The Search Bar

How to hide the accessibility widget on Philosocom: 1. Click on the widget on the left. 2. Look down. "Click Move/Hide Widget" 3. Click "Hide" 4. Scroll down and click "Hide Widget" 5. Note: You can also hide it indefinately by choosing the option.

(Note: I do not deal with absolutes, for reality is most often than not, dynamic). According to my observations, there is a growing need in the world for something called emotional validation. Please note that I am not using scare quotes; I am simply referring to this concept by its more formal name. I may also use scare quotes when referring to other concepts such as trigger warnings. Apologies for the digression, dear readers. Anyways, "Emotional Validation" is "acknowledging and accepting a person's inner experience, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as valid." In logic, validity is an attribute that justifies a component in an argument. In other words, if "A is not B", then it is valid to claim that "B is not A" as well. For example, if I say that "all dogs are mammals", then it is valid to conclude that "there is no non-mammal that is a dog". This is because the converse of a valid statement is also true. Similarly, with emotional validation, someone who needs or wants to feel validated seeks to be recognized by the external world. This also means that they do not want to be judged or criticized. Am I correct? Of course, there may be exceptions to this rule, but it is generally true. It is understandable why people desire to be validated. After all, who doesn't want to feel good about themselves? I myself sought validation through world relevance, only to realize that I already had it, thanks to my work for you. I can clearly understand the hardship that follows from being shamed and condemned for who you are. Thus, to redeem one's self-esteem, they do not necessarily resort to doing so autonomously. External company seems to be a great help for that effort. I assume that this is one of the reasons why safe spaces exist. Because in a safe space, you are supposed to be safe from criticism and "attacks" on whatever you present (or even yourself). Sorry to digress once more, but as a philosopher, I am not fond of blaming. I am definitely fond of criticizing. It's part of the job. The philosopher is a critic of existence, as they recognize the fact that it is, by default, flawed. How can it ever be perfect realistically? Rhetorical question. The person who seeks to be validated is vulnerable by default. The validation-seeker is vulnerable because they seek something they do not have. What do they not have enough of? Confidence, of course! A person who is confident enough in their abilities and who they are would not need to seek validation. Here's an honest question, and feel free to answer me in the comments (or social media, DMs, whatever): Can there be a confident person who seeks validation? Compare this to food. If you feel satiated after a well-prepared meal, would you eat more regardless? The point is, validation is built on confidence, and the need for confidence has its own capacity. Just like with food and hunger. By the way, if I'm mistaken, and convinced that I am, I'm usually willing to re-edit my articles. So, my critique of emotional validation is this: We can, unintentionally, create an unhealthy dependence on being emotionally validated by others. It's "unhealthy" because it is an independent capability, at least by potential, that we can easily give away, in favor of approval. Likes, follows, shares, and the like on social media. These are components that can condition us to not develop this confidence from within. Should we compromise this capability, we might also compromise our potential to be assertive, and even charismatic. Perhaps, some of us would be so desperate for validation, that they would do very disturbing things. Merely for attention. And at times, for "pity-parties". By the way, I have no need for your pity. Despite my hardships, your pity does not help me in any way. So please don't offer it, as it is humiliating, just as it is to disrespect a genuine desire for contribution. And yes, I'm aware that I'm seeking this emotion to be validated. I'm trying to reduce bias, here, not to romanticize my point. And my point is that we need to build character! To grow our self-esteem, to the point that the function of validation will be less and less important for us! Of course, we deserve emotional support from time to time, and some people may deserve it more than others. However, why risk the unhealthy dependency on external approval? It can be compared to business. If we "cut out the middleman," we will save resources, such as time and energy. In this case, if we work to be more confident, the "middleman" that is other people will be less necessary. And therefore, we will save our limited resources for other activities. Look, I learned this the hard way as a fatigued man. Not the validation, no. The imperative need to cut expenses. When your energies are severely limited, your potential gets compromised. Do you wish for proof? I'll gladly give it to you, for fatigue harms my very ability to walk. No, no, I'm not asking for your pity. I'm simply showing you the reasoning behind my critique. I think for the long term, if we waste too much of our time and energies, we will limit our potential. I'm not saying that emotional validation is a waste of time. I'm saying that we can cut some expenses if we work to build our confidence. Our confidence is a virtue, remember that. It's especially true when it is not too much. Obviously, confidence can be achieved without reaching overconfidence. Why would a rational being desire overconfidence? And yes! Confidence can save energy, dear readers! To be more precise, it can give you more energy. Don't believe me? I'll just put this here. Enjoy, and thanks for reading.

(For more on communication, click here) (As to how to be a philosophy blogger, click here) The philosophical text often differs from other types of text. If we use a reasoning that does not correlate to a philosophical text, we will end up misunderstanding it. I have often found my own work misunderstood all because of that. This is quite ironic, considering that the intent of the reader is to truly understand what they're reading, correct? I will divide two main types of philosophical texts and only focus on one of them. This is because the second type requires far more reflection on what one has read. Also, the second type might be more likely to be taken seriously, as wise as it would actually be. Texts of ancient Chinese philosophers are such examples for that. For content that may easily be regarded as nonsense due to its abstract and seemingly-absurd reasoning. And as such you might not need to write like Confucius in order to pass a philosophy exam, correct? In such instances it is far better for you to be clear and on-point rather than bizarre and mystical-like. After all, philosophy is a complex subject, even if the words themselves are simple when you write them. Why then, unnecessarily complicate your readers' time and energy, when complex understanding is required nonetheless? A good philosophical text may exist as such regardless of how much it will be misunderstood by an external reader/s. Firstly, it will contain all there is that's needed to be known by the reader, with little to no subtext. Secondly, the text will require a bit of expertise on the reader's end. For the reader needs to have some understanding of logical fallacies to reduce unnecessary misunderstandings, given that the text takes said fallacies for granted. Lastly, such text will aim to reduce bias to a minimum. It means that no matter how you disagree with a standpoint that's relevant to your subject, you still need to explain its own rationality. I admit I didn't do it myself and I apologize in advance. Fortunately I may revamp older material every now and then, but I digress. This is especially true if you're advocating against something. It deserves to be understood as well. Subtext deserves little to no place in philosophy because it's nonsensical to not include data that deserves to be included within the text. Aim to be understood through subtext, and your actual text will suffer by lacking important points. A competent philosopher is also a good communicator, for philosophy is most often than not done through any form of communication. Articles, videos, doesn't matter. The premise needs to be there, and the argument needs to be as solid as possible, if you want to either convince or contribute to your readers. Secondly, readers who may not know what the ad hominem fallacy is, might focus on things that do not deserve as much attention, such as the philosopher themselves. Whether or not the philosopher is a snob, arrogant or whatever, is irrelevant. What matters is the text they provide and what can be learned from it. In my case I may use personal experience. However, I only do so to provide examples to the arguments I provide, from time to time. Whenever I'm mainly writing about myself, take note that the point of it is to apply the reasoning I provide to the general picture. That is, after all, one of the points of giving out examples. Lastly, focus too much on that which you adore and appreciate, and your text will only end up one-sided. Showing only one side, or mainly a single side, is quite anti-philosophical, given that the point of philosophy is to teach us about reality. A person who uses philosophizing to promote their own agendas, is more of an ideologist than a philosopher. I'm speaking from experience, here. No writer is necessarily responsible to the misconception of a reader. When a reader may attribute to me, nonsense that was never even indicated, just because they felt a "subtext" or "tone", they are only misleading themselves. I know what I wrote, and I can refresh my memory whenever needed. Quite frustrating, but true. It seems to me that, in my case, people just don't bother thinking to themselves, that I can simply write instead of give hints and clues. The philosopher does not need to imply, when it's far clearer and obvious to state all that is needed to understand their text for their readership. If you want to improve your understanding of philosophical texts, including my own, I'd suggest learning about logical fallacies. They are fallacies because they disturb our understanding of the external world. Reduce them to a minimum and your understanding will improve. Finally, not every philosophical text is good according to the conditions I just gave. However, it does not mean, by itself, that said texts are a waste of our time. Surely some insights can be learned from them, correct? I, regardless, strive to improve the quality of my articles. I may also delete articles that I find too low-quality, which I did before. A less-than-good text would be, for example, one that is too one-sided. Philosophy readers seek to better understand reality, not recieve propaganda. By the way, any concept that you include that may require more than common knowledge, deserves to be explained. Be it a concrete or abstract idea, it does not matter. Your readers deserve to understand exactly what you're talking about. It's not only for their own good, but of yours as well, if you wish to be taken seriously. If you talk about a fictional character, for example, add some context. Explain who they are and why they are relevant to your text. In fact, one of my main critiques ot many videos on fictional media, is that it is just accepted that we have the necessary knowledge. The necessary "expertise" of a franchise. It's quite bad and can alienate newcomers to said franchise. Don't just expect everyone to know who Walter White from "Breaking Bad" is, alright? I hope this article can help both philosophy readers and writers to get the understanding and proficency that they deserve in this niche, and good luck to you all.

About the Philosopher "Even if you try to bring down my spirit, I will rarely despair as I have decided to put my very own life at stake. Therefore, there is only room for improvement or death. Since I don't want to die, I will resume my craft." ​ -- Rubinshtein on adversity "Tomasio is a great philosopher we can all relate to." ​ -- Michelle Contreras Ewans, writer and researcher "I see in you a beacon of hope for the distressed. Your courage, perseverance, and fortitude are a shining example for those who fail to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The sun always shines after a dark night! I wish you to worship the sun, which, as Khalil Gibran said, is the eye of God in the sky. All religions acknowledge that there was nothing in the beginning. As a result, they began to worship nature and evolved into powerful symbols." ​ -- Dr. S. K. Pachauri, former Secretary to the Government of India Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is an Israeli philosopher and writer. Born in the 1990s, he wrote seven books, mostly of a philosophical nature, starting at the age of 15. He is primarily known for his participation on Quora, where he answered questions from people across the globe. A lot of his English content is a product of his voluntary services to this