as a philosophy student, i want to develop my ideas before becoming independent in the future. i want to witness those ideas evolve, not simply in terms of perspective, but through their references, additions, and meanings. one of the main ideas i may include in a future book is something i currently call "the last lycan thinking" for now I don't want to go into detail about why i gave it this name because it's more than merely choosing lycan's name. there is a vast difference between it and the werewolf Spirit and Teeth" is Land's attempt to replace the image of the human being as a self-contained spiritual subject with the image of a porous, animal, infected and unstable organism through which the outside is already moving the only difference between a werewolf and a lycan concerns the nature of the infection: it is already genetic, but with the death of the soul, it will become more widespread. so i need to take this reading to a more extreme point. why did i call it genetic? philosophy, sociology, and the other human sciences must admit that they do not alone possess the keys to explaining the human soul. biology is an indispensable partner in this journey, and ignoring it means building our theories on only half the truth. when we move into the deeper layers of the soul conservative beliefs, everyday religious practice, even moments of “rebirth” and profound spiritual transformation the power of society recedes, while genes become overwhelmingly dominant. this simply means that the desire to seek meaning, the need for a daily spiritual refuge, and the capacity to experience religious conversion are innate biological traits. society may point the compass, but the inner engine that drives us to search for meaning is, above all, genetic. this appears in orphaned individuals. i see myself as the product of my own philosophy from the age of six, because of the absence of parental intervention that others tried to impose on me only after it was too late. the further we move away from social supervision, the more our true genetic substance emerges. this also explains why the question of faith matters at the beginning: shelley connects epistemology with personal integrity. if your mind finds nothing convincing in something, you cannot simply force it to believe. an honest response does not necessarily mean adopting certainty in the opposite direction; it may simply mean suspending judgement or belief until evidence becomes available. this may be called a furious atheism: not the denial of god, but the refusal to deny the possibility of god, even if the conditions for his existence remain logically possible. when the limits of your knowledge end, let them end there. do not turn the darkness beyond them into certainty merely because uncertainty feels unbearable. one could say that hobbes understood this force, which cannot simply be called primitive. when thomas hobbes famously said that “man is a wolf to man,” he expressed his bleak view of human behaviour in the “state of nature,” the hypothetical condition of humanity before laws, society, and sovereign authority. hobbes did not necessarily mean that human beings are naturally evil or morally bloodthirsty monsters. rather, he meant that, in the absence of a higher power capable of imposing order the authority he called the LEVIATHAN human relations inevitably descend into conflict. philosophy has tried to preserve a distinct human “interiority.” even when older theological notions of the soul become outdated, philosophy replaces them with concepts such as the transcendental ego, consciousness, phenomenology, and self-presence. the terms change, yet the basic structure remains: there is always assumed to be a private inner space belonging to the human subject. this is where land’s anti-phenomenological position becomes important. for land, phenomenology constantly returns experience to the subject. it asks how things appear, how they manifest themselves, and how consciousness encounters them. land sees this approach as excessively human-centred: it takes the immense unknown outside us and filters it through one question, “what can appear to us?” when we say “human,” we cannot separate it from a higher entity that suffocates every new interpretation. in light of the evidence available to reason, disbelief becomes inevitable for anyone who finds nothing convincing in the arguments for god’s existence. land deliberately invokes the image of the werewolf: a being defined by speed, contagion, animality, and resistance to control. but my use of the lycan is not entirely deliberate, because the idea of being uncontrollable must be taken beyond mere lack of control and toward future generations. the system can raise the whip against the savage at any moment. otherwise, we would always be indebted to the universe for explaining what is happening to us, as though reality mattered only insofar as we can test it, describe it, explain it, or understand it. does this mean that i am a lycan? it is not proven. what will decide it is my descendants, who may possess enough certainty to believe that the world ought to abort itself. when the philosopher encounters something strange, he asks: “what does this mean?” but when the werewolf encounters something strange, it transforms because of it. this is where the genetic mutation attaches itself to you. you are a wolf now, and wolves will emerge from you in human form. the opposite would leave you burdened by self-centredness. because human beings are roughly equal in physical and mental capacities, any individual can potentially kill another. this creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust in which pre-emptive violence becomes a rational means of self-preservation. as a result, this wolf-like dynamic continually ignites the “war of all against all,” making human life — in hobbes’s famous words “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” this is why land describes trakl’s poetry as though it were a disease. poetry is not merely a message to be calmly decoded; it is something capable of infecting you, altering your being, and dragging you toward a destination you never intended to reach. these “lower” beings are marked by laziness, disobedience, nomadism, animality, and excess. they do not fit smoothly into the mechanisms of civilisation. for land: civilisation = a higher order. animality = a lower order. but what if this “lower order” is precisely where something more dangerous is hiding? “animality” is not a historical stage that humanity once passed through and must return to. it is closer to a dimension that civilisation is constantly trying to contain. perhaps this can be expressed genetically. to “become-animal” does not mean that a person becomes primitive or less valuable. the idea is deeper than that. civilisation is like a dam, and behind it lie many forces within us: desires, instincts, the unconscious, bodily drives, chance, and transformation. animality is not a return to the past. it is a condition that has always been with us but has been concealed: a field of unorganised forces that civilisation tries to regulate. so, when land speaks of “becoming-animal,” he sometimes means escaping the rigid order that defines you as a disciplined and controlled human being, with a stripping away of doubtful madness, rather than literally turning into an animal. simply put, it means freeing oneself from ordinary organisational constraints and entering a form of life that is more chaotic, broader, and less obedient to conventional human and academic rules. i mention academia because it belongs to a long history of thought enclosing itself within its own limits. why do we even need a special place for "god" in our picture of the world? the same question then applies to the human self. if you remove god but keep the idea that i, as a conscious and rational subject, am the absolute center of experience, then all you have done is rename the highest authority. this also explains the strange link between atheism and animality. here, the animal is not just used as a sign of something "lower" than humanity. the sequence, human -> animal -> matter -> nothing, is still hierarchical at its core, while lycanism turns that sequence upside down and speaks in terms of chains of flows. it is an attack on what remains of "transcendence" after god has been provisionally removed from the scene. so "spirit" here is the illusion of a pure and elevated inner world, whether it is called god, consciousness, reason, or the self, detached from the chaotic material world (in klages sense) A lycan is a human to another werewolf*