I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about a philosophical work you haven’t read. If there’s something specific in this framework you disagree with, please tell me what it is and why. Let me know which terminology you find unclear and why, and where you think my logic fails.

I avoided basing my work on existing philosophies for a reason. Existence and the mind are highly debated topics with many unresolved problems and a lot of confusing ideas. I wanted to understand reality from the ground up—not just to learn what other philosophers thought. I find this approach more effective and reliable, and it led to an understanding that feels coherent, solid, and logical. I believe this model solves at least one or two major problems of philosophy and science, while reflecting reality better than the mainstream model.

This writing is my attempt to share this system in a way that doesn’t require a background in academic philosophy, only the presence of one’s own mind and intellect. We can’t prove anything by pointing to Descartes, Hegel, or Heidegger. These philosophers are known because they used their own minds.

No, not terror management, and not new age either. This is a modern idealist approach, based on rigorous logic. The insights listed at the end of the treatise might not be convincing on their own, but the writing explains everything step by step. It offers proofs (in the form of logic), but each step needs careful thought to really get the insights that follow.

Thank you for the feedback, this is already very useful! I will try to improve the flow and style, but that will take some time (or a human editor). I hope you’ll still find the content interesting.

Hi, I'm the author. I'm not a native speaker, so I used chatGPT a lot for editing and finding the right formulation of the sentences. All of the ideas and thoughts are original neverthless. I have worked on this writing for more than 3 months. Unfortunately I don't feel the nuances in the writing yet, like a native speaker would.

Can you please show me a few examples where the text feels like something is off?

Yes, however those people also have right to vote (in democracies) and many of them vote without being sure what they vote for. Democracies can be hacked because too many people are either not interested or not informed well enough to vote for what's really best for them and the country.

Do you mean, some people just consciously agree with being used and lied to and their taxes being stolen so that the leaders can be richer and more powerful while schooling, health care and economy is in decay? I don't think so.

No, people supported them, but that is because democracy was hacked. Hungary is not a democracy anymore (it's a hibrid regime[1]).

The biggest issue is that the majority of the media is controlled by the government. Also they own jurisdiction and have been gradually rewritten the constitution. Most people who support this regime do that because they believe the propaganda. Many people I know have been bitterly trying to tell their family members that they are watching / listening propaganda (unsuccessfully, for years). Most of Orban's supporters don't know much about politics, they just want to live their lives, so they believe whatever is on TV, radio, online media, posters, etc. For many it is very hard to see what is true and what is lie.

But there are many, many people here who don't like this and want a change. The country is in a state where positive change towards democracy is really hard at the moment, many of us still want to believe it is possible.

By the way, we could see this madness around the world in the past years: Brexit, Trump, Bolsonaro… many people can be led by their nose. Not just in Hungary. I really whish if people would learn from Hungary's mistakes, and don't let the same thing to happen in their countries.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_regime