In this episode, I want to reflect on a word that doesn't quite have an equivalent in Persian, circumstantial. It's one of those English terms that relies heavily on context, on specific conditions or environments, and that makes it fascinating. The idea that something can only be understood within its surrounding circumstances feels very nuanced, very situational. And yet, in Persian, we don't really have a direct equivalent. This reminds me of a challenge I faced in the previous episode, the one where I tried to bridge Persian and English in a bilingual format. A listener offered some very fair criticism, the comparison between the two languages, especially when trying to explain abstract concepts just didn't land. And honestly, they were right. It was hard to define the boundaries. I was trying to show how each language views the world differently, but I ended up highlighting just how complex, even impossible, that task really is. And with only 26 minutes, There's only so much you can do. Extending the time doesn't always help either. In fact, it often makes it harder to keep the audience engaged. That's why I've decided. Future episodes will likely be language specific. If the conversation is in Persian, it will be a Persian podcast. If it's in English, we'll stay in English. It's cleaner. It respects the logic of each language and the mindset behind it. Because as we've seen, Translation is not just about changing words. It's about shifting meaning. And in that shift, things inevitably get lost or transformed. Sometimes this translation works, but often what emerged isn't a direct equivalent. It's something new, something circumstantial. So yes, that's the theme for this episode, circumstantial. I'm Reza Sanjide and you're listening to Philosophy of Life podcast. Thank you for being here. So what does it actually mean, this word circumstantial? And why is it worth dedicating a whole episode to it? On the surface, it's a word we associate with law. with detail, with things that surround a central point. But beneath that, it reveals something deeper about how we understand truth, meaning, and experience. To be circumstantial is to be defined by conditions, not by essence, not by a fixed nature, but by the environment, by the frame, by the things happening around the thing itself. In law, we say, circumstantial evidence is not direct proof, but it suggests, it points, it whispers, instead of declares. In life too, how often do we find ourselves interpreting what's around the event, more than the event itself? What was said? What wasn't said? Who was there? What time it was? What the mood was? These details, seemingly on the side, become the story. So we ask, can circumstantial truth be real truth? Can something be known without being directly shown? This opens a wider philosophical debate about knowledge, evidence, truth, and interpretation, and about how much of our reality is built on circumstantial understanding. In next part, we'll take this deeper, to its roots of the word, its philosophical weight, and how thinkers have wrestled with it through time. To dive deeper, we need to step back, into language, into history, and into the structure of thought itself. The word circumstantial comes from Latin word circumstantia, meaning surrounds. It's built from circum, meaning around, and stir, meaning stand. So, literally, circumstantial means stand around. Not at the center, but in the environment. Not at the core itself, but the surrounding field. Not the fact, but the frame. And this is powerful, because it reminds us that context isn't just decoration. It is definition. In everyday use, we often threat the circumstantial as a secondary. Circumstantial details. Circumstantial reporting. Circumstantial evidence. Things we're told not to rely on, but can't help relying on. Nowhere is this more clear than in law. In a court, circumstantial evidence doesn't directly prove the fact in question, but when enough circumstantial pieces are assembled, they can form a pattern that is ironic ally, more persuasive than one lone direct witness. Lawyers build entire cases on inference, connecting the dots across time, motive, opportunity, and behavior. It's the story that makes the evidence meaningful. In philosophy, this leads us straight into epistemology, the study of knowledge. How do we know what we know? How strong is inference compared to direct perception? Can we trust what surrounds a fact, as much as, or more than, the fact itself? And that's where thinkers like Aristotle weigh in. He warned of the fallacy of ignoring relevant circumstances, arguing that if we neglect what surrounds a fact, we risk making incomplete or faulty conclusions. In other words, you can't reason well if you ignore the circumstantial, but you also can't build a whole truth only on it. It's a tightrope between essential truth and contextual understanding. So, As we explore this word, we begin to see that it's more than linguistic. It's epistemological. It's legal. It's logical. And if we follow its trail far enough, it becomes deeply personal. And that brings us to one of the most difficult tensions in moral philosophy. How much are we truly responsible for if so much of what we do is shaped by our circumstances? Here, Immanuel Kant says, takes a bold position. He argues that moral worth doesn't lie in what we achieve, but in how we choose, regardless of the outcome. As he rates in groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, a good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes. It is good through its willing alone. In other words, even if the world works against us, even if our choices lead to failure, if we act it out of pure intention, from duty, we are still morally upright. But what happens when circumstances make moral choice harder? Or when people judge us without knowing the full context? Let's unpack that next. Let's bring this idea down to earth, because circumstantial isn't just a word for lawyers and philosophers is something we live through every single day. We often think our choices define us, that we are who we are because of what we decide. What shaped the moment of that decision? What pressures were we under? What options were even visible? What context were we standing in? This is where moral luck enters the picture, a concept That seems to go directly against Immanuel Kant. Kant believed moral worth comes from acting with good intention, out of duty, regardless of outcome or circumstance. But then reality pushes back. Imagine two people with equally strong moral character. One is never tested, never put in a hard situation. The other is maybe because of war, poverty, trauma, or betrayal. Which one do we admire more? Which one is blamed when they fail? It's uncomfortable because we want to believe in free will, in moral responsibility. But we also know how much of life is circumstantial. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it, where the external circumstances of action are beyond the agent's control, we are still inclined to judge them morally. And that raises the question, How fair is our judgment of others and of ourselves? We live in a culture obsessed with accountability, but we often ignore the complexity of context. Kant would say, you are responsible always. Act from duty. Act with moral clarity. But life doesn't always give us clear rules. Sometimes the morally right path is surrounded by fog, by fear, pressure, doubt, emotion, confusion. And yet, It's in those moments, precisely when the circumstances are hardest, that our character is revealed. Or maybe it's when we learn how circumstantial character really is. In our relationships, in our careers, even in the narratives we tell ourselves, we are constantly deciding, was that action essential or was it circumstantial? When someone fails, do we ask, what kind of person are you? Or do we ask, What kind of situation were you in? In many ways, to understand ethics is to walk this tightrope, to respect intention while never ignoring the frame around it. So here's a deeper question for us today. How much of who we are is defined by what we control and how much by what we can't? We move now into part four. where we take circumstantial into everyday language, everyday moment and everyday meaning. Let's see how these philosophical words show up in casual speech, cultural habits and the small stories we tell without even noticing. We've explored the philosophy, the law, the ethics, but now let's listen to how the word circumstantial shows up in everyday life. You hear it in phrases like, that's just circumstantial, or the case was built on circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it's used dismissively, as if to say, it's not solid, it's not essential, it could be misleading, but Is it really so secondary or is it just harder to pin down? In reality, most of our lives are filled with circumstantial interpretations. Think about these moments. You text someone and they don't reply. You start wondering, are they upset? Are they ignoring me? But maybe they were just busy or asleep. All you have is circumstantial data. You're passed over for a promotion at work. No one says why. You infer it was politics or favoritism. Again, circumstantial evidence. A friend says something with a strange tone, not outright offensive, just off. You begin building a narrative. Was that passive-aggressive? You analyze what they said before, what they meant last week. None of it is direct. All of it is context. And this is where language becomes interesting, because we rarely say, I have no proof, only inference. Instead, we rely on tone, setting, timing, history, in short, circumstance. Even in storytelling, we thrive on circumstantial detail. He walked in late, dripping wet from the rain, avoiding eye contact. We read between the lines. We fill in the unsaid. In many cultures, especially Eastern cultures, what's left unsaid is often more important than what's spoken. This is circumstantial communication at its peak. You're expected to understand based on tone, timing, background, not just the words. And so, in daily life, the circumstantial isn't just common, it's foundational. So where does this leave us? It tells us that to live thoughtfully, We must become better readers of the circumstantial. We must learn to... It's often in the circumstantial that the soul of the story lives. I'm Reza Sanjaday and this has been another episode of Philosophy of Life podcast, where a single word opened the door to everything that surrounds it. Thank you for listening. And as always, question what seems essential and pay attention to what stands around it.