the Aesthetics of Populism [Minor Treatise]

This is a follow-up treatise on my article What (and how) to expect from Leaders [Opinion] by H.St.C For as long as humans have made use of their intellectual faculties to ponder upon the question of what makes something attractive, we have always known- almost instinctively- what we want. The philosophical discipline of aesthetics exists because […]

the Aesthetics of Populism [Minor Treatise]

Emile Durkheim: La morale est un état de dépendance.

Est moral, peut-on dire, tout ce qui est source de solidarité, tout ce qui force l’homme à compter avec autrui, à régler ses mouvements sur autre chose que les impulsions de son égoïsme, et la moralité est d’autant plus solide que ces liens sont plus nombreux et plus forts. On voit combien il est inexact de la définir, comme on a fait souvent, par la liberté ; elle consiste bien plutôt dans un état de dépendance. Loin qu’elle serve à émanciper l’individu, à le dégager du milieu qui l’enveloppe, elle a, au contraire, pour fonction essentielle d’en faire la partie intégrante d’un tout et, par conséquent, de lui enlever quelque chose de la liberté de ses mouvements. On rencontre parfois, il est vrai, des âmes qui ne sont pas sans noblesse et qui, pourtant, trouvent intolérable l’idée de cette dépendance. Mais c’est qu’elles n’aperçoivent pas les sources d’où découle leur propre moralité, parce que ces sources sont trop profondes. La conscience est un mauvais juge de ce qui se passe au fond de l’être, parce qu’elle n’y pénètre pas. La société n’est donc pas, comme on l’a cru souvent, un évènement étranger à la morale ou qui n’a sur elle que des répercussions secondaires ; c’en est, au contraire, la condition nécessaire. Elle n’est pas une simple juxtaposition d’individus qui apportent, en y entrant, une moralité intrinsèque ; mais l’homme n’est un être moral que parce qu’il vit en société, puisque la moralité consiste à être solidaire d’un groupe et varie comme cette solidarité. Faites évanouir toute vie sociale, et la vie morale s’évanouit du même coup, n’ayant plus d’objet où se prendre.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Emile Durkheim, De la Division du travail social (1893)

The power of story 2

Photo by Enzo Muu00f1oz on

In continuation of the previous post the-power-of-stories-1, story telling changed completely with the invention of the printing machine in 1450. A story was not recited orally and collectively, but it became an individual solitary activity. How did this shift in stories status affect us?

As aforementioned, a story became written in a book for a solitary individual activity. At its start, reading was the rich and educated pleasure. So, the story lost its collective social and sociable aspect and turned into, not only a solitary activity, but a social class matter.

As we all know it today, reading has many benefits on the brain and on human faculties despite the social segregation it brought for a very long time. Progressively, people became individualistic in a way and more of thinkers. Reading is a slow activity that developed critical thinking, discussions and debates which didn’t exist massively in ancient times. All types of books began to emerge with all types of topics. Books helped science, knowledge, art, philosophy and much more to evolve. This meant, more reasoning, more curiosity and depth, more emancipation.

In other words, political revolutions wouldn’t have taken place, hadn’t the book been invented.

Why are we more attached to the way of life more than to life ?

We all know that smoking is harmful, yet we smoke. We all know that processed food is bad, yet we eat it. We all know that social distancing is safe yet we are ready to kiss everyone down the street.

Therefore, why are we more attached to our way of life more than to life itself in spite of all the warnings?

The answer is simple: we are cultural beings. We live and thrive in our culture which creates patterns and habits in us. Lockdown broke societal habits and left us miserable in general. Humans are not just simple beings; they are not animals whose sole aim is survival. We don’t eat to live but we live to eat and the list goes on.

Yes, our Modus Vivendi is more important than life. We don’t just survive; we live!

Is it the end of the office ?

For the last hundred years or more, an office was a narrow room with little furnitures, apart from a desk, chairs and maybe bookshelves, where work was done. Since the pandemic broke through, the “office” became the computer.

Work per se changed its rules. It has been stretched through longer hours, in front of a screen; a computer placed anywhere but in a conventional office.

The new normal forced people to live differently. Some liked it some didn’t. Some looked forward to go back to the office, others dreaded that moment. Lockdowns may come back again with the rise of corona cases. Will we wear the mask for few years ahead?

The striking point in all this is the unnatural life humanly speaking due to social or physical distancing. Humans are political and social animals by nature said Aristotle. This sentence has never been more accurate than these days.

Therefore, is it the end of the office? Is it the end of work and social life as we have known it?

The Machine : A Sign of the Times

Originally posted on A Life of Virtue: Philosophy as a Way of Life: Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men – machine men with machine minds and machine hearts The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin The prophecies of George Orwell have been realized Cameras, gadgets and sensors colonize every part of our bodies The Machine slowly…

The Machine : A Sign of the Times


Photo by cottonbro on Depersonalization disorder, or depersonification syndrome, is a disease in which a person feels disconnected from their own body, as if they were an external observer of themselves. It is common that there are also symptoms of derealization, which means a change in the perception of the environment that surrounds it, […]


The unprecedented desire for routines

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on

It is understandable that, in shaky situations, one would like to stick to a routine, any routine, for the sense of security and survival. This is why social media is full of videos, podcasts and posts on routines and practices and this tendency skyrocketed since the beginning of the pandemic.

However is it beneficial?

Neurologists explain that the brain functions in patterns. Once an activity becomes regular, the brain takes it as a pattern and forces the person to do it regularly. Hence the feeling of guilt or confusion in missing the regular habit.

Does it mean that we all must be doing yoga, meditation, daily workouts, journaling, drinking lemon water every morning etc.?

Although the above-mentioned practices are beneficial and recommended, it doesn’t mean every person should be doing them. Maybe one hates journaling, must they force themselves to do it? Maybe one feels uncomfortable with yoga or something else, should they do it in spite of it all?

The answer is no. A routine is a personal (sometimes collective) chosen activity for security, pleasure, health etc. or for any enhancement that leads to a better survival.

The problem when something so private becomes a mainstream on social media, it is highly misunderstood or unproperly applied.

P.S: Starting the 1st of July and for every Saturday of the month, I will publish free philosophy teaching documents. You can find them on my main blog page in “Portfolio”.