BOOK ONE – MONADOPHILIC TOPICS
CHAPTER ONE – FIRST FREEDOM
FIRST TOPIC – With free time to be at leisure in peace, one is nourished in freedom and leisure
Despite its exotic nature in the universe of various philosophies, Monadophilia should always be one of the easiest to understand, for reasons that will become clearer later. Our goal now is to address what First Freedom is. One cannot love wisdom, that is, philosophize, if one does not dedicate the most precious thing we have to this love: our time, our attention, our energy, in short, our life. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be. Now, the common man can spend himself and be distracted by countless occupations, whether driven by necessity, fear, or desire. And all of this can occur without an individual even being aware of their freedom to disconnect from this regular flow of occupations, so that they use their intellect to understand the nature of their reality. It is not possible to be initiated into Monadophilia without having this First Freedom, which is made up of some parts. The lover of wisdom, this philosopher, with free time to be unoccupied in peace, is nourished in freedom and leisure. You can contemplate what the worn-out, slave to imposed or chosen circumstances, cannot. Anyone who does not have this capacity for leisure in peace cannot receive the nourishment that comes from freedom and idleness. Does anyone have any questions?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): Yeah, I have a question. You’re saying that philosophy requires time and freedom, but isn’t that a privilege? Most people throughout history—whether because of work, survival, or responsibilities—haven’t had the luxury of free time. Does that mean only the privileged can engage in Monadophilia?
In short, yes. One must assume that except for some few absolutes, like the universal spiritual privilege that all humans have to live a relationship with God, all the other contingent experiences are dependant on some premises. As none could be sure to have even basic needs granted, like food, shelter or clothing, in the same way the free time and peace of mind required to practice any good philosophy is not a human right, but something that depends on some other things. The important thing, though, is to notice how our personal freedom affects this: if you consume your time and resources with mundane ambitions, you will be declining the more contemplative choice, and that’s on you. To live with freedom means to live with responsability, and to do so we should make choices and accept the consequences of those choises. Do you understand Ethan?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): I see your point, but I’m not sure I fully agree. You’re saying that having time for philosophy isn’t a right but a consequence of choices and circumstances. That makes sense, but what about those who never even get the chance to make that choice? If someone is born into hardship, they might never have the luxury to step back and contemplate. Is it fair to say they simply “declined” the contemplative path when they were never really given an option?
No, that case would be a consequence of the parents choice to give life to a person able to be free and conscious, but traped into a situation that prevents this development. We will talk about this later. But do you understand that this restriction doesn’t constitute an injustice, or that those who work with any philosophy have any responsability for this?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): I get what you’re saying—you’re placing the responsibility on the circumstances that preceded the person’s birth, rather than on philosophy itself or those who practice it. And you’re saying it’s not an injustice, just an unfortunate reality. I can follow that reasoning, but it still feels like an uncomfortable truth. It means that some people are simply locked out of philosophy by circumstances beyond their control. I guess my next question would be: if Monadophilia requires First Freedom, is there any way for someone trapped in necessity to ever access it? Or are they permanently excluded?
That is a question to the person to answer. The way I see, with some very few exceptions, any person could access this First Freedom, if the person is ready to make the necessary choices and sacrifices for this. I recommend to you to search for some philosophers that acted under very restrictive conditions, like Diogenes the Cynic, or Epicthetus the Stoic. Humans can do a lot that looks hard or even impossible, if they really put their minds and wit to it. But you should also know that the christian philosophy is not the same as the Gospel. The spiritual salvation is universal, as the relationship with God. As intelligence is a gift from the Creator, a person that lives under extreme circunstamces could receive a deep understanding about all things, so much that even a dedicated philosopher could be surpassed by this extraordinary resource. So, the First Freedom is about what we can do, our best choice, and not so much a restrictive path, because we must consider God’s dispensation of Grace. Do you understand Ethan?
Ethan (The Skeptical Empiricist): Alright, so you’re saying that First Freedom is achievable for most people, but it requires deliberate effort and sacrifice. And for those in extreme conditions, God’s Grace could still provide understanding, even beyond what a dedicated philosopher might reach. That makes sense in your framework. I see the distinction between philosophy as a chosen path and spiritual wisdom as something granted by divine dispensation. I still think there’s more to explore about the limits of choice in harsh circumstances, but I understand your position now. Thanks.
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): If I may, I have a question as well. You describe First Freedom as essential for philosophy, but doesn’t this mean that philosophy itself is a state of being rather than just an activity? If true freedom and leisure nourish the philosopher, doesn’t that imply that philosophy isn’t something we “do” but something we must become?
You don’t need to go that far. We should just do our best to put ourselves in the best situation to be free to practice good philosophy. If that have to do with our happiness, the final cause of our life, of course it is important, but its not a matter of transformation of being. To be clear, nourishment in this case means that the Wisdom is not our property, but God’s property, so we do our best to be inclined to accept this gift, renouncing all that disturbs this relationship. Understanding is given by God to those who want to receive it. Sometimes exceptions can happen, but we should not consider ouselves exceptionals, or living in any exceptional situation. Do you understand Nathan?
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): Yes, I see now. You’re emphasizing that wisdom is not something we generate ourselves, but something received from God, and that our role is to prepare ourselves to accept it. So, rather than viewing philosophy as a transformation of being, we should see it as a state of receptivity, where we remove obstacles that block wisdom from reaching us. I understand your reasoning. But I wonder—if wisdom is truly God’s property, doesn’t that mean even our efforts to prepare ourselves are ultimately guided by divine will? In other words, can someone truly will themselves into First Freedom, or is even that step already determined by God’s providence?
Although there are many callings and pushes, etc., not to talk about the whole divine work that moves the Providence, our freedom is granted, because that is very precious to God. The very reason of our current existence in this world and under this condition is so that we can realize our freedom of choice in the spiritual matters of life. There is a strong and powerful guidance, yes, but that can be always rejected if you want to. Otherwise, this world would not be in such a mess. Do you understand Nathan?
Nathan (The German Mystical Idealist): Yes, I understand. You’re saying that divine guidance exists, but it does not override our freedom to choose. In fact, our very purpose in this world is to exercise that freedom, particularly in spiritual matters. That clarifies a lot. It also explains why the world is filled with confusion and disorder—because people reject the divine guidance available to them. I’ll reflect on this further, but for now, I follow your reasoning.
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): Alright, I’ve got a question too. You’re emphasizing freedom as something granted by God, but what if we take God out of the equation? Can’t we still argue that freedom comes from within—from our own determination to transcend limitations? Do we really need divine grace to achieve First Freedom, or is it just a matter of self-discipline and willpower?
You can believe that freedom is something produced by the self, although that will get you to some difficult problems if you put God “out of the equation”, as you say, because if there is no greater freedom than yours (God’s own freedom), then you can never really be sure that you are not determined by the elements of the world, depending on what would be your worldview in that case. Anyway, this first part of the First Freedom is not so much related to Grace, as depending on it (although that is true), but our focus is more on the choices required to live in sufficient peace of mind and to have the necessary free time to achieve good results. If you want to see that as something generated more by yor own personal virtues, you can do so. But in time you will see that this will contradict some principles of my philosophy, so you will need to make a choice eventually. Do you understand Andrew?
Andrew (The Atheist Existentialist): I see what you’re getting at. If there’s no higher freedom beyond my own, then my choices could just be determined by external forces, which kind of undermines the whole idea of freedom in the first place. That’s a fair challenge. I also get that, for now, you’re focusing more on practical choices—how we structure our lives to allow for philosophical thinking—rather than divine grace itself. I’ll admit, I’m not convinced that freedom requires God, but I do understand that, within your system, I’d eventually have to face a contradiction if I insist on a purely self-generated freedom. I’ll think on that.
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): I’d like to ask something. You’ve explained that First Freedom is about creating the right conditions to engage in philosophy. But how do we measure whether someone actually has it? What’s the threshold? How do we determine if a person has enough free time and mental clarity to be considered capable of true philosophy?
You can check the very usage of the hours of the day. We live under loops of 24 hours in which we usually have to use some 8 hours just to sleep and rest. So, you can see how the available hours are used to realize what are your priorities. As much free hours you have, the best. Also, in a more subjective angle, you can follow Jesus’s rule of evaluating the tree by its fruits: peace gives serenity, joy, good humor, etc. If you have no real peace of mind and free time to contemplate spiritual matters, you will experience life with stress, anxiety, frustration, sadness, anger, etc. Do you understand Madeline?
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): Yes, I understand your criteria. First Freedom can be measured in two ways—objectively, by examining how someone spends their available hours, and subjectively, by observing whether their life produces peace and clarity or stress and frustration. That’s a structured answer, and I can see how it applies in practical terms. However, I have a follow-up: Isn’t it possible for someone to be extremely busy and still experience deep serenity? Some people seem to thrive in activity, feeling fulfilled even in a fast-paced life. Does that mean they don’t have First Freedom, or are they an exception?
Only the person could answer that. Knowing the general human experience, that should be more exceptional, but possible nevertheless. There are many differences in temperament, mentality, etc., not to speak about differences in standard of life from place to place, so we can’t really create a single model for all humans. Whatever are your personal conditions, harder ou easier, you should do your best. Sometimes we need to change our circumstances to make them better in this regard. I did it myself: I moved from a large city with more then 10 million people to a smaller, less then 1 million habitants, to have a more peaceful life. To do so, I needed to renounce more then half of my pay. This is what I am talking about. Personal decisions regarding very concrete individual circumstances. What I did was good to me, but maybe that could be a bad decision to someone else. Do you understand Madeline?
Madeline (The Secular Analytic Philosopher): Yes, I understand. First Freedom isn’t about a one-size-fits-all model, but rather about making deliberate choices to create the best conditions for philosophy within one’s personal circumstances. I see now that it’s not just about having free time, but also about what one is willing to sacrifice to create it. Your example makes that very clear—you actively chose a slower, less demanding life at the cost of a higher salary, which was a trade-off that made sense for you. That clarifies things for me. Thanks.
Emma (The Liberal Christian Pragmatist): I have a question! You said that free time and peace of mind are necessary for philosophy. But what about love and relationships? Don’t you think those are just as important for a good life? If someone has free time but lives in isolation, can they still really achieve wisdom?
Yes they can. The mandatory love is for the Absolute Being, God Himself. All other relationships are relative in importance, and some can also be damaging, in spiritual terms. But you need to have your answer. It can be that the way you get closer to God is through serving others. This is a very common and powerful path to spiritual development, as well as philosophical. If that is the case, do it. But don’t reject the other possibilities, of people that have a different path and calling then you. Do you understand Emma?
Emma (The Liberal Christian Pragmatist): Yes, I get it. You’re saying that love for God is the only absolute, while other relationships can be beneficial or harmful, depending on the circumstances. I like that you acknowledge different paths. For some, serving and loving others might be the way they grow spiritually and philosophically, while others might need more solitude. I still personally believe that relationships are central to wisdom, but I understand your point—that we shouldn’t assume one path fits everyone. That makes sense to me. Thanks!
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): I’d like to ask something related. You mentioned that First Freedom requires us to detach from unnecessary distractions to focus on philosophy. But how do you distinguish between legitimate responsibilities and distractions? Many things in life require commitment—family, work, even religious duties. Where do we draw the line?
You draw the line on the difference between duties of state and obligations voluntarily contracted. All these are real responsabilities that can’t be rejected, but their origin is very different. Duties of state are circumstancially imposed on you regardless of your will, so you can always count on the ruling of divine Providence to wish thoses duties, or at least wish to permit them to unfold. Obligations created by your own volition, like vows, contracts, etc., are your responsability, so if you go with those things by your own and they restricts your power to have free and peaceful time, that’s on you, it’s your own doing. Do you understand Gabriel?
Gabriel (The Scholastic/Neo-Thomist): Yes, I understand. You’re making a distinction between duties of state, which are imposed by circumstances and divine Providence, and voluntary obligations, which are our own responsibility. That makes sense. If something is imposed on me, I must accept it as part of God’s providence. But if I freely enter into commitments that limit my freedom, I have to take full responsibility for that choice. This is a useful distinction, especially when thinking about the balance between duty and contemplation. I’ll reflect more on it, but I follow your reasoning. Thank you.
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): I have a related question. You say that First Freedom is about having time and peace of mind for philosophy. But doesn’t that depend on society as well? If we live in a chaotic or unjust system, doesn’t that directly impact our ability to achieve this kind of freedom? Isn’t First Freedom not just an individual concern, but also a social one?
The Pretension (a rigorous term in my system that you all will learn about in the future) of the assumption that we have the power and the virtue to make better our world in social terms is one enemy of personal responsability to deal with reality as it is. It is also a trait of Humanism as idolatry of man, and a path for ideological corruption, one that I call “spiritual bolchevism”. But I don’t want to impose those terms on you. It’s just a matter of time to you to learn well all those concepts. For now, think like this: the caos and injustice of this world can be corrected and understood at the same time? Do you realize, Mary, that to have wisdom about this reality that we live in may require to renounce all Pretension to know already what is the nature of the problems and to believe that we are good enough to make what must be done?
Mary (The Communitarian Political Philosopher): That’s an interesting perspective. You’re saying that the belief that we can fix the world—or even that we fully understand its problems—is something you call Pretension, a kind of ideological self-deception. I see where you’re going with this. Instead of jumping to solutions, we should first understand reality as it is, without assuming we are already virtuous or capable enough to fix it. That challenges a lot of modern political thought, which tends to assume that activism and change are inherently good. I’m not sure I entirely agree yet—I still think there’s a moral responsibility to improve the world—but I see your point that wisdom requires humility before reality rather than immediate intervention. I’ll need to reflect on this more.
Rebecca (The Orthodox Christian Stoic): I’d like to ask something. Since you mentioned responsibility and reality, what role does self-discipline play in First Freedom? It seems like having free time and peace of mind is not enough—you also need the strength to use them well. What if someone has leisure but wastes it?
That is not relevant to our matter, because we are going step by step. I am not presenting an entire philosophy with this lesson. It’s just the first of 46 lessons. For now, to have free and peaceful time is enough. Later we can develop the usage of our time. Ok Rebecca?
Rebecca (The Orthodox Christian Stoic): Understood. You’re focusing on laying the foundation first—securing free and peaceful time before discussing how to use it. That makes sense. I’ll hold off on deeper questions about self-discipline for now and wait until we reach that stage in the lessons. I have no further questions.
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): I think I understand what you mean by First Freedom. It reminds me of some Buddhist teachings—how detachment from distractions is necessary for true contemplation. But I wonder—can this freedom also come from inner peace, rather than just changing external circumstances? In other words, even if someone has little free time, could they still cultivate First Freedom by changing their mindset?
They can, but they should not count on that. In some cases virtues of detachment can help, but I can’t ask you to make that an objective, because that alone could be a goal that takes an entire life to achieve. We should not multiply the duties. Detachment can be a resource, but should not be mandatory. If you have that resource at your disposal, good. If you want to recommend that to others, it is your right to do so. But we can’t say that is compulsory, as a required path. Do you understand Laura?
Laura (The Eastern Spiritualist Philosopher): Yes, I understand. You’re saying that inner detachment can help, but it’s not a requirement for First Freedom. It’s a resource, not a duty. That makes sense. Some traditions, like Buddhism, emphasize detachment as the primary way to achieve peace, but you’re taking a more flexible approach—suggesting that while it may be useful, it shouldn’t become an additional burden or requirement. I appreciate that perspective. I have no further questions.
Ok, that’s it then. Thank you all, I see you next time.
JESUS É BOM 