249 posts shown.
Paul Rogers94 said:Wikipedia isn't much different from AI these days—honestly, there's almost no distinction left. Once you type a term into Google, you basically have to be capable of judging what actually makes sense and what doesn't
The truth is, most people think exactly like an AI—they just accept things without any real comprehension, knowing only what was hardwired into them through upbringing and schooling. That education doesn't even encourage independent thought; it’s just about the brute force memorization of "facts." In the modern school system, critical thinking is practically forbidden—until finally, a person becomes a true system BOT, nothing more than a soulless mess
From what I gather, the soul is what makes you alive—the actual spark within you—and once that leaves, you're dead
Or maybe I've got that part wrong too...
You're conflating two different things.😉
Drew Moore5 said:The soul is essentially a battlefield; all human evolution and personal growth happen right there in the thick of it.
Through the soul—sure, but the soul itself isn't the one doing the fighting.
The actual conflict exists between our survival instincts (that small, linear, limited ego) and the soul, which is eternal. The soul presents these vague demands—intuitions, hunches, gut feelings—to a rational mind that is strictly dedicated to survival. This creates constant friction. The intellect would much rather the soul didn't exist at all, even though if it did, the intellect wouldn't exist either....
Emily Scott68 said:It is quite evident that the human soul serves as a battlefield where instinctive impulses clash with the constraints imposed by reality and social norms. This perpetual internal conflict gives rise to what one might call "neurotic anxiety"—the fear of losing control—and "moral anxiety," which manifests as guilt or shame. However, these are far from the only manifestations of distress. There is also "reality anxiety," the dread of actual external threats, which merges with the other two to create a morbid, surreal inner landscape. These repetitive, microscopic panics can become truly unbearable and destructive if left unchecked. Consequently, there arises a fundamental necessity to defend oneself against them.
The soul isn't some "battlefield," and the supposed tragedy of the human condition isn't about failing to satisfy some primal set of "instinctive drives." What century are you living in? You sound like you’re channeling some outdated entity from 1910.
The soul is actually the
primary drive itself—a fundamental pursuit of happiness and harmony that it alone understands. To the soul, it doesn't matter whether that harmony is achieved through the raw satisfaction of impulses or through some elaborate sublimation process, blah blah blah, Freud and his psychoanalysis nonsense. 🙂
The soul is quite simple, and every one of us is an eternal soul (though some people act like bots because they think being detached is cool).
The primary and only true "conflict"—the panic, the fear, the destruction, the guilt, and the shame—stems from our ignorance of our true nature and our misguided identifications and beliefs. It has nothing to do with whether we managed to reach an orgasm or overindulge in food five times a week, a month, or even once a day.
Emily Scott68 said:Paranoia is nothing more than the excessive repetition of a flawed assumption masquerading as reality.
Reprogramming occurs through the exact same mechanism: repeating the process in the opposite direction.
And then what? You just install a new program?
So we can all end up just like you? 😲 👎
Thank you, but no thanks.
copperhound12 said:They’re exactly what I already mentioned—these exclusive types of schools (think Waldorf, Montessori, Ilich’s discussions on "deschooling," the "network" concept from V. Stambolović, those "Free Children of Summerhill" types, etc.—just to highlight the heavy hitters relevant to this debate) that serve to keep the social and symbolic (institutional) universe feeling satisfied and stable because nothing in the system actually changes; if anything, the system actively encourages this by "innovating" just enough to claim it supports pluralism and offers "alternative" options for people-who-think-differently.
It’s all futile without a paradigm shift in how we think. Our society is our culture: it is perfectly logical and understandable to view human reality as a social construction of reality. That is the fundamental question we have to untangle. And then—we have to act.
According to Berger and Luckmann, institutions control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined patterns of conduct. We are talking about behavior here. Institutions are built on behavior. So, what would a non-institutional school even look like? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they behave? Would you even call it a school then?
Now, I am seriously questioning whether you have even cracked open the book by Berger and Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"?
Because that text lays out very clear, unambiguous actors of institutionalization—concepts like the "symbolic universe," the "legitimation of our reality" (where "Legitimation explains the institutional order by attributing cognitive validity to its objectified meanings" (116)), "role typification" (“Institutionalization occurs when there is a mutual typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (75)), the "maintenance and transformation of subjective reality" (which is exactly what you mean by "behavior"), "identity theories," and so on and so forth.
Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own specific methodology. The goal of science is to expand, organize (and classify) that knowledge. Not what you just wrote.
We all know that; we could have just Googled it and we are well aware of your definition. My point was that the ultimate purpose of science —and I'll emphasize this—is to be helpful and to establish whatever it investigates or organizes as a public good. Because science is, metaphorically speaking, a game and a spontaneous adventure.
And reading critically means nothing if there isn't a clearly defined meaning for what "critical reading" actually represents.
"Human beings are endowed with the capacity for critical thought (including the ability to read critically - ed.) and that capacity can only be destroyed if the human being themselves is destroyed. The goal of scientific, or rather critical, “Sharing an opinion isn’t some kind of personal assault; it’s actually just an attempt to understand the situation, even if people constantly misinterpret that effort as a direct attack.” ( Šušnjić, “Resisting Critical Thinking”)
Get what I'm saying? ☕
Malia correction: Since this topic aims to defend—or rather, disprove—the connection between freedom and education, out of all the alternative schools you listed, only the original Neill's Summerhill
represents truly free (chosen) education.
Waldorf, Montessori, and the rest employ the exact same coercive mechanisms as the state-mandated public school system; the only difference is that they receive (wealthy) gifted children whose talents someone else noticed and decided to exploit. Their development is forced, without ever asking the child if they actually want to pursue those specific talents or spend their time that way. Waldorf schools are founded on Steiner pedagogy based on the four temperaments, and my grievance is that these schools are mere
followers. They are rooted in tradition—in something dead—which was alive only while Steiner was alive; it lived through him and with him, but once he passed, that vitality vanished. What are we talking about here? We can call it what you called it:
longing (for love, for life, for spontaneity). There is a massive distinction at play between two opposing processes: one is when you learn from experience and remain open to questioning and adapting your theory to what you live; the other is when you forcibly attempt to cram lived experience into the mold of a theory, thereby mutilating and killing it, rejecting its spontaneous vitality and its (new) message.
The original pioneers of ideas and theories practice the first method, while the followers practice the second. Original authors work with a love for the living and the present; followers also work with love, but toward the
conclusions of the original creators rather than toward the living and the present. Because wherever a direct and spontaneous teacher-student relationship exists, theories are constantly shifting and adapting, serving more as a justification for the system rather than acting as a dogma used by average teachers to protect themselves from their students and their feedback.
Paul Rogers94 said:Maybe try brushing up on some Deleuze and Guattari—read A Thousand Plateaus; an introduction to the politics of desire. That might actually help you guide an AI program toward some interesting cultural theories. Or dive into Massumijev's Guide Through Capitalism and Schizophrenia, or even work through the stuff by Žark Paić, our most fascinating cultural theorist... You really need a broader educational foundation to make sense of AI tools and get anything worthwhile out of them. Even when it comes to spirituality, having a complete grasp of postmodern terminology and theory in general is essential.
That requires having a soul (if not a spirit...)
But here, we are dealing with a purely clinical approach, par excellence.
(I can practically see the white walls, the cold metal, the desks, and the surgical instruments in the background 🙄 )
George Wood2 said:The most powerful 🙂 "I will not allow such terror." 🤣
😬
There is a certain intoxicating sense of power found in using clinically merciless and infallible terminology.
Nicholas Grant20 said:Good point. Maybe the bigger danger is actually practicing philosophy itself; the risk of getting lost in someone else's logic or swallowing their philosophy as dogma—so that the very thing meant to serve the freedom of the spirit ends up becoming just another trap for it.
Spot on.
That’s exactly why I’ve decided to redefine philosophy on my own terms. For me, it’s about
individual inquiry—the personal process of questioning the meaning of existence and navigating one's own relationship with Life and the Soul. Other people's philosophies can certainly serve as helpful references, but they shouldn't be the compass or the main characters in that journey.
(In today's consumer culture, everything is "customizable." Markets love personalization because they view it as something "original," allowing them to
assimilate (essentially steal 😬) those ideas to fuel their own expansion and growth.)
Emily Scott68 said:Occasionally, certain events occur that possess such immense quantities of energy that no standard level of arousal can adequately account for them. This energy becomes trapped within a potential field, effectively isolating—or creating a dissociation between—a specific segment of that field from the field itself. It is a variation of branding that is expansive, involving intense affective elements, direct, and entirely irreversible. Only external linguistic intervention—such as psychotherapy—can bridge such a chasm. The earlier an event occurs, the more deeply this dissociation becomes embedded as a defining characteristic of a constantly shifting field. In instances of multiple personalities (dissociative identity disorder), dissociation may evolve into its own "autonomous field" or even a sub-field.
To put that into plain English, for the rest of us humans:
Someone went through a traumatic experience and needs to see a therapist to talk
it out with a professional or someone in psychiatry or whatever. 😉🤣
(The programmers and the alternative crowd aren't exactly on speaking terms 😁 )
Emily Scott68 said:The general function of labeling is widely understood as a method of categorization, helping people distinguish one product from another.
For instance, telling chicken apart from beef.
In a social context, however, labels serve as a way to categorize and identify individuals—a practice many view as a fundamental driver of prejudice and discrimination.
Yes, yes... brilliant. 👍
So, could we get a definition for chicken and beef now?
Emily Scott68 is nothing more than an AI 😉 bot
It’s quite a joke, really—watching someone completely devoid of soul attempt to lecture anyone else about what a soul actually is... 🥳
Brilliant.
copperhound12 said:I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this, but I honestly can't help how I feel when I see things like this happening. It’s just... it's frustrating. I mean, I guess there's no other way to put it: we are looking at a complete breakdown of the standards we used to hold dear. Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe, but I can't shake the feeling that everything is just sliding into chaos. It feels like nobody is actually paying attention to the consequences anymore, and frankly, it makes me want to scream. I don't know. It's all just incredibly overwhelming. kaže:
For Berger and Luckmann, institutionalization is essentially just a pattern of human behavior—it’s all about typification. People decide that something actually matters, and once they assign that significance, it becomes an objective reality. During the process of externalization, people start developing these routine patterns of action and interaction based on their past experiences. In a strictly sociological sense, institutions are... They essentially exert control over human behavior by forcing everyone to follow these pre-set, rigid patterns of conduct. It’s all about dictating exactly how one should act.So, Merton talks about this whole idea of manifest versus latent functions. If you look at how slavery functioned back in the old days, the manifest function was supposed to be economic growth—that was the stated goal. But the latent function? That was actually about reinforcing the social status of white people. To put it simply: manifest functions are what's intended, while latent ones are the unintended side effects that happen anyway. Now, there’s a fundamental split here in how they view things. For Merton, society is essentially a system, and education is just one functional part of that machine. But for Berger and Luckmann, it's different—they see society as something we perceive through our own subjective experience and consciousness. It's all about how we sense it.
I guess this is just a passing thought.a.
Thanks for the bracelets, I guess, but there’s actually something else on my mind...☕
If you’ve actually sat down and read "The Social Construction of Reality," then maybe we can have a serious conversation about this. I mean, honestly, if you haven't grasped the core arguments laid out by Berger and Luckmann, I don't even know where to begin with you. It's all right there on the page! I guess what I'm trying to get at—though I'm not sure if anyone is actually listening—is that the way we perceive our environment isn't just some random occurrence. It's constructed. It's built. It's social! If you follow the logic of Berger and Luckmann, you realize that the institutions we take for granted are essentially shared hallucinations that we've all agreed to treat as objective truth. It sounds crazy, I know, but that's exactly the point they are making! Maybe I'm being too intense, but it feels like people just skim the surface and think they understand the sociological implications. They don't. They really don't. You can't just ignore the dialectical process between the individual and society. It’s fundamental! If you aren't looking at how socialization creates these layers of reality, then you aren't actually reading the book; you're just looking at ink on paper. I'm just saying... if you want to engage in this debate, you need to do the work first.The social construction of reality... honestly, where do we even begin with this? I mean, if you really sit down and think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—it’s all just one massive, collective agreement, isn't it? It’s almost overwhelming when you realize how much of what we call "truth" is actually just something we've all collectively decided to pretend is real. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that our entire perception of the world isn't some objective, hard-coded thing sitting out there waiting to be discovered. It's built. We build it through our interactions, our institutions, and the way we talk to one another every single day. It’s like we're all participating in this giant, ongoing project of manufacturing "facts." Maybe it sounds a bit cynical, or maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of vertigo when you consider it. If society decides today that a certain value is paramount, then suddenly, it *is* paramount. It becomes part of the fabric. It’s wild, really. We aren't just living in a world; we are actively, constantly, and quite often unconsciously, constructing the very ground we stand on. It's a heavy thought, and frankly, it makes you question everything you thought was set in stone. If you actually think you’ve mastered Berger and Luckmann—assuming, of course, that you’ve even managed to wrap your head around R. K. Merton—then maybe you've read it. But let's be honest: you clearly haven't! „Visokoškolski Regarding Stambolović’s “zapt”—if you’ve actually managed to wrap your head around Law 180 in Frank Basaglia’s “Negation of the Institution” (along with all those other sociological deep dives on institutionalization)—I have to wonder: has that actually shifted your perspective on how institutions function? Or is your worldview already pretty much set in stone, deeply buried within the layers of your primary socialization?
Let’s start by diving into F. Basaglia’s “The Negation of the Institution.”
„Asylums, prisons, schools—all these institutions tasked with controlling social deviance are nothing more than a direct reflection of the specific type of repression that defines our current stage of socio-economic development. It’s all fundamentally connected to how power operates within our system. I suppose we’re really doing this now—diving headfirst into the implications of this whole new technological vernacular. It feels like we're constantly being forced to adapt to some shifting linguistic landscape that moves faster than anyone can actually process. I mean, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it honestly feels like we're losing the ability to communicate clearly because we're too busy trying to master the latest digital jargon. It’s all becoming so incredibly fragmented, isn't it? One day you're speaking one way, and the next, if you haven't updated your mental software to include the newest tech-speak, you're practically illiterate in modern discourse. It’s exhausting, frankly. We're essentially being coerced into adopting this new way of speaking just to stay relevant in a world that seems obsessed with novelty over actual substance. I guess it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to watch the nuance of real language get swallowed up by this relentless, rapid-fire technical slang. "The whole concept of labor is essentially an ideological import. By formally adapting these new technologies, they’re basically just clearing the path for a new breed of control—something that becomes absolutely necessary once our economic reality is fully reshaped to follow the cold logic of capital." (p. 67)
So, here’s the thing: we’re all essentially "trapped" within this outdated culture because we are fundamental components of it. We’ve basically absorbed its ideology the very moment we decided to stop trying to dismantle that same oppressive structure. I mean, what's the actual endgame here? Are we actually going to transform this culture, or are we just going to pass some new "law"—much like how Frank Basaglia stepped up to abolish those insane asylums back in Italy—to kickstart real change? Or, despite all these exhaustive, academic, and frankly pedantic debates we have going on here in this forum, is it all just going to end exactly how the system dictates? Is there any chance that, in reality, absolutely nothing actually changes?
Is this really a reality we ought to be contemplating?
Just one more "observation" for the road: a few years back, I actually switched up the academic culture I was working in. I chose to transition within the same institutional framework because, honestly, I felt like I was already part of that specific culture. I figured it would be much easier to navigate those changes if you’re already embedded in the system. Why did I do it? Well, that is the real question, isn't it?
Let’s take a hard look at this world we live in—a world defined by terror, constant violence, and systematic exclusion. If we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that very same world, then what are we even doing? I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this—I really could be—but there’s just something about how people are reacting to this situation that feels completely off. It’s like nobody is actually looking at the core issue, you know? Everything is just being swept under the rug, or maybe I'm just being too cynical, but it feels that way. I mean, seriously, if we don't address the underlying tension here, we're just spinning our wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't shake the feeling that we're missing the forest for the trees. "Since we are essentially defined by our institutions, our rules, our principles, our norms, and our very organizational structures—if we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that larger world of threats and deceptions currently destroying the patient, then we’ll never truly grasp the reality: this crisis facing the patient is, at its core, our own identity crisis." (p. 60)
👍
Most of the entries in this thread prove the point that we ourselves *are* the system.
We aren't just people living inside it; rather, it—and
that is the real issue—lives inside us...
The system perpetuates itself by speaking through one person in one way, and through another in a different way. In some places, it reinforces itself through the mantra, "It could always be worse" (which essentially means things are fine, so don't make waves and show some gratitude; respect the status quo), while elsewhere it survives through memories of moments of wonder and awe that managed to slip through
despite the system, yet they are tied back to it as if the system itself enabled or even generated them (implying, therefore, that it can't be that bad).
Ultimately, the system protects itself most effectively through loud, aggressive voices that call us back to abstractions like tradition, nation, or culture. These generalities are its foundations—its "subjects"—which it deems more significant than any individual living being. The system will always sacrifice life (the actual living being) for the sake of a record or a legacy, using the argument of permanence to justify such sacrifices.
A record, a legacy, a trace that outlasts time—that is the soul of the system. In this way, the system reveals itself to be nothing more than a detached ego. Only a detached ego (which is an illusion) cares about duration in time and space, because it knows deep down that it doesn't truly exist. It has no core, no spirit, no life of its own; so it must suck the life out of what is actually alive—the human being, the living, ever-changing, and self-renewing nature.
In truth, the system is an artificial construct, an "idol" born from the fear of vanishing.
(In *Course in Miracles*, it says something like "only an illusion has a need to defend itself," if I recall correctly...)
Schools ought to be environments defined by play and genuine joy, rather than centers for programming and conditioning students to serve some vague "common good." In reality, the common good is only achieved when we foster a vast multitude of individual successes:
"My metric for success is the ability to work with joy and live positively. By that standard, most students from Summerhill School go on to lead successful lives. ...
Jack joined us when he was five and stayed until he was seventeen, yet during all those years, he never once attended a single formal lesson. He spent most of his time in the workshop, building things. His parents were constantly eaten alive by anxiety regarding his future. He never showed any outward desire to learn how to read. But one evening, when he was nine, I found him tucked into bed reading David Copperfield.
“Hey,” I said. “Who taught you how to read?”
“I taught myself,”
he replied. A few years later, he came to me asking how to add one-half to two-fifths, so I explained it to him. I asked if there was anything else he needed help with. “No, thanks,” he said.
He eventually landed a job as a cinematographer at a major film studio. While he was still an apprentice, I happened to run into his boss at a party and asked how Jack was settling in.
“Jack is the best guy we’ve ever had,” the employer told me. “The kid isn't just fast—he flies. And on the weekends, he’s as stubborn as a mule because you can't get him out of the studio on a Saturday or Sunday.”
Success is what happens when a child who arrives full of fear and resentment blossoms into happiness and vitality after a couple of years. "
(Summerhill School)
velveteagle8 said:Having a choice within a set of pre-determined options isn't actually making a choice at all. It’s just an illusion.
It’s basically being forced to pick between several options that none of them actually satisfy.
This feels like yet another classic case of moving the goalposts to avoid dealing with the actual point.
I’m not arguing from some lofty, abstract standpoint about absolute freedom as if it were just an untouchable ideal. I’m looking at this through a much more practical lens—the kind of reality where that level of liberty would actually make sense and be easy to grasp.
You’re pointing out that following global educational standards isn't some choice you're making—it's an obligation. Because of that, the OP's question is completely legitimate. There's really no reason to dismiss it before we've even had a chance to discuss it.
I think we can all agree that the intro writer raised a valid point regarding the tension between individual liberty and mandatory primary education.
I assume you're thinking about Article 4, since that specific point covers something else entirely?
Hey, let’s set Paris aside for a moment and just focus on item 2 under section 4 that you brought up.
What happens if a parent disagrees with any kind of effort to develop a sense of national identity or heritage in their child?
Is it actually reasonable for a parent to want to shield their child from that kind of influence? I find myself wondering if protecting a kid's developing mindset from those kinds of external pressures is a valid responsibility. It’s a heavy question. Sometimes I feel like I'm overthinking things, but I really do wonder about the line between guidance and total isolation. Is it worth trying to curate what they see, or are we just delaying the inevitable?
Can a parent disagree with everything that passes for "modern societal values" today? And if they do, is it okay to shield their child from those influences to protect how they perceive the world?
How exactly are we supposed to encourage a child to follow their own natural interests when we’re simultaneously forcing a mountain of tasks on them that they have zero passion for? It feels like we're just draining their time, attention, and energy on things that don't matter to them.
I don't know. I really don't.
Words, words, words... there’s that French song, though I honestly couldn't tell you if the lyrics actually make sense. Back in elementary school, they basically forced me to choose between a few other options—presumably ones they considered more "important" than French.
Just words....
😁
(I'm assuming you aren't implying you would have actually picked French in grade school if given the choice...? 😲🕺 ...English was the standard back then; trying to opt for French at that moment would have been a social suicide mission.)
Anyway, how are things?
🙂
"A school that isn't a playground is a failure of a school. Sadly, teacherly dignity often ends up killing any sense of fun. I once had a teacher take offense just because a student called him a damn fool.
'Look,' I told him, 'I’ve had five or six kids trailing behind me all morning shouting, "Neil, Neil crocodile!" Do you really think I should be clinging to my dignity and taking offense at that?'"
(S. Neill, founder of Summerhill, a progressive school where play comes first and academics are optional)
The whole concept of authority is debatable.
You can't force authority or "respect," just like you can't force love. When schools demand respect based on someone's "knowledge" or "experience," what they usually get is
an imitation of respect. Instead, they foster hypocrisy and pretension in children—a fundamental split between what they think and feel versus how they speak and act. This process produces hypocritical adults who are terrified of facing consequences if they dare to be authentic rather than socially compliant. They learn to choose social conformity over integrity, which is the alignment of emotion, thought, and action, simply to serve some vague notion of the "common good"—a term used to justify whatever imaginary standard this particular society deems necessary.
As for pure factual knowledge—which is arguably the least interesting part of education—it is readily available to any tech-literate individual in our current technological society. The need to rote-memorize data has essentially vanished. Yet, despite having access to advanced technology and artificial intelligence, modern schools remain obsessed with data memorization and drilling students with socially desirable lessons and behavioral instructions. It is hardly surprising, then, that the very children produced by this system invented artificial intelligence, which many now view with hope as the "future of humanity." After all, AI perfectly mirrors the exact qualities rewarded in our education system: the faithful imitation of data and unwavering obedience to programmed inputs. The core of domestic schooling is the worship of others' egos, the submission to others' thoughts and emotions, and the systematic suppression of one's own identity and authenticity. It is a process of severing oneself from one's own soul—at least, that's my observation. I haven't looked into other places, though I hear things might be different in Scandinavia.
I’m not looking for advice
And I certainly wouldn't take it if you offered
Threatening people and forcing cooperation isn't just illogical—it's completely irrational. You might find that showing a little more respect and offering less condescension would actually serve you better in the long run.
(See, I’m aware of how this works too 😉
The only real difference between my attitude and yours is that you're allowed to be patronizing, whereas I am not.)
The school system is essentially a factory designed to churn out both productive employees and societal drains. Who else could claim to "produce" results in such a specific way?
Is there actually any legitimate alternative to formal schooling worth discussing?
By the way, the intention behind this thread was for someone to pose a central question which would then serve as a springboard for a dedicated discussion elsewhere, rather than trying to tackle every single sub-issue right here. 😉
If this forum were more democratic—meaning if the big boss placed more trust in the regular users and less in the moderators—we wouldn't have to call for a moderator over every minor detail, but it is what it is.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m "hanging out on Alternative"?
I don't frequent that site, and frankly, I have no clue what else the guy who started this thread posts outside of his activity here. Since you seem to be so well-informed about his habits, maybe you're actually the one "hanging out" there...? 🙄
On another note: if you actually learn how to read in school, you can figure out everything else you're curious about later on. In most cases, the education system doesn't offer any hints regarding what we're truly interested in; we have to go find that ourselves. For instance, during my own schooling, I spent most of my time just memorizing data that you can now find with a single click—info that didn't even interest me at the time.
Education is essentially just forcing people into a mold. It's designed so that children enter the system healthy and free, only to exit it prepared to step into the capitalist arena—trained for competition, deception, maneuvering, and other such "noble" skills.
"It's stupid to even debate this"—if that isn't a total dictatorship of thought, I don't know what is.
It’s also an unpleasant experience to see someone get disqualified from a discussion ostensibly just because they are deemed "uneducated." Let's be clear: illiteracy is something fostered by our own school systems, where curricula are dictated from the top down by Washington bureaucrats. Because these programs shift whenever the political winds change, education is essentially just manipulation and brainwashing rather than actual learning.
Within such a broken system, you end up with broken people. The way you write, and how you seemingly worship the current educational establishment—which any halfway sensible person would rebel against—is so outdated and divorced from reality that it has moved past being a mere cliché; it’s blatant propaganda.
("...by imparting knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes, you enable children to develop their potential and achieve intellectual, spiritual, and social independence" 🤦 )
Even your tone feels less like that of a philosopher who is a true researcher and more like an authoritarian military commander. 👎
So... I suppose this is that famous, now largely forgotten (and frankly, despised) "Slavic spirit"?
It quietly recognizes everything that obstructs and dismantles it, remaining true to itself by refusing to pivot toward overt action—be it rebellion or revolution. Instead, it maintains its freedom precisely by simply being what it is: a spirit. Instinctively, the spirit understands that it can only remain infinite and free if it refuses to overstep its own boundaries—if it doesn't push itself too hard into the material world or get entangled in the fleeting, superficial aspects of existence in any binding way.
This work matters because it serves as proof that the same fundamental processes are always at play globally: the eternal struggle between true freedom (the spirit) and worldly power.
I was looking up information on Aleksandr Berdjajev, and this was the first thing that popped up.
It is truly striking how everyone seems to find something personal in Berdjajev’s work; it is as if he articulates the thoughts and feelings of every individual, which suggests his ideas possess a universal, human quality. He is someone who defies easy categorization or classification, despite our relentless urge to label everything we encounter.
(I feel the same way 😎)
For instance, in the book I am currently reading, "fate of man in the modern world" (published in 1923), I see that he held Charles Dickens in high regard. He understood that general pessimism and nihilism are not inherently good. He condemned both fascism and communism, though he noted that "in principle, nationalism and racism are worse than communism," and suggested that the "communist revolution would likely have deeply surprised Karl Marx, because it completely contradicts his teachings, even refuting them entirely." He also criticized capitalism and liberal democracy on several occasions, particularly economic inequality, because his heart was with the plight of the working class. Ultimately, he called for true Freedom—not just freedom of action, but the freedom of being.
Let's break this down:
He praised Dickens during a discussion regarding the dehumanization of man (a theme he examined across all spheres) within the novel; essentially, he wasn't critiquing the modern novel itself, but rather the era that the novel faithfully reflects:
"Compare the modern novel to Dickens. The path taken since then is disappointing, almost as if a catastrophe has occurred. In Dickens, there is a rich and diverse human world, a realm of human characters and archetypes, driven by an immense creative fantasy. The human element is preserved; individuals possess distinct personalities, even when they are ugly or ridiculous. .... Today, finding anything similar is nearly impossible. However, the modern novel holds a profound truth about what is happening to humanity."
He identified the Great War as the primary cause of human fragmentation and atomization; he argues that war "horribly devalued human life. After the war, man remains mobilized; he continues to fulfill military obligations, cast out into society, into the state, into nationality, into class, into an objectified world; he can no longer remain within himself, within his inner existence, to define his relationship to the world and others from the inside..."
Once released (after the war), the demons of hatred and violence continue to haunt the world. But we will see that in current processes (the dehumanization and brutalization of the world), war isn't the only major player; there is a much more enduring force with almost cosmic significance: technology and the mechanization of life. Dehumanization moves in two directions—toward naturalism and toward technicism. Man either submits to cosmic forces or to technical civilization. Technical civilization demands that man fulfill specific functions, but my interest lies in the man himself... it isn't about man disappearing into nature, but rather man's adaptation to the machine".
He understood Friedrich Nietzsche, and lamented how his thought had been distorted to serve Nazi ideology:
"The influence of Friedrich Nietzsche on fascism is undeniable—on the modern apotheosis of powerful leaders, on the cultivation of a coarse type of youth stripped of compassion. Nietzsche himself, a solitary aristocratic thinker, would likely turn away in horror from the social consequences of his own preaching . Nietzsche had no affinity for the idea of pan-Germanism; he was not a German nationalist and would probably feel disgust toward the modern plebeian spirit that lacks all nobility..."
Berdjajev maintains that freedom is only possible within the spirit—indeed, he suggests that freedom *is* the spirit itself. He critiques all formal social freedoms as being hollow, noting that "economic freedom, in particular, has proven to be a mockery of true human freedom; the capitalist world is a negation of all brotherhood, community, and human unity. It is a dog-eat-dog world. Life in a capitalist society is a predatory existence."
His empathy for the "earthly struggle":
"The fact that a process of socialization and nationalization of property and the economy is developing (following the war) is not the issue; that is fundamentally necessary and just." The real issue here is the ongoing socialization and nationalization of the individual—the systematic molding of the human soul...
Freedom shouldn't be viewed as a social achievement, but rather as an essence of the spirit and one's private, inner life:
"Most people fail to grasp that the core of the problem lies in how a human being defends and asserts their own freedom against the overreach of society and the state instead of obsessing over how to build a social or political structure that supposedly grants such freedom. True freedom is spiritual, not social; it is defined by its roots in the realm of the spirit, not by its connection to the social world. ....
When we proclaimed the rights of man and citizen, what we actually did was proclaim the rights of the citizen—as a member of a community and a state—rather than the rights of the human being as a whole, as a free spirit.
The concept of the 'citizen' has effectively smothered the human being as a free spirit belonging to a different order of existence. Simultaneously, it ignored the human being as a producer or a worker; there was no true recognition of every individual's right to a dignified existence and meaningful labor. ....
A person exists within two dimensions. This means there isn't just freedom *within* society, but freedom *in opposition* to society—a type of freedom that finds its origin nowhere to be found in the social sphere. The freedom of the spirit does not depend on any social organization. Freedom is the boundary where the power of society over the individual, and the state over the person, must stop. It is a limit established by the fact that humans belong to another dimension entirely: the kingdom of the spirit.