The Double Frying of the Potato: From Colonial Exploitation to Extremism

Colonialism has been one of the most powerful and destructive forces in global history, with long-lasting consequences that continue to impact modern societies today. During the 19th and 20th centuries, colonial powers expanded their influence by systematically exploiting the natural and human resources of the regions they conquered. These practices devastated local economies, created social inequalities, and established enduring relationships of dependency that continue to shape living conditions in many parts of the world.

Exploitation during the colonial period was not limited to the seizure of land and resources. It also involved stripping local populations of their autonomy and subjecting them to regimes that operated for the benefit of the colonizers. For instance, the extraction of agricultural and mineral resources in the colonies was accompanied by policies ensuring that local populations remained economically dependent and politically powerless (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2001). These policies shaped the economic and social structures in former colonies, leading to chronic conditions of poverty, inequality, and dependence.

Although colonial empires officially ended in the 20th century, the social and economic consequences of these practices remain pronounced. Many of the formerly colonized populations seek better life opportunities by migrating to wealthier countries, which are often the former colonial powers. However, the hope for a fresh start often turns into disappointment, as these migrants face new forms of exploitation and marginalization in their host societies.

Despite the existence of modern legal frameworks promoting equality and protecting human rights, the reality for many migrants is quite different. Host societies may enact laws that recognize equal rights for all, but deeply rooted prejudices and social inertia often lead to discriminatory practices and unequal treatment. Migrants often end up in low-paying jobs, with limited access to social services and restricted rights, while being targeted by racist behaviors and stereotypes (Kymlicka, 2015).

These societies, despite having progressive laws, have not fully managed to overcome their colonial legacies. The lag in aligning social realities with legal changes creates a gap where inequality and exploitation continue to thrive. Research shows that the failure to integrate migrants is linked to this disparity between legal principles and social practices (Joppke, 2004). Migrants often face walls of social exclusion that are reinforced by deeply rooted social prejudices and a slow process of cultural integration.

This failure of integration and the ongoing exploitation represent the "second frying" in our metaphor. Migrants, who have already experienced exploitation and oppression in their countries of origin, seek a new path to prosperity, only to find themselves trapped in similar conditions of exploitation in host societies. The frustration and sense of injustice that arise from these experiences can lead to extreme behaviors and views, as migrants seek ways to express their opposition to a system that excludes them (Gurr, 1970).

The literature suggests that feelings of exclusion and social injustice enhance the tendency toward radicalization and extremism. As Roy (2017) argues, young migrants who experience continuous discrimination and social exclusion are at greater risk of turning to extremist groups that offer a sense of purpose and community, responding to experiences of alienation and oppression. Sageman (2004) also notes that joining extremist groups can be seen as a way to assert dignity and justice when host societies fail to provide equal opportunities and fair treatment.

To address these challenges, it is crucial to recognize the depth of historical exploitation and the contemporary forms of injustice experienced by migrants. The inability of societies to fully align with progressive legal principles and eliminate systemic inequalities has serious consequences for social cohesion and security. A meaningful approach must include the implementation of policies that not only recognize the rights of migrants but also ensure their full and genuine integration into host societies.

The "double frying" of exploitation—from colonialism in the countries of origin to marginalization in the host countries—exacerbates inequalities and strengthens the potential for extremist responses. A more holistic and just approach is needed to address these roots of injustice, promoting peace and security in a world that respects the rights and dignity of all people.

References:

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401.
2. Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press.
3. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Joppke, C. (2004). The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy. The British Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 237-257.
5. Roy, O. (2017). Jihad and Death: The Global Appeal of Islamic State. Hurst.
6. Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. University of Pennsylvania Press.
7. Kymlicka, W. (2015). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press.

The Clash of Civilizations Theory: A Tool for Imperialist Justification?

The "Clash of Civilizations" theory, presented by Samuel Huntington in 1993, has been one of the most debated and controversial theories in international relations during the post-Cold War era. According to Huntington, future conflicts will not be defined by ideological or economic differences but primarily by cultural and religious ones. He argued that civilizations, which are shaped by history, language, religion, and customs, would become the new primary units of conflict in a world where nation-states and ideologies are no longer the central points of reference in the global order.

 

Although this theory has been and continues to be popular in some circles within the academic community and politics, it has faced intense criticism from other scholars and analysts. One of the main critiques is that the "Clash of Civilizations" theory can be used as an ideological tool that justifies modern forms of imperialism and exploitation, masking the deeper economic and political causes of international conflicts.

Focusing on cultural differences may divert attention from the real causes of conflicts, such as economic inequalities, access to natural resources, and the global distribution of power. This argument emphasizes that conflicts are rarely the result of cultural differences alone but rather complex processes influenced by political, economic, social, and historical interests. For example, the wars in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003, have often been portrayed as inevitable due to cultural or religious differences. Still, many analysts point out that these conflicts were more about the control of energy resources and the geopolitical strategies of great powers (Johnson, 2007; Stokes & Raphael, 2010).

Moreover, Huntington’s theory might reinforce the idea that Western civilization is the universal or superior form of culture, which must be imposed or promoted in other societies. This perception can justify cultural and political interventions, such as those in the Middle East and other regions, under the pretext of spreading democracy and freedom, which often turn out to be forms of modern imperialism (Mamdani, 2004).

The categorization of civilizations into large geographic or religious groups also ignores the internal diversity and interaction between civilizations, as well as their historical cooperation and coexistence. For example, Islamic culture is not a monolithic entity but includes a vast array of traditions and historical differences that are not considered in Huntington’s theory. Critics of Huntington’s theory also highlight the historical cooperation between different civilizations, such as the coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Andalusia, or the long period of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims in the Ottoman Empire (Said, 2001; Lewis, 1995).

According to some, this theory could also create a climate of fear and insecurity, enhancing discrimination and xenophobia. The emphasis on conflict might strengthen the perception that differences are threats, leading to increased defense spending and restrictions on individual rights and freedoms in the name of cultural protection (Brown, 2014).

Finally, the use of the "Clash of Civilizations" theory may conceal the continuation of neo-colonial practices, where developed countries maintain and reinforce the dependence and control of developing countries through economic, political, and military influence. The emphasis on cultural conflicts can act as a veil that hides these economic and political dynamics, promoting a narrative that perpetuates inequality and exploitation (Grovogui, 2002).

In this context, Huntington’s theory can be seen not only as an interpretation of international politics but also as an ideological construct that can be used to justify intervention and control under the guise of cultural defense or superiority. Rather than offering a neutral analysis of the international order, it can function as a tool serving specific political and economic interests, maintaining existing inequalities and power structures.

References

1. Brown, C. (2014). Understanding International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Grovogui, S. (2002). Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law. University of Minnesota Press.
3. Johnson, C. (2007). Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Metropolitan Books.
4. Lewis, B. (1995). The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. Scribner.
5. Mamdani, M. (2004). Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. Pantheon.
6. Said, E. W. (2001). Orientalism. Penguin Books.
7. Stokes, D., & Raphael, S. (2010). Global Energy Security and American Hegemony. JHU Press.

In the Beginning Was the Word: The Origin of the Universe and Living Creation

The phrase "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" ("In the beginning was the Word") from the Gospel of John expresses a fundamental principle of Christian theology, especially within the Orthodox tradition. It signifies the eternal existence and creative power of the Logos, who is identified with Christ. The Logos is considered the divine principle through which God creates and sustains the universe. This perspective not only provides a profound understanding of the nature of the world but also opens the way for discussing the relationship between God, humanity, and creation.

Orthodox theology teaches that God is not only the creator of the universe but also its constant sustainer. Creation is not merely the result of an initial act but an ongoing process supported by divine energy (action). This view suggests that the world is neither static nor constrained by rigid rules. On the contrary, it is a living and dynamic expression of divine will, encompassing freedom, evolution, and the potential for renewal and change.

According to this tradition, the creation of humanity is one of God’s most remarkable and unfathomable acts. Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God, which means possessing reason, freedom, and the ability to love and create. This being in the image of God gives humans the potential to become like God by grace. This process, known as theosis, invites humans to partake in divine life and be transformed through grace and relationship with God. This does not mean that a person becomes God in essence but that they can partake in divine energies.

The theological view of creation and theosis underscores that the universe and life are not static or limited. They encompass freedom, potential for transformation, and continuous development. Humans are called to cooperate with divine grace, to transform themselves and the world, reflecting the model of Christ. This approach emphasizes the relationship between humans and God and the continuous pursuit of spiritual growth and love.

On the other hand, scientific research and the understanding of natural laws also provide a valuable framework for exploring the universe. Modern science, through physics and cosmology, offers significant insights into how the world works and the fundamental principles governing it. The Big Bang theory, for example, shows us that the universe is not static but expanding and evolving, indicating a process of creation that is continuous and dynamic.

Quantum physics, with its principle of uncertainty and quantum interactions, suggests that reality contains inherent uncertainty and dynamism. This hints at the idea that creation is not merely the result of predetermined laws but also includes elements of freedom and innovation. These scientific discoveries align with the Orthodox theological approach, which sees creation as a living process full of change and possibilities.

However, Orthodox theology offers a deeper understanding of the significance of scientific research. While the exploration of natural laws and understanding the universe is important and contributes to the progress of human knowledge, it should not be regarded as the ultimate purpose of our existence. An attachment to scientific knowledge as the most essential aspect of human life can lead to disorientation, diverting humanity from more fundamental issues such as love, spiritual quest, and relationship with God.

Thus, science is an important tool for understanding creation, but it must be integrated into a broader perspective that also includes the spiritual dimension of human existence. Orthodox theology teaches that knowledge and understanding of the world are important, but the true purpose of life is union with God and participation in divine life. Scientific knowledge can enhance this understanding but cannot replace it.

In contemporary thought, ideas such as the simulation hypothesis, which suggests that the universe could be a kind of computational simulation, raise interesting philosophical questions about the nature of reality. If the universe is indeed a simulation, then it might be the result of the creation of a higher being or civilization. While this theory is not theological in the traditional sense, it raises similar questions about creation and the possibility of a creator.

Combining these scientific and theological approaches, we can understand that the universe is not just a space of physical laws and processes but also a living, dynamic creation filled with meaning and purpose. Orthodox theology calls us to see the universe as an expression of divine will and love and humanity as participants in this divine creation, inviting them to evolve spiritually and transform themselves and the world through grace and divine relationship.

The quest for knowledge and understanding of the world is a noble endeavour, but it should not replace the spiritual quest and relationship with God. True evolution includes both the understanding of the physical world and the spiritual development towards union with God. Only with this balance can we fully comprehend human existence and the universe as God’s creation.

References

1. Bostrom, Nick. "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 211, 2003, pp. 243-255.
2. Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. 1641.
3. Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, 2010.
4. Penrose, Roger. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, 1989.
5. Tegmark, Max. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf, 2014.
6. Tipler, Frank J. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God, and the Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday, 1994.
7. Άγιος Μάξιμος ο Ομολογητής. Περί Αγάπης.
   (Saint Maximus the Confessor. On Love.)
   
8. Άγιος Γρηγόριος ο Παλαμάς. Υπέρ των Ιερών Ησυχαστών.
   (Saint Gregory Palamas. In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts.)
   
9. Ιωάννης Ρωμανίδης. Το Προπατορικό Αμάρτημα. Έκδοση Ορθόδοξος Κυψέλη, 2004.
   (John Romanides. The Ancestral Sin. Orthodox Kypseli, 2004.

The Construction of Material Reality by the Human Brain

The concept of material reality, as we perceive it, has a long history in both philosophy and science. Essentially, the idea that material reality may be a construction of the human brain raises fundamental questions about the nature of existence, consciousness, and the interaction between humans and the world. At the heart of these discussions lie scientific experiments and theories that challenge the objective existence of matter and suggest that the reality we experience is the result of mental processes.

One of the most well-known experiments that questioned the traditional understanding of matter is the double-slit experiment, initially conducted by Thomas Young in 1801 and later adapted to investigate quantum phenomena. The experiment demonstrated that when particles like electrons or photons pass through two slits without being observed, they create an interference pattern, akin to waves, indicating that they do not behave as distinct particles. However, when the path of the particle is observed, this pattern disappears, and the particle behaves like a small, discrete particle. This result suggests that observation, i.e., the act of human consciousness, can influence the behaviour of matter, challenging the idea that there is an objective, observation-independent reality.

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle further adds weight to this challenge. According to this principle, at the quantum level, we cannot simultaneously know both the position and momentum of a particle with precision. This idea undermines the notion of a fully determined reality and suggests that the very nature of reality is not fully determined until it is observed. In other words, reality is not a fixed, objective entity but a dynamic process that depends on interaction with the observer.

Beyond quantum physics, the holographic universe theory proposed by physicist David Bohm and neuroscientist Karl Pribram offers a radical perspective on reality. According to this theory, our brain may function like a hologram, creating a three-dimensional image of reality based on information distributed throughout the universe. This view suggests that reality, as we experience it, is a construction of our brain, a projection based on information from a deeper level of reality that is non-local and beyond our direct perception.

The philosophical approach of Idealism, as expressed in the works of George Berkeley, reinforces the idea that matter does not exist independently of human perception. For Berkeley, the existence of an object consists in its being perceived by someone. This means that matter, rather than existing independently of the observer, is inextricably linked to human consciousness and perception. Idealism, therefore, proposes that what we perceive as material reality is essentially a mental construct, not something that exists independently of us.

Moreover, quantum entanglement, a phenomenon where two or more particles remain interconnected so that the state of one affects the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them, suggests that reality is non-local. This means that information can be transmitted instantaneously between particles, defying conventional notions of space and time. This non-locality challenges the concept of a fixed, objective reality and opens the door to interpretations where reality is a more complex and interconnected structure, potentially dependent on consciousness and observation.

The Multiverse Theory proposes that there are infinite parallel universes, each with its own unique reality. Although this theory has not been scientifically proven, it raises the possibility that the reality as we know it may be only one of many alternative versions. If multiple universes do indeed exist, this would mean that material reality is not unique or absolute but one of many possibilities that may exist simultaneously on different levels of existence.

Finally, the Simulation Hypothesis, proposed by philosopher Nick Bostrom, has sparked intense debate regarding the nature of reality. According to this hypothesis, it is possible that the reality we experience is nothing more than a simulation created by a superior intelligence or civilization. If this theory is correct, then the material reality we experience is not the "real" reality but an artificial construction, a simulation controlled by factors beyond our perception.

These theories and experiments not only offer new perspectives on the understanding of matter and reality but also challenge our traditional perception of the world around us. Material reality, as we experience it, may be a dynamic and adaptive construction that depends on our interaction with consciousness. This approach opens new avenues for understanding the nature of existence, consciousness, and how humans experience the world.

The discussion surrounding these ideas is vibrant and constantly evolving, as new discoveries and theories continue to challenge our understanding of what reality is and how consciousness plays a central role in shaping this reality.

References

1. Feynman, R.P. The Character of Physical Law. MIT Press, 1967.
2. Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Harper, 1958.
3. Bohm, D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge, 1980.
4. Berkeley, G. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 1734.
5. Bostrom, N. "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quarterly, 2003.

Ethical Dilemmas and Autonomy in Artificial Intelligence: Who Bears the Responsibility?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made a powerful entry into every aspect of our daily lives, offering solutions and opportunities that were previously unimaginable. From autonomous vehicles and diagnostic systems in medicine to financial markets, AI has the potential to transform the way we live and work. However, this technology raises a series of ethical dilemmas, especially when it comes to its autonomy and the allocation of responsibility in case something goes wrong.

The autonomy that AI offers allows systems to make decisions without human intervention, but this autonomy also raises serious concerns. One of the most critical issues is the protection of individual rights. Decision-making by autonomous systems without the explicit consent of the individuals involved can lead to violations of privacy and human rights. For instance, facial recognition systems used by law enforcement have sparked concerns about the surveillance and control of citizens without their consent. When such technologies are used in violation of individual rights, who is responsible?

Additionally, algorithmic bias represents another significant ethical issue. AI systems are trained on data that may contain biases, leading to these biases being embedded in the decisions made by autonomous systems. This is particularly troubling in areas such as criminal justice, where AI is used to predict the risk of recidivism or to issue sentences. When an AI system makes decisions that are biased against specific social groups, who bears responsibility for the consequences?

AI is not merely a technology but a decision-making agent. Autonomous systems are often called upon to choose between different ethical values, such as safety, privacy, and justice. Managing these value conflicts is extremely difficult, and AI systems often make decisions that humans would find highly problematic. Scenarios like the "trolley problem," where an autonomous vehicle must choose whether to sacrifice the passenger to save more pedestrians, are classic examples of these ethical challenges. The developers of these systems are responsible for embedding the appropriate ethical principles, but who decides which principles are the correct ones?

An even larger problem is the "black box" phenomenon, where AI systems operate in ways that even their creators cannot fully understand. This creates serious issues of transparency and trust. When an AI system makes a decision that negatively impacts a person, but we cannot explain how or why that decision was made, how can we assign responsibility? Transparency and the ability to audit AI systems are essential to ensuring accountability.

Regulating AI is one of the greatest challenges facing legislators worldwide. Without appropriate regulatory frameworks, the risks associated with AI will continue to grow. Some international organizations, like the European Union, have started developing regulations to ensure the safety, transparency, and accountability of AI systems. At the same time, international cooperation is crucial to develop common standards, given that AI is global and not confined by borders.

Finally, it is essential to invest in the education and awareness of professionals involved in the development and use of AI systems. Ethics in AI should not remain merely a theoretical issue but should be a central part of the education and practice of those involved. This requires a multidisciplinary approach, combining knowledge from computer science, philosophy, law, and sociology, to ensure that AI systems are developed in a way that considers their ethical implications.

In summary, the autonomy of artificial intelligence offers tremendous possibilities, but it also brings to light a series of complex ethical dilemmas that must be addressed with seriousness. Responsibility for the decisions made by autonomous AI systems must be clearly assigned, and this requires the collaboration of legislators, developers, businesses, and society as a whole. Transparency, education, and proper regulation are essential elements to ensure that AI is used in ways that promote the common good and minimize risks. In a world where AI is becoming increasingly powerful, it is crucial to remain informed and maintain a critical stance toward the ethical challenges it brings.

References:

1. Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 316-334). Cambridge University Press.
2. Dastin, J. (2018). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters.
3. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
4. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
5. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.

Theosis - The Purpose of Human Life

The search for the purpose of life has preoccupied humanity for millennia. In the Orthodox Christian tradition, the answer to this question is clear and deeply theological: the purpose of human life is theosis, which means union with God. This concept goes beyond mere moral improvements or material pursuits and offers a higher understanding of human destiny. Orthodoxy, through the writings of the Fathers and its contemporary theologians, guides us on this lofty spiritual journey.

Saint Gregory the Theologian, in one of his well-known writings, notably states that man is a "living being being deified," that is, a living being destined to become god by grace. This theological position is also reiterated by Saint Maximus the Confessor, who emphasizes that theosis is the highest calling of man, which cannot be achieved through human effort alone, but through divine grace and human cooperation.

Theosis, as taught by the Orthodox Church, is not a theoretical idea but a real process through which man partakes of the divine nature, without becoming identical to God in His essence. This union is possible only through God's grace and through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. God became man so that man might become god by grace. This transcendent reality is revealed to us in the person of Christ, who brought about the incarnation and opened the path to theosis for every human being. Archimandrite George, in his work Theosis as the Purpose of Human Life, explains that without this divine intervention, man, given over to sin and the fall, could not achieve union with God.

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, in one of his most significant contemporary theological works, emphasizes that theosis is not only the purpose of human life but also the essence of Orthodox spirituality. For Metropolitan Hierotheos, theosis is the return of man to his original glory, which he had before the fall. He points out that this union with God is not merely a moral improvement, but the complete regeneration of man, made possible through the Sacraments of the Church and spiritual exercise.

The Church, as the Body of Christ, is the place where this journey toward theosis is fulfilled. Through the Sacraments, such as Baptism, Chrismation, and especially the Divine Eucharist, the believer is incorporated into the Body of Christ and receives the divine grace necessary for his spiritual journey. This participation is not merely a formal act but the essence of the believer's life, which regenerates him and makes him "god by grace." As highlighted in Archimandrite George's work, the Church is the only path that leads to theosis, and departure from it means the loss of the source of divine grace.

Saint Symeon the New Theologian, one of the most important theologians of the Middle Ages, emphasized the necessity of a personal relationship with God to achieve theosis. Theosis, he notes, is not achieved through mere moral improvement, but through the experiential knowledge of God, offered to the believer through prayer and the sacraments of the Church.

Therefore, theosis is not merely a moral perfection. Moral improvement is important, but it is not the ultimate purpose of human life. The true purpose transcends morality and is found in the complete union with God. This purpose cannot be achieved by human efforts alone; it requires the continuous help and grace of God, which is provided through the Church. Man was not created simply to live a good and virtuous life in this world but to become a participant in divine life, to become god by grace. Without this direction, man loses his true destiny and remains unfulfilled, no matter how much he tries to fill his life with other activities or pleasures.

The journey toward theosis is the true purpose of human life, and this path leads through the Church. The Church is the place where man is called to become one with God, not only through the Sacraments but also through continuous spiritual exercise and a personal relationship with Christ. This union is what gives meaning and purpose to our lives, making the journey toward theosis the most magnificent and essential work we can pursue.

References:

1. Archimandrite George, Theosis as the Purpose of Human Life, Holy Monastery of St. Gregory, Mount Athos, 2005.
2. Saint Gregory the Theologian, Theological Orations.
3. Saint Maximus the Confessor, On Love.
4. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Life in Christ, Publications of the Holy Monastery of the Nativity of the Theotokos.
5. Saint Symeon the New Theologian, Hymns of Divine Love.

Τhe Nature of Time

The concept of time has occupied philosophers, theologians, and scientists from antiquity to the present day. Our understanding of time has profoundly shaped and influenced our perception of the universe and human existence. From the theological approaches of Basil the Great and Augustine to modern scientific theories like Einstein's, the concept of time is examined as one of the fundamental dimensions of reality.

Starting with theology, Basil the Great, one of the Church Fathers, in his work Hexaemeron, argues that time is a creation of God and begins with the creation of the world. In the first chapter of his work, he states: "That which begins in time must also be completed in time," suggesting that time, like the world, is a result of divine creation and did not exist before it. This approach emphasizes that time is inextricably linked to material existence and motion.

Furthermore, in the same work, Basil highlights the fluid nature of time, saying, "The course of time, therefore, is inherent to the world... everything hurries and flows." This phrase underscores the concept of time as an unceasing flow, which is inherent in movement and change within the world.

Augustine, one of the great philosophers and theologians of the early Christian church, analyzes time in the 11th book of his Confessions. In his analysis, Augustine presents time as a dimension directly connected to human consciousness. Specifically, he divides time into three parts: the past, the present, and the future.

Augustine points out that the past exists in memory, the future in expectation, and the present in perception. In Book 11, Chapter 20, he writes: "What is time? If no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to someone, I do not know" (Quid est ergo tempus? Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio). With this phrase, Augustine expresses the complex and elusive nature of the present moment.

As he continues his analysis, Augustine notes that time is perceived only through memory, perception, and expectation. He states that "the past and the future do not exist in a substantive sense, but only as psychological states of human consciousness." This means that time, as we experience it, has no real substance outside of our experience within it.

The understanding of time changes radically with Albert Einstein's theories in the early 20th century. In his theory of relativity, Einstein redefines time as something relative, connected to space, forming the unified spacetime continuum. This theory demonstrated that time is not absolute but is affected by factors such as speed and gravity.

In his work Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Einstein explains that the time measured by two observers can differ depending on the conditions under which they are situated. This perspective introduces the notion that time is not constant but flexible and dependent on the context in which it is measured.

The modern string theory, as developed by Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, extends the understanding of time and space by proposing that they are part of a multidimensional universe. This theory introduces the idea that there may be hidden dimensions that influence the nature of reality and time. Although this theory is still under development, it opens new avenues for considering time and reality.

Finally, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, one of the most significant contemporary theologians and philosophers, attempts to link theology with science. In his work The Phenomenon of Man, he introduces the concept of the "Omega Point," suggesting that time is an evolutionary process leading humanity and the universe to a final encounter with the divine.

Teilhard de Chardin's perspective combines evolutionary theory with a spiritual viewpoint, where time is not only a physical dimension but also a spiritual force guiding the evolution of consciousness and existence.

From theology to modern science, time is presented as a multidimensional concept that connects material reality with human experience and divine will. Basil the Great views time as a creation of God, Augustine examines it as a dimension of human consciousness, while Einstein and Greene place it at the center of physical reality. Finally, Teilhard de Chardin links time with the spiritual evolution of the universe.

All these approaches, despite their differences, converge in the idea that time is fundamental to understanding reality, proving that religion, philosophy, and science can be united in a single vision of the world and our existence.

Sources:

• Basil the Great, Hexaemeron.
• Augustine, Confessions.
• Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory.
• Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe.
• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man.

The Culture of Profit

The culture of profit characterizes our era, affecting all aspects of social and economic life. In modern societies, the pursuit of profit has become the primary goal for businesses and many individuals. This approach causes significant changes in values, priorities, and behaviours, with both positive and negative consequences.

 

On the positive side, profit-seeking can drive progress and innovation. The need for economic growth and competitiveness pushes businesses to improve products and services, develop new technologies, and invest in research and development. This results in improved quality of life, job creation, and increased prosperity.

However, the dominance of the profit culture has negative aspects. Excessive emphasis on economic success can lead to disregard for ethical values, social responsibilities, and environmental impacts. Some businesses, in their effort to maximize profits, resort to unfair practices, such as exploiting workers, polluting the environment, and violating human rights. These practices not only harm society but also undermine the sustainability of businesses in the long run.

Furthermore, the culture of profit affects human relationships and personal happiness. Overemphasis on economic gain can lead to alienation, stress, and lack of meaning in life. People focused solely on economic success may neglect other important aspects of their lives, such as family, friends, and personal development. Ancient wisdom reminds us of the value of moderation: "Μέτρον άριστον" (moderation is best).

The culture of profit, as applied since the rise of rationalism, has proven destructive for societies that adopt it. The rationalistic approach, centred on rationality and absolute logic, has drained all humanity from social and economic structures. Human relationships, solidarity, and emotional well-being are often sacrificed on the altar of efficiency and profit. Sociologist Max Weber analysed this trend as the "disenchantment" of the world, where values and moral traditions retreat before bureaucratic and rational thought.

To address the negative consequences of the culture of profit, it is necessary to redefine our values and integrate ethics and social responsibility into business practices and daily life. Businesses must adopt a sustainable development model that considers social and environmental well-being alongside economic profit. Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer in the Harvard Business Review argue that businesses can create shared value by integrating social responsibility into their strategy. Consumers, on their part, can support responsible businesses and demand transparency and accountability.

The culture of profit is not inherently negative, but its excess can cause serious problems. By incorporating values of ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability, we can create a balanced and fair society where profit and prosperity go hand in hand.

References:

1. Plato, "Republic", Book I.
2. Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics".
3. Weber, Max. "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
4. Harvard Business Review, "Creating Shared Value" by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer.
5. World Economic Forum, "The Future of the Corporation".
6. European Union, "Directive on Corporate Social Responsibility".