Man. World: National Student Philosophical Conference

Congratulations to our students Ilia Iliev (11th grade), Hristo Tsonev (10th grade), and Nikola Pirdopski (9th grade) who represented ACS brilliantly at the 29th National Student Philosophical Conference “Man. World.” held March 13-14, 2025 in Burgas!

Ilia won second place for his brilliant arguments and analytical depth in his essay on Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Nikola took fourth place, impressing the jury with his original philosophical reflections on Aristotle's thought: “Be a free thinker and do not accept everything you hear as truth. Be critical and evaluate what you believe in.”

Hristo ranked fifth, demonstrating sharp critical insight and strong argumentation on the topic: “To have mercy on the merciless is as vile as expecting it from them.” (Ivan Vazov)

The conference provided an incredible opportunity for in-depth discussions and idea exchange with students from across the country. Our representatives showcased intellectual insight, strong reasoning, and passion! We are so proud! 

Read their essays below.

***

Ilia Iliev, 11 grade

“IN THE END, WE WILL REMEMBER NOT THE WORDS OF OUR ENEMIES, BUT THE SILENCE OF OUR FRIENDS.”

-MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

Before revealing the meaning of the given quote, we must establish certain boundaries, within which it is possible to think of Martin Luther King Jr., so that we can develop a comprehensive position on the specific philosophical problem. The author's name is associated with the undeniable success of the movement for equality between black and white people in America, but it also raises a number of questions regarding the philosophical and semantic status of his social act. His march against segregation in the 1950s and 1960s is accepted by the episteme of today's world as "progressive." The question of progress refers to History and its course, the essence of which has dialectical and epistemological roots. Ad hoc, Hegelian optics, which has broader implications in the cultural history of humanity than Hegel himself, can serve as a starting point in proving the truth of the fragment from a purely ontological point of view.

The semantics of individual units of the quote suggest the hidden presence of Hegel's "master-slave" dichotomy from "Phenomenology of Spirit." From Martin Luther King Jr.'s perspective, "enemies" always represent the past oppressor, while "friends" nominate the previous subject of oppression. This is true precisely because of the correlation between the Master and the Slave. In the dialectical concept of history, the leading figure is the following: "thesis"-"antithesis"-"synthesis." This key principle is the so-called "negation of negation," which means that in the presence of a natural conflict in the world (derived from Hegel’s understanding that the being and the non-being are identical), the form of negation must result in such a way as to change its own negation and reproduce a new form of the old. That is, the "thesis" will repeat itself, but in a new way, in a "becoming determination." The "master-slave" dichotomy can be traced through the same principle, illustrating it in the collapse of the Roman Empire. Greco-Roman civilization is essentially linked to the presumption of an "ideal world," projecting the imperfection of the mater. In search of perfection, absolute truth, beauty, and power, Roman culture reached the strongest state organization until then, which was built on the slave system and strong exploitation. Against the backdrop of majestic Rome, where legislation, the Senate, the Republic, and all manifestations of logos originate, in the outskirts of the Empire, poor and abandoned communities discover an alternative and "dangerous" faith. Jesus of Nazareth, who remained precisely with the poor and prostitutes, united with his image most of the slaves from the vast territory of the Roman Empire, and for nearly 3 centuries, from being persecuted, Christians became "masters." This turn, which we can call the "Nero"-"Constantine" transition, is actually an example of how the anthropocentric Antiquity of naked bodies, theaters, statues, and monuments, from dominant, becomes heretical, and the meek and humble are elevated to a cult.

In this line of thought, we must note that the being of the Master and the Slave are deeply connected because the genesis, and consequently the fate of the two figures, is dialectically attached to one whole. Since their identification is subject to the same logic, the meaning of their praxis will always be uniform. To be clearer, the goal of the Slave in his struggle against the Master relates to changing the order itself only while he is a slave, and when he becomes a Master, he becomes what he previously opposed. Thus, Christianity, from the most humanistic idea, is institutionalized in the Catholic Church, guilty of inquisitions, indulgences, censorship, and Holy Wars.

We observe such a development because, in Hegel, "evil" initially drives the world. History and logic are identical, which leads to the absolute necessity for every idea to experience resistance. The tension is not external; it is given initially in the "thesis." If we think about it, every power at any time must explain events from the past in such a way as to make us aware of the virtues of our present. Every present, in turn, does not participate in history but thinks of itself as the culmination and logical completion of what has happened. It takes the form of the utopia that every bad and good action has aimed for. In general, every present thinks of itself as the epitome of higher moralism, while the past is always the source of thе problematicity that the present has solved. This is the main political operation of every power legitimation.

In the context of the fragment and what has been said, we observe a situation in which the conjuncture will focus its present "word" always on the "silence" of the past, precisely because before the present "silence" was the (past) "word."

Bertolt Brecht says something similar: "No one will ask what the time was, but everyone will ask why its poets were silent." The meaning of this quote is simply a different angle on what we have been considering in Martin Luther King Jr. Here, time is seen as missing, in contrast to its protagonists (again "silent" in relation to their present). If we focus on the role of the protagonist, King's fragment expresses an interesting position. "The silence of our friends," beyond the ontological-temporal status, introduces the idea of the static state of the Slave as a result of the lack of personal self-reflectiveness. Since "slave" and "master" are identical, just as "nothing" and "something" are, their actuality does not come from nature but only from the subject and his faith. In this sense, both slavery and mastery are modus vivendi. Dostoevsky "answers" this problem by saying that if you convince the Slave of his freedom, even when he is in prison, you have affirmed his identity. Accordingly, he who has understood that he is a slave is partially a master.

This brings us back to the previous scheme: it is not enough to know the position in any binary structure; resistance to the general state of affairs is necessary. If we apply Dostoevsky in this case, the Slave becoming a Master would not change anything except the possession of a given role, but if the Slave renounces his Slavery and accepts himself as a Master, the relationship will break (being Master-Master).

In conclusion, Martin Luther King Jr. asserts precisely this: correct and meaningful identification is the most important step towards true freedom. The question of mastery and slavery is resolved by our own faith in belonging to one or the other. Silence, then, turns out to be not a product of society but a natural heritage of history.

***

Hristo Tzonev, 10 grade

“TO HAVE MERCY ON THE MERCILESS IS AS VILE AS EXPECTING IT FROM THEM.” 
-IVAN VAZOV

Before affirming or rejecting the above maxim, it is necessary to define Vazov's ecumene as a worldview devoid of a broad understanding of totalitarian regimes' treacherous and destructive nature and their antecedent – extreme ideologies. Such a distinction is mandatory due to the perceptible similarities between the aphorism and Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance, which states that the preservation of tolerance is based on the need to eliminate the intolerant. Since the Paradox, in its essence, seeks to prevent the formation of totalitarian regimes, it can only be proposed by a witness to such a state system, which Ivan Vazov could not be due to his premature death. Therefore, the maxim must be viewed through the spectrum of the contradiction between collectivism and individualism. Ivan Vazov's work is based on cultivating Bulgarian national identity by immortalizing the feats of our most selfless compatriots. Such literary direction, created and intended for the collective, was subsequently rejected by the representatives of the "Thought" circle, inspired by Nietzsche's ideology, who believed that the abilities of distinguished individuals are the driving force of humanity. The truth is that both views are wrong because there is a vital dependence between the collective and the individual. This is because the collective is incapable of self-governance and therefore must turn to a spiritual and behavioral direction synthesized by individuals, distinguished by their qualities. Consequently, after Nietzsche proclaimed the death of Christian ideology, it was replaced by extreme ideologies, and therein lies the overall meaning of Vazov's maxim.

Having identified those capable of influencing society, we can conclude that the subject of the quote are individuals, who are both merciful and treacherous. What distinguishes them is that they possess a broader understanding of society. This deep knowledge equips individuals with the ability to compel the collective to blind obedience by offering a new moral norm and a path to salvation from the current impasse. An example is the use of Karl Marx's philosophy by Vladimir Lenin to promise prosperity to the tormented serfs based on the irrational claim that the development of historical laws has predetermined the survival of the proletariat over other classes. Therefore, Marx and Lenin appear as merciless because they respectively proposed the expropriation of private property and the redistribution of the means of production, and the radical policy of exterminating the Russian royal family and the kulaks. According to John Stuart Mill's 1859 book "On Liberty," a person possesses freedom of existence to the extent that they do not harm other citizens. Since the ideas of Marx and Lenin herald a communist and totalitarian state system and, as such, pose a threat to society, intervention by individuality is required. It is it, being in possession of influence, that is responsible to society to curb and eliminate the course of such ideologies. Therefore, showing mercy to the merciless would be as vile as the spread of ideologies that are antecedents to the formation of totalitarian regimes.

On the other hand, actions against the merciful can be viewed as a consequence of the desire to preserve one's own existence. Since the concentration of power in the hands of individuals, who have elevated destructive ideologies as a vision of governance, threatens the existence of other individuals; the ideology of rational egoism would prompt the latter to take action against the oppressors. The only reason for action is the maximization of personal interest. However, such a worldview must also be considered merciless, as it poses a danger to the collective due to the individual's lack of responsibility.

Ivan Vazov's words address the complex dependence between the collective and the individual, for which the maintenance and preservation of tolerance is an immutable duty. The individual is a protector of the collective, and neglecting this obligation must be considered an escape from civic responsibility and an endangerment of citizens' right to freedom of existence.

***

Nikola Pirdopski, 9th grade

“BE A FREE THINKER AND DO NOT ACCEPT EVERYTHING YOU HEAR AS TRUTH. BE CRITICAL AND EVALUATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN."

-ARISTOTLE

At first glance, Aristotle's wise words seem clear, but to argue my opinion, the quote needs to be explained in detail. "Be a free thinker" encourages a person to reason and think critically without being limited by factors such as other people's opinions, biases, etc. On the other hand, "do not accept everything you hear as truth" means to approach new pieces of information with attention and caution, without believing them immediately. Aristotle says that people should be critical, which implies that a person is obliged to rethink new pieces of information they acquire and verify them independently. The last part of the quote is also of great importance, "and question your own beliefs", which suggests that a critically thinking person is obliged to question their own thoughts and, therefore, verify them. I, personally, agree with the words of the ancient Greek philosopher. Applying this method would have a positive effect on human character, and contrary to what many people would claim, this worldview would not adversely affect a person's consciousness and their relationships with others. In my opinion, it is one of the basic steps to achieving the highest goal in our lives, according to the philosopher – eudaimonia.

A lack of trust in others (especially family and friends) can have a negative effect on their relationship with that person. It would create doubts and a lack of faith. The truth is, however, that this argument does not make much sense, since Aristotle is not talking about not trusting anyone, but simply checking for ourselves whether the information given to us is true. No matter how well two people know each other, everyone makes mistakes, and it is unreasonable for someone to blindly trust without using their Reason for the function for which it exists - to think. Moreover, this approach eliminates any doubts that might lurk in someone's mind. Independent verification shows whether the other person is right, and whose advice can be listened to. Therefore, Aristotle's idea, contrary to expectations, helps to remove any doubts and does not mean not trusting anyone.

If a person constantly questions their own opinion, it follows that they lose faith in themselves and become more insecure. Again, I think the opposite of this statement is true. Free thinking encourages independent reflection and gives a sense of control over human destiny. It exists as a form of verification that does not discourage. It does the exact opposite. For example, if a small child believes in something unreasonable, such as that elephants could fly with their big ears, if they stop and ask themselves a question like, "But how can they rise if they weigh so much?" they will realize they are wrong. Although the child is questioning their beliefs, it is logical for their conclusion to be followed not by negative emotions, but by delight that they themselves have managed to understand their mistake. Critical self-assessment is a means of improvement and serves as a catalyst for a person's inner growth.

A person's ability to show this skepticism towards others and themselves leads to the discovery of traits that were previously unknown. By comparing other people's ideas with their own, it is normal for a person to understand their position in a given area. On the other hand, through internal reflection, old beliefs are rejected, giving way to new ones. That is, through this "distrust," which is actually a self-made analysis of an idea, a person manages to develop as a character and to reach new heights. What is more, Immanuel Kant says that this is the worldview people need to escape from any external tutelage. Independent and rational thinking gives way to personal freedom and eliminates the need for dependence on other people's reasoning. After that, it becomes easier to communicate with the rest of the world because the person is aware of their role in society and what they expect from the people they communicate with.

Lastly, this doubt, followed by verification, is perhaps one of the most necessary qualities for achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle defines eudaimonia as true happiness but in the form of a fulfilling life. He claims that this is what all people strive for, whether they realize it or not. His moral philosophy claims that a person needs to strive to perform more virtues because that is how they will approach true happiness. Unlike utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, Aristotelian ethics depend heavily on the situation and the person and have no rules that can be applied in every situation. That is precisely why this critical approach is of great importance for understanding and following this moral code. If a person cannot question themselves, the people around them, and even the world, then they will not be able to know how to act in most situations, and it will be impossible to become a virtuous person.

In conclusion, I will say that Aristotle was right. It is not right to believe everything that is said. It is extremely important for people to be able to rethink and analyze an idea before they start believing in it and passionately defending it. Critical thinking not only helps to avoid such mistakes but also gives a chance for self-discovery.