In 1991, Delia Steinberg took over the presidency of New Acropolis following the death of its founder, Jorge Angel Livraga Rizzi, under whose guidance she had worked very closely over a period of more than 20 years.
She is currently Honorary President of the International Organisation New Acropolis.
Under Delia’s leadership, New Acropolis has expanded across the five continents, bringing Philosophy in the Classical Tradition closer to a wide range of people. This development has been implemented through its philosophical, cultural and volunteering programmes, which have provided new approaches while at the same time going deeper into the identity of New Acropolis, as defined in its founding principles. Thousands of Acropolitan members, friends and supporters from all around the world are living proof that the philosophical answers New Acropolis offers in response to the complexities of our times are valid and necessary, since they are based on the values of timeless wisdom, which has enlightened humanity at its most difficult moments.

Many of us wish to change the world. But how can it be done?

First of all, it is obvious we are not just seeking to change the world – the world is changing anyhow, regardless of what we do. The ancient philosophers wisely stated that the only permanent thing in the world is change.

In reality, it is not change we seek, it is a certain, positive, change – a diversion of the river’s flow, an orientation towards a brighter future for humanity.

Second, none of us by ourselves can really make a meaningful impact.

Often we find ourselves at the crossroads of various opportunities in life. We celebrate the privilege of having options, and experience a sense of freedom in the ability to choose from among so many possibilities. We feel we are in control of our lives, and decide to retain this freedom as far as possible, without having to commit to any one of the options. Before long, however, we are torn between the many options, each one more alluring than the next. And an inner battle looms, to retain as many options as possible, until the last possible minute.

A few years ago, I watched the documentary Babies by Thomas Balmes. It follows the first year of the lives of four babies from Mongolia, Japan, California and Namibia. The film does not contain any narration, it just lets the images speak for themselves, presenting the huge contrast that exists between these four cultures. It is amazing to see how, in just one year, these four babies had utterly different experiences of life on this planet, which would, no doubt, greatly influence the way they were going to understand the world and live in it.

Philosophy means “love of wisdom or knowledge”. It is a route illuminated by the sun of truth. Anything which does not respond to this essential characteristic is not philosophy, but mere speculation and alternative repetitions of what others have said, taking as much advantage of the old teachings as a spoon takes nourishment from and enjoys the soup in which it is dipped.

Among many other psychological diseases, our time is witness to frequent crises of indecisiveness and confusion in people.  Many are those who let their lives slip by in a constant state of dissatisfaction, produced by not knowing what to do or how to do it in order achieve effective results.

Just a few kilometers off the Mumbai Harbor, nestled on an island, amidst basalt rock mounds, lay a mysterious complex of exquisite cave temples that whisper a silent homage to the region’s spiritual past. It’s tune inaudible to the nearby metropolis teeming with ambitious commerce, and ceaseless traffic, here the temple walls echo a stark but graceful embrace, and invite the yearning explorer to re-discover a mystical tradition so vibrant in the distant past.

Today, as the myth of equality is losing force, it is easier to appreciate the wisdom of the ancients, who affirmed that all things and all beings have a different existence. More than that, even within the same person it is difficult to find two identical states of mind throughout the course of a day, a month or a year. Unfortunately, apart from the exceptions

When architects design a building in our times, they share the plan of a proposed building and get the client to approve its design, based on which the building is then taken up for construction. But how do you design a building when your client is divine, or in the invisible?

How would you define art? Usually, it is described as a form which is pleasing to the eyes. We call this form ‘beautiful’. Is beauty then related only to the sense of sight, motivated by the viewer’s feeling at the moment of viewing? Or is there such a thing as absolute Beauty, which is beyond subjective feelings of that moment, grasped by an inner sight, which remains beautiful, whether the viewer appreciates it or not; like a beautiful sunrise, or a lotus flower. Many religions speak of such Beauty as an eternal value, an archetype, one among many expressions of the principles of an objective unchanging reality, unbound by space and time, beyond the ever-changing subjective reality. If such absolute beauty exists, it becomes an aspect of reality, which unites despite differences in moods, fashion, culture, nationality, skin color, or gender.

“And how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?

Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?”

These lines from Bob Dylan’s song – Blowing in the Wind – flashed in my head as I put down another book written on Giordano Bruno, arguably one of the greatest philosophers from the 16th Century. The lines of the song and Giordano Bruno’s quest seem to echo each other – to urge humanity to look beyond the dark sheaths of ignorance, the petty disputes, divisions and one-upmanship, and to explore the true identity of what it means to be human, which is much more than the mode of survival that has become the focus of our ‘living’, today.

Between the Middle Ages in Europe when it was engulfed in darkness, and today where we admire the marvels of human creation, connectedness, technological advancement, and medical progress, have we really become smarter, happier, more loving and caring? Why does it feel that the last few hundred years of progress have largely been about attempts to master the everchanging outside, without ever addressing the real core of the problem? Have we even spent enough time to understand what the core is? Have we made progress towards finding out what our life is about and who we really are?

The word “unify” comes from the Latin unus and facere, “to make one”, that is, to bring together various different parts that are coherent with another, and combine them in such a way that we can achieve a harmonious and homogeneous unity. It is an act of coming closer together, of connection, which, if it did not exist, would mean that each of the parts or beings would follow different paths – something which is not wrong in itself – but it would cause them to be divided, disunited and opposed to one another. Without the gesture of unification, we would have to live in perpetual chaos, in which it would be very difficult to find meaning in existence and its changing circumstances.

Despite their universal existence in all civilizations and all times of history, myths have often been scoffed at and regarded as old wives tales. August Comte, the founder of positivism and sociology, relegated myths to the most early and primitive level of intellectual evolution and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, a French philosopher, associated myth with pre-logical mentality common to the most primitive stages of mankind.

When we argued some years ago in our writings and lectures that a new Middle Ages was approaching, the prediction seemed exaggerated and almost fatalistic.

We also explained at the time that the repetition of historical cycles did not necessarily have to be seen as a calamity or regression, but as part of the natural course of life, which progresses gradually in a circular and spiral-shaped manner, touching similar points along the way, although at different levels of evolution.

The topic of freedom of speech has been much in the news in recent years. On one hand, there are those who view the freedom of speech as an inalienable sacred right (especially when it comes to their own speech…) that should not be infringed upon by other people, institutions, governments or corporations, regardless of the consequences or content of what one says. On the other end of the spectrum are those who want to “cancel”