Judging is stupid and mean. When the masses philosophize, it produces this type of paradoxical injunctions.

As soon as a stimulus reaches us, our brain instantly categorizes it, assessing its relevance and risk.

This process is rapid and unconscious because it relies on adaptation mechanisms that allow us to react without wasting time.

Thus, it is uncontrollable. To put it another way, we cannot prevent ourselves from judging and evaluating.

Ignorance of this automatic functioning often leads to injunctions borrowed from armchair philosophies, drawn from soothing personal development or benevolent well-meaning attitudes.

These discourses ignore the fact that true acceptance of others first and foremost requires judgment.

A judgment that, philosophically, would not be moral, but a recognition of otherness, of difference. Without this, it is impossible to fully accept others, as acceptance can only arise from an emotional and reasoned confrontation with what is external to us.

In practice, human judgment is influenced by moral values, as our education, beliefs, and social norms always influence how we evaluate what surrounds us.

And this is where social psychology comes into play.

Every individual exercises "moral" judgment.

And no, no sage can reach the hypothetical level of "non-judgment" so often valorized.

There you go, you can breathe, judge joyfully.

However, ask yourself, is advocating for non-judgment just for those who need to annihilate the analysis of others, and who do not wish for anyone to scrutinize anything too closely?

I answer "yes, of course," and you?