The Search Bar

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Consider this guest post an example of the differences between philosophy and journalism, personified, and also the impact of something I call, "The Verdict of Being". Further reflection on this piece can help you further understand what I mean by both. Enjoy). (Background music) **************************** In the mid of March, 2018, a dangling philosophy dropout, who changed his mind to pursue Software Engineering studies, met with a typically charming young lady. Who's a budding journalist. A completely terrible and simple idealist guy who's nearly 25 years and happened to be single, was luckily intrigued by the kind lady, who appeared to have been in her early 20s. In most instances, they suddenly meet at one of the compounds of the opposite apartments where they resided; whenever the dangling philosopher returns from the university in the evenings, not knowing that the girl was just a nearest neighbor of his. He would shy off when they converged at the path. One evening, in the month of March, the philosopher, known as Jago, returned from the university late at 7 PM. And for the fourth time, of their sudden meetings, he found this beautiful girl again. She came to this particular residential apartment where Jago lives on the upper floor and her relatives in the lower part. As obvious as the affairs of falling for the other are always, she stopped at the stair-way, closer to the room which she was going to enter.  She looked at Jago with daring, blushing eyes. With all possibilities of being hit, Jago stopped a little time and greeted her. Her interest expressed clearly that she wanted to talk. But Jago was too shy and also very undecided to approach her too soon. In this moment, the first opportunity of a lifetime was then lost. And the girl disappeared for some longer time. A month and  a half passed; and this young lady never showed up again....until June, which was the month they met after a long while.  Jago came to realize that she was residing in the opposite apartment, separated by a fence with the one he lives in. This time he was courageous enough to know her and be connected together. All along, they never knew each other's names. Until he broke the spell to ask her name and where she came from. Jokingly, she asked Jago if he wasn't the guy they used to meet a month or two back...With no pretends, he admitted  that he was the one she used to see. And the conversation started from that moment. She told Jago that her name was Rwina. Who studies Journalism at a public university. Unlike Jago who was at a privately owned International University. That day passed after they came to know themselves. A few days later, Jago had to ask her for her social media username, which was not different from the name "Rwina." From there, he went on and sent her a facebook request, which she didn't confirm. A month passed, then came August. The other month in which they met again for holidays. It was during this period of time that Jago became obsessed about Rwina everyday. He desperately wanted to always communicate with her. But she was somehow lacking in openness. She was overly introverted. The same character trait which he already possessed too. It was this time that his quest for love started to grow. Ten days later into August, Jago had to remember that he had a connection which he should attend to. He texted her and said, "It's been about ten days. "I hope you're still around."  She replied, "I'm going to the campus tomorrow." And since Jago was very concerned, he pursued her and asked; "What time really! Would you go there in the morning?"  He was desperately in need of her time so that they could know each other better. But the girl's daily pursuits seemed to have swayed her.  She in turn replied, "I will go at 11 AM."  And nothing more. But Jago, as someone who was overly concerned about his sentiments,  forwarded another leading text again and said, "Sounds like you're gonna transfer to that side. When will you be back to Munyonyo tomorrow after the stay at Makerere? You know Makerere was the University she said to have joined the Journalism studies. Very far from the area they live in." From there on, five days passed and on the sixth day, Jago had to text her another message.  He said, "Hey Sandy, how have you been Rwina?" Here, she was surprised by the name Sandy that Jago uttered for fun. She thought Jago knew something secret about her. She then asked, with a funny meme of hers, "Whaat!? "How did you know that name?" Without any idea what she asked, he replied, "Your prototypical picture is quite funny. It made me laugh. Actually, I came to know about that name through introspection." She thus replied, "I thought I erased that name everywhere." Here she meant, everywhere from the internet. Probably, Sandy, could have been her ex boyfriend's name. Jago, as a guy who's pursuing the lady, had to ask, "But isn't it good. Or is it not a genuine name for sure?" Obviously, she declined to reply. Then he carried on and sent her the same meme of hers, saying, "Anyway, forget the name. You're good to be Rwina Machiek! She thus reacted as though what Jago uttered was a joke. "Nah..Rwina is fine with me." That might have been another indicator that she was not opening up. Jago had to acknowledge her retort and said; "Yeah I know, Rwina is a beautiful name. And a beautiful name in this respect, is much better for a new beautiful name you have seen." Silence thus sneaked into her mind. And she went offline that day. Two days later, Jago texted again. "Hi Rwinie, how have your days been? Please, can I ask you a bit about journalism? It's a good discipline that I'd want a profound understanding about. Isn't it?"  The point being, Jago wanted to spark the conversation with what she does. She once told him that she majors in journalism at a certain university.  She then replied, "You know...I'm still not a journalist yet, I am just a student who hasn't yet started taking classes." To the surprise of Jago about her claim; he begged a question again and said, "Really, is it that? Supposedly, you got some surface level of intuitive knowledge in your path. There could be an idea greater in your mind already. Isn't that so? Then, you have a natural quest ideally in you. In other words, I may say that everybody is a student in life. Able in some way! Or I might be wrong." Still perplexed, she declined to reply. Either she didn't understand what was asked or she wasn't interested at all. That day went. Still in August, the following day, there was a modelling event occurring at the University where Jago studies for his Software Engineering degree. Jago messaged her that day to ask her out as a follow up to his hope that the girl might develop interest in him as she has shown sometime back. He said, "By the way, can you come tomorrow for the Miss Beauty Contest, or are you a contestant? It will be nice to see you." Given the possibility that she read the message and never replied, Jago went to the show anyway. He boarded a taxi with a brother. Since they all live together in  the neighboring apartments. That evening, Rwina, however, went to the same taxi first, when Jago and his younger friend came and entered in front seats. They never knew that the girl whom Jago badly wanted was inside. But she saw them. They then boarded and after something like 15 minutes, they reached the venue where they were going to attend the show that evening. She remained inside and let Jago and his friend move out first, since she knew that they didn't see her when they entered the taxi before. That day went, 6 days later. With a little doubt from Jago, the closer friend would convince him that she's pretending and you should give her more trials. On the last day of August, Jago had to write to her and said; "Hi Rwina. It's been a few days. I hope you're very fine. How are the home things going on or the campus ones, if you're in the hostel?"  She said, "All the things were well and her family was just fine." Then, Jago followed this conversation up and wrote to her; "Okay, that all sounds nice. May I ask you a favor? Can we collaborate on writing some sonnets? "I will write the first seven lines and you will complete the last seven lines. The prompt you can take is your thoughts, experiences and dreams too. This will give a wonderful meaning." She asked; "What are we writing about?"  And continued saying, "Anyway, you very well know that I'm good with poems." Jago wrote back to her; "Well, the title is in the following: "And This Too Will Be Perfect." As you're very good with poems, let's see who is going to produce the best seven lines of the sonnets." Thinking that she was interested to converse, to the surprise of Jago, Rwina declined and said; "Oh sorry...I mean I'm not good with poems." As a correction of her above question. Therefore, since Jago was intending to speak to her through a poem, decided to send her one. It was around 1 AM when they were chatting on messenger. Jago composed the following poem: "In Twilight Zone, at the Quietest Moment." "My mind, like my heart as a seeking spirit, went roaming in the midst of the night. Every throbbing second passes by wholly. As if my heart has found the exact blessing it has been looking for. While knowing that, the days are many for this heart to cease from being a seeker and become a giver. The heart in reality resolved and has been ready to give as much as it should, While knowing, this blessing in a momentous time is true and perfect. As this heart and mind have known this true blessing so far." A poem that Jago purposefully composed to entice the girl to open up. But she acted like a rock and never replied after she read. Three weeks later into September 2018... After Rwina stayed away from social media, Jago had to text her again. After a few minutes of phone conversation that was interrupted by network shortage. Jago said; "I have gone through a lot of interruption when I called you, please I will call you tomorrow and we will talk." She agreed. The following day; Jago, a dangling philosopher, poet and a desperate lover; who admired Rwina so much, had to throw in a long poem: "The dream struck me as I have been entirely awake" As dreams occurs in sleep; The one which has happened to me, seems entirely unique and has filled all me with longing. My mind is quite occupied by illusions and greatest realities. I hope this dream is both; an illusion and a reality. But I know; through intuition and conviction. I have it as part of my realities. This unique dream of my story. Which is not yet my story. Is one beautiful thing, worth understanding. The insights I had about it are interesting. All I asked this beautifully unique dream; is to let us be one by being realizable that this dream has stolen almost all my thoughts and am ready to give this dream all of me. This dream that happened to me is one unique lady who struck my heart. She looks like a potential model and I love her As she's a beautiful soul, an honest, and a decent woman in my eyes. She's a dream, she's all over my mind and heart. This dream of my life is Sarah Arek. A young woman whom my soul longs for as she's the truth I have seen and met in person. There's nothing which makes a me seek you and appraise you dear Rwina than being a man who has fallen in "love" for you only. I am here for you but no other woman. And you proof of this yourself that moved by you and wanted you this much. Sarah, you're my dream girl right now. Being one with you, let me write to you with honesty and love. I love you but I don't stop there, I need you, and I mean to be your honest and respectful man. Yours dearly! The poet whose heart bleeds for you every day and night. Rwina had to read the beautiful poem of true love expression for her. Then later, that night, she spoke on the phone with Jago and everything was in place. But Jago had doubts that she had a superficial acceptance of love. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: as compared to what is called, "true love"). Then, between the second last day of September up to the second day of October 2018, Jago had been trying to call Rwina and she could pick the calls. He would call late at night. But he forgot what Rwina told him during the time she gave him her number. She said, "You take my cell phone number, but don't call me at night." A hard condition that someone who loves another couldn't bear. He would forget and call her and she would decline to pick. And Jago often developed doubts of love. Having the realization of a fading interaction and disappointments of unpicked calls, Jago had to send Rwina a poem of complaints. Entitled; "It's Just 8 Pm: You're Killing My Passion" It reads as follows: This evening, it's just 8 PM. Please, don't torture me so much. You're killing my passion. Am deeply drowned into you, through my affection. On the other hand, I respect your principle. Maybe, this is going lead us to being invincible. It's not easy to always think about someone; But my attitude towards you, Enabled me to hit the buttons on my phone. Whenever, it's a connection which is necessary. But, am I so blind? Am I dipping into misery? Girl I hope I am not fading! Girl I hope I am not fading! Maybe, I need to buy into your perfection. Maybe not, I don't know how you stole my attention. But, I trust, in this thirst. With all overflowing self questioning to himself, complaints to Rwina, appreciation and respect for her, Jago pleaded. October then began with little hope for Jago. From day 2 to day 6, there was no communication at all. A guy whose spirit was seeking approval of love had to throw in another poem on day 7. Since the girl became too unresponsive. "I Relate With Purely You" Instinctive difference; maybe defined us. I have the quest for Arek; and I relate thus. I think my mind; is ignited by Rwina. In the dream I sighted; And I behold on you. Maybe you're quiet Sarah; Or you were born quiet. Save my mind; Am a crazy man. I would like to talk; That would cast a smile. On the new face, hitting on you. Truth be told, you made me weak; Beside you, am here to speak. The only man right now; whose heart bleeds for you. With mixture of speculative thoughts, expression of love for her, Jago still never got a reply even after she read that poem. She kept quiet. He could call her for an outing and she refused, claiming that she was busy. On the 8th of October, the dangling philosopher had to take the strategy of a journalist. It turned to be the moment of wit, denial of love and philosophic argumentation. Jago asked Rwina; "I believe you don't give opinions. That means, you like saving your mind? This opened her up a little bit and she replied; "Yes...I guess. So what were  you on about?" Here, Rwina referenced a phone conversation before Jago sent her the poem above. Jago had to reply back; "well, you have guessed, that's an opinion. Anyway, I was saying, as a lady; did you ever imagine yourself saving someone in empathetic veins of relations?" As though Jago is not concerned with humour, he interrogated his girlfriend. She however replied; "No, I have never imagined." Jago followed with another question; "If so, do you really have any wishes to have done that. Or supposedly, to have done a favor by chance?" He continued, "Understandably, are you altruistic? Rwina, am talking about the fundamentals of human beings." Jago was obviously aiming to change the conversation of the argument about love to philosophy. Therefore, Rwina replied his question with some confidence; "Yeah, I understand. You know am not much of a people person. I care less about others. So I don't think am altruistic." Jago continued in discourse with her; "That's a brave point. you're quite a liberal woman. But you might be altruistic in nature. It happens that, when one sees others or puts oneself in their shoes, they tend to be greater and supportive. Do you know any of those kinds of people?" Rwina came in again; "Yeah I know a few people, but I am not that kind of a person." Jago; with the nature of questioning, as a way of deviating away from talking about love which Rwina seems to not talk about too. Had to appreciate her and asked again. "That's pretty good! I understood you far better. Could you possibly state the meaning of your life? I love asking that question to a few people I like." As though she got nervous; she said. "You ask a lot of questions, it's like we are doing an interview." "Yeah, am quite aware that, am asking you a lot. Let's make it a philosophical sense. I have been trained to question everything. I also have some joy in that, and I'm sharing with you as someone who is undergoing training to be able to interview others.... a journalist." Said Jaago. He continued and noted:  "By the way, I wish we will have some deeper discussions with time." "I don't like questions about my personal life. So don't ask me about my life." She replied in a text since they were chatting on messenger. "Really, but life has no secret in its essence. And asking the meaning does not involve a secret. Why are you so afraid of Machiek, a virtuous man? For that, I may plant a seed to grow, I had to test the soil." Jago with his leading questions had to disagree and threw in metaphors; Immediately, Rwina had to defend her position. She replied; "It's not that there are secrets or anything...I mean life is already the way it is, so what's there to talk about? And about you planting a seed to grow... the soil is already bad, so you don't have to plant anything." As she appeared to be a little bit conscious of the conversation, she tended to sound smart when responding. As a continuous dialogue between them, Jaago pursued her furthermore. "Wow, you are really a smart lady. But sometimes, a good gardener transforms a bad soil for the seeds to flourish. You have my credit tonight!" Even when he was appreciative of her; she had insisted that Jago should carry on without her. Arek said, "You know sometimes the farmer leaves the bad soil and looks for a new one when he sees that there are no possible ways of the soil transforming. So I guess you do the same." Jago, being a person with a positive sense of initiating the conversation, tried to convince her of his value as a good guy for her future. He wrote to her since this conversation was textually based. He said to her, "It seems to be a good argument. But such a farmer must be a superficial one who lacks life, passion, desire, and goals. "I think you know that a flower that springs from a concrete rock is always blooming. And very hard for it to wither and die. For it's connections of life and how it communes with nature, always, makes it stronger. "That flower you have seen is already Machiek, whom you will appreciate his presence." Even when she had shown her liking of Jago, Rwina seems to have developed a new mindset. She replied; "Whatever you say, but the thing is; this is not taking us anywhere." She appeared to be a little reclusive. But Jago was now losing hope, but somehow hopeful. He tried to continue convincing Rwina and wrote back: "You might be right. Sarah Arek, maybe I have become so mad over you than any man you have ever known before. And I know denial of the other is a trait of all humans and in most cases, a blinding trait. The closest thing to us, that we have been driving so many months already; was not meant to lead us to heaven. It is to lead us to our hearts, minds, and the days of our lives which will make sense to us." Rwina, now became reserved in the talk between her and Jago. She read the text and didn't reply again. It was already the middle of October. And since she was not willing to reply to the text, Jaago tried to call her through the phone, but she couldn't pick the calls. Two days passed, and Jago had hope that he would communicate with her again. After those two days, he wrote to her once more, "Well ̧ your line seems to be unavailable. I know you have all the freedom to avoid me. But I don´t think there would be anyone who will be too obsessed about you than me. I felt a very deep love and respect for you. I wished you felt the same way I do for you. But then you have become too resistant. Am really perplexed." In reply, Jago communicated his dissatisfaction with the way Rwina hooked him into the relationship, but later turned out to be the opposite. He carried on and wrote to her, "I hope to give you time even if we don't meet in the name of true love. We may be life partners sometime to come in the name of anything else. And still¸ Sarah Arek¸ I love you deeply, all along, I have had that strong desire; to say this many times I know you are young Rwina. I realized that the first moment of love for any man, single, who has never been with any woman in his life is too hard¸ genuine, & challenging enough. I am amazed by this short experience. But I respect you for being somehow hard on me. I am proud about this¸ and I will have a story to refer to¸  in my life. Maybe to my children in the future. Who knows!" Jago, having thought that she wasn't serious about what she said; assumed and wrote again to Rwina. "Unless you have been testing me in all this. I assure you, you got the greatest room in my heart." However, she remained firm on her decision. "No, I don't test people. I really don't have feelings for you. Anyway, Thanks for finally letting go and am sorry for putting you through this." She stood on her path. Having read that line of thought from her; Jago when offline, and after two hours, returned back on line and replied, "Great ̧ I appreciate. But one more thing I am requesting from you. In my forthcoming book¸which I will publish this December. Am featuring the poems and song lyrics of which I have your name in them. They are the records of my thoughts about you. I have all the rights to do so¸ all right!" That day, Rwina refused to reply. Even when he saw her active on the friend list. Two days later; she wrote back to him in refusal of publishing his memoir with her name in it. She said to him; "No, you can't use my name, you can just change the name to someone else's. So please...get rid of my name too."She became so harsh on a very simple matter. But Jago had to smoothly handle this, given he's an author with all the rights of the things he wrote. He texted her again on the same thing: "There's nothing wrong with that. How can I change the whole thing to someone I don´t know¸ (to fictionalize my honesty) when I meant everything I ever said or written to you¸ would be a selfish act on my-side. You know very well that I have been serious about this. I have done all the communication I had with you in good faith. And I have authority about everything I have ever written here on earth." Jago stood firm against the personality in denial of his honesty. He continued and wrote to Arek, "In the first place¸ I never got rid of you. How can I get rid of your name, Sarah. Please....let it not worry you anymore. Am not asking you to be my girlfriend again. You can be but you didn't allow this. Am not here to erase you¸ what I think about you¸ how I feel about you and your name from my mind. That's not going to happen¸ I don't hate you. Let it not worry you anymore." Immediately after he texted her, she met face to face with the true expression of someone who knows his line of thoughts. She would have become the "Juliet" to Jago, but she lost him just because of some self-pride and egoistic idealism in her. Feeling like she had been attacked, "I'm not worried about anything. Don't misunderstand me. Am just asking you not to use my name in your writing, That's all!"  She replied more quickly than he expected, only to rectify the bias. Therefore, Jago replied in a text. Telephone communication has become limited among them since she always declines to talk well on the phone. He texted her and said, "Yeah... I know what you meant."  And within minutes on messenger chat;  her only reply was, "Good!" As though it was a feeling of relief or having been understood by the dangling philosopher at last. On the second last day of Oct, 2018; a few days or weeks after the new transition of Ethiopia, having appointed the first female president in history;  Jago gave his final wishes to Sarah Arek who goes by her nickname, "Rwina". He wrote to her; "You appeared to be a visionary woman; I wish you will be like the new Ethiopian, first female president in your country." She read the wishes of Machiek and never replied. But they remained Facebook friends. And Jago no longer hopes that time will tell anything about hopes. And the dangling philosopher now works on his self-discovery. A continuous perpetual change in the realms of his life. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr. Machiek Machiek Akuocpiir Cayier, is a South Sudanese intellectual elite, public influencer, poet, philosopher, and scientific communicator, who is based in East Africa. He was born on December 30th, 1993, at Hoor Machiek Amuong, Berle-Sophi Village (Berle-Sophi Kingdom), near Mapuordit, Yirol West, Bahrl El Gazal, Southern Sudan Autonomous region (2005-2011), The Republic of Sudan (1985-2019). He may be reached via his E-mail: machiekmachiek@protonmail.ch or through Mr. Tomasio, in case of any communication to be made by a reader on his work.

(Background music) Making Things Clear A common hypocrisy among many newcomers to the world of philosophy, occurs when a certain paradox is entailed, aware or unaware. It's similar to the hypocrisy I detected in an article I wrote, called "The Fault in Contemporary Liberty". It's a paradox where the individual who is interested by something, also disdains from it at the same time. However, it's quite hard to know these feelings within you, when you lack the foresight to understand what you're in for. Philosophy isn't philosophizing for its own sake, AKA "intellectual masturbation". That derails the whole practical point of the field by a strawman's fallacy. It's not like in relations that are made for pleasure. Philosophy does not have to be done from pleasure nor from love, nor from any specific emotion. In fact it's far more functional than you might think, being, you know, the "mother of all sciences". It's called the "Love of Wisdom", per se, but whose to say "love" is exclusively about joy? Love As an Umbrella of Virtues "Love" symbolizes other things, other than pleasure or even willpower. As long as we love something or someone, a bond is created. A bond of commitment. And as love can expire so can the commitment that comes along with it. And whose to say commitment is done out of pleasure entirely? No. When you are devoted to something, you are likelier to stick to it in light as well as in dark. Love and commitment aren't always joyful, and so is devotion. Devotion, in fact, is tested not when one is at their highest, but when they are at their lowest. And I quote author Shannon Adler: “If he can't handle you at your worst then he does not deserve you at your best". The same applies to any activity where hardship is involved. If you want to commit to something but can't handle it when it causes you hardship, ask yourselves not if that activity is beneath you. Ask if you are not disrespecting the activity, when you say you are interested in it. Like for those who say they are interested in democracy, they will only say they are until someone says something they do not like. Then, they will seek to cancel you and condemn you for exercising your right to voice your thoughts. If you are repulsed by something you're interested in, you contradict yourself. You contradict yourself, because interest attracts, and repulsiveness extends distance. The question is: How can one both desire and not desire something at the same time? Love in philosophy is also devotion to the craft, and not only fascination and wonder. If you love somebody you will be with them at their lowest. If you love wisdom you will want it even if it is hard to contain. You cannot seriously desire wisdom if you are not devoted to its reception. Therefore, saying that you are interested in philosophy requires putting your interest to the test, to see how interested you really are in the study of the truth. Relations Between Philosophy and Democracy If we cancel people in a democracy because their voiced thoughts do not appeal to us, then we are only interested in democracy to an extent, and are repulsed by its other parts. Thus, our interest in democracy isn't completely honest, if we, as non-government people and organizations, seek to limit other members of society. Thus, our interest in democracy is not full, and as such, not entirely genuine. Because we're only interested in democracy until we find out we despise what it entails. And it entails hearing thoughts we don't like or want to hear. The same rationale applies to philosophy. Because otherwise, we are only interested in it until it hurts our feelings, when its legitimacy is exercised by other, equal members of society. No. Both in philosophy and in democracy, to allow an optimal exchange of ideas, we should learn to let go of our dependency on desire, and focus on the world beyond ourselves and its virtues. Philosophy is too a virtue, embodied in any honest philosopher whose honesty is expressed in their good traits. Thus, when a newcomer to the field says to me that they are interested in philosophy… how genuine are they? That is the question every decent mastermind should ask themselves if they want to properly plan ahead the continuation of that relationship. Because their interest can swiftly vanish, if they lack the will to endure what they're going to be in for. Be Honest With Yourself And a truly devoted newcomer would understand what every new employee should understand: Confession of devotion amounts to little if it isn't endured. Philosophy is the study of truth. One cannot desire the truth, if they are too repulsed by it, to desire it. Desire is a capacity that is to be demonstrated and not only stated. Why study something you aren't necessarily interested in? Study takes dedication if one truly wants to become a master. By the same token, if you asked a question, and you received an answer you didn't like, then why ask the question? Why ask the question, if you are not interested in the answer? Why ask for an explanation if you're going to condemn the other person for supplying the very content you requested? See how our short-term thinking shoots us in the foot. It would've been laughable, if it weren't unfortunate. People "dig their own graves" because they lack this basic foresight, of needing a strong character in order to take the mantle of proper study and understanding. And yes, understanding by itself is a complex issue, involving several components. To avoid unnecessary frustrations, be prepared to try to understand, or else the other person's time isn't worth investing on helping you. Takeaway Insights For the Hungry Newcomer So, next time you say you're interested in something, remember that you're interested in knowing it because you do not know what it fully means. You might not want the answer. No, you might be interested in the idea of wanting the answer. These are two different things, expectation and reality. If you are repulsed by your search, the only person you can blame is yourself, for not being prepared enough to face what you wished for. Why wish to study truths you don't desire? Why devote yourself to study a truth you don't want to know? Whose to say the truth is always something you want? And all it takes to overcome this fallacy, is the ability to build up some foresight before making inquiry. The Other Side The philosopher isn't repulsed by the truth, because they are more devoted to study it, than any other human being (in theory). And as such, I am not repulsed by it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel. I'm not doing this to feel alive. I'm doing this because knowing the truth is what matters to me the most. And I'm not afraid to admit the truths I find, should doing so may be of use to me and to you. This is a philosophy site. A site based on the endless seeking of the truth, here to be potentially stored for whole generations. Make sure you know what you're in for. Hail Philosocom. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Review: Shouldn’t the answer to why you want to be a philosopher be because you want to know everything? Just as with anything else in life, you need to have a good reason behind your actions. Otherwise you are just like a neuron firing in the brain for no reason. You need to have a reason for doing stuff. Philosophy included. Otherwise you will end up in a stop light. Just doing what you're supposed to when you're told to with only a few options to choose from: Green or red.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Narcissism) Introduction: The Narcissistic Oppression of the Galactic Empire The Galactic Empire, while undeniably a powerful presence in the Star Wars universe, serves as a warning against the pitfalls of oppressive rule. Real life examples to the Galactic Empire include: The Roman Empire, Nazi Germany and the First French Empire. It is a combination of an absolute monarchy (the opposite of a constitutional monarchy) and a military dictatorship. It rules through fear, and expects you to adhere to imperial law, or else. Many of its military properties and personnel, such as the stormtroopers, are designed to appear intimidating. The Death Star was its most threatening asset, made to destroy entire worlds who were too insubordinate. The Galactic Empire was built with one intention in mind: To give its leader as much power as possible, by ruling through oppression, and crushing all rebellion. Through central planning and high taxation, the very economy is designed to propel the Imperial military industrial complex. And the very military, unmatched in its technological superiority, often does not hesitate to commit genocide in its own planets, enslave entire races, and annex its own allies. Here's why their philosophy ultimately fails: Maintaining Order Through Fear: "This bold vision of the future requires not only the service of those of immaculate reputation and consummate skill in the just exercise of power, but also the service of a vast military dedicated to upholding the laws necessary to ensure galactic harmony" -- The Tarkin Doctrine The Empire relies on fear tactics and brutal suppression to maintain control. This reduces individuality to a minimum, hindering creativity and progress. However, a healthy society thrives on open exchange of ideas, and not on blind obedience. Centralized Power: The Emperor wields absolute authority, creating a single point of failure. This lack of checks and balances allows corruption to prosper and ignores the needs and perspectives of diverse populations within the vast galaxy. Stagnation and Inefficiency: Oppressive regimes are often slow to adapt. Freedom, especially economic, intertwines with innovation, which can increase efficency. Fearful bureaucrats become more concerned with self-preservation than innovation. This inability to adapt makes the Empire vulnerable to dynamic rebellions that an authoritarian regime may fail to counter in accordance to their attacks. Dehumanization and Xenophobia: The Empire views non-humans as inferior. This not only breeds resentment but also ignores the potential contributions of countless individuals and cultures. A multicultural society should strive for unity in diversity. The Psychological Cause That Make Us Want To Oppress There are complex factors for the psychological cause for oppression. Here are some key elements: In-Group Bias: We naturally tend to favor groups we identify with (in-groups) over those we perceive as different (out-groups). This can lead to a sense of superiority and a justification for treating out-groups differently. Need for Power and Control: Some people have a strong desire for power and control. Oppression can be a way for people to exert dominance and feel secure in their position. Authoritarianism: Some personality types are drawn to authoritarian leadership and rigid social hierarchies. They may see oppression as a necessary tool for maintaining order. Fear and Uncertainty: In times of fear or uncertainty, people may be more likely to support oppressive measures as a way to feel safe and secure. Hence why dominant leaders may be supported for power in uncertain times. This can be exploited by narcissists and megalomaniacs. Justification Through Ideology: Oppressive systems often rely on ideologies that demonize out-groups or present the dominant group as inherently superior. This can make oppression seem necessary or even righteous, by making these minorities their scapegoats for greater power. Upbringing and Socialization: We learn attitudes and beliefs from our families and communities. If someone grows up in an environment that promotes prejudice or discrimination, they may be more likely to become an oppressor. This follows the simplistic "Monkey See, Monkey Do", method. Sheev Palpatine: Narcissist Emperor Palpatine, the embodiment of evil in the Star Wars universe, perfectly exemplifies a grandiose narcissist. Here's how his character aligns with narcissistic traits: Grandiose Sense of Self-Importance: Palpatine believes himself to be the ultimate ruler, destined to control the galaxy. He craves constant admiration and sees himself as far superior to others. Need for Admiration: His manipulation of the public through propaganda and the construction of himself as a benevolent leader, to become Galactic Emperor feeds his need for adoration. Lack of Empathy: He views others as pawns in his grand scheme. The deaths of countless innocents mean nothing to him as long as they serve his rise to power. He has no genuine emotional connections.  He uses everyone around him, from apprentices like Darth Vader to Senators like Padme Amidala, for his own gain. He takes no responsibility for the suffering he causes and blames others for his failures. Sense of Entitlement, and Arrogance: Palpatine believes the galaxy belongs to him and that he deserves absolute power. He feels no remorse for the manipulation and destruction he unleashes. He constantly belittles and underestimates his opponents, a fatal flaw that ultimately contributes to his downfall. Fantasy and Magical Thinking: Palpatine believes his mastery of the dark side can unlock unlimited power, a delusion that clouds his judgment. Devaluing and Demonizing Others: He cultivates fear and distrust of Jedi and alien species, portraying them as threats to justify his oppressive rule. The Relations Between Narcissism and Oppression Although complex, the connection between narcissism and oppression holds definite ground. Here's how narcissism can fuel oppression and why they often go hand in hand: Need for Control and Domination: Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-importance and crave power over others. Oppression provides a system where they can exert control and feel superior to those they subjugate. Lack of Empathy: A core feature of narcissism is a diminished ability to understand or share the feelings of others. This allows them to inflict suffering without remorse, a key aspect of oppression. The inherent need for control and lack of empathy make them high risks for abusive leadership. Justification Through Devaluation: Narcissists often view those they differ from as inferior. This devaluation justifies oppression in their minds, making it seem necessary to control or punish the "out-group." Grandiose Fantasies of Power:  Narcissists often harbor fantasies of ultimate power and control. Oppression allows them to turn these fantasies into a disturbing reality. Public Image Management: Many narcissists crave admiration and will go to great lengths to maintain a positive public image. Oppressive regimes often rely on propaganda and manipulation to portray the narcissist in a favorable light. Narcissistic leaders are drawn to positions of power and can be highly effective manipulators. They use fear, propaganda, and violence to maintain control. Narcissistic leaders can be charismatic and persuasive. They can exploit societal anxieties and scapegoat minority groups to gain support. Oppressive systems can create narcissistic followers. The promise of dominance or association with a powerful leader can attract individuals who identify with narcissistic traits. Conclusions The Star Wars universe offers a much-relevant exploration of the dangers of oppression, in a world suffering from an increase in authoritarianism. The Galactic Empire, ruled by the narcissistic Emperor Palpatine, serves as a warning to what happens to democracies whose leaders betray the very freedom that allowed them to get in control. Oppressive regimes hinder creativity, progress, and lead to unncessary suffering of countless people. By understanding the link between narcissism and oppression, we can better identify and resist oppressive systems. It's crucial to promote empathy, critical thinking, and challenge pro-authority propaganda to prevent narcissistic personalities from manipulating societies. Understanding these psychological foundations is crucial to dismantling oppressive systems. We have the ability create a society less susceptible to the allure of control through oppression. Bonus I: Don't Opress Others! Oppression is wrong on so many levels. Here are some key reasons why: Everyone Deserves a Chance: We all have something to contribute, and oppression denies people the opportunity to reach their full potential. Strength in Diversity:  A society that embraces its differences is a stronger one. Oppression silences unique voices, leading to unnecessary stagnation in many fields of study and technology. The Ripple Effect:  Oppression rarely stops with one group. It creates a climate of fear and division that can harm everyone in the long run. That's especially true when they are normalized. A Moral Imperative: Treating others with respect is a fundamental human value. Oppression violates this basic principle. The Occam's Razor idea, combined with morality, explains how being good yields benefit while being cost efficient. There are many ways to combat oppression. We can speak out against injustice, promote equality, and celebrate diversity. By working together, we can create a world where everyone has more opportunity to thrive, and contribute without fear.. Bonus II: The Galactic Empire and American Materialism Both the Empire and America share a drive for progress, but the line between healthy ambition and excessive materialism can be foggy. Here's how it can manifest: Commodification: In the Empire, everything from droids to entire planets is seen as a commodity to be exploited. Similarly, consumer culture can lead to a feeling that everything, even experiences and relationships, have a price tag. Loss of Individuality: The Empire enforces uniformity and discourages individuality, leading to what I call "Stormtrooper Culture", where any individual can be discarded from the machine they're a part of. While America values freedom, the pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" can lead to a cultural homogenization of lifestyles and a reduction of diverse perspectives. Both through law and norms, the two entities can discard anyone not valuable enough. While enterprises can benefit from materialism in some ways, unchecked materialistic values can lead to a society that prioritizes possessions over human well-being, and echoes the exploitative tendencies of the Empire. It takes strength to exist independently of both financial materialism and the need to oppress others. To quote Mr. John Duran:

"The greatness of evil lies in its awful accuracy. Without that deadly talent for being in the right place at the right time, evil must suffer defeat. For unlike its opposite, good, evil is allowed no human failings, no miscalculations." -- Control Voice, The Outer Limits. ************************ Introduction I have spoken much on evil in the form of Philosocom's subcategory on evil. To execute evil, or malice, in the most optimal way, one ought to be a profound mind. The profound mind becomes a mastermind when it realizes it cannot execute their plans entirely on their own. As such, they would require agents, flying monkeys, and any kind of people to become assets for their plans. When the mastermind views individual lives as expendable, they would treat their own assets as pawns to be sacrificed when they've outlived their current usefulness, or when sacrificing them is a beneficial move in their own heartless eyes. However, the fallacy of evil arrives in the form of Occam's Razor. According to Chris Simms: If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one. Occam's Razor logic can explain how good is preferable over evil in many ways. Allow me to give several examples on the top of my head: One of the reasons that the best revenge is a great success is because attaining revenge through criminal ways, like murder, kidnapping and extortion, requires much planning that wouldn't be necessary if we just accomplish our vengeful tendencies in ways that help people. When you turn your vengeance to something beneficial, you'll have a lot less enemies. That includes not only individual people who might come after you, but also entire organizations, like the police, like actual criminals and so on. You'll become a lot less paranoid like many tyrants were over the course of history. People who choose good over evil can accomplish their aims with far less threats on their mental state and over their lives in general. According to John Hopkins Psychiatry Guide: "Paranoid individuals may have trouble maintaining social connections due to doubting the loyalty and trustworthiness of others." Obviously, this will put you in a constant state of very poor psychological safety. People are more likely to betray you when you're evil. Being evil may require you to associate with the morally depraved, those who lack integrity, and as such may be selfish and greedy, viewing you as a means to an end, rather than an inspiring, respectful leader. In "Breaking Bad", Heisenberg associated with Jack Welker's Gang, who became his enforcers. These Neo-Nazis, who are only loyal to themselves, eventually betrayed their kingpin, thus marking the fall of Heisenberg's Empire. Such decisions can help us question Heisenberg's intellect at least to a degree. The Underlying Motive Behind Our Actions We need to understand ourselves in order to know what we want to get in life. Knowing ourselves better also allows us to know how to get what we desire/need. We might be surprised to realize that we operate under an underlying motive that we're not even aware of. For example, our childhood is a determining period in our lives, which shapes who we become as adults. To quote the Kathmandu Post: Childhood is a crucial stage in a person’s life. It is a formative period that lays the foundation for our future selves. It is a delicate period where being unable to meet a child’s needs can have long-lasting effects on their adult life. We often assume that children don’t fully grasp what’s happening around them because they are young. However, this is a misconception. Even at a young age, children can comprehend and understand their surroundings. The experiences faced as a child, from the nurturing environment provided by caregivers to the quality of relationships established, play a crucial role in shaping who we become. If we repress our memories or deny our true motives, it might negatively affect our decision making, increasing the probability of us making regrettable mistakes just to get what we really want. Deep inside, our ambitions might be more basic and universal than we might be brave enough to admit. For example, the need to be loved, the need to be recognized and so on. Like a destination has several ways to reach it, there are several ways to get what we really want. The Possible Solutions We might realize that, being good to others can spare us a lot of headaches, caused by elaborate, cunning schemes. Being nice to others can make them nice to us as well. Changing our perception of ourselves allow ourselves to see others in similar ways, and vice versa. In psychology this is known as the Assumed Similarity Effect. Thus, it could be possible that much of what it takes to get what we want or need from others, lies in the examination and application of our perception in our behavior and actions. If we want others to contribute to us, we need to add additional value to their lives. If we want to be loved, we need to show others genuine love in the first place. And perhaps, if we want power, maybe ruining the rights of others isn't necessary when others can lend us their power not through force but through genuine will to cooperate and work with us. Maybe, we don't need to become authoritarian dictators when we can become good and honest altruists instead, helping others in their time of need and donating for worthwhile causes. And doing so can spare us much agony, fear and antagonism from individuals and organizations who can either not meddle with us, or even cooperate with us. That is while evil requires much accuracy to be executed successfully with as little risk as possible. That is why evil requires much intellect, even though the intellect can realize he or she doesn't have to be or do evil. Personal Conclusions Thus I find it better to spare myself the trouble and do good instead, which can bring me benefit regardless of its accuracy. I want to build an empire of good, and that is exactly what I'm doing and intend to keep doing. This will allow me to have more energy to actually philosophize over being distracted over things whose existence I can either reduce or eliminate completely from my life. I've no need or desire to make enemies because many unnecessary interactions can easily prevent me from working as a philosopher, as I would invest much more worry over dispute than philosophy. And I live to philosophize. My underlying motive is to work. Work, as a means to mentally survive in a world I find vain and absurd without the presence and promotion of philosophy. And one of the points of philosophy is to give a rational explanation and purpose to existence, thus liberating us from irrationality. Hail Philosocom. Feedback from the one known as "St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missile" In essence, it seems two-three observations overcome the notion that one might ought to seek to serve themselves at the expense of others: Firstly, nature is the only unavoidable authority, and she declares that overall might will determine the victor in any contest in which overall might is deployed. Any party to a conflict can escalate to this point, hence, the capacity for might is the only mechanicism that can prevent ones conquest. Second, those organisms and organizations which cooperate are mightier than those which compete exclusively. History seems to rebut this conclusion, yet it remains present, that cooperation prevails. In addition to Darwin's findings, we also see this in the tit-for-tat strategy to game theory. Lastly, we can observe people engaged in hierarchies waste energy on maintaining or advancing their own positions within the hierarchy rather than advancing the organization itself. This waste of energy is not made up for in any respect. Therefore, for any organization to reach it's fullest potential in terms of energy management, all forms of coercion and general hierarchy (as opposed to electing a fire chief to manage a house fire) must be abolished. People are ends unto themselves. Treating each other such is the theory of a stable society, as the Blackfoot tribe Abraham Maslow stole from and misinterpreted a little: It was not ever about individual's self actualisation, that's the bottom of the pyramid, then community actualization is the middle, and community perpetuity is the top. In essence, "being good" allows not only a person, but a community to achieve its potential. Or, perhaps rather, the general acceptance and observation of the golden rule is one necessary condition for a person to be healthy and for a community to be healthy.

Synopsis by Ms. Tamara Moskal By confronting our flaws, we can achieve redemption and become better, moral humans. Success and power do not make us better individuals or more deserving of love. The essence of true love is being loved for the core of our being and not for our achievements. Three fictional drug lords, Moritz Zimmerman, Walter White, and Tony Montana, shared that they were not loved for who they were and that success didn't change their personalities. Only Moritz understood his flows enough to fix them with redemption. The Drug Lord's fallacy is the false assumption that success will grant you love and respect. We can only earn love by improving our character, not gaining success or power. (Background music) *********************** Introduction In real life, like in fiction, we are capable of what is called a "redemption arc". According to Krystal N. Craiker: A redemption arc is a literary term for a type of character development in which a bad or morally gray character turns into a good person by the end of the story. They redeem their worst sins through their actions in the story’s resolution. Redemption is a major theme in storytelling because it appeals to our deepest selves. Ask yourselves the following question: Were you evil in your lives? By not denying the darkness within you, not only you can recognize the deeper aspects of yourselves, but also work towards your own redemption from it, to become better, moral beings. This is why, in the name of greater moral behavior, we must not deny our flaws, must not deny criticism, and allow ourselves to face distress. For the agony included is a means to the greater end of becoming morally-better people. For redemption arcs cannot be done without facing our true selves. That includes the aspects in which we deny. Should we fail to deny them, we might as well remain, unconsciously, the morally-grey/evil people that we currently are. But we can be stopped. In the name of the reduction of unnecessary suffering, and even avoidable deaths in some cases, we deserved to be stopped through redemption. This article shall further explain why it is through redemption, and not through power, one can become a better person. Why a Great Success Reveals Who You Are To quote Moritz Zimmerman, the morally-grey protagonist of the show, "How to Sell Drugs Online": Success doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a more successful person. Some of us may think that we would become better people by becoming richer, by becoming more powerful and so on. The problem comes when we realize that people would love us for who we are, and not for our success. That is the essence of true love: Being loved for being, and not for building great things. Moritz Zimmerman failed to accomplish what I myself already knew I won't be able to accomplish. That fictional character and myself both have suffered heartbreaks. However, the fallacy in his thinking was the belief he would be loved by his former girlfriend should he attain a massive success. As for myself, I already knew that she, Chen [fake name], will not love me either way. But this article isn't about my successful revenge against her, expressed by not letting myself become like her. Moritz's girlfriend, Lisa Novak, is one he knew from his childhood. At one point of time, she left him for America, and when she returned to their homeland of Germany, she told him that she is taking an indefinite break from him, leaving him for someone else. To win back her love and appreciation for him, Moritz did what Walter White did to reclaim back his honor: Become an international drug baron (while hiding his identity as a high school student). However, the teenage drug lord, despite his international success through a start-up app he developed with an accomplice, failed earning back the love of his life. Instead, he remained the same nerdy, social outcast he was before. That is also in parallel to Scarface, AKA, Tony Montana, who, despite his own massive success, remained the same foul-mouthed, low-life thug he was before his transformation. All three fictional drug lords have one thing in common: They were never loved for who they are, as their success didn't change them, but only expanded on what was in them, all along. And if we are to return to Walter White/Heisenberg, some may claim he had that potential within him, to be evil, all along. The nickname he adopted refers, in theory, to Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In layman's terms: The uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa. In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time. By applying the Uncertainty Principle to success, we need to understand that there is no necessary correlation between success ("speed") and who we are ("position"). If anything, success is there to make us more successful, not necessarily change or "transform" us. Think of success as an illuminating opportunity to know more of who we are and what we're capable of. Just like with a particle's potential for greater speed. It might be slow, but with enough velocity, it reveals how fast it can truly move. With enough resources and opportunities, we can better understand who we are. Power is a form of expression, we use to get what we want. Power, therefore, is a means to better tell us who are -- an opportunity of self-discovery, otherwise unattainable by having less power. For it is with power that we can at least try to achieve what we desire. As such, power is an illuminating flashlight to the deepest part of ourselves, otherwise restrained by complying to society and to its conventional limitations. Therefore, by this logic, Tony Montana was Scarface all along. Walter White was Heisenberg all along, and Moritz Zimmerman was M1000 all along. Even before their nicknames were created. How come? It existed within them as potentials. Through their own rises to power, these potentials merely manifested themselves. We do not know ourselves as much as we think we do. For we need to understand not only who we are currently, but also what we could become, given the right tools and circumstances. Redemption: How the Drug Lord's Fallacy is Solved The Drug Lord's fallacy is one I am coining in this article. It is the assumption that through a great success, you will surely reclaim or attain from humanity the love and respect you desire. However, this is contradicted not only by these fictional examples, but also by the fact that it is lonely at the top. We need to create this distinction between attraction and love. To quote Marc Wallace: Love is something that is built over time. It’s a deep feeling of affection and connection. Attraction, on the other hand, is more physical. It’s an initial pull towards someone that is often based on looks or chemistry. Attraction can lead to love, but it doesn’t always. Love involves much more than just physical attraction. Love is about trust, respect, compromise, and communication. It’s about sharing your life with someone and growing together. The allure of power and success is one that can either attract or captivate many. But it is nothing more than the initial impression we have over someone. To love them more, we must understand the man or woman behind the power they hold. This is also why, power won't necessarily make you a better person, but simply and certainly, a more powerful one. Moritz Zimmerman achieved what both Heisenberg and Scarface never managed to achieve: He redeemed himself. Redemption begins when we understand that we are flawed, and that these flaws need to be either changed or atoned for. By the end of his story, Moritz was faced with a decision: Either murder a former associate who tried to kill him, or refuse to. Had he killed the man, Moritz would then become truly evil: A man beyond the possibility of redemption. How can one be redeemed when he murdered someone? His allies won't forgive him, and most importantly, Lisa Novak will not forgive him. Only through his friends and love interest, who were there for him, two people were saved on that day: The former associate, from death, and Moritz himself, from becoming evil. To redeem himself even further, Mortiz deceived everyone to leave the crime scene, so he alone would be arrested for his crimes. He understood that he needed to redeem himself for his past actions. Only that way, he would improve. And only through improvement, through working on ourselves, we can be loved. Walter White didn't want to redeem himself, admitting that he did what he did for himself. Tony Montana not only refused to redeem himself, but did whatever he did to keep his empire afloat, despite his eventual defeat. But the only reason Moritz wasn't as villainous as those two, was because he understood his flaws well enough, to fix them through imprisonment and through atonement. The first two forgave themselves without a second thought, knowing well what they were doing. But Moritz, because he knew what he was doing, refused to forgive himself, in the name of the greater good. In the name of his friends, family, Lisa Novak, and himself. Should we forgive ourselves for the things we have done, or should we atone for our actions? Whatever our choice will be, we are flawed like everyone else. And we will be more loved by others, once we work on our being, not on building a great thing. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Redemption should be viewed as a blessing. It is external acknowledgement that you have turned your life around. It is really all about replacing bad habits with healthier ones. You do this by making those good habits a part of your daily routine. It can be nice to have another person acknowledge your redemption but in this case you must be minorly selfish and believe you have it inside yourself to be redeemed. Every person is capable of changing their reality at any point. As above so below: If we were to use this analogy towards how to change your life, all external created things were the result of a person imagining it in their minds. [If] you want to be a better person, and gain redemption in your own mind, start by imagining in which ways you can be better. Those thoughts are gateways to actions. The quicker you realize that you have no control over what’s going on in a person's cognitive reality the sooner you will begin to realize that change only occurs through your own actions. Yes, we all love being outwardly redeemed, but as you have no control over if other people do or not you only have your actions. At the end of the day they are the most important tool a person has. Your actions are seen through daily habits a person has.

(Philosocom's Directory on Fear) Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis Coercion is an impulsive way to coerce someone into cooperating against their will. Successful long-term collaboration relies on loyalty and trust. Leadership based on fear prevents an exchange of ideas, breaks human cooperation, and results in less performance. Yet, coercion is frequent in all types of social interactions. Frequently, people learn to apply coercion from their role models. Teachers, our first authoritative figures, must teach the children the importance of proper character besides knowledge. Altogether, we should stop using fear tactics, become braver, and teach others to be braver. Introduction The Cambridge Dictionary defines coercion as: The use of force to persuade someone to do something that they are unwilling to do. Coercion is, of course, but one of the many ways humans utilize to influence the world around them. It might as well be the most impulsive way to affect the world, compared to rhetoric, which requires more planning, more prudence, and more delicacy. For the human mind, which naturally seeks shortcuts in its thinking to save energy, simply threatening someone to comply with you is, by technicality alone, the easiest way you can get them to cooperate at the time. However by threatening others to do as you want, you may win the battle, but not the war. In other words, you may successfully attain your short-term goals, but not your long-term goals. Think of it from the point of view of the threatened. They may comply, but can you really say they would be loyal to someone who uses coercion? Would they feel psychologically safe, being with such a person? Safety is one of our most basic needs, scoring above our physical needs, according to Abraham Maslow. When you threaten someone, you're not only threatening whatever you can take away from him, but also their ability to feel safe with you. The essence of loyalty is also built on safety, because safety allows us to trust the other person. And when we are loyal to them, we won't betray them so easily than otherwise. How Coercion/Fearmongering Ruin Organizational Cooperation Successful cooperations between humans rely on long-term trust and loyalty. Leaders whom we have faith in will not be deserted so easily. According to Forbes, there are several ways to restore faith in your leadership: Being honest with your followers. Proving your worth by being a man or woman of your word. Listen to the advice of others. Etc. On the other hand, the ThoughtfulLeader blog presents what unintentionally happens when you choose to lead by fear, compared to vision, trust, etc.: Stop (or decrease the efficency of) teamwork. Make people rally up against you collectively out of fear. Lead divisions to not properly cooperate with one another (Factionalism). Eliminate the production and exchange of insights, opinions, advice, etc. Make the followers question what they're truly capable of. To allow better cooperation between individuals and teams within organizations of any kind, it is imperative that the main driving force would be something different than fear. If you can't build a collective out of the cause you favor, at the very least you can build it of the mercenary's mindset. Fear, by nature, is something that keeps people away from each other, compared to love, which brings them closer. By creating this artifical distance around you, you prevent not only a helpful exchange of ideas but also a better output of your overall collaboration. We need to understand that humans originally became social creatures out of the necessity of cooperation for our survival, both individal and collective. And of course, a fundemental human need is safety, as survival is far more difficult when we feel unsafe, whether or not we actually are. When the organization you're part of actively seeks to threaten your fundemental needs as an individual, you lose trust in it, and question it more than you should. Fostering more-harmonious co-existence with the people around us shall help us worry less, feel safer, and actually focus more on delivering the task at hand more effectively. The Greater-Macro Level of Influence Society can be seen as a loose coalition of various types of organizations, ranging from families, clans, companies and other factions. All of these groups interact with one another or influence one another in some way. When more-influencial groups become more prestigous and accepted by the other groups, the latter groups begin to follow the example of the first type of groups. Due to the authority fallacy, it is easier to surrender our admiration to people or groups who have more authority than us. When we also give in to the prestige bias, we also begin to want to become like them. These two concepts can compromise our moral reasoning in favor of becoming normal, and thus, accepted by the larger coalition that is society. It is when our role models, our leaders and our bosses begin to lead through coercion and not through shared ambition, we may follow their example even though we may despise them. Another reason for that, being our behavior, as a product of other behaviors. When we behave in accordance to the behaviors we learn from, that is known as learned behavior. And the thing is, our learned behavior is done both consciously and unconsciously. The education system of a society is an important tool to make people behave in certain ways. The problem begins at the very basis of failing to give the younger generations, the moral education they deserve for a better-functioning society. Teachers may, more often than not, teach based on the carrot-and-stick method. The problem with this method arrives when teachers bother less to make students aspire for rewards, like grades, and focus more on coercion through the following methods: Yelling. Individual punishiment. Collective punishment. Other forms of intimidation. Being knowledge-based institutions, many schools hinder their own success by unintentionally making students rebel against them. They focus less on teaching them the importance of learning (AKA, the philosophy of education), and more on making them aware of the consenquences of non-compliance. Teachers are one of the first figures of authority any person in a public education nation will face. With or without any of the parties' awareness, teachers not only present the study material, but also how a "proper" person acts. As such, teaching is more than the display of knowledge but also the display of proper character. When we fail to make our teachers teach us the importance of character, of proper behavior themselves, they become bad examples that the students learn from, unconsciously at least. And since teachers normalize the problematic tactics of fearmongering, they fail their own education's directive. They breed the next generations of leaders themselves. The next role models, bosses and politicians. The very same politicians that many of us despise, are also a product of their environment as much as any of us are. They can come from the same socio-economic backgrounds, the same education institutions, and consume the same cultural pieces many of us grew up on as children. We may condemn our various degrees of leadership which form our organizations, but we need to remember that it is us who enable the very same behaviors we condemn. Crime and Corrupt Politics -- The Connecting Element Crime and corrupt politics have one connecting element for sure: They dominate through terror. A controversial example can be found in the history of the United States. According to the NewAmerica blog: ...It's been possible for decades in U.S. politics to cobble together pluralities of voters by offering them new bogeymen. Before ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and China, election seasons sensationalized crime, Japanese imports, and communists. Indeed, political scientists Steven Teles and David Dagan argue that terrorism was largely swapped in for crime in the public imagination—and in political campaigns—after 9/11. The United States’ history of prejudice, combined with its diversity and the demonstrated electoral success of fear-driven approaches, has led again and again to campaigns that demonize and target not just pandemics and ideologies, but people and communities. Such rhetoric has been responsible for spikes of violence against minority groups in the past. Now, with anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, and anti-immigrant hate crimes on the rise, how we direct our fear has major implications for our social fabric. And to quote from an episode of the Netflix documentary series, "How to Become A Mob Boss": Fear. The paralyzing feeling of imminent danger. A dreaded nightmare about to come true. But when you're a mob boss looking to consolidate your power, you look at human emotions differently. Mob bosses rule by fear. It's the best weapon. Conclusions Must I eleborate further? We may complain and even actively eliminate the problems which make us fearful. However, as long as we apply the same fear-tactics in our own behavior, we would only enable the very same problems we condemn! We mustn't cooperate with behaviors we don't agree with! Or else we would allow others act the same, by learning from us! And to avoid threatening others, we first mustn't be afraid ourselves. We must learn and teach others to become braver. For in the end, all coercion stems from fear itself. Coercion... is a self defense mechanism. The best defense is a good offense. I want to be braver. I will be braver. I could become a better example. So can you. Hail Philosocom. Additional Read How to deal with Coercive Control -- Mentalhealth.com

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) Ms. Tamara Moskal's synopsis: Vctim personality has its roots in being bullied in childhood and often is a result of the child becoming the scapegoat of the family. The feeling of helplessness in adulthood is a reconstruction of the trauma. This article is a testimony of a victim of incestuous sexual abuse in childhood. The author explains how to escape the cycle of mistreatment by leaving the toxic environment and becoming independent. In the path of healing, breaking the silence about the abuse and giving it its proper place is vital to overcoming the victim mentality. (Background music) ********************************************** Introduction Hello everyone. Today, I want to talk about victims. I will explain in my own easy words and give an example to the victims of how this is expressed and what the victims are. And how can philosophical insights treat it? A person who has been bullied. The root of this is from childhood. The situation makes her feel helpless and unable to act. This feeling is a reconstruction of the trauma. Case Study For example, if a girl was forced to keep a secret about her uncle's s**ual assault from early childhood. Her parents beat her, blamed her for everything, and brainwashed her. And they a**** her in front of her sisters. In fact, in the example I present, she is just girl. An innocent person. One who does not understand life and how to act in danger. For the parents do not provide her with a source of psychological safety. Feeling terror, fear, repressed anger, repressed depression. She can't talk to her parents about it. That girl learns to keep a terrible secret that affects her forever. And so, she will feel self-worthless, humiliated, disdainful, and confused, in which she, on the one hand, must survive in the cruel world. On the other hand, she is not taught boundaries. And her parents and sisters do not stand by her. You are probably familiar with the subject in schools. But in fact, bullying starts at home. In front of the family. To be truthful, it is usually the scapegoat for Azazel and the small family behind closed doors. Her victimization will manifest itself in self-hatred against herself. She will be afraid to succeed because if she grows up, her parents will be afraid that the secret will go out ASAP, which leaves that girl in a repressed depression. One, in which she is not allowed to express anger. Anger in such a situation is significant for mental health. She is not allowed to speak ill of her parents. And she must see her uncle every week. After all, he is part of the family. And her family stands by him and not by their daughter. On the other hand, her parents will say that they love her. Everything will be talk. It is essential to look at the actions. They will tell her that she is their home. But on the other hand, her mother told her it was a shame they didn't have an abortion before she was born. And behind her eyes, they will gossip about her to teachers, friends, and the extended family. And all to isolate her. That she will feel social isolation and feel that she is incapable of changing the harsh reality. And usually, yes, especially in childhood, you cannot change the truth. Usually, children don't run and tell what they're going through. The teachers don't see them as the same victims. Their parents humiliate them behind the scenes. And she feels alone in a dangerous world without knowing how to face this world. Without being able to understand her feelings because they won't take her for treatment. And without being able to express them in words. Since anything she says will be a threat to her parents. This impossible and uncontained situation causes her to explode. The same explosion continues in reconstructions even in her adulthood, even if she leaves her parents' house. Even if you go to them, she is still not normal because she lives an abnormal life. She felt stuck—a victim situation. She does not know what genuine kindness is. And she denies the evil of her parents to survive life. She does not have respect for herself because her soul was desecrated. She is not allowed to speak. And every word is checked. That girl, in her adulthood, felt invisible. Full of overwhelming and negative thoughts that are mercilessly thrown at her by her parents. Sometimes, it is also from her teacher and the children in her class. Since everything is restored to her, then other kids hurt her. Teachers do not see her pain. Because she learned to hide it, they did not help her. Some do see but don't want to interfere, and there are many. That girl in adulthood felt toxic emotions and was full of negativity and helplessness because, compared to others, she did not learn boundaries. And how to keep it. She was not a proper and individual person because her parents rummaged through her things to prevent her from telling the teachers. That self-value of hers was canceled. Her parents use silent treatments. To make her feel guilty and ashamed. I write all this because I know this girl. That there was such a girl. That's how she also got bullied at school. Usually, in schools, this is said and taught. But the root of it is silence. That's why I write about it. The same girl feels that she is separated from her friends at school. Because she is not allowed to tell, and that is how she is guilty. Her parents. And that uncle of hers who hurt her and continues to hurt her. She no longer has the strength to ask her parents, especially her mother, not to bring him home repeatedly. She feels the need to protect herself, but she does not have the mental power for that. She is one against many. And the majority effect, unfortunately, has an impact. Many don't want to understand that her parents hate her, even if they say they love her and care for her. When she is socially isolated, her parents start spreading nasty rumors about her. And take the truth of something she told them and make it look terrible. And they embarrass her in public. Or at home with the door closed. Usually, they threaten her behind closed doors. They spoke ill about her best friend and isolated her from any help. And excused it with fact that she was a bad girl. That they are not seeing, who loves her, and that's how you will learn her body is theirs. They make hand gestures, fists, and rude gestures and blame her for everything. They buy her cheap clothes. And to her sisters, they purchased expensive clothes and spoke well about them. The sister took the side of the mother. She is disadvantaged because she is not like her sister. They deny the evil and what was done to her, claiming that she exaggerates. And that she has a mental illness. And it is not correct. And it is going to places like school, university, or work. To make others hate her, to shame her for past mistakes that are the ones who bullied her. In this situation, the same child is not equal to her parents. Because she is just girl, and they are significant. She is one of many. And that is the narrative of bullying -- of exploiting the weak intentionally. Her parents and acquaintances are experienced in humiliating her on the sly, and she is alone. They constantly tease her, create drama, threaten to cause harm, and cause damage. The Path to Recovery After recording a large part of the negative emotions that this girl went through, I want to tell you a secret: How is it possible in such a situation of bullying? Any bullying is against a weaker individual. Of a different status. Other status. Another ability to stand up to herself or many. What should you do to take care of it? It won't be easy. In such a situation, the girl is alone. And they won't always be able to contact the police because she is alone. In front of many, it takes a lot of mental strength, which she doesn't have. She must try to get out of the danger zone. Her parents' house is a dangerous place. To pass this challenge for a good, better life, she must already be an adult. She must first practice mindfulness and understand the mental pain caused to her. She must realize that it is not her fault. That she is not alone. That many more are silenced. And sign up for a support group of people like her. I recommend more than a psychologist, which is one on one. Since that girl thinks she deserves it. And so, it is in adulthood. Therefore, she must see women like her. Of course, there are also boys like her. They should go to a support group for such men. She must understand in her maturity that these people, even though they are her parents and her complex family who cooperated and teachers and acquaintances, harmed her and did not promote her in any way. They are not what they present and are not the best family and country to live in. She should stop distorting reality for herself with their excuses. And listen to her inner voice. She must understand that she deserves a chance to succeed. She deserves respect and appreciation for who she is and to be true to herself even if her parents call her selfish. Who "stood by herself". To understand that being against such people and cutting off an ill connection for her mental health, is crucial. And mental health is important above all. She must express anger and not allow an "accusing voice" to remain silent and let people hurt her. She must learn to set boundaries to protect herself as an individual. Separate her thoughts from them, too. It's theirs, not hers. And she must become financially independent. And to understand that they caused her harm, even if they were good to her too, sometimes it is not their true face behind closed doors. This is exceedingly difficult to do if you are entirely alone. Therefore, the importance of the group is a supreme value. It is enough for one person to help her escape. One person will believe in her and help her to succeed and move forward. She doesn't want it. But she was silent. Her acquaintances from a complex family also call her out. They take the parents' side and other people. Therefore, she must protect herself. Understand that it is worth it, just with the case of any person. She was wronged. She is aware of it. But in her adulthood, she is no longer helpless. She has a choice. She should know how to ask for help and take advantage of an opportunity if she finds someone to help her. She must earn enough money to support herself. The more she goes through bullying with more people, the more mentally she is hurt. Usually, such people will rule by stealing money and taking advantage of their target. She must understand that it will take time to recover if she leaves. But she is not alone. And being alone is better than exploitation and harm. She must learn to protect her interests. Understand that mental health is vital to her. Those who ignore that, exploit it, and pass information to those people are the problem. She must learn self-love even if her inner voice hates her because it sits on her self-worth. She must understand that with them, she cannot be authentic. And being authentic is essential for the soul. That group of people envied her. And caused the creation of a cooperative dependency to damage her freedom. She must understand that they are different from her. That's although she is modest and learned and programmed to talk about the bad, even though they isolated her and destroyed her relationships with friends. She cannot listen to them. She must ask herself what made her listen to them and stay in the toxic environment. If she doesn't have people with her, getting out of this situation will be very difficult. If she is with them, it will also be impossible to change that. Such people enjoyed her pain, even if they told her their intentions were pure. And even if they said they love her because she is their daughter. She must understand that she has reduced evil, by not staying in this vicious cycle. The abolition of evil in humanity. The reduction of corruption as if it had never been. It's the repression that got her stuck with them in the first place. And they are self-interested and do everything to destroy her. She must understand that now they spoke badly about a friend who loved her. They asked for details of conversations and talked to other people behind her back. It indicates hatred. Even if they tell her and others that she is the one who hates them, they are liars and the majority effect is not valid. Society somehow influences a lot and does everything by enabling them to "take care" of her problems. To "love" her. To pass information about her to others, whether state institutions or welfare, and therefore sabotage her independence as someone who is mentally injured. She must understand that some sharing is destructive, but good people exist. And you will surely know them, if you try. She must consider that there will be those whom she must leave because her parents and siblings have already made a smear campaign against her. She must believe in herself. And avoid agreeing to self-judgment. Summary Understand that she is a solitary, weak individual, and there is a limit to the judgmental voice within her. For years, she neglected herself. Pay attention at the beginning of contact, especially to red lights, because she can't see either after a while and remains blind. She should express anger. And who silences her rage? It makes her hate herself and be angry with herself. And she needs to understand that. Anything like that destroys her emotional system. By expresing her distress and giving it its proper place and value, she will be able to overcome her victimized mentality. And we can understand what will become of it. And how to break away from these kinds of people who normalize and enable those who give such mentality a place. This story is a true story. I don't want to mention names to preserve their integrity. Thank you. This will give you tools to deal with the victims through the story I wrote. And understand the mentality of victims, better. Internal References: https://www.philosocom.com/post/naturality-of-trauma https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-guide-to-rage-how-to-master-the-art-of-rage https://www.philosocom.com/post/accepting-reality-ii-the-rubinshteinic-philosophy-on-trauma https://www.philosocom.com/post/furthermore-on-loneliness-being-alone

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis: Criticism allows us to discern truth and falsehood and is the basis for philosophical knowledge-seeking. Psychological toughness is vital to self-development, leading to lower sensitivity and less suffering. We should criticize assumptions made by our emotions and investigate evidence. Fact-seeking is also helpful as a learning opportunity for personal growth. In Criticism Towards Anti-Critical Thought Criticizing is the means of all doubt. You cannot doubt anything or anyone without judgeing their pretended value, whether actually pretentious or true. Philosophy teaches us that we need to criticize frequently on the basis of knowledge-seeking. And indeed, one of the roles of criticism is to allow us to discern between truth and falsehood. After all, an assumption might be too flawed to be deemed as correct, upon further examination. Therefore, in the name of seeking the truth, we must be willing to criticize as much as possible. And the purpose of seeking the truth is a practical one: To act and plan in accordance to it. The problem, however, arrives when some of us may regard criticism as "an attack" on either the things they value or on themselves. When they make this unhealthy attachment between themselves and their values and beliefs, criticizng them would by extension make them feel "attacked" or threatened. When someone, as a result, is compelled to use fallacies such as whataboutism, we can realize that they are not secure enough have their beliefs or themselves criticized. As such this can serve as a red light, an indication, that they might not be suitable for philosophizing. They might lack the psychological safety to allow themselves and their values to be criticized, even if they would claim that they are tough. Unfortunately for them, toughness isn't necessarily a black-or-white situation, and traits can be possessed partially as well, not necessarily by their entirety. It is quite hard to philosophize with someone who not only regards an arguement as an accusation, but also does not do much to serve a counter-arguement of their own. As such, in the niche of philosophy, high sensitivity is a weakness when it distracts you from arguing reasonably, by feeling either attacked or accused. We need not to see the other side as a threat on us. However, that would only be done once we become psychologically strong enough to quickly dismiss the false impression of being under a threat. To be as strong as that, we better not regard any criticism as an attack or insult so quickly. Instead, we need to criticize that impression and question its truthfulness. Logical debates do not spiral into heated fights so quickly because either one or the two sides are strong enough to not regard people as a threat, especially if there is no actual threat being present (AKA, one towards your life, for example). However, that requires the cooperation of all sides involved in this exchange of ideas. By refusing to criticize our own false impressions, we enable a culture where toughness is overlooked in the name of softness. In reality, however, toughness, while hard to attain, is imperative for our prosperity in life, and for the greater expansion of their potential as both individuals and members of organizations/communities. Becoming tougher is also how we can really not be hurt by the world, without having to resort to threat others just because we ourselves feel threatened. In the name of greater harmony with this world, being tough is one of my top priorities when it comes to self-development. I also believe people would suffer less as a result of my gradually-reducing sensitivity. I have no longer a desire for people to suffer over weaknesses I can solve or at least reduce. And reduction of general suffering could serve as a reason to regard a weakness partially immoral, where inner strength is a virtue to nurture and celebrate. Obviously, by refusing to criticize what our senses and thoughts tell us, we can be quick to make much misunderstandings, caused by relying too much on our emotions as absolute credible sources of information. Instead, we can see any data/impression we receive as an opportunity to further investigate, to actually learn. Instead of regarding any data we receive as fact, we can instead regard it as an hypothesis, deserving to be questioned in the name of the truth. Case Example: The March 2024 Facebook Outage On the 5th of March, 2024, Facebook's (And Meta's Platforms in general) collapsed for several hours. This event could in theory affect certain groups, social categories, and individuals, in interesting ways: Israelis could think a terrorist organization has hacked facebook. Americans might think Chinese hackers have breached their accounts. People who suffer from paranoia or a victim's mentality might think they were specifically hacked while others weren't. People suffering from anxiety might believe they won't be able to log in to their accounts again. The problem with these assumption only occurs when we refuse to use them as opportunities to actually learn what's going on and/or why. Shoud we lack the necessary willpower to doubt ourselves, we won't necessarily realize the truth. In reality, outages such as these, while not occuring often, also happened in 2021 due to the similar reason of "technical/networking issue/s" that was also the cause in 2024. The Core Points Without proper questioning of our beliefs, they remain beliefs until proven otherwise. Compare this to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof lies on you, as the one intrigued by the belief, and also as one who might have the ability to put said belief to the test. Otherwise, why else would we regard a belief as fact? Because of our confidence? Our confidence is not proper evidence. Fact-checking is the key to gather evidence, not having the capacity to feel emotions which confirm our beliefs. To the universal businessman's archetype, anything can be regarded as an investment opportunity. Not necessarily of funds exclusively but also of time and effort, used to yield useful results in one way or another. When we can regard any assumption as a learning opportunity to invest resources to, we can use any assumption as an opportunity to grow and become more knowledgeable. Nurturing a studious culture is therefore key to doubting anything and anyone, not as something that threatened us, but as an opportunity for improvement and transformation into wiser beings. When we regard criticism as a threat, we deny ourselves the growth of our knowledge. And the whole point of philosophy, in the first place, is to grow our knoweldge. Let us all do so, not only to learn more, but to actually feel more secure around those who don't really threat our lives, and don't have to threat our wellbeing. All it takes initally is to question ourselves. Hail Philosocom.

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis Savant syndrome is a rare neurological condition in which an intellectual impairment makes a person highly gifted in specific areas. A severe head injury can cause savant syndrome, transforming the victim for the better. The anonymous man is an acquired savant, sharing in this article how Savant syndrome positively affected his intellectual capacity. According to him, being a Savant means developing hypersensitivity in different areas, including your own cognitive features. Introduction Savant syndrome is a rare, insufficiently-explained neurological condition that is caused by head injury. However, it has other forms of development as well (some linked to autism). It is an intellectual impairment that ironically makes a specific area/s within your intelligence become extremely gifted, compared to your other areas of your intellect. It is divided into two variations: One that is congenital (genetic or inborn), or can be acquired later in childhood, or even in adults. It is not clear how much of the global population is savant, and I am not sure if I myself am one, although I used to suspect it. Case Example An anonymous man who will be this article's case example, is an acquired savant. He also provided much insight for this article to be written. One day, he had a car accident in January 2022. To quote him in our discourse: I lost control and went off road and flipped 3 times where I ended up hanging upside down for over 30 minutes and suffered a stroke. The aftermath of that was a month long hospital stay and due to there having been alcohol in my system I got in trouble for it. I also lost my spleen while in the hospital, screwed my eye muscle up, still not back to 100% but close. I knowed a tooth out, temporarily damaging my jaw. Broke L1-L4. All and all best thing that could have happened to me. The "logical thing" to say that it's absurd to see such a horrible event as lofty. However, that would only be true in most cases. In some cases, this horrible injury can unlock something within you. Something that already exists deep inside, but sleeps without disturbance. For most of us, this vast cognitive potential will lay dormant for the rest of our lives, forever locked. Due to the lack of a unified theory regarding this rare syndrome, it is not quite known why such injuries transform a person for the better. However, acquired savant syndrome is proof of a concept called post-traumatic growth. It cancels the notion that all trauma leads to pure misfortune, and dismisses it as a generalization. As such, sufferers of past trauma might not necessarily need psychological treatment, when they have the inner potential within them, to transform for the better. Psychologists are there to solve our problems. However, misfortune does not necessarily lead to a greater misfortune, even if in many, if not most cases it does. We therefore should, in the name of truth, see events as more intricate than a mere dichotomy of positive and negative. Perhaps both positivity and negativity embedded in events should be embraced generally, not discarded or desired individually. After all, all past events lead to who we are today, and to what might become of us. The man told me how his giftedness affected him: Savant syndrome typically surfaces when someone has developmental problems yet is still extremely gifted in one faceset of intelligence. typically seen in music, art, and math. Mine sadly only have to do with intra and interpersonal areas; Kind of happenstance that I already had both. The remarkable thing was due to the sudden emergence of gains in intellectual capacity it actually gave my other intelligences more room to work with. They are in relation to the sensitivity expressed in autism. The brain injury expanded that sensitivity to include intelligence and even more emotional. Both were things I could never do before. Leads to something nobody ever thought was possible: Someone getting it with already higher intelligence. He continues: So some peculiar gifts I have noticed is the fact I can fully sense and discern intelligence, assuming I have access to their verbal and non verbal in person. . It's not that I'm a walking IQ test, though I can usually ball park into a pretty accurate range, but more so I can sense intellectual capacity. Due to autism my gifts are in relation to hypersensitivity Wherever that ability came from it is splinter as hell. Due to having such control over my own emotions I had them pretty suppressed in a physiological sense. This made me rely on cognitive empathy, which is nothing more than learned empathy that doesn't rely on emotions. Surprise my body now possesses the ability to translate that cognition and emotional empathy, and very bearable levels. I can actually tell exactly what people are feeling, extreme abstract cognitive features and again right now splinter. Would it be cheating if I became a therapist? From this we can conclude a very important, underrated insight: The same disorder affects people differently. And undoubtedly, different people that may become savants, will develop differently as a result. This is true not only in such psychological/developmental disorders but also in medical conditions as well. For example, I am asthmatic but it's hard to understand that as my asthma is silent. Post Publication Notes Finally, the anonymous man adds the following comments: Acquired Savant Syndrome is many things. Please be aware that most of what I am saying isn't based on anything that I learned. I discovered it all for myself. It is my efforts to see if I can't apply what I know to make a unified theory on it. This may also be hugely due to my intelligence which please be aware of its limitations. I may have a deep understanding of a few things but that does not mean I magically learned all the vocabulary to accompany that understanding. First and foremost. How am I able to do such amazing things? What nobody has been able to figure out about savant. It is a medical condition but not a bad one. Being Savant is simply having hypersensitivity to everything including yourself and your own cognitive features. The reason why nobody can see the difference is because they are assuming everyone's cognitive features are the same. Can a musical savant not be explained, using the idea that a person's cognitive feature relating to auditory processing might be different than other people, and all of a sudden they are super sensitive to it? It does not add to your intelligence, just simply makes you more sensitive to the cognitive gifts which your brain possesses. So it is not sudden genius, it is a sudden expression of intelligence. The reason nobody can figure out why it is expressed so differently among people is because nobody included the idea of intelligence and genetics into it. All that people witness is very large amounts of intelligence directed at a certain thing. I can explain why. Every person's cognitive features are different as a result of how genetics structure them. Cognitive features are nothing more than how gray matter forms in the brain. They are ways in which your intelligence can express itself with. Why some people are more intellectually gifted in ways is only a result of how these features are formed. They have very little to do with the intelligence you have and more to do with tools which your intelligence has to work with. This is the reason why most people's IQ's are only around 100. Their genetics simply didn't allow for more advanced cognitive features to form. Extra Material To finish this article and therefore conclude the induction of this intellect to my organization of authors, I will attempt at answering 4 of his questions to me: 1. If bi-polar is a mood disorder did I in sense "beat it" as far as a mental illness by having my emotions in check? 2. What are some "powers" of "magical thinking"? I'm just so used to it that it is just normal to me. 3. Is there a way to harness excitement? 4. If you could make any changes to this world, what would they be? No. 1: It is certainly possible to beat back bi-polar disorder. In fact, my own mother is bi-polar and regards her struggle against this illness a great victory. It's important to further understand how illness of the mind can be seen as a challenge to overcome, just like medication for it, can be fatal, in her own example as well. No. 2: To quote Britannica: "Magical thinking, the belief that one’s ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world. Magical thinking presumes a causal link between one’s inner, personal experience and the external physical world." I have explained my thoughts when I disproved the law of attraction and questioned the arcane. No. 3: All emotions are energy and given that we have some degree of control over ourselves we can definitely harness excitement just like we can harness revenge and other emotions. A good way to do it is to understand that emotions are pawns. No. 4: If to truly quote Gandhi: “If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.” Changing ourselves, getting greater authority in what we do, and leading by example, can influence the world through our own actions. To understand how I want to change the world, you need to know why I changed myself, and became dead inside.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc, English version, below) Un conte de l'heure silencieuse - 5 poèmes sur la philosophie du cœur (par M. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac) (Avertissement : les messages d'invités ne correspondent pas nécessairement aux convictions, aux pensées ou aux opinions du directeur de Philosocom, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Le but des messages d'invités est de permettre un large éventail de récits émanant d'un large éventail de personnes. Pour postuler pour un article d'invité de votre choix, veuillez envoyer votre demande à mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Note de M. Rubinshtein : Cette belle série de poésie décrit le processus logique de guérison d'un chagrin d'amour d'une manière très émotionnelle ! La série peut servir de témoignage que la logique et l'émotion ne se contredisent pas toujours en philosophie, car la fin justifie les moyens ! Ce que je veux dire par là est simple : si le raisonnement présenté ici est vrai et décrit de manière précise ce dont on a besoin pour se remettre d'un chagrin d'amour, alors oui ! La logique et l'émotion ne sont pas toujours contradictoires ! Hahahahahaha ! Elles ne le sont que lorsque l'émotion déforme. une information, mais ce n'est pas le cas bien sûr, quand elle permet de la mettre davantage en valeur ! Cela prouve également à quel point les émotions sont des outils permettant aux créateurs de contenu de faire passer leur message d'une manière qui résonne auprès du public et de l'aider à mieux comprendre les informations qu'ils reçoivent. En tant que tel, un moyen de souligner davantage la pertinence de la philosophie est d’utiliser l’émotion comme un outil pour affiner la compréhension du lectorat, et c’est quelque chose que de nombreux grands philosophes n’ont pas réussi à faire. On se souvient sans doute de l'héritage de Nietzsche en grande partie en raison de ses émotions qu'il a su intégrer à son contenu. Par exemple : L'émotion peut nous aider à mieux distinguer Kli de Tochen, le primaire du secondaire). ******************** La déception régit son cœur: Le désappointement gouverne son cœur D'une main lourde, il saisit et s'accroche Un linceul de tristesse qui se déchire Son esprit autrefois brillant, avec le chagrin qu'il apporte Elle essaie de s'en débarrasser, mais en vain Car il semble la suivre à chaque pas Un rappel constant de sa douleur Une ombre qui refuse de lâcher prise, elle rampe Mais elle se lève quand même, avec grâce et puissance Sa détermination brille toute la nuit Car elle sait que le bonheur l'attend Et le soleil se lèvera un jour plus lumineux, celui-ci attend Elle trouvera la force de se libérer Des chaînes du désapointement Et elle voit la beauté qui l'entoure Son histoire de vie, à raconter Alors laisse son cœur être rempli d'espoir Et laisse son esprit s'envoler une fois de plus Car elle mérite un avenir meilleur Et une vie qui brille d'un amour sans fin. Elle veut être aimée: Elle veut être aimée de tout son cœur Un amour pur et qui ne partira jamais Avec une passion qui brûle, comme un feu si vif Et un bonheur qui brille, comme les étoiles la nuit Elle veut être aimée, d'un amour vrai Un lien qui perdure et sera toujours nouveau Avec un coeur qui bat, avec un rythme si fort Et un amour qui grandit et ne se trompera jamais Elle veut être aimée, d'un amour chaleureux Un sentiment qui la réconforte et la protège du mal Avec un toucher qui apaise et un sourire qui brille Et un amour qui apporte la paix à son esprit Elle veut être aimée, d'un amour généreux Une compassion réelle et toujours aussi belle Et à chaque instant qui passe, elle espère seulement Pour un amour qui est vrai et qu'elle connaîtra toujours Car elle veut être aimée de tout son cœur Un amour pur et qui ne partira jamais Et chaque jour qui passe, elle tient bon Et prie pour un amour qui sera toujours aussi vivant. Souvenirs d'un temps oublié: Souvenirs du temps oubliés, comme les feuilles dans le vent Dérivant et se balançant, loin d'où elles étaient Vestiges de moments qui semblaient autrefois si réels Maintenant, juste des murmures, que nous pouvons à peine ressentir Ils résonnent doucement, au plus profond de notre esprit Nous rappelant le temps désormais laissé derrière nous De rire, d'amour et de moments si vivants Cela semble maintenant lointain, comme les étoiles dans la nuit Mais ils persistent, comme un parfum dans l'air Nous ramenant à des moments que nous aimerions partager Et dans le silence, on peut les entendre appeler Souvenirs du temps oublié, debout Alors tenons bon, à ces souvenirs que nous avons créés Car ils seront toujours avec nous, pour ne jamais disparaître Et dans le calme, nous reviendrons dans le temps Aux souvenirs d'un temps oublié, d'un amour qui brille encore. Le cœur brisé mais toujours en train de respirer: Le cœur brisé mais je respire toujours, Dans ce monde qui est si trompeur Où l'amour peut être si méchant Et te laisse brisé et esseulé Le cœur brisé mais toujours debout, Malgré les blessures qui s'agrandissent Et la douleur qui pénètre si profondément Et les souvenirs que tu gardes Le cœur brisé mais j'essaie toujours, De ramasser les morceaux et de survivre Et trouver un moyen de guérir et de réparer Et m'élever au-dessus de ce chagrin d'amour de ce down Car même si tu es brisé, tu es toujours en vie Et il y a une force qui perdure Et un espoir qui grandit en toi Et qui t'aide à guérir et à recommencer Alors accroche-toi bien à tes rêves et à ton espoir Et crois que l'amour reviendra un jour Pour les cœurs brisés mais qui respirent toujours, C'est un parcours qu'il vous vaut la peine d'accomplir. Quand le cœur ne peut parler: Quand le cœur ne peut pas parler et que les mots ne viennent pas, Et que les sentiments intérieurs sont un fardeau qui engourdit. Quand la douleur est trop profonde et que les larmes ne sèchent pas, Et que le silence est assourdissant, alors que l'âme se met à pleurer. C'est à ce moment-là que le cœur prend le dessus et commence à guérir. Avec un langage universel et un pouvoir réel. C'est le langage de l'amour et le pouvoir de l'attention portée, Et il tend la main, pour guérir l'âme d'une façon inhabituelle. Car le cœur est sage et il sait ce qui est vrai, Et cela parle d’une manière que seule l’âme peut interpréter. C'est un message d'espoir et une promesse de paix, Et cela nous élève lorsque notre esprit veut se libérer. Alors quand le cœur ne peut pas parler et que les mots ne viennent pas, Écoutons le cœur et le message qu'il transmet. Car c'est une voix vraie et un amour profond, Et cela guérira notre âme et nous rendra serein... ************************* (English version, original) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ************************* (Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: This beautiful series of poetry describes the logical process of heartbreak recovery in a very emotional way! The series can serve as testimony that logic and emotion do not always contradict in philosophy, for the end justifies the means! What I mean by that is simple: If the reasoning presented here is true, and describes what one needs to recover from heartbreaks in an on-point manner, then yes! Logic and emotion are not always contradictory! Hahahahahaha! They are only contradictory when emotion distorts information, not, of course, when it helps emphasize it further! It also proves how emotions are tools for content creators to get their message across in a way that resonates with the audience, and help them understand the information they receive, more. As such, a way to further highlight the relevance of philosophy is to use emotion as a tool to sharpen the understanding of the readership, and it's something that many great philosophers failed at doing. Arugably Nietzsche's legacy is remembered much due to his emotions which he integrated with his content. For example: Emotion can help us better distinguish Kli from Tochen, primary from secondary). (Background music) ********************* Disappointment Rules Her Heart: Disappointment rules her heart With a heavy hand, it grips and clings A shroud of sadness, tearing apart Her once bright spirit, with sorrow it brings She tries to shake it off, but in vain For it seems to follow her every step A constant reminder of her pain A shadow that refuses to let go, it creeps But still she rises, with grace and might Her determination shining through the night For she knows that happiness awaits And the sun will rise on a brighter day, it awaits She'll find the strength to break free From the chains of disappointment's hold And see the beauty that surrounds Her life story, to be retold So let her heart be filled with hope And let her spirit soar once more For she deserves a brighter tomorrow And a life that shines with endless love. She Want to be Loved: She wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart With a passion that burns, like a fire so bright And a happiness that shines, like the stars at night She wants to be loved, with a love that's true A bond that endures, and will always be new With a heart that beats, with a rhythm so strong And a love that grows, and will never go wrong She wants to be loved, with a love that's warm A feeling that comforts, and keeps her from harm With a touch that soothes, and a smile that shines And a love that brings, peace to her mind She wants to be loved, with a love that's kind A compassion that's real, and always so fine And with each passing moment, she only hopes For a love that's true, and one that she'll always know For she wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart And with each passing day, she holds on tight And prays for a love, that will always be bright. Memories of Time Forgotten: Memories of time forgotten, like leaves in the wind Drifting and swaying, away from where they've been Remnants of moments, that once felt so real Now just whispers, that we can barely feel They echo softly, in the depths of our mind Reminding us of times, that are now left behind Of laughter, of love, and of moments so bright That now seem distant, like stars in the night But still they linger, like a fragrance in the air Bringing us back, to moments that we'd like to share And in the stillness, we can hear them call Memories of time forgotten, standing tall So let us hold on, to these memories we've made For they will always, be with us, never to fade And in the stillness, we'll be taken back in time To memories of time forgotten, a love that still shines. Broken Hearted But Still Breathing: Broken hearted but still breathing, In this world that's so deceiving Where love can be so unkind And leave you shattered, and confined Broken hearted but still standing, Despite the wounds that are expanding And the pain that cuts so deep And the memories that you keep Broken hearted but still trying, To pick up the pieces, and surviving And find a way, to heal and mend And rise above, this heartache and bend For though you're broken, you're still alive And there's a strength, that will thrive And a hope, that will grow within And help you heal, and begin again So hold on tight, to your dreams and your faith And trust that love, will come again one day For broken hearted but still breathing, Is a journey, that you're worth achieving. When The Heart Cannot Speak: When the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, And the feelings inside, are a burden that's numb. When the pain is too deep, and the tears won't dry, And the silence is deafening, as the soul starts to cry. That's when the heart takes over, and it starts to heal, With a language that's universal, and a power that's real. It's the language of love, and the power of care, And it reaches out, to heal the soul with its rare. For the heart is wise, and it knows what's true, And it speaks in a way, that only the soul can construe. It's a message of hope, and a promise of peace, And it lifts us up, when our spirit wants to release. So when the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, Let us listen to the heart, and the message it's spun. For it's a voice that's true, and a love that's deep, And it will heal our soul, and send us to sleep

French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below. (Philosocom's Directory on Culture) Comment la '' cancel culture'' ( culture de l'effacement ou culture de l'annulation), influence la liberté d'expression (par M. E. Peter, M. J. Igwe et M. E. David) (Avertissement : les articles d'invités ne correspondent pas nécessairement aux convictions, aux pensées ou aux opinions du directeur de Philosocom, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Le but des articles d'invités est de permettre un large éventail de récits émanant d'un large éventail de personnes. Pour postuler pour un article d'invité de votre choix, veuillez envoyer votre demande à mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ************************* La liberté d'expression est un droit humain fondamental qui permet aux individus d'exprimer leurs opinions et leurs idées sans crainte de représailles, de censure ou de répercussions juridiques du gouvernement. C'est la pierre angulaire des sociétés démocratiques et elle est souvent protégée par des lois, des constitutions ou des accords internationaux. Le droit à la liberté d'expression englobe diverses formes d'expression, notamment les paroles, la communication écrite, l'expression artistique et les actions symboliques. La culture et la parole sont étroitement liées, la langue étant le principal véhicule de transmission des valeurs, des normes et des traditions culturelles. Les modèles de discours, les dialectes et les expressions reflètent souvent les croyances culturelles, les hiérarchies sociales et les contextes historiques d'une communauté. Les normes culturelles influencent non seulement le langage utilisé, mais également les aspects non verbaux de la communication, comme le langage corporel, les gestes et les étiquettes sociales, qui diffèrent considérablement selon les cultures. De plus, la langue elle-même peut façonner la façon dont les gens perçoivent et comprennent le monde, affectant leurs pensées, leurs comportements et leurs interactions dans un contexte culturel particulier. Pendant ce temps, la '' cancel culture'' fait référence à la pratique répandue consistant à humilier, boycotter ou ostraciser publiquement des individus ou des entités pour un comportement ou des opinions jugées offensantes, controversées ou inacceptables. Cela se produit souvent sur les plateformes de médias sociaux et implique un effort collectif d’un groupe d’individus pour tenir les autres responsables de leurs actions ou déclarations. La '' cancel culture'' a des implications complexes pour la liberté d’expression. Alors que la liberté d'expression est un droit fondamental qui permet aux individus d'exprimer leurs opinions sans censure ni représailles de la part du gouvernement, la  '' cancel culture''  opère dans le cadre des conséquences sociales ou communautaires des discours ou des actions jugés inacceptables. Voici quelques façons dont la  '' cancel culture''   peut influencer la liberté d’expression : Effet paralysant : la '' cancel culture''   peut créer un effet paralysant sur la liberté d’expression. Les individus peuvent s'autocensurer pour éviter d'éventuelles réactions négatives, craignant que l'expression de certaines opinions ou idées n'entraîne une humiliation publique, une ostracisation ou même une perte d'emploi. Perspectives diverses : la  '' cancel culture''   cible souvent les discours ou les actions considérés comme offensants ou préjudiciables aux groupes marginalisés. Même si cela peut constituer une force positive de changement social en obligeant les individus ou les entités à rendre des comptes, cela pourrait potentiellement limiter les discussions ouvertes si des sujets controversés ou des perspectives diverses sont étouffés par crainte d’être annulés. Mentalité de la foule/du troupeau : dans certains cas, la  '' cancel culture''   se manifeste par un tollé général de masse, souvent sur les réseaux sociaux. Cette réponse collective et parfois agressive peut avoir un impact rapide et grave sur les moyens de subsistance et la réputation des individus sans procédure régulière ni espace de discussion et d’apprentissage. La  '' cancel culture''   a suscité un sentiment accru de responsabilité et de responsabilisation parmi les individus, les personnalités publiques et les organisations. Même si cela présente des inconvénients, cela permet également de tenir les gens responsables de leurs actes ou de leurs déclarations. Voici comment cela influence la responsabilité et l’imputabilité : Conscience sociale : la  '' cancel culture''   a accru la prise de conscience de l'impact des paroles et des actions. Les individus et les entités sont plus conscients de la façon dont leur comportement peut affecter les autres, en particulier les groupes marginalisés ou sous-représentés. Conséquences des actions : La '' cancel culture'' entraîne souvent des conséquences pour des comportements ou des déclarations jugés offensants ou nuisibles. Cela constitue une forme de responsabilité, indiquant qu’il existe des répercussions sur les actions qui ont un impact négatif sur les autres. Considérations éthiques : Les gens sont désormais plus enclins à considérer les implications éthiques de leurs actions. Ils sont obligés de réfléchir aux répercussions potentielles de leur comportement, de leurs déclarations ou de leurs décisions d’une manière plus socialement consciente. Responsabilité dans le discours public : La  '' cancel culture''   a poussé à une responsabilité accrue dans le discours public. Cela a conduit à des exigences de transparence, d’honnêteté et de responsabilité de la part des personnalités publiques et des organisations. Changement culturel : cela a provoqué un changement culturel dans lequel certains comportements ou déclarations qui étaient auparavant normalisés ou laissés passés sont désormais dénoncés et traités, favorisant ainsi une société plus responsable. Changement de politiques et de pratiques : les entreprises et les institutions réévaluent leurs politiques et pratiques pour s'assurer qu'elles s'alignent sur des normes plus responsables et inclusives, en réponse à une exigence croissante. Bien que la responsabilité et l’obligation de rendre compte soient essentielles, la nature extrême de la  '' cancel culture''   suscite des inquiétudes. Il est essentiel de trouver un équilibre, en garantissant que même si les individus sont tenus responsables, il y a de la place pour la croissance, l'éducation et le pardon. Un système qui permet d’apprendre de ses erreurs tout en décourageant les comportements nuisibles répétés peut contribuer à un environnement social plus sain et plus productif. Limites de l'innovation et de la créativité : la peur d'être annulé ou ostracisé peut dissuader les artistes, les créateurs et les innovateurs de repousser les limites ou d'explorer des thèmes controversés ou difficiles. Cette autocensure peut étouffer la créativité et limiter l’exploration de nouvelles idées. (Note de M. Rubinshtein : cela peut également s'appliquer en philosophie) L'impact de la  '' cancel culture''   sur l'innovation et la créativité peut être multiforme. S'il est important de tenir les individus et les entités responsables de leurs actes et d'encourager un comportement responsable, la peur d'être « annulé » peut potentiellement limiter la liberté et l'audace nécessaires à une véritable innovation et à une exploration créative de la façon suivante: Aversion au risque : la créativité prospère souvent en repoussant les limites et en explorant de nouvelles idées, même si elles sont controversées ou remettent en question les normes sociales. La peur des réactions négatives peut rendre les artistes, les écrivains ou les innovateurs plus réticents à prendre des risques, les conduisant à s’en tenir à des sujets et à des approches plus sûrs et plus conventionnels. Cette évitement des risques pourrait étouffer les idées novatrices ou provocatrices. (Note de M. Rubinshtein : L'aversion au risque existe dans de nombreux domaines de notre vie. C'est que nous avons des choses à perdre). Autocensure : La peur d'être ostracisé ou de faire face à de graves conséquences pour avoir exprimé des pensées non conventionnelles ou controversées peut conduire les individus à s'autocensurer. Cette limitation auto-imposée pourrait empêcher l’exploration d’idées susceptibles de conduire à des innovations révolutionnaires ou à des changements de paradigme. Expression artistique et culturelle : la créativité dans l'art, la littérature, le cinéma et d'autres expressions culturelles implique souvent d'aborder des sujets sensibles ou controversés. L'impact de  '' cancel culture''   pourrait décourager les artistes d'explorer ces thèmes, conduisant à un manque d'œuvres qui suscitent la réflexion ou repoussent les limites. Dialogue et critique étouffants : la critique constructive et le dialogue ouvert sont cruciaux pour la croissance dans les domaines créatifs. Les répercussions rapides et parfois dures de la '' cancel culture''   peuvent entraver une critique constructive, conduisant potentiellement à un environnement dans lequel l'apprentissage et l'amélioration véritables sont sacrifiés pour éviter l'indignation du public. Conformité plutôt que authenticité : certaines personnes peuvent opter pour la conformité plutôt que l'authenticité pour éviter les risques associés à l'expression d'idées non conventionnelles ou controversées. Cette priorité consistant à éviter les réactions négatives peut limiter l’authenticité et le caractère unique des expressions créatives. Cependant, l’innovation et la créativité prospèrent souvent dans des environnements qui encouragent la prise de risque, l’exploration et l’expression d’idées diverses. Derniers mots Trouver un équilibre entre la responsabilité et la préservation de la liberté d'expression nécessaire à la pensée innovante reste un défi de taille dans de tels environnements. Cela pousse les individus et les organisations à être plus réfléchis et responsables dans leurs actions, compte tenu de l’impact potentiel sur les autres. Bien que cela puisse être positif, cela peut également dissuader les conversations nécessaires sur des sujets difficiles ou controversés, même si de telles conversations peuvent être nécessaires. Cela peut influencer la nature du discours public. Cela pourrait potentiellement polariser les discussions en faisant taire les points de vue opposés plutôt que de s’engager dans un débat constructif, entravant ainsi les opportunités d’éducation, de compréhension et de croissance. En résumé, même si la  '' cancel culture''   peut tenir les individus responsables de leurs actions et déclarations, certains craignent qu’elle puisse étouffer le dialogue ouvert, limiter la diversité des points de vue et décourager le libre échange d’idées. Il s'agit d'un équilibre complexe entre responsabilité et liberté d'expression, et le défi consiste à trouver un juste milieu qui favorise la responsabilité sans supprimer les libertés essentielles. Source supplémentaire : https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/ Commentaires de M. Nathan Lasher : La  '' cancel culture''   ne devrait en réalité rien faire d’autre que d’aider les gens à mieux cadrer les choses. Si quelqu'un peut être offensé par ce que vous dites, il doit y avoir une meilleure façon de faire passer vos idées. La peur de la '' cancel culture''   ne devrait que nous rendre plus conscients de nos actions. Vous pouvez faire de grandes choses si vous n’en avez pas peur. Assurez-vous simplement que les expressions qui en résultent, sont des exemples de quelque chose plutôt que des problèmes isolés. Le moyen le plus simple d'éviter la  '' cancel culture''   est de demander à des individus, à des personnes au hasard, d'évaluer votre travail par des pairs avant qu'il ne soit rendu public. Dans le domaine de l’art, cela peut prendre la forme d’une exposition privée vers une galerie. Votre propre réalité cognitive peut vous rendre aveugle à certaines choses. Il est donc important de vous confier à des personnes qui ne souffrent pas de cette cécité. Le simple fait que vous pensez vous-même que quelque chose est génial peut vous aveugler sur les éléments qui pourraient poser problème. Les humains sont des créatures tatillonnes, alors préférez-vous que le public ou des amis proches vous disent ce qu'ils en pensent ? Une autre solution suggérée pour pallier à la '' cancel culture'' serait de repousser les limites, mais de rester introverti tout en le faisant, d'obtenir l'avis de ses amis et des membres de sa famille sur la meilleure façon de présenter le tout au monde. La  '' cancel culture''   se résume en réalité à des personnes qui ne parviennent pas à cadrer les choses correctement. Trop de gens sont victimes du mythe du « regardez ce que j’ai fait ». Oui, c'est innovant. Les gens font ou apprennent des choses incroyables et veulent instinctivement courir et en parler au monde. Ainsi, ils ouvrent la boîte de Pandore de la Cancel Culture. Si vous ne voulez pas vous inquiéter que les gens présentent ce que vous présentez de la mauvaise manière, assurez-vous que c'est vous qui contrôlez la façon dont cela est vu. ********************* (English version, here) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ********************* Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation, censorship, or legal repercussions. It's a cornerstone of democratic societies and is often protected by laws, constitutions, or international agreements. The right to free speech encompasses various forms of expression, including spoken words, written communication, artistic expression, and symbolic actions. Culture and speech are intricately connected, with language serving as a primary vehicle for transmitting cultural values, norms, and traditions. Speech patterns, dialects, and expressions often reflect the cultural beliefs, societal hierarchies, and historical contexts of a community. Cultural norms influence not only the language used but also the non-verbal aspects of communication, like body language, gestures, and social etiquettes, which differ significantly across cultures. Additionally, the language itself can shape the way people perceive and understand the world, affecting their thoughts, behaviors, and interactions within a particular cultural context Meanwhile, cancel culture refers to the widespread practice of publicly shaming, boycotting, or ostracizing individuals or entities for behavior or opinions deemed offensive, controversial, or unacceptable. It often plays out on social media platforms and involves a collective effort by a group of individuals to hold others accountable for their actions or statements. Cancel culture has complex implications for freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions without censorship or retaliation from the government, cancel culture operates within societal or community-driven consequences for speech or actions deemed unacceptable. Here are some ways cancel culture can influence freedom of speech: Chilling Effect: Cancel culture can create a chilling effect on free speech. Individuals might self-censor to avoid potential backlash, fearing that expressing certain opinions or ideas could result in public shaming, ostracization, or even loss of employment. Diverse Perspectives: Cancel culture often targets speech or actions considered offensive or harmful to marginalized groups. While this can be a positive force for social change by holding individuals or entities accountable, it could potentially limit open discussions if controversial topics or diverse perspectives are stifled for fear of being canceled. Mob/Herd Mentality: In some cases, cancel culture operates through mass public outcry, often on social media. This collective and at times aggressive response can swiftly and severely impact the livelihoods and reputations of individuals without due process or room for discussion and learning. Cancel culture has prompted a heightened sense of responsibility and accountability among individuals, public figures, and organizations. While it has its drawbacks, it also plays a role in holding people accountable for their actions or statements. Here's how it influences responsibility and accountability: Social Awareness: Cancel culture has increased awareness about the impact of words and actions. Individuals and entities are more conscious of how their behavior might affect others, particularly marginalized or underrepresented groups. Consequences for Actions: Cancel culture often leads to consequences for behavior or statements that are deemed offensive or harmful. This serves as a form of accountability, indicating that there are repercussions for actions that negatively impact others. Ethical Considerations: People are now more inclined to consider the ethical implications of their actions. They are forced to reflect on the potential repercussions of their behavior, statements, or decisions in a more socially conscious manner. Accountability in Public Discourse: Cancel culture has pushed for increased accountability in public discourse. It has led to demands for transparency, honesty, and responsibility from public figures and organizations. Cultural Shift: It's prompted a cultural shift where certain behaviors or statements that were previously normalized or overlooked are now being called out and addressed, fostering a more accountable society. Change in Policies and Practices: Companies and institutions are reevaluating their policies and practices to ensure they align with more responsible and inclusive standards, responding to the growing accountability demands. While responsibility and accountability are essential, there are concerns about the extreme nature of cancel culture. It's vital to strike a balance, ensuring that while individuals are held accountable, there's room for growth, education, and forgiveness. A system that allows for learning from mistakes while discouraging repeated harmful behavior can contribute to a healthier and more productive social environment. Limits on Innovation and Creativity: Fear of being canceled might dissuade artists, creators, and innovators from pushing boundaries or exploring controversial or challenging themes. This self-censorship can stifle creativity and limit the exploration of new ideas. (Mr Rubinshtein's Note: This may apply in philosophy as well) Cancel culture's impact on innovation and creativity can be multifaceted. While it's important to hold individuals and entities accountable for their actions and encourage responsible behavior, the fear of being "canceled" can potentially limit the freedom and boldness necessary for true innovation and creative exploration in the following ways: Risk-Aversion: Creativity often thrives on pushing boundaries and exploring new ideas, even if they're controversial or challenge societal norms. Fear of backlash might make artists, writers, or innovators more risk-averse, leading them to stick to safer, more conventional topics and approaches. This avoidance of risk could stifle groundbreaking or provocative ideas. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Risk-Aversion exists in many areas of our lives. That is because we have things to lose). Self-Censorship: The fear of being ostracized or facing severe consequences for expressing unconventional or controversial thoughts can lead individuals to self-censor. This self-imposed limitation might prevent the exploration of ideas that could potentially lead to groundbreaking innovations or paradigm shifts. Artistic and Cultural Expression: Creativity in art, literature, film, and other cultural expressions often involves delving into sensitive or contentious topics. Cancel culture's impact might discourage artists from exploring these themes, leading to a lack of thought-provoking or boundary-pushing work. Stifling Dialogue and Critique: Constructive criticism and open dialogue are crucial for growth in creative fields. Cancel culture's swift and sometimes harsh repercussions can hinder constructive critique, potentially leading to an environment where genuine learning and improvement are sacrificed in favor of avoiding public outrage. Compliance over Authenticity: Some individuals may opt for conformity over authenticity to avoid the risks associated with expressing unconventional or controversial ideas. This prioritization of avoiding backlash may limit the authenticity and uniqueness of creative expressions. However, Innovation and creativity often thrive in environments that encourage risk-taking, exploration, and the expression of diverse ideas. Final Words Striking a balance between accountability and preserving the freedom necessary for innovative thinking remains a significant challenge in such environments. It pushes individuals and organizations to be more thoughtful and responsible in their actions, considering the potential impact on others. While this can be positive, it might also deter necessary conversations about challenging or controversial topics, although such conversations may be necessary. It can influence the nature of public discourse. It could potentially polarize discussions by shutting down opposing viewpoints rather than engaging in constructive debate, thereby hindering opportunities for education, understanding, and growth. In summary, while cancel culture can hold individuals accountable for their actions and statements, there are concerns about how it might stifle open dialogue, limit diverse viewpoints, and discourage the free exchange of ideas. It's a complex balance between accountability and freedom of expression, and the challenge lies in finding a middle ground that promotes responsibility without suppressing essential freedoms. Extra Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/ Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: Cancel culture should really do nothing more than helping people how to frame stuff better. If someone can take offense by what you say then there must be a better way to get your thoughts across. Fear of cancel culture should only make us more conscious of our actions. You can do great things if you don’t live in fear of it. Just make sure the resulting expressions are examples of something rather than stand alone problems. Easiest way to avoid cancel culture is to have individuals, random people, peer review your work before it is released to the public. In art this can be done in the form of a private soft opening to a gallery. Your own cognitive reality might make you blind to certain things, so it’s important to confide with people who don’t have this blindness. Just because you yourself think something is great can blind you to any parts that may be problematic. Humans are nit-picking creatures so would you rather have the public do it or close friends? Another suggested fix to cancel culture would be to push the boundaries but be introverted while doing it, get friends and family members opinions on how to best present it to the world. Cancel culture really boils down to people who fail to frame things properly. Too many people fall victim to the “look what I did” fallacy. Yes, it's not a known one. People do or learn amazing things and instinctively want to run out and tell the world about it. Thus, they open the pandora's box of cancel culture. If you don’t want to worry about people framing what you are presenting in the wrong way then make sure you are the one who controls the way that it is seen.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (Philosocom Religion Directory) ******************* Judaism is one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions and has a rich and diverse history, beliefs, and practices. Judaism is a multifaceted religion with a deep historical and theological foundation. It continues to evolve and adapt to contemporary challenges while maintaining its core principles and traditions. Judaism and Philosophy History: The historical relationship between Judaism and philosophy is rich and complex. Here are some key points: * Ancient Roots: Jewish thought and philosophy have ancient roots dating back to biblical times. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) contains philosophical themes and ethical teachings. For example, the Book of Proverbs contains wisdom literature, and the Book of Ecclesiastes explores existential questions. While these early biblical texts are not philosophical treatises in the formal sense, they laid the groundwork for the development of philosophical ideas within Jewish thought. Over time, Jewish philosophers would engage more explicitly with philosophical concepts and integrate them into Jewish theology and philosophy, as seen in the works of figures like Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides. Hellenistic Influence: During the Hellenistic period (4th to 1st centuries BCE), when Jewish communities were under Greek influence, there was an interaction between Jewish thought and Greek philosophy, particularly with Stoicism and Platonism. Philo of Alexandria is a notable figure who attempted to reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy, blending Platonic ideas with Jewish theology. In Summary, The Hellenistic influence on Judaism represents a period of intellectual and cultural exchange, where Jewish thinkers engaged with Greek philosophical ideas and attempted to synthesize them with their own religious traditions. This interaction contributed to the development of philosophical thought within Judaism and influenced subsequent Jewish philosophers, including those in the medieval and modern periods. Medieval Jewish Philosophy: The Middle Ages saw the emergence of prominent Jewish philosophers, such as Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon), who integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Jewish theology in works like the "Guide for the Perplexed." Maimonides' writings had a profound impact on both Jewish and Islamic thought. However, Medieval Jewish philosophy reflects a dynamic interplay between Jewish religious tradition, Greek and Islamic philosophy, and the broader intellectual currents of the time. It produced enduring works of philosophy and theology that continue to shape Jewish thought and scholarship to this today. Kabbalah and Mysticism: In addition to rationalist philosophers like Maimonides, Jewish mysticism, known as Kabbalah, became influential in the late medieval and early modern periods. Kabbalistic thought sought to explore the mystical aspects of Judaism and had a complex relationship with philosophy. Kabbalah and mysticism play a significant role in Jewish spirituality, offering a path to deeper understanding of God and the self. While it has been a source of inspiration and contemplation for many, Kabbalah remains a complex and enigmatic tradition that requires careful study and interpretation. Enlightenment and Modernity: In the Enlightenment era, Jewish philosophers like Moses Mendelssohn engaged with European Enlightenment ideas while advocating for Jewish emancipation. This period marked a shift toward more secular and assimilationist philosophies among some Jewish thinkers. In summary, the Enlightenment and modernity posed both opportunities and challenges for Jewish thought and identity. While some Jews embraced secularism and integration, others sought to maintain religious tradition in the face of changing times. These developments led to a diversity of Jewish perspectives and contributed to the evolution of modern Jewish philosophy and theology. Contemporary Thought: In contemporary times, Jewish philosophy continues to evolve with diverse perspectives, including existentialism (e.g., Martin Buber), religious existentialism (e.g., Franz Rosenzweig), and modern Jewish ethics (e.g., Emmanuel Levinas). Contemporary Jewish thought is dynamic and continues to evolve as Jewish communities adapt to the challenges and opportunities of the modern world. It reflects a commitment to preserving Jewish tradition while engaging with contemporary intellectual and social developments. In all, an example of these contemporary thought can be seen in Spinoza's Philosophy: The historical relationship between Judaism and the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is complex and contentious. Here are some key points regarding this relationship: Spinoza's Background: Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish descent. He was born into a Sephardic Jewish family in Amsterdam, which was a hub of Jewish intellectual activity during his time. However, Spinoza's philosophical ideas would eventually lead to his excommunication from the Amsterdam synagogue in 1656. Spinoza's Philosophy: Spinoza's philosophy is often seen as a departure from traditional Jewish beliefs and a challenge to conventional religious thought. His major work, "Ethics" and other writings, laid the foundation for several key philosophical ideas: *Pantheism: Spinoza famously proposed a pantheistic view of God, suggesting that God and the universe are one and the same. This concept contradicted traditional Jewish monotheism, which posits a distinct, personal God. *Determinism: Spinoza argued for a deterministic worldview, where everything in the universe is governed by natural laws. This perspective challenged the traditional Jewish notion of free will and moral responsibility. *Critique of Religious Authority: Spinoza's writings criticized religious authority, the Bible, and organized religion. He advocated for a rational, secular approach to ethics and understanding the natural world. *Excommunication and Impact: In 1656, Spinoza was excommunicated from the Amsterdam synagogue by a herem (excommunication/boycott) that referred to him as "a notorious atheist." This marked a dramatic break with the Jewish community, and Spinoza's works were banned by Jewish authorities. *Influence and Legacy: Despite his excommunication and controversial ideas, Spinoza's philosophy had a significant impact on later Jewish thought and philosophy: *Modern Jewish Thought: Spinoza's ideas challenged and stimulated Jewish thinkers in subsequent generations. Some Jewish philosophers engaged with his works to explore the boundaries between reason and faith. *Secular Jewish Identity: Spinoza's emphasis on reason and secular ethics resonated with some secular Jewish intellectuals who sought to develop a Jewish identity outside of traditional religious frameworks. *Interpretations and Re-evaluations: In the modern era, there have been efforts to reevaluate Spinoza's philosophy and its relationship to Judaism. Some scholars have argued that his ideas were misunderstood or mischaracterized by his contemporaries. However, the historical relationship between Judaism and Spinoza's philosophy is marked by a sharp divide. Spinoza's radical ideas challenged traditional Jewish beliefs and led to his excommunication, but his philosophy also had a lasting impact on the development of modern Jewish thought and secular Jewish identity. He remains a figure of philosophical significance in the broader history of Western philosophy. Conclusion: Overall, the relationship between Judaism and philosophy has seen various phases, with periods of synthesis, tension, and divergence. It reflects the adaptability of Jewish thought to engage with philosophical ideas while maintaining its unique religious and cultural identity. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: We can learn from this article the importance of not setting anything in stone, and be prepared to test every belief and theory we have, in the name of developing our perception to align with reality. If the original belief systems of Judaism and other ideologies/religions were absolutely correct, they would have no reason to evolve throughout the course of human history).

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Narcissism) ****************** Introduction Today, I, Mandoela Svarl, want to explain the term of flying monkeys in my own words. "Flying monkeys" are a new topic that has been talked about in the media, originated from the 1939 film, "The wizard of Oz". (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Researching this article has revealed that a more contemporary, professional term, is a "Narcissist's Agent". It was popularized by American Psychologist, Dr. Todd Grande) Where can you see the flying monkeys their best? And how do they improve the status of narcissists? Several Points to Consider A secret in the family is cooperation between other narcissists, including welfare and the police, to gain control over a specific person. Narcissists need flying monkeys/agents to confirm to society that everything is perfect with them, and they are an ideal family. Creating a false positive image of the great narcissist who controls the family and his friends and family, who come to harm one of the people requires the cooperation of the flying monkeys. Narcissists are (arguably) large part of the population. Some say it is 10% percent, and some even say 50% (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: A website called the Recovery Village claims that there is 1 narcissist in every 200 in the U.S). Narcissist execute the removal of responsibility for their crimes and mental, physical, financial, and sexual abuse - by their agents, using them as scapegoats. A son can be one, for example, if the narcissist stealing from their child. Or another victim, without their knowledge, unaware of the ulterior motive/s. Controlling their social status - at work, at school... The flying monkeys do everything to destroy the economic social status of that chosen victim, and to prevent him or her from progressing or succeeding in life. If they has a profession or a good job, they will come to their career and destroy his name, by half-truths, or by outright lies. Defaming his name creates an atmosphere in the victim that they are not equal, but inferior (like being too irrelevant). Therefore, he must refrain from advancing. Controlling his life in the case of a marital system - the flying monkeys create an image of good and hardworking people. But at the same time, they follow the victims of the narcissists for the narcissists to get favors or help from them. And the name of the victim is defamed even in marital systems. The dependence of the narcissists on the flying monkeys: Since the narcissist alone cannot control the victim, he must have his deputies, relatives, and welfare, and some even use the army as part of their powerbase. Doctors are contacted to put the victim in a psychiatric hospital. All this to keep a secret. Every family has its secret, and to create trust in the narcissist. They help him and talk to the victim's partner to destroy his marital relationship. The narcissist's dependence on welfare and state factors - the narcissist does not act alone but usually marries another narcissist to "drink the blood of the victim's soul". He/she knows mothers or fathers are not typically abusive. And that's how society sees it, too, and is aware of the close eyes of the welfare ministries. Remember that welfare does not want to pay much for such a child. That is why the parents can have a good relationship with flying monkeys on their behalf, who are family and cause hatred between them in order to control them better (AKA "divide and conquer"). Maintaining control over the family can further prevent intervention from the state. The flying monkeys in the victim's friend or partner role, is to be able for him to control them. Even if the victim does not know, the narcissist merely pretends to be in love with their subject. Through influence, they can exert their power to greater lengths. The flying monkeys work behind the victim's back - defaming his name as much as possible and gossiping about him. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: part of not being assertive stems from being weak-spirited. The less determination/resolve you have, the likelier you are to comply with others, even if you dislike them. In my years as a student, I complied wonderfully because I was very weak-spirited at the time). The flying monkeys are people who need money or pleasure from narcissists and act on their behalf, in order to attain these things they want. They may have motives and reasons of their own that motivate them to become agents by choice. Wasting time - the flying monkeys play a role on behalf of the narcissists and will do anything to make the victim waste their time. Time is worth money and worth goals. The flying monkeys in the role of best friend and giver of good advice: On the beach, they look caring and dedicated, but inside, their advice is to fail the victim and cause his spirit to break. Breaking their spirit by intent is a sign of narcissistic abuse, which can be seen as a malicious campaign to get more power in this world. The flying monkeys take advantage of the fact that no one cares about others (AKA, alienation) - and make the victim think that others will help him. And when the victim asks for help, they unknowingly gossip about him wanting money, etc. so no place will help him. Social media: the flying monkeys are there a lot to know where the victim is with whom and what is shared and to make him feel guilty and ashamed if he writes about them. Online stalking is key to get more information that can be used against the victim. Pumping the victim's fuel - by hurting his feelings and knowing that he was rejected by his parents (usually these are children who were denied in childhood) and that this caused them problems of insecurity and depression. Doing so creates a hostile, self-critical, outwardly critical eye that stuck with them socially. Final Words The purpose of flying monkeys/agents is to scare the victims and silence them, thus reducing or cutting off opposition that could stand in the way of those they serve. I studied and understood all this for more than six years. I keep reading and learning about it to this day. In this article, I wrote down much of what I know about flying monkeys. When I saw things. Everything is written in experience. This is very interesting to me. I put a lot into this article and learned a lot of information. I hope you will like it and understand, and I thank Mr. Tomasio for letting me write on Philosocom once more.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Go to KaiserBasileus@mailfence.com for questions regarding the author's article). (Background music) ************************** Introduction The philosophy of this article (a coherent set of answers to a set of philosophical questions) aka Truth Wisdom (as opposed to Practical Wisdom or Academic Philosophy), encompasses meta-philosophy, ontology, mereology, metaphysics (which is "What is the nature of.." questions), proto-physics (the metaphysics of time, space, etc.), meta-epistemology (the nature of truth and knowledge, etc.), and meta-ethics. This Philosophy Can Meet These Criteria: 1. Cohesive, coherent, conclusive. 2. Expressible in ordinary language (It selects from the most necessary and sufficient colloquial where possible.) 3. Compatible with scientific consensus (in-so-far as there is one) 4. No gaps, special pleading, appeal to authority and such. This is a contingent set. If you accept this set of answers, then all other answers can be found by logical extension. This is the metaphorical/metaphysical "Theory of Everything" that encompasses the physical one. ************************** Table of Categories: 1) AMALGUM: Consciousness Love Religion 2) ETHICS Ethics Evil Meaning Morality Politics 3) EPISTEMOLOGY (meta, as opposed to practical (logic, statistics, game theory, Bayesian reasoning, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies)) Emergence Knowledge Logic Math Paradox Science The Truth Why (Reasoning) 4) PHYSICAL (proto-physics) Causality Change Energy Life Matter Ontology Reality Space Things Time 5) SPIRIT (of the patterns in the mind, AKA, the Philosophy of the Mind, "The Mental Dimension" and so on) Cognition Death Everything "Free" will Repetition Self Sentience Thing 6) TRANSCENDENT (beyond the perception of a mind) Transcendence Certainty God Infinity Nothing Perfection ************************** 1) AMALGUM •Consciousness - There is no consensus definition or understanding of consciousness. However, it can be used more or less synonymously with individuation, self, ego, perspective, being, and awareness. The mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. Consciousness is the momentary aspect of the sub-set of mind that is available for introspection, or the continuity of that experience. Anthropologically, consciousness is a feedback loop in our theory of mind. Neuroscientifically, it is still in a "Platonic stage" of development -- working out the vocabulary and mereology. It's to do with suppression of the default mode network, possibly the basal ganglia, and the Cognitive Workplace Theory is a good theory. Phenomenologically, consciousness is an "awareness magician", conjuring up mental events in relations to what it experiences. •Love - Love contains aspects of endocrinology, personality, society, culture, psychology, biology, and so on. •Religion - Religion is a complex blend of culture, history, tradition, and beliefs. The common thread of all religions is dogma - an instance of faith (unjustified belief). Most religions accept one or more gods. All versions of god (which are a person or a force) include logically impossible, mutually exclusive, or otherwise untestable attributes, and are therefore indistinguishable from fiction, and ought to be treated accordingly. 2) ETHICS •Ethics is a formalized version of morality, usually in a group context, especially professional. There are three primary schools of thought about ethics, which are each insufficient: Deontology/duty ethics is an abdication of morality and can only be meaningful within a specific context. It assumes the validity of the system. Consequentialism does not account for intent and requires an impossible moral calculus. Virtue ethics does not account for consequences. It provides positive pressure but not guidance on how to behave. What is needed is an Ethic of Priorities to govern all ethical concerns. •Evil is about intents, not effects. It is simple to show that evil actions may produce good effects and vice versa. Therefore, effects and intents must be distinguished from one another. For an act to be evil it must be intentional or intentionally negligent. •Meaning is salience, perspective, and priority. It is individual and custom-made. Meaning is of two kinds. Avoid and approach, in that order of priority: The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. No one can write your story for you. To the extent your priorities are clear, all life problems may be resolved. Universal or group meaning is an impossible exception. Ethical truths are so to the extent people share priorities. Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals. Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals (AKA not subject to individual determination). Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals. •Morality is personal best practices, a less formal version of ethics. •Politics is ethics + scale. 3) EPISTEMOLOGY •Emergence means a new metaphor for a higher level of understanding. Water molecules acting together create the emergent property of "wetness". Emergence is relationship. Whenever two things interact, the complexity of that interaction spreads outward, creating effects that can seem "more than the sum of its parts". When those relationship attributes are sufficiently large, distinctive, and useful, we give them a new name. (As with the example of effects founds in influence). •Knowledge is justified belief, the opposite of faith. "Justified true belief" refers to a hypothetical ultimate validation of Truth and is therefore pragmatically useless. The justification for belief is always and only sufficiency for a specific use, because there is no reason to proceed beyond that level of certainty. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty (AKA the ability to perform an action with assurance in the results) •Logic is a sub-set of science (strict) - relationships that always replicate. •Math is a sub-set of logic (relationships that always replicate) that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity. Quantity is repetitive boundary conditions; to the extent you can divide something into equal parts, you can do math on it. •Paradox only exists in language, never in reality. Languages are descriptive. "This sentence is a lie." does not describe anything in reality so it is not meaningful. To create a rock so big you can't move it.. does not describe anything in reality. A set that contains itself, does not describe anything in reality. Victimless crime, does not describe anything in reality. To be able to subdivide something indefinitely (Zeno) does not describe reality. •Science is strict, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved (or the culture that forms around them). You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else. The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships. •The Truth is the body of knowledge that continuously replicates. A truth is an instance of truth - a fact or perspective. If it keeps being the same way every time you check it, it's true for all intents and purposes. The validation of Truth rests in that replication. The more stable it is, the more true it is. This applies both to physical measurements and to the relationships of logic. •Why questions are of two kinds: a) How? which is a scientific question, not a philosophical one. b) From what intent/to what end? Which requires a pre-existing mind to that question. 4) Physical •Causality is just another way to say "the arrow of change". That change happens to occur certain ways rather than others is what science exists to index. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever. When anything moves an inch to the right, everything else in the universe moves an inch to the left (on average). Think of infinite marbles in an infinite fishbowl. •Change, also known as Aether (Δ^∞), is the stuff beyond the perception of a mind. -Actuality is the universe as it is outside the perception of a mind; change as change. It is AKA chaos, aether. The mathematical formula that describes it is [ (Δ^∞) ], that is - change over time [ Δ ], infinite in all directions and scales, forever [ ^∞ ], outside the comprehension of a mind [ (x) ].. -Reality is a limited sub-set of Actuality that changes shortly, that we perceive and interact with. All Things change, each according to its properties, just as people all change according to their priorities. The slower things change, the more stable they are, which gives us actionable certainty about them. That which changes most slowly is most real for all intents and purposes. "Realizing" something is manifesting it - making it more stable, more real. •Energy is change that occurs cyclically. Aether/change (whatever is sub-quantum) which overlaps sufficiently strongly and persistently becomes waves, just as waves of energy in certain frequencies become entangled into matter. All waves, and therefore all energy propagates through a medium (like humans), which is currently understood as quantum as it was understood as particles and molecules and substances before that. Physics currently can probe deeper only by logical extrapolation. The total amount of energy in the universe never changes but the total amount of energy in any given subsystem constantly changes. •Life is understood at many levels and which one is appropriate is determined by which level of emergence is relevant. Life as biological terms have specific technical definitions. In general, life is the emergent attribute of biological complexity. As long as it can maintain it's homeostasis it adapts and expands to use all available resources. •Matter is high-entropy, entangled energy. Think of it as a small whirlpool in a river. For a time it stabilizes and forms a coherent pattern at a higher level of analysis (ie. emergence). The more stable that pattern is, the more solid the matter. •Ontology is "What is the nature of being?" Actuality is undifferentiated stuff. Reality is an experienced sub-set of Actuality. A Thing is a pattern in a mind; a set of attributes and boundary conditions by which it is distinguished from other things in relation to expected uses or interactions. All things have an unique position in space, time, and scale and we are an embodied perspective on reality. All things have a physical correlate as a pattern in a mind but not all of those patterns have an external referent and not all that refer to something do so accurately. •Reality is the experienced sub-set of Actuality, which is the universe beyond the perception of a mind. Reality is of two levels: Reality-to-us is a filtered sub-set of reality. The filters are: -Physical/biological, your senses. -Cultural/subconscious, things you learned or experienced very early in life. -Self - psychological/personality/character, the story you tell yourself about how you fit into the world and society. "Reality" is consensus experience; that which continuously replicates. Whatever keeps being the same is the most real. It is equivalent to Truth. •Space is the correlation of our internal (proprioceptive) and external senses. Our internal sense is our embodiment. The external senses are experiences of that which we do not have direct access to or control over. There are three physical dimensions, time, space, and scale. The three spacial dimensions are a directional coordinate system. •Things are a pattern in a mind. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. Some things have an external referent and some have an external correlate. •Time is experienced (sometimes measured) change. The laws of physics explain how things change over time. Time is experienced as a sub-set of Actuality that changes at a speed that is compatible with our embodied frame of reference, the clarity of our senses. The past is remembered experience. The future is anticipated experience. 5) SPIRIT (of the patterns in the mind.) •Cognition is the emergent attribute of brain complexity. It is the capacity to introspect. Reason is the emergent property of cognitive complexity. •Death. To you, life begins when you can interact with your experience. That benchmark is tied to a working brain. To yourself you are the continuity of your experience. To others you are the continuity of their experience of you. When your experience ends, you end. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain. Soul is the idea that the mind or experience can transcend the brain. There is no mechanism by which that is possible. Poetically, there are three deaths, when you stop caring about life, when your homeostasis ends, and when you are forgotten. •Everything means all distinguished patterns. Those only exist in minds. A Thing is a pattern with a purpose. The purpose is either danger/avoid or interest/approach. All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is for the purpose of actionable certainty toward changing the world in one of those two ways. All things are a set of attributes and boundary conditions that align with our predictions about how our interactions will cause a change. In other words, we sense the edges, weight, color, likability.. of things in order to manipulate them. •Free Will. There is no sense in which our will is free. Causality is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever. We exist in the ignorance gap between chaos and causality. To the extent we do not understand causality, we may feel free. The word "Will" alone is sufficient to discuss the experience of freedom. •Repetition is the bedrock of memory. Memory = repetition. If you want to remember something better, practice repetition in a variety of circumstances. Neurons that fire together, wire together. Memory is distributed. It is the probability matrix of the feedback loop of cognitive awareness. Neurons that were fired in sequence in the past are more likely to do so again in the future. When your attention moves into that area again, your memory is that those patterns which fire now were most likely to have done so most frequently or most strongly. That's the thing that is salient, or distinctive. In cases where you didn't care much, the memory is weak because the neurons didn't connect strongly. If you think about something a lot, even if it's no big deal, that path becomes engraved. •Self is the story you tell yourself about how you fit into the world and society. The world is the physical/material aspects of your experience and society is everything to do with minds, including your own priorities and how you think about the minds of other creatures. We are an embodied perspective on the universe. For some people, those things do not correlate, they merely overlap. Body Dysmorphia is when your sense of self does not correlate sufficiently with your sense of embodiment. Likewise there are dissociative disorders such as phantom limb syndrome that work in the other direction. That embodiment is the substrate of Self, but Self is easily influenced both by external circumstance (Phineas Gage) or by internal effort. Personality and character are overlays to the self which are more or less persistent or expressed in various circumstances. Like consciousness, there is not yet a consensus understanding of either. •Sentience is the cognitive capacity of an animal, more or less the same as embodied cognition in persons. It is the emergent attribute of reproductive complexity. It is the ability to experience pain and desire and the pantheon of related feelings; Avoid-and-Approach plus complexity. In general, plants are pre-sentient and animals are pre-cognizant. •A Thing is a pattern in a mind. It is a set of attributes and boundary conditions by which it is distinguished from all other things according to various purposes. The resolution of the purpose determines the resolution of the pattern. Each thing has each of the physical attributes, a unique place in space, time, and scale. All things have a physical correlate as a pattern in a mind (which is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain), but not all have an external referent. Sometimes an external referent is inaccurate. 6) TRANSCENDENT • Transcendence is the line between Actuality and Reality. Actuality is inaccessible to our senses, our instruments, or our facilities of reason. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable. • Certainty always and only means certain Enough for a specific use-case. When you reach that level of sufficiency there is no further reason to continue. There are two kinds of certainty, justified and unjustified. Knowledge is justified belief, and that justification is subject to the limitations of the information available to you as well as the physical capacity of your brain. Unjustified belief is called faith, and is the polar opposite of knowledge. • God is real as a concept in a mind, and there are as many versions as there are people who have thought about it. All versions of god contain logically impossible, mutually exclusive, ineffable, or otherwise ineffable attributes, making them indistinguishable from fiction. Theology is attempting to explain the impossible in terms of the incredible and is therefore intellectually regressive and Ought to be treated accordingly. No version of god has ever been adequately (sufficient to convince a conscientious skeptic) demonstrated to be possible, much less plausible, much less likely, much less actual. -Igtheism: the idea of god is too ineffable to discuss rationally -Atheism: lack of belief in any god -Agnosticism: lack of certainty in one's belief about god. All are correct, in that order of importance. •Infinity is a direction. Infinity is the same as etcetera or "keep going". Infinite means there is no anticipated end. Indefinite means an end is anticipated within a certain range. Infinity is ineffable. It is not a concept that can be related to quantity and math cannot be done with it. Math requires specificity. •Nothing. There is no such thing as nothing. In practical use the word always refers to a specific use-case. The only way there could be no-thing is of there were no minds. The way some-thing can come from no-thing is metaphorically, because things didn't exist before minds existed to distinguish them. It was just undifferentiated stuff. •Perfection is a direction, not a destination. You may achieve perfection as close as possible by continuously improving. It is not possible for a limited mind to understand what it would want in any ultimate sense, only in relation to it's immediate perspective.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below) L'ironie de la sagesse et 7 signes d'un imbécile sage (écrit par Mme Intan Adamas) (Avertissement : les messages d'invités ne correspondent pas nécessairement aux convictions, aux pensées ou aux opinions du directeur de Philosocom, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Le but des messages d'invités est de permettre un large éventail de récits émanant d'un large éventail de personnes. Pour postuler pour un article d'invité  de votre choix, veuillez envoyer votre demande à mrtomasio@philosocom.com) Synopsis de Mme Tamara Moskal: Tout le monde peut devenir sage, mais la sagesse ne s’enseigne pas ; cela résulte d’une vie d’épreuves, d’enquêtes et de recherche de la vérité, de la moralité et de la connaissance. Voici un résumé des sept signes éternels de la sagesse : Le premier signe est l’honnêteté. La sagesse commence par la connaissance de soi, suivie par l’honnêteté cognitive et des normes morales élevées envers les autres. Les gens sages disent toujours la vérité, même si cela met en danger leur réputation ou si cela leur attire des ennuis. Le deuxième signe de sagesse est une curiosité insatiable, une appréciation du mystère et une recherche sans fin de la connaissance. Le troisième signe de sagesse est la modestie. Le sage se rend compte de ses limites et de son ignorance. Ils ne recherchent pas le pouvoir corrupteur mais la compréhension et la vérité. Le quatrième signe de sagesse est la gentillesse. Les sages incarnent des valeurs éthiques telles que la gentillesse, la patience et la compassion, même dans des circonstances injustifiables et encore même envers  leurs ennemis. Ils aident ceux qui en ont besoin et sont des guides éthiques pour les personnes moralement faibles, ignorantes et même tyranniques. Le cinquième signe de sagesse est la gaieté. Les gens sages chérissent leur douleur et leur chagrin parce qu’ils comprennent que la sagesse ne peut être obtenue que par les difficultés, la misère et le sacrifice. Ils trouvent de la joie, de l’optimisme et de l’humour face aux défis douloureux de la vie. Le sixième signe est le courage, une confrontation avec la peur elle-même. Le courage philosophique signifie une résistance non-violente au mal et un sacrifice de soi pour le bien de l'humanité. Le septième et dernier signe de sagesse est l’Amour. Le voyage d'un philosophe se termine lorsqu'il réalise que tout ce que nous pouvons savoir, c'est que nous recevons par la grâce divine. La vraie sagesse est un cœur aimant : l’Amour pour la vie, l’humanité et l’Amour divin. ******************************** Introduction N'importe qui peut devenir sage. Il n’est pas nécessaire d’être déjà intelligent et plein de connaissances pour devenir sage. En fait, il n’y a aucune condition préalable d’âge, de sexe, de race, de religion ou de classe sociale lorsqu’il s’agit d’incarner la sagesse. La sagesse est une vertu que tous peuvent posséder librement, et tout ce qu’il faut pour se lancer à la poursuite de la sagesse est le désir ardent de s’interroger et d’apprendre. Comme Socrate l’a déclaré : « La sagesse commence dans l’émerveillement » et « le début de la sagesse est de le désirer », a déclaré Salomon Ibn Gabirol. Évidemment, la sagesse n’est pas une intelligence obtenue par l’accumulation de connaissances issues de l’éducation formelle. Il ne peut pas non plus être acquis par la simple mémorisation de concepts, de théories, d’axiomes et de formules provenant d’érudits, de scientifiques ou d’experts. Comme le dit Michel de Montaigne, nous pouvons connaître avec le savoir des autres, mais nous ne pouvons pas être sages avec la sagesse des autres. Au lieu de cela, la sagesse est le mûrissement de la connaissance, l’affinement des vérités et le raffinement de la moralité à travers des expériences de vie profondes, bouleversantes, déchirantes et tragiques. Ainsi, si vous désirez la sagesse, préparez-vous à une vie de difficultés, de misère et de malheur. Mais comment identifier une personne sage, quand on dit que les sages sont enclins à dissimuler leur sagesse, à feindre l’ignorance et à agir de manière stupide ? Alors que la sagesse est un sujet complexe qui préoccupe les philosophes depuis la nuit des temps, une enquête sur les opinions d'éminents philosophes, scientifiques, icônes religieuses et gourous spirituels peut nous fournir des indices sur ce qui constitue (ou non) la sagesse. Voici 7 signes intemporels de sagesse chez une personne, tels que compris par certains des esprits les plus brillants de l’histoire. 1) Honnêteté stupide La sagesse naît de la vérité, et le premier critère de la sagesse est l’honnêteté personnelle. En effet, selon Aristote, se connaître soi-même est le début de toute sagesse. On dit que seuls les sages peuvent discerner la sagesse, car eux seuls sont capables de saisir les vérités essentielles de l’existence humaine et d’en être totalement honnêtes. En revanche, les ignorants sont incapables de faire la différence entre la vérité et la fausseté en raison d’un manque de connaissances ; tandis que les tyrans ne veulent pas isoler le bien du mal, malgré la connaissance du bien et du mal. Les tyrans se livrent fréquemment à la débauche parce qu’ils rejettent les vérités existentielles de la moralité humaine, tandis que les ignorants sont souvent exploités parce qu’ils refusent d’apprendre les vérités de la réalité humaine. Par conséquent, ni l’un ni l’autre ne peut être sage. La volonté d’isoler ce qui est vrai de ce qui est faux, ce qui est bien de ce qui est mal, et ce qui est bénéfique de ce qui est nuisible, est la condition préalable à toute vraie connaissance. Ainsi, selon Thomas Jefferson, l’honnêteté est le premier chapitre du livre de sagesse. En effet, sans honnêteté cognitive et sans un sens intuitif de la moralité, tout ce que l’on prétend être une connaissance, une opinion vraie ou une croyance justifiée pourrait se révéler n’être que des erreurs, des faits invalides, des croyances erronées ou de fausses hypothèses fondées sur l’auto-illusion. Par conséquent, si vous voulez être sage, soyez d’abord honnête avec vous-même et soyez honnête envers les autres autour de vous. Cela peut paraître facile, mais comme l’a observé Ludwig Wittgenstein, rien n’est plus difficile que de ne pas se tromper. En effet, comme Platon l’a prévenu, personne n’est plus haï que celui qui dit la vérité. Néanmoins, un signe certain de sagesse est quelqu'un qui est honnête et dit systématiquement la vérité en différenciant le bien du mal, et le bon du mauvais - même s'il serait insensé ou fatal de le faire. Le cas classique est celui de Socrate. Lorsqu'on lui a demandé de dénoncer ses croyances en de faux dieux, il a refusé. Il se pourrait que Socrate ait refusé parce qu’il croyait en l’existence de Dieu, dont il prétend n’avoir aucune connaissance. Ce serait en effet insensé. Il se pourrait aussi que Socrate ait refusé de renoncer à sa croyance en Dieu parce qu’il pensait que même un faux Dieu serait meilleur qu’un vrai diable. En fin de compte, plutôt que de proférer un mauvais mensonge et de vivre de manière malhonnête parmi ses concitoyens, Socrate a choisi de mourir d’une mort honorable en honnête imbécile. Mais en plaidant l'ignorance et en maintenant sa foi dans le divin, sa mort n'a fait de lui rien de moins qu'un sage imbécile - car le sage choisit toujours le bien plutôt que le mal et l’honnêteté plutôt que la malhonnêteté, malgré sa propre ignorance et même face à la mort. 2) Curiosité insatiable Le sage apparaît souvent stupide car il a pour habitude de remettre en question le phénomène le plus banal. Pourquoi le ciel est bleu? Pourquoi les étoiles ne tombent-elles pas sur terre ? Pourquoi devrais-je être bon si tout le monde est mauvais ? Tout comme l’enfant ignorant, les philosophes semblent la plupart du temps poser des questions très stupides sur une réalité de bon sens que tout le monde a acceptée comme un fait. Néanmoins, selon Thomas Moore, la sagesse et l’intelligence profonde nécessitent une appréciation honnête du mystère. Selon Emerson « La marque invariable de la sagesse est de voir le miraculeux dans le commun ». Ironiquement, alors que l’enfant curieux pouvait proposer toute une liste de réponses intéressantes à ses questions, le sage finissait par ponctuer son explication incroyablement détaillée d’un « je ne sais pas ». C’est comme si le but même de philosopher était de soulever des questions sans fin dans le but d’entretenir une curiosité insatiable pour les mystères de la vie en tant qu’être pensant. Néanmoins, comme l'explique Milan Kundera « La sagesse du roman vient du fait qu'on pose une question pour tout. La bêtise des gens vient du fait qu’ils ont réponse à tout ». En effet, George Santayana a averti que « la soif de sagesse facile est la racine de toute fausse philosophie ». De même, selon Arthur Schopenhauer, « Plus un homme est inintelligent, moins l’existence lui paraît mystérieuse ». Arrêter de questionner signifierait mettre un terme à l'aventure de l'apprentissage, et c'est la dernière chose que le sage ferait volontiers, car il est amoureux de la sagesse et est pris dans la poursuite sans fin de la connaissance. En effet, la marque du sage est qu’il dispose d’une quantité illimitée de questions, et cela simplement parce que « l’esprit le plus sage a toujours quelque chose à apprendre » (Santayana). 3) Humilité mal placée (modérée) Bien que Platon ait déclaré que les plus sages ont (ou devraient avoir) le plus d’autorité, Socrate a toujours insisté sur le fait que la seule vraie sagesse consiste à savoir qu’on ne sait rien. La vraie sagesse vient à chacun de nous lorsque nous réalisons à quel point nous comprenons peu la vie, nous-mêmes et le monde qui nous entoure, a déclaré Socrate. Dans ce cas, soit Socrate était trop modeste, soit sincèrement stupide, soit sage sans s'en rendre compte. En effet, pour le sage, refuser l’autorité de guider ses semblables et laisser la gouvernance entre les mains des ignorants ou des tyrans semble être un travestissement. La sanction la plus lourde en cas de refus de gouverner est d’être gouverné par quelqu’un d’inférieur à soi, disait Platon. Néanmoins, l’humilité est un thème récurrent dans toute analyse de la sagesse et, tout comme Socrate s’était déclaré sans valeur en sagesse, cette humilité modérée se voit chez les esprits les plus brillants. « Si je suis un imbécile, c’est du moins un qui doute ; et je n'envie à personne la certitude de sa sagesse auto-approuvée », a déclaré George Byron. « Celui qui entreprend de s’ériger en juge de la Vérité et de la Connaissance fait naufrage sous le rire des dieux. » dit Einstein. Depuis la disgrâce de Lucifer, l’ange le plus sage et le plus favorisé de tous les cieux, l’arrogance et la vanité sont considérées comme les deux pires ennemis de la sagesse, ce qui entraînerait la perte de l’amour de Dieu. Les anciens philosophes, sages et saints croient que la sagesse est un don divin qui peut être retiré à tout moment. Par conséquent, ils n’osent pas risquer la colère de Dieu et restent toujours humbles même envers ceux qui sont moins savants qu’eux. Ainsi, le refus du philosophe de reconnaître son autorité sur la connaissance et la vérité, loin d’être une modestie déplacée, est plutôt motivé par un amour profond pour le divin Bien-Aimé. La connaissance est peut-être puissante, mais ce n’est pas le pouvoir que recherchent les sages. Le sage désire la sagesse et méprise le pouvoir qui corrompt l'âme dans son voyage vers la réunion divine avec le Bien-Aimé. Plutôt que le pouvoir de gouverner les masses, les sages préfèrent la dévotion solitaire au Bien-Aimé, ce qui augmenterait leur envergure en tant que personne bien informée, quoique impuissante. Selon Xénophane, il faut un sage pour en reconnaître un autre. Toutefois, l’inverse n’est pas tout à fait vrai. S’il faut de la sagesse pour reconnaître la vérité, la bêtise ne reconnaît même pas ses propres erreurs ! Ainsi selon Einstein, la différence entre le génie et la bêtise est que le génie connaît ses limites, alors que la bêtise est illimitée. Être conscient de sa propre ignorance, c’est déjà être sage, et le plaidoyer du philosophe en faveur de l’ignorance n’est que pour faciliter sa quête sans fin d’une connaissance plus élevée et plus profonde. 4) Gentillesse indigne Selon Ralph Waldo Emerson, « la sagesse a sa racine dans la bonté, et non l'inverse, la bonté, sa racine dans la sagesse [et non l'inverse] ». Si tel est le cas, il s’ensuit que les sages sont ceux qui incarnent des valeurs éthiques telles que la gentillesse, la patience, l’empathie et la compassion. En fait, la distinction entre les sages et les crédules réside peut-être simplement dans le fait que les sages sont moralement vertueux, même aux yeux de leurs ennemis, même s'ils en sont indignes; tandis que les crédules ont tendance à faire preuve de gentillesse uniquement envers ceux qui sont en leur faveur ou pour leur propre intérêt. La gentillesse est une sensibilité au bien-être d'autrui qui se manifeste par des actions qui atténuent la souffrance d'autrui, allègent son fardeau ou soulagent ses difficultés. Habitué au chagrin et à la misère et connaissant bien les questions du bien et du mal, le sage serait le premier à soulager la douleur et la souffrance d'autrui, à défendre les faibles contre les puissants et à faire preuve de douceur face à l'agressivité. Comme le dit Hellen Keller, le résultat le plus élevé au sujet de l’éducation est la tolérance. Les sages sont compatissants en raison d'un fort sentiment d'empathie envers leurs semblables en tant qu'êtres mortels souffrant d'angoisse existentielle et qui sont pour la plupart victimes des circonstances. Le sage est patient même dans les circonstances les plus injustifiées parce qu’il comprend la nature de l’homme en tant qu’être humain faillible qui se trompe fréquemment dans ses actions en raison de l’ignorance ou de la faiblesse de sa volonté. Le sage est compatissant parce qu’il sait que le fait d'être mortel évoque la peur et réveille les démons intérieurs. Sa conscience de la fragilité de l’humanité le pousse à traiter tous les humains avec patience, douceur et tolérance, même lorsqu’ils agissent contre les intérêts des autres. Comme l’a dit Joseph Joubert, la gentillesse consiste notamment à aimer les gens plus qu’ils ne le méritent. Soyez gentil, car tous ceux que vous rencontrez mènent une bataille plus difficile, disait Platon. La compassion guérira plus de péchés que la condamnation, a déclaré Henry Ward Beecher. Grâce à sa propre expérience, le sage voit toujours au-delà d'un acte mauvais la raison qui l'a provoqué, et a donc tendance à répondre au mal avec gentillesse et tolérance, même lorsque les auteurs ont clairement tort. Son amour de l'humanité l'exhorte non seulement à aider ceux qui sont lésés, mais lui impose la responsabilité morale de guider également les ignorants, les tyranniques et ceux qui souffrent de faiblesse morale, pour qu'ils apprécient la gentillesse et les libèrent ainsi des griffes du mal. et de leurs démons intérieurs. « Allumer une bougie à Dieu et une autre au Diable est le principe de la sagesse » disait José Bergamin. Selon le Dalaï Lama XIV : « Si vous parvenez à cultiver la bonne attitude, vos ennemis sont vos meilleurs professeurs spirituels. Leur présence vous offre l'opportunité d'améliorer et de développer la patience, la tolérance et la compréhension. Néanmoins, les sages savent que la bonté elle-même est une épée à double tranchant. Comme le dit Platon : « Si un homme parfaitement juste venait sur terre, il rencontrerait une telle opposition qu'il serait emprisonné, injurié, flagellé et, avec le temps, crucifié par ceux qui, bien qu'extrêmement méchants, passeraient pourtant pour les plus  justes. » Ainsi, l’homme bon est aussi rare que le sage, et il faut l’un pour reconnaître l’autre. 5) Une gaieté absurde « La gaieté est le signe le plus certain de la sagesse » disait Michel de Montaigne, et selon Sophocle : « Il n'y a pas de bonheur là où il n'y a pas de sagesse ». Cependant, la gaieté des sages ne doit pas être confondue avec la joie du bonheur ignorant, ni avec le bonheur résultant de la richesse, de la renommée ou des plaisirs physiques. "Le bonheur suprême sera la plus grande cause de misère, et le perfectionnement de la sagesse l'occasion de folie", a déclaré Léonard de Vinci. "Je ne sais pas pourquoi nous sommes ici, mais je ne crois pas que ce soit pour nous amuser", a déclaré Ludwig Wittgenstein. Alors, quelle est la différence entre le bonheur de l'imbécile et la gaieté du sage ? La distinction est simple. Les insensés sont plus heureux lorsque leurs peurs et leur chagrin sont noyés dans des plaisirs et des jouissances de courte durée, tandis que les sages sont plus joyeux au milieu de leurs douleurs et chagrins les plus profonds. Même si nous avons tendance à considérer les sages comme des personnes très sérieuses menant une vie sombre et misérable, cela est peut-être loin d’être la vérité. Au contraire, est sage celui qui sourit à travers ses larmes, rit à travers sa misère et plaisante sur sa propre tragédie personnelle. Les sages sont joyeux parce qu’ils savent très bien que la sagesse ne peut être obtenue que par les épreuves, la misère, les sacrifices et les expériences de vie tragiques. En effet, pour les sages, la gaieté est simplement le reflet naturel de l’optimisme et de la résilience face à l'adversité que l’on rencontre sur le chemin de la sagesse. "Il n'y a pas d'amour de la vie sans désespoir de la vie", écrit Albert Camus. "Essayez d'exclure la possibilité de souffrance qu'impliquent l'ordre de la nature et l'existence du libre arbitre, et vous constaterez que vous avez exclu la vie elle-même", a déclaré C.S. Lewis. "Nous devenons plus sages face à l'adversité ; la prospérité détruit notre appréciation du droit", a déclaré Sénèque. Ainsi, plus il doit endurer de souffrances, plus le sage devient joyeux Bien qu’apparemment absurde, le sage chérit sa douleur et son chagrin ; et il est réconforté par le fait de savoir que les échecs, l'injustice et la misère ne peuvent qu'élever davantage sa capacité de personne bien informée. En effet, selon les sages, la sagesse s'élève à travers la réflexion esthétique. celui d'une âme blessée qui affronte la souffrance existentielle par pure foi en une réalité divine au-delà de l'existence humaine ordinaire. "Le but de la vie n'est pas d'être heureux, a déclaré Ralph Waldo Emerson. "C'est d'être utile, d'être honorable, d'être compatissant. Que le fait que vous ayez vécu et bien vécu fasse une certaine différence. Basé sur la profonde conviction d'une puissance divine qui guide la destinée humaine basée sur l'amour et la justice, le sage est en effet honoré d'endurer la misère dans son voyage vers la source divine de la sagesse. Ainsi, « une once de gaieté vaut une livre pour servir Dieu », a déclaré Thomas Fuller. En effet, c'est grâce à sa profonde tristesse et à son chagrin constant que les sages sont capables de trouver une immense joie dans les choses les plus petites et les plus banales comme le lever du soleil, le coucher du soleil, le clair de lune, le ciel étoilé et le chant de l'oiseau sur une branche d'arbre. . Le simple fait de se réveiller pour observer la folie de l’humanité tout au long de la journée lui apporte de la joie. Selon les mots de Khalil Gibran, « La douleur et la folie conduisent à un grand bonheur et à une connaissance complète, car la Sagesse éternelle n'a rien créé sous le soleil en vain ». En effet, la marque distinctive du sage est un grand sens de l'humour - car ce qui n'est qu'un simple frisson ou une misère pour les autres est pour lui une expérience exquise de vivre la vie dans l'ombre du divin. "Celui qui apprend doit souffrir, et, même dans son sommeil, une douleur qu'on ne peut oublier tombe goutte à goutte dans notre  cœur, et, dans notre propre désespoir, contre notre volonté, nous vient la sagesse par la terrible grâce de Dieu" . - Eschy 6) Courage plein d’espoi Selon Bertrand Russell, « Vaincre la peur est le début de la sagesse… La peur est la principale source de superstition et l’une des principales sources de cruauté. » Mais il est facile de confondre le courage du sage avec la bravoure de l’imbécile ou la bravade de l’intrépide. Quelles sont les différences? Alors que la bravoure est l'absence de peur dont on fait preuve face à des situations risquées ou dangereuses ; le courage est une confrontation directe avec la peur elle-même, dans le but de défendre quelque chose pour lequel on a de fortes convictions. Mais le courage n’est pas simplement une résistance physique impliquant des moyens violents. Sinon, tous les sages finiraient soldats. Par essence, le courage philosophique est une résistance non violente à la soumission ou à la participation à tout ce qui est mal. Comme l'a lucidement exprimé Martin Luther King Jr. : « La résistance non-violente… est basée sur la conviction que l'univers est du côté de la justice ». Par conséquent, celui qui croit à la non-violence a une foi profonde en l’avenir. Cette foi est une autre raison pour laquelle le résistant non-violent peut accepter la souffrance sans représailles. Car il sait que dans sa lutte pour la justice, il bénéficie d’une compagnie cosmique Il est vrai qu’il existe de fervents croyants en la non-violence qui ont du mal à croire en un Dieu personnel. Mais même ces personnes croient en l’existence d’une force créatrice qui œuvre pour la totalité universelle. Que nous l’appelions un processus inconscient, un Brahman impersonnel ou un Être personnel doté d’un pouvoir incomparable d’amour infini, il existe une force créatrice dans cet univers qui œuvre pour rassembler les aspects déconnectés de la réalité en un tout harmonieux. Les forts peuvent être confiants, les intelligents peuvent être courageux et les insensés peuvent être intrépides. Cependant, seuls les sages peuvent être véritablement courageux. Et quelle serait la chose la plus terrifiante à laquelle les humains devraient faire face, si ce n’est la mort La contemplation de la mort est l’une des pierres angulaires de la philosophie, et les philosophes se débattent depuis longtemps avec la question de la vie et de son but ultime. Selon Bernard Williams, la mort est nécessaire pour que la vie ait un sens. Selon les mots de Karl Popper : « C’est le danger toujours présent de perdre la vie qui nous aide à nous faire prendre conscience de la valeur de la vie. » Il s’ensuit donc que seuls ceux qui comprennent vraiment le sens et le but de l’existence défendront les valeurs de la vie, tandis que seuls les véritables courageux abandonneront la vie elle-même pour le bien de l’humanité. Mais qu’est-ce qui fait du sage une personne courageuse et d’une personne courageuse un sage ? Fondamentalement, le courage est une énergie sacrée motivée par une foi profonde en l’amour divin et démontrée par un engagement absolu à combattre le mal et l’injustice. En fin de compte, il s’agit d’un sacrifice sacré au nom des valeurs les plus précieuses de l’humanité, et entrepris avec la conviction de la miséricorde divine de la part du Bien-Aimé. « De même qu’une journée bien dépensée apporte un sommeil heureux, une vie bien dépensée apporte une mort heureuse », disait Léonard de Vinci. Dans ce contexte, le courage est le test final de la sagesse, car, comme le dit Baltasar Gracian, « sans courage, la sagesse ne porte aucun fruit ». 7) Amour tragique Selon Marcel Proust, nous ne recevons pas de sagesse ; nous devons le découvrir par nous-mêmes après un voyage que personne ne peut faire à notre place ni nous épargner. Cependant, si le seul objectif du philosophe est d’acquérir la sagesse par une recherche sans fin de la connaissance, alors la sagesse n’est pas vraiment quelque chose qui peut être possédé, à moins que le voyage lui-même ne se termine. Alors, quand est-ce que le voyage finit? et bien. Le voyage se termine et la sagesse commence lorsque nous cessons de remettre en question les vérités qui vont de soi dans le cœur humain. La sagesse arrive lorsque nous cessons de chercher des réponses extérieures en dehors de la réalité divine au sein de notre propre âme. La sagesse parle lorsque nous réalisons que nous ne pouvons savoir que ce que nous recevons par la grâce divine. Dans ce cas, la sagesse, comme le disait Socrate, n’est rien d’autre qu’une prise de conscience de sa propre ignorance des possibilités infinies de l’existentialité divine. Selon John Adams, la sagesse humaine n’existe pas : tout est la providence de Dieu. Mais si la sagesse est accordée aux chercheurs de connaissance par la grâce divine, que faut-il prouver pour que les amateurs de sagesse reçoivent la sagesse ? Si poursuivre la sagesse signifie subir la misère et la souffrance, qu’est-ce qui donne aux amoureux de la sagesse le courage et la foi nécessaires pour endurer les difficultés, les sacrifices et l’injustice, tout en restant joyeux dans le voyage du héros ? Si la sagesse n’est qu’un moyen pour parvenir à une fin, que désire finalement le philosophe ? En d’autres termes, quel est le fruit d’or de la sagesse ? Selon Charles Dickens, un cœur aimant est la plus vraie sagesse. L’amour pour la vie, l’amour pour l’humanité et surtout l’amour pour la source infinie de la vie elle-même – l’Amour divin. Se pourrait-il qu’en quête d’une connaissance de plus en plus élevée, les amoureux de la sagesse recherchent involontairement l’amour divin ? Après tout, n’est-ce pas l’amour divin qui promet l’immortalité aux êtres mortels ? N’est-ce pas la trahison de l’amour divin pour la connaissance par l’homme qui a causé la chute de l’humanité en premier lieu ? Peut-être alors que le but ultime de la philosophie est d’obtenir le salut d’une existence autrement dénuée de sens et de recevoir ce qui est la plus précieuse de toutes les valeurs humaines, l’amour pour l’Amour divin lui-même. En effet, selon Platon, la folie de l’amour est la plus grande des bénédictions du ciel. Par conséquent, si la sagesse est effectivement le plus grand bien humain accordé à quelques élus par la grâce divine, il semblerait que seul un amour inconditionnel pour la Divinité permettrait à quelqu'un de posséder la sagesse. Ainsi, l’amour est effectivement le signe final de la sagesse dans le cœur d’une personne sage. Le voyage du héros sur terre, comme celui de tous les autres êtres mortels, se terminera inévitablement par la mort ; et c'est seulement par la mort que l'amour mortel peut retourner dans l'univers infini du divin Bien-Aimé. Ainsi, selon Honoré De Balzac, la sagesse est cette appréhension des choses célestes à laquelle l'esprit s'élève par l'amour. C'est pourquoi selon Jean de La Fontaine, la mort ne surprend jamais le sage. Il est toujours prêt à partir. ****************************** (English, original) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) ***************************** Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis: Everybody can become wise, but wisdom cannot be taught; it results from a lifetime of hardship, inquiry, and the search for truth, morality, and knowledge. Here is a summary of the seven ageless signs of wisdom: The first sign is honesty. Wisdom begins with knowing yourself, followed by cognitive honesty and high moral standards toward others. Wise people always speak the truth, even if it risks their reputation or punishment. The second sign of wisdom is an insatiable curiosity, an appreciation of mystery, and an endless pursuit of knowledge. The third sign of wisdom is modesty. The wise person realizes their limits and ignorance. They don't seek corrupting power but understanding and truth. The fourth sign of wisdom is kindness. The wise embody ethical values such as kindness, patience, and compassion, even under unjustified circumstances and towards their enemies. They help those in need and are ethical guides for the morally weak, ignorant, and tyrant. The fifth sign of wisdom is cheerfulness. Wise people treasure their pain and sorrow because they understand that wisdom can only be obtained by hardship, misery, and sacrifice. They find cheerful joy, optimism, and humor in life's painful challenges. The sixth sign is courage, a confrontation of fear itself. Philosophical courage means a nonviolent resistance to evil and a self-sacrifice for the sake of humanity. The seventh and final sign of wisdom is Love. A philosopher's journey ends when they realize that all we can know is that we receive through divine grace. The truest wisdom is a loving heart: Love for life, humanity, and divine Love. ******************************** Introduction Anyone can become wise. You don’t have to already be intelligent and full of knowledge to become wise. In fact, there are no pre-conditions of age, sex, race, religion or class when it comes to embodying wisdom. Wisdom is a virtue free for all to possess, and all that is required to set out in pursuit of wisdom is the burning desire to inquire and learn. As Socrates famously declared “Wisdom begins in wonder” and “the beginning of wisdom is to desire it” said Solomon Ibn Gabirol. Obviously, wisdom is not intelligence obtained through accumulation of knowledge from formal education. Neither can it be acquired simply through memorization of concepts, theories, axioms and formulas from scholars, scientists or experts. As Michel de Montaigne puts it, we can be knowledgeable with other men’s knowledge, but we cannot be wise with other men’s wisdom. Instead, wisdom is the ripening of knowledge, sharpening of truths, and refinement of morality through profound life-shattering, heart wrenching, tragic-stricken life experiences. Thus, if it is wisdom you desire, prepare yourself for a lifetime of hardship, misery and misfortune. But how does one identify a wise person, when the wise are said to be prone to disguise their wisdom, feign ignorance and act foolishly? Whilst wisdom is a complex subject matter which have preoccupied philosophers since the beginning of time, a survey of opinions from prominent philosophers, scientists, religious icons and spiritual gurus may provide us with some clues as to what (or what does not) constitute wisdom. Here are 7 ageless signs of wisdom in a person, as understood by some of the most brilliant minds in history. 1) Foolish Honesty Wisdom springs from truth, and the first criteria of wisdom is self-honesty. Indeed, according to Aristotle, knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. It is said that only the wise can discern wisdom, because they alone are able to grasp the essential truths of human existence and be completely honest about it. In contrast, the ignorant are unable to differentiate between truth and falsity due to lack of knowledge; while tyrants are unwilling to isolate good from evil, in spite of knowledge of right and wrong. Tyrants frequently engage in debauchery because they reject the existential truths of human morality, while the ignorant are often exploited because they refuse to learn the truths of human reality. Hence, neither can be wise. Willingness to isolate what is true from what is false, what is good from what is evil, and what is beneficial from what is harmful, is the prerequisite of all true knowledge. Thus, according to Thomas Jefferson, honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. Indeed, without cognitive honesty and an intuitive sense of morality, all that one claims to be knowledge, true opinion or justified belief could turn out to be just errors, invalid facts, mistaken beliefs or false assumptions based on self-deception. Therefore, if you want to be wise, be honest with yourself first, and be truthful to others around you. This may sound easy, but as Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, nothing is so difficult, as much as not deceiving oneself. Indeed, as Plato warned, no one is more hated than he who speaks the truth. Nevertheless, a sure sign of wisdom is someone who is honest and consistently speaks the truth by differentiating right from wrong, and good from evil - even when it would be foolish or fatal to do so. The classic case is Socrates. When asked to denounce his beliefs in fake Gods, he refused. It could be that Socrates refused because he did believe in the existence of God, of which he claims to have no knowledge of. This would indeed be foolish. Or it could be that Socrates refused to renounce his belief in God because he thought that even a fake God would be better than a real devil. In the end, rather than tell an evil lie and live dishonestly amongst his fellow citizens, Socrates chose to die an honourable death as an honest fool. But in pleading ignorance and maintaining faith in the divine, his death made him nothing less than a wise fool - for the wise always chooses good over evil, and honesty over dishonesty, despite his own ignorance and even in the face of death. . 2) Insatiable Curiosity The wise often appear stupid as he is habitually questioning the most commonplace of phenomenon. Why is the sky blue? Why don’t the stars fall to earth? Why should I be good if everyone else is evil? Just like the unknowledgeable child, most of the time philosophers seem to be asking some very dumb questions about common sense reality which everyone else have accepted as a matter of fact. Nonetheless, according to Thomas Moore, wisdom and deep intelligence require an honest appreciation of mystery. According to Emerson “The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common”. Ironically, while the curious child might come up with a whole list of interesting answers to his questions, the wise would ultimately punctuate his astoundingly detailed explanation with an “I don’t know.” It is as though the whole point of philosophizing is to raise endless questions in an effort to sustain an insatiable curiosity for the mysteries of life as a thinking being. Nonetheless, as explained by Milan Kundera “The wisdom of the novel comes from having a question for everything. The stupidity of people comes from having an answer for everything”. Indeed, George Santayana warned that “The hunger for facile wisdom is the root of all false philosophy”. Similarly, according to Arthur Schopenhauer, “The more unintelligent a man is, the less mysterious existence seems to him”. To quit questioning would mean to end the adventure of learning, and this is the last thing the wise would willingly do, for he is in love with wisdom and is caught in the endless pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, a trademark of the wise man is that he has an unlimited supply of questions, and this is simply because “the wisest mind always has something yet to learn” (Santayana). 3) Misplaced Humility (modesty) Although Plato declared that the wisest have (or should have) the most authority, Socrates had consistently insisted that the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us, said Socrates. In which case, either Socrates was overly modest, truthfully stupid or inadvertently wise. Indeed, for the wise to refuse authority to guide his fellow men and leave governance in the hands of the ignorant or tyrants seems to be a travesty. The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself, said Plato. Nonetheless, humility is a recurring theme in any analysis of wisdom and just as Socrates had declared himself to be worthless of wisdom, this misplaced humility is seen in the most brilliant of minds. “If I am a fool, it is, at least, a doubting one; and I envy no one the certainty of his self approved wisdom” said George Byron. “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” said Einstein. Ever since the fall from grace of Lucifer, the wisest and most favoured angel in all heavens, arrogance and vanity are thought to be the two worst enemies of wisdom which would entail forfeiture of love from God. Ancient philosophers, sages and saints believe that wisdom is a divine gift which can be taken away anytime. Therefore, they dare not risk the wrath of God and always maintain humility even to those less knowledgeable than themselves. Hence, the philosopher’s denial of authority over knowledge and truth, far from being misplaced modesty, is instead motivated by profound love for the divine Beloved. Knowledge may be powerful, but it is not power that the wise seek. The wise desires wisdom and is scornful of power which would corrupt the soul in its journey towards divine reunion with the Beloved. Rather than power to rule the masses, the wise prefer solitary devotion to the Beloved, which would increase their stature as a knowledgeable, albeit powerless, person. According to Xenophanes, it takes a wise man to recognize another. However, the reverse is not quite true. While it requires wisdom to recognize truth, stupidity does not even recognize its own errors! Thus according to Einstein, the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius knows its limits, whilst stupidity is limitless. To be aware of one’s own ignorance, is already to be wise, and the philosopher’s plea of ignorance is merely to facilitate his endless pursuit for higher and deeper knowledge. 4) Undeserving Kindness According to Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Wisdom has its root in goodness, not goodness its root in wisdom [not vice versa]”. If so, it follows that the wise are those who embody ethical values such as kindness, patience, empathy and compassion. In fact, the distinction between the wise and the gullible, may just be that the wise are morally virtuous even to his enemies and the undeserving; whilst the gullible tend to show kindness only to those in his favour or for his own benefit. Kindness is a sensitivity to the well-being of others which is demonstrated by actions which alleviates the suffering of another, eases his burden or relieves his hardship. As someone accustomed to grief and misery, and knowledgeable on matters of good and evil, the wise would be the first to relieve the pain and suffering of another, to defend the weak over the powerful, and to demonstrate gentleness over aggression. As Hellen Keller puts it, the highest result of education is tolerance. The wise are compassionate because of a strong sense of empathy towards fellow human beings as mortal beings suffering from existential angst and who are for the most part victims of circumstances. The wise is patient even under the most unjustified circumstances because he understands the nature of man as fallible human beings that frequently errs in action due to ignorance or weakness of will. The wise are compassionate because he knows that mortality evokes fear and awakens the demons within. That is while his awareness of the fragility of humanity beseech him to treat all humans with patience, gentleness and tolerance, even when they act out against the interests of others. As Joseph Joubert put it, a part of kindness is loving people more than they deserve. Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle, said Plato. Compassion will cure more sins than condemnation, said Henry Ward Beecher. Due to his own experience, the wise always sees beyond an evil act to the reason which caused the act, and therefore tends to respond to evil with kindness and tolerance even when the perpetrators are clearly in the wrong. His love of humanity exhorts him not only to help those who are wronged, but places a moral responsibility on him to also guide the ignorant, the tyrannical and those who suffer from moral weakness, to appreciate kindness and thus relieve them from the clutches of evil and their demons within. “To light one candle to God and another to the Devil, is the principle of wisdom” said Jose Bergamin. According to the Dalai Lama, XIV, “If you can cultivate the right attitude, your enemies are your best spiritual teachers. Their presence invites you the opportunity to enhance and develop patience, tolerance and understanding." Nonetheless, the wise know that goodness itself is a double edge sword. As Plato puts it, “If a man perfectly righteous should come upon earth, he would find so much opposition that he would be imprisoned, reviled, scourged, and in time crucified by such, who, though they were extremely wicked, would yet pass for righteous men.” Thus, the good man is as rare as the wise man, and it takes one to recognize the other. 5) Absurd Cheerfulness “Cheerfulness is the most certain sign of wisdom” said Michel de Montaigne, and according to Sophocles, “There is no happiness where there is no wisdom”. However, cheerfulness of the wise is not to be confused with the joy of ignorant bliss, nor happiness from wealth, fame or physical pleasures. "Supreme happiness will be the greatest cause of misery, and the perfection of wisdom the occasion of folly”, said Leonardo Da Vinci. "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves", said Ludwig Wittgenstein. So what is the difference between the happiness of the fool and the cheerfulness of the wise? The distinction is simple. Fools are most happy when their fears and grief are drowned out through short-lived pleasures and enjoyment, whilst the wise are most cheerful in the midst of their deepest pain and sorrows. Although we may tend to think of the wise as very serious people leading gloomy and miserable lives, this may be far from the truth. Instead, wise is he who smiles through his tears, laughs through his misery and makes jokes of his own personal tragedy. The wise are cheerful because they know all too well that wisdom cannot be obtained except through hardship, misery, sacrifice and tragic life experiences. Indeed, for the wise, cheerfulness is simply a natural reflection of optimism and resilience in the face of severity one encounters on the road to wisdom. "There is no love of life without despair of life", writes Albert Camus. “Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself” said C.S. Lewis. "We become wiser by adversity; prosperity destroys our appreciation of the right", said Seneca. Thus, the more suffering he has to endure, the more cheerful the wise man gets. Although seemingly absurd, the wise treasures his pain and sorrow; and is comforted by knowledge that failures, injustice and misery can only further elevate his stature as a knowledgeable person. Indeed, according to the wise, wisdom ascends through the aesthetical reflection of a wounded soul which confronts existential suffering through sheer faith in a divine reality beyond ordinary human existence. "The purpose of life is not to be happy, said Ralph Waldo Emerson. "It is to be useful, to be honourable, to be compassionate. To have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well. Based on deep conviction of a divine power which guides human destiny based on love and justice, the wise is in fact honoured to endure misery in his journey towards the divine source of wisdom. Thus, "An ounce of cheerfulness is worth a pound to serve God with", said Thomas Fuller. Indeed, it is by virtue of his profound sadness and constant grief that the wise are able to find immense joy in the smallest, most mundane things like the sunrise, the sunset, the moonlight, the starry skies and the singing bird on a tree branch. Just waking up to observe the folly of mankind throughout the day brings him joy. In the words of Khalil Gibran, “Pain and foolishness lead to great bliss and complete knowledge, for Eternal Wisdom created nothing under the sun in vain”. Indeed, a trademark of the wise is a great sense of humour - for what is merely a cheap thrill or misery for others, is for him an exquisite experience of living life in the shadows of the divine. "He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that [one] cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God". - Aeschylus 6) Hopeful Courage According to Bertrand Russell, “To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom… Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty.” But it is easy to confuse the courage of the wise with the bravery of the fool or the bravado of the fearless. What are the differences? Whilst bravery is the absence of fear that one demonstrates in facing risky or dangerous situations; courage is a direct confrontation of fear itself, for the purpose of defending something which one has strong convictions about. But courage is not simply physical resistance involving violent means. Otherwise, all wise men would end up as soldiers. In its essence, philosophical courage is a non-violent resistance to submission or participation in all that is evil. As Martin Luther King Jr. lucidly espoused: "Nonviolent resistance … is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice". Consequently, the believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future. This faith is another reason why the nonviolent resister can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship. It is true that there are devout believers in nonviolence who find it difficult to believe in a personal God. But even these persons believe in the existence of some creative force that works for universal wholeness. Whether we call it an unconscious process, an impersonal Brahman, or a Personal Being of matchless power of infinite love, there is a creative force in this universe that works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole. The strong may be confident, the smart may be brave and the foolish may be fearless. However, only the wise can be truly courageous. And what would be the most terrifying thing that humans have to face, if not death? Contemplation of death is one of the cornerstones of philosophizing, and philosophers have long grappled with the question of life and its ultimate purpose. According to Bernard Williams, death is necessary in order for life to be meaningful. In the words of Karl Popper “It is the ever-present danger of losing life which helps to bring home to us the value of life.” It follows therefore that only those who truly understand the meaning and purpose of existence would defend the values of life, while only the truly courageous would give up life itself for the sake of humanity. But what is it that makes the wise a courageous person, and a courageous person wise? Fundamentally, courage is a sacred energy motivated by deep faith in divine love and demonstrated by an absolute commitment to fight evil and injustice. Ultimately, it is a sacred sacrifice in the name of the most precious values of humanity, and undertaken with conviction of divine mercy from the Beloved. “As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so a life well spent brings happy death”, said Leonardo Da Vinci. In this context, courage is the final test of wisdom, for as Baltasar Gracian puts it “Without courage, wisdom bears no fruit”. 7) Tragic Love According to Marcel Proust we don’t receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us. However, if the sole purpose of the philosopher is to acquire wisdom through an endless pursuit of knowledge, then wisdom is not really something that can be possessed, unless the journey itself ends. So when does the journey end? The journey ends and wisdom begins when we cease questioning truths which are self-evident in the human heart. Wisdom arrives when we stop looking for external answers outside of the divine reality within our own soul. Wisdom speaks when we realize that we can know no more than what we receive through divine grace. In which case wisdom, as Socrates said, is no more than a realization of one’s own ignorance in the infinite possibilities of divine existentiality. According to John Adams, there is no such thing as human wisdom - all is the providence of God. But, if wisdom is bestowed upon knowledge seekers through divine grace, what is it that has to be proven in order for lovers of wisdom to receive wisdom? If to pursue wisdom is to undergo misery and suffering, what is it that gives the lovers of wisdom the courage and faith to endure hardships, sacrifices and injustice, and yet remain cheerful in the hero’s journey? If wisdom is merely a means to an end, what is it that the philosopher ultimately desires? In other words, what is the golden fruit of wisdom? According to Charles Dickens, a loving heart is the truest wisdom. Love for life, love for humanity and most of all love for the infinite source of life itself – divine Love. Could it be that in the pursuit of higher and higher knowledge, the lovers of wisdom are unwittingly seeking divine love? After all, is it not divine love which promises immortality for mortal beings? Was it not man’s betrayal of divine love for knowledge, which caused the downfall of humanity in the first place? Perhaps then the ultimate purpose of philosophizing is to obtain salvation from an otherwise meaningless existence, and to be gifted with that which is the most precious of all human values, love for divine Love itself. Indeed, according to Plato, the madness of love is the greatest of heaven’s blessings. Hence, If wisdom is indeed the greatest human good which is granted to the selected few by divine grace, it would seem that only an unquestioning love for Divinity would entitle one to possess wisdom. Thus, love indeed is the final sign of wisdom in a wise person’s heart. The hero’s journey on earth, like that of all other mortal beings, will inevitably end with death; and it is only through death that mortal love can return to the infinite universe of the divine Beloved. Hence, according to Honore De Balzac, wisdom is that apprehension of heavenly things to which the spirit rises through love. That is why according to Jean de La Fontaine, death never takes the wise man by surprise. He is always ready to go.

(Background music) Mercenaries in the Marketplace The vast majority of human beings work in order to live, and do not work for the sake of wanting to contribute to society or humanity in general. Most of them have, what I like to call, the mercenary mindset. Mercenaries work under the same reasoning any other average employee works -- to either maintain or improve their quality of life. In our hedonistic times, quality of life is seen as one of the ideals of humanity. People chase after happiness, the same as they do after love and wealth. Work is but a means to that end and existence is never the means to work but the other way around. Work as a Journey, Not a Sentence You see, logically, the problem with the working-to-live mentality stems from the fact that life is fleeting and uncertain. No amount of work would necessarily grant you happiness or even safety. And yet we work in order to maintain the very little we actually have within our control and influence to either preserve or alter. However, no amount of work will save you from disease, war or the rising costs of living. In other words, most of humanity dooms its expectations from the very beginning, by hoping and praying for things they cannot preserve or improve. Work, for most of us, does not grant us the ability to control the events happening in one's geopolitical region, for example. This means that if your country goes to war, no amount of work would compensate for the loss of your quality of life, created by said work. How are we supposed to maintain a quality of life when we lack significant control to do just that? Of course your job helps you maintain a house and feed your family, but it won't likely save your house from being burned to the ground or get hit by an enemy missile. Therefore, the working-to-live mentality is flawed by default and is doomed from the start. We are not entitled to happiness when happiness is temporary. We of course are entitled to pursue happiness, as we deserve to do if we so desire, but we never deserve to actually reach this fantastical state of parmanent happiness. And obviously, no amount of work would ensure us that, either. The idea of working to live is making us mentally weak because whatever we want in life will always be fleeting to a degree, as nothing lasts forever. And because of that, we are in constant fear of losing what we have, and I mean that by "mentally weak". I refer to the constant feelings of hopelessness emitting in the back of our minds. Hopelessness, because we lack the power to terminate the fleeting-ness of existence. Anything that we build can fall. Any human connection can end abruptly. How can we work to live when work is insufficent for a good quality of life and good health? I am deeply inspired by fictional villains because they have a certain virtue many of us don't have: An inner spark that motivates them to endure failures regularly. Unlike many of us, these characters live to work and not the other way around. They live to make their dreams come true. Their very own lives are but tools; a means to an end. The end that is their own twisted utopia, the end that is their sweet revenge, the end that is attaining their fantasy by making it a reality on Earth. Idea VS Quality of Life In Work When you live to work, you put an idea before existence and that is extremely practical because an idea can be far easier to maintain than quality of life! Because no matter how many times you will fail miserably, as long as you have an idea you can work towards, you can have hope that can overcome the regular day-to-day living. We do not have to live from paycheck to paycheck. We do not have to live to the next rent. There can be something greater than our own lives that we can manifest and have it at play. An idea that can benefit not only ourselves but others as well. So when I hear rockets exploding around me in the midst of the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war, I remain with little concern or fear. Because even though I've evecuated my own hermitage, I care little, for I live to work and not work to live. My quality of life does not matter to me as much for I put an idea before me. An idea far greater than myself. An idea that can surpass at least several generations after my death! Yes! Hail Philosocom! It gives me hope in war and outside of war! And I mind less about myself as long as there is work being done! For I am just a tool for my own creation!

Introduction I've received permission from American writer, John (Johnny) Duran to syndicate his story on my website. A day spent in deep contemplation on his story, has revealed a very saddening insight to me about the nature of humans, in their relation to the truth, and in their relation to what they believe to be the truth. You see, Mr. Duran's story is more than just a description of an anti-social tyrant who has no regard for other human beings. That tyrant, as you'll see yourselves, cares deeply about human beings to deceive them, and sell them what they want to hear. That tyrant knows it well, and the thing is, many of us in the non-fiction world, do not. For the tyrant's profound knowledge of human nature, is our very own... liability. After the story is read, I will write down my philosophical insights with greater clarity. Enjoy. The Story "Sire, I come bearing dire news. I don't know from what quarter it approaches, but I believe that there is an insidiously murderous treachery in your Highness' court!" Nodding slowly, I sipped my fine goblet of red wine as my minion waited eagerly for my oh-so-important response like a lowly dog awaiting his Master's permission to speak again; In a real way, that's exactly what he is to me. Stretching out his patience in favor of my own response, I savored this moment, as any King would and should. Finally, I responded directly to him, "Oh, my dear Jeffery... yes, I know of this treachery, and I've known of it before it ever started in the first place." My confused minion stared at me for a moment, mouth crassly hanging open and looking uncommonly shocked at my statement. By use of this crude expression, he had lost my interest, as well as any favor he thought he had gained over his years of service to my throne. So much the better. I do so abhor these little petty intrigues, but they do carry certain gleeful satisfaction as long as one is the Royal giving decrees, but the personal orders are my most satisfying duty as Royalty. Getting up from my dining table, goblet in hand, I walked over to my subordinate, as if to console a friend. However, being King, and a secretly ruthless one at that, friendship was a luxury unattainable thanks to matters such as the one we were about to deal with. "But Sire, how could you possibly know? I am your personal collector of information, am I not?" Surely a fair question to ask. "Spy, you mean? That was the word you really wanted to say, correct? Yes, you are my spy Jeffery, and a bloody good one." I looked at his eyes above my goblet, sipping; this seemed to please him. What was to follow could go either way, depending upon his attitude and what he assumed he could find out. It was time to test the waters and see where this hour would end. "Jeffery, you are not of royal blood, and so there are certain things you are not fit to fully understand as a commoner. So I am going to enlighten you... Any royal knows that treachery is ALWAYS afoot in any place where Power is held, so there are those that scheme and plot to take it. So this is nothing new, old friend." "But sire, I know this treachery is from someone in the highest levels of your court! Should this not concern you? If it's from any member of your royal family, we can have everyone followed secretly. I can surely discover the dark heart of this scheme against the Throne. I will not rest until the culprit is proven, and his head hangs from the gate of the keep." Nodding to myself, I put down my drink, and reaching out I touched Jeffery's shoulder, slowly steering our way towards the entry door. My decision was made for him. "Yes, I do not doubt in My own dark heart that you would eventually reveal the plot and the culprit. However, the head that will hang from the gate is no one you could accuse, regardless of the proof you would undoubtedly discover." As we meandered closer to the door, where my royal guards awaited, I saw from his side Jeffrey's eyes slowly widen as my words sank in, and I noticed his spirit sinking as well in utter resignation. I continued sealing his fate in words- "For you see, my former minion, my loyal spy that never strayed, there is certainly treachery here against the throne at the highest levels. I know this so well because the treachery is my own!" We were at the very door, and I was about to open it when I heard a whisper "But why?" As if asking the Gods themselves as to the cruelty of fate. So I decided to give him an answer before his head would adorn my front gate: "Well because I say so! I do what I like, and others obey, so I start secret plots in the court against my throne just to see who falls into my web of deceit. I do this for one reason and one reason alone Jeffrey. Executions are SO much fun for me. It's like the power of God, to decree death, whenever I say so. Not even wine compares to it, or personal pleasures with my concubines. Nothing like the thrill you are about to personally experience in my name!" "Guards!" I yelled. The door was open in an instant with two large men standing there, looking ready for violence, just what I love. "Seize this man, he is a traitor to the throne. Execute him tonight after dinner in public." As a last bit of salt to the wound, I leaned close to Jeffery as he was sputtering about his innocence "Thank you for your services Jeffery, consider this payment in full in sacrifice to my own entertainment, and by the way, I love your suggestion about the head. I think I'll fulfill that particular wish." I turned to my guards restraining Jeffery: "Take his head and adorn my gate with it, as a warning to my enemies, and feed his body to the dogs." Jeffery's sputtering turned to struggles. As he was dragged out to his destiny as decreed by me I again sat down at my luxuriously adorned table and sipped my wine, giddily laughing as only members of Royal blood should. It's a grand thrill to be King, and I fully enjoy it as I certainly deserve to, being what I am by birth. What a fun life, to be King! The End My Analysis The king in the story, has a lot of regard for human beings, but not in what many of us would consider the humane way. After all, if he had no regard for them, why would he bother so much to use his subjects as his little playthings for his own amusement? His planning was very on-point, as he dedicated much thought on how to amuse himself with the sacrifice of his spy. The king betrayed not only his loyal minion, but also human morality. A very important part of morality is the willingness to be honest. Honesty is key to a better trust between people, rather than having a foundation of lies that build upon each other. However, the thing is that many people do not like the truth. The spy didn't like the truth. The guards wouldn't have liked if they knew of it. The kingdom will not want to hear that its king betrayed their trust. Why? Because people don't like to hear whatever does not make them feel comfortable. But the truth has no regard for what we feel. The truth exists either way. It is us, many of the human race, that have no true interest in knowing the truth. It isn't the truth that interests many of us. It is what we want to hear as the truth. Whatever it may be, it can easily be a lie. Those who find themselves in very high positions of power may often be compeled to lie because they need to retain the support of their followers. In other words, their followers are not necessarily interested enough in the truth to bother understanding beyond what they are told. Instead, many of them are compelled to act on what it makes them feel good enough to be the truth. To quote Greek philosopher, Plato: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.” People like to be lied to, but only lies which resonate with their desires. The truth never works that way because the truth isn't tailored to our desires, but exist independently of them. The king in Mr. Duran's story knows that well. Public displays of capital punishment, were a good way to please the populace, keep them in line, and tell people that justice has been served. Whether or not justice has really been served, matters not. What matters for many, is what they think to be the truth rather than the truth itself. And he or she who has a monopoly on that feature of marketing "truths", has a monopoly on people's minds. They can toy with them as they please, selling lies as if they were common products on the market. The only thing the spy in question did wrongly, was the fact that he bought the lie of his king. Just like anyone else in that king's playground of a kingdom. Personal Commentary I... I don't like social interactions, because I don't like lying. I hate the pretense so much, I prefer avoiding most human company. I know what that tyrant knows, as well. I don't like deceiving. My social isolation... is a moral protest against the normalization of deception. I don't want to write what you want to read, exactly. I want to write you what I believe to be the truth. I want to explain in logic and in evidence, why I believe to be correct. I don't want to be like that tyrant. I want to be alone. Hail Philosocom

(Inspired theme) People may come and go, Whether or not they value you. Do not underestimate your worth, Or you'll disappoint yourself, too. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able). A narcissist is greatly starving, For a void they fail to fulfill. No matter how many followers they get, They can still remain displeased. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able). Stress can be greatly caused, By things outside your control. Detach your worth from them and you'll be whole, And you can still fulfill your call. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able For others you'll be able, For others, be more able).

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (Philosocom's directory on Mr. Roland Leblanc's Miniseries) ************************** "Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them" Quote by Kalen Dion Part Four: Catalyst In this part four, I want to pay attention to how many ways we can permute the letters of the word that we have used for gematria before! With a three-letter word, we can permute 3 letters into six different ways! See below: Using the word with the gematria of 297: (רצז) (Or "Rtzez" was the original word I have used). See the possible words that we can make of: Resh, Tsade and Zayin. The six words are: רצז, רזץ, צרז, צזר, זרץ, זצר Note: if you copy and paste those words in Google Translate, you get an idea of what those might mean… Note: I have noticed that there is an interesting word that means catalyst; the word צרז; which word I find quite appropriate in this situation where we are to check how we can find the meaning of true love! Trz צרז is a catalyst; (Speaking of a person; one who triggers a reaction by his mere presence.) (1. reference at the end of the article). In order to figure it out, I did want to check it out by using a biliteral root paper in french from which I have translated the info for you… (3. Reference at the end of this article). Tsadde צ TZ: This character belongs, as a consonant, to the whistling key, and paints, as an onomatopoeic means, all objects which have relationships with air and wind. As a symbolic image, it represents the asylum of man, and the end to which he tends. It is the final and terminating sign, relating to all ideas of split, term, solution and goal. Placed at the beginning of words, it indicates the movement which leads towards the term of which it is the sign; placed at the end, it marks the very term where it has reached. Tadde and Resh צר TZR: If we consider this root as composed of the final sign, united by contraction to the elementary root אר (AR), we see emerging from it all the universal ideas, of form, of formation, of coordination, of compaction, of elementary configuration. However, if we consider it as the fruit of the union of the same sign final to that of autonomous movement; we only see the idea of a strong embrace, of oppression, of extreme compression. From there, firstly: .צוּר Any formation by the coordination alone of the elements, by their own aggregation, or by their artificial connection, and their limitation to a model: All creation, all fiction, all figures, all images, all exemplars: Waw (Vav or ו) l, the action of forming, conforming, modeling, representing, painting, etc. Secondly: .צוּר Any compression by the effect of an external movement which pushes, which squeezes the elementary parts on each other, towards a common point: Everything which constrains, obliges, forces, oppresses, obsesses, besieges, squeezes up close, acts hostile; a violent opponent; an enemy, a competitor, a rival; anything that causes anguish, pain: the point of a sword, the steepness of a rock, etc. (.צוּאר R. comp.) Everything that relates to bodily forms: in a restricted sense, the collar. Everything that serves as a link: the vertebrae; the muscular and bony ligatures: the hinges of a door, which (. .ציר) .bind it to the wall: the ambassadors of a king; a legation, etc. Resh ר R: This character belongs, as a consonant, to the key lingual. As a symbolic image, it represents the head of man, his determining movement, his walk. According to Boehme, the letter R originates from the igneous faculty of Nature. She is the emblem of fire. Used as a grammatical sign, the character ר is in the Hebrew language the sign of any autonomous movement, good or bad. It is an original and frequent sign, image of the renewal of things, in terms of their movement. Resh Zayin רז RZ: Any idea of exhaustion, material annihilation, extreme: tenuity that which becomes indistinguishable (That becomes fragile). רז In a figurative sense, the secret of the initiated. The arabic equivalent designates, in general, everything that is secret, mysterious, withdrawn. It's an intestinal movement, a dull murmur. Note: The following video provides information about Resh and Zayin's relationship as being the Quouf letter: Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o992-wzdx78 At: 2:35 – and onward... Raz means secret. Note: From there, knowing what each letter and combination of two letters mean, I have checked the following : What is the spiritual catalyst? The Definition of a Spiritual Catalyst Most likely, you have heard the terms “Guru” or “Spiritual Leader”. But it may be true that you have not yet heard the term “Spiritual Catalyst”. While Spiritual Leaders, and Gurus are similar to a spiritual Catalysts in nature, the vocation of a Spiritual Catalyst can be quite different from the vocation of a Guru or Spiritual Leader. By definition “spiritual” means something of an essential, incorporeal, perhaps even supernatural nature, the antonym of spiritual of course being, something of a purely physical and corporeal nature. A Catalyst by definition is a thing which precipitates an event or change, often without itself being affected. Therefore, a Spiritual Catalyst is a person who precipitates an event or a change on the level of spirit (the essential, incorporeal part of someone or something). Spiritual Catalysts, like gurus, have achieved a high level of spiritual authority, awareness, and knowledge, which enables them to guide others. Spiritual Catalysts however, do not aim to become “Leaders” to their disciples as much as they wish to cause their disciples to question and find answers within themselves. It is the firm belief of a Spiritual Catalyst that if a person is caused to initiate their own exploration on the level of spirit, that a person will then become the conscious leaders of their own lives. It is also the belief of a Spiritual Catalyst that if a person becomes the conscious creator and leader of their own life, that their life will inevitably become a kind of living enlightenment; thereby allowing that person to live in a continuous state of internal peace and joy. Conclusion: In considering the words of the author of this sentence : ‘’ Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them.’’, we can say that a person who is able to help getting people to free themselves is a catalyst; doing this without self interest is quite amazing! (Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: Essentially, the true lover serves as the catalyst to the person they love; a positive trigger towards a positive evolution. They are there to encourage them to know themselves better and develop themselves, based on that knowledge. They do so without interest, for they are in love. And love is not a business transaction. True love is a genuine wish for the other person, for the best. And in order for that to occur, one must know themselves. One must know the truth about themselves, because one must understand themselves in order to know what would be the best for them; a self-professor of sorts. Hence one of the reasons it's called "true" love. For true love is also the love of the truth). Would you agree? Special request : I would like to hear from the readers of this part four; I wish to know what you think of this same sentence of the author : Kalen Dion? ‘’ Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them.‘’ Thanks for your interest! Any feedback is appreciated! Refrences: 1) https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/catalyseur/13725 “Element which provokes a reaction by its sole presence or by its intervention.” 2) https://tealswan.com/resources/articles/the-definition-of-a-spiritual-catalyst/ 3) THE HEBRAIC LANGUAGE RESTITUTED by Fabre-D’Olivet https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k647859.image#

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) **************************** Monsieur Chouchani, whose real name was Shimon Shteinman, was a mysterious and enigmatic Jewish teacher and scholar. He is known for his unconventional teaching methods and refusal to reveal much about his own background. Chouchani had a reputation for being a brilliant and profound thinker, and he taught a small group of students, including notable figures like Elie Wiesel and Emmanuel Levinas. Despite the mystery surrounding him, his teachings have had a lasting impact on the intellectual and philosophical world. His learning philosophy, though somewhat obscure due to his secretive nature, has garnered attention for its unique approach. Monsieur Chouchani's philosophy was characterized by his emphasis on critical thinking, independent inquiry, and a deep engagement with both traditional Jewish texts and general knowledge. While he didn't leave a formal body of written work, his teachings and approach to education emphasized the following principles: 1.1,Critical Thinking: Chouchani encouraged his students to question, challenge, and critically analyze the ideas they encountered. He believed that true understanding came from rigorous examination and not passive acceptance. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and assess information, ideas, and arguments in a systematic and logical manner. It involves the following key elements: * Analysis: Critical thinking begins with the examination of information or a situation. This involves breaking it down into its component parts and understanding how they relate to each other. * Multidisciplinary Learning: He advocated for a broad and interdisciplinary approach to education. Chouchani felt that knowledge should encompass various fields, including literature, science, philosophy, and ethics, to foster a well-rounded and informed perspective. * Intellectual Independence: Chouchani urged his students to think independently and not rely solely on authority figures or established dogma. He encouraged them to form their own conclusions based on their own reasoning. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: I myself formed my own philosophy). * Ethical Values: Although he had a focus on intellectual pursuits, Chouchani also emphasized the importance of ethical and moral values in life, drawing from his Jewish heritage. * Privacy and Mystery: Chouchani himself maintained a shroud of mystery regarding his own background, which added an element of intrigue to his teachings. This enigmatic persona encouraged his students to focus on the content of his lessons rather than his personal history. His approach to education and philosophy left a profound impact on those he taught, and many of his students became prominent scholars and thinkers in their own right. Chouchani's emphasis on critical thinking and a holistic approach to learning continues to be influential in various educational and intellectual circles. 1.2, Depth of Knowledge: Chouchani was known for his deep and profound knowledge in various subjects. His philosophy emphasized the importance of in-depth learning and understanding, rather than superficial or rote memorization. "Depth of knowledge" refers to a comprehensive and profound understanding of a subject or topic. It involves not just surface-level or superficial knowledge but delving into the complexities, nuances, and intricacies of a particular area of study. Here are key aspects of depth of knowledge: * Specialization: Depth of knowledge often involves specialization within a specific field or subject. Individuals who seek depth in their understanding typically become experts in a narrow area of expertise. * Mastery: It implies a level of mastery where an individual has a strong command of the subject matter, understands its foundational principles, and can apply this knowledge effectively. Exploration of Complexity: It involves exploring the intricacies and complexities of a topic, understanding its historical context, and being aware of its current developments and debates. * Research and Analysis: Individuals pursuing depth of knowledge often engage in research and in-depth analysis to expand their understanding and contribute to the field's body of knowledge. * Intellectual Engagement: Gaining depth of knowledge requires a high level of intellectual engagement and curiosity, often involving continuous learning and staying updated on the latest research and developments. * Contribution: Individuals with a deep knowledge of a subject may also contribute to the field by publishing research, teaching, or sharing their expertise in various ways. Depth of knowledge is highly valued in academia, research, and various professional fields. It allows individuals to make meaningful contributions to their chosen area of expertise and to provide valuable insights and solutions to complex problems. 1.3, Multidisciplinary learning: He advocated for a broad and interdisciplinary approach to education. Chouchani felt that knowledge should encompass various fields, including literature, science, philosophy, and ethics, to foster a well-rounded and informed perspective. Multidisciplinary learning, also known as interdisciplinary learning, is an approach to education that emphasizes the integration of knowledge and methods from various academic disciplines or fields of study. The goal of multidisciplinary learning is to provide a more holistic and well-rounded understanding of complex topics and issues. Here are some key aspects of multidisciplinary learning: * Integration of Disciplines: In multidisciplinary learning, students are encouraged to explore topics or problems from multiple angles by drawing on concepts and methods from different disciplines. This can involve combining elements of the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and more. * Real-World Relevance: Multidisciplinary learning often focuses on real-world issues and challenges that do not neatly fit into the boundaries of a single discipline. By approaching these issues from various angles, students can develop a deeper understanding of complex problems. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Philosophy can technically be relevant indefinitely because even its ancient insights could still matter in contemporary times. The same reasoning found thousands of years ago, for example, could still be applied today. And I quote: "Contrary to the stereotype of philosophy as an impractical discipline, the skills and techniques that philosophy teaches are extremely useful. The same skills and techniques used to address philosophical questions and solve philosophical problems can also be used to answer practical questions and solve real-world problems"). * Collaboration: Multidisciplinary learning often involves collaboration among students, educators, and experts from different fields. This collaboration can lead to innovative solutions and a more holistic perspective. * Broad Skill Development: Students engaged in multidisciplinary learning tend to develop a wide range of skills, including the ability to think creatively, synthesize information, and communicate effectively across disciplines. * Fostering a Broader Perspective: By studying multiple disciplines, students can gain a broader perspective on complex issues, leading to a deeper appreciation of the interconnectedness of knowledge and the world. * Problem-Centered Approach: Multidisciplinary learning often revolves around specific problems, questions, or projects, allowing students to apply their knowledge to address real challenges. In conclusion, multidisciplinary learning is seen as a valuable approach for preparing students to tackle the complexities of the modern world, where many of the most pressing issues require a diverse set of skills and knowledge from various fields. It encourages a more holistic and interconnected understanding of the subjects being studied. 1.4, Intellectual Independence: Chouchani urged his students to think independently and not rely solely on authority figures or established dogma. He encouraged them to form their own conclusions based on their own reasoning. Intellectual independence, also known as critical thinking or intellectual autonomy, is a fundamental aspect of education and personal development. It refers to the ability to think for oneself, question established ideas, and form one's own conclusions based on reason and evidence. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: It is also the independence from the need to have your own ideas imported from others thinkers. As such, one doesn't have to study the history of philosophy in order to be a good philosopher. Negative, he/she needs to think on their own, even at the absence of books to read from, or other people to philosophize with). Here are some key aspects of intellectual independence: Questioning Authority: Intellectually independent individuals are not passive receivers of information. They are willing to question the authority of experts, teachers, or established doctrines and seek a deeper understanding. Open-Mindedness: While intellectually independent individuals question ideas and beliefs, they remain open to new information and alternative viewpoints. They are willing to change their opinions in the face of compelling evidence. Self-Reflection: Intellectually independent individuals engage in self-reflection to understand their own biases and assumptions, which allows them to make more informed and objective judgments. Personal Responsibility: They take responsibility for their own learning and decision-making, recognizing that their choices and beliefs are their own and that they have the capacity to influence their own intellectual growth. In conclusion: Intellectual independence is a vital skill that empowers individuals to navigate an increasingly complex and information-rich world. It is highly valued in education and in various professional and personal contexts, as it leads to more informed and thoughtful decision-making. 1.5, Ethical Values: Although he had a focus on intellectual pursuits, Chouchani also emphasized the importance of ethical and moral values in life, drawing from his Jewish heritage. Ethical values are principles that guide human behavior and decisions based on what is considered morally right or wrong. These values serve as a foundation for how individuals and societies interact and make choices. Here are some key aspects of ethical values: Morality: Ethical values are rooted in morality, which is the distinction between right and wrong behavior. They provide a framework for determining what is considered good and just. Principles: Ethical values often reflect principles such as honesty, integrity, fairness, respect for others, and empathy. These principles guide individuals in their actions and interactions with others. Cultural Variability: Ethical values can vary across different cultures and societies. What is considered morally acceptable in one culture may differ from another, although there are often universal ethical principles that transcend cultural boundaries. Personal Beliefs: Ethical values are influenced by an individual's personal beliefs, upbringing, religion, and cultural background. They shape a person's character and moral compass. Decision-Making: Ethical values play a crucial role in decision-making. They help individuals assess the ethical implications of their choices and guide them toward actions that align with their values. Legal and Social Norms: Ethical values can intersect with legal and social norms. While not all ethical values are enshrined in the law, many laws and social expectations are rooted in ethical principles. Ethical Dilemmas: Ethical values are particularly important in situations where individuals face ethical dilemmas, where they must make difficult choices between conflicting values or principles. Professional Ethics: In various professions, such as medicine, law, and business, there are often codes of ethics that outline the ethical values and responsibilities expected of professionals within those fields. Social Responsibility: Ethical values also extend to the responsibility individuals and organizations have toward society and the environment. This includes actions aimed at contributing to the greater good and minimizing harm. In conclusion, Ethical values provide a moral compass that guides individuals and communities in their interactions and decision-making. They are fundamental in promoting fairness, justice, and empathy in human relationships and are a cornerstone of ethical philosophy and ethical reasoning. 1.6, Privacy and Mystery: Chouchani himself maintained a shroud of mystery regarding his own background, which added an element of intrigue to his teachings. This enigmatic persona encouraged his students to focus on the content of his lessons rather than his personal history. Privacy and mystery, in the context of individuals, refer to aspects of personal life or identity that are intentionally concealed or kept hidden from others. Here's a closer look at privacy and mystery: Personal Boundaries: Privacy is the concept of maintaining personal boundaries and controlling the information one shares with others. This includes aspects of life like personal space, communication, and data. Protection: Privacy is often associated with the protection of one's personal information, ensuring that it is not shared or accessed without permission. It is essential for safeguarding personal security and data. Legal Rights: In many societies, privacy is considered a legal right, and laws exist to protect individuals from unauthorized intrusions into their personal lives. Privacy Concerns: Privacy concerns have grown with the advancement of technology, as digital data and online communication have raised questions about personal information security and surveillance. Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations often play a role in discussions about privacy, particularly regarding the balance between an individual's right to privacy and the needs of society or organizations to access certain information. Concealment: Mystery involves deliberately concealing information or aspects of one's life, often to create intrigue or to limit the knowledge others have about them. Enigma: Creating an aura of enigma can be a deliberate choice for personal or professional reasons, as seen in the case of individuals like Monsieur Chouchani, who maintained a mysterious persona. Intrigue: Mystery can be used to pique curiosity and stimulate interest, making an individual or subject more captivating. Impact on Relationships: Maintaining a sense of mystery can affect relationships, as it may lead to heightened curiosity or intrigue, but it can also create distance or misunderstandings if taken to an extreme. Personal Choice: Mystery is typically a personal choice, and individuals decide to what extent they want to share or conceal information about themselves. However, privacy and mystery are intertwined, as individuals often choose to keep certain aspects of their lives private or shrouded in mystery. While privacy is more focused on protecting personal information and boundaries, mystery revolves around creating intrigue or a sense of enigma. Both aspects are influenced by cultural norms, personal preferences, and evolving societal values. Conclusion: Chouchani's philosophy of learning has intrigued many scholars and students for its unconventional and open-ended approach to education. His emphasis on intellectual autonomy, interdisciplinary thinking, and ethical considerations continues to be a subject of study and discussion. Chouchani's philosophy is perhaps best understood through the notable individuals he taught, including Elie Wiesel and Emmanuel Levinas, who went on to become influential scholars and thinkers. His teaching left a lasting impact on his students' intellectual and moral development. It's important to note that Monsieur Chouchani did not leave behind a written body of work, so his philosophy is mostly known through the perspectives and experiences of those he taught. His unique teaching approach emphasized independent thinking, interdisciplinary knowledge, and a blend of intellectual and ethical growth. In essence, studying the learning philosophy of an enigmatic sage can open doors to new ways of thinking and learning, offering valuable lessons for individuals and communities. Reference: 1. https://www.nli.org.il/en/at-your-service/announcements/mr-shushani 2. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BYFZ1mI142U 3. Handwritten works from Elie Wiesel's mysterious teacher opened to the public. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/315336 4. https://www.biographies.net/biography/monsieur-chouchani/b/3777b2d7 5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_Chouchani

(Background music) Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis There is a fundamental difference between ruthlessness and cruelty. While ruthlessness is an emotionless lack of compassion, cruelty is focused on pleasure by intentionally inflicting pain and suffering. A ruthless person pursues their goals at all costs, eliminating obstacles standing in the way, even if it means sacrificing their weaker personality traits. We must be unforgiving of our imperfections and others if they hinder us from realizing our goals. The author explains the poem's meaning. He intentionally leads a modest life, focusing on his work as a writer and philosopher. He takes excruciating walks to toughen his self-discipline and endure hardships of solitude like sadness, emptiness, post-traumatic flashbacks, anxiety, and skin depravation. Training ourselves to endure pain and become ruthless reduces our need for others' compassion, frees us from the "victim mentality," and boosts our development. The key to reaching our goals is to become better at our work and a better version of ourselves. In that aspect, ruthlessness is a virtue, and mercy can lead to counter-productive results. There are no universal virtues, as the practical value of virtues depends on personal goals. Introduction: A Poem Called "Two-Leg Comeback" I again became, A ruthless walker. And I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, That I needed a cane, This recent year. I will conquer each kilometer, Without fear! My feet were hurting, And only I'm the one knowing. But I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, That I'm suffering, For I can be unforgiving, To anyone including myself! My mind needs to be strong, To endure what's coming along. So I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, Hence why I dare, To endure this nightmare, Of walking hours on end! And should I have the power, To walk a city by its entirety, I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, For I will do so, For my emotions, Are external from Tomasio! So should you whine, About my harsh criticism, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry-rry-rry, But it is no matter, I am easily a ruthless caster, Of brutal words, including on myself. I'm too logical, To over-regard, So I don't care, I don't care, I don't-care-care-care, I handled enough, My former emotions, Handle your own yourself, It's not my behalf. I'm not in this world, To have fun and games. I need to be strong, That's done, By pain. Ruthlessness As a Virtue Ruthlessness can be described as a lack of compassion or pity towards something or someone. Therefore, in order for ruthlessness to be considered a virtue, we need to explain why these values aren't always virtues, and why they can also be a liability, AKA, something that defies virtue. First of all, there is a difference between ruthlessness and cruelty that is needed to be made, as they're not the same. Cruelty is focused on the intentional infliction of pain and suffering. That is while ruthlessness is about the absence of compassion and pity. While both lack compassion, cruelty is done specifically by the desire to gain pleasure off the suffering of others. Ruthlessness, on the other hand, does not have to depend on pleasure at all, and not even by the desire itself to cause suffering or be the one suffering. Ruthlessness is, in other words, mercilessness. And the mercilessness isn't always there for the fun of it. There may be other goals in hand that may require a merciless approach. That is because logic, in essence, is conditional. And someone who is ruthless on the pursuit of their goals, does whatever it takes for the goal to be attained. When our own, positive traits become an obstacle in our path towards said goal, these traits become a liability. And since a liability cannot be virtuous, not all virtues are virtues at all times. We are often told that we should be more forgiving towards ourselves. That we should accept who we are because no one is perfect. However, what this mentality fails to realize is our goals might require us to be more unforgiving towards ourselves and others, or else we might likelier to fail. And since we might fail due to certain traits that we have, these traits become problematic. Therefore, to encourage traits that may be problematic for the attainment of our sincerest goals, is counter-productive. As such, our goals may often require us to change ourselves, in whatever way possible, in order to accomplish our ambitions. While there are facets in our mentality that cannot be changed, like autism, there are traits within our personality that can be altered, at least to a degree. It is unrealistic to expect the world to be accessible to all our differences, as well as expecting our goals to be ensured in their accomplishment. Therefore, what we can change at best is ourselves, and even then, partially. As you can see, pleasure, as expressed in cruelty, is irrelevant in the matter of success. We should therefore be ruthless because the uncompromising human spirit is one that is far likelier to reach success than someone who is too forgiving and compassionate towards themselves. Being harsh, while not exactly nice-feeling, may be critical for better understanding what it may take to pursue our goals more effectively. And our joy from all of this, if anything, matters only if we lack the discipline to act independently of it. And even then, ruthlessness allows us to pursue our activities without the need of joy to be present or sought. Personal Case Study (As Shown in the Poem) Aside from my Reaping Fatigue Era, which lasted 5 years, I've been going on extremely long walks since 2012. My point of making these hours-long walks is to make my spirit tougher despite the hardships included in long, solitary walks. I'd rarely, if at all, take buses, and won't even rest often during these difficult exercises. Although I sometimes went with others on these walks, doing so was not very effective as they didn't have the time and energies that I had and have. I intentionally lead a modest lifestyle in order to focus on my work as a writer and philosopher. Writing articles, as well as managing my website, can be a very solitary work. And as I learned by experience, solitude often requires us to be mentally strong in order to endure the hardships that may be included in being alone. That includes symptoms such as sadness, emptiness, skin deprivation, post-traumatic flashbacks, anxieties and so on. Being able to endure solitude better than otherwise, helps me minimize these problems and focus more on work. And to endure solitude better I need a stronger spirit to develop and maintain. What I mean by "spirit", is my resolve to not "escape" to the company of other people when I can resume working on Philosocom. This contemporary age is a very distracting one, and the increasing distraction of the external world, unnecessarily hurts the competency of our work, by making us mentally-feeble and by shortening our attention span. To combat my default human weakness, I "torture" myself by going on to extremely long walks in order to get used to get things done independently of pleasure and comfort. When I am outside on a walk I have only 2 main objectives: Reach my destination, and return from it. There are no compromises here. Taking any ride would compromise the ruthless efficiency of this challenge. Conclusions Whenever we don't take compromises, we normalize ourselves to get things done without depending on them. This stands in the way of ourselves being the better versions of ourselves in whatever role we have, because should I not take a bus back home, I will be a better walker, for instance. And the key to reaching our goals more effectively is to be better at whatever we're doing. Giving ourselves mercy, and therefore compromising our development, will only hinder us from reaching our goals, by being less good than we otherwise would've been. Compassion, or ruth, wouldn't have been as necessary to many of us if we had a higher pain tolerance. One of the key points of compassion is to reduce our and others' suffering by sharing their pain and understanding them using empathy. However, the need for pain reduction, while helpful, can have its necessity altered by being tougher and, indeed, more ruthless and unforgiving. And toughness is evident by enduring pain, of any kind, without the frequent call for its reduction. And when our pain tolerance is greater than otherwise, we can focus more on the tasks at hand with less suffering, caused by said pain. Because of all these reasons, ruthlessness can indeed be seen as a virtue, often other virtues such as mercy. Mercy, for that matter, can normalize victimhood, and a victim's mentality is a liability. Would we consider victimhood a virtue just because it was enabled and accepted through a virtuous value like mercy/pity? Virtues therefore are never universal if there are cases when they lead to counter-productive results. By the same token, things that we consider darker than to otherwise, can be redeemed as helpful, practical values. It really all depends on what we're trying to make.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below) La philosophie d'un sage sans-abri (une interview de Mme Grace Gabbi) Portrait de John Duran. Crédit : D'un Inconnu (Avertissement : les articles d'invités ne correspondent pas nécessairement aux convictions, aux pensées ou aux opinions du directeur de Philosocom, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Le but des articles d'invités est de permettre un large éventail de récits émanant d'un large éventail de personnes. Pour postuler pour un article d'invité de votre choix, veuillez envoyer votre demande à mrtomasio@philosocom.com) *********************** Abstrait Cet article est une interview avec un sage, un écrivain (John Duran), citoyen américain suite à son expérience de sans-abri pendant une grande partie de sa vie. Il explore la question complexe de l’itinérance, une population cachée confrontée aux dures réalités de la vie sans résidence permanente. Il examine ses causes profondes, son impact sur les individus et les communautés, ainsi que les efforts en cours pour relever ce défi de société. L’article remet en question les stéréotypes et les idées fausses sur le sans-abrisme, en soulignant les facteurs économiques et les luttes quotidiennes auxquelles sont confrontés ceux qui n’ont pas de logement stable. Il examine également le rôle des politiques gouvernementales et leur négligence, les initiatives communautaires et la perception du public dans l'évolution du paysage de l'itinérance. L’objectif est de favoriser la compréhension et l’empathie, en suscitant des conversations vers des solutions efficaces et une société plus compatissante. (Note de M. Rubinshtein : cela couvre également la mentalité d'un homme habitué à être sans abri et les choses que nous pouvons apprendre de lui. J'ai également ajouté quelques mots moi aussi). Entretien et perspectives Une première question lui fut posée : Quelles sont les principales causes du sans-abrisme ? Il a répondu avec insistance : « Pauvreté, ignorance, cruauté et conditions inadéquates pour les locataires, ainsi que des loyers trop élevés » Le point suivant a été tiré : Pauvreté : Les difficultés économiques, des revenus insuffisants et un accès limité aux ressources peuvent conduire au sans-abrisme. Les individus et les familles confrontés à la pauvreté peuvent avoir du mal à se permettre les produits de première nécessité, y compris le logement. Ignorance : Le manque de sensibilisation ou de compréhension des causes profondes du sans-abrisme peut perpétuer des idées fausses dans la société. Éduquer les communautés sur les facteurs complexes contribuant à l’itinérance est essentiel pour favoriser l’empathie et des solutions éclairées. Sans-cœur : Un manque de compassion ou d’empathie envers les personnes sans abri peut entraver les efforts visant à résoudre le problème. Bâtir une société compatissante implique de reconnaître le côté humain des personnes sans abri et de travailler à la création de communautés solidaires et inclusives. Conditions inadéquates pour les locataires : Des conditions de location inabordables et difficiles, telles que des loyers élevés, le manque de protection des locataires et des logements de qualité inférieure, peuvent contribuer de manière significative au sans-abrisme. Pour résoudre ces problèmes, il faut se concentrer sur les politiques de logement abordable et les droits des locataires. Montants de loyer trop élevés : Des coûts de loyer déraisonnables par rapport aux niveaux de revenus peuvent rendre difficile pour les individus et les familles d'obtenir un logement stable. Les initiatives en matière de logement abordable et les mesures de contrôle des loyers peuvent jouer un rôle pour atténuer ce défi. Cependant, lutter efficacement contre le sans-abrisme implique souvent une approche globale qui s’attaque à ces causes profondes. Cela comprend la mise en œuvre de politiques visant à réduire la pauvreté, la sensibilisation pour dissiper les idées fausses, la promotion de l'empathie et de la compassion, la défense des droits des locataires et la recherche de solutions de logement abordables. En s'attaquant à ces problèmes interdépendants, les communautés peuvent s'efforcer de créer des environnements dans lesquels l'itinérance est moins susceptible de se produire, et des systèmes de soutien qui sont en place pour aider ceux qui en ont besoin. Il a conclu en disant : « J’ai été sans abri pendant 35 ans dans 46 États. Je crois que c'est l'avenir de millions d'Américains supplémentaires. » Voici la deuxième question Quelles initiatives ou stratégies sont mises en œuvre pour lutter contre le sans-abrisme ? "Il y a des raisons pour lesquelles de nombreux sans-abri évitent de séjourner dans des refuges, et ce n'est pas ce que décrivent les médias". Certes, il existe diverses raisons pour lesquelles certaines personnes sans abri peuvent choisir d'éviter de séjourner dans des refuges, et ces raisons vont souvent au-delà de ce qui peut être décrit dans les médias. Voici quelques facteurs communs : Problèmes de sécurité : les refuges peuvent être surpeuplés et des conflits peuvent survenir entre les résidents. Les préoccupations concernant la sécurité personnelle, le vol ou la violence peuvent amener les individus à éviter de séjourner dans les refuges. Manque d'intimité : les refuges offrent souvent une intimité limitée, avec des dortoirs et des installations communes. Certaines personnes peuvent accorder davantage d’importance à leur vie privée et trouver les conditions de vie en commun inconfortables. Règles et réglementations : les refuges ont généralement des règles et réglementations régissant le comportement, les couvre-feux et les restrictions sur les effets personnels. Certaines personnes peuvent préférer l'autonomie de vivre dans la rue plutôt que d'adhérer aux règles d'un refuge. Politiques en matière de consommation de substances : les refuges ont souvent des règles strictes concernant la consommation de substances. Ceux aux prises avec une dépendance peuvent éviter les refuges en raison des restrictions sur la consommation d’alcool ou de drogues. Expériences traumatisantes : Certaines personnes sans abri peuvent avoir vécu un traumatisme, notamment des abus ou de la violence, qui peuvent rendre le séjour dans un environnement communautaire difficile sur le plan émotionnel. Les refuges peuvent être un élément déclencheur pour les personnes ayant des antécédents traumatisants. Préoccupations en matière de santé mentale : Les personnes souffrant de problèmes de santé mentale peuvent trouver l'environnement chaotique et surpeuplé des refuges accablant. Le manque de soutien en matière de santé mentale dans certains refuges peut également être un facteur de découragement. Stigmatisation et discrimination : Les personnes sans abri peuvent être confrontées à la stigmatisation et à la discrimination dans les refuges, affectant leur sentiment de dignité et de bien-être. Cet aspect social peut influencer leur décision d’éviter les refuges. Hébergement limité pour les couples et les animaux de compagnie : Les refuges ne disposent pas toujours d'hébergements adaptés aux couples ou aux individus avec des animaux de compagnie. Pour ceux qui ont des compagnons ou des animaux d’assistance, le manque d’options peut constituer un obstacle. Expériences négatives antérieures : Certaines personnes peuvent avoir vécu des expériences négatives dans des refuges, telles que des vols, de la violence ou des conditions d'insalubrité, ce qui peut les amener à éviter de tels établissements à l'avenir. Comprendre ces raisons est crucial pour développer des systèmes de soutien aux sans-abri plus efficaces. Répondre aux problèmes de sécurité, fournir des services de santé mentale et offrir des options d'hébergement plus flexibles et plus accommodantes peuvent contribuer à rendre les refuges plus accessibles et plus attrayants pour ceux qui en ont besoin. Quelles sont les statistiques actuelles sur le sans-abrisme aux États-Unis ? "Tout est faux, ne croyez pas ce qu'ils prétendent. Selon les données officielles, les États-Unis en possèdent un peu plus d'un demi-million. Mais ce serait plutôt de l'ordre de cinq millions" Quels types de soutien et de ressources sont disponibles pour les personnes sans abri ? "Des refuges très restreints, ainsi que des servitudes sous contrat. Les refuges sont pour la plupart des endroits peu accueillants  et de second niveau. L'itinérance est un gouffre noir et profond. Une fois tombés dedans, les gens en sortent rarement". Le point de vue partagé par l’individu met en évidence les défis et les frustrations souvent associés à l’itinérance. Voici quelques aspects à considérer en réponse à ces préoccupations. Soutien et ressources limités : l'observation d'un soutien très limité suggère la nécessité de systèmes de soutien accrus et plus complets pour les personnes sans abri. Cela pourrait inclure un accès élargi aux soins de santé, aux services de santé mentale, à l’aide à l’emploi et aux programmes de logement abordable. Préoccupations liées à la servitude sous contrat : S'il existe des préoccupations concernant l'exploitation ou des pratiques de travail déloyales ressemblant à la servitude sous contrat, il est essentiel d'enquêter et de résoudre ces problèmes. Garantir un traitement équitable et la dignité des personnes sans abri est crucial dans tout système de soutien. (Note de M. Rubinshtein : Au lieu d'être touchés par les informations qui nous sont présentées, il est important de ne pas être trop prompt à juger, et d'enquêter plutôt que d'argumenter. Après tout, nous n'avons pas toujours les connaissances que nous pensons avoir. Il vaut bien mieux respecter ce que nous ne savons pas nécessairement que de s'en moquer et, par conséquent, d'abuser de la mentalité de la personne qui peut avoir des connaissances que vous n'avez peut-être pas. Non seulement c'est arrogant, mais aussi dégradant et contre-intuitif pour vous. votre quête de connaissances. Pourquoi quelqu'un dont vous vous moquez se sentirait-il obligé de vous donner des informations ?) Critiques des refuges : La caractérisation des refuges comme des « endroits peu accueillants » et de « second niveau » souligne la nécessité d'améliorer les conditions d'hébergement. Améliorer la qualité des refuges, répondre aux problèmes de sécurité et créer des environnements plus accueillants sont des étapes essentielles pour encourager les personnes sans abri à chercher un refuge. Perception de l'itinérance comme d'un gouffre profond : Le sentiment selon lequel « l'itinérance est un gouffre profond et noir » reflète les profonds défis auxquels sont confrontés les personnes sans abri. S’attaquer aux causes profondes du sans-abrisme, telles que la pauvreté, le manque de logements abordables et les problèmes systémiques, est essentiel pour créer des voies de sortie du sans-abrisme. Impact à long terme : L'affirmation selon laquelle « une fois tombés dans le piège, les gens en sortent rarement » met en évidence la nature systémique et à long terme de l'itinérance. Cela souligne la nécessité de déployer des efforts soutenus pour fournir un soutien continu, notamment des services de santé mentale, une formation professionnelle et des solutions de logement abordable. En réponse à ces préoccupations, les communautés et les décideurs politiques peuvent œuvrer à l’élaboration de stratégies globales allant au-delà de la fourniture immédiate d’un abri. Cela implique de s’attaquer aux problèmes sous-jacents qui contribuent à l’itinérance et de fournir des services de soutien pour aider les individus à reconstruire leur vie. La collaboration entre les agences gouvernementales, les organisations à but non lucratif et la communauté peut contribuer à des solutions plus efficaces et plus compatissantes pour les personnes sans abri. Quel rôle le gouvernement joue-t-il dans la lutte contre le sans-abrisme ? "Ils les traitent comme des citoyens de second ordre, des citoyens de second ordre à "déplacer" alors qu'ils enferment les sans-abri, hors de vue, hors de l'esprit, juste pour exister. Quelle vie! Cela signifie-t-il qu’ils manquent de conscience humaine ? "Non, ils se soucient d'eux-mêmes et de ceux qui les entourent, je pense que c'est une négligence de la plus haute importance" Comment le public perçoit-il et réagit-il au sans-abrisme ? "Avec dédain et haine déraisonnable. Ils ont une mentalité de "Frappe-les quand ils sont à terre" Quel est alors l’espoir pour l’enfant sans abri ? "Quand j'ai abandonné tout espoir, j'ai appris à vivre, ce qui tue les autres a fini par faire ma force." Comment c'était ? "L'acceptation et le fait de poser le fardeau de ses accomplissements... Cela m'a libéré pour devenir ce que je suis maintenant". Puis notre discussion s'est terminée par : Quel conseil donneriez-vous aux sans-abri ? "Soyez résilient, soyez fort, ne comptez sur personne". Le bonus de M. Tomasio Rubinshtein Ne jouez jamais à la victime, même si vous en êtes une. La victimisation se nourrit d’elle-même et incite davantage de personnes à s’en prendre à vous, exploitant ainsi votre douleur et votre faiblesse pour leur propre profit. Même les sans-abri peuvent être plus forts de l’intérieur s’ils ne se laissent pas devenir des proies en raison du statut de victime. La force, même si elle n’est pas indispensable à la survie, y contribue grandement. Surtout si nous vivons cette vie seuls. Et l’intérêt d’acquérir et de conserver le pouvoir dans n’importe quelle situation est de survivre, physiquement, mentalement ou les deux. Le pouvoir est tout. C’est de l’argent tout comme c’est une volonté de fer. Alors que les êtres sociaux dépendent des forces des autres, les solitaires, comme les sans-abri, doivent être plus forts que les autres, en tant qu'individus, afin de supporter la nature impitoyable de ce monde dominé par les humains, où l'intérêt personnel prime sur l'altruisme prioritairement. Ne vous attendez pas à ce que les autres vous aident s’il n’y a rien de nécessairement bénéfique pour eux. C’est ainsi que fonctionne toute organisation basée sur l'avidité et les intérêts, du groupe social au syndicat. Il en va de même en politique et malheureusement, aider le bien-être des sans-abri pourrait ne pas intéresser ceux qui peuvent y investir. Ainsi, à leurs yeux, aider les faibles et les malheureux n’est peut-être pas très bénéfique, même si ce n’est pas vrai (puisque aider les sans-abri peut amener des membres à être plus productifs dans la société, par exemple). Mais tant que les puissants ignoreront les plus faibles, ils ne verront aucune raison de les aider s'il n' y a aucuns avantages pour eux. Par conséquent, le manque de soutien extérieur vous oblige à être fort d’esprit et à atteindre ce que beaucoup atteignent en toute sécurité : obtenir le prochain repas, le prochain verre et le prochain endroit où dormir. En tant que tels, seuls, nous devons être plus résilients. Et même si nous sommes seuls en compagnie d’autres personnes, nous sommes seuls. La personne interrogée a dit quelque chose d’intéressant : le fait de renoncer à tout espoir l’a aidé à apprendre à vivre. L'espoir d'être accompli et de réussir nous contraint souvent à respecter le contrat social de la société afin de réussir en premier lieu. Cependant, lorsque la société vous abandonne pour vivre en dehors d’elle, vous pouvez vous sentir moins obligé de faire partie d’un collectif qui vous ignore et vous laisse vous débrouiller seul. Cela pourrait vous faire réfléchir : pourquoi se soucier de cette même entité qui vous a mis à sa périphérie et vous a rejeté pour votre soi-disant « folie » ? Pourquoi jouer un rôle dans un contrat qui, par défaut, vous a abandonné à cause de votre sans-abrisme et de votre excentricité ? En tant que telle, c'est souvent la société qui construit ses exclus, ses rejets et même ceux qui s'y opposent activement sous la forme d'une anarchie (comme dans l'exemple même de John Duran). Ne vous attendez pas à ce que les gens veuillent se conformer aux normes alors que celles-ci ne sont pas adéquates en premier lieu. Et la dégradation ne fera que rendre leur hostilité envers la société encore plus grande. Découvrez comment les individus et les sociétés créent et nourrissent leurs propres ennemis. (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) ************************ Abstract This article is an interview with a sage, a writer (John Duran) a citizen of the USA out of his experiences of being a homeless person for much of his life. It explores the complex issue of homelessness, a hidden population facing the harsh realities of life without a permanent residence. It delves into its root causes, impact on individuals and communities, and ongoing efforts to address this societal challenge. The article challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about homelessness, highlighting the economic factors and daily struggles faced by those without stable housing. It also examines the role of governmental policies and their negligence, community initiatives, and public perception in shaping the landscape of homelessness. The aim is to foster understanding and empathy, sparking conversations towards effective solutions and a more compassionate society. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: It also covers the mentality of a man who is seasoned in being homeless, and the things we can learn from him. I also added a few words myself). Interview & Insights A first question to him was: What are the main causes of homelessness? He emphatically answered: “Poverty, ignorance, heartlessness, and ridiculous conditions for renters, along with absurd rental amounts". The following point was drawn: Poverty: Economic hardship, insufficient income, and limited access to resources can lead to homelessness. Individuals and families facing poverty may struggle to afford basic necessities, including housing. Ignorance: Lack of awareness or understanding about the root causes of homelessness can perpetuate societal misconceptions. Educating communities about the complex factors contributing to homelessness is essential for fostering empathy and informed solutions. Heartlessness: A lack of compassion or empathy toward individuals experiencing homelessness can hinder efforts to address the issue. Building a compassionate society involves recognizing the humanity of those facing homelessness and working towards supportive and inclusive communities. Ridiculous Conditions for Renters: Unaffordable and challenging rental conditions, such as high rents, lack of tenant protections, and substandard housing, can contribute significantly to homelessness. Addressing these issues requires a focus on affordable housing policies and tenant rights. Absurd Rental Amounts: Unreasonable rental costs relative to income levels can make it difficult for individuals and families to secure stable housing. Affordable housing initiatives and rent control measures can play a role in mitigating this challenge. However, addressing homelessness effectively often involves a comprehensive approach that tackles these root causes. This includes implementing policies to alleviate poverty, raising awareness to dispel misconceptions, promoting empathy and compassion, advocating for tenant rights, and working towards affordable housing solutions. By addressing these interconnected issues, communities can strive to create environments where homelessness is less likely to occur, and support systems are in place to help those in need. He concluded by saying: “I was homeless for 35 years across 46 states. I believe it's the future for millions more Americans” Here comes the second question: What initiatives or strategies are being implemented to address homelessness? "There are reasons many homeless avoid staying in shelters, and it's not what the media portrays". Certainly, there are various reasons why some homeless individuals may choose to avoid staying in shelters, and these reasons often go beyond what may be portrayed in the media. Here are some common factors: Safety Concerns: Shelters can be overcrowded, and conflicts may arise among residents. Concerns about personal safety, theft, or violence may lead individuals to avoid staying in shelters. Lack of Privacy: Shelters often provide limited privacy, with shared sleeping quarters and communal facilities. Some individuals may value their privacy more, and find the communal living conditions uncomfortable. Rules and Regulations: Shelters typically have rules and regulations governing behavior, curfews, and restrictions on personal belongings. Some individuals may prefer the autonomy of living on the streets rather than adhering to the rules of a shelter. Substance Use Policies: Shelters often have strict rules regarding substance use. Those struggling with addiction may avoid shelters due to the restrictions on alcohol or drug use. Traumatic Experiences: Some homeless individuals may have experienced trauma, including abuse or violence, which can make staying in a communal setting emotionally challenging. Shelters may be triggering for individuals with traumatic backgrounds. Mental Health Concerns: Individuals with mental health issues may find the chaotic and crowded environment of shelters overwhelming. The lack of mental health support in some shelters can also be a discouragement. Stigma and Discrimination: Homeless individuals may face stigma and discrimination in shelters, affecting their sense of dignity and well-being. This social aspect can influence their decision to avoid shelters. Limited Accommodations for Couples and Pets: Shelters may not always have suitable accommodations for couples or individuals with pets. For those with companions or service animals, the lack of options can be a barrier. Previous Negative Experiences: Some individuals may have had negative experiences in shelters, such as encountering theft, violence, or unsanitary conditions, which can lead them to avoid such facilities in the future. Understanding these reasons is crucial for developing more effective homeless support systems. Addressing safety concerns, providing mental health services, and offering more flexible and accommodating shelter options can contribute to making shelters more accessible and appealing to those in need. What are the current homelessness statistics in the USA? "All wrong, don't believe what they claim. According to the official record, the USA has just over half a million. But it's far close to a 5 million". What kind of support and resources are available for homeless individuals? "Very restricted ones, as well as indentured servitude. Shelters are mainly cesspools, and worthless. Homelessness is a deep black pit. Once fallen into, people rarely get out". The perspective shared by the individual highlights the challenges and frustrations often associated with homelessness. Here are some aspects to consider in response to these concerns: Limited Support and Resources: The observation about very restricted support suggests a need for increased and more comprehensive support systems for homeless individuals. This could include expanded access to healthcare, mental health services, employment assistance, and affordable housing programs. Indentured Servitude Concerns: If there are concerns about exploitation or unfair labor practices resembling indentured servitude, it is essential to investigate and address these issues. Ensuring fair treatment and dignity for homeless individuals is crucial in any support system. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Instead of being triggered by information we are presented, it is important to not be too quick to judge, and investigate rather than argue. After all, we don't always have knowledge like we think we do. It is far better to respect what we don't necessarily know, than to mock it and, as a result, abuse the mentality of the person who may have the knowledge you might not have. Not only it's arrogant but degrading and counter-intuitive for your quest of knowledge. Why would someone you laughed at, feel compelled to give you information?). Criticisms of Shelters: The characterization of shelters as "cesspools" and "worthless" underscores the need for improvements in shelter conditions. Enhancing the quality of shelters, addressing safety concerns, and creating more welcoming environments are essential steps in encouraging homeless individuals to seek shelter. Perception of Homelessness as a Deep Pit: The sentiment that "homelessness is a deep black pit" reflects the profound challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness. Addressing the root causes of homelessness, such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, and systemic issues, is critical for creating paths out of homelessness. Long-Term Impact: The statement that "once fallen into, people rarely get out" highlights the long-term and systemic nature of homelessness. It underscores the need for sustained efforts to provide ongoing support, including mental health services, job training, and affordable housing solutions. In response to these concerns, communities and policymakers can work towards developing comprehensive strategies that go beyond immediate shelter provision. This includes addressing the underlying issues that contribute to homelessness and providing supportive services to help individuals rebuild their lives. Collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the community can contribute to more effective and compassionate solutions for those experiencing homelessness. What role does the government play in addressing homelessness? "They treat them like trash, garbage to be "moved along" as they lock the homeless up, outta sight, outta mind, just for existing. What a life!" Does it mean they lack human conscience? "No, they care for themselves, and the ones in their circles, I think this is negligence of the highest order" How does the public perceive and respond to homelessness? "With disdain and unreasonable hate. They have a "Kick them when they're down" mentality". What then is a hope for the homeless child? "When I gave up all hope, I learned how to live, that which kills others ended up my strength." What was it like? "Acceptance and setting down one's burdens of accomplishment... It freed me to become what I am now". Then our discussion ended with: What's your advice to the homeless? "Be resilient, be strong, rely upon no one". Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's Bonus Never play the victim, even if you are one. Victimhood feeds on itself, and makes more people prey on you, thus exploiting your pain and your weakness for their own gain. Even the homeless can be stronger from within if they do not let themselves become prey due to victimhood. Strength, while not a complete requirement for survival, contributes greatly to it. Especially if we go on this life on our lonesome. And the interest of gaining and maintaining power in any situation is to survive, physically, mentally or both. Power is everything. It is money the same as it is a will of iron. While social beings depend on the strengths of others, the loner and the lonely, like the homeless, must be stronger than others, as individuals, in order to endure the unforgiving nature of this human-dominated world, where self-interest over altruism is prioritized. Do not expect others to help you if there is nothing necessarily beneficial to themselves. That is how any desire/interest-based organization works, from a social group to a syndicate. The same applies to politics and unfortunately helping the welfare of the homeless might not yield any interest to those who can invest in it. Thus, in their eyes, helping the weak and unfortunate might not be too beneficial even though that's not true (as helping the homeless can bring more productive members of society, for instance). But as long as the powerful will disregard the weaker in power, they will not see a reason to assist them without any interest on their side. Therefore, the lack of external support requires you to be strong in spirit, and attain what many attain safely: Getting the next meal, the next drink, and the next place to sleep in. As such, alone, we must be tougher. And even if we're lonely with the company of other people, we are alone. The interviewee said something interesting: That giving up hope helped him learn how to live. The hope to be accomplished and successful often restrains one to comply with society's social contract in order to be successful in the first place. However, when society forsakes you to live outside of it, you may feel less compelled to be a part of a collective that disregards you and leaves you to fend for yourself. This might make you think: Why care about the very same entity that put you in its outskirts, and rejected you for your so-called "insanity"? Why play a part of a contract that, by default, forsaked you for your homelessness and eccentricity? As such, it is often society that builds its outsiders, rejects and even those who actively oppose it in the form of being lawless (as in John Duran's very example). Do not expect people to want to comply to the norms when the norms opposed them in the first place. And degradation will only make their hostility to society, even more severe. See how individuals and societies create and nurture their own enemies.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below) Sacrifices de guerre : comment élire des candidats au nom du bien commun Exemple de cas 1 : M. Benjamin Netanyahu Le 1er décembre 2023, un homme nommé Yuval Doron Kestelman a été accidentellement abattu par des soldats du Tsahal après avoir tué plusieurs terroristes à Jérusalem qui menaient une fusillade à un arrêt de bus. Le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu a justifié la mort de M. Kestleman par trois arguments : "Lors des précédentes vagues de terrorisme, la présence de citoyens armés a sauvé la situation et a évité une catastrophe majeure. C'est pourquoi je soutiens cette politique" "C'est ainsi que va la vie" Albert Einstein a démontré un jour comment, à chaque équation mathématique croissante et répétée, chaque solution réussie comporte également un risque d'erreur. (Par exemple, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, mais cela finira par devenir plus complexe et en tant que tel, le risque d'une erreur, comme 9+9=70, est une possibilité inévitable) Ces déclarations peuvent refléter non seulement l’esprit mais aussi l'attitude de cœur de celui qui les prononce. Selon ma théorie de ce qui est emmagasiné en notre Coeur, M. Netanyahu a un très petit cœur, car il est trop calculateur pour considérer les implications de la mort humaine sur le plan émotionnel. Nos cœurs, symboliquement, servent de métaphores pour notre capacité émotionnelle envers et entre les êtres humains. Et cela peut être à la fois un atout et un passif. C'est un atout lorsqu'il augmente notre empathie et nous rend compatissant. Et c’est un handicap lorsque nous considérons les gens comme remplaçables. M. Netanyahu avait-il raison dans son évaluation ? Il n’avait raison que partiellement. Il avait raison de dire que des erreurs sont susceptibles de se produire. Il a eu tort de ne pas vouloir appeler à la réduction de ces erreurs. La mort de M. Kestelman, voyez-vous, n'était pas une possibilité inévitable. Théoriquement, tout ce qu’il fallait pour éviter sa mort aux mains du Tsahal était de ne pas supposer qu’il était également un terroriste. La mort de M. Kestelman n'était pas inévitable simplement parce qu'il n'était pas obligé de mourir. Pas pour ses actes héroïques, et pas si une plus grande attention était accordée à l’identification des personnes impliquées. Affirmer que « la vie est ainsi faite » est insensé car cela justifie des tirs amis involontaires. Et les risques de tirs de ses compatriotes, après tout, peuvent être réduits. Même s’ils ne peuvent pas être complètement éliminés, les chances de tirs peuvent toujours être réduits. M. Netanyahu a donc refusé d’appeler à réduire les chances que cela se produise. Et le fait que cela se produise ne signifie pas qu’il ne faut pas le réduire, n’est-ce pas ? Le fait que les traumatismes et les erreurs se produisent régulièrement ne signifie pas qu’ils doivent reprendre à leur fréquence actuelle. Et c'est ainsi que l'on a justifié la disposition d'un altruiste indispensable pour son altruisme. Si ce n’était pas triste, le raisonnement aurait été risible. Le plus grand bien de M. Netanyahu... Je me le demande? C'est peut-être ceci:... Maintien de l'ordre. Exemple numéro 2 : Dr Robotnik (Source : Les Aventures de Sonic the Hedgehog - Coconuts Demoted [4K] - YouTube) Dans le lien que je viens de mettre, il y a un exemple fictif tiré d'une vieille série d'animation, où un homme de main se fait éliminer par son patron, bien qu'il l'ait aidé dans ses plans. Il lui a donné des informations très utiles pour ses prochaines étapes, mais le patron, le Dr Robotnik, a puni l'homme de main en le rétrogradant au rang de concierge, tout cela parce qu'il n'a pas fait plus avec les informations données. Au lieu de donner l’appareil à son patron, il lui a seulement donné l’information sur son existence. Le plus grand bien du Dr Robotnik était... le perfectionnisme. J'expliquerai la nécessité inestimable du bien commun plus loin dans cet article. La guerre comme investissement Les conflits militaires, qu’ils soient planifiés ou infligés, s’apparentent malheureusement aux affaires dans le sens où ils sont des investissements. Vous rassemblez des ressources et les employez sous votre direction afin d’atteindre les résultats souhaités, qui peuvent être considérés comme un succès. Et bien sûr, les êtres humains sont aussi des ressources. Vous en êtes-vous suffisamment soucié pour réaliser que les nations fonctionnent de la même manière que les entreprises ? Même les hommes politiques contemporains portent des tenues d'affaires. C'est parce que les politiciens SONT des hommes d'affaires. Avec les pays qu’ils dirigent, qui sont leurs entreprises. Ainsi, en élisant un représentant pour nous diriger, nous élisons essentiellement notre prochain personnel exécutif national, y compris le PDG, bien sûr. Lorsque nous élisons notre personnel exécutif, nous élisons ceux qui auront du pouvoir sur nous. Et pour comprendre comment les gens pourraient se comporter, pour comprendre leurs prochains mouvements, nous ne devons pas seulement observer ce qu’ils disent. Après tout, leurs paroles peuvent être des mensonges manipulateurs. Non. Nous devons comprendre les intentions derrière les mots. Nous devons comprendre comment ils pensent. Et c’est une tâche très difficile, n’est-ce pas ? Nous ne sommes pas des télépathes. Ainsi, afin de mieux comprendre nos élus, nous devons comprendre leurs paroles et leurs actions, et voir s’il existe une stratégie plus large en jeu. C’est quelque chose que la plupart d’entre nous ne font pas nécessairement. Et c'est un grand défaut dans une démocratie. Pourquoi? Parce que nous ne comprenons peut-être pas nécessairement vraiment les gens qui nous entourent, ceux à qui nous donnons le pouvoir. Et les personnes à qui nous donnons le pouvoir peuvent et finiront par nous sacrifier en tant que ressources. Comment ça se fait? Nous sommes, après tout, des ressources humaines. R.H.. Nous élisons ceux qui feront de nous leurs ressources. Et pour savoir quel leader correspond le mieux à nos priorités, nous devons nous demander : comment allons-nous être utilisés par eux ? Et PAS SEULEMENT, comment ils nous seront utiles. Ne pas pouvoir nous mettre à la place des autres est notre plus grand défaut en tant que société démocratique. Nous ne devons pas être trop égocentriques, sinon nous subirons les conséquences de nos préjugés égoïstes et de notre mauvaise réflexion à long terme. Le plus grand bien Afin de comprendre de manière optimale la façon de penser de l’autre partie, nous devons comprendre son « bien supérieur » ou ses valeurs éthiques fondamentales. Ils sont également appelés normes ou critères. Sans comprendre cela, ou du moins en avoir la moindre idée, comment pouvons-nous élire judicieusement nos représentants ? Parce que lorsque nous élisons des gens pour le pouvoir, nous élisons non seulement eux, mais aussi leurs valeurs fondamentales. Lorsque nous les élirons, ils utiliseront le pouvoir qu’ils ont acquis pour promouvoir ces valeurs. Élire des citoyens nous donne également l’occasion de promouvoir ces valeurs fondamentales, d’autant plus que nous avons également des valeurs fondamentales. Réfléchir sur nos valeurs fondamentales et être capable de voir si les politiciens ont également ces valeurs fondamentales, voilà comment une démocratie peut avoir de meilleures chances d'être gérée selon la volonté du peuple. Par conséquent, un effort collectif d’introspection et de débats sur nos valeurs individuelles fondamentales est essentiel pour mieux comprendre quels dirigeants nous voulons pour diriger. Et par « nous gouverner », j’entends aussi « nous utiliser comme ressources humaines pour leurs propres valeurs fondamentales ». Et c’est le type de valeurs qui dictent tout ce que nous – et ceux au sommet – considérons comme le bien commun. Voulons-nous un dirigeant comme Netanyahu qui donne la priorité à l’ordre, même lorsque cet ordre est rempli de défauts ? Sommes-nous perfectionnistes, comme le Dr Robotnik, et ne tolérerions aucune réalisation inférieure à ce que nous attendons des autres ? Tout commence par l'introspection collective et l'échange de nos découvertes individuelles, post-introspection. En prime Il existe des ressources en ligne qui peuvent vous offrir des indices sur la façon de détecter les mensonges, ce que font les politiciens pour dissimuler leurs véritables intentions. Verywellmind.com en possède un. Lien : https://www.verywellmind.com/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying-2795917 ********************* Original version, here. (Background music) Case Example 1: Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu In December 1st, 2023, a man named Yuval Doron Kestelman was shot accidently by IDF soldiers after he killed several terrorists in Jerusalem who were carrying out a shooting attack at a bus stop. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified Mr. Kestleman's death with three, following arguements: "In the previous waves of terrorism, the presence of armed citizens saved the situation and prevented a major disaster. That's why I support this policy" "That's how life is" Albert Einstein demonstrated once how with each growing, repeated mathematical equations, with each successful solution there is also a chance of mistakes. (For example, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, but it will eventually grow more complex and as such the commitment of a mistake, like 9+9=70, is an inevitable possibility) These statements can reflect not only the mind but the heart of the one saying them. According to my Storage Room Theory, Mr. Netanyahu has a very small heart, for he is too calculating to consider the implications of human death on an emotional level. Our hearts, symbolically, serve as metaphors for our emotional capacity of human beings. And that can be both an asset as well as a liability. It is an asset when it increases our empathy and makes us compassionate. And it is a liability when we see people as expendable. Was Mr. Netanyahu right in his assessment? He was right only partially. He was right in saying that mistakes are prone to happen. He was wrong in not willing to call to the reduction of these mistakes. Mr. Kestelman's death, you see, wasn't an inevitable possibility. Theoratically, all it took to prevent his death at the hands of the IDF was to not assume he was a terrorist as well. Mr. Kestelman's death wasn't inevitable simply because he didn't have to die. Not for his heroic deeds, and not if a greater consideration was invested in identifying the people involved. To claim that "that's how life is" is foolish because it justifies unintentional friendly-fire. And friendly-fire, after all, can be reduced. Even if it cannot be eliminated completely, the chances of friendly-fire can still be reduced. Mr. Netanyahu therefore refused to call for reducing the chances of it occuring. And the fact that it occurs, does not mean it shouldn't be reduced, correct? The fact that traumas and mistakes happen regularly, does not mean they should resume at their current frequency. And that's how the disposing of an indosposeable altruist was justified for his altruism. If it wasn't sad, the reasoning would've been laughable. Mr. Netanyahu's greater good... I wonder what is it? Perhaps, it is... Preservation and order. Case Example 2: Dr. Robotnik (Source: Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog - Coconuts Demoted [4K] - YouTube) In the source I just linked there's a fictional example from an old animation series, where a henchman gets disposed by his boss, despite helping his plans. He gave him information that was very useful for his next steps, but the boss, Dr. Robotnik, punished the henchman by demoting him to a janitor, all because he failed doing more with the given information. Instead of giving his boss the device, he only gave him the information of its existence. Dr. Robotnik's greater good was... Perfectionism. I will explain the invaluable necessity of the greater good, later in this article. War As Investments Military conflicts, whether planned or inflicted on us, are unfortunately similar to business in a sense that they are investments. You gather resources and employ them under your management in order to achieve your desired results, which can be deemed as success. And of course, human beings are also resources. Have you cared enough to realize that nations operate similarly to businesses? Even contemporary politicans dress in business attire. That's because politicians ARE businessmen. With the countries they manage, being their enterprises. So, by electing a representative to lead us, we basically elect our next, national executive staff, CEO included, of course. When we elect our executive staff, we elect those who will have power over us. And in order to understand how people might behave, in order to understand their next moves, we need not only observe what they're saying. After all, their words can be manipulative lies. No. We need to understand the intentions behind the words. We need to understand how they think. And that is a very difficult task, is it? We are not telepaths. So, in order to better understand our elected representatives, we need to understand their words and their actions, and see if there is a greater strategy at play. That is something most of us might not necessarily do. And that's a great flaw in a democracy. Why? Because we might not necessarily truly understand the people we're giving power to. And the people we give power to, can and will eventually sacrifice us as investments. How come? We are, after all, human resouces. HR. We elect those who will make us their resources. And to know what leader is best fit for our priorities, we need to ask ourselves: How are we going to be used by them? And NOT ONLY, how they will be useful for us. Not being able to put ourselves in other people's shoes, is our greatest flaw as democratic societies. We mustn't be too self-centered, or we will suffer the implications of our egotistical biases, and poor long-term thinking. The Greater Good In order to optimally understand how the other side thinks, we must understand his or her "greater good", or their core ethical values. They're also known as standards or criteria. Without understanding this, or at least having a clue about them, how can we even elect our representatives wisely? Because when we elect people for power, we elect not only them but also their core values. When we elect them, they will use their gained power to promote these values. Electing people give us a chance to promote these core values as well, especially given the fact that we also have core values. Inspecting our core values, and being able to see if politicians have these core values as well, is how a democracy can have a better chance at being managed per the will of the people. Therefore, a collective effort at introspection, and debates on our individual, core values, is key to better understanding of what leaders we want to rule us. And by "rule us", I also mean, "use us as human resources for their own core values". And these are the type of values that dictate whatever we -- and those at the top -- would consider the greater good. Do we want a leader like Netanyahu who prioritizes order, even when that order is filled with flaws? Are we perfectionists, like Dr. Robotnik, and would tolerate no achievement that is smaller than what we expect of others? It all begins in collective introspection, and the exchange of our individual findings, post-introspection. Bonus There are resources online that can offer you clues as to how detect lies, which politicians do to conceal their true intentions. Verywellmind.com has one of them.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below) "Si vos priorités tournent autour du profit, vous avez échoué en tant qu'être humain. Le capitalisme n'est pas un progrès, mais un conditionnement" -- John Duran -- éminent philosophe américain "Quand aucun buisson des champs n'était encore dans le pays et aucune petite plante des champs n'avait encore poussé, car l'Éternel Dieu n'avait pas fait pleuvoir sur le pays, et il n'y avait personne pour travailler la terre" - Genèse 2:5 *********************************************** Il est préférable de traiter les relations humaines comme des terrains pour construire des champs agricoles, et jamais, jamais comme des usines industrielles. C'est si vous vous intéressez au cœur de la personne en face de vous, et non à vos propres intérêts égoïstes. La mentalité capitaliste, qui n’est pas orientée vers le bien-être et l’épanouissement humain, ne devrait pas s’appliquer à des relations humaines profondes et honnêtes. C'est parce qu'il est préférable de ne pas exploiter le cœur à votre propre profit. Non. Le cœur doit être nourri comme l’agriculteur nourrit ses récoltes. Vous ne devriez pas placer des « usines » sur les cœurs, mais vous devriez verser de la pluie sur eux et observer le cœur grandir de plus en plus. Il faut leur donner le temps de pousser, comme un agriculteur doit attendre que ses récoltes soient prêtes à récolter. Les usines ne sont pas là pour entretenir et développer le sol, mais pour l’exploiter selon leurs propres conditionnements qui ne correspondent pas aux facteurs locaux. Cependant, l’environnement qui l’entoure pourrait ne pas s’adapter à la nature exploitante des usines. Et l’ajustement, ou l’adaptation, est la manière dont les choses et les êtres survivent et durent. Les usines pollueraient le ciel avec de la fumée, pollueraient les eaux avec des déchets toxiques et diminueraient la santé des personnes qui les entourent. Ainsi, ceux qui aiment ne doivent pas être exploités comme s’ils constituaient une entreprise commerciale, comme s’ils étaient un terrain d’industrialisation. Pour qu’ils vous ouvrent leur cœur, vous devez en prendre soin comme un jardinier s’occupe de ses fleurs. Le jardinier doit laisser à ces fleurs le temps de pousser et de s’épanouir. S’ils nourrissaient les fleurs avec trop d’eau, elles se faneraient et ne parviendraient pas à devenir les meilleures versions d’elles-mêmes. Abandonnez votre tendance capitaliste à générer du profit lorsqu’il s’agit d’émotion humaine ou d’« âme », comme certains d’entre vous pourraient l’appeler. Cela mérite de grandir. Pas pour l'exploitation ! Pas même pour que vous en profitiez à travers le toilettage, (et je fais référence à son sens originel de préparation à un autre état d'être) ! Il mérite de grandir pour lui-même. Et la meilleure façon d’aimer l’âme de quelqu’un est de la laisser grandir d’elle-même. Sans trop de restrictions. La personne doit digérer et réfléchir à vos paroles et aux expériences que vous avez partagées ensemble. Il faut du temps. Il ne faut pas trop précipiter les choses, sinon elle ne grandira pas. Les êtres humains sont comme ça, comme des cultures qu’il faut nourrir et cultiver. Ce que nous appelons « la Rat Race (la Course effrénée)» est trop pour beaucoup d’entre nous parce que cette « course » nous exploite pour l’argent et la production. Ceux qui ne parviennent pas à devenir des travailleurs productifs et rentables se retrouveront au chômage, bénéficieront de l’aide sociale ou erreront dans la rue. Mais lorsque vous êtes dans une relation profonde, honnête et intime avec une personne, vous devez la laisser être elle-même, sinon elle souffrira. Ils souffriront parce que c’est le monde industriel extérieur qui les oblige à se réprimer au nom de la survie. Mais lorsqu’ils sont seuls avec vous, ils méritent de ne pas être réprimés. Ils méritent d’exprimer leurs émotions, même si celles-ci vous mettent mal à l’aise. Ils méritent même d’agir de manière insultante s’ils sont blessés, car c’est dans l’étreinte chaleureuse de l’amour qu’il leur est permis d’être elles-mêmes. Nous méritons d’exprimer notre colère, d’exprimer notre anxiété et d’être humains. Être imparfait et reconnu pour nos défauts ; sinon par la nature industrieuse de ce monde capitaliste, du moins par les personnes qui existent dans notre monde privé. L'appartement. Le salon de discussion sur les réseaux sociaux. L'endroit où vous allez pour être seuls ensemble, etc. C’est pourquoi la confidentialité est impérative dans de telles connexions, connexions qui ne sont en aucun cas professionnelles. Des connexions qui ne sont pas là pour servir de fonctions à quelque chose de plus grand. Des connexions qui ne dépendent pas de conditionnalités ; la même conditionnalité qui existe sur le lieu de travail, au bureau, dans les réunions d'affaires et dans les usines... Celle qui nous rend malheureux et déprimés. Pourquoi? Parce que nous sommes toujours censés être des êtres que nous ne sommes pas par définition. Un lieu d’affaires ne tient pas compte de votre identité authentique. Les relations basées sur l’amour, même si elles ne sont pas romantiques, sont attendues du meilleur POUR vous et non DE vous. Pour les relations basées sur l’amour, acceptez-vous tel que vous êtes. Vous ne devriez pas être conditionné tout le temps. C’est en compagnie de ceux qui vous acceptent tel que vous êtes vraiment que vous pouvez grandir et émerger comme une belle fleur et vous préparer au pollen des abeilles. Le progrès ne se fait pas en maximisant les bénéfices. Cela se fait en étant humain et en tenant compte de toutes les parties impliquées. Je suis désolé, "Yurika". J'ai été une mauvaise abeille. Pardonne-moi. Je me souviendrai bien de toi. ************************************************************** (Original version, here) "If your priorities revolve around profit, you have failed as a human being. Capitalism isn't progress, but conditioning" -- John Duran -- Proufound American philosopher "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground" - Genesis 2:5 ************************************************ Human connections are best treated like grounds to build farming fields in, and never, never industrial factories. That's if you are interested in the heart of the person in front of you, and not in your own selfish interests. Capitalist mentality, which is not geared towards human wellbeing and fulfillment, should not be applied to deep and honest human connections. That's because the heart is best not to be exploited for your own gain. No. The heart is to be nurtured like the farmer nurtures his or her crops. You should not place "factories" on hearts, but you should pour rain on them, and watch as the heart grows bigger and bigger. You need to give them time to grow, like a farmer needs to wait for his crops for harvesting. Factories are there not to nurture and develop the ground, but to exploit it in accordance to their own conditioning that does not align with the local factors. However, the environment around it may fail to adjust to the factories' exploitive nature. And adjustment, or adaptation, is how things and beings survive and endure. The factories would pollute the skies with smoke, taint the waters with toxic waste, and decrease the health of the people around them. As such, those who love are not to be exploited as if they were a business venture, as if they were grounds for industrialization. For them to open their heart to you, you must tend to it like a gardener tends to their flowers. The gardener needs to give said flowers time to grow and blossom. Should they feed the flowers with too much water, they would choke and fail to grow as the best versions of themselves. Surrender your capitalist tendency to turn profit when it comes to human emotion or "soul" as some of you may call it. It deserves to grow. Not for exploitation! Not even for you to enjoy it through grooming, (and I refer to its original meaning of preparing to another state of being)! It deserves to grow for its own sake. And the best way for you to love someone's soul is to let it grow by its own accord. Without much restrictions. It needs to digest and reflect upon your words and upon the experiences you shared together. It needs time. You mustn't hasten it too much, or it will fail to grow. Human beings are just like that, like crops to be fed and grow. What we call "the Rat Race" is too much for many of us because this "race" exploits us for money and production. Those who fail to be productive and profitable workers will either end up unemployed, on welfare, or wandering in the streets. But when you are in a deep, honest, and intimate connection with someone, you must let them be themselves or they will suffer. They will suffer because it is the industrial, external world that forces them to repress themselves in the name of survival. But when they are alone with you, they deserve to go unrepressed. They deserve to express their emotions, even if these are uncomfortable to you. They deserve to act, even, in an insulting manner if they are hurt, because it is within the warm embrace of love that they are allowed to be themselves. We deserve to express anger, deserve to express anxiety, and be human. To be flawed and recognized for our flaws; if not by the industrious nature of this capitalist world, then by the people who exist in one's private world. The apartment. The chat room on social media. The place you go to be alone together, etc. This is why privacy is imperative in such connections, connections that are not professional by any means. Connections that are not there to serve as functions of something greater. Connections that do not depend on conditionality; the same conditionality that exists in the workplace, in the office, in business meetings and factories... The one that causes us to be miserable and depressed. Why? Because we are expected all the time to be things we are not by genuine desire. A place of business disregards your authentic self. Connections based on love, even if not romantic, are expected the best FOR you and not FROM you. For love-based connections accept you for who you are. You shouldn't be conditioned all the time. It is in the company of those who accept you for who you truly are, where you can grow and emerge like a beautiful flower, and prepare for the pollen of the bees. Progress is done not by maximizing benefit. It is done by being humane and taking consideration of all parties involved. I am sorry, "Yurika". I've been a bad bee. Forgive me. I will remember you well.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English Verison, below) « Le côté divin de l'humain » : comment nous sommes plus que ce que nous nous restreignons à être Le potentiel humain, même s’il est individuel, peut dépasser même notre propre connaissance. Peut-être pourrions-nous le nier, mais peut-être ne le faisons-nous pas. Cependant, nous sommes bien plus que ce que nous sommes actuellement. Et par là, je veux dire que nous sommes plus que ce qui nous limite. Quelles entraves ? Le soi sociétal, moral, mental, etc. – le moi abstrait dépasse ses limites abstraites. Dans le domaine de la psychologie, cela s’appelle la transcendance du soi. Nous sommes peut-être de la viande, du sang et des os. Cependant, nous disposons d’un accès complexe à la dimension mentale, qui dépasse de loin notre potentiel par rapport à celui de nos homologues biologiques. C’est grâce à notre accès à cette dimension mentale, qui nous a permis de coopérer et de former un groupe avec une communication complexe, qui nous a permis de former, diriger et se servir d’innombrables constructions sociales, et d'acquérir du pouvoir. Le même pouvoir qui nous a finalement permis de conquérir la Terre et de devenir l’espèce dirigeante et dominante de cette planète, alors que nous avons éteint d’innombrables autres espèces qui rivalisaient avec notre ambition d'avoir toujours plus. Le pouvoir est tout. Le pouvoir est essentiellement la capacité et le potentiel de déclencher et de préserver le changement. La dimension mentale humaine nous a permis d’accéder à de nombreuses avancées technologiques que de nombreux animaux pourraient tout aussi bien considérer comme inimaginables. La capacité de forger l’acier. La capacité de voler. La bombe nucléaire. L'Internet. Tous ont une chose en commun : ils n’auraient pas pu être réalisés sans notre dimension mentale. C’est à travers le domaine abstrait de l’être humain que nous avons accès aux nombreux potentiels de ce monde. Et pour devenir le moi idéal, afin de nous libérer des chaînes de nos propres limitations imposées, nous devons être conscients que nous sommes bien plus que notre petite vie quotidienne. Que nous sommes plus que nos préoccupations, que nos peurs, que nos angoisses. Que nous sommes plus capables que de simplement travailler de 9h à 17h, d'élever une famille et d'obtenir des diplômes universitaires. Nous sommes capables de former des empires. Nous sommes capables d'être « Divins », comme Prométhée. Pour le meilleur et pour le pire, nous sommes capables de bien plus. Nous sommes capables de causer beaucoup de joie dans ce monde, tout comme nous sommes exactement le contraire. L'être humain est un immense coffre-fort de potentiel qui sera ou non actualisé conformément à ses espoirs et à ses rêves les plus sincères. Philosophes, dirigeants politiques, leaders d’opinion, inventeurs, maîtres artistes et artisans – ce que tous ces « grands hommes et femmes » ont en commun, c’est qu’ils ont tous réalisé la grandeur contenue en beaucoup d’entre nous, sinon tous. On n’est pas génial en faisant semblant. On est formidable en accomplissant ce dont on est vraiment capable, au-delà des entraves des limitations sociétales et autres limitations mentales. C’est lorsque le potentiel humain se libère, c’est lorsque l’être humain se révèle grand, approprié et même irremplaçable aux yeux de beaucoup ! Quelqu'un m'a aimé autrefois ! Elle m'a dit ça ! Elle m'a dit que je suis bien plus ! Elle avait raison! Grâce à sa sagesse, j'ai mis au point une technique qui m'a permis de me débarrasser de mon handicap physique post-traumatique ! Oui! C'est grâce à sa perspicacité que j'ai finalement pu me remettre de mon statut de handicapé physique, psycho-somatique ! Plus de canne ! Fini la faiblesse physique ! Le potentiel était en moi depuis le début ! Je ne l'oublierai jamais! Car j’ai réalisé que je suis plus que ce que je peux percevoi ! Je ne vous révélerai jamais son nom car j'ai de l'honneur. Elle m'a aidé d'une manière que moi seul pouvait comprendre... Et c'est grâce à la dimension mentale, qu'elle m'a permis de devenir la meilleure version de moi-même. Un Prométhée métaphorique qui m'a montré le véritable amour et m'a appris les voies du véritable amour. Le même véritable amour que je veux vous transmettre, à vous et à l’humanité ! Le même véritable amour sur lequel j’ai demandé à un volontaire de créer une mini-série ! Parce que la meilleure façon d’aimer quelqu’un est de le laisser être la meilleure version d’elle-même! Et quand ils ne font qu’un en eux-mêmes, beaucoup de bien peut en être le résultat! De nombreux problèmes peuvent être résolus si nous nous démontrons simplement le véritable amour. Pas de haine. Pas de vengeance. Pas de dépit. Pas même la peur ou l’inquiétude, mais l’émotion même qui permet aux gens de s’accepter tels qu’ils sont vraiment ! Et permettez-leur de devenir les êtres dont ils sont capables ! Qu’ils le sont déjà, mais qu’ils ne s’en rendent pas compte ! Mais tant que nous sommes constamment dans des ruminations de peur et d'inquiétude, nous ne pourrons jamais transmettre cette inconditionnalité aux autres, et ainsi, ils ne seront jamais capables de se guérir eux-mêmes et de se guérir correctement, tout comme cette personne m'a permis de le faire. ! Sans jugement ! Sans crainte ! Depuis que cette personne m’a permis d’être moi-même, je suis maintenant un meilleur philosophe qui a réussi à surmonter cette période de fatigue chronique! Je pensais que je ne me remettrais jamais de cette horrible maladie qui faisait de moi un handicapé ! Ce qui permet aux humains de devenir « divins », AKA, devenir bien plus grands que dans la situation de restrainte qu'ils s'imposent c'est le véritable amour et la coopération qui en découle ! Un élargissement de la personnalité, une « renaissance », au plus profond de ce que nous méritons d'être : nous-mêmes, au-delà les vérités que nous nions ou craignons. Et c’est grâce à la coopération, en général, que nous avons réussi à conquérir ce monde et à régner en maître sur ses dieux mortels ! Mais qu’en est-il de nous-mêmes ? Qu’en est-il de notre divinité en nous-mêmes ? Qu’en est-il du pouvoir inexploité qui réside non pas collectivement, mais individuellement ? Plus nous pourrons extraire de potentiel de nous-mêmes, plus la variété d'actions dans nos vies s'élargira. Plus ce potentiel se développera, plus nous pourrons faire de bien dans ce monde. Car le potentiel est une puissance en soi ! Et tout est énergie. Faire le bien est l’impératif moral de tout philosophe honnête, de celui ou celle qui vit conformément à la vérité et à ses vertus. Et pour les philosophes, la plus haute vertu est de ne pas induire en erreur si facilement avec de fausses découvertes et d’utiliser leurs découvertes pour réduire la souffrance humaine. Tout commence par se rappeler que nous avons le droit d’être nous-mêmes et que c’est normal de l’être. ********************************** (English version, original) (Background music) The human potential, even if individual, is one that my exceed even our own knowledge. Perhaps we may deny it, and perhaps we do not. However, we are far more than what we currently are. And by that, I mean that we are more than our shackles. What shackles? The societal, moral, mental and so on -- the abstract self exceeds its abstract limitations. In the realm of psychology, that is known as Self-Transcendance. We may be meat, blood and bones. However, we have a complex access to the mental dimension, which far exceeds our potential than that of our biological counterparts. It is through our access to this mental dimension, that allowed us to cooperate and form complex communication, which allowed us to form, lead and serve countless social consturcts, and build power. The same power that eventually allowed us to conquer Earth and become the ruling, dominant species of this planet, as we extincted countless other species who rivaled us with our hunger for more. Power is everything. Power is essentially the ability and potential to trigger and preserve change. The human mental dimension allowed us access to many technological breakthroughs that many animals might as well consider unimaginable. The ability to forge steel. The ability to fly. The nuclear bomb. The internet. All have one thing in common -- they could not have been made without our mental dimension. It is through the abstract realm of the human being that we are granted access to many a potential in this world. And in order to become the ideal self, in order to break free from the shackles of our own imposed limitations -- we must be aware that we are far more than our little, day-to-day, lives. That we are more than our concerns, than our fears, than our anxieties. That we are more capable than just working at a 9 to 5 job, raising families and getting university degrees. We are capable of forming empires. We are capable of being "Divine", like Prometheus. For good and bad, we are capable of far more. We are capable of causing much joy in this world as much as we are the exact opposite. The human being is a massive vault of potential that either will or will not be actualized in accordance to one's most sincere hopes and dreams. Philosophers, political leaders, thought leaders, inventors, master artists and craftsmen and craftswomen -- What all these "great men and women" have in common is that they all fulfilled the greatness contained within many if not all of us. One is not great by pretense. One is great by fulfilling what they are truly capable of, beyond the shackles of societal and other mental limitations. It is when the human potential is unleashed, is when the human being proves himself as great, relevant and even irreplaceable in the eyes of many! Someone loved me once! She told me this! She told me I am far more! She was right! Thanks to her wisdom I devised a technique that got me rid of my post-traumatic physical disability! Yes! It's thanks to her insight, ultimately, that I recovered from my physical, psycho-somatic handicap status! No more cane! No more physical weakness! The potential was in me all along! I will never forget her! For I realized, I am more than what I may percieve myself to be! I will never reveal to you her name for I have honor. She helped me in ways only I might ever understand... And it was thanks to the mental dimension, that she allowed me to become the better version of myself. A metaphorical Prometheus who shown me true love and taught me the ways of true love. The same true love I want to impart to you and to humanity! The same true love I ordered a volunteer to create a miniseries on! Because the best way to love someone is to let them be the best version of themsleves! And when they are ones, much good can be caused! Much problems can be solved, if we just shown each other true love. Not hatred. Not vengeance. Not spite. Not even fear or worry, but the very emotion that allows people to accept each other for who they truly are! And allow them, to become the very beings they are capable of! That they already are, but are not aware that they are! But as long as we're in constant ruminations of fear and worry, we will never be able to impart this unconditionality to others, and thus, they will never be able to heal themselves and ourselves properly, just like that person allowed myself to do! With no judgement! With no fear! Since that person allowed me to be me, I am now a better philosopher that managed to overcome this Reaping Fatigue Era! I thought I will never recover from that horrible ailment which made me a handicap! What allows humans to become "divine", AKA, far greater than their current restraint, is true love and the cooperation that stems from it! A personality enlargement, a "rebirth", deep into what we deserve to be -- ourselves, beyond the truths we either deny or fear. And it is through cooperation, in general, that we managed to conquer this world and reign supreme as its mortal gods! But what about ourselves? What about our divinity over ourselves? What about the untapped power that lies not collectively, but individually? The more potential we'll be able to extract from ourselves, the wider the variety of actions in our lives will become. The wider it will become, the more good we'll able to do in this world. For potential is a power of its own! And everything, is, energy. Doing good is the moral imperative of every honest philosopher, he or she who lives in accordance to the truth and to its virtues. And for philosophers, the highest virtue is to not decieve so easily with false findings, and to use their findings to reduce human suffering. It all begins with remembering that we are allowed to be ourselves, and that it is okay to be so.