The correct formula hides in plain sight.
“Dogs and philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards.”
― Diogenes of Sinope
One teaches self-denial as the path to enlightenment, while another champions indulgence as the key to fulfillment. One views authority as sacred; another calls for its dismantling. One exalts God, another denies the concept altogether.
In this noisy marketplace of ideas, people often resign themselves to a relativistic shrug—“your truth is your truth, my truth is mine”. But not all philosophies can be true. The truth, by definition, excludes falsehood. While many philosophies compete, only some can "win". A winning philosophy is not merely a matter of subjective taste, historical popularity, or emotional comfort. It is the worldview that best aligns with what is objectively true, what leads to actual human flourishing, and what withstands the test of reason and reality.
Any winning philosophy must begin with the foundational principle of personal sovereignty. Every human being is a moral agent with the right to determine their own path, as long as they do not infringe upon the equivalent rights of others. It recognises that good and evil are not matters of taste or opinion, but real and knowable categories. It holds that actions, not thoughts, identity, or speech, are what can be judged as morally wrong. And it affirms that behind this moral framework is not arbitrary chance, but a sovereign God who endowed humanity with freedom and purpose.
If moral values are objective, then "correct" ways of living must also be objective. There doesn't necessarily have to be one correct philosophy, although all correct (and justified) ways of living must empower the individual and their ability to be free. This is the only justified point of foundation for any philosophy claiming to be a "winner".
At the heart of the search for the winning philosophy is the idea of personal sovereignty — the radical but rational belief that each individual is the rightful ruler of their own life. This is not libertinism or licence; it is not chaos or lawlessness. It is the recognition that moral agency resides in the individual, not in the collective. Each person, by virtue of being a conscious, thinking, feeling being, has the inalienable right to pursue their own good, so long as they do not violate the rights of others to do the same.
This principle is not only morally sound, but it is also logically indispensable. Without personal sovereignty, moral accountability collapses. If the individual is not sovereign, who is? The crowd? The state? A religious elite? History shows us that whenever these alternatives are tried, they lead to coercion, oppression, and dehumanisation. Philosophies that deny individual sovereignty — whether Marxist collectivism, theocratic authoritarianism, technocratic paternalism, or even democracy — reduce the person to a cog in a machine, a subject of the state, or a sheep in a farmed herd.
But the winning philosophy resists this reduction. It insists that the individual is not property. Not of the government. Not of society. Not even of their own impulses. True personal sovereignty includes responsibility. It recognises that freedom without self-governance leads to self-destruction. But it is precisely because humans are capable of understanding, of discerning good from evil, and of choosing their own actions, that they are accountable. You cannot hold someone responsible for what they did not control. Therefore, to punish thought, emotion, speech, or identity is tyranny. To punish evil actions, such as theft and violence, is justice.
This idea, rooted in Natural Law and moral realism, requires a universe where objective good and evil exist. That is only possible if there is a transcendent source of moral order. In other words, it requires God. Not necessarily the caricature of an old man in the sky, but a real, conscious, moral Being who authored how material reality operates and a method for human beings to access all the critical truths directly with their intuition.
If personal sovereignty is the foundation of the winning philosophy, then its greatest enemy is collective sovereignty. In our time, this usually comes disguised as benevolence: government programs, social contracts, public health mandates, ideological conformity in the name of justice. But behind the smiles and slogans is an ancient lie — that the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good.
But the “greater good” is always defined by someone. And that someone is rarely you.
History is littered with horrors committed in the name of the collective. Totalitarian regimes like those of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all operated on the principle that the group, the class, the nation, or the race was supreme. Individuals were expendable. Their rights could be revoked. Their lives could be ended. And these were not accidents. They were the logical result of a philosophy that denies personal sovereignty and enthrones state power.
Even in softer forms, collectivist philosophies are corrosive. They may not fill mass graves, but they fill prisons with dissenters, classrooms with propaganda, and minds with fear. They erode responsibility by replacing moral choices with bureaucratic mandates. They breed dependency, resentment, and apathy. They treat people not as ends in themselves, but as means to some utopian goal that never arrives.
By contrast, any "winning" philosophy must refuse to violate the moral agency of individuals, even with good intentions in tow. It must be held that the only just use of force is to prevent actions that harm others. It supports self-government only, which means governing anyone other than oneself is an evil act. It champions decentralisation, voluntary association, and the power of free individuals to discover identity, create value, meaning, and community without coercion.
In a world drowning in competing claims, the winning philosophy stands like a lighthouse: steady, unwavering, and grounded. It does not promise utopia, but it does provide clarity. The greatest good is the ability for any individual to self-govern and to enact full control over their own property (their bodies). It is not for everyone to be as content as possible.
In this noisy marketplace of ideas, people often resign themselves to a relativistic shrug—“your truth is your truth, my truth is mine”. But not all philosophies can be true. The truth, by definition, excludes falsehood. While many philosophies compete, only some can "win". A winning philosophy is not merely a matter of subjective taste, historical popularity, or emotional comfort. It is the worldview that best aligns with what is objectively true, what leads to actual human flourishing, and what withstands the test of reason and reality.
Any winning philosophy must begin with the foundational principle of personal sovereignty. Every human being is a moral agent with the right to determine their own path, as long as they do not infringe upon the equivalent rights of others. It recognises that good and evil are not matters of taste or opinion, but real and knowable categories. It holds that actions, not thoughts, identity, or speech, are what can be judged as morally wrong. And it affirms that behind this moral framework is not arbitrary chance, but a sovereign God who endowed humanity with freedom and purpose.
If moral values are objective, then "correct" ways of living must also be objective. There doesn't necessarily have to be one correct philosophy, although all correct (and justified) ways of living must empower the individual and their ability to be free. This is the only justified point of foundation for any philosophy claiming to be a "winner".
Personal Sovereignty: The Core of Truth
At the heart of the search for the winning philosophy is the idea of personal sovereignty — the radical but rational belief that each individual is the rightful ruler of their own life. This is not libertinism or licence; it is not chaos or lawlessness. It is the recognition that moral agency resides in the individual, not in the collective. Each person, by virtue of being a conscious, thinking, feeling being, has the inalienable right to pursue their own good, so long as they do not violate the rights of others to do the same.
This principle is not only morally sound, but it is also logically indispensable. Without personal sovereignty, moral accountability collapses. If the individual is not sovereign, who is? The crowd? The state? A religious elite? History shows us that whenever these alternatives are tried, they lead to coercion, oppression, and dehumanisation. Philosophies that deny individual sovereignty — whether Marxist collectivism, theocratic authoritarianism, technocratic paternalism, or even democracy — reduce the person to a cog in a machine, a subject of the state, or a sheep in a farmed herd.
But the winning philosophy resists this reduction. It insists that the individual is not property. Not of the government. Not of society. Not even of their own impulses. True personal sovereignty includes responsibility. It recognises that freedom without self-governance leads to self-destruction. But it is precisely because humans are capable of understanding, of discerning good from evil, and of choosing their own actions, that they are accountable. You cannot hold someone responsible for what they did not control. Therefore, to punish thought, emotion, speech, or identity is tyranny. To punish evil actions, such as theft and violence, is justice.
This idea, rooted in Natural Law and moral realism, requires a universe where objective good and evil exist. That is only possible if there is a transcendent source of moral order. In other words, it requires God. Not necessarily the caricature of an old man in the sky, but a real, conscious, moral Being who authored how material reality operates and a method for human beings to access all the critical truths directly with their intuition.
The Tyranny of the Collective
If personal sovereignty is the foundation of the winning philosophy, then its greatest enemy is collective sovereignty. In our time, this usually comes disguised as benevolence: government programs, social contracts, public health mandates, ideological conformity in the name of justice. But behind the smiles and slogans is an ancient lie — that the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good.
But the “greater good” is always defined by someone. And that someone is rarely you.
History is littered with horrors committed in the name of the collective. Totalitarian regimes like those of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all operated on the principle that the group, the class, the nation, or the race was supreme. Individuals were expendable. Their rights could be revoked. Their lives could be ended. And these were not accidents. They were the logical result of a philosophy that denies personal sovereignty and enthrones state power.
Even in softer forms, collectivist philosophies are corrosive. They may not fill mass graves, but they fill prisons with dissenters, classrooms with propaganda, and minds with fear. They erode responsibility by replacing moral choices with bureaucratic mandates. They breed dependency, resentment, and apathy. They treat people not as ends in themselves, but as means to some utopian goal that never arrives.
By contrast, any "winning" philosophy must refuse to violate the moral agency of individuals, even with good intentions in tow. It must be held that the only just use of force is to prevent actions that harm others. It supports self-government only, which means governing anyone other than oneself is an evil act. It champions decentralisation, voluntary association, and the power of free individuals to discover identity, create value, meaning, and community without coercion.
The Triumph of Truth
In a world drowning in competing claims, the winning philosophy stands like a lighthouse: steady, unwavering, and grounded. It does not promise utopia, but it does provide clarity. The greatest good is the ability for any individual to self-govern and to enact full control over their own property (their bodies). It is not for everyone to be as content as possible.
It tells us that while humans are flawed, we are also free. That we are not random accidents, but purposeful beings with the ability — and the right — to choose our actions and to live the lives that we choose. That good and evil are not subjective whims, but moral realities. That actions, not intentions, must be judged. And that behind all this is a God who is not a tyrant, but a creator of freedom (sovereignty).
This philosophy is not only correct, but also necessary. Without it, justice collapses into relativism, freedom becomes chaos, and society becomes a tyranny. But with it, the path to a moral and flourishing civilisation remains open.
It is time to stop pretending that all opinions are equally valid. They are not. The only valid philosophies are those that affirm personal sovereignty, objective morality, and divine order—not by conquest, but by coherence. We have the power to discover morals, but not to determine them.
In a world hungry for meaning, the winning philosophy does not impose. It invites. It calls each person to stand upright, to choose good over evil, to take ownership of their own actions, and to honour the sovereignty of others in doing the same. It is not just a philosophy for the mind. It is a way of life for the free.
It is, finally, a philosophy that wins.
This philosophy is not only correct, but also necessary. Without it, justice collapses into relativism, freedom becomes chaos, and society becomes a tyranny. But with it, the path to a moral and flourishing civilisation remains open.
It is time to stop pretending that all opinions are equally valid. They are not. The only valid philosophies are those that affirm personal sovereignty, objective morality, and divine order—not by conquest, but by coherence. We have the power to discover morals, but not to determine them.
In a world hungry for meaning, the winning philosophy does not impose. It invites. It calls each person to stand upright, to choose good over evil, to take ownership of their own actions, and to honour the sovereignty of others in doing the same. It is not just a philosophy for the mind. It is a way of life for the free.
It is, finally, a philosophy that wins.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
