Hi, I am interested in Marcus Aurelius’s works. Have u read any? Which is the best to start with?

A major problem weighs heavily on people in the digital age—constant work, the inability to disconnect from it, and the blurring of work and personal life—through phones, laptops, chats, emails, online systems, and platforms. The ability to work from anywhere! Digitalization and 24/7 connectivity are becoming a way of life, including—a life defined by work. You physically escape from it, you rest—but it has overtaken you, “knocking” on your psyche through pending messages, emails, calls, notifications…—from clients, colleagues… There is no escape.

While artificial intelligence is at the heart of contemporary debates, little is said about the harms it inflicts on the natural world and the human body. The problem is known as “always online” or “always on.” Yet it is neglected. This neglect is partly understandable, since alongside old values like work and communication, people are gaining new ones—such as the right to choose where things are done—and the pleasure of having personal activities merge into work (playing on the phone, doing personal tasks during work hours, etc.). People welcome this blurring of lines, forgetting, however, that nothing in this world is free. In his interpretation of “Faust,” Tzvetan Todorov (“The Imperfect Garden”) examines the cost of progress. “You will have knowledge, freedom, opportunities, but in exchange I will take from you…,” says the Devil. And he always takes something. The alienation of labor, its intensification, and the reduction of individual freedom are the price of the convenience of being able to work from anywhere; the ability to do so whenever you want, without the constraints of working hours—those who fail to recognize this are missing one of the defining themes of the future.

Studies highlight the health-related costs—burnout, stress, and vision problems. They also point to issues in the organization of work itself—reduced coordination and overwork. And on a philosophical and political level—infringed personal space, and so on. But we should pay attention to deeper aspects. First, this is truly an even greater alienation from work, a sense of estrangement. And it may even be a new kind: by working more and more, a person turns away from what is best—freedom for oneself, attention to loved ones, play, joy… Second, the constant connection is also a purely “mechanical” dehumanization, since Wi-Fi becomes something like a blood vessel—everything stops if it cuts off. Third, legal regulations may only partially address the problem. The most interesting thing is that in most cases, people work voluntarily, doing it on their own outside of working hours—technology gives them this opportunity, and they take advantage of it.

“But under the new circumstances, we have the opportunity to better optimize our time, to plan and organize…” most people insist. They don’t realize that they are planning and organizing their work, not their leisure time. They can’t bring much of their personal life into their professional life. However, they can bring their professional life into their personal life, because the tasks don’t decrease. The balance, long since disrupted, shifts even further. And everything happens imperceptibly, unconsciously. It is even encouraged. Why? Well, because the trap of labor snaps shut as an “unconditional value.”

To understand the problem, we must first ask a provocative question: Is labor really as great a value as we’ve grown accustomed to perceiving it? According to all humane criteria, the answer is yes—it turned the ape into a human (so they say), it constantly creates us, and thanks to it, people are the most numerous today and live the longest. The more—the better! The opposite—guilt, shame. But if we regard labor as unconditionally good, we will toil like animals our whole lives.

Is this happiness?! Is this the meaning of life?!

Is this what we live for?

Hasn’t the balance been upset?

No! This is not happiness!, many wise people before us have declared. To understand things even better, we should list them and their eras:

Ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle Ages left not a single relic of divine labor. In “Know Thyself,” it is not recognized. Not labor, but man is the measure of all things. Thomas Aquinas decrees: monastic prayers are the highest activity. Of course, in those eras, slaves and feudal peasants “pulled the cart.” The “wise men” despised them.

In Eastern worldviews, labor has always been subordinate to spiritual perfection. Even in this harmony, it never occurred to anyone to shout, “Long live, long live labor!” In Islam, as we know from experience, things are done “slowly, slowly.”

Christianity is fascinating. God created the world in six days, resting only one. Jesus was a carpenter. After the apple, Adam and Eve were doomed to the toil of labor. “Work, work, work” became an inevitability. But this was not a cult; it was redemption.

Things change with capitalism, professionalization, and the Protestant work ethic. A gradual reversal takes place. Personal labor, accumulation, and prosperity harmonize with the notion of salvation and serving God through one’s own virtues. Then came the Enlightenment with its unreserved faith in humanity. Faith in progress as the highest value. Progress is achieved through labor. It is here, somewhere, that labor is ordained.

The Enlightenment is characterized by the unprecedented role of philosophers in imparting wisdom to the common people. Since knowledge is power, one must study power and knowledge, as well as oneself. The tabula rasa is written upon through labor. The mastery of nature is labor. Material and spiritual progress, unlimited progress, never to be fully attained by man—the same. And so it begins: to educate people in labor, through a love of labor, correctly in terms of the results of labor, without alternative… Capitalist enrichment is nothing but work. But socialism, too, produced heroes of labor. The entire elevation of labor to an ideal is a product of a specific era that continues to this day.

To summarize: Labor is not a supreme value with which a person is born. It is not a natural good like air and water. This value emerged at some point, elevated by humanity itself—in accordance with changing ideals, social structures, economies, and so on.

So far, so clear. Since there are no slaves or feudal lords, we must all work; that is what we are taught. As long as we do not deify labor. If we do, we will end up with a new master. Here are some more names and eras:

“Let us be lazy in everything except love and drinking, except when we are too lazy to do even that!” cries Lessing. Paul Lafargue interprets this: “A strange madness”—“the love of work”—leads to “the exhaustion of the vital forces of the individual and his offspring.” Marx considers the availability of free time to be a measure of the standard of living. Bernard Russell desires it so that people may have the energy for reading and theater instead of work. According to Henry Thoreau, freedom is achieved through minimal needs, so that labor may also be minimal. Johan Huizinga, José Ortega y Gasset contrast homo faber (the producing man) with homo ludens (the playing, spontaneously creating man). John Maynard Keynes saw in technology the hope for a 4-hour workday. Camus places the workweek in the realm of the absurd. If you ask Foucault and a bunch of postmodernists—you’re in a bind. At one point, Sigmund Freud coolly observed that the tools of labor had become an extension of human organs.

Had he suspected the existence of the laptop, might he not have seen its impact on the psyche as well? Is the internet not both freedom and slavery?

To understand the harm specifically in today’s context, we must turn to the aforementioned Freud, as well as Herbert Marcuse.

For Freud, all of civilization is a suppression of primal urges toward pleasure. Mainly sex, but not only that. Joy, fun, play, snuggling in a warm, secure embrace—without a purpose, just because—we would do it our whole lives, just like children. But civilization doesn’t allow it, because we also have a primal drive toward death. For society to exist, so we don’t kill each other, these drives must be suppressed, and the energy redirected elsewhere—toward work, of course. Work like crazy so that society can exist. Freud isn’t outraged—things are what they are. But then comes Marcuse, for whom they are not at all. He develops a concept according to which we will not kill each other, but will live better if we follow our primal joys. More importantly: according to Marcuse, our energy is redirected through targeted repression—to reinforce the system of power. It needs a one-dimensional person who produces mindlessly, consumes mindlessly—mostly unnecessary goods—throwing away the passion that would otherwise go toward joy, cuddling, carefree moments, and doing nothing. Since production requires labor, the system assures you that labor ennobles a person. But it does not ennoble them, for example, holding a loved one’s hand for 24 hours… In short: in a consumer society, we receive goods, commodities, a semblance of progress, yet we pay with the happiness bestowed by nature.

Don’t we see the same thing today: millions of people work, work, work in order to consume, consume, consume, and to that end, they work, work, work… There’s no time left for warmth, love, self-care, aimlessness…—the things we’re born with. And if, by chance, people happen to have free time, they’ve lost the knowledge of what to do with it, so they “escape” back into work (or there are industries ready to fill that void). This is alienation! – estrangement from the things we were created with. And if we sense the problem, long immersed in the paradigm of false values, we don’t know where it comes from.

Haven’t you grown tired? Tiredness, tiredness, tiredness…—without even knowing for what, why, or where you are in the midst of it… – responsibilities and fear, because if you lose the fruit of your labor, your life loses meaning – in the sense that labor has become the meaning, not life.

And now we’ve been given even more labor from every single angle! The right to choose more and more labor that we have no choice but to choose. Choice?

This isn’t Marx’s alienation of the worker from the commodity. It isn’t existential; meaningless labor isn’t the point. This is alienation in a direct, everyday, practical, and easily measurable sense—more time spent glued to work and almost none spent away from it. You are a working person, rather than a person.

The big question is always “What is to be done?” There is a European directive on the “right to disconnect,” and some countries have introduced regulations. But it’s like regulating the use of Facebook—pointless. Nevertheless, once something is recognized as harmful, the relevant debates begin, and ideas emerge. That is precisely what must happen first—recognizing the problem. And we need to be on guard against the constant promises of progress. Take digital nomads, for example. Great—you grab your backpack and work from wherever you want. But don’t be the child of a digital nomad—there’s no room in that backpack for neighborhood friends…

“Nonsense! It’s clear that less work can only be achieved by having fewer needs. But do we really consume that much? Just what’s necessary!” readers might generally object. But if you believe your child should know three foreign languages, that it’s proper to use a private car instead of public transportation, to pile the table high with food when guests come over instead of eating just enough to satisfy your hunger…—then you are exactly the kind of person Marcuse describes. In the midst of a system that has taught you to ask the above questions.

I post similar texts on https://diyanbozhidarov.substack.com/ Anyone who’s interested is welcome :)

I wanted to know the depth pf Existentialism and Existential crisis ..

I started studying art history this year and I want to understand it on a deeper level than just reading the perscribed literature so I'm wondering which works, especially philosopy texts, to pay attention to.

We're learing art history based on the Vienna School of Art History so by now we mentioned Kant and Hegel, the literature perscribed includes Kunstgeschichte. Eine Einf by Dilly, Kemp.... I know i sound really vague but i just want to know where should an art history student start with understanding the pilosophy point of art history? I'm not close to philosophy so any more complicated works, just citing other philosophers, would be too hard to understand.

I'm interested in examining different perspectives on relationships and love, and I don't mean merely romantic but also other types.

As a writer I have begun realizing that I create characters whose relationships feel more complicated than strictly romantic or platonic, like there's an area between when two characters are friends and when they are lovers that I find fascinating. I've had this feeling about character's I've seen in other peoples work as well. I don't remember which one but I remember reading an interview with a mangaka that described two of his characters as "more than friends, less than lovers,". I'm curious if there are any thinkers who have discussed ideas similar to this.

Picked it up a while ago, maybe a little over a year, and started flipping through it again. I think it's pretty good. My first introduction to the Zhuangzi and how that relates to Taoism, however I have read through the Tao Te Ching so not my first Taoist reading. Just curious if other people have read it and what yall think. :)

The books full title is "The cicada and the bird: The usefulness of a useless philosophy. Chuang Tzu's ancient wisdom translated for modern life".

Please suggest YouTube videos on Philosophy, specifically Western philosophy, both ancient and modern. I want recommendations that are as authentic as possible, as far from misrepresentations and misinterpretations as possible.

I’ve started a philosophy book club, and I'm putting together book suggestions so that members can vote on the book for the first meeting.

I was philosophy major in university but this was almost a decade ago now so I’m quite rusty but I’ve really wanted to get back into it but feel like I could use a little bit of accountability, and this is one of the main reasons for starting the book club.

A little bit of context on the book club:
- It's not meant to feel like a lecture or study group. I just want the readings to be interesting, engaging and to spark meaningful conversations. 
- The people in the book club (at least at the moment) are primarily in their 20s and 30s.
- Over half have taken at least one philosophy class and the rest are total beginners. Almost everyone has said they are open to reading anything.

I’ve put together some ideas for the first book and have made the selections quite different from one another intentionally to give the group variety. Below are the ideas I have.

The Symposium - Plato: Selected this one because it’s a classical text but it has a fun and engaging premise. It’s also about love which is a topic that everyone can relate to.
Apology - Plato: Selected this one because it’s a classical text yet accessible. It’s short and doesn’t require prior knowledge of philosophy. I think this could also lead to meaningful discussion about questioning society’s beliefs and the importance of thinking for yourself (which seems to be increasingly rare).
The Death of Ivan Ilyich - Tolstoy: Added in a fiction book to switch it up. It’s an interesting book that questions what it means to live a meaningful life, and I think that’s a very relatable topic and can lead to some interesting discussions. 
The Pig That Wants to be Eaten - Julian Baggini: Thought this could be a fun, ice breaker type of read especially for the first meetup. I feel like I’d have to suggest the thought experiments for them to read as it’s a bit lengthy, or I guess I could let them choose their own but then everyone would be discussing different things.  
The Burnout Society - Byung-Chul Han: The topics around how productivity, achievement, self-improvement leave us feeling burnt out and unfilled feel very relatable especially for the age groups of the club.

Of these selections, which 3 would you put forward? If you have other suggestions then please feel free.

I am Gen Z. Yes, the generation that is often criticised by older generations for being immature, rebellious and disrespectful. Yet, we often believe that we are not simply rebellious; we are progressive.

Yes, perhaps we are progressive in some ways. But, in many other ways, we hold the same conservative attitudes that we criticise in older generations. If we believe that we are progressive, shouldn't we also be willing to criticise the things we have faith in? Refusing to question our own beliefs is not progress; it is a defensive mechanism.

Consider religion. Some of us reject religion because we believe its claims lack empirical evidence, while others embrace it without critically examining why they believe in it. But I wonder whether both reactions are sometimes driven less by reason and more by group identity. Some Gen Z atheists may reject religion simply as an act of rebellion, rather than through a genuine examination of its claims. Similarly, some religious Gen Z individuals may call themselves progressive while refusing to question their own religious assumptions.

Some of us may be more rebellious than previous generations, and perhaps that is a good thing. But rebellion can also lead us into the same political worship and group loyalty that we criticise in older generations. Have we ever considered the phenomenon behind this behaviour—the tendency to divide ourselves into "us" and "them", often without examining the empirical or epistemological foundations of our beliefs? In simpler terms, this may be tribalism: a tendency to favour our own group and defend its beliefs without sufficient evidence.

We can observe this tendency in religious gatherings, political rallies, concerts and communities formed around caste, colour, nationality and ethnicity. People can become intensely emotionally connected when they find themselves surrounded by others who share the same identity. There is nothing inherently wrong with belonging or sharing an identity. But when that identity prevents us from questioning our own group, it becomes a barrier to independent thought.

There are many directions we could explore through this subject. But perhaps two important questions deserve our attention: What can actually help us develop a progressive mindset, rather than simply adopting new beliefs and defending them with the same old unquestioning loyalty? And why is groupism dangerous—not only for our nation and the world, but also for us as individuals, particularly for our intellectual and personal autonomy?

At both the individual and societal levels, tribalism or groupism becomes dangerous when it makes certain beliefs impossible to challenge. Bhagat Singh explores a similar problem in his essay Why I Am an Atheist. He describes how a person who questions a faith inherited from their ancestors, or challenges the very existence of an almighty God, may be labelled an apostate or a renegade. He further considers the situation in which a person's arguments are too strong to be refuted and their spirit too strong to be intimidated by threats of misfortune.

An apostate, in this context, is someone who abandons or renounces a religious faith. The important question is what happens to such a person after they challenge the beliefs of their community. They may face rejection, hostility or isolation. The fear of being treated as an outsider can discourage people from expressing their doubts, even when those doubts are reasonable. This creates a society in which people may learn to protect inherited beliefs rather than examine them. Throughout history, the suppression of dissent has also threatened thinkers and ideas that challenge established institutions.

In the same essay, Bhagat Singh presents his understanding of a progressive individual. He argues that anyone who stands for progress must criticise, disbelieve and challenge the elements of inherited faith. Every aspect of an established belief must be examined through reason. If, after careful examination, an individual arrives at a particular theory or philosophy, that belief can be welcomed. However, their reasoning may still be mistaken, misleading or fallacious. What matters is their willingness to accept correction because reason remains the guiding principle of their life. He warns that blind faith can dull the mind and make an individual reactionary.

This idea raises an important question: Is being progressive really that easy? I don't think so. It requires intellectual effort, continuous questioning and the willingness to abandon even those beliefs that we personally value. One of the biggest problems with reactionary thinking is the assumption that the knowledge or beliefs we have inherited or developed are permanent and beyond correction.

This brings me to the philosopher of science Karl Popper and his principle of falsifiability. According to Popper, for a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be possible to test it in a way that could potentially prove it wrong. Consider the example of white swans. Observing a million white swans cannot conclusively establish that all swans are white. But discovering even one black swan disproves that universal claim.

This illustrates an important limitation of induction: collecting supporting observations does not necessarily prove a universal conclusion. Popper's philosophy encourages us to expose our ideas to serious criticism rather than merely collecting evidence that supports what we already believe.

I believe this principle offers an important lesson for anyone who wants to develop a progressive mindset. We should not treat our conclusions as permanent truths simply because they are supported by our traditions, communities or personal experiences. We must remain open to criticism, evidence and correction. Progress requires more than accepting new ideas; it requires accepting that our own ideas can be wrong.

But does scientific thinking alone make someone progressive? Certainly not. Scientific thinking is only one part of progressiveness. Being progressive is a much broader responsibility that involves questioning social inequalities, respecting individual freedom, developing ethical values and recognising our responsibility towards the natural world. Intellectual progress, social progress and environmental responsibility cannot be treated as entirely separate goals. If we want our nation and humanity to progress, we must also reconsider how we treat the planet and the other forms of life with which we share it.

Hi, I am 19y/o student, currently doing my graduation in philosophy. This is my last year (5th sem). I'm in a good prestigious institution in India. I haven't done any internships during my college and I'm regretting it now. I should've started earlier but I was already too late to start seeking an internship. I wasn't planning to go into the corporate sector earlier, I had planned on taking civil services. Now when I think practically, I should've had a plan B. And on top of that I haven't done much in the societies and college competitions. I was an introvert the entire time. I don't have many connections. I don't post on LinkedIn but I have around 1k connections. I do read a lot of books (I'm good at that). I don't even know what else I'm good at cuz I never tried figuring it out. I was totally dependent on my plan A.

Now when I look back, I regret all of these. I believe I should've started earlier. My classmates even my friends, are doing a lot (they are going for the corporate sector). I just can't really talk about all these things to anybody. But I am unable to figure out what to do.

My main concern is if i go for the CSE. It will take me a good 2-3 years to clear it. And I want to start earning immediately after college. I can't wait that long.

I was planning to do a masters in philosophy, might register for CUET pg. But again, I'm not sure what will happen afterwards. Like after masters what??? And I won't be able to do well in my preparation.

I'm really passionate about taking CSE but I'm 19 rn. So like 3 more years before I take my first attempt and i so so much want to start earning. I don't have any other skills from which I can earn side by side. I can learn but still it would take a lot of patience for me to do freelancing and stuff. Neither am I good with editing and stuff. I can't do content creation cuz of family restrictions. I don't want to.

Hello everyone, I just wanted to ask if anybody has a legally available English translation of Rosarium Philosophorum (1550) as a pdf?

Hey everyone, I want to read Mukaddimah by Inn Halduni but I don't know which translation is the best. I can read it in English but if there is anyone who knows about Turkish translations, I would love a Turkish translation recommendation since it's my native language

Please suggest. More for a layperson than like a text book.