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.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you consider all opinions that differ from yours to be reductionist and one-sided? What if I personally agree with most of your judgments, and I am only trying to supplement and diversify them? Maybe I just want to show some examples from practice and experience? Or maybe your approach is so perfect that it does not need this? Try to read what others answer not as criticism of your thoughts, but as a constructive complementary discussion.

Thank you for your response, I am really interested in the idea of outdoor practices. What is particularly interesting is the lack of a methodology for such activities in the field of academic philosophy. It seems that a true philosopher should reject all physical and practical aspects, and focus solely on rational reasoning. However, where better than in harmony with nature to experience one's own physicality and connection to the world and others?


Regarding your first part of the response, about Gaddafi and Putin, I believe these topics were discussed in another thread. Feel free to respond there, you would greatly add to the discussion. By the way, a little bit about "that" topic. The impetus for its start for me was that I noticed that on this forum, philosophers are ready to argue about the nature of the mog, the universe or understanding, but when it comes to liberalism - here the majority of the precondition - "liberalism is holy". Further judgments are built from these considerations. What then is liberalism as not an ordinary belief? So I decided to find out, and that's how the topic came about.

I really liked your idea of outdoor activities. I've been thinking about this for a few days. May I ask you to reveal a little more about how an outdoor philosophy class (or philosophizing) can be linked today? Should it be some kind of practice (borrowed from yoga, for example) or just staying in nature and talking about wisdom, maybe it should be a walk? Maybe it should be a procession (for example, to the sunset) with many stops and conversations? It would be very interesting for me to implement it. What kind of open-air practice is suitable for academic philosophy classes?

There is very much said in detail about liberalism as a system that optimally balances societal interests in motion. I also want to draw attention to another feature of liberalism, one that should be mentioned when unpacking this phenomenon closely.

To this end, let us return to the question: what is power, in its essence? This might open new paths for reflection.

Take, for instance, the master–slave relationship in a classical slave-owning society, such as Ancient Rome. The slave is in complete bodily subjection to the master. The master may coerce him, command his life, beat him, punish him — and this is how history textbooks, films, and literature often present it. (By the way, in historical dramas where Roman characters are shown as noble, it is always understated or omitted that they were slave-owners — as if this shadow of history no longer casts light upon them.)

But the same sources repeatedly omit a fundamental point: the slave was not simply a thing, but a resource, and therefore required investments. By purchasing a slave, the master acquired not absolute freedom, but a bundle of obligations, without which the slave loses his value as an object of mastery.

Any “careful” master was obliged to:

1. Keep the slave healthy — without health, no work is possible.


2. Provide housing — else the slave might perish, escape, fall ill.


3. Ensure food — a hungry slave is a restless, even dangerous, slave.


4. Provide some minimal education — so the slave may work, obey commands, manage tools or tasks.


5. Maintain obedience — whether by discipline or reward, but inevitably.


6. Oversee the procreation of slaves — offspring could become additional resource.


7. Ensure minimal welfare — for productivity depends on not pushing the body beyond collapse.


8. And finally — protect against external threats: theft, murder, flight, even revolt among slaves.



This is structural care, not humanist fancy. It arises not from moral goodness but from the logic of property. And despite all the barbarism of the system, it is compelled to include care, otherwise it collapses as a system of mastery.

Now let us place on the other side of the scale liberal relations of freedom.

Here, the owner of capital does not have slaves but workers. He goes to the market, recruits personnel. This new‑master doesn’t care how the worker survives, where he lives, how he eats, how he reproduces, whether he is happy or not. What matters to him is the worker’s efficiency. To work more and demand less. If the worker falls ill or dies tomorrow, it is not a problem for the master: he simply goes to the market and finds another, one already raised from childhood to be efficient, fast, better. These workers themselves aspire to everything; they themselves take care of themselves.

I used two extremes as examples. If someone offered me to choose where I’d prefer to be a master, I’d, without hesitation, choose the second variant. Humanity, in general, seems to have arrived here, which is sensible. However, between these two extremes there have existed many other forms of social order: tribal communities where the leader bore responsibility even for the stability of the rains; feudal regimes where one had to defend one’s peasants from raids, administer justice, be a model of mercy; socialism, where the working people were guaranteed free housing, education, etc.; finally authoritarian regimes where the master is held responsible for the prosperity of the people who follow him.

Liberal demagogues, speaking of tyranny and the absence of choice, forget this element. If someone calls himself a master, he is obligated to care.

From personal experience, I have noticed a difference between working in a liberal state and a non‑liberal (authoritarian) one. In a liberal state you must give your maximum at work; in a non‑liberal one you may not have to be the most excellent or efficient. Why? Because non‑liberal regimes generate a whole stratum of people who believe someone should come and give: freedom, salary, guarantees, safety. It is precisely for this that they vote. Unlike in liberal societies, where people strive themselves to forge their happiness.


---

Perhaps herein lies the main metaphysical kernel of liberalism:
it is power without the master.
Not because the master no longer exists, but because he has become invisible, elusive, inaccessible to reproach.
He no longer commands — he regulates. He does not care — he provides platforms. He does not answer — he disconnects.

Are you free?
Then be responsible for everything.

But freedom that does not include structures of responsibility — this is not emancipation, but a form of finely crafted abandonment.
And if the slave, despite all his unfreedom, was once held by the master’s sleeve, today the free person — falls alone.

-----

As an example of the stability of a nonliberal regime, I would like to cite Gaddafi. Personally, I do not justify him - this is important to emphasize. But let's try to look at his regime not from the position of conventional morality, but from the point of view of the structure of responsibility.

During his rule, every citizen of Libya received: free education and health care, often housing, assistance with the birth of a child, subsidies for newlyweds, subsidies for food and gasoline. The state, as a figure of the master, was forced to take care - because such was the model of power.

After NATO's military intervention and the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011, Libya plunged into chaos, civil war, fragmentation. Millions of citizens lost not only their previous guarantees, but also the very structure on which they relied.
The master disappeared - along with him, the guarantor disappeared.

One can argue about what Gaddafi was like as a person. But the philosophical fact remains: an authoritarian regime was associated with responsibility for its subject.
This form can be terrible, violent, cruel - but it was there, it worked.

Liberal societies often perceive this as a "tyrannical cage" from which one must escape. But when the cage disappears, and with it the food, warmth and protection disappear - then the question becomes different:

What is more important: to be free and nobody's, or unfree, but in a system where someone needs you?

A very interesting topic. I would also add numerologists, astrologers, tarot readers and other palmists who have become popular recently to the group of esoteric lovers.
I absolutely do not like how these guys exploit philosophical concepts, tearing out the parts they like, mixing completely contradictory ideas and ideas, forgetting what their original message was. All for the sake of successful success!
But I also cannot but agree with : how do we know in which direction it is "correct" to philosophize? It follows that for any statement, some starting axiom is needed, which can be different for everyone.

On the other hand, I have not come across literature on esoteric topics that would be worked out at least to the level of the absence of internal contradictions. Not to mention some academic value. (If there is such, share the link). Academic philosophy is always about "directing the soul to truth, goodness or the divine." Even the vile (in my opinion) Schopenhauer writes about alleviating suffering.

An interesting point is that philosophers reflect on esotericism. Maybe this is not the area that should be taken into account at all?

Of course, we have significantly deviated from the main topic of the topic. But this did not make the discussion less interesting. Your position only strengthened my conviction that Liberalism is an ideology that arose on a real foundation of a set of conditions. Liberalism has proven its effectiveness for the society in which it arose, developed, and was embodied. It is extremely tenacious and instrumentally capable of continuing in the same spirit for a long time. In general, when I started this topic, I did not even question any of these statements, and I can wish liberalism itself to recover from the temporary difficulties it is currently facing. I believe that these challenges will be overcome.

At the same time, I continue to assert that liberalism is not a universal value for humanity as a whole. It follows from this that, in my opinion, it should not be used for export and justification of interests with high standards. Liberalism is an excellent tool. I asked if it was acceptable to say that "I climbed into my neighbor's house and established my own order there only because the neighbor beat his children with a stick and not a belt", simultaneously drawing on the resources of this neighbor for my own benefit.

Another interesting observation that arose during this discussion - the world, in general, does not care about ideology. First of all, a person wants benefits. A person sees that state "A" lives in goodness and is presented with the idea that this became possible thanks to ideology "№26". Of course, he wants his state "B" to have ideology "№26". But the point is that some state "C" appears and says: look, we also live well and we have goodness and our ideology is "№32". If state "A" goes into decline, and state "C" suddenly becomes super-developed, then ideology "№32" is correct? NO. Are goodness and personal happiness connected with ideology? It is connected if he himself shares this ideology and did not accept it because of the success of others.

And now the most important question from the beginning of the discussion: Is the West prepared to coexist with ideological and civilizational alternatives that do not necessarily aspire to Western liberalism?

I think the answer to this question will determine the future fate of humanity

And I believe that a society that strives for constant liberation from anything restrictive and oppressive is liberated to the point of freedom from being

Okay. Let's assume that this is true. Then what is objectivity in ethics? Does objective ethics exist?

So that is just one example of the now extensive literature that looks to a structuralist account of social development rather than treating it as some fortunate story of a few clever people suddenly having great ideas that somehow then spread contagiously.

You want to frame this as a debate over the origins of liberal democracy as a moralistic ideology. I instead argue that it was the new system that emerged from the same old natural principles of what a social system just is.

So where does liberal democracy begin? Well inadvertently, according to Henrich, the Catholic Church had got the ball rolling in ways that could release the intellectual and economic energy to tap into a more mechanistic approach to life in general. And once you have a mechanistic mindset, you can not only imagine engineering society so as to improve its general functioning, you can't not but help stumble on to the idea of mechanising agriculture – the first steps of fencing the country side and harnessing the rivers and wind for their mechanistic power. — apokrisis

In my opinion, your judgments are very accurate in that liberalism does not appear out of nowhere, like a miracle that suddenly leads society to prosperity. In your approach, liberalism acts as a catalyst for natural processes, not their source - and this, in my opinion, is true.

You rightly emphasize the role of the church, and thereby recognize that even such a seemingly universalistic structure as liberalism is a product of many particular, historically conditioned factors.

And it is difficult to argue with this. Moreover, I would strengthen your thought: not only the church, but also climate, geography, Roman law, Byzantine cultural inertia, and many other things played their role. And everywhere it was different - which is clearly visible, for example, when comparing France with Spain and North with Latin America.

However, I am ready to argue with the thesis about the universality and naturalness of liberalism. It has proven its effectiveness in a certain historical and cultural configuration. But this is not a universal way of finding a compromise. In societies where individualization did not occur and where there was no institution of the church, no pressure on clan structures, liberalism, even if it were brought in a titanium case, would still rust over time.

Moreover, I am convinced that individualism, on which liberal ideology is based, is unnatural in its depths. It was good as an ideal, as a direction, as a promise of freedom, as long as there was something to be freed from. But today, when we have met with living results - with a generation free from everything: from obligations, from attachments, from communities - liberalism itself was horrified by its own embodiment for the first time.

Liberalism exposed man. It freed him from the clan, from the church, from the state, from tradition, even from the need to bear new children. But when a person was left alone, in his apartment, where there was no one to bring him a glass of water (where there was no desire for that someone to be nearby), it turned out that he did not know what to do with his freedom.

I wonder if someone who doesn't exist at all can question his own existence or non-existence?

Your questions are good and involuntarily lead to the idea that "Objectivity" as such is essentially a subjective idea from the point of view of epistemology (I will not touch on ontology now). It is not found in the world as a ready-made fact, it does not "lie" somewhere in nature. It was invented by people. Moreover, the idea of ​​objectivity was formed within subjective experience: in response to the need to separate personal desires from knowledge, to distinguish truth from illusion, to agree on something outside of individual whim.

In essence, Objectivism is a subjective belief in the possibility of going beyond subjectivity.

It turned out funny.

Now if we rethink my message about the critique of objectivity, it turns out like this: "Have we not become too carried away by the idea of ​​objective truth, having forgotten about the subject and the subjective?"

As for the objectivity of abortion, I think it looks consistent. Outside of a person, it is objectively indifferent whether an abortion is murder or not, since objectivity is indifferent to life or death. Can ethics be objective? I have serious doubts about that.

You raise soem important quesions. I have never understood what the idea of objectivity means. Surely an odd term that simply means that anything which agrees with your biases are true and things which don't are false? — Tom Storm

A very interesting question, despite its simplicity. Here is what Wikipedia says:

"The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true. For example, many people would regard "2 + 2 = 4" as an objective statement of mathematics.
Both ideas have been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as the distinction is often a given but not the specific focal point of philosophical discourse.[2] The two words are usually regarded as opposites, though complications regarding the two have been explored in philosophy: for example, the view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, or that a spectrum joins subjectivity and objectivity with a gray area in-between, or that the problem of other minds is best viewed through the concept of intersubjectivity, developing since the 20th century.

Intersubjectivity is a term coined by social scientists beginning around 1970[citation needed] to refer to a variety of types of human interaction. The term was introduced to psychoanalysis by George E. Atwood and Robert Stolorow, who consider it a "meta-theory" of psychoanalysis.[1] For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish listed at least seven definitions of intersubjectivity (and other disciplines have additional definitions):

people's agreement on the shared definition of a concept;
people's mutual awareness of agreement or disagreement, or of understanding or misunderstanding each other;
people's attribution of intentionality, feelings, and beliefs to each other;
people's implicit or automatic behavioral orientations towards other people;
people's interactive performance within a situation;
people's shared and taken-for-granted background assumptions, whether consensual or contested; and
"the variety of possible relations between people's perspectives".[2]
Intersubjectivity has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or share the same perception of a situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines intersubjectivity as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals".[3]

Intersubjectivity also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation.[4]

If we proceed from these premises, we can assume that abortion:
1. Objectively - does not matter (what difference does it make what rational beings do there)
2. Subjectively - depends on the point of view
3. Intersubjectively - bad (since it is the deprivation of a person's life) or from the position of other groups good if the woman herself decided so.

The question arises - what is so good about subjectivity if everything depends on the point of view? In my opinion, subjectivity is good because it wants something (to allow/prohibit abortions, to find the "truth", to act), while objectivity is simply empty and indifferent

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad? — Ciceronianus

I think that 5-10 years ago I would have definitely and unequivocally answered this question - "Yes, I would be happy with objectivity!" Objectivity is consistent, precise, unbiased, does not depend on mood, health, origin or phase of the moon. I would say that objectivity is my guide, like a flashlight that helps not to get lost. It would be so great if many of my loved ones more often gave an objective assessment of what is happening. We would simply have no ground for conflict! Isn't that right? Pure, like a child's tear, objective aspiration for truth, logic, not clouded by anything. However, today, my answer to this question sounds completely different. Objectivity is a very good tool for some phenomena or things. It is good for cognition and accurate in forecasts. It clearly makes our lives easier and has allowed us to achieve the fact that we just sit at our computer screens and communicate in the same language at distances of several tens of thousands of kilometers. At the same time, an objective answer to the question, for example: "Why do you live?" Does not exist. Or rather, answering this question objectively, it turns out that there is no objective basis for believing that our life or life in general is necessary (if you have an objective answer to this question, please share). Objectivity is consistent, but empty, emasculated, not directed toward anything or into anything. Today I am convinced that if mistakes did not exist, then we would probably never have happened in this world.

Another example that I always give as an example is sports. The very possibility of competition in the greatest number of disciplines lies in the possibility of error. Subjectivity - that is, our bias and fallibility, but at the same time managing to survive - is it not delightful? Isn't a painting beautiful with its curvature of brushstrokes, a song with technical errors of the performer, and a philosophical text with a bunch of biases of the author?

Perhaps we are talking about two different but equally important roles. The objectivity you write about is an indispensable foundation for building a fair and just society, for science and for understanding the world. It is the 'skeleton' of civilization. But what fills this skeleton with life, meaning, art and love - that is, everything that is worth living for - is by its nature subjective.

Is it not the case that the ideal is not the dominance of one over the other, but a harmonious balance? We strive for objectivity in our judgments of facts so as not to be biased, but at the same time we value and cherish subjectivity in our experience, because it is what makes us human

In other words, I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative. This is true, this is what makes subjectivity fragile and vulnerable, but it seems to me that vulnerability and fragility can be rediscovered now as extremely positive and valuable elements, elements that probably we can learn a lot from women, this way understanding that all I have said has strong connections with philosophy as an activity that so far, symptomatically, has been practiced mainly by men. — Angelo Cannata

For me, the key task of philosophy today is to protect the subject, its fragility and vulnerability in a world where objectivity reigns supreme. Let me explain why I think so. At the junction of premodernity and modernity, as Nietzsche noted, "God died," and in his place came objectivity — the ideal of the knowable, decomposable world. Science, born in the Enlightenment, gave us incredible tools for analysis, but philosophy, unlike other disciplines, did not become a "science" in the strict sense. It remained a space of questions, not final answers. And this is precisely its strength. However, today, when objectivity has reached its apogee — from scientific discoveries to AI, which, although for now, as one of the participants rightly noted, "cleverly puts words together" and threatens to make many professions unnecessary — the subject has found itself under attack. AI, being the pinnacle of the analytical approach, is capable of purifying judgments from subjectivity, but at the same time risks depriving us of our humanity. Isn't this a challenge for philosophy?
How can philosophy become a practice that protects this fragility?


you emphasize the importance of a solid foundation. Is it possible to build a foundation that includes subjectivity as an integral part of truth?


Finally, I want to ask you all a question that has become central to me: does philosophy make you happier? What role does it play in your daily life - does it criticize your beliefs, or does it inspire you by connecting you to your humanity. What kind of people does philosophy make us in a world where objectivity is increasingly dominant?

Yes, I use the concept of "everything that is not X" to describe Y, and vice versa. You require clarification, and this is philosophically justified, as we need to understand what we are talking about before we can discuss it. However, in this case, X+Y is not equal to infinity, but rather to around 200. Additionally, I have used the same language to describe Y as is used in state X. Furthermore, I perceive this as "excessive specificity," a rhetorical device that allows us to avoid direct answers (a common tactic used by politicians). However, the dichotomy between "developed countries" and "developing countries" seems quite accurate to me.

Unfortunately, I don't know why they wear them or why others change their gender. To be honest, I haven't given much thought to these questions. Perhaps there is a rational explanation, or perhaps it's purely emotional. In any case, I am a simple existentialist and am not responsible for the decisions of others.

Contemporaries often use the term "global south" in the context of alternative associations like BRICS or G77. Although my understanding of the concept of "global south" is broader - it is "Developing countries", "periphery", "Third world"

I believe there has been a significant overestimation of the percentage of the population in the U.S. and Europe who ever supported liberal democracy for philosophical rather than just reasons of economic self-interest, because the ranks of liberal political parties were for a long time inflated with voters who were in fact philosophically anti-liberal, and who have now organized right-wing populist parties like MAGA that more purely reflect their anti-liberalism. Rural people in countries around the world have followed a pattern similar to MAGA , reorganizing their political parties in a rightward direction politically to reflect the traditionalism and conservatism they have always believed in. — Joshs

If I understand correctly, you think we have misinterpreted the fact that liberalism won (which is what Fokuyama's main idea was built on)? Well, your arguments cannot be argued with, in this regard his ideas seem idealistic.

But I do think that liberal democracy has advantages over more authoritarian political systems that can be described in pragmatic rather than in abstract ethical terms. If one thinks of political organization as a complex dynamical system, we may say that such systems tend toward their own evolution. As they become more complex they become more stable. The enlightened self-interest of individuals will steer them towards modes of social
organization which foster communication, commerce and creativity rather than stifle it. — Joshs

In that case, do you agree with these ideas:

This is a very important binary opposition that is often overlooked. Many theorists have a certain conviction that first an ideology (a set of ideals) is invented, which is then integrated into society and we all live happily ever after. In a descriptive sense, the idea of ​​Marx and Engels, expressed by them in "The German Ideology", that it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness, looks very interesting.

In the Marxist perspective, society is divided into a base (production relations, means of production) and a superstructure (ideology, politics, culture). The base is primary: changes in the economy (for example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism) give rise to new ideologies that justify or disguise these relations.

It follows from this that it is impossible to "invent" an ideology and impose it as the "pinnacle of evolution" - it will collide with the reality of the base. — Astorre

Trump did not win the popular vote by a wide margin; it was Trump 49.8% and Harris 48.3%. The large margin was in the electoral college, which I don't want to discuss here. — BC

I was not clear in my original post and have corrected myself above. I apologize.

An American has to be something of a rebel, a dissident, to perceive how propaganda and soft power operate on the home front -- never mind in countries where we don't travel a lot. — BC

This is a very important remark. I would like to develop this idea a little. When American propaganda declares "In your country, dissent is prohibited, you are authoritarian" it always makes me laugh, because within America itself, dissent is of course allowed, but only within the liberal paradigm. I don't know if you will be patted on the back at home if you express support for Putin or Kim. At the same time, those same "independent" media, sponsored by the American government, tell us "stand up and cry for freedom."

Obviously, from the point of view of local regimes, this will not be okay. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between dissent "within the paradigm" and "outside the paradigm"

I was relying on Donald Trump receiving 312 electoral votes and Kamala Harris receiving 226 electoral votes out of a total of 538 electors. But your point is correct, since in the text I was talking about the "majority" of voters and not electors, the difference between which is really about 1.5 percent. I apologize for this inaccuracy.

And as the move to a self-conscious pragmatism is made, the question becomes how fast can it be allowed to grow and spread? And are all its parts synchronised to some general idea of this optimal growth rate?

Mistakes are always going to get made in implementing the theory. Or rather, growth itself always produces the unexpected in Nature. Reach a certain point and the system wants to rearrange. It wants to go through a phase transition or some topological shift in structure.

Do we fight these things or discover how to flow with them? What should be our philosophy as we encounter the unpredicted consequences of our own previously effective habits? — apokrisis

These are very good philosophical questions.

It used to be simpler: you had some set of ideas that you could develop throughout your life, moving along a given course. This set of ideas was enough for your life. Today the world is so fast that in one five-year period you have to rethink something several times, so as not to simply fall out of life. Once in the 2000s, my friends and I thought that we were living in boring times: all theories are known, the boundaries are defined, medicine will save us, and what can happen anyway? How wrong we were then...

In my opinion, in today's world, the approach that turns out to be the most adaptive and not dogmatized will be the most effective

a) Is an 'unshakable dollar' a measure of the western ideal?
b) Why wouldn't 'western democracy' remain the highest IDEAL, even if, in reality, it is less than ideal?
c) Are objectively superior consumer goods, nice as they are, a measure of western ideals?
d) The 'broader cultural narrative' isn't accepted by all western academics. — BC

I will try to explain what all this means, as descriptively as possible, without emotions and personal prejudices.

It is no secret that the US uses soft power to export its ideology. Enormous resources of US taxpayers are spent on this. What does this look like in post-Soviet states? Grants are allocated for the media, for strengthening national languages, traditions or cultures, the essence of which is to undermine the confidence of citizens in the course chosen by the Russian Federation and the entire Soviet legacy. For example, you turn on the TV where it is stated: "Look - we live well in the West, our currency is a model of stability, our goods are the best (iPhone, Macrosoft, etc.), our achievements in observing human rights are the best, our courts are the fairest. And the Russians, the Chinese are all villains, authoritarians, their regimes do not observe human rights. And do you know why all this? Because we have liberalism and all these benefits are a consequence of liberalism. Therefore, think like a liberal, reject everything sinister (especially Iranian, Chinese, Russian). Reject the Soviet past in favor of your language, your identity, because the Soviets suppressed all this in you, build liberalism, and even better, allow us to place our military bases in your country so that you can be protected." It looks like a "successful business coach" telling his students: "I am rich, happy and successful because I think differently. If you think like me, you will become rich. Change your thinking right now."

This is the essence of the message that is being broadcast, but in reality the influence is much more subtle and multifaceted. It comes not through a single direct “selling” text, but through a combination of news, films, educational exchange programs (like FLEX), pop culture, and NGO activities.

That's why I pointed out all these things in the original post.

Why did all this look so interesting, and liberalism is attractive? The average person is essentially indifferent to the value of an ideology as such. He looks at the advantages that are possible with this ideology and decides whether to join it or not. If a person sees hunger and decline, then any ideology is seen as wrong (for example, Chu-Chhe in North Korea). Thus, if we assume that the US suddenly becomes poor tomorrow, then liberalism will immediately end. But what if prosperity isn't just about ideology?

At some point, the "benefits" offered by the US turned out to be not such a blessing. And "success through following liberal ideas" was undermined by China. A person from a hypothetical Eastern state turns on the media sponsored by USAID and sees contradictions. And plus, there is also the inclusivity with LGBT, which was cultivated until recently - it is not at all suitable for traditional views in the East. From here, trends began to emerge offering alternative views. This is how all this talk about multipolarity appeared.

The US has had better and worse period of western democratic performance, and is currently in one of its worst-performing periods, with Trump at the helm. The big question for me is how long this dispiriting episode will last. — BC

Trump's election was a testament to this decline I'm talking about. He won by a large margin. That alone is a sign of the fatigue of most voters. But I couldn't believe my eyes when Trump started doing whatever he wanted and neither the Senate nor the court stopped him. The system of checks and balances stopped working? How did it happen that he can do almost whatever he wants? Isn't that a decline?

For me personally, it was a big disappointment: I've always been convinced that the US constitution is very well designed to prevent dictatorships. In general, I'm still convinced that US society will be able to regulate itself and resolve this crisis. But the longer it takes, the harder it will be to do so in the future.

The liberal backsliding since 2008 isn't actually out of line with his core thesis, although it does run against the general optimism of the 1989 article and 1992 book. Illiberal leaders in previously liberal countries do not justify their authoritarianism or interventions in opposition to liberalism. In general, they position themselves as saviors of liberalism. On both the right and the left, the need for norm breaking interventions is justified in terms of the need to secure liberalism against opposing "illiberal forces." That is certainly how Trump positions himself for instance. He is saving liberal democracy from illiberal "woke mobs" and "elites" and his economic interventions aren't positioned against free enterprise and capitalism per se, but against bad state actors who are "ripping us off" by not abiding by true free market principles. He sells his policies in liberal terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is exactly what I wrote about:

This is where, in my opinion, today's problem arises: Liberalism has ceased to moderately seek this compromise, has ceased to adapt sensitively, its strengths have taken on some extreme form, and the ideas themselves have become dogmatized, instead of working dynamically. — Astorre

Yet they decidedly do not recommend some sort of alternative ideology the way the Soviet Union did. China occasionally positions itself as a sort of alternative position, but not in any coherent way. They aren't evangelical about their form of state-capitalism, trying to force it on their allies, or trying to boost it internationally as a popular movement — Count Timothy von Icarus

The ideologies of the USSR and the USA functioned like secular religions. They demanded faith, had their "prophets" (the Founding Fathers, Marx/Lenin), "sacred texts" (the Constitution, Capital), and were ready to wage "crusades" for their ideals. China, by contrast, is a state-civilization. Its governance model and philosophy (a mixture of Confucianism, Legalism, and adapted Marxism) do not claim to be universal. Beijing is not trying to make a copy of China out of Nigeria or Brazil. It exports goods and infrastructure projects, not ideological revolution.
They seem to say: we do not claim the truth of our views and do not dispute yours. Believe in whatever you want, but drive our cars, wear our clothes, use our smartphones. It may not be the most advanced yet, but it is cheaper, more practical and simpler.

I'd argue that what we're seeing now though is that liberalism, without these deviations, isn't actually "adaptive." Civilizations require the pursuit of arduous goods. They require heroism and self-sacrifice, and a capacity to resist serious temptations (since liberalism is always prone to slipping towards oligarchy or dictatorship). Sans any strong ordering ends, any vision of what we are defending liberalism to "adapt towards" why don't self-interested utility maximizers (which is what liberalism tells us we are) with power take advantage of their ability to direct the system towards their own ends? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was talking about the idea growing on the basis of the base (economic, social, cultural) and not the base growing on the basis of the idea:

Many theorists have a certain conviction that first an ideology (a set of ideals) is invented, which is then integrated into society and we all live happily ever after. — Astorre

I consider liberalism not as a set of ideals, striving for which we will certainly build paradise, but as a system for searching for a certain point of compromise of aspirations. — Astorre

Humanity can come up with any construct, any set of slogans, any religion, belief, ideology, ontological approach - but all this is a description of the basis. All this works only insofar as the basis has not changed. The basis changes - any idea crumbles.

In my opinion, the problem with idealism is that in their opinion, an idea is born first, and only then, strictly following it, everything falls into place. Hence this exploitation by politicians "we will bring back liberalism." Maybe they will bring it back for a moment, but this is the creation of a new construct that will lead to decline.

In the 70s in the USSR, everyone measured their own truthfulness of reading Marxism-Leninism, everyone sought the most correct meaning of what was written. In the same way, believing that the idea is primary. Well, we all know what this led to.

I also do not dispute your statement that it is necessary to understand what to start from in order to act. That is true. But the rigidity of prejudices is as evil as their absence.
For harmonious development, constant adaptation, including ideas, is required.

If the idea is not adapted, nothing good will come of it.

One of the questions I asked at the beginning was whether the West will accept illiberal regimes as equals or will another cold war follow?

If it does, that will be great. We will be able to develop by enriching each other. If it does not, another iron curtain and eternal proof of the fidelity of our ideals await us.

They're similar in that they're both given to apocalypticism. They're both looking for signs of the end of the world. Over-simplified, the Cold War was two cultures seeing each other as the anti-Christ. Is that what you mean? — frank

Former USSR and the USA folks are both more liberal thinking (even individualistic) than average Chinese folk, in wildly broad terms. — Fire Ologist

Since it so happened that I am connected (by personal and family ties) with China and the countries of the former USSR and the USA, I can say for myself with a high degree of confidence that the former USSR and the USA were not so different states in the mentality of their citizens (which may sound like wildness now), which I cannot say about the closeness of the Chinese and American mentalities. It is difficult to prove theoretically, but if you have been to these places, you will immediately understand what I am talking about. — Astorre

Well, the answer to this question is not obvious and it is not so easy to answer it. In this case, we are talking about the mindset of citizens. The idea is that both nations considered their ideology to be a kind of embodiment of truth on earth, because it is their idea that is correct, as opposed to the other. Both states were at some point the most powerful in all respects (military, sports, cultural, ideological) and saw their path as correct, which is probably where this similarity comes from. But both of these states are the embodiment of the ideas of European thinkers who grew up in the Christian society of enlightenment

But I would like to say something else here. Imagine that today you live in a state whose ideology claims to be the universal truth, and tomorrow you suddenly wake up in a state that has completely abandoned this in favor of the opposite ideology. Overnight, your entire internal structure, system of ideals and values, turned out to be a fake. Purely humanly, this is very difficult to experience. Many people lose faith in any idea against this background. Others accept the ideology of the victors (liberalism). Others insist that not everything was so bad, and that politicians are to blame (similar to how everyone now blames Trump, while at that time Gorbachev was blamed). This is not very simple. Almost 35 years have passed since then, but to this day, in my opinion, the countries of the former USSR are searching for themselves, trying to understand their place in the world. What is happening in Ukraine is one of the manifestations of this search and development.

Also it could be that liberalism as a philosophy gets a little messy when we apply it both as a social theory and an economic theory. The two should go together, but also they can grow apart and be in competition. — apokrisis

This is a very important binary opposition that is often overlooked. Many theorists have a certain conviction that first an ideology (a set of ideals) is invented, which is then integrated into society and we all live happily ever after. In a descriptive sense, the idea of ​​Marx and Engels, expressed by them in "The German Ideology", that it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness, looks very interesting.

In the Marxist perspective, society is divided into a base (production relations, means of production) and a superstructure (ideology, politics, culture). The base is primary: changes in the economy (for example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism) give rise to new ideologies that justify or disguise these relations.

It follows from this that it is impossible to "invent" an ideology and impose it as the "pinnacle of evolution" - it will collide with the reality of the base.

The most interesting thing is that their own brainchild, communism, has proven exactly this in practice: in the USSR, Lenin's Marxism-Leninism was an adaptation to industrialization (the basis: the transition from an agrarian economy to a planned one), but when the economy stagnated in the 1980s (due to isolation and inefficiency), the ideology began to "slow down reality", leading to perestroika and collapse. Similarly, attempts to export communism to countries without an industrial base (like Pol Pot's Kampuchea) failed catastrophically. On the other hand, we have China, which was able to adapt Marxism and today shows good results.

This approach has its descriptive power, but I would supplement it with Le Bon's ideas, expressed in his book "Psychology of Peoples and Masses". As a result of such dialectics, the approach of Marx and Engels can be clarified: the basis is not only economic relations but also historical, cultural, geographical features that form the so-called (according to Le Bon) "Soul of the Nation"

I consider liberalism not as a set of ideals, striving for which we will certainly build paradise, but as a system for searching for a certain point of compromise of aspirations. From the moment of the formulation of the ideas of liberalism until today, it has coped well with challenges in the long term. And, it must be said, this is not some great invention of mankind, but a tracing of the structure of nature: It is not the strongest/dexterous/fastest that survives, but the most adaptable. Authoritarianism is bad (not to mention totalitarianism) not because it violates human rights, but because it is less flexible than liberalism in the long term. As a temporary solution, authoritarianism is very good and much more effective than liberalism (provided that it is sovereign authoritarianism)

At the same time, if we constitute an ideal, instead of constantly searching for points of compromise and adaptability, we will get a great brake that will lead to decline.

This is where, in my opinion, today's problem arises: Liberalism has ceased to moderately seek this compromise, has ceased to adapt sensitively, its strengths have taken on some extreme form, and the ideas themselves have become dogmatized, instead of working dynamically.

Speaking about today's China (and as I see many who have spoken here agree with this), this state has first of all managed to create an economic miracle, which was facilitated by many reasons, including ideology is not in the first place. Today, speaking about the power of China, we first of all mean its economic potential, and not its ideological one.

Is there really a big difference in the values of the US and China? I mean fundamentally? Russia is a different animal. It's kind of inexplicable, but hasn't it always been? — frank

Since it so happened that I am connected (by personal and family ties) with China and the countries of the former USSR and the USA, I can say for myself with a high degree of confidence that the former USSR and the USA were not so different states in the mentality of their citizens (which may sound like wildness now), which I cannot say about the closeness of the Chinese and American mentalities. It is difficult to prove theoretically, but if you have been to these places, you will immediately understand what I am talking about.

But that said, you should value an apple for all it is and not just because it looks or smells good, that is to say, defend it with substance and not just "oh at least it's not this or that." — Outlander

In my opinion, man is valuable in himself.

Your argument is close to the conservative critique of democracy (for example Edmund Burke or even Plato in the Republic), where the masses can be incompetent and the elites corrupt.

So you support the idea that liberalism does not equal good?

While I'm not absolutely certain of every person in every situation, I'm fairly certain most citizens in places like Russia or China live there by choice. — Outlander

I can assure you from my own experience of almost daily communication with citizens of both of these countries that this is exactly the case. They are free to move, free to invest or create a business. There are problems there, they complain about some things, but in general I have not heard from the residents of these countries that they do not like them.

According to many reliable sources, life in the Hermit Kingdom is a dystopian nightmare where you can be sent to a prison camp for expressing dissent. It has poor living standards. frequent shortages of food and no freedom of travel. I think it can be assumed that very few. other than the privileged elite, would want to live under such a regime. — Wayfarer

I do not dispute this statement, but I go further: Why is it necessary to think differently at all and the ability to do so is a good thing?

Regarding hunger and cold. Recently I read a note about studies of cortisol in the teeth of fossilized individuals (for example, "Desperately seeking stress: A pilot study of cortisol in archaeological tooth structures" 2020). According to this study, it was found that ancient individuals, despite hunger, cold and shortage, experienced less stress than you and me.

From this I formulated a philosophical question: What if progress does not necessarily lead to human happiness?

But I did google ‘’life in North Korea’ from which:

Forced Labor:
Many North Koreans, including children, are forced to work on farms, in factories, and in political prison camps.
Food Insecurity:
Millions suffer from malnutrition and lack of adequate food, with prisoners sometimes eating insects and rats to survive.
Infrastructure:
Basic infrastructure, such as electricity and clean water, is underdeveloped, making daily tasks like washing and hygiene challenging.
Limited Information:
Access to the internet is restricted, and state-controlled TV channels are the only source of media. — Wayfarer

I do not dispute everything you found about the DPRK. Moreover, according to my data, many people are dying there due to mass starvation. But for the domestic consumer, the authorities explain this as a consequence of the West isolating their country. In this regard, I have the following question: Is it humane to isolate and impose sanctions? Is this a manifestation of liberalism or an ordinary will to power?

By the way, Saudi Arabia is not famous for its developed democratic or liberal institutions either, but that doesn't stop it from being considered a friend. Coincidentally, they have a lot of oil.

That's what I'm asking: why did we decide that they need this choice? They built a society where choice is not needed, they were moving towards it. Who are we to decide what they need?

They have nuclear weapons. This means that they have some power to reckon with. Many other states have nuclear weapons too. From the point of view of illiberal regimes, the possession of nuclear weapons by liberal states can also be seen as dangerous.

The idea of ​​what I say is not to make a statement, but to try to do what philosophy does: to ask the ultimate question "why should something necessarily be this way and not another?"

The general theme there is that everyone’s politics, economics and civilisational values will wind back to the structures that worked for what ever scale of society still exists in their area. — apokrisis

I have seen this for myself. Moreover, I am sure that you cannot simply come to someone and call them a democrat or a liberal. As Le Bon asserts, there is a certain soul of the nation that cannot be reoriented to other values ​​at the snap of a finger. In addition, this or that regime has gone through several thousand years of trial and error before appearing before our eyes. It did not arise out of nowhere, but was always connected with the climate and the geographical and natural realities of the area where it was formed.

I suggest you look at the situation from a slightly different angle. Not because I want to convince you of the correctness of something, but because, in my opinion, something is better understood in its entirety under the condition of a comprehensive analysis and various approaches.

As an example, I would like to cite the North Korean ideology of Chu-Chhe. This is an illiberal ideology, Chu-Chhe literally translates as "subjectivity" or "originality", was developed by the founder of the DPRK Kim Il Sung.

Formally, this ideology grew out of Marxism-Leninism, it significantly modified its key provisions, adapting them to Korean realities and traditions. The main philosophical difference is the shift in emphasis from objective economic laws (as in classical Marxism) to the subjective factor - the consciousness and will of the masses, led by the leader. The central element of the ideology is the postulate "Man is the master of everything and decides everything." However, this "man" is not an individual, but a collective "mass of the people". At the same time, according to Juche, the masses cannot act spontaneously; to realize their historical mission, they need a wise leader — the Leader. The main postulate of the idea is the desire for complete independence and autonomy.

Unlike liberalism, where each individual must independently search for the meaning of life, which can lead to confusion and anxiety, Juche offers a ready-made and understandable goal. The meaning of life is serving the nation, the leader and the collective. This relieves a person of the burden of individual choice and gives him a clear understanding of his place and purpose in a large, common cause.

I admit that this is undemocratic and illiberal. Citizens are brought up in isolation. They are forced to choose from 5-7 approved hairstyles and what their power gives them. But, they are who they are. They are forced to survive in isolation and somehow cope with it. In the end, these are just people who want to eat and have their place in the sun. Can the West just accept them as they are? What if we assume that they themselves simply like being who they are? Or do you see this as some kind of threat to liberalism?

I once witnessed a girl who was a guest asking a local girl why she wore a hijab, explaining that it infringed on her rights, her freedom to express herself. To which the second girl replied that this was her way of expressing herself. What if the dictatorships of the global south are what the inhabitants of the global south want?

I think I've figured out where I was wrong here. Classical philosophy, like our everyday language, is built on the substance paradigm. In it, the world consists of: Things (substances) that exist in themselves. Properties (attributes) that these things "have" or "have".
The question "What is a property?" in this paradigm seeks an answer about a static characteristic attached to an object. For example, "redness" is a quality that an apple has.

The proposed Paradigm: Process. It does not have static "things" with properties. There are only "Beings" - temporary, stable patterns in the flow of becoming and "Interactions" (Meetings) - dynamic events that make up reality.

The mistake was to take the question from the old paradigm ("What does a thing have?") and try to give it a direct answer in the new one, instead of reformulating the question itself.

So what is a property? A property is a name that we give to the event-result of the Meeting.

That's all. It is not a thing, not a characteristic, not a mode. It is an event.

There is an apple-being with its internal structure (we called it Mode). There is a light-being and an observer-being. The Meeting (interaction) occurs between them.

The event of this triple Meeting is "redness". "Redness" is not what the apple has. It is what happens when the apple, the light and the eye meet.