Introduction:
[1]
I appear before you today not so much to make a presentation as I am here to
extend an invitation.
[2]
I invite you to query: What’s next?
[3]
I deliberately ask “what is next” instead of “what comes next” because, I
believe, what comes next is already here.
[4]
Everything that arises is preceded by a seed. (Samkhya[1])
[5]
Considering ancient and modern philosophy, what kind of philosophy will the Twenty-First
Century breed?
Objective:
[6]
Nexistentialist philosophy seeks to capture inherited and timeless truths of
what binds us, to guide humanity forward as we exercise our creative
expression.
[7] Nexistentialism is a means for humans to explore our creative impulses and
bonds (art).
Question:
What inherited wisdom can you think of and how it may guide us forward?
[8] Nexistentialist philosophy also seeks to understand what links exist between phenomena, for example, between the mind, its kin and the universe.
Question: What interrelated phenomena do you perceive in yourself and the world?
[9] Thus, I would like to invite you to inquire with me, what perceptions, on this planet and beyond, guide humanity today and will guide humanity tomorrow?
Question: What do you imagine next after Ancient and Modern Philosophy?
Perception:
[10]
Nexistentialism views philosophy as the Art of Perception – amidst other
natural arts.
[11]
Linked cognitive paths represent webs of meaning,
[12]
which create perceptive nets that sustain illusions of
[13]
fantasy (what an individual imagines) and
[14]
reality (what is shared amongst individuals).
[15]
What is the mind designed to do? The mind binds.
[16]
Nexus is the act of binding together thus creating information and experiences
to perceive.
[17] Nexistentialism is the exploration of what binds humanity and all that surrounds us. For, [18] nothing exists in isolation.
Question:
In your view, what binds humanity?
Origin:
[19]
Let me tell you how Nexistentialism happened.
[20]
At the nexus of nexistential philosophy lies the inquiry of what follows
post-existentialist philosophy at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
[21]
Existentialism culminates in the twentieth century as an exploration of human
existence, which postulates that existence precedes essence. If subjectivity
must be the starting point (Sartre) of perception, Nexistentialism asks: what
follows?
[22]
In the early 2000s, the concept of an Existential Carnival emerged, which
included notions of atheism, absurdity, authenticity and ambiguity inspired by existentialist
philosophy. I viewed life as a carnival and sought my authentic expression
within it.
[23]
At first, the word “Nexistentialism” arose as a merging of “next” and
“existentialism” combined with the notion of creating a version of
existentialism that is authentically my own, as my name starts with an “N”
-> N’s existentialism, in the Sartrean spirit of subjectivity being the
starting point.
[24]
But in 2005, a Washingtonian writer introduced me to the word “nexus”, which
gave nexistentialism a new dimension of meaning.
[25] Thus, nexistentialism came to be from the love of existentialist philosophy, the inquiry into what is philosophically next, the search for my own authentic philosophical expression and coming to understand the meaning of the word “nexus” as a foundation of human existence.
[26] In 2008, this blog “Nexistential Carnival” was born.
Question:
What would you name a contemporary authentic philosophy and why?
Nexistentialism on the Meaning of Philosophy
[27]
Philosophy is an Art of Perception – amidst many other natural arts.
[28] To philosophize requires effort, practice and a devotion to the pursuit of
truth.
[29] Sure, philosophy can be understood as a system of thought. But,
[30]
Can any system of thought, even an immoral one, be considered philosophy?
[31]
Inherent to philosophy, from Greek literally meaning “love of wisdom”, is
[32] a notion of love, characterized by a healthy (balanced) pursuit of
[33] wisdom, an equanimous and blissful existential guide.
[34] Not any form of thought or system of thought can be considered loving and
wise.
[35] In the pursuit of philosophy, it is important to ask what characterizes a
system of thought as love for wisdom. What is lovely about it? What makes it
wise?
Question: Can you think of a philosophy and describe what makes it
lovely and wise?
[36] “The fate of philosophy and that of civilization are directly and
intimately linked,” according to 20th century Existentialist
philosopher Gabriel Marcel.[2]
[37] At the dawn of the 21st century, Nexistentialism emerges as a philosophical
path that explores the human Art of Perception beyond ancient and modern
philosophical orientations.
Question: Given all the human love and wisdom leading up to this present
moment, where do we go from here?
[38] Nexistentialism’s orientation lies with Planet Earth as a whole and
humanity at large, [36] unlike other place-and-time specific philosophies, like
French Existentialism, for example, which Jean-Paul Sartre characterized as
atheistic:
[39] “There are two kinds of existentialists; first those who are Christian,
among whom I would include Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both Catholic; and on
the other hand the atheistic existentialists, among whom I class Heidegger, and
then the French existentialists and myself. What they have in common is that
they think […] existence precedes essence, […] subjectivity must be the
starting point.”[3]
[40] Nexistenlism has no particular religious orientation or lack thereof.
[41] For, philosophy applies to everyone, all populations organize information through
some form of language, culture, arts and belief systems.
[42] Shared wisdom is characteristic of humankind.
Question: What wisdom did you learn from your family, community, tradition
or culture?
[43] Nexus is a center for connection. Not unlike New York City, where
humans from the entire world live together, 8.5 million New Yorkers with unique
individual backgrounds. Its Mayor Zohran Mamdani beautifully captures the human
spirit of co- existing in his inauguration speech:
[44] “That love [of New York] will be our guide as we pursue our agenda.
Here, where the language of the New Deal was born. We will return the vast
resources of this city to the workers who call it home. Not only will we make
it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again. We will
overcome the isolation that too many feel and connect the people of this city
to one another. […]
[Our] policies are not simply about the costs we make free but the lives we
fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those
who can afford to buy it. […]
We will answer to all New Yorkers, not to any billionaire or oligarch who
thinks they can buy our democracy. […]
And while we will encourage New Yorkers to demand from those with the great
privilege to serve them, we will encourage you to demand more of yourselves as
well. The movement we began […] lives on with every battle we will fight
together.
Every blizzard and flood we withstand together. […]
Every way we pursue change in working people’s interests rather than at their
expense, together.
[…] we will understand victory very simply: something with the power to
transform lives, and something that demands effort from each of us, every
single day.
What we achieved together will reach across the five boroughs, and it will
resonate far beyond.”
[45] Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s speech is a contemporary example of genuine
philosophy, characterized by the pursuit of wisdom as collective well-being
and through the exercise of love as our common responsibilities.
[46] Wisdom is collective well-being.
[47] By logic, if all are well, the individual is well.
[48] All humans, all creatures and ecosystems deserve a best possible life.
[49] When everyone thrives, the few, too, thrive!
[50] Because a collective includes all individuals, while an individual
includes no one else.
[51] Thus, genuine philosophy is a declaration of love, of common
responsibilities.
[52] Love is the recognition of a reality that binds us, kindly.
[53] In stark contrast to philosophy stands faux-philosophy,
characterized by delusion through the exercise of irresponsibility, ignorance,
and afflictions like greed (that faux-favor a few at the cost of the many).
[54] Fake philosophy may appear intelligent but is unwise.
[55] Faux-philosophy is a declaration of indifference.
[56] A historic example of false philosophy is the Friedman doctrine, which
espoused profit as the only moral imperative, otherwise indifferent to people
and the world.
[57] “In 1970, the so-called Friedman doctrine became the corporate
bible of greed. [E]conomist Milton Friedman wrote that the only social
responsibility of a business was to increase its profits. Fifty years later, that
sentence has done more damage to working people than any law that has ever been
passed. Friedman published his essay in the New York Times on September 13th,
1970. He argued that corporations should only serve one master, the
shareholder, and that everything else, like paying fair wages or protecting the
environment, was a distraction from freedom.
His logic was simple. If businesses focus solely on profit, the market will
magically solve everything. But the free market he preached wasn’t freedom. It
was deregulation, privatization, and union busting disguised as philosophy. By
the Reagan era, Friedman’s doctrine had become corporate gospel. CEOs stopped
seeing themselves as employers and started seeing themselves as share price
managers. […] Pensions disappeared, wages froze, and they modeled corporate
profits at historic highs while the working class’ share of income collapsed.
The Friedman doctrine […] rewired capitalism into a one-way pipeline from labor
to shareholders.
Just about every modern crisis, climate collapse, healthcare monopolies, mass
layoffs, financial crashes, traces back to this idea that profit is the only
moral duty. When companies poison water, underpay workers, or automate entire
towns out of existence, they can point back to Friedman and say, “we’re doing
our job.”
Milton Friedman called that economic freedom. But what he really created was
moral bankruptcy, a world where profit isn’t just the goal, it’s always the
excuse.”[4]
[58] Could this faux-philosophy have reflected a response to what
preceded it?
[59] “Between 1948 and 1973 the United States became very egalitarian.
The distance between the richest person and the poorest person had shrunk and
there was enormous wealth in the United States. It was the heyday for the
United States economically. It was a 25-year span of time post World War Two. Piketty,
the French author who wrote ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, [in his
book] he says it’s the only time in human history where you could get a job and
work your way to wealth. He said, all the other times in human history you need
to either marry into wealth or be born into it or win the lottery.”[5]
[60] The greatest collective prosperity in history, which took place in
the United States of America, was a result of president Franklin Roosevelt’s
New Deal.
[61] “The idea of government regulation and a basic social safety net to
permit Americans to live their lives to their fullest potential was a key
principle of the New Deal launched by Democratic president Franklin Delano
Roosevelt in 1933, [which] was born in New York City [where] reform quickly
became bipartisan […], where Republicans had their own history of progressivism
under Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.”[6]
[62] According to American historian Heather Cox Richardson, “Mamdani’s
speech was a declaration of a new kind of modern politics that focuses on
‘freedom to’ rather than ‘freedom from.’ For decades, the Republican Party has
called for dismantling the government, arguing that regulations and taxes were
destroying Americans’ freedom from constraints. But for most Americans,
government regulation and investments in social welfare like education and
infrastructure guarantee freedom to build a life that is not cramped by
preventable obstacles, including those imposed by the wealthy and powerful.”
[63] On a cold New York Monday, January 5th, 2026, Attorney
General Lititia James thanked her colleagues “for the opportunity to join them
as we draw a line in the sand against basically corporate greed and those
individuals who put profit ahead of people”[7],
before Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed two executive orders[8] to
protect New Yorkers against misleading fees and deceptive subscription traps
because these are making goods and services less affordable for people.
[64] Alternating points of view, genuine philosophies and fake ones, reflect
a world of contradictions.
[65] Notable is the extent to which even faux-philosophies influence the lives
of real people, systems of thought that deny the reality of our shared humanity
and result in widespread injustice and suffering.
[67] The establishment of the Mayor’s Office of Mass Engagement (OMC) in
New York City on Friday, January 2nd, 2026, aims to bring
unprecedented mass-organizing success to City Hall[9]
and is a great example of taking into account the shared reality of an entire
population. As its Commissioner Tascha Van Auken expressed:
“Knowledge, curiosity and possibility belong to everyone. […] At a time when
many people feel cynical, overwhelmed, or isolated, often alone with their
phones, we found a way back to one another. […] [The Office of Mass Engagement]
is about organizing participation at scale, strengthening feedback loops so
public input shapes policy, and building the relationships and systems, human
and digital, that make long-term co-governance possible. […] As Commissioner my
commitment is simple and serious. To help build a government that works for all
New Yorkers, invites them in, and treats their participation as consequential. A
government that doesn’t just ask for input but acts on it. And one that
helps New Yorkers see themselves not as spectators but as co-creators of our
shared future.”
[68] Information is worthless without action. Or, in the spirit of
Simone de Beauvoir’s (1908-1986) “Ethics of Ambiguity” (1947), life and thought
are inextricably linked, which means that we are what we do.[10]
[69] Throughout the history of philosophy, dialectics (from Greek “to talk”), the
logic of contradiction or method of critical and contradiction-informed
philosophizing, informed a variety of systems of thought leading to
cross-roads. In 1956, French existentialist Marcel Gabriel (1889-1973) wrote:
[70] “Existentialism stands today at a parting of the ways: it is, in
the last analysis, obliged either to deny or to transcend itself.
It denies itself simply when it falls to the level of infra-dialectical
materialism.
It transcends itself, or tends to transcend itself, when it opens itself out to
the experience of the suprahuman, an experience which can hardly be ours in a
genuine and lasting way this side of death, but of which reality is attested by
mystics.”[11]
[71] Nexistentialism doesn’t deny but it does transcend existentialism.
[72] Dialectical materialism, amongst other things, recognizes the evolution of
the natural world, and thus the emergence of new qualities of being human and
of human existence.[12]
[73] A nexistential illustration of the dialectics of the time is an exploration
of contemporary events (i.e., a new administration in New York City) and historical
moments with significant consequences (i.e. the New Deal, the Friedman article).
[74] The juxtaposition of perspectives is a characteristic of philosophy.
[75] Exploring different points of view and possibilities is an important step in
the process of making decisions, and it is the responsibility of philosophy to
inform particularly collective decisions wisely.
[76] For the philosopher, humility is of the highest order as one who perceives
is alone only in appearance.
[77] Philosophy has a collective and universal dimension that transcends any
individual perspective.
[78] In the words of existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, “No
existence can be validly fulfilled if it is limited to itself.”
[1] “According to the Sankhya Philosophy, a non-entity
can never be made an entity, that is to say, that which has never existed can
never be brought into existence […] Thus we find the effect is always […]
related to the cause.” The Samkhya Karika of Ishvara Krishna with the Tattva Kaumudi of Sri
Vacaspati Mishra by Swami Virupakshananda. 1995, 1st edition. 2021,
8th print. Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press, Mylapore, Chennai-4,
India. page vii.
[2] Dictionary
of Existentialism. Compiled and arranged by Ralph B. Winin. 1960. The Wisdom
Library, Philosophical Library, New York. Page 80.
[3] Ibidem,
p. 33.
[4]
Transcribed from Instagram, “The Friedman Doctrine: How Profit Became the Only
Moral Imperative” @theepochofshadows (The Epoch of Shadows), posted on Nov.
4th, 2025.
[5] Transcribed
from Instagram post “What happened to the United States?”, an excerpt from an
interview with Dr. Roy Casagranda @ageofempires_history on December 4th,
2025.
[6] Heather Cox Richardson,
contemporary American historian. “Letters from an American”, January 2nd,
2026.
[7] Mayor Mamdani Signs
Executive Orders to Crack Down on Junk Fees, Save New Yorkers Money - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-doQOgXjxM
@ 10:31 min.
[8]
Executive Orders No.9 – Combatting Hidden Junk Fees and No.10 – Fighting
Subscription Tricks and Traps.
[9] “On
Mayor Mamdani’s campaign, Tascha spearheaded a historic field operation —
mobilizing more than 100,000 volunteers, knocking on over 3 million doors, and
making more than 4.5 million calls to New York City voters. Now she will bring
this experience and approach to City government. The Office of Mass Engagement
will revolutionize how City government conducts community engagement. City
government functions best when there is a direct line of communication between
the Mayor, his team and the people who built this city and keep it running. The
Office will transform community engagement to ensure that it reaches New
Yorkers where they are, organizes them, and builds long-term participation. It
will also serve as a constant drumbeat within City government to ensure that
New Yorkers’ needs and perspectives are integrated into all elements of New
York City government.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz55h4gbGuE&t=745s
[10] “Simone’s
Existentialist Ethics”, Anja Steinbauer on Simone de Beauvoir’s Ethics
of Ambiguity (2016); Simone’s
Existentialist Ethics | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Simones_Existentialist_Ethics
[11]Dictionary
of Existentialism. Compiled and arranged by Ralph B. Winin. 1960. The Wisdom
Library, Philosophical Library, New York. Page 32.
[12] Wikipedia
