The Search Bar

(Philosocom's Directory on Politics) Synopsis and Feedback by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Honest Thoughts on Constitutional Monarchy" explores the logical reasoning behind the Constitutional Monarchy as a form of government, and criticize it. Constitutional monarchies offer several advantages, such as providing national unity, stability, and continuity. Monarchs often serve as unifying figures that embody national identity and tradition, which can help foster a sense of common purpose and cohesion within a politically diverse society. Additionally, constitutional monarchies tend to offer a balanced system of governance with checks and balances that can prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful​. On the downside, constitutional monarchies can be criticized for being costly, as maintaining the royal family and its functions often involves significant public expenditure. Furthermore, the process of decision-making in constitutional monarchies can be slow and cumbersome due to the need for approval from multiple layers of government, including the monarch and the elected bodies. This can hinder quick responses in times of emergency. Additionally, there is the issue of quality in leadership, as monarchs are not elected based on merit but rather inherit their positions, which can sometimes lead to ineffective or inexperienced heads of state​​​​. The article concludes that while Democratic Republics can be more just, and relying on merit and not ancestry. (Background music) Dethroning Absolute Rule: Understanding Constitutional Monarchies A constitutional monarchy is a form of government where the monarch, whether a king, queen, sultan, or emperor, holds a symbolic or limited leadership role. Unlike absolute monarchs of the past, their power is restricted by a constitution, a document outlining the laws of the state. This effectively denies their ability to rule with complete authority. Interestingly, another term for this system is "democratic monarchy." However, it's important to understand that the people don't directly elect the monarch. That is known as elective monarchy. However, an elected monarch can still be a symbolic figurehead, as expressed in the Cambodian monarchy, where the figurehead is elected for life by the royal council. Beyond such elections, the monarch's title is usually hereditary, passing down through a royal family. The democratic aspect comes from the system itself, where the power of the citizens outweighs that of the monarch, as they elect the government that rules alongside the monarch, or actually rule, while the monarch remains nothing more than a prestigious status symbol wearer. While the monarch may retain some influence, it pales in comparison to the authority held by the public, often referred to as "subjects" in historical contexts. The concept of a constitutional monarch isn't limited to kings and queens. Countries like Japan have an emperor position to this day, who fulfils a similar symbolic role. The current Emperor of Japan, for instance, wields minimal to no political power under Article 4 of the nation's constitution. A Meritocrat's View on Modern Monarchies In today's world, the concept of a constitutional monarchy, where a king or queen reigns with limited power, seems like an unnecessary layer in a functioning democracy. A true republic, where the power rests with the people, embodies the spirit of democracy more authentically. My personal view on monarchies isn't about the individuals themselves. I hold no hostility towards members of royal families. However, the very idea of inherited privilege opposes the legitimacy of meritocracies, which promotes the equality of opportunity. Their lives are often treated like celebrity gossip, their voices amplified solely due to their ancestry. While Prince Harry's book release gained international attention, I believe his own experiences and message, rather than his royal title, deserved the spotlight. After all, he stepped down from his royal status. As such, historically, being a royal member gives you greater access to education and are less likely to live in poverty (with exceptions such as King Ludwig II of Bavaria who assumingly paid for his debts with his life). This makes a bit more sense when actually have power, and not when your power is a mere status symbol, and a burden on taxpayer's hard-earned work. The death of Queen Elizabeth brought a wave of mixed emotions. While sadness dominated my feelings before I died inside, I was surprised to witness some celebratory reactions. However, my dislike is directed at the unfair institution, not at the individuals. I believe these people are worthy of respect simply as human beings, not because of their titles. I wouldn't seek to dishonor someone just because of their titles, or lack thereof, while they still retain their right of respect, which I can enforce in my behavior towards them. If I found myself in the peculiar position of a symbolic nobleman, I wouldn't settle for a purely ceremonial role. The drive to achieve merit and build a legacy on my own terms would be far more important to me than luxury gained through mere historic symbolism. I wouldn't want to be defined solely by a noble bloodline. In that scenario, I would choose to be recognized for who I am, Tomasio, rather than just another member of the nobility. That includes the actual, underrated dynasty I am part of, the Zackheim rabbi dynasty of Belarus, comprised of many rabbis and philosophers forgotten by history. The Price of a Crown The enduring presence of constitutional monarchies raises a question: are these elaborate institutions a valuable relic of the past, or an outdated burden on taxpayers? While tradition, culture, and national heritage hold weight, a closer look reveals some practical and financial concerns. Maintaining a royal family can significantly drain public resources. Tax money that could be used for essential services goes towards funding their opulent lifestyles. Perhaps the financial benefit of abolishing these monarchies outweighs the sentimental value they hold. Returning to the British Royal Family, in 2023, the monarchy got paid "£86.3 million, made up of £51.8 million for the core funding and an extra £34.5 million for maintaining Buckingham Palace" according to the Standard news outlet. This is quite a hefty sum of money to pay for a symbolic institution and its assets. The core principle of a democracy is the power residing with the people, exercised through elected representatives. In a constitutional monarchy, a hereditary ruler holds a position of power – a technical contradiction, whether symbolic or otherwise. As such, not all constitutional monarchies are symbolic, with Liechtenstein's non-elected Prince having a considerable power of his own, along with the people. Can a leader who wasn't elected by the people truly be considered democratic? The nobility, seem to be aware of their diminished influence in a world dominated by republics and democracies. Those with no actual power, form of elaborate live-action roleplaying (LARP) with little practical relevance. While some democratic republics, like Germany, have titles of nobility, these individuals don't wield political power. Their lineage has no bearing on the functioning of the state. So, what is even the point in such hollow, privileged display of vanity? My Hope The ideal form of government, in my view, is a democratic republic. These nations hold legitimate elections, ensuring that leadership is based on merit and the will of the people, not on ancestry. When you have, for example, kings like Charles II of Spain, who suffered from physical and mental disabilities, maybe it's not a good idea to have a heredity rule for an entire nation. While this vision may not be fully embraced, a world where absolute monarchies are completely relics of the past, and democracies reign supreme, should at least be considered.

Those who aspire to be philosophers, specifically, see this article. (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis Academic degrees prove that someone is knowledgeable in a specific field. For some professions, diplomas are a necessity; for others, certificates are optional credentials. "The Degree Fallacy" is a bias in judging a person's character or intelligence based solely on their diplomas. It overlooks that some people can become experts outside academia through self-study. Also, an academic degree only makes a person knowledgeable in a field of study. A misconception of a scholar's generalized expertise can hinder a productive exchange of ideas by disregarding the valuable insights of a person without a diploma. While degrees are valuable for careers, studies in the humanities, such as philosophy, can be learned independently. The author became a competent philosopher through self-study. He works with reviewers and summarizers to produce high-quality articles, proving that self-education can be effective and successful. Getting an academic degree can be too stressful and expensive for some people. If you cannot pursue traditional education, you can always acquire knowledge online. Being a true intellect means constantly learning, with or without a diploma. Philosophers such as Socrates, Diogenes, and David Hume didn't graduate from a university; regardless, they became influential thinkers. "To deny wisdom/ability on the basis of someone's lack of "official credentials" is the dumbest thing smart people often do" -- Mr. John Duran The Value of a Degree Academic degrees are currently one of the most concrete proofs that someone is knowledgeable in at least one or two fields, especially in fields where a degree is either mandatory for professionalism (as in medicine and engineering) or optional but very useful as a credential (as in philosophy or literature). However, because of how luxurious degrees can be, a certain bias could be created in the eyes of some, when judging one's character and even intelligence. I'd like to call this bias "The Degree Fallacy" because there are still a few things we should remember about degrees, that are, for some, still severely overlooked: One can become knowledgeable in a field in more unorthodox ways, like by learning things on their own. Because of that, there could be a possibility of finding at least one pair of people who are equally knowledgeable through academia and through independent study. Academic education is a privilege for many people in most countries. Logically, to many worldwide, it is a liberator from their current socio-economic status, capable of elevating their lives to greater heights, better ensuring their survival. However, not everyone is financially capable of such financial dedication of funds, or of enduring the debt that is required for some. While money technically buys a degree, there are far cheaper ways of attaining, theoretically, the same knowledge. This is called, in an article I wrote, the same result problem. Having a degree doesn't necessarily make you knowledgeable in fields that are not relevant to your expertise. I can tell from personal experience that my counterpoint was once disregarded over the premise someone with... a biochemistry degree, had made. This is despite the fact that biochemistry had nothing to do with the discussion. In other words, our biased understanding towards degrees can hinder a productive exchange of ideas, by disregarding valuable insights over a person's lack of certification. This further demonstrates how having knowledge can ironically serve as a barrier to the learning of further knowledge, as presented by Socrates. Nonetheless, degrees are highly valuable, and there's nothing wrong with that, by default. But when it gives you a higher standing just because you chose the orthodox path to knowledge, that should be unacceptable at times when the other unorthodox methods can be just as practical for others. That is true in the fields of the humanities, too, where information can be attained and learned independently. Especially when it comes to the humanities, a person can be intellectual even without a single course under their belt. This is demonstrated in philosophers belonging to the metaphorical "Sorcerer" faction. And obviously, to claim that you are omniscient in the field you did one or more degrees in, is an absurd notion. Why? Because that claim can be proven wrong somehow, someday, by someone. Despite one's mastery in a field, one in theory can never reach omniscience because there could always be more to learn. I used to be a philosophy student, and even though I did well in my studies like I always did as a student in general, I halted it indefinitely in the name of both my savings and my mental wellbeing. The orthodox way was too stressful. I find myself learning as much as renovating Philosocom articles ruthlessly and researching sources for that effort. I don't want to have a degree at the cost of my finances and mental state, when I can be both a philosopher and knowledgeable at a far lower price. I also don't do it entirely alone, as I have reviewers to help me look both ways at the article's subject, and summarizers, thus refining an article even further through the function of combined effort. This is just one of the reasons why degrees aren't always obtained, even if you have the means to do so: The fact that we can do things, like murder, doesn't mean we should, even if other examples are good but come at a high price. We need to use foresight to properly understand the toll of sacrifice we'll have to endure as a result of the activities we choose to pursue. Stress gathers up within our bodies, for example, thus hindering our overall health if we don't do anything to reduce it. Should there be too much stress, we might become fatigued on a more-chronic basis. To better preserve our health, we need to understand that health is a capacity which can be reduced the more we ignore it. Your savings can be used otherwise if the same knowledge can be learned more cheaply. By doing so you save not only money but also much needed health, which can be compromised by increased stress, which leads to fatigue. We should also remember that formal education is only one way of attaining knowledge or even wisdom. Nowadays, that also includes books you can read at the library or order online. The same destination, after all, can have multiple paths, and not every path suits every traveler. If the desired path does not suit you, no one should make you feel bad about it. I'm not a doctor or a professor, but I know that if I put in the time and effort, I can become just as educated as an academic, even if it won't be completely free. So can you, if the academic world is not for you. You can better understand my educational deviation by reading "The Philosopher" page. When you are a public figure, the worst thing you can do is become pretentious. And, when it comes to "pretentiousness", remember that Socrates, who had no degree, was only a stonemason. A pseudo-intellectual can be one even if they are academic, as ironic as it may sound. Much of being a true intellect has to do with one's relentlessness to learn and even question their own knowledge. Diogenes, as well, was a poor man who lived in a barrel. He was an intellect worthy of contemplation despite being an eccentric homeless man. A true intellect would know a chance of learning when they see it, and will attempt to seize it. I feature guest posts on Philosocom for a reason. Therefore, philosophy does not require you to have a degree in order to be a philosopher, even though it would certainly help. We need to make this distinction between necessity and benefit. The academy is no longer the exclusive keeper of knowledge. One of its points is to open you up to more job opportunities via the certificate that is their degree. I would not trust a physician who has no professional education of any kind, but can we truly say this regarding every profession that can be studied academically? Socrates had no academic background, for example, and that did not stop him from being regarded as the founder of Western philosophy. You can find examples of other notable, non-academic philosophers, like David Hume, on your own. While Hume studied law, he gave it up in order to study philosophy and study in general, even outside of higher education. Like me, he did not graduate from university. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback To me, education wasn't anything more than an experience. I value the time because, oh, how it applies to me now. The same way I have utilized the university of life. I use it as a basis for understanding. That is all. College got me to learn to think differently about things. I do however see Mr. Tomasio's point that it is a bit useless as far as anything, because my education has never prepared me for any job I have had, it has all been on the job training. All college does is let people know you are a good learner. Why, unless it's something like a doctor who requires specific knowledge, you don't require a degree for anything you want to do. Like what my education has taught me is how to think more logically about things. College is pretty much the admissions for specialized career fields. You can however gain such knowledge without college. All college really does is supply you with a career requirement. Colleges only possess one good application. Don't ever attend college without a game plan. Think of it as pre-emptive job training for what you want to do. Most higher professions require this start to possess them with your higher up special training you will learn on the job. All you get in college is a good foundation for the basics. Most people aren't as concerned with your degree title, exception being doctors or any other high-end job like that. They are only concerned with what you attended, and your general education supplied you with enough basics which they can use as a basis for understanding.

As a sentient feeling species, our sense of morality and ethics is clearly superior to any possible version of God. No moral or ethical God would ever deem to create such beings born to suffer, knowing in advance just what would happen. There is no darker act than to create suffering to suffer -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Morality is possible even without the belief in divine existence and intervention. The following are the possible sources in which morality can come from, with giving some personal examples as well as an atheist (and agnostic) myself: 1. Egoism: Doing things out of self-interest is not necessarily immoral, as long as the actions themselves are beneficial to oneself and others. It is only natural for us to put ourselves first, as adults need to learn how to take care of themselves without the help of others. For example, preparing a meal and eating it by oneself is an example that proves there is no necessary connection between self-interest and immorality. Additionally, egoism is important for our independence as mature people. I, as such, used to help random people when they requested it, because seeing others benefit can also makes me feel good. Therefore, this could be a self-interest in helping others... One that is based on good feelings, not necessarily (or completely) bad ones. (For more on it click here). 2. Harmony: a good sense of harmony between people is imperative for optimal cooperation and safety, and evil is unnecessary. Those who claim that good cannot exist without evil and evil cannot exist without good -- how would you explain pure deeds of good and the pure deeds of bad? One time I helped someone in a supermarket. She was too short to reach for some product, so I reached it myself and handed it to her. Now, please explain to me what evil existed in this deed. If I were to refuse her request to help her, she would probably be angry with me or say bad things about me as I passed by. Why would I want others to be told bad things about me, let alone in my presence? The same went back in my office-working days. When I did even small deeds, such as lifting boxes to tables of secretaries who are too weak to do it on their own. The fact that my contribution to others creates a good sense of harmony is sometimes sufficient for me to commit altruistic deeds. (For more on it click here) 3. Productivity: For me, productivity is a prime priority, because the products that are being created are a reflection and a representation of our inner merits. This is why I like writing in a very workaholic way. I like to produce things, especially when it comes to writing. The Morality and Atheism behind it is that my products can benefit others and even help them on the philosophical and practical levels, without any religious context or faith being necessary in it. Being in constant action at times makes me feel good about myself and worthy. This is why I sometimes wake up early in the morning and drink coffee, just to write, instead of potentially sleeping more. 4. Karma: While I don’t believe in an energy called “karma”, I do believe in the wisdom behind it: If I shall help others, it would be more likely they would help me in return, and if I will do bad things to others, they might do the same to me in the future. As I said before, evil is not necessary (unlike the very few times it might be). Thus, I do as best as I can to be in good relations with everyone I interact with. (For an article on Karma click here) 5. The Law: Usually, the law is what enables us to function in life with a possibility of optimal sense of safety. Think of what your countries did to you: gave you different services, provided you or your family with employment, protected you from criminals and terrorists, granted you civil rights, and so forth. An earlier example was a while back, when I saw a girl being beaten by another girl in the middle of a park. (An extra work on law enforcement can be read here). Everyone watched and most did nothing, with few people trying to reach her physically, only to be blocked by the beating girl’s followers, guarding their leader from society. There were people watching this scenario from the safety of their homes, choosing to do nothing. I am unsure if anyone else called the police but me, as I backed off, refusing to see this horrible act as entertaining. As naive as I was back then, I already knew the law was there to protect me and others from possible dangers. Thus, I thought to myself “why should I step away if I can call the police? The police’s purpose is to protect and serve us, the citizenry?” No divinity would necessarily intervene at such display of injustice. And finally, 6. Family: I personally view family as one of the biggest values in a moral man or woman's life. If not the family that you grow up with, then an adopted family. If not one's adopters, then it could be one's "tribe" or romantic relationship.... You know, people, or even one person, you can be yourself with, and fearlessly. People that are willing to understand you. That's especially true in my eyes when the family/clan actually took an active part in your growth and education, as well as supporting the cultivation of your moral compass. Conclusion: We can conclude from all of this that atheists can act good as well, and that religion does not have to be the only source of morality. Let us not advocate the negative stereotypes and generalizations that are usually associated with atheists and atheism. Instead, to foster a greater understanding of morality, we should develop the habit of looking both ways.

Share your philosophical insights! Submit guest articles to Philosocom, a platform for diverse voices exploring life's biggest questions. Apply To Submit Articles Today The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. Guest articles are given far higher priority than Mr. Tomasio's articles to not be removed, and credit will always be given to the author/s unless requested otherwise. To apply for a guest article, story or even poem of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com By submitting a post, you agree to the site's rules for writers.

Policies Page Service Level Agreement: I, Tomasio Rubinshtein, the site's writer and manager, promise the site's visitors, readers and members the following: 1. To try and provide worthy content to those looking for philosophical/contemplative articles, poems and videos (AKA content). 2. To accept content from external writers/content creators whose content I believe to be worthy as well, and give them the credit they deserve. 3. To try and dedicate time to reading the comments and other feedback from the site's userbase, and provide feedback of my own when I believe such feedback is either beneficial or necessary. 4. To allow respectful, tolerating discussions on Philosocom and to give members a safe place to express themselves, as I expect them to allow me. 5. To be intolerant to any troll that is either trolling either me or others. Likewise, I expect, even if not much, from the site's userbase: 1. To be at least reasonably grateful for all the time, energy and effort that I've put to this site, to its content and to replying to your comments. 2. That I am, too, grateful for the time you put into reading my articles, signing up,and providing respectful, considerate comments.

Go beyond regurgitated philosophy. Explore personal insights & practical wisdom on ethics, self-development & more. Discover Philosocom's unique approach. The Philosophical Significance of Philosocom By: An Apprentice Introduction The Philosocom Article Empire presents itself as an intellectually stimulating space within the vast world of online philosophy, aimed at rectifying the world . It operates as a blog that doesn’t merely regurgitate well-known philosophical doctrines or engage in purely academic debates. Instead, it offers a unique blend of personal insight and reflective thinking . The site caters to both casual readers with an interest in philosophical musings and more dedicated seekers of wisdom who are looking for practical applications of complex ideas. At its core, Philosocom tackles essential human concerns—ethics, self-development, existential questions, and the nature of the mind —through the lens of lived experience and intellectual inquiry. Unlike many traditional philosophical platforms that may focus on the technicalities of theory or the dissection of historical philosophical figures, Philosocom approaches philosophy as something deeply intertwined with everyday life. It offers an accessible entry point for those new to philosophy while still presenting intellectually rich content that invites deeper exploration. This synthesis of personal narrative, philosophical analysis, and practical wisdom positions “Philosocom” as a site that goes beyond mere academic discourse. It aims to inspire its readers to think critically about their own lives, challenge their assumptions , and engage in continuous self-reflection. In doing so, it contributes to the broader philosophical discourse by emphasizing the relevance of philosophical thinking in the modern world. What exactly does Philosocom offer to its readers on an intellectual level, and how does it make a meaningful contribution to the world of philosophy? What Philosocom Offers Personal Philosophy with Depth and Accessibility One of the primary intellectual offerings of Philosocom is its personalized approach to philosophy. The content is deeply reflective, rooted in the author’s own experiences and thought processes. This approach transforms abstract philosophical ideas into something tangible and relatable. By reflecting on real-life situations and emotions, the blog fosters a connection between the intellectual and the practical. The blog excels at making complex ideas more accessible without oversimplifying them. It demonstrates that philosophy is not solely reserved for academia ; instead, it is a living, breathing discipline that anyone can engage with. A Fusion of Ethical Inquiry and Self-Improvement Ethical considerations are a recurrent theme in the blog’s content. From explorations of ruthlessness to reflections on peace and reducing suffering , Philosocom invites readers to think critically about their own ethical frameworks. It challenges them to examine their behavior and decisions through a philosophical lens, encouraging self-improvement rooted in ethical reflection. This fusion of ethics and self-improvement sets Philosocom apart. The blog does not just provide philosophical food for thought; it offers actionable insights that readers can apply in their lives. It fosters an intellectual environment where philosophical ideas translate into real-world practices, which can lead to personal growth and betterment. Existential and Psychological Exploration The existential dimension of Philosocom is another critical intellectual aspect of the site. The blog delves into questions about the human condition, the meaning of life, and the void of existential loneliness. These topics, often daunting or unsettling for many, are approached with care and thoughtfulness. Readers are encouraged not only to confront these questions but also to find ways to navigate them. The psychological exploration within the blog further enriches its intellectual offering. Articles that delve into neuroplasticity, inner development, and the workings of the mind provide a philosophical perspective on human psychology. By connecting philosophy with contemporary understandings of the brain and behavior, Philosocom offers readers a holistic view of what it means to be human. Encouragement of Critical Thinking and Reflection Philosocom excels in fostering critical thinking. The articles are written in a way that invites readers to question their own beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors. Instead of offering definitive answers, the blog often poses questions or presents dilemmas that require the reader to engage in reflection. This approach encourages active participation in philosophical thinking, making readers co-creators in the intellectual process. The blog also emphasizes the importance of reflection as a philosophical tool. Whether it’s reflecting on personal experiences, moral choices, or existential questions, Philosocom advocates for introspection as a means of gaining deeper understanding and insight. Conclusion Philosocom stands out as a philosophical blog that bridges the gap between intellectual inquiry and practical application. Its unique approach of combining personal reflection with philosophical exploration offers readers a distinctive experience—one that is intellectually stimulating yet grounded in the realities of everyday life. The blog's strength lies in its ability to make philosophy accessible to a wide audience while maintaining depth and originality in its content. By addressing themes like ethics, existentialism, self-improvement, and psychology, Philosocom contributes meaningfully to contemporary philosophical discourse. It encourages its readers to think critically, reflect deeply, and engage with philosophy not just as an academic exercise but as a way of life. For those seeking a blend of intellectual richness and practical wisdom , Philosocom offers a thoughtful and valuable resource in the digital age.