Hong Jun-seong, a philosophy researcher and novelist who received attention for his works “Karmapolis” and “Underground Garden,” has returned with his first humanities book.
He invites us into a space of thought by unraveling the questions and concerns we face in life in the language of philosophy, but in a way that is not difficult, but approachable and interesting.
The reason the philosophy he conveys is not difficult is probably because it is based on everyday emotions and experiences and connects with us.
In addition, appropriate citations and unique interpretations maintain the depth of philosophy while approaching it in an accessible manner.
In short, this book embodies such a philosophical approach, leading readers to naturally experience the novelty and joy of philosophy.

The first thing I want to say to those who open this book to learn philosophy is that philosophy cannot be learned.
This is an important point, so I'll say it again—philosophy itself is impossible to communicate.
Let's reserve our value judgment on whether this is a blessing or a regret.
That's because it's not my job.

What's the most glaring phenomenon resulting from this? The most disconcerting experience for freshmen entering one of the few remaining philosophy departments in universities nationwide and taking introductory courses is that there are no introductory textbooks or official textbooks for philosophy.
Instead, learn the history of philosophy.

--- From the "Prologue"

So—to repeat—understanding society is incredibly important.
Not knowing society does not simply mean not knowing society, but rather not knowing oneself, who breathes and lives in that society.
Of course, this kind of thinking is likely to provoke a backlash from individuality.

--- From "Agora. Society, Society"

The biggest problem with this fantasy is that it reduces people to passive beings.
So, a citizen is someone who has been designated as a citizen and has the right to learn and acquire what it means to be a citizen.
At this point, the people are essentially livestock.
Conversely, the founder who first created the nation becomes a special being different from human-animals.
It's like you're a genius or chosen by God.
So, human-livestock have no say in social injustice.


However, what is certain is that the concept of popular sovereignty was established in the 18th century, and the remainder of the 19th and 20th centuries was a process of continuously increasing the number of people included in this people, including the poor, women, and people of color.
Although it may at times appear to have regressed or stopped, in the long run, it is ultimately an irreversible trend.
And this is also true to the Populus tradition.
Again, this concept has a long tradition of those who have been ignored and trampled upon demanding their share.
A person is a process in which a non-person becomes a person.
Of course, this will remain the case in the future.
--- From "Agora. Society, People"

So, ironically enough, the very communitarian optimism that there might be some concrete common purpose for which we can all live well actually turns out to be the gates of hell.
Because if you truly believe that such a high-level communal truth exists, you will find yourself unable to communicate or coexist with those who hold different opinions.
--- From "Agora. Society, Constitution"

Life is inherently conservative.
Because life is constantly driven by the urge to maintain order, it clings to a certain normality.
...
So, an emotional inclination toward something new, something beyond the norm? If we roughly define this as "art," it's no coincidence that many artists have been drawn to the decadent.
Oscar Wilde, who is called the icon of fin-de-siècle decadence, captured this point precisely.
--- 「Agora.
From "Art, Decadence"
?
So, images can be a technology of this very incomprehensibility.
It is a method of survival used by people living under the conditions of ‘visibility’ called society.
The important thing here is that it is not necessary to harbor something truly incomprehensible within, but rather to simply present the appearance of 'incomprehensibility'.
In fact, the content can be empty.
The important thing is to prevent others from judging me simply by what I 'see'.
So, it's not that there's some hidden message, but rather that they protect themselves by having an appearance that is completely uninterpretable.
This appearance is 'incomprehensible for the sake of incomprehensible'.
At the same time, it is also a kind of defense mechanism to protect oneself from the world.
The more sensitive a person is to this, the more difficult it is for him to endure extreme anxiety when he feels completely understood.
In some cases, the anxiety can become so intense that people give up on life.
--- 「Agora.
From “Art, Image”

The most ironic thing about thinking about reality is that we all certainly live in reality, but at the same time, none of us lives in reality.
So, what I'm saying is that the reality of those who speak reality may not be as realistic as we believe.
--- 「Agora.
From “Art, Romance”

Finally, to hit the back of the head, this story is something that can be applied to universal mathematics itself more than anything else.
If the world is made up of inevitable laws, then the same goes for human society, which is part of this world, beyond natural science.
According to this, it is assumed that there are certain laws that operate in many fields such as politics, art, psychology, and economics.
But what if this is religion?
--- 「Agora.
From "Religion, God"
?
So what is true atheism? As I say every chance I get, all humans are just humans.
If atheism wants to be serious about itself, it must embrace this deeply.
It is about facing the fact that there is a desire for religion within oneself and constantly seeking conditions in life that will prevent it from becoming motivated.
--- 「Agora.
From "Religion, Atheism"

But at the same time, philosophy is not a discipline that is open for the sake of being open.
We strive for openness in order to avoid being dogmatic, but openness itself cannot be the ultimate goal.

This is the curious point of philosophical incompetence.
To repeat, because philosophy so strongly desires the essence, it ends up establishing it as a thesis at some point (and so the establishment is closer to invention than discovery).
And we push it to the end.
In this structure, the world is not a stage where truth must be inferred, but rather a stage where it must be realized.

So, are most philosophies quasi-religions? Are they nothing more than logical tranquilizers designed to promote a sense of stability? ―As we've seen, while it's undeniable that this tendency is completely absent, it's also not entirely true.
Because, crucially, philosophers do not posit a transcendent factor like a deus ex machina.
In other words, it is a being that constantly craves for evidence for what it claims to be fundamental principles or essence.
--- 「Agora.
From "Philosophy, Philosophy"
?
Again, chaos itself is something that humans cannot endure.
So Nietzsche's declaration that God is dead is correct—what this means, above all, is that none of us can be God.
We are all human, all too human.
--- 「Agora.
From “Philosophy, Truth”

So it's not surprising that this book has brought up thoughts I hadn't thought of before.
However, at this time, we should not misunderstand ‘thoughts that did not come to mind’ as ‘thoughts that could not be thought of.’
Although these two expressions may seem similar at first glance, they belong to completely different dimensions.
Not remembering something means literally not remembering it.


There are no experts on life itself.
Because expertise is literally about a specific field, whereas life is a truly diverse and dynamic web.
So only scammers claim to be experts in life.
You must never, ever forget that I began this book by declaring the impossibility of teaching philosophy itself.
Ultimately, your life is something you have to live, and you have to think about it and define it for yourself.
There is nothing more to it than each person going as far as he can in his own place.
As far as communication is concerned, only philosophizing is barely effective.
Philosophy is not a field of communication.

--- From "Epilogue"