Aleksi Ivanov Gramatikov

Ever since at least the philosophy of Francis Bacon humanity’s relationship with nature has been one of both violence and technological advancement, of exploitation and alienation. In his seminal work, Novum Organum, originally published in Latin in 1620, one can see how Bacon establishes his empirical centring in the following quote: ‘Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed’. Despite his utopian vision of empirical science, there is yet a kernel of understanding that not only is nature characterised by its resources but that it also signifies a fundamental order to the world in which we live. A fundamental order which may be understood through human reason, were we to simply apply it to empirical science. Now, more than ever, it seems that our domination over nature is increasingly one-sided. Far from mere ‘command’, humanity has the tools and knowledge not only to direct nature but to fundamentally reshape it altogether. From rewiring entire ecosystems to genetically modifying fauna and flora out of existence: it seems we are without ‘equal’ in our natural world. Contrary to this conception of human destiny and its domineering of the natural world, there is no shortage of desire to rekindle and heal our connection to and with nature. For many years activists like Vandana Shiva have struggled and fought for the rights of people from whom a connection to their land has been unjustly severed. It seems that in such cases the interests of industry and enterprise sustain not only the exploitation of nature but also the alienation of people. Nonetheless, amidst the plethora of reasons we may have in adopting a crippling pessimism, leaps and bounds continue to be made. Perhaps a not so insignificant aspect to the success of such efforts made in healing our relationship with nature can be attributed to such theoretical frameworks and shifts employed by thinkers like Shiva. As found in her 2022 book, Terra Viva: My Life in a Biodiversity of Movements, a shift from ego to eco may prove fundamental. Of course, we do not have to look too far afield to find such voices of encouragement, insight and understanding regarding the current climate crisis and what can and must be done. Ireland’s former Uachtarán, Mary Robinson, staunchly challenges the ideas at the vanguard of our current capitalist system. In a 2025 commentary entitled ‘No, Bill Gates, we don’t have to choose between people & planet (commentary)’, Robinson rightly opposes the apathetic views of multibillionaire Bill Gates, for whom the question of climate change is posed as one of an impossible choice between progress and saving our future on this planet. As her commentary highlights, realism should not be taken to mean resignation and so too is technology not the only factor in our healing the planet we call home. If nothing more, collective action will bring us both together and closer. It can be hoped that nature is included in our visions of the future. In this, our third, issue Maynooth Philosophy Supplement explores the relationship philosophy has with our natural world, humanity’s place in the world and how we may attempt to articulate an understanding of ecology more broadly. From pieces exploring spiritual encounters with the natural world, philosophies of ecology and nature, to those grappling with the human factor in our current ecological disasters: we hope this volume brings forth in the reader a heightened appreciation and philosophical reflection on our one and only home.

During the years 1967–1968, Paulo Freire, in exile, wrote his Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Originally written in Portuguese and first published in Spanish in 1968, we end up receiving its first edition in English in 1970. In this relatively short book, Freire posits at least one foundational claim: education can be a source (and force) of liberation, but is often implemented to the contrary. Certainly, for Freire, education is all about freedom. Education, as the means through which ideas are transmitted and given space to grow, is capable of indoctrination. This constant struggle between simply prescribing a way of thought and allowing a student the breathing space to flourish—this is one of the central problems of education. On the one hand, the novice requires instruction insofar as they need help to simply begin learning, in whatever discipline that may be. On the other, creativity can, potentially, be stifled. If we are to consult Freire at all, education, if it is to be anything more than the replication of existing ideas in the minds of students, must always be geared towards liberation. From what he calls, in Portuguese, conscientização, or ‘critical consciousness’, we can infer that the student does not only receive knowledge but is, and should be treated as, a valuable co-creator of it too. Indeed, when reading a book the reader necessarily, already, influences its meaning for, and effect on, the ‘world’. In nurturing a critical, empathetic, conscientious attitude towards knowledge, we can liberate each other. In cultivating ‘critical consciousness’ we equip one another with the necessary ‘tools’ and attitude to not only make sense of the world but to also think about its betterment. Education as such, as a collective process, is both dialectical and empathetic. In this way we may hope to live up to the ideals of human rights, virtue, and freedom. For, as the idiom goes, an education without the education of the heart is no education at all. In this, our second, issue Maynooth Philosophy Supplement explores the importance, and many complexities, of education. With pieces ranging from articles on philosophies of education, to those who highlight and tackle the uncertainties of the contemporary, to pieces that educate us on the authors’ expert subject matter, this collection holds a breadth and depth of insight befitting of its topic.

According to Max Ferdinand Scheler, love is a priori a force unto human life. A force whose sake is not dominion but acts as integral ‘movement’. Scheler’s notion of ‘movement’ grounds itself on his interpretation of love as agape. This text endeavours to explore and highlight Scheler’s notion of love, and use the movie ‘My Dinner with Andre’ as fulfilling example and for demonstrative purposes. When the cliché ‘all we need is love’ rings in the ear, it is often mentioned how naïve one must be to still associate oneself with such ‘delusion’. On the contrary, when one delves into the totality of love as movement, as valuable for its own sake, the naivete of such comments of ‘delusion’ becomes clearly unparalleled. If someone were to say that the body does not require its blood, seldom would we consider their heads to be adequately filled with it. Even if we were not so zealous, the role of love and its imprint on sympathy is worth considering—most especially the sympathy needed in dialogue. Whether it is possible to love someone so totally different from oneself—in short, the complete ‘Other’—is discussed. Furthermore, with ideas such as toleration making their way into contemporary discourse, we beg the question of whether that is enough. That said, it is not that in inquiring if it is adequate we wish to devalue toleration, but instead advocate for a more fulfilling notion. In the hopes of ‘being authentic’, in an unarbitrary sense, something much more passionate is required.

In Surplus-Enjoyment: A Guide for the Non-Perplexed, Žižek reiterates what he has already been saying for the last thirty years. As the saying should go: if one has read his acclaimed The Sublime Object of Ideology one has gained adequate knowledge of most of his works. This general strand—which passes through all his works—what is it? In other words, what is the essence of Mr. Žižek’s works? If one were to approach this superficially, one would say that he tries to analyse contemporary literature, movies, and other pop-culture phenomena, and reach a conclusion which enlightens the reader of the discrepancies of contemporary life, i.e. help create the examined life. But, like everything else surrounding Mr. Žižek, it is not so simple. However, to save the readers’ valuable time, a defining feature of (most of) Žižek’s books is the promotion of Lacanian structural psychoanalysis. If not in absolute agreement with its claims, he nonetheless features it as either an authoritative reference point, a source of inspiration, or by way of grafting it onto other forms of analysis—such as the Marxist/Marxian one. To go a step further, his public persona of a Marxist thinker has helped give relevance to his work. People, students and young people in particular, have become more ‘Left-leaning’ than ever before. It helps to discuss existential matters in a classroom, and better still to extrapolate one’s understanding of logic. However, when one’s actual existence is scrutinised, and one’s means of continuing to live are endangered, philosophy itself becomes more than a struggle over intellectual pursuits—the intellectual informs and reflects the very real material conditions of one’s actual existence. That is to say, in more ways than in an ordinary sense, one has a stake in the conclusions produced by these matters of philosophy. And so, Mr. Žižek prospers. His titles include no less than ‘The most dangerous philosopher in the west’. Here lies one of the biggest problems that plague us today: the sensational nonsense with which we greet our modern-day celebrity-thinkers. Žižek is a Marxist that threatens with his Stalinism, all the while insisting that we should return to Hegel through Marx. In the end, this Marxism of his bares no semblance of emancipatory will. If one were to congratulate him for anything, it would be for his making of Marx, and of Marxism, a lifestyle brand. To add to his accolades, Mr. Žižek is the greatest Marxist thinker that could be enjoyed by the capitalist simpleton of today. Just like our contemporary politics, his Marxism is only there to please us as yet another form of cheap entertainment. Mr. Žižek acts as Capitalism’s Court Jester (Rockhill 2023).

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born on the 15th of October, 1844, in Röcken (part of modern-day Lützen), in the Prussian province of Saxony. His father, Carl Ludwig Nietzsche, was the Lutheran pastor for the village, and Nietzsche grew up within the church. However, as is well known, Nietzsche changed his opinion over the course of his short life. No one event can be said to have had as great of an impact in this regard than the death of his father and younger brother, Ludwig Joseph Nietzsche. In losing his father and brother, Friedrich lost his faith. His critique of religion is congenial with the Marxist critique of religion, but of course not without its nuances. Then again, he adopted Schopenhauer’s pessimism regarding so-called ‘popular’ movements and ‘altruism’—inspiring the early Max Ferdinand Scheler. This has not, however, stopped said Marxists from gaining inspiration from this, in his own right, ‘revolutionary’ thinker. His misogyny is no secret either, and yet he is persistently referred to by Feminist critics and analysts. Freudian psychoanalysts have relished the scraps given to them in Nietzsche’s writings, sometimes obsessing over the most obscure passages, of which it is questionable if Nietzsche ever gave such relevance in his writing them. All this to say, the difficulty and uncertainty of Nietzsche’s philosophy has never stopped anyone from arguing, debating, and getting inspired. The philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche has grown beyond its originator. What is the ‘true’ message of his overall philosophy cannot ever be decided by any one person or way of thought. Regardless, it is not that Nietzsche is a blank canvas and one may simply interpret his philosophy in any way one wishes. If we are to respect his philosophy, we must take his advice: the views and wisdoms of others must be taken as suggestions for the flourishing of our own. The value of a revolutionary spirit is not in their doctrines but in their right attitude. One can never be correct all the time, and for good reason: honesty infers change. In this, our first, issue Maynooth Philosophy Supplement presents the reader with several perspectives on Nietzsche’s philosophy, its value, influences, and overall the continued relevance of Nietzsche’s insights. The debate surrounding Nietzsche’s philosophy is alive and well: his legacy continues.