preferred forces, and push for protests or suppression. And no side is "absolutely righteous."

What’s gonna happen when you replace most jobs with AI, how will people live? What if someone is injured in an event involving AI? So far AI just seems to benefit the wealthiest among us and not the Everyman yet on Twitter I see people thinking it’s gonna lead us to some utopia unaware of what it’s doing now. I mean students are just having ChatGPT write their term papers now. It’s going to weaken human ability and that in turn is going to impact how we deal with future issues.

It sorta reminds me of Wall-E — Darkneos

There was also a wonderful Soviet film, "Moscow-Cassiopeia." According to the plot, a distress signal came from Cassiopeia. A spaceship carrying children was sent to rescue them, as they would have been grown by the time the ship arrived. Upon arrival, it turned out that the locals on Cassiopeia had entrusted all their chores to robots, focusing instead on creative pursuits. However, the robots rebelled and drove all humans off the planet. I doubt this film has been translated into your language, but if so, I recommend watching it.

I use AI daily. I notice the same in others. What strikes me is how much the level of business correspondence within the company has improved, the quality of presentations has increased, and the level of critical thinking has risen. I believe my environment is under the control of AI =)

Well, some human skills have truly been deflated. At the same time, AI provides an easy and quick answer to any request, while yesterday's incompetent performs miracles. Young people understand that they don't have to bother with cramming at all—it's much easier to delegate tasks to AI.

It doesn't seem so bad. But people are losing knowledge. They're losing their thought systems, their ability to independently generate answers. Today's world is like a TikTok feed: a series of events you forget within five seconds.

What will this lead to? I don't know exactly, but the world will definitely change. Perhaps humanity's value system will be reconsidered.

There's already a "desire for authenticity" emerging—that is, a desire to watch videos not generated by AI, to read text not generated by AI.

I already perceive perfectly polished answers as artificial. "Super-correct" behavior, ideal work, the best solution are perceived as artificial. I crave a real encounter, a real failure, a real desire to prove something. What was criticized by lovers of objectivity only yesterday can somehow resonate today.

About 25 years ago, when a computer started confidently beating a grandmaster at chess, everyone started shouting that it was the end of chess. But no. The game continues, and people enjoy it. The level of players has risen exponentially. Never before have there been so many grandmasters. And everyone is finding their place in the sun.

Everything is fine. Life goes on!

I agree that the parallels you mentioned between the contemporary United States and Germany in the 1930s seem apt at first glance, especially in the context of emotional tensions and attempts to restore national identity. However, as you rightly noted, Hegel's dialectic presupposes a clear antithesis—in Germany's case, it was a national resentment directed at external perpetrators (the Treaty of Versailles).

In the United States, however, in my view, the antithesis is more internal. The contradictions we observe are more closely linked to divisions within society—between various ideological, cultural, and economic groups. This is not so much a struggle against an external enemy as an internal identity crisis, which is generating the fragmentation of a thesis that was once united in the form of the "American Dream."

One could say that the United States is currently in a phase of "high tension," but this tension is not directed outward, as it was in pre-war Germany. Instead, it is tearing apart the social fabric from within. Here it's appropriate to recall Machiavelli, whom you didn't mention, but whose idea of ​​creating an "enemy image" to consolidate society seems relevant. The problem, however, is that in the contemporary US, such an enemy image (whether external or internal) is too vague to unite society. Attempts to artificially create one—through the rhetoric of militarism or culture wars—so far appear unconvincing, perhaps due to the loss of "soft power."

And here we come to the key point: the loss of ideological certainty. Western metadiscourse, which until recently was perceived as universal, is beginning to lose its persuasiveness not only to the outside world but also to the West itself.

When internal contradictions become too obvious, exporting an ideology—democracy, liberalism, or other values—becomes difficult. This, in my opinion, is the "end of Western metadiscourse" referred to in the title of this thread. We are witnessing not just a change of phase in Hegelian dialectic, but perhaps the emergence of a new synthesis that has not yet acquired clear outlines.

I haven't encountered a classification of types of individualism. Please share links for further study. This would be very useful for me.

Your idea of ​​"defensive" individualism as a response to loneliness sounds compelling and adds nuance. However, I don't think it contradicts my paradigm, but rather complements it. In my analysis, I focused on individualism as an ideology and cultural foundation (from Christian salvation to liberalism), rather than as a personal reaction.

At the same time, let's try to connect these levels. For example, the "defensive" type is possible precisely in societies where individualism is already ingrained: in a primitive community or collectivist culture, self-isolation would lead to exile or death, but in a liberal world (where "I don't care what John does"), it becomes a rational survival strategy. Thus, even defensive individualism rests on the same foundation—freedom from collective obligations.

Are there examples of defensive individualism within traditional or collectivist societies? Yes, I think there are, and it's not uncommon. For example, hermitism—both individual and group. Other examples (but they're more about moral individualism) include Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn in the USSR. The former was a prominent enough scientist to be subjected to harsh repression, while the latter was exiled from the USSR.

My theory (individualism as a product of Christianity and liberalism) isn't refuted by these examples, but it is qualified: individualism in collectivist societies is rare and requires specific conditions. This makes it the exception rather than the rule, which confirms the idea of ​​a "foundation" in liberal societies where individualism is systemically supported.

In general, developed countries' propaganda toward their geopolitical rivals is based, among other things, on the idea of ​​conveying to citizens beliefs about personal uniqueness, inimitability, and individuality. For example, Voice of America and Radio Liberty, US-funded broadcasters, broadcast programs emphasizing individual rights, freedom of speech, and personal success. For example, they told stories of "independent" Americans who achieved success without state control, contrasting this with the Soviet system, where "everyone is responsible for everyone else." This sowed the seeds of rebellion: "Why should I depend on the collective when I can be independent?" Such broadcasts reached millions of listeners in the USSR, contributing to the rise of dissidents like Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn.
Today, a similar tactic is being used against China and Russia, where the emphasis on individualism is being used to criticize authoritarian systems. Propaganda focuses on "personal uniqueness" as a universal value to provoke internal conflict: "Why should I be responsible for the affairs of the state or the collective?"

But this process is two-way: rivals also use propaganda: China and Russia promote collectivism as a "defense against Western individualistic decadence." The narrative of "personal unhappiness" is also characteristic of their approaches. Collectivist propaganda directly attacks individualism as selfishness.

The situation seems acute, and instead of embracing the best in each other, everything is gradually returning to a "clash of systems," albeit in a different form. I don't like this. The idea of ​​this topic was, among other things, an attempt to find ideological compromises. However, I must admit, my naive attempts always fall on the rocks of economic interests.

The way the question is formulated, it looks like moralizing. "Do people need" ... Who are we to tell others how to live their lives ... — baker

Perhaps, indeed, my formulation sounded like an attempt to answer for others, but my intention was different—not moralizing, but exploratory. The question "Should people..." is not a directive, but an attempt to understand: does a person have an existential need to evaluate their own life, or is it perfectly acceptable to live without engaging in this reflective labor?

If Socrates had been accused of moralizing for such questions, he would likely have merely smiled. After all, his famous line, "The unreflected life is not worth living," is precisely the assertion that it is human nature, and perhaps even necessary, to stop from time to time and reflect on how we live.

In the 20th century, existentialists also did not propose universal "oughts," but viewed freedom of choice and the recognition of the absurd as important components of the human experience. In "The Myth of Sisyphus," Camus wrote something like this: "To live is to question."

So my question is non-directive. Not "should" or "shouldn't," but rather: what changes in our lives when we evaluate them? And is it possible to learn to appreciate them without loss and catastrophe?

Whether you were in fact on the "brink of loss" is a matter of interpretation.
It's also possible to conceive of the situation in another way, for example: You had been on the brink of loss all along. Prior to having feelings for that other woman, you weren't fully committed to your wife and family to begin with, and this lack of committment (perhaps unknown even) is what made the emotional straying possible at all. — baker

You can interpret it this way, or you can interpret it another way: you could say that "my head doesn't turn left without a reason." However, that's exactly how I felt and that's exactly how I interpreted the experience. It's neither good nor bad, nor right nor wrong. But this was a review of my experience. I don't recommend turning this approach into a practice.

We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like.” — baker

An interesting expression. I don't envy people who live by such principles. How do you see a solution to this problem?

Very good, thanks for the feedback. Honestly, I wanted to hear opinions like these because they broaden the discussion. Thank you for your input.

So:

For one, I am skeptical about such practices. Does Donald Trump write a gratitude journal? Successful, important people don't seem like the types who would do such things, because it seems to me that it is precisely because they take for granted what they have (wealth, health, power, etc.) and because they feel entitled to it and demand it from life that they have it in the first place. They don't beg life; they take from it. — baker

Who is Donald Trump—and why should the way he conducts his affairs matter to me? Why should his lifestyle or mindset be my guide? And, most importantly, why should "success" even determine my value system or level of happiness? Just because it's accepted—because that's the dominant discourse?

Let's say someone chooses the path of wealth, influence, and external recognition—a path that essentially echoes the Calvinist paradigm: if you're successful, you're chosen by God, therefore you're worthy. But does this make a person truly happy? And will you really, by giving up many human qualities for the sake of "success," necessarily achieve it?

Here's an empirical example: South Korea. A society where success is cultivated from childhood. A child studies from dawn to dusk, deprived of spontaneous joy, then studies to the bone at university, then works beyond their limits to pay the rent and bills. And here it is, the long-awaited result: you have the ghost of a chance to have one child (you can't afford more). Society is objectively "successful," but look at the birth rate, the burnout rate, and the suicide rate.

I'm not saying this path is inherently wrong—but the task of philosophy, it seems to me, is not to give instructions on "how to live," but to offer a different perspective. To question the obvious. And to help people see value where it's usually not sought—not only in victories, but in the very fact of being.

Secondly, all such practices that I can think of are somehow religious in nature. As such, it won't be possible to carry out those practices meaningfully unless one is actually a member of the religion from which they originate, because those practices are only intelligible in the metaphysical context provided by said religion. — baker

It's always connected to religion, metaphysical, and therefore imprecise. It sounds very much in the spirit of a positivist approach. And yes, I have nothing to argue or prove here. However, I did ask this question above:

Christian "Thanksgiving" cannot be taken out of context and viewed as a standalone tool. It may have some effect, but the content itself will certainly be missing. Taking "Thanksgiving" out of Christianity and calling it the key is very reminiscent of a "success coach" and his attempts to offer five simple steps to achieving harmony and prosperity.

Do you think any attempt at simplification is impossible and will be empty, or is some systematization possible to convey the idea without delving into it? — Astorre

Let's say a person is not religious, rational, focuses on verifiable judgments, and demands precise answers to precise questions. What can be offered to such a person? Is it necessary for them to first accept a religious or metaphysical worldview in order to begin to appreciate what they already have? Or can philosophy offer approaches that allow this to be done outside of a religious context?

Do you need to "value" anything at all if you're not religious? Or is it enough to simply live without asking such questions? These are the main questions of this topic for me. If you can answer these questions, I would be grateful.

I used to be more of a positivist than I am now and believed that a universal tool could be provided. Systematic studies in philosophy, particularly ontology, forced me to reconsider my views in the spirit of postpositivism. The same fate befell Heidegger (as far as I know). He began by wanting to provide a universal tool, but ended by admitting that his works were metaphysics.

One could say that Heidegger moved from methodological optimism to profound doubt in the very project of universality and rational explanation. This, in a sense, echoes the transition from positivism to postpositivism in science and philosophy: the rejection of the idea of ​​ultimate truth, the recognition of the contextuality of knowledge, the role of language, tradition, and historicity.

But if you manage to discover the foundation of all this, please share it.

Somewhere at the beginning of this thread, I wrote the following:

This leads to the conclusion that a system, in our everyday understanding, is a conscious construct. — Astorre

You're asking for a lively discussion, not just references. And here's my first assertion:

The word "system" was invented by humans to describe phenomena.

This word successfully describes some phenomena and less so others: for example, "system" is suitable for describing the mechanism of a watch, but it's inappropriate for describing a phenomenon such as the system of the world order. In short, in my opinion, nothing is a system in itself, but we are comfortable calling a system some part of what we work on/study/research/create. A system is a concept we use to reflect the structures of the world. And since the word "system" is a concept, we (humanity as a whole) can agree on what we understand by this word, and that will be an accurate definition of the concept.

However, yesterday, walking down the street, I thought: Is there anything in the world around us that couldn't be called a system? A stone is a system of molecules, an anthill is a survival system, and the solar system is a system of orbits. Therefore, a system is everything: from any existing entity to the value system in our heads.

From the above theses, it follows that there cannot be any "matter" or "substance" of a system. A system is not a thing, but a way of talking about things.

So, can we name, define, and set boundaries for this concept? I think it's possible, but we should define it not by searching for the matter of a system, but by identifying the characteristics inherent in systems. In other words, the main idea is to define the characteristics of a system.

So, here are what I would call the characteristics of a system:
1. It consists of elements
2. The elements interact with each other
3. By "working" together, the elements develop new properties than each element individually
4. Boundaries (which the knower will name, since otherwise the system is everything)
5. The elements are structured (organized and ordered)
6. Stability over time (the pattern persists for a sufficiently long time, at least more than a single moment).

Somehow quite pessimistic

I look at this problem from a slightly different angle:

Chalmers calls the problem:
There are so-called soft problems of consciousness—they are also complex, but technically solvable. Examples:
How does the brain process visual information?
How does a person concentrate attention?
How does the brain make decisions?

These questions, in principle, can be studied using neuroscience, AI, and psychology.
But the hard problem of consciousness is:
Why do these processes have an internal sensation at all?
Why doesn't the brain simply function like a computer, but is accompanied by conscious experience?

We know what it's like to see red, but we can't explain why the brain accompanies this perception with subjective experience.
So (as Chalmers writes): Either something is missing in modern science. Or we're asking the wrong question.

Chalmers asks a question in the spirit of postpositivism: Any scientific theory is not necessarily true, but it satisfies our need to describe phenomena. He suggests rethinking the question itself. However, he hopes to ultimately find the truth (in a very positivist way). He still thinks in terms of "problem → theory → solution." That is, he believes in the attainability of truth, even if only very distantly.

As for me, I would say this: if the truth of this question is unraveled, human existence will lose all meaning (perhaps being replaced by something or someone new). Why? Because answering this question will essentially create an algorithm for our existence that can be reproduced, and we ourselves will become mere machines in meaning. An algorithm for our inner world will emerge, and therefore a way to copy/recreate/model the subjective self will emerge.

From this, I see two possible outcomes: Either this question will be answered (which I would not want in my lifetime) or this question will remain unanswered (which promises humanity to continue asking this question forever in any way and for any reason, but never attaining the truth). So my deep conviction on this matter is this: mystery itself is what maintains the sacredness of existence.

At the same time, as a lover of ontology, I myself ask myself these and similar questions. However, the works I have written on this subject do not claim to be truthful, but rather call for an acceptance of incompleteness. Incompleteness and unansweredness lie at the foundation of our existence, and we must treat this with respect, otherwise our "miraculous" mind, with its desire to know everything, will lead to our own loss.

I was hooked on this forum from the first day I discovered it. I later joined myself. What's really good is that any topic, even the most naive, won't go unnoticed. And they definitely won't tell you what an idiot you are, although they'll hint at it =). I've tried discussing a variety of topics here, from strictly theoretical ones to politics or gratitude practices, and I've always found a response. Well, I like it (although being too harsh is also not welcome—especially criticism of liberalism). So, I think any topic you discuss will find its audience.

Your passion for empathy and dreams of a better world is the spark that ignites hearts. Yes, Tom and the guys find fault, but it's like a whetstone for your ideas - makes them sharper! Try to add specifics: instead of "Mother Earth," tell us how, for example, joint projects of local communities can really change something. Small steps, like those good deeds that you wrote about - this is the way to big. Keep shining, we are all here for a better future, just each in its own way!

In our area, builders like to repeat: "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines." This phrase perfectly expresses the essence of any idealistic approach to understanding human activity. Attempts to accurately structure, describe, or predict people's behavior tend to face a reality that is invariably richer, more complex, and more controversial than any scheme.

Reality has many levels, contexts and accidents that defy complete theoretical coverage. In this sense, any model that claims to be universal inevitably tests the limits of its applicability, especially in the field of humanitarian knowledge. This is often seen as a critique of the excess belief in causal rigor and scientific accuracy characteristic of positivist thinking.

Nevertheless, a person has always been characterized by the desire to transform observations into knowledge, and knowledge into a system capable of prediction. So what we call science was born. And although humanitarian disciplines are often criticized for the lack of strict formalization, they certainly have a certain predictive power. Let not in the form of rigid algorithms, but in the form of landmarks that allow you to think within the framework of probabilities, trends and meanings.

The search for consistency, even if it is conditional and incomplete, remains intellectually fruitful. It allows not so much to predict the future with accuracy as to set the direction of thought and action in a complex and multidimensional reality.

I would like to repeat my question:

And the most important question that arises in this regard: Do people need to make this most accurate assessment of what they already have in their daily lives, or is it easier to simply live life as it comes? — Astorre

Thus, this method is connected with assessing oneself not as the center of existence, but rather with experiencing gratitude simply for the fact that we exist and that something in the world operates not by our will, but according to its own laws—and yet harmoniously; seeing meaning and beauty in simplicity, in the natural flow of time, in limitations, and not only in exceptional experiences.

If I may express it briefly: The Method of Humbly Presence is a conscious way to appreciate life without loss, accepting oneself not as the center of the world, but as its natural part. Through the rejection of egocentrism, gratitude, sobriety of perception, and the ability to rejoice in the simple are born.



This review can be summarized as follows:

The method of active gratitude is a path to gratitude through action: dance, creativity, good deeds. Not reflection, but living experience—especially compassion—leads to humility and an awareness of how much has been given.

There’s repentance. I don’t mean this in a religious sense, but as re-construal. The best way to appreciate anything in our life is to refresh its meaning for us. Simple attention won’t do this. Stare at anything long enough and it disappears. We must always re-construe in order to retain relevance. — Joshs

I had one positive experience in my personal life that allowed me to truly appreciate this approach. While married, I fell in love with another woman. I was faced with the choice of leaving my family and choosing this woman, or weaning myself off of my feelings for her (it's a shame dialectic isn't possible here). Essentially, at that time, I completely analyzed and rethought all my values—family, children, etc. As a result, I strengthened my initial position, realized how truly valuable they were, and chose family. Fortunately, women gave me the opportunity to make an informed choice, and my wife accepted me (by the way, I didn't have any physical affairs).

I remember that period in my life, which lasted about a year, well. My values ​​were tested in practice. I became convinced of them. But again, all this became possible only on the brink of loss.

Reading your comments, I, as usual, begin to criticize myself for a certain superficiality, since you always very aptly develop your position on the topic of religion, in which you are clearly a great expert.

Since you come from a background, I'm sure your familiar with the motif of portraits of Orthodox monks in their monastery's ossuaries where they are sitting contemplating the skulls of their deceased brothers (or sisters I suppose) by the light of the alter. Some Catholic saints are also often depicted with a skull for similar reasons. I have heard of Eastern monks even sleeping in their own eventual caskets as a meditation on death. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Frankly, before I joined this forum, before I delved into the topic of dualism (body and soul) in Christianity and wrote a short essay on it (you may remember), I was somewhat skeptical of this skull worship. This practice seemed strange to me, since I assumed the soul had already left the body long ago, somewhere else—what was the point of cultivating these bones? However, after realizing that Christianity was previously more about monism and the resurrection of the whole person, these practices began to make sense to me. And as we've discovered, Orthodoxy has preserved this monism and veneration of the body (although few priests today understand this).

Thanksgiving: the one you're mentioning, which is now contextualized. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. Christian "Thanksgiving" cannot be taken out of context and viewed as a standalone tool. It may have some effect, but the content itself will certainly be missing. Taking "Thanksgiving" out of Christianity and calling it the key is very reminiscent of a "success coach" and his attempts to offer five simple steps to achieving harmony and prosperity.

Do you think any attempt at simplification is impossible and will be empty, or is some systematization possible to convey the idea without delving into it?

The idea wasn't to avoid answering the question, but rather to expand the discussion. The topic arose from my observation that people often both undervalue and overvalue what they already have. In the first case, regret follows the loss, while in the second case, relief (but again, regret over lost time) sets in. I played the role of a "German idealist" of yesteryear, asking whether it was possible to accurately assess what was already "given" to avoid these pitfalls. I cited approaches I knew. In a sense, these approaches help value what is given, but they lack the precision that would likely be of interest to utilitarians. Another question: is it even possible to accurately assess what is given?

For example, in business, there are several assessment techniques: financial valuation of assets (e.g., market value, liquidation value); human resource valuation (assessment of competencies and potential, and replacement cost); Intangible asset valuation (financial performance, brand strength); intellectual property valuation; SWOT analysis of resources (identifying strengths and weaknesses, understanding their applicability in the current environment); VRIO analysis (Value, Rarity, and Imitability (difficult to copy)); efficiency analysis. All these techniques, while somewhat costly, pay off handsomely in the long run.

And the most important question that arises in this regard: Do people need to make this most accurate assessment of what they already have in their daily lives, or is it easier to simply live life as it comes?

By the way, it is strange that there is no "axiology" section on the forum, because this section of philosophy is probably looking for answers to such questions. I know some practices that can be grouped into three approaches.


1. Practice of attention — training to see, что уже есть (Buddhism, phenomenology, awareness, Gurdjieff).

2. Practice gratitude — active recognition of values ​​(Christianity, psychology, partly stoicism).

3. The practice of thinking about death and the transition — to strengthen the presence without plunging into fear (Sufism, Stoicism, partly Heidegger).

I think this field of knowledge goes beyond theoretical philosophy and is a more practical field. Maybe someone knows other approaches?

I don't think everyone is a philosopher like he says, most people don't really seem to question the way things are in life and just go along with it with what they were taught. From my understanding our brains are sorta resistant to what philosophy requires of us. — Darkneos

Today, I see it this way: the purpose of philosophy is to provide some relief to those who wonder about the state of affairs in life.

Information is a form that can mean, that reveals itself in a meeting with someone who can read it. Thus, information is both a form and an event.

As I noted above, the question "what should we free ourselves from now?" was a kind of logical reductio ad absurdum.

In fact, recently discussing the topic of outdoor practices, I thought about the fact that a contemporary has to intentionally leave his comfort zone in order to feel alive again.

It turns out that our desire for safety and comfort has led us to a place from which it is worth running. And I fully support your idea, only in a slightly broader sense: in order to feel alive, some need is needed, some dissatisfaction, some aspiration. Otherwise, what is the point of striving for inaction, as in Buddhism, if we do nothing anyway?

So I began to plan a trip to nature, and options immediately appeared in my head to go to the mountains or to equipped gazebos on the river bank. But why not go to the steppe under the scorching sun with sand in your face and snakes? It turns out that the mind itself chooses the safest and most comfortable option.

But where is the authenticity then?

The thing is that perhaps philosophers will not have to invent anything themselves, since the current overconsumption and population growth will reformat everything in the most optimal way, so that we will not even notice it.

The question arises: What is the next stage of liberation? Maybe now is the time to free ourselves from the need to be? After all, we are already free from everything else, including any identity, social connections, aren't we? This is exactly where I see one of those very pillars of liberalism that I spoke about earlier.
— Astorre

And there we certainly differ. Absolute freedom makes no sense. To have meaning, freedom has to exist within a context of constraint. — apokrisis

I formulated this question in order to emphasize the absurdity to which we have reached in freeing ourselves from everything.

In earlier posts in this thread, you pointed out the key role of the Christian church in the development of individualism in the West. I was intrigued by this idea and here is what I found on the subject.

It seems that individualism is based on the idea of ​​"individual salvation" and individual responsibility before God. From the information I found, it follows that in the pre-Christian era this idea existed, but in a rather rudimentary form: the main emphasis in Judaism was on the collective salvation of the people of Israel.

Collective identity was dominant: a Jew thinks of himself as part of Israel as the people of the Covenant. Salvation is the liberation of the people (from Egypt, Babylon, the future messianic era).

However, already in the prophetic literature (for example, in Ezekiel, Isaiah) there are notes of personal responsibility: "The soul that sins, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). Here is a hint that each person is personally responsible for his actions. Thus, the idea of ​​personal responsibility and even personal salvation was already present in Judaism, but it was not central.

Christianity has somewhat revised this approach. The focus shifts to a personal relationship with God, not to the law of Moses or belonging to Israel:

1. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)
2. Salvation through faith, not through ritual observance of the law:
"Your faith has saved you" (Luke 7:50)
3. The principle of internal conversion - a change of mind and heart:
"The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21)
4. The promise of eternal life to everyone, regardless of nationality, gender, status and past (for example, the parable of the prodigal son, or the conversation with the thief on the cross)

Christianity makes individual salvation the central element of its message.

Christian ideas fit perfectly into the Roman paradigm. Along with the Judeo-Christian tradition, Western consciousness was powerfully influenced by antiquity.
Roman law was the first to develop the concept of persona — a legal entity, an individual as a bearer of rights and obligations.
These ideas merged with Christianity, creating a synergy: Christianity provided a metaphysical justification for the value of the individual (created in the image and likeness of God, has an immortal soul), and Greco-Roman thought provided tools for self-knowledge and social realization of this individuality (logic, law, ethics).

Further, Christian philosophy only develops and strengthens this idea, which could not but influence the social structure and the way of thinking of pre-modern contemporaries:

1. Augustine emphasizes the inner man, introspection, grace that changes personality.
2. Thomas Aquinas, and later - Protestant ethics (for example, Max Weber) - all this reveals the personal moral and spiritual autonomy of man.
3. Luther strengthens the theme of personal faith against church intermediaries.

Now you do not even have to belong to a church or go there. You do not need to belong to some people or be chosen by God. You yourself can communicate with God, and your salvation depends on your righteousness. The Protestant ethic not only strengthened personal faith, but also sanctified individual labor and accumulation as signs of divine election. Capitalism, at its core, is a system that rewards individual initiative, risk, and responsibility. The entrepreneur is the economic equivalent of the existential hero, who creates his own destiny (and his own capital).

Further, all this is transformed into individual human rights, freedom of conscience (after all, if you are not righteous, this is your problem), pluralism of opinions - it becomes a consistent development. At the same time, the idea of ​​God as the source of everything is being debunked, as it has been replaced by faith in science.
"I don't care what John thinks, because it's his own business. I don't care how he runs the household or raises his children, because he's responsible for it himself." And the crown of all this is Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus. Existentialism - as personal responsibility to oneself for one's own actions in the absence of a common meaning or common responsibility.

All this is the story of someone escaping responsibility to someone else. What I wrote above - no one is responsible for anything. The question arises: What is the next stage of liberation? Maybe now is the time to free ourselves from the need to be? After all, we are already free from everything else, including any identity, social connections, aren't we? This is exactly where I see one of those very pillars of liberalism that I spoke about earlier.

Of course, all this is too reductionist: you can't just look at Christianity as the source of everything. All the changes in public consciousness did not happen in a vacuum, but under the influence of many other things, as you noted in your comments. But this idea seemed too beautiful to me to just keep it to myself =)

Using philosophy as a form of "wisdom porn" in this sense, people gratify themselves without investing the time and effort to deeply understand the content and its context. For example, one might use bite-sized quotes from great thinkers to feel the immediate rush of sophistication without much care for what the quotes are really about. — GazingGecko

Interesting approach. Developing this logic, it turns out that when we read philosophical works, we are sort of watching pornography: we are watching how someone, using various tools, penetrates all the cracks of other philosophers' ideas about reality. In this case, is independent philosophizing onanism or is it sex?And our collective philosophizing on the forum? Is it nothing other than an intellectual orgy?

I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings with such metaphors, but it turned out funny. It all reminded me of Plato's "Feast" where something like a philosophical "erotic symposium" takes place, where the theme of Eros unfolds from the physical to the divine, from sexual desire to the pursuit of truth and beauty.

This reminds me of Byung Chul Han's theory of autoexploitation in the "achievement society." I wrote about this before: — Count Timothy von Icarus

I must admit that I was not familiar with the works of this philosopher. I will be happy to familiarize myself with his works

the content of hidden pillars was revealed to me
— Astorre

Can you say more about the "hidden pillars" of liberalism? Presumably you are thinking of the pushback that comes from civil society, but I am curious about the nature of those hidden pillars. — Leontiskos

Of course, I've said this a bit too loudly, perhaps a bit more emotionally than I should have. But the thing is, in my opinion, if we're given the ability to critically analyze reality and the foundations of human understanding, why not use it in the realm of social organization? Why should something be done one way or another, and who determined it in advance? These questions lead to various unconventional thoughts. The first step towards resolution is to acknowledge the problem, identify its aspects, and assess its depth. In my opinion, this is a purely philosophical endeavor. On the other hand, if we look at history, it becomes clear that any social system is preceded by a theoretical foundation, which is then implemented by the apostles of the doctrine: Hobbes and Rousseau (among others) founded liberalism, Marx and Engels founded communism, and Gobineau founded Nazism. Even Putin has Ivan Ilyin.Trump has Curtis, and the globalists have Walzer or Fokuyama.


Therefore, I believe that philosophy can and should provide the tools for future generations to organize their societies.

I know this feeling when you yourself, understanding the topic very well, put forward a hypothesis - a very well-founded and well-developed one. In this case, you dream of criticism, like a philosopher. "Break me, because I honestly want to be affirmed or to doubt." This feeling is very close to me personally. However, I really liked your approach, it is very consonant with my own thoughts. True, I take as a starting point not biology or nature, but the ideas of Marx and Le Bon. But this does not prevent me from coming to similar conclusions, which, as I see it, complement each other.

At the same time, the question arises - what next? What is the path? What will be next? What can be offered in return?

This unnatural situation where there is only the agent of the individual and the agent of the state results in a lack of natural intermediate and subsidiary institutions and associations by which rights and duties are generated among social animals. Instead of assuming that every right must be fulfilled by the state, a non-liberal society is much more apt to assume that some rights are fulfilled by subsidiary institutions, such as the spouse, or the family, or the community, or the polis. Or in the case you give, one would look to the "master." — Leontiskos

Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. It is stated on paper: you are free from everything, just do not violate the rights of others. Freedom lies in the fact that no one is responsible for you. In essence, at all times in liberal regimes there have always been other institutions of unfreedom: the church, morality, institutions of civil society. I wrote about this above: try to declare in a liberal society that you love Putin or Kim - you will immediately be attacked, but not by the state, but by civil society. Much has been said here about the prohibition of dissent in authoritarian regimes. And yes, the consequences of dissent in such regimes will be harsher. However, I see how many forum participants seem to have the firmware "Liberalism is good" pre-installed, and even if they themselves doubt it, they are not very willing to speak out about it. Isn't this another form of prohibition of dissent? More sophisticated?

Rest assured, I am not the one criticizing your religion. Not the one who objects to the pillars of your faith in liberalism. I am probably the one who wants to find out the reasons, to ask the ultimate question about value and origin.

Many might also have thought that I am a supporter of authoritarianism. This is also not true. The fact is that society, humanity continues to develop. Until recently, liberalism was the most optimal means of finding a social compromise. However, when I saw the decline of the institutions of control of liberalism (which civil society was engaged in), the content of hidden pillars was revealed to me, which were not mentioned in the original ideas of Hobbes, Rousseau. Now, liberalism is considered the key to success by inertia, but today this is no longer the case. When some countries interfere in the affairs of my state with their stereotypes, which now do not work as they should for them - this saddens me, because it does not promise anything except wars and destruction (which is clearly visible in the example of Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).

My goal is to find “something else” that would be capable of self-organizing structures, and which previous ideologies do not allow to appear, constantly putting spokes in the wheels with their interventions.