The essence of criticism is destruction. It is the destruction of what is, that should not be. If a statement exists as a lie, we try to destroy it from existent by pointing out the falseness of the statement or demonstrate against it. If a political system is bad for the human existence, we try to destroy the system by verbal or violent resistance. If a philosophical theory is not sufficient expressed, we participate in a theoretical discussion trying to expel the insufficient parts of the theory.
If this is correct, we should be able to improve existence by critical destruction. But sometime the criticism actual destroys an existence that is better then what it creates. Sometime the action of destruction is more destructive, then the existence it tries to destroy. And sometime, the critic points towards individual action and the criticism (both verbal and action) is so destructive that it destroys the man and even might kill.

Criticism combined with dynamic development is a dangerous cocktail. It is an aggressive attitude which might escalate into destruction towards optimalization. Human becomes aggressive towards their own body trying to develop it for perfection and aggressive towards external world trying to destroy it into perfection.

Reason is necessary as a power we are forced to experience and reason is godly in the power of changing the world.
We are forced to experience π and to question why something exist, and we are able feel the sacred power of thinking what could become a reality. As a necessity, reason are cared for and raised throughout history. As a godly gift, reason has the power to both destroy and create what is.

Demystification of the truth reduces the human respect in reason and truth. Human are not ready for a post-metaphysical search for truth and reason. The secular ground of truth is narrow and fragile, we often end in the trench. Respect for the truth are based on a sacred ground. To have faith in truth, to choose truth is an oceanic feeling of belonging in the world.

Without a quest for essence the difference between good or bad, true or false, beauty and ugly, will disappear.

How is it possible for thinkers, that really think?, to believe that the world is out of substance? I find it a moral position expressed by people raised in luxury. The meaning of life manifests itself in the experience of resistance and challenges. The more difficult life is, the more substance human are able to sense. The moral position of antiessentialisme is based on ideals:

• not to hurt others
• to avoid all forms of conflict (both external and internal)
• to avoid having to think
• to tolerate everything
• to remove all forms of power
• to make everything equal

Meaning and value is the soul of the world

screaming from nature

each human has to sense these truths on their own.

It is a lonely quest towards humanity

Thinking is part of being. The pain of thinking might bring human into turtle shell. The stream of verbal opinions overloads our cognitive capacity. The romantic or aesthetic dream of a natural life in love and immediacy is the human wish of emancipation from the violence of thinking.

Trust is the opposite of fear and critic. If you trust something you do not fear this phenomenon. If you trust something you do not feel a need to criticize the phenomenon. Trust provides a feeling of well-being. Fear provides a feeling of anger. The feeling of well-being provides care, while anger directs you towards critic.

In the deep of being there is a dichotomy between trust and fear. These dispositions has two directions.

Fear-anger-critic

Trust-well-being-care

There is no real critic without some kind of fear and anger. Children can not learn critical thinking without feeling fear towards some knowledge or phenomena. Human are not able to criticize a source or a argument if they trust and care for it. There is no critic without this resistance. At the same time, trust, well-being and care is the purpose of being. Fear, anger and critic is the lack of trust, well-being and care.

I do fear some of the development of modern social science, but I trust the insight presented above. In this a care. If you are being critical to this insight, you probably experience it as strange or unknown. It is possible to trust the unknown or the stranger, but if you start care for the unknown, the unknown has become known and the stranger has become a friend.

The essence of school is freedom for all. There is no freedom for all without social cohesion. Modern school points towards increased social inequalities and freedom for the meritocrats.

The essence of criticism is tacit knowledge. The bodily experience that something is wrong. It is difficult to express the experience. We know that something is wrong but are not able to express what and why. Today we emphasize verbal criticism which demands that we are able to express what, why and how to solve the problem. This ideal is problematic, cause it presuppose that human are able to verbalize the tacit knowledge. We need to emphazise moaning and physical protest to accept the tacit value of experience something as wrong. Then we could also participate in a verbal dialogue about the structure of the problem, as someone who has experience the problem as first-hand knowledge.