Texts in English

The text explores the transition of the digital prompt “What are you thinking?” from Facebook to the physical world (a wall). The author reflects on the risks of total transparency, suggesting that if our thoughts were visible like “bubbles,” we would desperately try to hide them. It critiques the lack of self-censorship on social media and questions the sincerity of those who overshare, ultimately highlighting the value of mental privacy and trusted connections.

The text reflects on how time accelerates as we trade our early sense of adventure for hollow, predictable routines. It questions whether consumerism and duties are the only forces driving us, proposing instead that we can “re-color” our days. By embracing small surprises—like a different path home or a conversation with a stranger—we transform our lives from a series of bureaucratic steps into a vibrant film. Ultimately, it suggests that willpower and the “small madness” of following our desires are what truly turn a passing day into a lasting memory.

The text delves into the unique psyche of poets, who look beyond common sense to shape reality through a “magical lens.” It describes the poet as a translator of colors, feelings, and images that exist in a rare, pure imagination. Instead of judging the world, poets simply experience it with their eyes of reality closed and eyes of imagination open. They are portrayed as generous but lonely figures, struggling to communicate truths that ordinary language cannot fully grasp, ultimately giving meaning to beauty that would otherwise remain misunderstood.

The text explores the “silly” nature of human conflict in urban settings, from parking lot disputes to heated debates over professional sports. It argues that most social friction arises from trying to control or change others’ routines and opinions. The author suggests that since life is a “theatre stage,” the most rational path is to disengage. Agreeing with the ignorant is often a tool for peace, as trying to fix the world’s absurdities only makes one part of the ridiculousness.

The essay examines the transition from beauty to the sublime, defining the latter as an untouchable, vast, and often frightening force. While beauty attracts through perfection, the sublime overwhelms the soul through magnitude—be it a raging river or the infinite reaches of space. It posits that facing forces beyond our control inspires a mix of fear and respect. Ultimately, the sublime is found in the act of overcoming: when art or nature challenges our destiny and forces a profound change in our behavior and spirit.

The text explores the moral failure inherent in how we choose to “see” the world. It argues that our eyes are not merely passive observers but active accomplices in social injustice. By pretending not to see poverty, racism, and exclusion, we demonstrate a lethargy that mirrors the historical indifference shown during eras like slavery. The author suggests that while we criticize our ancestors, we remain blind to our own contemporary failings. Ultimately, the “window to the soul” is portrayed as a frozen stare—a transparent curtain that hides the reality of human suffering from our inner conscience.

The text explores the tension between living a meticulously planned life and embracing the chaos of the unknown. While many aim for a “perfect” future characterized by safety and predictability, the author argues that such a life is like a gift where the contents are already known—stable, but ultimately hollow. In contrast, choosing the “shorter, surprising path” or “jumping into the dark” allows for a life rich with peculiar behaviors and incredible journeys that the organized world cannot offer. Those who cling to their comfort zones often become “boring masters” of routine, while adventurers gather around fires to share stories that bridge the gap between reality and the impossible. Ultimately, the narrative suggests that human fulfillment isn’t found in a mathematical result, but in the lessons learned through tears, fear, and the courage to become someone we never imagined we would be.

The text explores the profound tension between the predictable laws of nature and its inherently unpredictable power. The author argues that while humanity desperately seeks certainty and control, nature operates on a scale of sublime indifference, constantly shifting to find its own balance regardless of human desire.

This reflective text challenges the conventional understanding of “doing good” by highlighting the stark contrast between spiritual theory and daily practice. The author argues that while many repeat mantras of kindness within religious spaces, these feelings often vanish once they face the real world. True wisdom is defined as an inner fulfillment that nourishes the soul, yet it remains rarely practiced as a systemic solution. The narrative critiques the “spiritual bargain” where charity is performed merely to secure a place in heaven, rather than out of genuine empathy. Furthermore, it addresses the toxicity of meritocracy and how it labels the suffering as “losers.” Ultimately, the text calls for a shift in perspective: instead of temporary charity that maintains poverty, we should strive to build social conditions where goodness is the foundation of justice, rather than a fleeting exception.

The documentary Human serves as a profound catalyst for questioning our species’ identity, showcasing 2,000 diverse voices sharing their struggles, joys, and tears. While the film suggests that to be human is simply to feel and survive, this text digs deeper into the unsettling parallels between humans and animals. It explores the idea that while we share evolution and death with nature, our unique grasp of ethics is often sacrificed for economic gain and personal interest. Humans have constructed a “particular food chain” where intelligence is used to suppress others, often turning life into a cold, competitive game. Unlike animals that act on instinct, we understand the distinction between cruelty and kindness yet frequently choose indifference. The reflection concludes that despite our advanced intellect, we struggle to follow the fundamental ethical lesson of loving our neighbor, as self-interest remains our ultimate priority.

The text challenges the idea that impartiality requires a lack of love. It posits that judging through a purely mathematical lens is inhuman, as true justice requires empathy and compassion. While acknowledging that “love is blind,” the author redefines love as a moral attitude that seeks to understand others without resorting to revenge. Ultimately, love is seen as the preservation of integrity: being able to judge, forgive, or let go of someone without seeking their destruction, ensuring that self-respect remains the ultimate guide.

         There was a time when few people had the opportunity to say valuable things, whether through