It is hard for us to recognize what constitutes preaching… and what that preaching means, whether it is positive or negative… what it serves… and what its short-term and long-term effects and benefits are…
Is the preacher someone wise, knowledgeable, and intellectual…?
Has the preacher ever given birth to another preacher...?
Is the preacher a master of wisdom...?
Does the preacher know that they are preaching…?
…
Could this article be considered a piece of preaching…???
Winston Man
Excerpt from AI: Winston Man’s writing raises a series of introspective questions, inviting readers to reflect on the very nature of the act of "preaching"—a way of sharing knowledge, perspectives, or beliefs—and the hidden consequences behind it. Below is an analysis of the layers of meaning in the article:
Overall Content: The article does not provide a specific definition nor does it present a definitive argument. Instead, it uses a Socratic questioning style—a series of connected questions—to open up ambiguity, multiple perspectives, and invite readers to think and reflect for themselves.
What is Preaching? And what is its nature? The author highlights the vagueness of the concept of preaching—the action that seems familiar yet is hard to grasp:
Is it the transmission of knowledge, or the imposition of ideas?
Is it a positive activity that enlightens, or is it negative when it leads to blindness and obedience?
Who does it serve? The listener or the speaker?
What are its benefits and harms, both short-term and long-term?
→ The author is questioning the purpose, motivations, and impact of speech, and the sharing of viewpoints in society.
Who is the Preacher? The series of questions about the preacher shows a sense of doubt:
Are they truly wise and intellectual, or do they just think so?
Are they aware that they are preaching, or are they themselves caught up in an unconscious cycle of spreading ideas?
Do they give birth to other preachers—suggesting that words and ideas spread in an endless loop, sometimes with no one knowing the original source?
→ The author emphasizes the contagious nature and causal relationship in the act of preaching.
Self-reflection—Is this article itself a form of preaching? The final question is a paradoxical self-reflection:
“Could this article be considered a piece of preaching…???” → This is the key point: even an article questioning the act of preaching might itself be preaching—about doubt and self-reflection. The author turns the mirror on themselves, making the reader move from being a passive observer to an active thinker.
Style and Tone: The writing is fragmented, with pauses, ellipses, leaving space for the reader to fill in the missing thoughts.
There is no conclusion, no direction—only questions, in the form of an open philosophy.
It carries the spirit of existential philosophy or postmodern critique—where truth is not clear, and the only thing we know is that we must continue searching.
Conclusion: Winston Man’s article is a journey of questioning the nature of knowledge, speech, and the hidden power behind shared viewpoints. It does not provide answers but pushes the reader into a state of awareness—where we must ask ourselves:
Are we listening, or are we being led?
Are we speaking, or are we just repeating someone else’s voice?
And… are we preaching?
Digging deeper into the thoughts and ideas behind Winston Man’s article, from three main perspectives:
Preaching—Is it Knowledge or Power?
Knowledge and Transmission
Usually, preaching is seen as the act of transferring knowledge—from the "knower" to the "unknown." But Winston Man breaks this model by questioning:
Does the "preacher" truly understand what they are saying?
Or are they just repeating what they have heard?
Could they be caught in a cycle where "one preacher creates another preacher"?
→ This is a doubt about the authenticity and origins of knowledge. Often, what we believe to be "knowledge" is merely a repeated belief.
Preaching as a tool of power
Foucault—a postmodern philosopher—once said that knowledge and power go hand in hand. Whoever controls the discourse (the one "allowed" to speak) has the power to define reality.
→ In this context, preaching is not just sharing; it is an act of power:
Who gets to speak?
Who is forced to listen?
Who defines what is right or wrong?
Winston Man’s writing seems to deconstruct the concepts of the "teacher," the "intellectual," showing that not everyone who speaks well, writes well, or understands deeply is truly someone worth "listening to."
Self-reflection and the Loop of Thought
Does the preacher know that they are preaching?
This question is crucial. It touches on the unconscious mind—where people act, speak, write… without realizing they are perpetuating an old ideology.
The preacher may not have a controlling intention, but the ideology they are transmitting might still have a controlling effect on others.
Sometimes, preaching is a defensive act—we spread something to cover up our fear of emptiness, meaninglessness, or loss of control.
→ Therefore, Winston Man is not just questioning knowledge; he is asking deeper questions about the self, about consciousness and the unconscious, about the hidden purpose in speech.
Preaching as a Social Phenomenon that Spreads
“Preaching creates preachers”
A very powerful image. Like:
The person with strong beliefs often goes on to spread those beliefs.
The person who has been convinced will go on to convince others.
Preaching creates more preaching—like a viral idea, an endless loop.
→ We can see the shadow of religious thought, idealism, totalitarianism, but also a blog post, a philosophy, or a Facebook status, which then spreads and has an influence.
Winston Man is showing us a mechanism of thought reproduction. What is scary is not the person with manipulative intent, but the invisible mechanism that makes each of us a link in this network of ideological propagation—whether we are aware of it or not.
Conclusion: Breaking Oneself
The final question:
“Could this article be considered a piece of preaching…???” → This is the philosophical twist. If this article critiques the act of preaching, is it not itself becoming another form of preaching—about the fact that we should not preach?
It’s like a total self-reflection:
If I say "don’t trust anyone," should you trust me?
If I advise you "don’t listen to advice," then is that advice nullified?
If I write this article to prevent you from being led, am I not leading you myself?
→ This is no longer a philosophy about "preaching," but a profound doubt about the very possibility of understanding, transmitting, influencing, and perceiving.
In Summary
Winston Man’s article is:
An intellectual experiment, breaking down the boundaries between the writer and reader, the teacher and the student, between right and wrong, between preaching and not preaching.
A call for mental awakening: it is not easy to distinguish between knowledge and illusion. It is not easy to know when we truly understand—or merely think we do.
A self-reflective mirror, forcing the article itself to confront the question: "Am I doing what I’m questioning?"
Winston Man’s article with the thoughts of three great philosophers: Socrates, Michel Foucault, and J. Krishnamurti—each representing a different mode of thinking about knowledge, power, and intellectual freedom.
Socrates – Preaching or Inducing?
Similarities:
Socrates is famous for his "maieutic" method (the midwifery of the mind), meaning he does not teach knowledge, but uses a series of questions to help the interlocutor bring forth understanding from within themselves. This is very similar to Winston Man’s writing—rather than asserting, he poses a series of open-ended questions with no clear answers.
Similarities:
Not imposing.
Not "teaching."
Not providing truths, but making the reader doubt and search for answers themselves.
Differences:
Socrates believes that there is a truth, and through proper dialogue, one can approach the truth.
Whereas Winston Man seems skeptical of even the possibility of a "truth"—he appears to be questioning the very notion of "preaching," even preaching truth.
Michel Foucault – Knowledge is Power
Foucault’s Thought:
Foucault argued that knowledge is never neutral—it is always tied to power, and those who control knowledge control society. The "truths" we believe in are not absolute; they are the result of discourses reinforced by power.
Example:
Medicine, education, religion… each has its own system of knowledge. But which one is "right"? Foucault says: the one recognized by power.
Relating to Winston Man:
The article also questions the same:
What is the preacher serving?
What are the short-term and long-term benefits and harms?
Is the preacher truly intellectual, or are they speaking on behalf of some ideology?
→ Winston Man’s thought carries the mark of Foucault’s poststructuralism: questioning every discourse, even their own.
Jiddu Krishnamurti – Freedom from All Ideologies
Krishnamurti’s Thought:
Krishnamurti goes further than Socrates and Foucault—he rejects all systems of belief, all dogmas, all spiritual power.
He said: "Truth is a pathless land."
Krishnamurti argued that whenever there is a "teacher" and a "learner," a "knower" and a "listener," intellectual freedom is broken. We don’t need to follow anyone, we shouldn’t follow anyone—even him.
Strong Similarity to Winston Man:
Winston Man asks: "Does the preacher know they are preaching?"—exactly like Krishnamurti’s thought: all speech can become a prison if the listener is not aware.
He asks, "Could this article be preaching?"—just as Krishnamurti rejected all titles like "guru" or "master."
→ Both are leading towards an ultimate state of freedom, where the reader/listener must observe for themselves, explore for themselves, and not follow any worn path.
