Language is one of the greatest discoveries or perhaps inventions of human beings.

But language is not simply a way of talking to someone. It is much more than that. It is a creation that allows us to express our feelings, imagination, and thoughts. It gives shape to things that exist inside our minds but cannot always be seen from the outside. Even someone who cannot speak because of a medical condition can still think, imagine, and communicate in other ways. Speaking and thinking are not the same thing. But language gives our thoughts a structure. It gives us a way to hold an idea, examine it, question it, and share it with someone else. Think about how much of what we know has reached us through language.

Much of what we learn throughout our lives comes through systems of symbols, words, numbers, images, or concepts. When we read a book, listen to someone, watch a movie, study something, or even talk to ourselves, we use systems that help us organize information. This is why I think language has a much deeper relationship with thinking than we usually realize.

Subscribe now

When we are born, we do not know a language. Slowly, we begin learning from our parents, our surroundings, and the people around us. We learn words for objects, emotions, actions, relationships, and ideas. A child can feel fear before knowing the word fear. But once the child learns the word, something changes. Now the feeling can be identified. It can be questioned. The child can say, “I am afraid.” They can ask why they are afraid. They can distinguish fear from anger, sadness, or excitement. The word did not create the feeling. It gave the mind a way to hold it. And perhaps this is where the real power of language begins.

The more concepts we learn, the more distinctions we can make between things that previously seemed similar. Learning another language can reveal this in interesting ways. An idea that seems obvious in one language may carry a slightly different meaning or emphasis in another. This does not necessarily mean that people who speak multiple languages are automatically more knowledgeable. That would be an easy conclusion, but not necessarily a true one. What it can do is expose us to different ways of organizing experience. We begin to see that the same idea can be described differently.

And when we see something from more than one angle, our understanding can become wider. This is also why language can influence imagination. We can imagine things we have never physically experienced: another world, an invisible force, a future civilization, a fictional character, or even infinity. But to communicate those ideas to ourselves or others, we need some kind of conceptual system. Language gives those ideas boundaries. And sometimes, those boundaries can also become limitations. We often think inside the concepts we already possess. If we do not have a word or concept for something, it can be harder to recognize, describe, or discuss it.

Leave a comment

Imagine experiencing a complicated emotion but having no way to describe it. You still experience it. Your mind does not become empty because you lack a word. But without language, examining that experience becomes harder. This is why I do not think language creates our entire reality. It shapes the way we understand reality. There is an important difference. A person can feel pain without knowing the word pain. A baby can experience fear without understanding the concept of fear. We can recognize a face without knowing its name. Experience comes before many of the words we use to describe it. But once language enters the picture, experience becomes something we can classify, compare, remember, communicate, and question. Perhaps this is why the idea that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” feels so powerful.

Our vocabulary does not determine everything we can experience, but it can influence what we notice, how precisely we understand it, and how easily we communicate it. Language can therefore both expand and restrict thought. It expands thought because every new concept gives us another tool for thinking. It restricts thought when we mistake the concepts we already have for complete reality. And this may explain why some philosophical problems become so confusing. Sometimes we are not facing a problem that is impossible to understand. Sometimes we are simply trapped inside the way we have described it. A small language change can completely change the question. And sometimes a clearer question is more valuable than a complicated answer. Clarity of language can create clarity of thought.

Share

Think about how much information enters our minds every day. We read messages, watch videos, listen to conversations, read headlines, study, argue, tell stories, write, and even talk to ourselves silently. Much of what reaches our conscious mind is carried through language or systems closely connected to it. So perhaps language is not just something we use. Perhaps it is one of the tools through which we build our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. This is also why learning another language can be valuable, because another language can introduce us to different expressions, concepts, associations, and ways of describing the same world.

You may begin with one way of seeing something. Then another language gives you another. Suddenly, the thing you thought you completely understood has another side. And sometimes, seeing that second side is enough to make you question the first. Maybe that is the real power of language. It does not simply tell us what to think. It gives us more ways to think. We are capable of imagining almost anything. But the tools we use to describe, organize, and examine those imaginings matter. Language is one of those tools. And perhaps the more languages, concepts, and forms of expression we learn, the more carefully we can examine the world, not because language gives us access to everything, but because it gives us more ways to ask what everything might mean.

Do you ever question something you know or consider to be true?

Most people don’t, because they already believe it’s true. The most annoying thing you can do is ask questions about a political system, a religion, a moral rule, a family tradition, an inherited belief. Nobody likes questioning, especially those standing on a pile of beliefs they’ve never examined.

History remembers what happens next. Socrates taught people to ask questions, not to simply believe what they were told, but to ask themselves, ask others, and arrive at their own conclusions. Athens put him on trial and sentenced him to death. His story became one of the most famous examples of what happens when you keep questioning the beliefs and assumptions of the society around you.

This creates a paradox. If someone never asks questions, even if what they believe happens to be right, how would they actually know it’s right?

Subscribe now

Think about what happens when you’re born into a family that teaches you certain things. As a child, you can’t question everything. You trust the people around you. Your parents teach you something, your teachers teach you something, society teaches you something, and slowly those things become part of you.

Then you become an adult. You start seeing the world differently, noticing things you never noticed before. You start asking questions.

And the moment you question something you were taught, even your own family can grow uncomfortable. They may not know whether the thing they taught you is true. They simply inherited it themselves, the same way you did.

I’m not against any particular belief. I’m asking whether you can see through someone else’s eyes, whether you can understand why they believe what they believe. And before accepting anything as your own, can you discover it for yourself?

Most people don’t. That’s why someone who questions what society considers obviously true gets a label attached to them. Question religion, and you’re called an atheist. Question politics, and you’re called dangerous, or naive, or a traitor to your side. The label changes. The reaction doesn’t.

Sometimes we don’t defend our beliefs because they’re true. We defend them because they’ve become part of who we are.

Share

When belief outweighs evidence…….

Here’s a version of this that plays out quietly, all the time, even among people trained to be rigorous.

A researcher spends years developing a theory. She believes, deeply, that a particular treatment works. When a trial comes back with mixed results, she doesn’t announce that she’s ignoring the data nobody does that out loud. Instead, she starts explaining the results away. The sample was too small. The dosage was off. The control group wasn’t quite comparable. Maybe a follow-up study, with better conditions, would show what she already knows to be true.

Some of this reasoning might even be correct. Real science does require ruling out confounds. But notice the direction the explaining runs: always toward protecting the original belief, never toward genuinely entertaining that it might be wrong. That’s the tell. It’s not that she saw contrary evidence and said: “I don’t care.” It’s that the belief had already decided, quietly, which evidence would be allowed to count.

This is the ordinary, human version of motivated reasoning not villainous, not even conscious most of the time. It’s just what happens when a belief becomes load-bearing.

Leave a comment

A room full of certainty……

Now imagine a room where everyone is sure they already know the truth. They’ve seen the evidence, they agree with each other, and they think there’s nothing left to discuss.

Then one person asks, “Are we really sure?”

He isn’t claiming everyone is wrong. He just wants to look at the evidence again.

As the questions start, things that seemed obvious begin to look different. People notice details they’d ignored, assumptions they’d never actually examined. Nothing dramatic happens. Nobody is proven a fool. They simply asked questions, and the picture became sharper.

Which brings me back to the question I keep circling: if something is really true, why should it fear being examined? A truth shouldn’t get weaker under scrutiny. If anything, honest questions should help us understand it better. Maybe what we’re protecting, most of the time, isn’t the truth itself it’s our need to believe we were already right.

Real reasons people stay quiet

None of this means questioning is free or safe. Sometimes it threatens your relationships, your standing in a family, your job, your community, even your physical safety. Sometimes a belief is so tightly woven into someone’s identity that questioning it feels like losing a piece of yourself.

So I’m not saying everyone should aggressively interrogate everyone around them. There’s a difference between questioning and attacking. “What makes you believe that?” is a different sentence than “That’s stupid.” You can question an idea without insulting the person holding it, and sometimes the wiser choice is to question privately, especially when speaking openly carries real consequences.

The comfort we inherit alongside the belief…..

There’s a second reason we resist questioning, separate from fear of consequences: comfort.

Life doesn’t run on our expectations. Hard work doesn’t always pay off. Good people suffer for no reason. Life doesn’t sort itself into who deserves what. But we want it to make sense anyway, so we reach for explanations that make it feel like it does.

This is where a lot of inherited beliefs actually come from, not just religion or politics, but the quieter, more social version of them, too. “You need to be successful.” You need to look like this.” “You need to live like that.” We rarely ask where these standards came from, we absorb them the way we absorbed everything else as children, and then spend years measuring ourselves against a bar someone else set, for reasons we never examined.

Social media has sharpened this. We perform one version of ourselves for friends, another for strangers online, and quietly compare our actual lives to everyone else’s highlight reel as if that comparison were a neutral, obvious way to judge a life well lived. It isn’t. It’s just another unexamined inheritance, dressed up as common sense. Someone says something offhand about us, and we replay it for days. Why did he say that? What does he think of me? That’s the same reflex as inheriting a belief from your parents we let someone else’s passing judgment define something we never questioned in the first place.

Introspection is good. It helps us see our mistakes. But there’s a point where obsessively worrying about who we’re becoming is itself just another way of losing ourselves to something we never chose.

Help me keep writing

What would change your mind?

We talk about human beings as constantly evolving. Then why do we keep carrying beliefs, rules, and divisions that were simply handed to us? Someone gave us a belief, and we accepted it. Someone gave us a rule, and we followed it. At what point do we stop inheriting and start examining? People don’t usually fear questions themselves. They fear what a question might reveal that a belief was inherited rather than chosen, that a political opinion came from someone louder rather than something true, that years of confidence rested on incomplete information.
I don’t want questioning to become a weapon people use to tear each other down. I want it to become normal. So the real question was never whether you believe in God, or support a particular political system, or think your parents were right, or think society is right. The real question is whether you can honestly examine what you believe. The next time you’re certain about something, ask yourself….

what would change my mind?

If the honest answer is “nothing,” you’re not examining your belief. You’re guarding it.
Seek out someone who disagrees with you. Try to understand their strongest point, not the easiest one to knock down. You don’t have to change your mind. You only have to give yourself the possibility of changing it. Because if something is true, questioning it shouldn’t destroy it. It should reveal it.

The thing that separates us from every other species in this universe, the thing that makes us human, may also be the reason why being human is so difficult. It is consciousness. At first, it feels like an incredible gift. We are self-aware. We can question ourselves, question the world, question our choices, and question what is right and wrong. We can think about our past and imagine our future. We can create things that have never existed. We can look at our own thoughts and ask why we are thinking them in the first place. We are unique. And honestly, that sounds wonderful. But the same thing that makes us unique may also be the thing that causes so much of our suffering. Most people don’t spend much time thinking about whether their consciousness is becoming corrupted. We rarely ask ourselves whether the way we think, choose, desire, or treat other people is making us better or worse. Why would we? Thinking about consciousness doesn’t pay our bills. It doesn’t give us a better house, more money, more fame, or more respect. So we keep chasing those things instead. And perhaps that is one of the strangest things about us. We possess something that can help us make better decisions and live a better life, yet we spend most of our lives distracted from it. Sometimes it almost feels like we have been given something sacred without being given instructions for how to use it. And now I wonder whether consciousness is really a gift or a double-edged sword.

Share

Have you ever noticed how quickly animals move on from danger? Two animals may fight fiercely over food, fighting simply because they need to survive. But after some time, they move on. A deer escapes a predator, its heart racing, running with one thought: what if it catches me? But once the danger has passed, it returns to grazing. The danger is gone, and, in some sense, the experience is gone with it. Nature seems to have given animals a remarkable ability to let go. Of course, animals can experience fear, pain, attachment, and even grief. But they do not appear to spend their lives endlessly reconstructing what happened yesterday or imagining every possible disaster that might happen tomorrow. We do. Our greatest source of suffering is often not the world itself. It is our mind. We possess a level of consciousness advanced enough to question almost everything. We don’t only experience pain; we remember it. We don’t only experience uncertainty, we imagine every possible future in which things go wrong. We don’t only lose someone; we replay the moments we had with them and imagine the moments we will never have. We don’t only make mistakes. We can spend years punishing ourselves for making them. Animals fear immediate danger. We fear the present, the past, and the future. And perhaps this is where consciousness becomes a curse.

Subscribe now

Have you ever noticed how uncomfortable silence can be? You sit alone without your phone, without music, without a conversation, without something demanding your attention, and suddenly your own mind becomes loud. Perhaps we are not always running toward something. Perhaps we are running away from something. Loneliness, uncertainty, regret, an uncomfortable truth, or simply the experience of being alone with our own thoughts. Maybe that’s why we reach for our phones without even realizing it. We keep ourselves busy. We fill the silence. We create distractions. We work, scroll, watch, consume, achieve, plan, and repeat. Not necessarily because we love being busy, but sometimes because being still forces us to meet ourselves.

And maybe that is why humans have such a strange relationship with being alive. We are aware enough to know that we exist, but not necessarily wise enough to know what we are supposed to do with that existence. This creates another problem: purpose. Most of us desperately want one. We want to believe that there is a reason why we are here. We want our suffering to mean something. We want our failures to lead somewhere. We want to believe that all of this is going somewhere. But what if there is no ready-made purpose waiting for us? What if nobody gives us an instruction manual? That might explain why we suffer so much while searching for meaning.

Imagine if everyone were born knowing exactly what they were supposed to do. No uncertainty. No existential questions. No wondering whether you chose the wrong career, the wrong relationship, or the wrong life. No wondering whether you are wasting your existence. Perhaps life would become easier. Maybe we would fail less. Maybe everyone would become successful in some predetermined sense. But something would also disappear our freedom. Because if the purpose of your life were already decided for you, then how much of your life would actually belong to you?

Perhaps the terrible thing about consciousness is also the beautiful thing about it. We are free enough to choose. But because we are free enough to choose, we are also capable of choosing badly. We can waste years. We can chase things that don’t matter. We can hurt people. We can betray ourselves. We can spend our entire lives trying to become someone we never actually wanted to be. And then one day, consciousness asks us to look back at everything we have done. That is a heavy price for freedom.

Leave a comment

Maybe this is why consciousness feels like a double-edged sword. It gives us the ability to search for meaning, but it also gives us the ability to suffer when we cannot find one. It gives us the ability to imagine a better life, but that same imagination makes our current life feel insufficient. It gives us the ability to understand our mistakes, but also the ability to relive them endlessly. It gives us the ability to question everything. And perhaps questioning everything is both our greatest achievement and our greatest burden.

Maybe the problem isn’t that we have consciousness. Maybe the problem is that we have consciousness without a ready-made purpose. We were given the ability to choose, but not the answer to what we should choose. We were given the ability to understand suffering, but not a guarantee that suffering will have a reason. We were given the ability to imagine the future, but not the certainty that the future will become what we imagined. And perhaps that is the price of being human. We spend our lives searching for something that nobody promised us we would find: meaning, purpose, a reason, something that makes all of this feel worth it.

Maybe consciousness really is a curse. But perhaps the curse is not that we suffer. Perhaps the curse is that we are conscious enough to know that we are suffering and intelligent enough to ask why. And yet, strangely, that same consciousness gives us another possibility. We can choose what to do with the question. We can choose what matters to us. We can choose what kind of person we want to become. Maybe there is no perfect answer waiting somewhere. Maybe there never was. But perhaps having no ready-made answer is exactly what gives us the freedom to create one.

And maybe that is the most difficult part of being human: we were given the freedom to choose our meaning, but we were never promised that finding it would be easy.

Human Stupidity: The Most Dangerous Force We Continue to Ignore. Human stupidity is one of those subjects we rarely stop to think about. We debate politics, religion, economics, technology, and war, yet we rarely discuss the force that quietly influences all of them. When people hear the word stupidity, they usually imagine a careless mistake or a lack of intelligence. That is not what this is about. I am interested in a far more dangerous kind of stupidity, the kind intelligent people are capable of. The kind we consciously create, defend, and justify because it serves our interests, even when generations after us continue paying the price. When we are born, we have no idea what is right or wrong. Our beliefs, values, and morals are inherited from our families, our societies, and the cultures we grow up in. Most of those lessons help us live together. But sometimes they also teach us to defend things that deserve to be questioned. That is where this form of stupidity begins. It is not born from ignorance. It is born the moment we stop questioning what benefits us. Albert Einstein is often credited with saying, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” Whether he actually said those exact words is uncertain, but history has repeatedly given people reasons to believe the sentiment. Jiddu Krishnamurti approached the problem from a different direction. He argued that the real crisis is not political or economic; it is a crisis of human consciousness itself.

The more I think about history, the more I feel that both observations point toward the same uncomfortable truth: the greatest danger to humanity is often not a lack of intelligence, but our extraordinary ability to justify our own mistakes.

Share

Psychologists have been researching this tendency for decades. The concept of motivated reasoning our tendency to look for data that confirms our preexisting beliefs while discounting anything that contradicts them occurs frequently in the research. The amazing thing is that this approach hardly ever feels dishonest. It makes perfect sense to the person doing it. We picture ourselves adhering to the evidence, but most of the time we are just defending our identities. This could help to explain why wise people, organizations, and even entire countries can continue to support detrimental choices long after the facts have changed. I used to think stupidity was just the opposite of intelligence, but now I disagree. Humans are incredibly smart.

We have split the atom, mapped our DNA, and sent spaceships to other planets. Yet, we often use these amazing inventions to hurt others and destroy our world. Intelligence gives us great power, but it does not automatically teach us how to use that power wisely. History is full of moments where this distinction becomes painfully clear. Hitler justified the Holocaust. Governments have justified civilian deaths as unfortunate necessities of war. Companies have justified dangerous products and technologies in the name of innovation or economic growth. The explanations change, but the pattern rarely does. Once people become emotionally invested in a belief, almost any action can begin to appear reasonable. The tragedy is not simply that human beings make mistakes. Every individual does. The greater tragedy is how quickly we become attached to those mistakes. Instead of asking whether we were wrong, we begin asking how we can prove that we were right all along. Perhaps that is where the most dangerous form of stupidity begins.

Subscribe now

History is not only a record of what happened. It is also a record of what later generations chose to admire. Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis Khan and countless other conquerors are remembered as great military leaders. Their brilliance, strategy and ambition are studied centuries later. Yet I often find myself asking a different question. Can greatness be separated from the suffering it leaves behind? If thousands or millions of innocent people die in pursuit of one person’s vision, what exactly are we celebrating? Their intelligence? Their courage? Or simply the fact that they succeeded? After World War II, court trials showed something shocking. The people who committed terrible crimes were not monsters. They were just regular workers and soldiers following orders. They stopped asking if their actions were morally right and only asked if their jobs required it. Once people think this way, almost anything can be excused. I worry more about hidden control than open violence. When people are obviously mean, everyone can see it. But when they are controlling, they often disguise it as doing the right thing or holding you responsible. We proudly call ourselves the most intelligent species on Earth because we possess consciousness, imagination and reason. Yet we have also created nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons capable of destroying civilisation many times over. Most people do not wake up wanting conflict. They want security, dignity and a life that feels meaningful. Those are understandable desires.

Leave a comment

The problem begins when our identity becomes tied so tightly to an idea, a nation, a religion or a leader that questioning it feels like questioning ourselves. Once that happens, evidence becomes less important than belonging. Winning becomes more important than understanding. I am not solely concerned with the errors committed by governments or influential individuals. Just because my beliefs are mine, I worry about my own capacity to defend them. I’m concerned about how quickly assurance may stifle question and how easily comfort can take the place of curiosity. It is simpler to see human foolishness in the past than it is in ourselves. Perhaps that’s why it endures. We spend so much time looking for idiots that we neglect to challenge the part of ourselves that desires to be correct at all costs. If history has one lesson to impart, it is that intelligence is not the only thing that keeps civilization safe. We think we are smarter than the people before us, but we find new ways to excuse past mistakes. True progress isn’t about how much we know; it’s about our willingness to question what we believe, because hatred and violence start when we stop questioning our own thinking.

— Anmol Kant

Death and fear. Few words carry more weight than these. They follow every human life, regardless of age, wealth, intelligence, or belief. Yet the more I think about them, the less I see them as enemies and the more I wonder whether they serve a purpose we rarely acknowledge. Nobody asked us whether we wanted to be born. One day, we arrived here. Likewise, nobody is going to ask whether we are ready to leave. Whether death comes tomorrow or fifty years from now, it will arrive without our permission. We spend our lives somewhere between those two events: a beginning we did not choose and an ending we cannot avoid. That fact alone is strange. We live as though tomorrow belongs to us, yet none of us has ever been given that guarantee. Perhaps this is where fear begins. Not necessarily as panic or anxiety, but as awareness. A newborn child does not fear death. It does not think about mortality. It does not matter how much time remains. That fear develops gradually as consciousness develops. The more aware we become of ourselves, the more aware we become of the possibility that one day we will no longer exist. Fear evolves alongside the mind. A child fears being separated from its parents. A teenager fears rejection. An adult fears failure, loss, illness, insignificance, and eventually death itself. The fears change because consciousness changes. The more we understand about life, the more we understand what can be taken away from us. But fear is not simply a problem to solve. Fear is also protection. Without fear, our ancestors would not have survived. Fear tells us to move away from danger, to protect ourselves, to prepare for uncertainty. A person crossing the road pays attention because they fear being hit by a vehicle. A sick person seeks treatment because they fear the consequences of doing nothing. Fear preserves life. The more interesting question is what happens when fear becomes less direct. Most people are not constantly thinking about death. They are thinking about work, relationships, money, responsibilities, and plans. Yet I wonder whether some of those things are connected in ways we rarely notice. As children, our parents become our safety. As adults, safety takes different forms. A career. A routine. A relationship. A social identity. A financial plan. A belief system. A place in society. We build structures around ourselves that create stability. There is nothing wrong with this. Human beings need stability. But sometimes I wonder whether these structures do more than provide practical security. Perhaps they also help us manage deeper uncertainties.

Share

After all, it is easier to focus on tomorrow’s meeting than to think about mortality. It is easier to chase the next promotion than to confront how limited time actually is. That does not mean people work hard because they fear death. Human behavior is far too complicated for explanations that simple. People seek success for many reasons. Some want resources. Some want comfort. Some want recognition. Some genuinely enjoy what they do. Some want to provide for the people they love. Human motivation is rarely a single thing. Yet I still find it difficult to ignore the possibility that awareness of mortality influences more of our lives than we realize. Not as the only explanation. Not even necessarily as the dominant explanation. But as a quiet force operating in the background. Consider how often people speak about leaving a legacy. Making an impact. Being remembered. Building something that lasts. These desires seem to emerge naturally once we recognize that we ourselves will not last forever. The awareness of an ending changes how we think about the time before it. Without limits, would urgency exist? Without endings, would beginnings matter as much? I do not know. But I suspect many of the things we value derive part of their value from the fact that they are temporary. A conversation matters because it cannot be repeated exactly. A relationship matters because it will not exist forever. Remove the limit, and the experience itself changes. This is why I sometimes question the common assumption that immortality would automatically be a gift. People often imagine endless life as freedom. And I understand why. No more rushing. No more grief over time wasted. No more racing a clock that nobody can see.

Subscribe now

If death disappeared, so would every fear that depends on it fear of running out of time, fear of dying before we finish what we started, fear of losing people we love. An endless life would mean never again standing at someone’s funeral, wondering if we said enough while they were here. It would mean every mistake could eventually be corrected, every dream eventually pursued, because there would always be more time waiting on the other side of failure. Seen this way, immortality looks less like a curse and more like the removal of our oldest wound. But I keep coming back to a quieter question underneath that one. If failure could always be corrected later, would we still call it failure, or would it just become a delay? If every dream had unlimited time to be pursued, would we still feel the pull to pursue it today, or would today lose its claim on us entirely? Urgency seems to exist only because some window is closing. Take away the closing, and I am not sure urgency survives. Maybe it would be replaced by something calmer and wiser. Or maybe it would just be replaced by waiting, indefinitely, for a tomorrow that no longer asks anything of us. When time becomes infinite, what remains important? I honestly do not know. What I do know is that human beings spend an enormous amount of effort trying to feel significant. We want our lives to matter. We want our actions to matter. We want to believe our existence had some weight. Sometimes that search takes beautiful forms: art, love, family, discovery, creation. Sometimes it takes less healthy forms: status, power, recognition at any cost. But underneath many different ambitions may be the same question: Did my life mean something? Perhaps this is why courage is admired so deeply. Courage is not the absence of fear. It is the decision to move forward despite fear. When we see courage, we see a person refusing to be controlled by something that controls most of us. That is why heroes exist in every culture. Not because they are fearless, but because they act despite fear. The more I think about death and fear, the less I see them as separate ideas. Fear protects life. Death gives life boundaries. Together, they create a strange tension. One pushes us to survive. The other reminds us that survival has limits. And somewhere between those two forces, human life unfolds. Maybe there are ultimately two ways to respond. The first is denial: stay distracted, stay busy, never think about these questions for very long. The second is awareness: not obsession, not constant anxiety, just awareness, an acceptance that life is temporary and that this fact should influence how we choose to live. Neither approach changes the reality of death. The difference is whether we spend our lives running from it or learning something from it. Perhaps that is the uncomfortable truth. Most people are not okay because life is okay. They are okay because they are distracted and dependent. Dependent on routine to keep the bigger questions at bay. Dependent on other people to make the silence feel less empty. Dependent on tomorrow always seeming far enough away. And perhaps the reason death remains quietly in the background of every human life is that it is the very thing that makes life feel precious in the first place.

— Søren Kierkegaard

What if everything you know is wrong? Not one belief. Not one opinion. Not one idea. Everything. Your understanding of success. Your understanding of happiness. Your understanding of politics, religion, morality, society, and even yourself. Most people dismiss that possibility immediately. Not because they have investigated it and found it false, but because it feels impossible. Yet when you think about it, certainty is a strange thing. We trust it so much, despite how often it has been wrong throughout history. When you were born, you knew nothing. You did not know your name. You did not know your nationality. You did not know your religion. You did not know what was considered right or wrong. Everything you know today was taught to you by someone else. Your parents taught you. Your teachers taught you. Society taught you. Books taught you. Friends taught you. The internet taught you. Millions of people you have never met helped construct the reality you now live inside.

Then something strange happened. The ideas you were taught stopped feeling like information. They started feeling like the truth. And there is a difference between the two.

Information can be questioned. Truth feels unquestionable. The moment something begins to feel unquestionable, we stop examining it. We stop asking where it came from. We stop asking whether it is accurate. We simply accept it and move forward. But why? Why are you convinced that the reality you inherited is reality itself?

A person born somewhere else would inherit a completely different set of beliefs. Different values. Different assumptions. Different ideas about what makes life meaningful. Yet they would be just as convinced as you are that their understanding is correct. That should bother you. Not because everyone is wrong, but because it suggests that certainty may not be evidence of truth. It may simply be evidence of familiarity.

Share

Every day, we consume information at a speed no previous generation has experienced. We scroll through short videos, news headlines, podcasts, articles, opinions, and comment sections. We absorb thousands of ideas without realizing it. A person speaks confidently. Thousands agree. Millions share it. Slowly, something begins to feel true. Not because it was verified. Because it was repeated. Human beings have an unusual tendency to confuse familiarity with accuracy. The more often we hear something, the more natural it begins to feel. Eventually, it becomes part of our worldview. Then one day, we defend it as though we discovered it ourselves. Most people believe they are searching for the truth. I think most people are searching for confirmation. They look for information that supports what they already believe. They follow people who agree with them. They consume content that reinforces existing assumptions. Over time, reality becomes less important than the story they have constructed about reality. This becomes obvious whenever a major event happens somewhere in the world. A conflict begins. A government makes a decision. A public figure says something controversial. Within hours, millions of people choose sides. They argue online. They condemn strangers. They become emotionally invested in events they know only through screens. The strange part is not that people have opinions. The strange part is the certainty. Most of us never witness these events directly. We see fragments. Headlines. Edited videos. Screenshots. Statements. Carefully selected pieces of information. Yet from those fragments we construct entire realities and then defend them as though we possess complete knowledge. The truth is that we usually know far less than we think. Imagine spending your entire life looking at shadows and never realizing they are shadows. Imagine growing up in a room where everyone around you agrees that those shadows are reality. Schools teach them. Families repeat them. Society organizes itself around them. People build identities around them. Entire communities are formed around defending them. Then one day, someone suggests that what you are looking at may only be a small part of a much larger picture. Most people would not welcome that possibility. Not because they hate the truth. Because questioning the shadows means questioning everything built upon them.

Subscribe now

It means questioning your beliefs. Your assumptions. Your identity. Your understanding of the world. Human beings are remarkably good at protecting the reality they have become comfortable with. What interests me most is that this not only happens with information. It happens with desire. People say they want success. But who taught them what success looks like? People say they want money. But who convinced them that money would satisfy them? People say they want a certain lifestyle, a certain relationship, a certain future. Yet very few stop and ask where those desires came from. We assume that because a desire feels personal, it must belong to us. But many desires are inherited. They come from comparison. Advertising. Social pressure. Culture. Repetition. Sometimes what feels like a personal dream is simply a dream borrowed from the people around you. The same thing happens with fear. The same thing happens with ambition. The same thing happens with identity. Much of what we call ourselves may simply be a collection of influences we never examined closely enough. This is why I have never been satisfied with easy explanations. Whenever people become greedy, dishonest, selfish, or power-hungry, someone eventually says that it is simply human nature. The explanation sounds convincing because it removes responsibility. But human nature explains possibility, not action. Anger may be natural. Greed may be natural. Desire may be natural. Yet every day, people choose whether to act on those impulses or resist them. The existence of self-control proves that we are not completely controlled by our impulses. Choice still exists.

Responsibility still exists. And perhaps that is what makes genuine freedom so uncomfortable. Most people think freedom means doing whatever they want. I am beginning to think freedom starts much earlier than that. Freedom begins when you question what you want. Why do you want it? Why do you believe what you believe?

Why do you fear what you fear? Why are you convinced that your version of reality is reality itself? Most people spend their lives examining the world. Very few examine the lens through which they see it. Maybe that is why so many people feel lost. Not because they lack information. But because they are drowning in it. Not because they lack opinions. But because they inherited too many assumptions and never stopped long enough to question them. The question is not whether everything you know is a lie.

You may never answer that question completely. The real question is far more practical. How much of what you believe have you actually tested for yourself?

How much of your reality have you examined instead of inherited? How much of your identity was chosen rather than absorbed? Because if you never ask those questions, you may spend your entire life defending ideas that were handed to you before you were capable of questioning them. And perhaps the most dangerous lie is not the one someone tells you. Perhaps it is the one you never think to question.

We people rarely attain happiness, not because it is hard to find, but because the way we perceive it, the way we think about it, is flawed at its core. Happiness was never something we needed to chase. It was always there, sitting quietly within us like freedom. We just never chose to believe it. You may have heard this from Dostoevsky

“Man only likes to count his troubles; he doesn’t calculate his happiness.”

When I first heard this, my honest reaction was what is he saying? We spend our lives chasing happiness. We sacrifice for it. We restructure our entire lives around the idea of one day reaching it. And here is someone saying we don’t even calculate it. So I started thinking about it more seriously. Maybe it came from his suffering, poverty, imprisonment, and illness. Maybe it was deeply personal. But the more I sat with it, the more it felt uncomfortably true. This is not a solution. It is just an attempt to understand something that doesn’t make sense easily. So was he right?

In a simple way, yes.

Subscribe now

We do count our troubles. Constantly.

Not because we are weak, but because problems are unavoidable. Life keeps presenting them, small or big, it doesn’t matter. You resolve one, and another surfaces. This pattern doesn’t stop. It has never stopped for anyone. And because problems keep appearing, we start measuring life through them. We use them as the primary lens through which we judge how our lives are going. But here is where we make a fundamental mistake. We believe happiness and problems are separate, that one must end for the other to begin. That after resolving everything, after clearing every obstacle, we will finally be at peace. That moment never comes. You have already lived this. You have overcome problems that once felt impossible, situations that kept you awake at night, and circumstances that felt like they would never change. And yet, new ones replaced them. Different in shape, similar in weight. So if problems have never truly ended before, why do we keep waiting for them to end before allowing ourselves to feel okay? The issue is not that problems exist. The issue is the condition we attach to happiness. We keep saying once this is over, I will be fine. Once I get through this phase, things will settle. Once I reach that point, I can finally breathe. Life doesn’t work like that. Problems are not interruptions to life. They are part of it. Not every moment is suffering, but struggle is a recurring dimension of being alive. It is woven into the fabric of existence itself, not as a punishment, but simply as the nature of living in a world that is always moving, always changing, always demanding something from you. And once you stop treating problems as something abnormal, something that should not be happening to you, something shifts. You stop resisting reality and start engaging with it more directly. That alone eliminates a great deal of unnecessary suffering. Because a significant portion of our pain does not come from the problem itself, it comes from the disbelief that the problem exists at all. And maybe the real question is not whether you are happy or unhappy but whether you are even aware of how you are living right now. Because most of the time, we are not. We move from one moment to another without truly noticing them. We are present physically, but mentally somewhere else, replaying the past or negotiating with the future. Planning, worrying, regretting, anticipating. Rarely just existing in the moment that is actually in front of us. And in that constant mental movement, even when happiness appears, it passes through us unnoticed. It doesn’t announce itself loudly. It shows up quietly in a conversation, in a meal, in a moment of stillness, and if we are not paying attention, it is already gone before we register it was there. Then comes something more subtle. Happiness is experienced, but not retained with the same intensity as pain. When something good happens, you feel it, but you move on. Life continues, and you carry forward. When something bad happens, you hold onto it, replay it, give it weight, return to it repeatedly as though examining it from every angle will somehow change what occurred. So it’s not that happiness doesn’t exist. It’s that we don’t preserve it in the same way. We don’t give it the same mental real estate that we give our difficulties. And that is why it feels like it is missing, not because it was never there, but because we never held onto it long enough to remember it clearly. If you are going to carry something through life, it makes more sense to carry what sustains you rather than what drains you. This doesn’t mean ignoring pain. If something hurts, feel it fully. Suppressing it only delays it. But don’t transform it into something permanent when it was only ever temporary. Don’t let a moment that has already passed continue to occupy space in a present that still has something to offer. Most people don’t suffer because of what happened. They suffer because they keep reliving it. After all, the mind returns to it voluntarily, almost habitually, as though repetition will eventually produce a different outcome. Think about someone who hurt you. They have moved on. Not necessarily because they were right, not because what happened didn’t matter, but simply because they are not carrying that moment the way you are. For them, it may have already dissolved into the background of their life. Meanwhile, you replay it, question it, measure yourself against it, and wonder what you should have said or done differently. So the weight you feel is not just from the event, it is from the act of holding onto it. The event ended. The holding on did not. What feels like an open wound to you may not even exist in the same form in their mind. It may have faded entirely. And that difference in perception, that gap between how much weight you are giving something and how little weight it actually holds in reality, is enough to trap you in a past that no longer exists anywhere except inside you.

Help me keep writing ✍️

So the real question is not why life has problems.

It is why you are choosing to hold onto the parts that take more from you than they give? Why are you curating a version of your own story that centers everything that went wrong and quietly skips over everything that didn’t? Happiness was never meant to be a reward waiting at the end of a struggle. It is something that exists alongside it, not after it, not instead of it, but right next to it, in the same life, in the same days, sometimes even in the same hour as the difficulty. Sometimes small. Sometimes unnoticed. Sometimes, it's so ordinary that it doesn’t feel like it counts. But it does. You don’t need to chase it as much as you need to notice it. To pause long enough to register that something is okay, that something is good, that something is worth acknowledging, even if everything else is not yet resolved. You are alive right now. You are reading this. There are still moments in your life that are not broken people, places, small routines, quiet instances that exist without crisis. That counts. Maybe happiness was never something we lost. Maybe we just stopped counting it. And perhaps that is where it begins, not in solving everything, not in reaching some future version of your life, but in deciding, right now, to count what is already there.

What if life has no inherent meaning? No blueprint. No grand reason. No script handed down. Then billions of people are like seeds thrown into a vast garden, each growing in its own direction, following whatever purpose they choose. Some grow toward light. Some grow sideways. Some barely grow at all. None of them was handed a map. Whoever made us did not want to control us. Did not force rules upon us. Instead, we were given something far more powerful and far more terrifying the ability to control ourselves. There is no design. No destiny. Only the choices you make. Life unfolds. You respond. And everything that happens in this world, every war, every kindness, every catastrophe, is the result of human choices. Not fate. Human choices. Now make it real. Someone wakes up at 7 a.m. Drag themselves out of bed. Goes to a job they don’t care about. Sits in the same chair. Has the same conversations. They laugh at things they don’t find funny. Comes home exhausted. Scrolls for hours. Sleeps. Repeat this for years. No big tragedy. No dramatic failure. Just one quiet thought that arrives one day: If I disappeared tomorrow, nothing I did actually mattered to me. That thought isn’t sad. That thought is the most terrifying thing a human being can feel because pain has an end. Emptiness doesn’t.

SEARCHING FOR MEANING

I recently finished Man’s Search for Meaning, and something struck me that I haven’t been able to shake. When you read Camus, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Dazai, when you explore nihilism, existentialism, pessimism, one pattern keeps appearing they all agree that life has no inherent meaning. But they completely disagree on what to do about it. Camus says imagine Sisyphus happy. Nietzsche says create your own values. Kierkegaard turns to faith. Kafka shows the absurdity and offers no exit. Dazai simply lives inside the despair. Same problem. No shared answer.

We don’t know who we truly are. We don’t know why we’re here. We don’t even know whether this life is real or just an elaborate visualization because we also visualize things while sleeping and call that a dream. So what exactly makes this more real?

And here’s what I want to say plainly without bias toward any book, scripture, or authority. Either someone placed us here intentionally, or we accidentally became part of it. Either way, if we have no fixed purpose, it might be because whoever is responsible simply did not want to enforce their rules on us. They gave us full 100% freedom to choose, to build, to become. But instead of using that freedom, we spend our lives questioning why life exists when nobody in thousands of years of questioning has found that answer. Nobody. Not one person. So we can’t keep arguing about things we cannot control. The question was never why is there life? The real question is, now that there is life, what do you do with it?

Subscribe now

LEVELS OF REALITY

The Upanishads describe three levels of reality: the apparent, the practical, and the ultimate. Most people live entirely within the practical world, occasionally touched by illusion, but rarely reaching the ultimate. Yet the questions we ask about meaning, purpose, and truth belong to that highest level. That’s the tension. We live in one reality, but search for answers in another. And in that gap, much of human suffering quietly takes shape.

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

If life has no fixed meaning, then you are completely free. Not partially. Completely. And that’s not poetic. That’s terrifying. Because real freedom with no direction doesn’t feel like freedom. It feels like being dropped in the middle of the ocean with no land in sight. That’s why people don’t chase freedom. They run from it. They take jobs they hate, follow paths they didn’t choose, stay in lives that feel wrong because at least it gives them something to point at. This is why I exist. Take that away, and they don’t feel free. They feel nothing. And nothing is worse than pain. A man can survive poverty, failure, heartbreak, and humiliation. But a man cannot survive a meaningless life. That is the quiet truth behind every addiction, every burnout, every person who looks completely fine on the outside but is slowly disappearing on the inside. They are not weak. They are starving not for food, but for a reason.

Bribe me to write more ☕

CREATORS OF OUR EXPERIENCE

Here is something most people refuse to accept we are not just observers. We are the cause. Joy, suffering, regret, love, most of it comes from our own decisions, our own thinking, our own habits. People blame the world. But if you sit quietly and trace anything back to its root, you will almost always find a human choice at the beginning of it. If there is sorrow in this world, it is because of us, our greed, our selfishness, our need to take more than we need. If there is a creator, I am 100% sure he does not create our sorrow. We create it. Through our thoughts and our actions. Two people. Same life. Same problems. One says time is limited, I’ll do something that actually matters to me, even if nobody notices. The other waits. Waits for clarity. Waits for the right moment. Waits for meaning to knock on the door. Same world. Completely different life. The difference was never opportunity. The difference was a decision.

A DEEPER PURPOSE

Maybe the purpose isn’t external. Not success. Not money. Not legacy. Maybe the real purpose, the one that holds up when everything else falls away, is understanding the consciousness that experiences everything. That quiet, persistent awareness behind your eyes right now, reading this. The one that exists before every thought, before every identity you’ve built around yourself. The consciousness that is free from birth and death. Not your body. Not your mind. The awareness underneath all of it. Every thinker who ever went deep enough eventually circled back to the same thing, not answers about the world, but a confrontation with the one who is asking the questions.

ACTION INSTEAD OF ENDLESS QUESTIONING

Thinking without acting is just another distraction with a better vocabulary. Even the people who said life has no meaning, Camus, Nietzsche, Dazai, and Kafka, they still did something. They created. They wrote. They left wisdom in this world. Even if they believed life had no purpose, they coincidentally fulfilled something. Nobody escapes this. You keep telling yourself it’s meaningless, but you still wake up. You still make choices. That’s what it is. So stop asking questions that have no answers. Think about what you actually have. Use it. Go and do things. Win, lose, suffer, be happy, fail, try again, just do something. Because waiting for meaning to arrive is the same as choosing none.

FINAL TRUTH

Life exists. That’s the only confirmed fact. And because it exists, you are forced to respond to it. Whether you’re ready or not. Whether you like it or not. You don’t get to pause it. Doing nothing is also a choice. Waiting is also a decision. Nobody escapes this. Not the philosophers. Not the saints. Not the people who spent their whole lives searching for the exit. You still have to be here. You still have to survive. And survival, when done with even one small genuine intention, becomes something more than survival. It becomes a life.

The clock didn’t start when you were ready. It started the moment you were born. So stop asking what life means. Start deciding what you mean. Because one day sooner than you think, the time to decide will be gone. And all that will be left is the answer you lived.

Religion. When people hear this word, they think of peace, enlightenment, redemption, and salvation. They think of prayer, discipline, and hope. They think of something pure. But it is more than that. It is heavier than that. It shapes how people think, how they see others, and how they see themselves. It does not only sit in temples or books. It lives inside identity. This is not hatred. It is an observation. I am not an atheist. What you take from this is your choice. I am only pointing at what is visible in society. What is already happening around us? We do not know which religion came first. We do not know which one is truly right. Debates about this can go on forever and still not end. What we do know is that religion is deeply connected to society, culture, politics, and identity. It is not separate from daily life. It influences laws, marriages, traditions, celebrations, and even conflicts. Every major religion gives answers. Why are we here? How should we live? What happens after death? Religion creates rules. It builds community. It reduces fear, especially fear of death and uncertainty. It gives structure to life when life feels chaotic. For many people, it gives comfort during loss and suffering. It gives hope when logic fails. But religion also creates authority. It creates systems of power. It defines who is right and who is wrong. It can be used to control behavior, to reward obedience, to punish doubt. Whether religion comes from God or from the human mind is still unknown. What is clear is that humans need meaning for a time we will survive pain, but can’t live meaninglessly. And wherever there is a strong human need, systems grow around it.

If two children are born into two families, one Hindu, one Muslim, they will grow up believing their religion is true. Not because they studied all religions. Not because they compared evidence. Not because they researched history. But because it was given to them before they could question it. It entered quietly, early, repeatedly. Belief enters through family, culture, rituals, and repetition. Through festivals. Through stories told at night. Through what is called sacred and what is called forbidden. By the time they can think critically, religion is no longer just a belief. It becomes identity. It becomes “who I am.” And when belief becomes identity, questioning it feels like betrayal. It feels like rejecting your parents, your community, your ancestors. That is why religious arguments become emotional. It is not just about truth. It is about belonging. It is about security. Some thinkers argue that religion slowly developed from human fear, survival needs, morality, and the desire for order in a dangerous world. Early humans feared nature. They feared death. They feared the unknown. Stories explained. Rules gave structure. God gave comfort. If that is true, then religion is deeply human. And questioning it feels dangerous because it shakes identity more than beliefs.

Subscribe now

Now this is where things become serious

There are religious conflicts in India, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, and across the world. This is not random. Religion spreads because it claims exclusive truth. If a religion says it is the only path to salvation, then spreading it becomes a moral duty. If others are seen as lost, saving them feels justified. And if they refuse, tension begins. But here is the contradiction. People are born into religious families. Nobody is born choosing atheism. Atheism comes later, after questioning. Religion usually comes first, through family and culture. So if almost everyone already inherits a religion, why the need to spread it? Why compete? The answer is simple POWER Conversion increases numbers. Numbers increase influence. Influence creates political and social power. When a religion grows, its voice in society grows. Its ability to shape laws grows. Its authority grows. Now look at atheism. Atheism does not spread through birth. It spreads through doubt. It spreads when someone asks uncomfortable questions, when someone challenges scripture. When someone separates morality from religion, that is why atheism is often resisted strongly, not because it is violent, but because it questions authority. It weakens systems that depend on belief without doubt. Now look at governments and elite groups. Division is useful. A divided population is easier to control than a united one. When people fight over religion, caste, ethnicity, language, or race, they are not questioning leadership. They are not questioning economic systems. They are not questioning corruption. They are busy fighting each other. Religion becomes a tool. Not always. But often enough. The real conflicts are rarely only about faith. They are about land, power, identity, dominance, and resources. Religion becomes the banner under which these battles are fought. It gives moral cover to political ambition. It turns political wars into sacred wars. And once something becomes sacred, compromise becomes weakness. Look at Iran. People took to the streets in cities like Tehran and Qom — angry over poverty, lost freedoms, and a government that does not listen. Security forces responded with force. The Internet was shut down. Protests were crushed. Why so hard? Because when power calls itself sacred, any challenge to it becomes a sin. That is exactly the point.

Now let’s be direct.

The earth is full of temples, churches, and mosques. They are beautiful. They are grand. They are everywhere. But where is the religion inside people? Who were the Muslims who killed Hindus? Who were the Hindus who killed Muslims? Who were the Catholics who killed Protestants? Who killed Jews in the name of faith? Who justified slavery? Who justified caste? Who justified violence? They all called themselves religious. If religion truly meant peace and morality, why is blood spilled in its name again and again? Why does identity become stronger than compassion? Why does belief become stronger than humanity? The moment someone declares one place holy, they indirectly declare another place less holy. The moment someone claims exclusive truth, they create an outsider. The moment someone says, “only we are right,” someone else automatically becomes wrong. And once there is right and wrong at the level of identity, conflict becomes justified. Violence becomes rationalized. Hate becomes a sacred duty.

That is where the war begins.

People and our families always tell us: no matter what happened, no matter what situation you’re in, you have to tell the truth and live your life on the virtue of truthfulness. But on the contrary, people, society, and the world—these are all filled with lies, despair, betrayal, and deception. From the beginning of our lives, whether it’s school, church, temples, or any social program, everybody is screaming that you have to say the truth, no matter what. Yet people choose lies, become doomed and insidious. So, where has the truth gone? Truthfulness is often treated as an unquestionable moral duty, yet real life shows that speaking the truth can carry fatal costs. Journalists like Anna Politkovskaya and Daphne Caruana Galizia reported verified facts about powerful interests and were assassinated, while the truths they exposed remained only partially acted upon. The Epstein files echo this pattern: survivors and reporters spoke, evidence surfaced, names were known, yet accountability stalled, and risk concentrated on the most vulnerable. When telling the truth leads to death, intimidation, or irreversible harm without delivering justice, the question becomes unavoidable. Does truthfulness remain a moral virtue, or does its cost force us to rethink what ethical responsibility actually demands?

What Happens When Truth Gets You Killed?

Look at what actually happened with these journalists. Politkovskaya documented human rights abuses in Chechnya with meticulous accuracy—she was shot dead in her apartment building in 2006. Caruana Galizia exposed corruption in Malta through verified financial records—a car bomb killed her in 2017. And here’s what bothers me: after they died, what changed? The abuses Politkovskaya reported are still happening. The corruption Caruana Galizia exposed is still there. Their deaths didn’t bring justice. Their truth didn’t protect anyone. It just identified them as targets. Other journalists saw this pattern. Sources who were thinking about coming forward decided silence was safer. The message became crystal clear: truth gets you killed, and killing truth-tellers works. After Politkovskaya’s murder, coverage of Chechnya dropped sharply. After Caruana Galizia’s assassination, Maltese journalists reported working under intensified fear. The system doesn’t need to suppress all truth—it just needs to make the cost of speaking it catastrophic enough that most people will choose silence. The system doesn’t need to eradicate every truth; it only has to make the price of voicing it so devastating that most people willingly choose silence. This is just one example; there are countless others in our society that are ignored or brushed aside. What troubles me most is that this pattern doesn’t belong to history; one day, it could happen to you.

Subscribe now

The Philosopher Who Said Lying Is Always Wrong:

Immanuel Kant argued that lying is always wrong, no exceptions, no matter what. He reasoned that if everyone lied whenever it suited them, society would collapse. So truthfulness has to be an absolute moral law that you follow regardless of consequences. But Kant was writing from the safety of a university in Prussia. He wasn’t a journalist in Chechnya. He wasn’t exposing corruption in Malta. His framework assumes you’re operating in a system where being virtuous doesn’t get you murdered. When Politkovskaya told the truth, she was doing exactly what Kant said was right. And she was murdered for it. The powerful interests she exposed kept operating. Her death changed nothing except the number of journalists willing to do what she did. So here’s where Kant’s absolute principle falls apart: if truthfulness leads to your death without delivering justice, without protecting the innocent, without changing anything about the system—then what exactly is the virtue accomplishing? You die with your integrity intact, sure. But the evil you opposed continues operating just fine. When the Price Gets Personal. Kant actually wrote about a scenario like this. During World War II, Dutch families hid Jews from the Nazis. When Nazi officers came asking, “Are you hiding anyone?” those families lied. They had to. Telling the truth meant sending innocent people to death camps. Even here, Kant argued, you shouldn’t lie. You should either refuse to answer or tell the truth and accept the consequences. But the consequences aren’t yours to accept. They’re the Jewish family’s. You’re deciding whether they live or die. And Kant’s principle says: tell the truth, even if it means their deportation and murder, because lying is always wrong. This is where the absolute principle reveals itself as absurd. It prioritizes your moral purity over other people’s lives.

What I’m Actually Asking

I’m not saying lies are good. I’m not defending deception. What I’m saying is: our simple framework—truth good, lies bad—doesn’t work in the world we actually live in. We tell children that honesty is always right. Then we send them into a world where honesty gets people killed and dishonest systems keep running just fine. Where powerful people can eliminate truth-tellers without facing consequences. Where speaking accurately becomes a way to identify who should be silenced next. Truth by itself is not enough. Politkovskaya’s reporting was accurate—nobody disputes that. But accuracy didn’t protect her. It didn’t bring justice. It got her killed. So maybe the question isn’t “should I tell the truth?” Maybe the question is “what kind of system needs to exist for truth-telling to actually function as a virtue?” Because right now, in too many places, we’re asking people to be truthful in systems designed to punish them for it. We’re calling them heroes when they get killed. We’re not fixing the systems that got them killed. When truth leads directly to death without delivering justice, when honest people are systematically eliminated while dishonest systems persist, when speaking accurately becomes the method for identifying who should be murdered, what exactly is the virtue of truthfulness accomplishing? So the question remains: Is truthfulness a sin, or is the sin believing that truth can exist without consequence, without protection, without the systems required to let it actually accomplish something beyond getting good people killed?

Share

I recently finished George Orwell’s 1984, and something clicked. Not because the book felt distant or dystopian—but because it felt familiar. Too familiar. This isn’t about comparing our world directly to Oceania. It’s about recognizing patterns. It’s about asking questions we’ve stopped asking. We live in a society governed by rules. Break them, face consequences. Simple enough. But here’s what bothers me. Who decided these rules? Who benefits from them? And why are they unquestionable? Think about it. We’re born into a world with no inherent meaning, no built-in purpose. Then we’re handed a script: school, degree, job, marriage, kids, retirement, death. We call this “life,” but is it? Or is it just a design we inherited and never questioned? Nothing here is forced with violence. No thought police drag us away. Instead, we’re controlled by something far more effective: our own comfort and our own fear .And that’s what makes it work. Our lives may be scripted, but we don’t notice because the script feels like a choice. We pick jobs not because we love them, but because they impress others or pay the bills. We make decisions based on what’s “realistic,” not what’s true to ourselves. If you’ve never deeply questioned your life, you might be living someone else’s plan. The system doesn’t lock the door. It just makes leaving feel impossible. And the people around us? They’re not villains. They’re conditioned. When you start questioning, they respond with the same phrases society taught them: “Be realistic. Don’t overthink. Everyone lives like this.” It’s not malice. It’s just their programming—and maybe ours too. In 1984, Big Brother watched through telescreens. We mocked that dystopian vision. Now? We carry telescreens in our pockets voluntarily. We upload our photos, our locations, our thoughts. We document our lives on social media and call it “connection.”Think about the propaganda it took to make this normal. Cameras everywhere streets, buildings, and on phones. AI watching, learning, tracking. And we accept it. We even pay for it. Or consider digital money. First, they sold it as a convenience. Then safety. Then anti-corruption. And now? The government and powerful institutions have complete surveillance over our finances—where money comes from, where it goes, and who we transact with. One wrong pattern and you’re in a room answering questions. I’m not saying convenience is evil. I’m saying we traded freedom for comfort without realizing the cost. Here’s something I’ve noticed my entire life: prices only go up. Never down. One percent here, two percent there. We barely notice the creep until suddenly everything costs more, and we’re working harder just to stay in place. Now imagine someone who spent ten or fifteen years at the same job. Decent pay, long hours, occasional disrespect. They tolerate it all because they believe it’ll be worth it someday. But here’s the painful truth: if they accept the system was flawed and they were being exploited, they also have to accept that all those years the sacrifice, the effort, the silence were wasted. That’s too painful. So instead, most people defend the job. Defend the system. Not because it’s right, but because admitting you built your life on a lie is unbearable. This same pattern plays out in relationships, education, religion, and politics. We stay loyal to systems not because they serve us, but because leaving would mean confronting how much time we lost. The system doesn’t need us to be poor. It needs us to be dependent, predictable, traceable, and replaceable. We avoid risky thoughts because they threaten our status, our income, and our social approval. We learn the rules so thoroughly that we enforce them on ourselves. We control ourselves for free. In 1984, Orwell wrote about “doublethink”—holding two contradictory beliefs at once. We do this constantly.

Share

We know social media tracks us, but we scroll anyway. We know our jobs exploit us, but we defend them. We believe we’re free while following invisible scripts. The Party controlled through fear and violence. We control each other through shame and comfort. When someone questions the system, we don’t report them to authorities; we just call them unrealistic. Problem solved.

Here’s how it works as a whole:

Surveillance tracks where you are.

Digital currency tracks what you buy.

Your job controls your time.

Social pressure punishes deviation.

Self-censorship finishes the job.

Each piece reinforces the others. Try to escape one, and the others pull you back. Quit your job? You need money to survive. Stop using digital payment? Society leaves you behind. Question the system? People call you paranoid. Do nothing? You’ve already chosen compliance. This is the genius of it. It’s not one trap you can escape. It’s everything, working together. The Question We Stop Asking. In 1984, the propaganda started slowly. Everything seemed normal at first. Only when the steel was hot enough did they strike. If we’re not living in a dystopia now, we’re drifting toward one. Maybe we don’t notice because we’re too busy, too comfortable, or too afraid. But eventually, we all hit the same moment.”Why am I living this life?”Most people never ask this question—not because they can’t, but because questioning feels dangerous. It’s easier to stay comfortable than face the uncertainty of not knowing who you really are. But here’s what I’ve learned real freedom isn’t about knowing everything. It’s about choosing truth over safety.

That choice is still ours. For now.

Subscribe now

When marriage first came into human society, it was not a romantic project. It was survival. It was a responsibility. Long before Instagram captions and relationship podcasts existed, marriage was about organizing life—family, work, lineage, and care. In India, especially, marriage was never just about two people. It was about families, continuity, and endurance. Dowry(stridhan), for example, did not begin as extortion. Historically, it functioned as a form of inheritance for women in a system where property stayed with men. Alimony, too, was invented as protection—not punishment—at a time when women had little access to independent income. we call alimony today developed later as “maintenance,” a legal mechanism meant to ensure sustenance after marital breakdown rather than a civilizational institution rooted in custom. These concepts have come into the public eye as safeguards. Over time, they hardened into weapons. Intent changed. Incentives changed. Abuse followed. Today, we live in a strange moment. Divorce happens faster than marriage. Equality is demanded loudly—by men and women—but often not in the way it was meant to exist. Marriage is treated less like a bond and more like a treaty: clauses, exit options, personal space guarantees, and emotional distance disguised as maturity. “I need privacy.” “I need space.” These are phrases we now hear from husbands and wives after marriage, not before it. I am not against privacy. I am not against space. But it is dishonest to pretend that these ideas come without any cost. When taken too far, they do not produce freedom—they produce separation. Once separation becomes the norm, it can quietly sow the seeds for divorce, alimony disputes, and even worse consequences. Let us be clear: there is no single villain here. Not men. Not, women. Both. Say this out loud, and someone will accuse you of being jealous, outdated, boring, or incapable of enjoying life. Fine. Labelling is cheaper than using your brain. Look at our parents. They did not live easy lives. Financial pressure, emotional strain, and family interference—none of this was absent. However, many of them formed deep and strong connections. Not because they were perfect, but because they placed the family above constant self-assertion. The “my independence,” “my space,” “my happiness at all costs.” Divorce is a vile word—not because it should never exist, but because of how casually it is now invoked. As if ending a marriage is equivalent to changing a phone.

Some of the recurring reasons are obvious and ugly:

1. Dowry

2. Alimony

3. Lack of mutual respect

4. Affairs

None of this is theoretical. It happens every day. The age-old debate between free love and arranged marriage is now mostly just a distraction. In the past, arranged marriages predominated because love marriages were rare or hidden. Today, both exist openly. Both have strengths and weakness but somehow both fails. The real variable has never been the type of marriage. It is how people behave once reality replaces fantasy. Everyone suffers. Married people suffer. Unmarried people suffer. No one escapes problems. The mistake modern culture makes is trying to eliminate the question instead of solving it. Evasion does not end the struggle—it just reshapes it and sends it back later, louder. We live in a society of performance. Everyone is trying to look like someone else. Showing off has become a survival skill. If you do not drink, do not smoke, do not chase luxury, you are labelled boring, backward, or uneducated. This constant posturing erodes relationships. Slowly. Quietly. The conclusion is not complicated, just unpopular: mutual respect and truth. Someone once said “If love does not guide to truth, then truth becomes violent.” That violence is not physical. It is moral. Silent. Corrosive. Loyalty matters. Not blind loyalty—earned loyalty. Our parents’ marriages were not flawless. Who has flawless relationships? The difference is that they stayed, spoke, argued, adjusted, and returned to each other. Again, repeatedly. Marriage needs cooperation, not competition. Offer support during difficult times, rather than making exit plans when you feel uncomfortable. Saying good things—and sometimes hard things—to keep each other steady. Do not confuse detachment with maturity. That attitude does not make you free. It makes you alone. Ultimately, both men and women are the doers of their relationship. No ideology can save it. No slogan can maintain the status quo. Treat your marriage like a shared journey—

walk at the same pace, rest when one is tired,

and do not mistake distance for freedom

or silence for peace.

Subscribe

Across the world, the language of equality dominates conversations about gender. Slogans like equal rights, endless possibilities, her voice, and her power are repeated so often that they are rarely examined. Equality is often presented as sameness—same roles, same ambitions, and the same definitions of success.That framing creates confusion rather than clarity.Men and women are not identical, and treating them as if they were leads to unrealistic expectations on both sides. Difference is not a defect. It is a reality that shows up in bodies, behavior, priorities, and social dynamics. Ignoring those differences does not erase them—it merely pushes them underground, where they resurface as frustration, resentment, and quiet failure.

You need to risk being specific here:average physical strength, different stress responses, different reproductive costs, different approaches to risk, competition, and security. These are not moral judgments. They are biological and psychological facts that shape behavior, whether ideology approves of them or not.Human societies have always organized themselves around complementary roles rather than identical ones. This was not primarily because one sex was superior, but because differences allowed division of labor, balance, and survival. Flattening those differences into a single neutral model misunderstands how humans actually function—especially under pressure.Endurance, long-term responsibility, and vulnerability are experienced differently by men and women. Life itself depends on this asymmetry. Social structures emerged around it long before modern political language existed. When contemporary narratives deny these realities, they do not produce freedom—they clash with lived experience.

Difference does imply hierarchy.It implies specialization.Power, too, does not operate in a single form. It appears physically, economically, socially, emotionally, sexually, institutionally, and relationally. These forms of power do not scale equally and cannot be meaningfully compared as if they were interchangeable. Measuring one kind of influence using the standards of another only manufactures grievance.The real problem begins when difference is treated as a competition.When men and women are encouraged to measure themselves against each other instead of understanding each other, every interaction becomes a scorecard. Cooperation turns into rivalry. Partnership becomes negotiation. What could have been complementary becomes adversarial.In many modern environments, people are pressured into narrow behavioral templates. Men are often expected to suppress traits that once made them effective—assertiveness, risk tolerance, stoicism. Women are often expected to adopt traits that conflict with their instincts—constant competitiveness, emotional detachment, perpetual self-assertion. When individuals fail to perform these scripts convincingly, they are treated as broken rather than different.The result is not liberation.It is exhaustion.None of this means history should be ignored. Women were denied education, autonomy, and legal standing for centuries. Those injustices were real and severe. Equal rights under the law were necessary and non-negotiable. Without legal equality, difference becomes an excuse for abuse.But equal rights do not require an identical nature.At some point, equality of opportunity was confused with sameness of identity. Differences were treated as threats rather than facts. Distinct tendencies were flattened into a single moral narrative of what people should be, instead of allowing individuals to navigate reality as it is.Men and women do not approach competition, security, relationships, or meaning in identical ways on average. Pretending otherwise does not liberate anyone. It produces unmet expectations, chronic tension, and mutual misunderstanding. difference does not excuse control, violence, or domination. No human difference justifies ownership or coercion. The failure of the past was not acknowledging difference—it was abusing power.We do not need to rank men and women.We do not need to turn traits into points on a scale.That obsession itself is corrosive.Comparison creates hierarchy.Understanding creates balance.Men and women are not the same.They deserve equal dignity and equal rights.Beyond that, endless comparison serves no one.

Do good, go to heaven.

Do bad, go to hell.

It sounds comforting. It promises order. It promises justice.But the moment you think seriously about it, the story collapses.Heaven and hell are not places waiting for us after death. They are not cosmic courts where someone weighs our deeds and assigns destinations. That entire framework is a human invention—designed to regulate behavior, manage fear, and preserve moral authority. It survives not because it is true, but because it is useful.Look at reality instead of mythology.Every act of cruelty—robbery, murder, rape, domestic violence—is committed by humans. No invisible force commits these crimes. No demon rises from hell to pull a trigger or raise a knife. Humans do it. Deliberately. Consciously.

Fully responsible.This matters because the belief in hell quietly removes that responsibility.It allows us to say, Justice will come later, somewhere else, by someone else.And the same is true for kindness.Helping a stranger, donating blood, planting trees, saving lives—again, no divine force intervenes. No heaven descends to act on our behalf. Humans do it. The same species capable of calculated brutality is also capable of empathy and care.This leaves no escape.If hell exists, it exists in the mind and actions of those who choose to inflict suffering.If heaven exists, it exists in the conscience and choices of those who refuse to.There is no metaphysical distance between them—only human decisions.When violence erupts—whether in Bangladesh or anywhere else—it is tempting to blame religion, identity, or belief. But these are excuses, not causes. The cause is human brutality, often justified by faith. When people kill, torture, or dehumanize others, we are not witnessing hell as a destination. We are witnessing hell enacted—alive, breathing, and human.Calling such acts “evil” and postponing judgment to the afterlife is not moral humility. It is cowardice. It allows us to delay accountability and pretend that justice does not depend on us. Heaven and hell become convenient fictions precisely because they absolve the present.There is another uncomfortable truth.Traditional heaven is imagined as perfection: obedience, purity, moral cleanliness. But the most alive humans in history were rarely obedient. They questioned inherited truths. They rebelled against moral certainty. They created meaning where none was given. They refused to accept answers simply because they were sacred.Such people would not be celebrated in a heaven built on submission. They would be corrected, silenced, or excluded. A paradise that demands obedience is not a reward—it is a refusal of human vitality.True human life is not flawless. It is contradictory, passionate, unfinished. It involves risk, responsibility, and the courage to think independently rather than outsource judgment to doctrines or afterlives.Heaven and hell are not waiting for us after death.They are being built every day—by human hands, human choices, and human courage, or the lack of it.

Subscribe

I’ve noticed something ugly about how I listen to people. Someone without credentials, without wealth, without obvious success tells me something true. And before I even process what they said, I’m already measuring them. Scanning for proof they’ve earned the right to speak. If you know so much, why aren’t you doing better yourself? I used to think this was intelligence. A filter against bad advice. Why listen to someone who can’t demonstrate results? What I didn’t admit was that I wasn’t searching for the truth. I was searching for cover. Advice from someone powerful felt safer. If it failed, I could blame the source. Advice from an ordinary person left me exposed, alone with the consequences. And that terrified me more than being wrong. While reading Notes from the Underground, I realized Dostoevsky had already diagnosed this behavior. The Underground Man mocks the idea that a fully enlightened human would only desire what benefits him—what can be proven mathematically to be good. His point is not that humans are stupid. His point is that humans resist being treated like calculators. Even if something is clearly harmful, predictable, and irrational, a person may still choose it not out of ignorance, but out of defiance. Obedience feels more humiliating than suffering. Smoking is the obvious example. Everyone knows it damages health, wastes money, smells bad, and shortens life. The evidence is not unclear. Yet when someone says, “You should quit,” the response is rarely gratitude. It’s irritation. The sentence doesn’t register as concern; it registers as a command. Quitting because you decided feels like freedom. Quitting because someone told you feels like submission. So people continue not to prove they don’t understand the risk, but to prove they are not machines following instructions. And I recognize this in myself. Someone suggests I should exercise more, sleep earlier, and stop refreshing social media. They’re right. I know they’re right. But I don’t change immediately, not because they said it. I changed later, when I could pretend it was my idea. What’s more disturbing is how the same advice changes value depending on who delivers it. A colleague says, “Don’t chase money blindly. Build skills first, and the reaction is dismissal. Easy to say. If that worked, you’d be rich. A famous CEO says the same sentence on a podcast, and suddenly it becomes wisdom. Nothing about the idea has changed. Only the speaker has. Authority doesn’t make ideas true, but it makes them safe to follow. If you follow a billionaire’s advice and fail, you weren’t foolish; you were misled. If you follow an unknown person and fail, there’s no shield. You just failed. That’s why advice from “unsuccessful” people is often ignored or attacked with particular cruelty. Not because it’s wrong, but because accepting it would mean owning the outcome completely.

Subscribe now

This is exactly what Dostoevsky was pointing toward. Humans don’t want perfectly engineered happiness. They want the right to choose, even if that choice damages them. Suffering that is chosen feels more human than happiness that is imposed. The Underground Man isn’t celebrating pain. He’s exposing the fear beneath obedience—the terror of being reduced to a formula, a predictable reaction. And I feel this when I reflexively reject good advice from the wrong messenger. It’s not about the advice. It’s about maintaining the feeling that I’m still deciding. But here’s what I still don’t know If most of us need authority to permit us to change, but authority is often wrong, and true insight often comes from unexpected sources, what then? Do we train ourselves to evaluate ideas independent of speakers? That sounds good in theory, but it’s impossibly hard in practice. Our brains don’t work that way. Or do we admit that independence is overrated, that we’re social creatures who need external validation, and stop pretending otherwise? What I do know is this: thinking independently means no authority to hide behind. No system to blame. No guaranteed results. You choose, and whatever follows belongs to you. Most people don’t reject truth because it’s false. They reject it because accepting it would leave them alone with responsibility. I’d like to say I’ve overcome this. That status and credentials don’t sway me anymore. But I haven’t. I still check the bio before I trust the insight. I still feel safer following someone with a verified checkmark than someone with a good argument. I just can’t pretend anymore that this is wisdom. Maybe it’s cowardice wearing the mask of pragmatism. Or maybe we’re all just the Underground Man in different costumes, choosing our own small rebellions, trying to preserve some sense that we’re still the ones deciding, even when we’re not.

Share

The same mind that swore it was real now declares it false. The same experience that demanded belief is exposed as deception. No external proof was required to break the illusion—only waking up.This alone should destroy the claim that experience equals truth.

If experience were proof, dreams would be reality. Nightmares would be evidence. Hallucinations would be facts. But we don’t accept them as such, because later experiences contradict earlier ones. Experience cancels experience.

That’s the uncomfortable truth: experience does not verify reality—it only verifies belief.

When people say, “Direct experience doesn’t require proof,” what they actually mean is, “I trusted what my mind presented to me.” That’s not philosophy. That’s surrender.

Your own experience can lie to you.

Not metaphorically.Literally.

In a dream, you are not killed by someone else—you are killed by your own mind. You are not robbed by a thief—you are robbed by your own imagination. The deceiver and the deceived are the same.So when you wake up in the so-called real world and insist that what you see, feel, and experience is unquestionably real, you’re making the same mistake—just with better graphics and longer duration.

The difference between waking life and dreams is not truth.It’s continuity.We destroy things. Time destroys things. People destroy things. Anything that can be destroyed is contingent. And what is contingent cannot be ultimate reality.Reality, if it exists, cannot be eliminated.It cannot disappear when you wake up.It cannot depend on perception.

What we call “the real world” may simply be the most persistent illusion we experience—one we’ve agreed not to question because questioning it is uncomfortable.The real problem isn’t that the world might be an illusion.

The real problem is how confidently we confuse experience with truth.

And confidence, as dreams prove every night, means nothing.

Society. Trauma. Insecurity. Validation culture.

These explanations are convenient, but they avoid the core.The truth is simpler and more uncomfortable.We crave attention because attention confirms existence.When someone notices us, responds to us, or reacts to us, the mind receives a signal: I am real.Without that signal, the mind begins to doubt itself.

Silence is not neutral to the mind.Silence feels like disappearance.This is where craving begins.When attention is present, the self feels stable.When attention is absent, the self feels fragile.That fragility turns into restlessness, comparison, and hunger to be seen.

This mechanism is universal.Every human experiences it.The difference is not whether we seek attention, but how.Some people demand it openly.Some seek it indirectly.Some disguise it as usefulness, morality, intelligence, or emotional depth.Some even hide it behind the claim, “I don’t care.”

But the need remains.

A useful distinction must be made here.There is a difference between expression and dependence.A person who speaks to understand, clarify, or share truth can remain steady even if no one responds.The act of expression itself is complete.A person who speaks to be acknowledged feels disturbed when there is no response.Silence becomes rejection.Lack of reaction becomes a personal verdict.

Both are speaking.

Only one is dependent on attention.This is why many people feel calm after receiving reactions and uneasy when they don’t.The content of what was shared is often irrelevant.The response is the reward.At that point, communication is no longer about meaning.It becomes a mirror-check for the self.

Attention, then, is not connection.It is confirmation.

This does not make people weak or immoral.

It makes them human.

But problems begin when attention becomes the foundation of self-worth.

When the self cannot stand without being reflected, silence feels unbearable.

Freedom does not mean stopping expression.

It means removing the need for confirmation.

When expression is complete by itself, attention becomes optional.

When expression is incomplete without response, attention becomes a craving.

That is the difference.

And that difference decides whether attention controls us,

or whether we simply pass through it.

I feel that everything in this world is influenced by energy and by our thoughts.

Just like a tiny seed we can barely see grows into a huge tree, a small thought in the mind also grows.

If we plant anger or desire, those energies slowly take control of us.

When anger arises, situations that increase anger appear more often.

When we plant love, love shapes our actions and responses.

And when we cultivate witnessing, the mind becomes balanced.

Nothing moves toward me or against me; everything becomes still.