Levels of Our Life

Living beings share many characteristics, including the ability to develop, grow, heal, regenerate, and adapt to environmental changes. But their lives are finite; they are mortal. Therefore, living beings must create others like themselves so that life can continue. This is the fundamental purpose of all living organisms.

Since the fittest organisms survive, they have a greater opportunity to reproduce than the weak and unadapted. This process leads, over time, to positive evolutionary changes in all species of the animal kingdom. This is the meaning of death.

Humans and animals share many instincts.

1. They need their own space, food, water, air, and shelter.

2. Animals communicate through sounds, gestures, or signals; human language is much more complex and allows for abstract thought and the transfer of knowledge.

3. Social behavior—grouping—is exhibited by many species, including invertebrates, fish, birds, mammals, and humans. Different individuals unite in groups with a well-coordinated social system, the purpose of which is to find food, shelter, mates, and protection from predators.

Termites are social insects and exhibit a complex social life. They live in colonies with well-organized castes. A termite colony contains three castes: workers, soldiers, and reproductives.

A bee colony has two castes: workers (sterile females) and drones (fertile males). The queen (a fertile female) is responsible for the colony's reproduction.

Some animals form groups with a clearly defined hierarchical structure, such as wolves, coyotes, lions, some species of fox, and others.

In hierarchical social animals, dominant individuals exert control over others, and the dominance hierarchy is strictly enforced. The alpha male—the strongest male in the group—is always the leader. He maintains discipline and cohesion in the group. He strictly enforces the rank of members in the chain of command. He eats first, and the others wait until he is full. He does not yield leadership in any group activity.

If the leader dies, his strong successors, occupying the position between the leader and the lower-ranking males, compete for the vacant position.

There are parallels in human and animal behavior, but differences also exist.

Humanity is one of the most developed species of the animal kingdom. Humans possess qualitatively new capabilities that animals lack.

 

Material Level

The fundamental level of life for both humans and animals is material. They must provide food and shelter for themselves and their offspring. Both humans and animals teach newborns the skills necessary for independent survival after they leave the family.

Animals have a basic logical mind, allowing them to find a comfortable place to live, gather the necessary materials to build a shelter, or at least find shelter in places where food can be found. Humanity's material level is incomparably higher. A superior logical mind has enabled humans to engage in scientific research, create complex instruments, high-speed vehicles, and medicines that can extend lifespans, all of which have led to rapid population growth. The planet's population has increased from one billion in 1800 to 8 billion in 2024.

In human society, in addition to the material level, there are two other levels: emotional and spiritual. Emotional life is associated with feelings, while spiritual life is associated with higher meanings, values, and the search for truth and purpose.

 

Emotional Level

Emotional life is the realm of feelings (empathy, compassion, warmth, gentleness, kindness, love, but also hatred, envy, jealousy, anger, irritation, contempt, disgust, hostility, etc.).

In Russian, as in other European languages, a kind, compassionate person is usually called "soulful," while an unkind or indifferent person is called "heartless." A soulful person exhibits a sympathetic and empathetic attitude toward the grief and suffering of others. They try to help or at least support those in need.

I will give you one example.

A student and two of her colleagues were in the center of a city in Eastern Europe. Suddenly, they saw a young Gypsy girl and a man with a stick running after her. "Protect her," the student said to her colleagues. One of them calmly said, "Why? She probably stole something. It's not for nothing that he's chasing her." His friend agreed. Close to them, the girl tripped and fell. The student, terrified, thought the man would hurt or even kill her. She screamed at the top of her lungs. Passersby stopped, and the man stopped too. He looked at the student, at the horror and pain reflected on her face, threw down his stick, and walked on. The girl stood up and hobbled back the way she had come.

In life, those who do not help almost always find explanations for why they do so, while those who sympathize rush to help. Empathy is the fundamental characteristic of a heartful person. They feel both the pain and joy of others.

The ability to recognize, understand, manage, and utilize your own emotions positively, while also recognizing and influencing the emotions of others we can call emotional mind whereas the logical mind (intelligence) is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, like abstract reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and information processing. The last has nothing to do with emotions.

The emotional mind differs from the logical mind in that it makes decisions quickly. A heartfelt person, having sensed a situation, can decide immediately. For a logical mind, this usually takes more time: they need to gather data and make decisions based on the results. Having an emotional mind is a great advantage. These people make effective leaders. They know how to inspire, resolve conflicts, and lead people not through orders, but through convictions and shared values. People lacking an emotional mind rarely rise high in the corporate ladder.

Of all human emotions, one of the most complex and multifaceted is love. Millions of works of art are devoted to the theme of love, and each time, great works reveal something new, something previously unsaid.

Ancient Greek philosophers described diverse types of love.

1. Eros (named after the god of love and fertility) is a passionate physical attraction that ensures procreation in both humans and animals.

2. Platonic love (named after the Greek philosopher Plato) is a deep connection between people based on spiritual attraction, shared interests, and mutual respect, which consciously excludes physical relations.

I will give two examples.

- The lifelong love of the Russian writer Ivan Turgenev for the French singer Pauline Viardot. Turgenev adored Polina. He always lived near her home, and sometimes even lived with her family. He was a friend of Polina's husband and her daughter.

- The love of the German composer Johannes Brahms for the pianist Clara Schumann. When Brahms met Clara, he was twenty and she was thirty-four. She had been married to composer Robert Schumann for 13 years and had seven children with him, with another child born a year later. Robert died when Clara was thirty-seven. Clara was a renowned pianist who gave concerts to support her large family. Brahms fell in love with her from the moment they met and believed throughout his life that Clara embodied the ideal of femininity, that she was the best. Brahms never married. He supported Clara throughout his life. In turn, Clara often performed his new compositions in her concerts. Their emotional connection lasted until Clara's death. Brahms died 10 months after her.

3. Storge describes the natural, deep kinship bond between family members, such as between parents and children, siblings, and other relatives. Storge is based on care, support, and unconditional love.

The love between parents and children is always strong when children are small and need protection. As children grow up, this love can weaken and even disappear completely. Lena, a friend of mine, told me that her mother asked her to come when her mother had only four months to live. Lena did not go.

"Why?" I asked, surprised. "She gave you an education and cared for you very much."

"So, what?" Lena said. "I educated my daughter, and I care for her too. We owe our parents nothing. Look at animals in nature. Parents care for their children during childhood, but then all relationships break down, and the children do not even know where their parents are. Debt to parents is passed down from generation to generation. My mother's parents raised her, she raised me, and I, in turn, raised my daughter. In this way, I have repaid my debt.”

Lena is certainly right about the relationships between children and parents in nature. Animal children do not care for their parents because they have no one to care for. There are no old species in nature: animals usually die before their fertility drops to zero. They are of no use when they can no longer reproduce. Their children receive the instincts for survival at  birth. Old parents can contribute nothing.

Not so with humans. People live about one hundred years, twice as long as their fertile age. People have freedom of choice. The course and development of a person's life depend on choice, not on the instincts received at birth. Older people, having accumulated life experience, can help the younger generation make the right choices. Elderly people are needed not only in the family but also in a healthy society. A younger society, without the elderly, would be more aggressive.

That is why all major religions have had the commandment "respect your parents, take care of your parents in old age." In many countries, a clearly defined system existed for centuries. Typically, the eldest son was expected to care for his parents. Parents, in turn, would leave their son an inheritance if they had anything. Therefore, in China, when people were allowed to have only one child, there were cases of girls being killed at birth in the hope that the next child would be a boy. In ​several countries, for those who did not have children, there was a small church allowance that prevented elderly from starving to death in old age. The modern pension system was introduced by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the late 19th century. It allows workers who reach retirement age to live not much worse than they did when they were earning a salary.

4. Pragma is a "rational" love based on duty, common interests, and long-term compatibility.

Marriage between a man and a woman is eros + pragma. A strong marriage is built on mutual respect, communication, and a deep emotional connection. "Love is two bodies and one soul," said Aristotle. This kind of love describes a happy marriage. A marriage based solely on eros usually falls apart, as eros wanes over time. Marriage is stronger when there is mutual understanding, respect, care, and support.

5. Philia is a mutual, friendly love. It is founded on shared values, mutual respect, trust, loyalty, and spiritual kinship. It develops over time through shared experiences and intellectual connections. It often involves deep conversations and mutual understanding that does not require physical attraction.

There are examples of philia in history and literature.

- Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson in Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.

- Horatio and Hamlet in Shakespeare's "Hamlet." Horatio remains faithful when everyone else abandons or betrays the prince.

- Damon and Pythias (fourth century BC) - Greek legend. Both adhered to Pythagorean teachings and were friends. Pythias, sentenced to death for insulting the tyrant Dionysius, asked to be released briefly before his execution so he could marry off his sister, leaving Damon as a hostage. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he was delayed, and Damon had already been brought to the execution site. At the last moment, Pythias appeared, out of breath. Dionysius, struck by the strength of their friendship, overturned the sentence.

6. Agape is unconditional, universal, selfless, and sacrificial love for all humanity, spiritual or divine love. In Greek philosophy and theology, Agape represents the highest form of love. It is a love of reason and will, not emotional love. It is entirely focused on the needs of another person.

Examples of Agape

- A classic example of Agape is the "Good Samaritan" from the New Testament. The Samaritan helps a wounded stranger, a person who has nothing to offer in return. It is love that extends to all people simply because they are human.

- Forgiving an enemy is a profound act of Agape; it does not require liking the other person. Forgiving people who have wronged you—not because they deserve it, but because you value their humanity more than your own offense. It is a powerful way to turn an enemy into a friend.

- Community service and volunteerism

- People who dedicate their lives to social justice, humanitarian aid, or caring for the terminally ill often act from Agape.

- Individuals like modern doctors who volunteer in war zones. They are there out of a sense of duty to love their neighbor.

 Agape exists, but it is quite rare.

Spiritual level

Spirituality is a deeper, higher state associated with the pursuit of an ideal, understanding the meaning of life, self-improvement, and a connection with something higher (God) that transcends the earthly, logical level.

A spiritual person is kind and warm-hearted, while a spiritual person seeks higher truth and harmony, the principles of good and evil.

Primitive people believed that the world was inhabited by invisible spirits, supernatural beings, both good and evil. They were believed to actively participate in people's lives. These were the earliest ways of understanding the surrounding world and life in it, a search for a connection with a Higher Principle.

As humanity developed, and people began to unite into cities and states, religions emerged, based on a shared belief in one god or group of gods. Religions provided an explanation for the material structure of the world and answered the question of how to live. Religions contained a moral code regulating human behavior. A code of law was compiled, based on a moral code.

As early as 3,000 years ago, the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster in Greek), the founder of the Zoroastrian religion, said that man has intelligence and freedom of choice. This distinguishes man from animals.

Zoroastrianism is built on the opposition of two forces: Ahura Mazda (the Holy Spirit, truth, light) and Angra Mainyu (the Evil Spirit, lies, darkness). God endowed man with intelligence and free will so that he could consciously choose between Truth and Falsehood, to contribute to the prosperity of the world or its destruction. "Listen with your ears, look with a clear mind at both options to decide for yourselves."

Unlike other ancient teachings, where human destiny is predetermined by the gods or fate, Zoroastrianism asserts that man is an active ally of God (Ahura Mazda) in the fight against evil. Freedom of choice in Zoroastrianism is realized through the famous ethical formula: good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Every moment of life is a choice among these elements.

Freedom of choice is inextricably linked with responsibility. After death, a person's soul appears at the Bridge of Separation, leading to eternal life.

- If a person has chosen the path of Truth, the bridge becomes wide and light.

- If a person has chosen falsehood, the bridge becomes sharp as a blade, and the soul falls into the abyss.

Thus, salvation is not a gift from above, but a direct result of the accumulated choices of a person. Zoroastrian ideas became the foundation for Christian and Islamic ethics.

In ancient Egypt, a person had to observe the forty-two principles (commandments) of Maat when making life choices. The goddess Maat personified cosmic order, truth, justice, and harmony.

The goddess Maat held the posthumous judgment. According to the Book of the Dead (2500 BC):

- The heart of the deceased (the seat of conscience) was placed on one side of the scale.

- The feather of Ma'at was placed on the other side.

- If the heart was weighed down by sins and proved heavier than the feather, the person was eaten by the monster Ammit. If the scales balanced, the person gained eternal life.

Before the judgment of Ma'at, the deceased had to recite the "Confession of Denial," affirming their allegiance to the goddess's 42 principles: I have not stolen, I have not killed, I have not lied, I have not sinned, I have not slandered anyone, I have not eavesdropped, I have not seduced anyone's wife, and so on.

Some of these forty-two principles were included in the commandments of Moses.

Thus, all religions that have survived time have demanded that people adhere to moral laws.

Over time, the topic of the structure of the world shifted to science. But the answer to the question of how to live remained, and remains, with religions. In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Scientists have established that the creation account given in the Old Testament is erroneous. Atheists have emerged among the educated public.

Isaac Newton held an extremely critical view of atheism, describing it as "meaningless and abhorrent to mankind." His opposition was not simply a matter of faith but was rooted in his scientific observations of the universe, which he believed provided empirical evidence for the existence of an intelligent Creator. Newton argued that the complexity and mathematical order of the natural world made the idea of ​​a Godless universe logically impossible. Newton saw no contradiction between science and faith. On the contrary, his scientific research was a path to understanding the God he deeply revered, a God who was both the architect and ruler of the cosmos.

The great physicists of the 19th century shared this view. They saw the laws of nature as direct confirmation of divine design. Physical constants and the precision of the laws of mechanics served as proof of the existence of intelligence beyond matter.

Michael Faraday (1791–1867), the discoverer of electromagnetism, believed that the book of nature was open to anyone willing to read it without prejudice, and he saw the laws of physics as an order established by the Creator.

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879): The creator of the electromagnetic field theory, he was a staunch Christian. He believed that the molecules of matter were so identical in their properties that they excluded their accidental or eternal existence and pointed to an external Creator.

William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) (1824–1907): One of the founders of thermodynamics, he openly opposed materialism. He declared, "If you think hard enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God."

George Gabriel Stokes (1819–1903): President of the Royal Society and a distinguished mathematician, wrote extensively on natural theology and believed that science and religion were harmoniously complementary.

But already in the second half of the 19th century, atheists and agnostics appeared in science. This was associated with the spread of Darwin's theory of evolution.

When John Tyndall, a renowned physicist and member of the Royal Society, proclaimed in one of his lectures the omnipotence of physics over the soul and mind, Maxwell wrote humorous verses mocking scientists who believed that everything in the world could be explained solely by the movement of matter. This is an excerpt from his poem:

“In the beginning there was Chaos and Darkness, and atoms in eternal play,

But they did not need reason for the world to be born in a bonfire.

From the whirlwind and dust arose both mountains and the blue sky,

And all is but the collision of particles, and there is no soul, no end,

We are only machines that wander without purpose and without a Creator.

But if we are simply atoms, and thought is only the trace of movement,

Then who read us this learned nonsense?

As a physicist, Maxwell understood that the probability that logic and consciousness would spontaneously emerge from the chaos of atoms was mathematically equal to zero. He believed that matter obeys laws, but the laws themselves cannot arise from matter.

As fundamental science developed, applied science also evolved. This led to a materialistic view of life and a rapid rise in the number of atheists. When a person considers only “secondary causes” (direct scientific explanations of how everything works), he can stop at and assume that God is not necessary. However, when he considers the “chain” of all causes interconnected, he must inevitably understand that behind the order and beauty of the Universe there is a Divine Creator. This idea belongs to the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626). In his essay “On Atheism,” Bacon wrote: “It is true that a little philosophy inclines the mind of man to atheism; but the deep study of philosophy brings men’s minds to religion.” The same idea was expressed about 4 centuries later by Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), a Nobel laureate and pioneer of quantum mechanics: “The first sip from the glass of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God awaits you.” In his book “Physics and Beyond,” he wrote that he could never “reject the content of religious thinking” and believed that science and religion point to the same “central order.”

All great religions that have survived have placed the fulfillment of moral commandments and laws at the center of human life: honor thy father and thy mother, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet thy neighbor's house, and so on. Atheists automatically rejected the church's moral teachings and its moral achievements, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Fyodor Dostoevsky's famous formula: "If there is no God, then everything is permitted" is the core of Dostoevsky's work. The writer views permissiveness not as freedom, but as a psychological and spiritual dead end, a direct path to catastrophe. Without a higher court, conscience becomes merely a biological mechanism that a "strong" person can suppress.

This theme is explored in The Brothers Karamazov, Demons, and Crime and Punishment. In The Brothers Karamazov, the atheist Ivan Karamazov realizes that his formula of permissiveness led to bloodshed—the death of his father.

In his novel The Demons, Fyodor Dostoevsky showed the catastrophic consequences of rejecting God and moral principles. Dostoevsky views the ideas of radical socialism and anarchism not simply as political movements, but as a spiritual "disease" afflicting Russian society. One of the novel's most terrifying ideas is its prophecy of totalitarianism.

The ideas of The Demons were confirmed with considerable accuracy during the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia in 1917. The plan of the liberals who defeated the autocracy in the February Revolution of 1917 was to establish democratic rule along Western lines. But the Bolsheviks seized power and established a dictatorship, bloody terror, and the denial of all sacredness in Russia. In "Crime and Punishment," Rodion Raskolnikov attempts to answer the question: does an outstanding individual have the right to transgress moral law for the sake of a "Great Goal"? He wants to kill a "useless, vile" old woman pawnbroker to save hundreds of talented people and his family with her money. He wants to rise above morality, but discovers that by transgressing the law, he is killing not only the "old woman," but also his own soul.

Time has shown how right Dostoevsky was.

The 20th century saw the rise of militant atheism and permissiveness.

Failure to observe the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Great logical minds of scientists with a materialistic philosophy invented and built a multitude of highly technological weapons: tanks, airplanes, submarines, bombs, and other means of killing. They justified themselves by claiming they were serving a Great Cause, although these "Great Causes" varied among different nations and were often directly opposed. Soldiers also went into battle for "Great Causes." In World War I (1914-1918), approximately forty million people died, and in World War II (1939-1945), 70-85 million people died. Furthermore, various local wars (civil, border, and others) were waged around the world, so there were few days without war at all. According to various estimates, the total number of people killed because of wars and armed violence in the 20th century (including the world wars) ranges from 187 to 231 million.

In Russia, after the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, a destruction of churches began. This campaign had two goals: plundering the church's wealth and combating its moral teachings, which contradicted materialistic Marxist ideology. An atheistic worldview was considered the only correct one. In schools, children were taught that science had long ago proven God does not exist and that only illiterate people believed in Him. State atheism was established. The state subsidized anti-religious campaigns, lectures, atheist museums, and the publication of literature. Surviving religious organizations were placed under strict surveillance by the secret services.

After World War II, state atheism was promoted in all the new communist states of Eastern Europe, as well as in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia. During the Cultural Revolution in China (1966–1976), Red Guards destroyed temples, burned books, and smashed statues. Monks and priests were sent to "re-education" camps or to perform hard labor in the countryside. Temples, mosques, and churches were destroyed or converted into warehouses, factories, and slaughterhouses.

Atheism also spread rapidly in the West in the 20th century. By the end of the century, it had become a mass social phenomenon, a norm of life for millions of people.

The horrors of the First and Second World Wars gave atheists a pretext to criticize God. The question "Where was God in Auschwitz?" became central to European propaganda. Thus, European thinkers rejected the idea of ​​free will and human responsibility for one's choices. They shifted the blame for murder to God. In this understanding of religious thought, a person becomes a pawn, lacking freedom of choice and not responsible for the atrocities committed.

In the 20th century, science became atheistic and fought against the idea of ​​a Divine Creator at all costs. A striking example of this struggle is the story of the English astronomer and Cambridge University professor Fred Hoyle.

Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) was one of the most influential and extraordinary astrophysicists of the 20th century. His scientific legacy includes both fundamental discoveries that formed the foundations of modern science and controversial hypotheses.

The concept of stellar nucleosynthesis was first formulated by Hoyle in 1946. This explained the existence of elements heavier than helium in the universe, showing that critical elements such as carbon can form in stars and then be incorporated into other stars and planets when that star "dies." Prior to his time, it was believed that all chemical elements were created at the Big Bang. Hoyle proved that almost everything we are made of (carbon, oxygen, iron) was "cooked" inside stars. Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory.

Hoyle argued that life could not have arisen by chance. He calculated that the probability of obtaining all the essential enzymes necessary for a living cell in a single random trial was approximately 1 in 10^40,000. He claimed the probability was so small that it could not have happened even if the entire universe consisted of an "organic soup." Hoyle compared the probability of life's spontaneous origin to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a scrap yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials found there, or that a monkey typing at random could eventually type Shakespeare's works. Hoyle concluded: "If one approaches this question directly and without fear of incurring the wrath of the scientific community, one must conclude that biomaterials, with their astonishing degree of order, must be the result of intelligent design. No other possibility occurred to me..."

The 1983 Nobel Prize for "theoretical and experimental investigations of nuclear reactions of importance for the formation of the chemical elements in the Universe" was awarded not to Hoyle, but to another scientist, even though Hoyle was the inventor of the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, publishing two scientific papers shortly after World War II. "The prize was rejected because Hoyle might have used the prestige of the Nobel Prize to impose his truly absurd ideas on the general public," commented one member of the Nobel Committee. But in this case, it was not Hoyle, but the Nobel Committee, who had the absurd idea. In today's scientific community, freedom of speech is limited.

Conclusion

• We have discussed three ways of thinking and comprehending the world: materialistic, emotional, and spiritual.

Majority of humanity lives on a materialistic level of life. They are overly concerned with physical comfort or the acquisition of material goods, rather than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. They adhere to the philosophy of materialism, a theory that views matter as the constituent element of the universe and all its phenomena. Atheism, which recognizes no moral boundaries or commandments, has prevailed in the world. As the wars of the 20th century have shown, there is still little love for one's neighbor and compassion for the suffering of others.

This is understandable. Humanity is still young. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Anatomically modern humans appeared approximately 300,000 years ago. The transition to agriculture and a sedentary lifestyle occurred 10-12 years ago, and writing appeared only 5,000 years ago in Sumer and Ancient Egypt. If we compressed the entire history of Earth (4.5 billion years) into a single day, modern humans (Homo sapiens) would have lived on it for only a few seconds. There is still a long way to go.

Zarathustra taught that life is a precious gift and a duty, intended to foster harmony with nature and advance the world toward perfection through an active struggle against evil by upholding truth, order, and righteousness. This is the purpose of life.

People with emotional and spiritual understanding of life have an advantage in natural selection over the soulless and atheistic. Therefore, humanity will improve over time.

Thank you for reading!

 Please, leave comments.