The Search Bar

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English Below) Le capitalisme est, en pratique, une horrible réalité, pour ceux qui ne peuvent pas, ou refusent, de survivre correctement. Lorsque vous vivez dans un monde basé sur une idéologie de marché libre, vous devez réaliser que la liberté a sa propre responsabilité. Parce que lorsque cette liberté permet à la réalité de devenir de plus en plus chère, vous devez comprendre que vous devez vous adapter pour survivre. Pas seulement pour vous de survivre. Pour votre famille aussi. Et vos successeurs aussi. Comprenez -- "vivre dans le présent" est une mauvaise idée dans cette réalité insouciante. Vivez pour le prochain salaire, et ce salaire pourrait finir par être insuffisant. Restez pauvre, et vous ne ferez que souffrir, à mesure que les riches s'enrichissent. Il faut arrêter d'être aussi naïf. J'étais naïf. J'ai aussi vécu dans un quartier pauvre, la majeure partie de ma vie. Il y avait des crimes, là. Des abus. Peu ou pas de considération pour son prochain, pour son voisin. Une fois, j'ai quitté mon appartement, enfant, en allant à l'école, pour voir des rubans jaunes de police à l'entrée de l'immeuble. Que s'est-il passé exactement? Je ne le saurai peut-être jamais. Je me souviens seulement avoir vu des taches de sang sur les murs. L'argent... est à la fois un mal nécessaire et un bien nécessaire. Ne considérez jamais la pauvreté comme une vertu, sinon vous souffrirez en conséquence. L'argent peut être utilisé pour exploiter, mais il peut aussi être utilisé pour la charité et, encore une fois, pour la survie. Je ne suis plus pauvre, non. Mon appartement est à moi. Plus de loyer. Je l'ai prévu exprès. Je l'ai planifié parce que j'ai un instinct de survie très profond. Parce que le loyer est élevé en Israël. Parce que tout est cher en Israël, relativement du moins. Et dans ce pays, c'est qu'on peut se le permettre ou pas. Même les articles de base sont chers. Et cela ne fera que devenir de plus en plus cher, au fil du temps. Pour survivre, il faut s'adapter. Afin d'optimiser l'ajustement, il faut penser comme un joueur d'échecs. Stratégique, à long terme. Plus vous ferez d'erreurs, plus votre perte sera importante. Assez de surprises, assez de déceptions. Vous êtes capable de prédire lesdites erreurs, si vous reliez les points, et gardez un esprit suffisamment ouvert. Lorsque je décide de créer de nouvelles conditions par ma propre volonté, je le fais en toute connaissance de cause, afin de pouvoir faire des erreurs. Et afin de réduire les erreurs, je dois m'adapter en fonction de mon planning indéfini. Aujourd'hui, je ne suis pas seulement philosophe. Je suis également entrepreneur. J'agis conformément, donc je peux survivre. Ainsi, vous obtiendrez le produit que vous méritez, et ainsi mes successeurs obtiendront l'empire qu'ils méritent. Combinez philosophie et entrepreneuriat, et vous réaliserez peut-être à quel point la philosophie peut être pratique. Et quand je dis que personne ne devrait se mettre à travers de mon chemin, je suis très sérieux. Je me fiche d'avoir de l'aide sociale. Je me soucie de la probabilité que ce bien-être ne soit pas suffisant. Je me soucie d'être un capitaliste non pas parce que je suis un cochon avide. Je tiens à en être un parce que c'est ce qu'il faut pour pouvoir s'offrir, à long terme, les choses les plus basiques ! Nourriture, eau, électricité, factures et taxes. Ils ne feront que grandir. Je refuse d'être au chômage. C'est pourquoi j'ai fait de Philosocom une entreprise plus rentable. J'en ai fini avec le bénévolat. Non. J'ai grandi depuis. Je suis un homme, et même si certains d'entre vous n'aiment pas entendre cela, l'homme mûr est un pourvoyeur. Les femmes mûres méritent sont aussi des pourvoyeuses. Quiconque est capable de travailler et en a assez des autres caractéristiques non pertinentes de la vie sera suffisamment mûr lorsqu'il montrera une volonté de pourvoyeur. Les politiciens ne se soucient pas nécessairement de nous, les citoyens. Rappelez-vous, c'est un monde capitaliste, dans son ensemble. Je ne serais pas surpris si, en réalité, la plupart de ces élus s'occupent surtout d'eux-mêmes. Pour leur propre pouvoir. Pour leur propre richesse. Comprenez - plus on est riche, plus il a de chances de survivre. Il est "facile" d'être pauvre, car il est "facile" d'être dans le même cadre d'horaires et de salaires. Il est "facile" de répéter les mêmes actions monotones car il est "facile" de ne pas penser au-delà du moment présent. Comme il est "facile" de s'épuiser en le faisant. Écoutez-moi juste, je suis partiellement ironique. Les guillemets sont placés pour une raison. Ainsi, ceux qui prétendent que nous devrions vivre pour le moment présent et ne pas nous soucier de l'avenir, pourraient être ceux qui deviendront eux-mêmes pauvres. Parce qu'il est "facile" de ne pas trop s'en soucier. Parce que "sur"-penser est difficile. C'est. C'est vraiment difficile. Le cerveau est un organe semblable à un muscle qui a besoin d'entraînement pour être préservé et développé davantage. Nous devons être créatifs ! Nous devons être innovants ! Ce sont les traits, impératifs pour la survie dans un monde qui est construit sur les entreprises et les sociétés. Envisagez d'apprendre des propriétaires d'entreprise ! Fictifs ou autres. Étudiez leurs personnalités, leurs motivations. Leurs réalisations, leurs échecs. Adaptez-vous en fonction de votre propre survie, chers lecteurs ! Car vous méritez de survivre. Il n'y a pas de prospérité sans elle. En un sens, un pays est aussi une entreprise. ************************************ (English, original) Capitalism is, in practice, a horrible reality, for those who can't, or refuse, to survive properly. When you live in a world that is based on a free-market ideology, you need to realize that freedom has its own liability. Because when that freedom allows reality to become more and more expansive to afford, you need to understand that you have to adjust, in order to survive. Not only for yourself to survive. For your family, as well. And your successors, too. Understand -- "to live in the present" is a bad idea in this careless reality. Live for the next salary, and that salary might be insufficent, eventually. Remain poor, and you will only suffer, as the wealthy get wealthier. We need to stop being so naive. I used to be naive. I also used to live in a poor neighborhood, most of my life. There were crimes, there. Abuse. Little to-no consideration for your fellow human being, for your fellow neighbor. I once exited my apartment, as a child, on my way to school, only to see police tapes in the entrance of the building. What happened, exactly? I might never know. I only recall seeing some blood stains on the walls. Money... is both a necessary evil and a necessary good. Don't you ever see poverty as a virtue, or you will suffer in accordance. Money can be used to exploit, but it can also be used for charity, and, again, survival. I am no longer poor, no. My apartment is my own. No more rent. I planned it on purpose. I planned it because I have a very deep instinct for survival. Because rent is high in Israel. Because everything is expensive in Israel, at least. And in this country, is to afford or fail doing so. Even basic items are expensive. And it will only get more and more expensive, as time goes on. In order to survive, one must adjust. In order to optimize adjustment, one must think like a chess player. Strategic, long term. The more mistakes you'll make, the greater your loss will be. Enough with the surprises, enough with the disapointments. You are capable of predicitng said mistakes, should you connect the dots, and keep an open-enough mind. When I decide to create new conditions in my own will, I do so under the full knowledge, that I might make mistakes. And in order to reduce mistakes, I must adjust in accordance to my indefinite planning. Today, I am not only a philosopher. I am also a entrepreneur. I act in accordance, so I can survive. So you will get the product you deserve, and so my successors will get the empire they deserve. Combine philosophy and entrepreneurship together, and you might realize how practical philosophy can really be. And when I say that no one should stand in my way, I am dead serious. I do not care that I have welfare. I care of the likelihood that this welfare, not being enough. I care to be a capitalist not because I am a greedy pig. I care to be one because that is what it takes to be able to afford, in the long run, the very basic things! Food, water, electricity, bills and taxes. They will only grow higher. I refuse to be unemployed. This is why I turned Philosocom into a more-profitable business. I am done with volunteering. No. I grew up since then. I am a man, and as much as some of you may dislike hearing this -- the mature man provides. Mature women deserve to provide, too. Anyone who is capable of work, and has enough with the other irrelevant features of life, will be mature enough when they show a will to provide. Politicians do not necessarily care for us, the citizenry. Remember, this is a capitalist world, at large. I won't be surprised if, in reality, most of these elected representatives mainly care for themselves. For their own power. For their own wealth. Understand -- the wealthier one is, the likelier for them to survive. It is "easy" to be poor, because it is "easy" to be in the same frame of shifts and salaries. It is "easy" to do the same monotonous actions repeatedly because it is "easy" to not think beyond the present moment. As it is "easy" exhausting yourself by doing so. Just hear me out, I'm being partially-ironic. Quotation marks are placed for a reason. So those who claim that we should live for the present moment, and not care for the future, might be the ones who will become poor themselves. Because it is "easy" not to care too much. Because "over"-thinking is difficult. It is. It really is difficult. The brain is a muscle-like organ that needs workout in order to be preserved and developed further. We need to be creative! We need to be innovative! These are the traits, imperative for survival in a world that is built on businesses and corporations. Consider learning from business owners! Fictional or otherwise. Study their personalities, their motives. Their accomplishments, their failures. Adapt in accordance for your own survival, dear readers! For you deserve to survive. There is no prosperity, without it. In a sense, a country is also a corporation. After all, it generates its revenue from our work. We work for it, as well. And a good politician is one that is able to keep the status-quo. Or in other words -- a manager that makes sure work is being done by his or her employees. Risk the status-quo of your business, and you can risk your business as well. Apply the same logic to a country.... It is within some people's interests', that we will remain monotonous. (And stupid, as well) That we will live in the present, while those with the mentality of masterminds, plan their future through our own hedonism. I recently annoucned a temporary retirement. This is not a black or white situation. I'm just... working too hard. I have a lot of stress on my shoulders. I am aware what I am responsible for, and what I care for. And I also know that I am just a mortal being, who can, technically, die at any moment. But if I just enjoy life as it passes by, then I am good as dead. Because an unproductive life, is a wasteful life. I am not talking about "experiences" and what-not. I am talking about not being such an egotist, that only cares for exploring the beauty of life, and enjoying every moment of it. Negative. I'm aware of my potential. I know what I can do for you, for humanity. And through providing, I thus earn my keep. I earn the relevancy I deserve. The relevancy of my work. For I am nothing, nothing, without my work. Because this is capitalism. And capitalism is ruthless, and unforgiving. I will still retain my humanity. I vow it to all of you. I will never lose it. For being human is, nonetheless, important. It does not have to be contradicted! I have no desire to do to others what they have done to me. As long as they are respectful. Hail Philosocom.

With my intellect I demolished my fatigue. It's Vanished. It's Destroyed. It's Obliterated. ..... Material: Steel. Tomasio, Empire: Be known by "everyone", Reinforced through ill. Across the globe. Tomasio, Empire: Agreed by plenty: Her claim is false. ..... Endurance, or death. Tomasio, Empire. Put something in higher regard, Minimize else in disregard. Disabled, never weak. Tomasio, Empire: .... Won't be like the dark. It's only deep anguish. Tomasio, Empire. Benefit is purpose. Nothing else to live for. You should learn from me, My philosophies. I live to contribute; Let none be in my way. I know I am mortal. Tomasio, Empire. But my legacy, Justifies my relevancy. .... Nothing else to live for, Iron in the core. Won't let it rust, By stupidity or by lust. To survive I must thrive. Tomasio, Empire. Food isn't enough, I will reside in your minds. .... No longer fear the hurt. Tomasio, Empire. Reject me all you want, If I live, I come back. Be grateful, or not. Tomasio, Empire. Won't die due to apnea, Won't die, for naught. Life is victory. Tomasio, Empire. As long as I'm alive, Words of the dark, in defeat. Darker than you think, Traumatized, it's linked. Will not let it leak, Will surpass the sick. Will not, be silenced. Tomasio, Empire. Those who don't want to hear, Can block off, their ears. ..... Across humanity. Philosocom, Empire. It's not for myself, It's for your behalf. Nothing else, I, to live. Philosocom, Empire. Let that sink in, No other purpose, exists.

Original Script: Dear readers, There are simple ways to cure people of their damaged mentality. We are an ill species. Apathy is a great enemy, and lack of respect is even a greater foe. Human beings can be traumatized quite easily. It is very hard to prepare for whatever reality may throw at us. Reality is forever uncertain, at least in our own eyes. Understand this, and understand it well: We are also part of reality. This means that we have a great power over others, whether we like it or not. I have no desire to add unnecessary suffering into this ill world. Whenever I do so intentionally, it is only to keep toxic people out of my way. And I never do it voluntarily. It does not bring me any joy. But a lot just don't understand their own power. And those who do, don't necessarily care for it. When I keep people away from me, I do it for their own favor. Because I have no desire to torment them. I have a desire to not be tormented myself. Because this world is too toxic for me to handle. And yet, I am deeply compelled to reduce this toxcity through my work as a philosopher. And I am even a mentor to some, and I find, as well, great, great joy, in donating to charity. I want to bring this light within me to the world. The love of wisdom, and the wisdom of its relevancy. Because those who fail to wisen up, can forever be destined to repeat the same mistakes, over and over. The same mistakes that, through the excuse of ignorance, and the lack of guilt that follows, only feeds the cycle. The cycle of darkness. The cycle of unnecessary suffering. And he or she that have no desire to ease said suffering, can never be moral. For the moral being puts it in high regard. Feed some light into this depraved world. It deserves it. It really does. Be gentlemen and gentlewomen. Show that you care. Show that you respect. Show that you love. Purify some of this normalized depravity. For it can save lives. And not only your own guilt alone. Understand: I am a mortal being. I can die at any day and anytime. And my medical condition can kill me off as well. Do not let wasteful maliciousness stand in your way. In your way for a brighter future. For yourself, and for those whom you care about. Giving up on this life, is weakness. It is the weakness of the human spirit. Never nurture and never glorify weakness which can betray your own health, and your own value in surviving and living. Share this message to those who you appreciate, dear readers. Spread this article like it deserves. Use my advices to establish powerbases of human light. Improve people's health and wellbeing. So much suffering, so much trauma is caused by us. Why should we keep it that way? It is like cancer, dear readers. It eats us from the inside, like a rotten core of an apple. And that rottenness only spreads through the vains of human society. How can we expect to trust each other with such inhumane treatment? Having that treatment embedded in norms, is exactly how it gains a terrible legitimacy.... in the eyes of those who don't bother to distinguish... between normal and moral. Understand: I have little regard for normalcy, not because I am a sociopath..... ...But because I refuse becoming one. Under any circumstance. Reflect deeply on my words, and thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Thank you for choosing Philosocom.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English Below) (Avertissement : les messages d'invités ne correspondent pas nécessairement aux croyances, pensées ou sentiments du directeur de Philosocom, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Le but des messages d'invités est de permettre un large éventail de récits d'un large éventail de personnes. Pour postuler pour un invité poste de votre choix, veuillez envoyer votre demande à mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ***************************************** INTRODUCTION Vous ne pouvez jamais trouver le sens de la vie, mais vous pouvez comprendre le sens de ce que vous faites. Ce n'est qu'en maîtrisant votre métier que vous pourrez comprendre sa véritable signification. Je sens que j'ai atteint une juste compréhension de ce qu'est l'art et de ce qu'il sera au sens traditionnel. Cependant, je crois aussi qu'il y a bien plus que ce que pense le critique d'art le plus averti. Dans ce livre, je vous emmènerai dans une dimension différente et à peine effleurée de l'art : l'holographie. Certains scientifiques affirment que "l'univers est un grand hologramme". Pour un humain normal avec une perspective physique sur la réalité, cela peut être difficile à croire, mais l'holographie dans l'art traditionnel est possible, comme vous le verrez. J'ai découvert que les matériaux que nous utilisons dans les peintures ont des propriétés particulières et distinctes. Ils réagissent à la lumière de plusieurs façons, et chacun a un code. Cela signifie qu'ils peuvent être utilisés d'une certaine manière pour produire un certain effet. Comprendre ces matériaux et leurs effets est la clé pour dévoiler le but qu'ils doivent servir. Différentes conditions d'éclairage peuvent mettre en contraste différents aspects de la peinture. Certaines techniques holographiques sont meilleures que d'autres à certains égards et pires à d'autres. Cependant, j'ai utilisé une approche totalement différente de ces techniques, ironiquement en utilisant d'anciennes techniques traditionnelles. Le nom de cette technique est "peinture holographique matérialiste" et elle dérive de la combinaison de matériaux plutôt que d'un seul comme dans la photographie holographique qui utilise un certain film cristallisé qui capture la lumière laser de différentes directions déviées d'un objet, et qui réorganise la formation de cristaux à même le film pour former une copie réfléchie de cet objet. Cette méthode est merveilleuse, et elle a même valu à son inventeur Dennis Gabor le prix Nobel. Mais encore, il a des limites, en termes de profondeur d'espace, de couleur, d'angle de vue, de distance et de conditions d'éclairage pour le voir correctement. De plus, c'est une configuration coûteuse à faire à la maison et elle n'est pas créée par un humain mais par une machine, ce qui la rend moins intrigante pour moi en tant qu'artiste traditionnel. La peinture holographique matérialiste, d'autre part, est faite à la main avec des matériaux assez bon marché, elle n'a pas de limitation de couleur et moins de problèmes conditionnels d'éclaircissement, également dans le sens des limitations de distance et d'angle de vue, elle peut s'avérer mieux fonctionner dans certains cas parce qu'il n'y a pas la limite due à l'épaisseur d'une couche comme dans le film holographique. Ce qui est également intéressant, ce sont les liens que cette nouvelle technique a avec la façon dont les matériaux se comportent dans la nature, comment ils sont superposés et comment ils réagissent à la lumière. La plupart des gens ont tendance à croire quelque chose seulement quand ils le voient, mais comprenons-nous vraiment ce que nous y voyons ? La vue en un sens montre la réalité que notre cerveau a récupérée à partir des données que nos sens ont recueillies, mais elle est alimentée par la lumière et elle peut également créer des illusions. J'ai trouvé que la lumière peut être courbée et capturée d'une manière et contrôlée également pour nous montrer ce que nous ne pouvons normalement pas voir. Les moyens servent l'objectif, et donc, nous nous concentrerons sur la technique couche par couche montrant la recherche derrière elle, je dois mentionner qu'il y a beaucoup de façons de le faire correctement et avec de bons résultats mais chaque peinture a son propre ensemble de règles. J'ai établi ces techniques et règles après de longues recherches et nous verrons d'autres façons de le faire, mais elles ont plus à voir avec le style, comme les peintures réalistes vs expressionnistes et autres, ils ont un ensemble d'effets différent mais les règles sont fondamentalement les mêmes. Il y a beaucoup plus que je ne peux en dire pour le moment car il y a beaucoup plus de recherches à faire, et j'espère que nous pourrons ensemble poursuivre cet objectif et rapprocher la peinture holographique de la tradition. Enfin, pour faire un tel tableau il faut de la passion, ça peut prendre beaucoup de temps, et comme je vais vous le montrer ça peut être interminable… L'holographie de la lumière est la science de la fabrication d'un hologramme, le sens de ce mot vient du grec qui signifie Holos- tout, et Graphe signifie dessin, mais cette description ne correspond pas à ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui. Pour commencer, nous allons commencer par essayer de comprendre en gros le rôle de l'optique dans cette technique. La lumière est une énergie qui a une vitesse et une direction, elle peut être déviée d'un objet ou absorbée par lui, ces deux opposés, nous donnent la capacité d'utiliser les matériaux pour créer un large spectre de réaction à la lumière. La lumière a aussi une direction et là, lorsqu'elle est déviée par un objet, elle peut changer de direction en fonction de l'angle de l'impact. Vous pouvez remarquer que lorsque nous regardons une peinture ou une estampe sous différents angles, nous verrons moins l'image qu'en face, et c'est parce que la surface dévie la lumière, ce qui nous aveugle pratiquement. Mais nous pouvons remarquer quelque chose dans cette situation que nous ne pouvons pas remarquer autrement comme des couches mates, tout comme la saleté sur le sol ou les empreintes digitales sur la table, cela nous montre d'autres facteurs opposés dont nous discuterons et utiliserons plus tard. La lumière a la capacité de traverser les couches et de changer son rendement, du froid au chaud et d'une couleur à l'autre. Comme nous l'avons établi, la lumière peut être absorbée et déviée, nous remarquerons que ces caractéristiques sont contrôlées par le type de matière que nous mettons sur une certaine couche. Cela crée un phénomène dans lequel nous pouvons voir l'illumination de la lumière au-dessus de la surface de la peinture sous certaines conditions (dans ma théorie, cela se produit par le ralentissement de la "particule" de lumière). Ce qu'il est le plus important de comprendre, c'est que faire une peinture consiste essentiellement à jouer avec la lumière de toutes les manières possibles par le médium avec lequel nous travaillons. MATÉRIAUX Les matériaux que les peintres ont utilisés et utilisent encore sont, en quelque sorte, trop traditionnels. Ce que je veux dire, c'est que dans un tableau, nous trouverons un ensemble différent de matériaux qui ont un certain effet, tel que le médium le présente, mais uniquement pour donner une certaine sensation à l'image dans le tableau. Ce n'est qu'une partie de l'histoire que je vais vous expliquer. Bien sûr, nous avons besoin de la compréhension traditionnelle des perspectives géométriques, chromatiques et tonales, ainsi que des différentes compositions et autres bases. Cependant, ce livre se fie au peintre qui le lit pour connaître ces règles traditionnelles et s'y fier également. Cette technique particulière n'est pas spécifique à l'utilisation d'un seul type de matériau. En fait, il en utilisera plusieurs simultanément sur une même peinture, car chaque matériau a ses propres caractéristiques et ils seront utiles à un moment donné du processus. En fait, nous utiliserons principalement des vernis et des fixatifs, mais leur rôle est très différent du rôle des autres matériaux, comme les aérosols de couleur, les couleurs à l'huile de différentes sortes, les marqueurs et stylos à base d'encre et d'alcool, l'acrylique, les aquarelles, tempera, et nous discuterons de d'autres matériaux potentiels comme la craie, les couleurs phosphorescentes et le vernis à ongles. Nous allons également voir et essayer de comprendre le tableau périodique et voir comment différents matériaux réagissent à la lumière. Il est important de comprendre que le pigment d'un matériau coloré n'a qu'une signification traditionnelle dans cette technique holographique. Traditionnellement, les peintures sont réalisées sur de nombreuses couches différentes en fonction du matériau utilisé. Par exemple, les peintures à l'huile sont principalement réalisées sur une toile recouverte de gesso ou d'acrylique dans un premier temps afin qu'elle ne soit pas exposée à l'humidité du dessous. Les aquarelles ou l'encre sont faites sur un certain papier pour absorber l'eau, et les couleurs à base d'alcool sont faites sur du plastique ou du papier à base de polymère. Cependant, dans notre technique, nous utilisons un carton épais ! C'est parce que nous avons besoin que la feuille absorbe jusqu'à un certain point. Cela crée un contraste entre le matériau absorbé et celui posé sur la surface, ce qui ajoute également à l'effet 3D perceptible dès le début. Les matériaux sont classés en fonction de leur teneur en solution, mais la pigmentation est un additif plus général. Par conséquent, nous pouvons également utiliser un matériau sans additif de ce type (pastel à l'huile sans pigment). Les matériaux remplacent la réalité, ce qui signifie que le vernis ou le fixateur remplace l'air, le métal remplace la lumière et les couleurs normales remplacent les objets naturels, comme dans l'art traditionnel connu. Par exemple, nous pouvons voir l'utilisation de couleurs métalliques dans l'iconographie et de nombreuses formes d'art classique, qui étaient destinées à remplacer la lumière entre autre. Ils sont également utilisés comme à l'origine dans la peinture de bijoux. Nous pouvons également voir sur certaines de ces œuvres l'utilisation de bosses et de trous sculptés dans le bois pour rendre la peinture plus en 3D. COUCHES Nous pouvons décrire la nature visuellemrnt comme un espace tridimensionnel, car chaque objet dans cet espace est mathématiquement connu pour avoir trois systèmes de coordonnées : x, y et z. Par conséquent, cet objet peut être vu sous plusieurs angles. L'espace bidimensionnel (2D), quant à lui, se compose d'un maximum de deux systèmes de coordonnées et représente une partie d'un objet 3D. Il est constitué d'une seule surface plane. Il y a une grande idée fausse aujourd'hui selon laquelle les objets 3D réels sont considérés comme 2D. Par exemple, une feuille de papier est en fait un objet 3D. Cette abstraction nous fait voir la réalité d'un point de vue limité, et elle est toujours considérée comme suffisamment vraie pour être vue à l'œil nu. Dans ce livre, nous ferons une distinction et montrerons que les objets 2D réels n'existent qu'en théorie. De très loin, tout semble bidimensionnel. Par conséquent, nous allons essayer d'amplifier la réalité pour montrer qu'il s'agit bien de 3D. N'importe quel objet peut être divisé en un certain nombre de couches 2D dans une certaine mesure. Nous verrons que créer une peinture holographique amplifie cet objet 2D pour lui donner un aspect 3D. J'appelle chaque couche "2.5D" car cela me sert bien de la traiter comme faisant partie de la 3D. Si nous regardons de plus près une vraie peinture à l'huile classique, nous pouvons réellement voir l'effet créé par une combinaison de couches. Parce qu'il s'agit de pétrole, nous pouvons réellement voir à travers, dans certains cas plus et dans d'autres moins. Cela est dû au nombre de couches, à leur épaisseur et à leur couleur. C'est comme voir les veines sous la peau. Le but réel d'une certaine couche est de donner des informations supplémentaires aux couches inférieures et de servir celles du dessus. Si vous essayez de mettre toutes les informations sur une couche, vous perdrez la plupart des effets dont nous avons besoin pour créer une peinture holographique. Bien que le potentiel soit là, il sera complètement perdu à l'œil nu. Une autre chose intéressante à remarquer dans les dessins et l'art traditionnel en général est que la création d'un objet à l'intérieur du tableau se faisait toujours en faisant des séries de traits. Au sens classique, ils fournissent des informations sur l'objet. Par exemple, des traits ronds ou diagonaux peuvent être utilisés pour créer un objet rond, comme si nous le sculptions avec nos mains. Au fur et à mesure que nous collectons de plus en plus d'ensembles de traits dans différentes directions, nous rendons la forme plus uniforme et plus lisse. Nous verrons comment cette partie technique nous aide à créer une forme réelle en créant une illusion de celle-ci. C'est pourquoi je crois que l'art traditionnel nous sert beaucoup ici. Nous verrons également comment chaque couche projette théoriquement une ombre sur la couche inférieure en fonction de la direction de la lumière. Cela nous sert beaucoup pour créer l'illusion holographique, nous permettant de la voir de différentes directions. Nous examinerons cela de plus près dans d'autres chapitres. VALEURS Les valeurs sont essentiellement des tons, et nous pouvons voir n'importe quelle image comme une collection de valeurs. Toute image colorée peut être vue aussi en noir et blanc, la même image mais seulement en valeurs de clair et d'obscur. Cette compréhension nous sert grandement dans la création d'une peinture holographique. Les valeurs du blanc au noir ne sont pas absolues, car les couleurs blanc et noir ne sont pas absolues en termes de matériaux que nous utilisons, en raison de l'effet de la lumière sur eux, tout comme dans la nature. Cependant, un trou noir astronomique est totalement noir et la lumière du soleil peut être absolument blanche. Ainsi, nous utiliserons des matériaux qui peuvent nous rapprocher des valeurs absolues, comme l'huile noire mate, la craie ou l'encre. Les matériaux argentés peuvent montrer une vraie lumière, qui peut être plus claire que la couleur blanche que nous utilisons. L'effet mat a une signature unique, mais il peut être mesuré sur le même type d'échelle que nous utilisons pour les valeurs. Cependant, il est plus difficile d'identifier l'effet et de le contrôler. Ce n'est que si nous regardons la peinture d'un point de vue incliné vers la lumière que nous pouvons la voir à grande échelle et comprendre le véritable sens de cette technique de superposition holographique. Les couleurs métalliques sont également extrêmement importantes. Elles peuvent changer de valeur dans différentes conditions. Parfois, Elles apparaîtront plus claires et parfois plus foncées. Ce changement crée du mouvement.. Nous avons besoin de ce mouvement à la fois du point de vue d'un observateur et aussi du point de vue des changements que nous nous attendons à trouver dans la lumière environnante. Le gris moyen est un ton très insaisissable. Le spectateur aura toujours du mal à l'identifier. En effet, le contraste se situe entre le noir et le blanc, et le gris moyen est comme le zéro entre les deux exprêmes. C'est important dans les cas où nous voulons faire disparaître graduellement ou disparaître complètement quelque chose. Les valeurs nous donnent la capacité de voir les objets et de juger de leur forme. Dans l'art traditionnel 2D, les valeurs créent l'illusion de la forme. Ce concept est également très important pour nous car il nous donne la possibilité d'aplatir des objets 3D. Aussi contradictoire que cela puisse paraître, cela nous aide en fait à compresser suffisamment les calques pour créer un hologramme, et non un véritable objet 3D. Ceci est similaire à de nombreuses techniques de stratification époxy, qui sont essentiellement des sculptures. C'est pourquoi la compression des couches dans cette nouvelle technique s'appuie sur d'anciennes techniques traditionnelles. Ces techniques nous donnent la connaissance de la compression de la vie réelle en un seul objet 2D : une peinture. PROGRESSION Pour moi, l'équilibre que nous essayons de trouver dans chaque tableau doit non seulement avoir de bonnes compositions équilibrées (couleur, géométrie, tonalité, etc.), mais aussi avoir un bon équilibre entre les effets de lumière que nous construisons dans les couches. Ces effets peuvent effectivement être vus comme apparaissant et progressant dans la peinture. D'abord, divisons tous les effets que nous voyons en deux grandes familles : primaires et secondaires. Les effets primaires sont la famille intense des effets présents dans la couleur, le ton, le reflet, le mat, etc. Nous ne pouvons pas utiliser d'effets primaires sur tout le tableau, sinon nous tuerons l'équilibre que nous recherchons. Par exemple, dans l'art traditionnel, nous n'utilisons jamais d'effets primaires en arrière-plan d'un objet important, afin de ne pas attirer l'attention. Les effets secondaires sont la famille d'effets que nous reconnaissons visuellement plus tard et sont là pour représenter l'espace et profondeur de champ. On peut toujours masquer les effets primaires et les rendre secondaires, sous une nouvelle couche de vernis ou autre matière. Si un effet primaire est recouvert par une autre couche, ses effets sont réduits et il devient secondaire. Nous avons deux façons de détecter cela. L'une est d'une vue frontale, où l'on peut voir la réduction de la luminosité et la teinte de la couche inférieure. On peut également remarquer la température plus basse de la couleur qui s'y trouvait auparavant. L'autre vue est d'un angle latéral à la peinture, n'importe quel angle latéral. Là, on peut voir la réduction des effets de cache et la saturation de l'image. A certaines étapes, lorsque le carton peut encore s'imbiber de vernis et d'eau, on peut identifier le mat qui provient du carton. Plus tard, lorsqu'il ne pourra plus s'imprégner, il faudra le recréer avec les matières en main, comme le vernis à l'huile ou mat par exemple. Nous gardons toujours l'effet primaire sur la dernière couche que nous faisons, avec la bonne intensité que nous recherchons. L'IMAGE J'ai traversé de nombreuses étapes dans ma carrière artistique, essayant de goûter à tous les styles et à toutes les techniques possibles. J'ai trouvé qu'un style correspond à certaines idées, mais un sujet ne peut pas être subjectif à un certain style seulement. J'ai toujours senti qu'il se passait quelque chose de plus grand. Tout au long de l'histoire, l'art a progressé avec les gens, et il a toujours raconté des histoires de religion et d'histoire. Il nous enseigne non seulement sur ces choses, mais plus important encore, sur le monde qui nous entoure. L'art traditionnel est pour moi une science, un sujet d'évolution lente, construit brique par brique. Mon livre parle de combiner ces briques et d'autres pour créer une toute nouvelle réalité de ce qu'est la peinture pour moi. La première étape consiste à comprendre le processus, et à travers ce processus, nous apprendrons ce qui se cache derrière et ce qui se cache sous ces briques, la fondation. Une image est une collection de pièces superposées géométriquement, Elles portent toutes deux des informations de lumière et de forme, que nos cerveaux reconstruisent pour décrire en détail. Les détails sont principalement ce sur quoi notre cerveau se concentre, et c'est pour cela, qu'il ne peut pas voir l'image en son entier du premier coup d'œil. Cela est dû à un processus sélectif par lequel nous passons pour saisir l'image en son entier. Ce processus peut prendre beaucoup de temps et s'appelle l'adaptation. De plus, les nouvelles images prennent généralement plus de temps à s'adapter. Fondamentalement, ce qui se passe, c'est que nos esprits brûlent l'image petit à petit pour la former, plus vous regardez longtemps, plus cette image durera longtemps dans la mémoire, par exemple, lorsque nous regardons une tache de lumière brillante assez longtemps, elle grave et fixe une autre image au-dessus d'une image actuelle comme lorsque nous regardons le soleil. Nos yeux sont l'opérateur qui transmet cette information, mais il a certaines limites, il ne peut pas se concentrer sur toute l'image d'un coup et là pour ça il bouge, plus on se rapproche du centre plus l'image sera claire. De plus, nous nous concentrons sur le mouvement, l'art traditionnel décrit le mouvement comme des lignes angulaires en s'opposant à des structures statiques orthogonales ou horizontales, et là on s'en souviendra mieux. Comme je l'ai dit, une image est une collection de pièces superposées, chaque image est un ensemble d'une énorme quantité de pièces, certaines d'entre elles portent les mêmes valeurs et la même couleur, et si nous réduisons une image à ces seules composanrtes, nous verrons une propagation de pièces sur la surface de l'image, cela se fait facilement sur l'ordinateur à l'aide de Photoshop ou autres programmes de retouches d'image. La plupart des couches que nous créerons dans la peinture holographique seront une collection réduite de pièces, et elles ne contiendront que des informations sur l'image finale. ************************************ 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) ***************************************** INTRODUCTION You can never find the meaning of life, but you can understand the meaning of what you do. Only by mastering your craft, you may understand its true meaning. I feel that I have accomplished a fair understanding of what art is and what it will be in the traditional sense. However, I also believe that there is much more to it than meets the eye of even the most knowledgeable art critic. In this book, I will take you to a different and barely touched dimension of art: holography. Some scientists claim that "the universe is a big hologram.” For a normal human with a physical perspective on reality, this can be hard to believe. However, holography in traditional art is possible to make, as you will see. I have found that the materials we use in paintings have peculiar and distinct properties. They react to light in many ways, and each has a code. This means that they can be used in a certain manner to make a certain effect. Understanding these materials and their effects is the key to unveiling the purpose they have to serve. Different light conditions can contrast different notions of the painting. Some holographic techniques are better than others in some aspects and worse in others. However, I have used a totally different approach to those techniques, ironically using old traditional ones. The name for this technique is “materialistic holographic painting " and it derives from the combination of materials rather than singular one like in holographic photography which uses certain crystalized film that captures laser light from different directions deflected from an object, which rearranges the crystal formation with in the film to form a reflected copy of this object. This method is wonderful, and it even gave its inventor Dennis Gabor the Nobel Prize. But still, it has limitations, in terms of depth of space, colour, angle of view, distance, and the light conditions to see it properly. Also, it is an expensive setup to make at home and it's created not by a human but a machine which makes it less intriguing to me as a traditional artist. Materialistic holography painting, on the other hand, is made by hand with fairly cheap materials, it has no colour limitation, and less lightening conditional problems, also in the sense of distance and view angle limitations it can prove to work better in some cases because there is no limit to the width of a layer like in the holographic film. What is also interesting is the connections this new technique has in regards to how materials behave in nature, how they are layered and how they react to light. Most people tend to believe something only when they see it, but do we really understand what we see there? The sight in a sense shows reality which our mind has retrieved from data that our senses collected, but it is powered by light and it may also illuminate illusions. I found that light can be bent and captured in a way and also controlled to show us what normally we cannot see. The means serve the purpose, and therefore we will be concentrating on the technique layer by layer showing the research behind it, I must note that there are lots of ways to do it properly and with good results but every painting has its own set of rules. I established these techniques and rules through long research and we will see other ways to do it but they have more to do with style, like, realistic verses expressionistic and others, they have a different set of effects but the rules are basically the same. There is a lot more to it than I can point right now because there is lots more research to do, and I hope we together can continue this mission and bring the holographic painting closer to tradition. Last but not least, to make such a painting you need passions, it may take a lot of time, and as I will show you it actually can be endless… Light Holography is the science of making a hologram, the meaning of this word comes from Greek which mean Holos- whole, and Graphe means drawing, but this description does not fit to what it is today. To begin, we will start by trying to understand basically the role of optics in this technique. Light is an energy which has speed and direction, it can be deflected from an object or absorbed in it, those two negatives, give us the ability to control materials to make a huge spectrum of reaction to light. Light has also a direction and therefore when it is deflected from an object it may change its direction depending on the angle of the impact. You can notice that when we look at a painting or a print from different angles we will see less of the image than what is seen from the front side, and that’s because the surface deflects light virtually blinding us. But we can notice something in that situation which we can’t notice otherwise like matt layers, just like dirt on the floor, or fingerprints on the table, this shows us other opposing factors which we will discuss and use later. Light has the ability to go through layers and change its output, from cold to hot and from one colour to the other. As we established, light can be absorbed and deflected, we will notice that these characteristics are controlled by the type of matter we put on a certain layer. That creates a phenomena in which we can see illumination of light above the surface of the painting under some conditions (in my theory this happens by the slowing of light “particle”). What is most important to understand is that making a painting is basically playing with light in every way possible by the medium that we work in. MATERIALS The materials that painters have used and still use are, in some way, too traditional. What I mean is that in a painting, we will find a different set of materials that have a certain effect, like the medium presents, but only to give a certain feel to the image in the painting. That's only one part of the story I will tell. Of course, we need the traditional understanding of geometrical, color, and tonal perspectives, as well as different compositions and other basics. However, this book relies on the painter who reads it to know those traditional rules and rely on them as well. This specific technique is not specific to using only one type of material. In fact, it will use many of them simultaneously on one painting, because each material has its own characteristics and they will be helpful somewhere along the process. In fact, we will use mostly varnish and fixative, but their role is much different from the role of the other materials, like color spray, oil colors of different sorts, ink-based and alcohol-based markers and pens, acrylic, watercolors, tempera, and we will discuss more potential materials like chalk, glow-in-the-dark colors, and nail polish. We will also see and try to understand the periodic table and see how different materials react to light. It is important to understand that the pigment of a colored material has only traditional meaning in this holographic technique. Traditionally, paintings are done on many different layers depending on the material used. For example, oil paintings are mostly done on a canvas covered with gesso or acrylic at first so that it will not be exposed to moisture underneath. Watercolors or ink are done on a certain paper to soak up the water, and alcohol-based colors are done on plastic or polymer-based paper. However, in our technique, we use a thick cardboard board! This is because we need the sheet to absorb up to a certain point. This creates a contrast between the absorbed material and the one laid on top of the surface, which also adds to the 3D effect that is noticeable from the beginning. Materials are categorized by their solution content, but pigmentation is a more general additive. Therefore, we may also use a material with no additive of that sort (oil pastel with no pigment). Materials substitute reality, meaning that varnish or fixative replaces air, metallic replaces light, and normal colors replace natural objects, as in known traditional art. For example, we can see the use of metallic colors in iconography and many forms of classic art, which were meant to replace light as well as other needs. They are also used in their original sense, such as in painting jewelry. We can also see on some of those works the use of wood carved bumps and holes to make the painting seem more 3D. LAYERS We can describe visual nature as a three-dimensional space, as each object in that space is known mathematically to have three coordinate systems: x, y, and z. Therefore, this object can be viewed from many angles. Two-dimensional (2D) space, on the other hand, consists of a maximum of two coordinate systems and represents part of a 3D object. It is made of a single flat surface. There is a big misconception today in which actual 3D objects are seen as 2D. For example, a sheet of paper is actually a 3D object. This abstraction makes us see reality in a narrow point of view, and it is still considered to be true enough for the naked eye to see. In this book, we will make a distinction and show that actual 2D objects only exist in theory. From a great distance, everything seems two-dimensional. Therefore, we will try to amplify reality to show that it is actually 3D. Any object can be split into a number of 2D layers to a certain extent. We will see that creating a holographic painting is amplifying this 2D object to make it look 3D. I call each layer "2.5D" because it serves me well to treat it as part of 3D. If we take a closer look at a real classic oil painting, we can actually see the effect created by a combination of layers. Because it is oil, we can actually see through it, in some cases more and in some less. This is due to the number of layers, their thickness, and color. It is just like seeing the veins under the skin. The actual purpose of a certain layer is to give additional information to the layers beneath and to serve the ones above. If you try to establish all the information on one layer, you will lose most of the effects we need to create on a holographic painting. Although the potential is there, it will be lost completely to the naked eye. Another interesting thing to notice in drawings and traditional art in general is that creating an object inside the painting was always done by making sets of strokes. In the classic sense, they provide information about the object. For example, round or diagonal strokes can be used to create a round object, as if we were sculpting it with our hands. As we collect more and more sets of strokes from different directions, we make the shape seem more uniform and smooth. We will see how this technical part helps us to create a real form by creating an illusion of it. That is why I believe that traditional art serves us greatly here. We will also see how each layer theoretically casts a shadow on the bottom layer depending on the light direction. This interestingly serves us a great deal with creating the holographic illusion, enabling us to see it from different directions. We will examine this closer in other chapters. VALUES Values are basically tones, and we can see any picture as a collection of values. Any colored image can be seen also in black and white, the same picture but only in values of light and dark. This understanding serves us greatly in the creation of a holographic painting. Values from white to black are not absolute, because the white and black colors are not absolute in terms of the materials we use, due to the effect of light on them, just like in nature. However, an astronomical black hole is totally black, and sunlight can be absolutely white. So, we will use materials that may get us closer to absolute values, such as matte black oil, chalk, or ink. Silver materials can show real light, which can be lighter than the white color we use. The matte effect has a unique signature, but it can be measured on the same type of scale we use for values. However, it is harder to identify the effect and control it. Only if we look at the painting from an angled viewpoint to the light can we see it in full scale and understand the true meaning of this holographic layering technique. Metallic colors are also hugely important. They can change values under different conditions. Sometimes they will appear lighter, and sometimes darker. This change creates movement. We need that movement both from the perspective of an observer and from the changes in the surrounding light. Mid-gray is a very elusive tone. The viewer will always find it hard to pinpoint it. That is because the contrast lies between black and white, and mid-gray is like the zero between them. It is important in cases where we want to make something fade out or disappear. Values give us the ability to see objects and judge their form. In 2D traditional art, values create the illusion of form. This concept is also very important to us because it gives us the ability to flatten 3D objects. As contradictory as it may sound, it actually helps us to compress the layers enough to make a hologram, not an actual 3D object. This is similar to many epoxy layering techniques, which are essentially sculptures. That's why the compression of layers in this new technique relies on old traditional techniques. These techniques give us the knowledge of compressing real life into one 2D object: a painting. PROGRESSION To me, the balance we try to find in each painting must not only have good balanced compositions (color, geometry, tone, etc.), but also have a good balance between the effects of light that we build up in the layers. These effects can actually be seen appearing and progressing on the painting. First, let's divide all the effects we see into two main families: primary and secondary. primary effects are the intense family of effects that are present in color, tone, reflective, matte, etc. We cannot use primary effects all over the painting, otherwise we will kill the balance we are looking for. For example, in traditional art, we never use primary effects in the background of an important object, so as not to draw attention. Secondary effects are the family of effects that we recognize visually later and are there to represent space and depth of field. We can always hide primary effects and make them secondary, under a new layer of varnish or other material. If a primary effect is covered by another layer, its effects are reduced and it becomes secondary. We have two ways of detecting this. One is from a frontal view, where we can see the reduction of brightness and the tinting of the bottom layer. We can also notice the lower temperature of the color than before. The other view is from a side angle to the painting, any side angle. There, we can see the reduction of matte effects and the saturation of the image. In some stages, when the cardboard can still soak up varnish and water, we can identify the matte that originates from the cardboard. Later, when it can no longer soak up, we need to recreate it with the materials in hand, such as oil-based or matte varnish, for example. We keep the primary effect always on the last layer we make, with the right intensity we are looking for. THE IMAGE I went through many stages in my art career, trying to taste all styles and all techniques I could. I found that a style fits to some ideas, but a subject cannot be subjective to a certain style alone. I always felt there was something bigger going on. Throughout history, art has progressed with people, and it has always told stories of religion and history. It teaches us not only about those things, but more importantly, about the world surrounding us. Traditional art to me is a science, a subject of slow evolution, constructed brick by brick. My book is about combining those bricks and others to create a whole new reality of what painting is to me. The first step is understanding the process, and through that process, we will learn what is behind it and what lies under those bricks, the foundation. An image is a collection of geometrical patches, they both carry information of light and form, which our mind rebuilds to describe in details. Details are mostly what our mind concentrates on, and therefore it cannot see the whole picture at first glance. This is due to a selective process we go threw to understand the hole image. This process can take a long time and it is called adaptation. New images usually take longer to adapt, as well. Basically, what happens is that our mind burn the image bit by bit to form it, in such a way that the longer you look the longer this image will last in memory, as an example, when we look at a bright patch of light for long enough it will burn and attach the patch on top of a current image like when we look at the sun. Our eyes are the operator that passes that info, but it has certain limits, it cannot focus on the whole image at once and therefore it moves, the closer to the centre the more clear the image will be. In addition, we concentrate on movement, traditional art describes movement as angular lines in opposition to static structures that are orthogonal or horizontal, and therefore we will remember them better. As I said, an image is a collection of patches, each image is a collection of huge amount of patches, some of them carry the same values and colour, and if we reduce an image to those alone we will see a spread of patches on the picture surface, it is easily done on the computer using Photoshop or other photo editing programs. Most of the layers we will create in the holographic painting will be a reduced collection of patches, and they will carry only bits of information about the final image.

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English Below) L'état d'esprit des mercenaires - Comment la plupart d'entre nous sont devenus des mercenaires (Avertissement : en tant que personnalité publique, moi, M. Tomasio Rubinshtein, choisis de rester neutre concernant la guerre russo-ukrainienne) Un mercenaire, selon cette source, est "celui qui ne sert qu'à ganer un salaire". Est-ce que... euh... est-ce que cela vous semble familier à l'un d'entre vous qui a travaillé auparavant et/ou qui travaille ? Cela devrait être le cas, car un mercenaire n'est pas nécessairement un mercenaire, un chasseur de primes, etc. Les mercenaires existent plus que vous ne le pensez. Tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur des industries militaires anciennes et nouvelles. Vous savez, j'avais prévu d'écrire cet article il y a longtemps. Mais grâce à un événement récent, concernant le Russian Wager Group, j'ai été obligé de l'écrire maintenant ! Pour ceux qui ne sont pas au courant, le chef de guerre derrière le groupe Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a récemment déclaré la guerre à la Russie, à la suite d'une roquette qui aurait tué un nombre important de ses troupes. Laissez-moi philosopher en vous posant une question : si votre employeur, par exemple, mettait le feu à votre maison par accident, seriez-vous prêt à recommencer à travailler pour lui ? N'hésitez pas à me répondre, car c'est exactement la base de ce que j'aimerais appeler le « Mercenary Mindset ». Qu'est ce que c'est? C'est quand vous êtes fidèle à quelque chose ou à quelqu'un uniquement à cause d'un gain monétaire. Si une entreprise ou un employeur ne vous paie pas, la plupart d'entre vous ne leur seront pas nécessairement fidèles, n'est-ce pas ? Et voir votre maison incendiée à cause d'eux est un exemple hypothétique de la façon dont vous ne vous souciez d'eux qu'à cause de l'argent. À cet égard, une entreprise mercenaire est comme n'importe quelle autre entreprise dans notre monde. C'est une entreprise. C'est une opération qui embauche des employés en échange de leurs services. C'est juste du capitalisme. Une organisation dont la base est construite sur les transactions commerciales. Tuer des gens pour gagner sa vie est, eh bien, moralement discutable. Cependant, c'est toujours le nombre de personnes qui gagnent leur vie. Comme beaucoup d'entre vous. C'est juste des affaires, aussi sombre que cela puisse paraître. Ainsi, lorsque votre employeur tue un groupe de vos propres employés, vous pourriez vous sentir obligé de vous venger, n'est-ce pas ? Pas en prenant les armes, forcément. Peut-être en appelant les flics et en les exposant sur divers médias. Cela ne peut certainement pas passer sous le tapis, et vous avez votre propre réputation à racheter face à une telle disgrâce. Donc, je dirais que la vengeance est parfois justifiée. Beaucoup d'entre nous sont techniquement des mercenaires parce que beaucoup d'entre nous n'aiment pas nécessairement leur travail. En fait, nous sommes nombreux à détester notre travail, même si nous y consacrons une grande partie de notre vie. Pensez-vous que les employés du groupe Wagner aiment risquer leur vie chaque jour ? Qu'en est-il de voir un missile de leur principal employeur, tuer un tas d'entre eux ? Sûrement qu'ils n'ont pas aimé, tout comme vous pourriez aussi bien mépriser votre travail actuel. Vous pouvez prétendre que ces mercenaires sont des fous dérangés qui tuent pour le plaisir ! Et si je vous disais qu'ils sont bien mieux payés que les soldats réguliers ? Peut-être que certains d'entre eux sont psychotiques, je ne sais pas. Je sais seulement, d'après ce que j'ai compris, qu'être un mercenaire paie plus. Et en tant que personnes avec l'état d'esprit mercenaire, nous voulons un salaire plus élevé, n'est-ce pas ? Voyez-vous la connexion, maintenant? Parce que quand tu vas travailler dans un fast-food, tu ne le fais pas forcément parce que tu veux nourrir les gens. Ce n'est pas comme si leur survie dépendait habituellement de toi. Souvent, ils ont beaucoup d'autres choix en matière de nourriture. Ce n'est pas que vous n'y contribuez pas en faisant frire des frites dans de l'huile chaude. Vous nourrissez les gens, grâce à votre service. Mais vous ne le faites pas dans le cadre d'une mission, d'un appel supérieur. C'est pourquoi je suis heureux de ne pas avoir besoin de l'état d'esprit mercenaire pour ma propre vie, quand je fais quelque chose qui me rapporte non seulement de l'argent, mais de la fierté. Un sentiment d'importance qui va au-delà du paiement. Les gens peuvent avoir cet état d'esprit parce que, vous savez, ils n'ont généralement pas beaucoup de choix en termes d'emploi. Ce qui est, je dois l'avouer, bien dommage. Et en tant que tel, je refuse d'appeler qui que ce soit, en utilsant des termes dégradants, tels que: esclaves salariés. De tels injures sont en dessous de moi ! Pour beaucoup de gens, travailler comme des mercenaires, c'est-à-dire uniquement pour le salaire, c'est la vraie vie. Leur désir en la matière n'a jamais d'importance, car si c'était le cas, leur performance pourrait être compromise au point d'être licenciés. C'est triste, mais c'est la réalité. Dans un monde plus idéal, les gens auraient plus de choix concernant leur travail. Dans une meilleure réalité, ils auraient leur propre revenu qui ne dépendrait pas autant des caprices d'un employeur. De nombreux employeurs sont impitoyables dans le sens où ils ne se soucient pas vraiment de vous, tant que vous faites le travail. Ils n'ont besoin de vous que pour le travail, tout comme quelqu'un qui engage un mercenaire. Je travaille comme philosophe. Ce n'est pas quelque chose que beaucoup de gens peuvent faire, surtout pas en dehors d'un établissement universitaire. J'espère sincèrement que davantage de personnes, comme moi, pourront poursuivre leurs rêves et les accomplir, comme il se doit. Nous ne devrions pas vivre exclusivement pour l'argent. Nous devrions vivre pour nous-mêmes nous aussi, et pour nos espoirs et nos rêves. ******************************* (English, original) (Audio Verison) (Disclaimer: As a public figure, I, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein, choose to remain neutral regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War) A mercenary, according to this source, is "one that serves merely for wages". Does it.. erm.. does it sound familiar to any of you who worked before and/or are working? It should, because a mercenary isn't necessarily one that is only a hired gun, a bounty hunter and so on. Merceneries exist more than you might think. Both within and outside the military industries of old and new. You know, I've been planning to write this article a long time ago. But thanks to a recent event, regarding the Russian Wager Group, I was compelled to write it now! For those not in the know, the warlord behind Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has recently declared war on Russia, following a rocket that's assumed to have killed a significant number of his troops. Let me philosophize by asking you a question: If your employer, for instance, set your house on fire by accident, would you be willing to resume working for them? Feel free to answer me, because that is exactly the basis of what I would like to call the "Mercenary Mindset." What's that? It's when you are loyal to something or someone purely because of monetary gain. Should a company or an employer fail to pay you, most of you won't necessarily be loyal to them, correct? And having your house set on fire because of them is a hypothetical example of how you may only care about them because of the cash. In that regard, a mercenary company is like any other company in our world. It's a business. It is an operation that hires employees in exchange for their services. It's just capitalism. An organization whose basis is built on business transactions. Killing people for a living is, well, morally questionable. However, it is still how many people make their living. Just like many of you do. It's just business, as dark as it may sound. So when your employer kills a bunch of your own employees, you might feel compelled to take revenge, correct? Not by taking arms, necessarily. Maybe by calling the cops, and exposing them on various media outlets. Surely this can't go under the rug, and you have your own reputation to redeem over such disgrace. So, I'd say that vengeance is, sometimes, justified. Many of us are technically merceneries because many of us do not necessarily like our jobs. In fact, many of us may hate our jobs, despite dedicating much of our lives to them. Do you think Wagner Group employees like risking their lives everyday? What about having a rocket of their main employer, killing a bunch of them? Surely they don't, just like you might as well despise your current job. You can claim that these hired guns are deranged lunatics who kill for fun! But what if I told you that they recieve far better pay than regular soldiers? Maybe some of them are psychotic, I don't know. I only know, based on what I gathered, that being a hired gun pays more. And as people with the Mercenary Mindset, we do want higher pay, correct? Do you see the connection, now? Because when you go to work at a fast food service, you don't necessarily do it because you want to feed people. It's not like their survival depends on you, usually. Often, they have many other choices, when it comes to food. It isn't that you fail to contribute, by frying french fries in deep oil. You do feed people, thanks to your service. But you don't do it out of some mission, some higher calling. Hence why I am glad to not require the mercenary mindset for my own living, when I'm doing something that actually brings me not only money, but pride. A sense of significance that goes beyond payment. People may have this mindset because, you know, they don't usually have much choice in terms of employment. Which is, I must confess, very unfortunate. And as such, I refuse calling anyone, any deragetory terms, such as wage slaves. Such name-calling is beneath me! For many people, working like mercenaries—that is, only for the pay—is just how real life is. Their desire in the matter never matters, because if it did, their performance might be compromised to the point of being fired. This is sad, but it is reality. In a more ideal world, people would have more choice regarding their work. In a better reality, they would have their own income that is not as dependent on the whims of an employer. Many employers are ruthless in the sense that they don't really care about you, as long as you're getting work done. They only need you for the job, just like someone who hires a mercenary. I work as a philosopher. It's not something many people can do, especially not outside of an academic institution. It is my sincere hope that more people, like me, will be able to chase their dreams and conquer them, as they should. We should not live for the coin exclusively. We should live for ourselves, as well, and for our hopes and dreams. Please enjoy this extra source.

(Audio Verison) (The Undead Metaphor's Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-new-type-of-undead-and-my-background-story) (Background music) ************************************** "To be a philosopher is to have already died and become immortal. Now you are the walking dead. A zombie. Everyone thinks you are alive, though a little strange. But the truth is that long ago you died and became immortal." -- J.S., 2017 These were the words of a certain reader I once discussed with, many years ago. To this day I ponder upon that comment. Over and over again. But it was then when I gave myself the title: "The Undead Philosopher". A being that isn't below or above human. A being that is apart from humanity, even if within the company of another. Because when the world enjoys, I remain anhedonic. I remain so, because I no longer see the point in much emoting. Because, in comparison, philosophizing is greater in my eyes. Greater, to the point that I lost some of my humanity. And became a shell of the man I once was. Any other interest has been minimized in comparison. And it does not necessarily give me pleasure. It gives me reason. And reason I share with you. I merely masked much emotion throughout these years. In practice, philosophy made me dead inside. Because "For anyone who has never experienced it, feeling dead inside can be hard to imagine. And, those who have struggled with it might not always have the right words to explain the confusion, sadness, and numbness that comes with this feeling." Time for some analysis. An analysis that can be deemed as my ritual to becoming the Undead Philosopher, once more..... Use this piece to understand how to reality is seen, from the lens of a seasoned philosopher. And earlier work of mine on the subject, will be added below. So enjoy. ****************************************** Obviously, philosophers are mortal beings. The words of that anonymous shaman from Nepal are metaphorical. Beyond being recorded in history like anyone else, there is no difference between the words of a philosopher and the words of someone else whose records last for hundreds of years. And even then, this is not immortality. Far from it, literally. Constantly philosophizing can make you see the world differently. The feeling of alienation can be compared to that of a hypothetical immortal through the eras of a civilization. Regardless of the generations that have grown and passed to the immortal, their insights are already as clear to them as the bright sky. I often find myself finding and accepting insights very quickly. I may use terms like "of course" and "obviously," and yet, none will necessarily get it. This isn't bragging. It's an example of alienation. An alienation caused by being away from the human element. By thinking in a more robotic and automatic way. To those who tell me that I am human, I need no reminder. I am merely away from the human essence in the name of my craft. What does that mean? It means that philosophy may often fail to touch the human element, and thus, the philosopher may remain within their own solitude. Within the walls of their own intellect. Thus, there is quite the sacrifice of humanity when philosophizing regularly. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, remains one's choice. (By "humanity", I refer to the common human experience. One that isn't overshadowed by one's own philosophical alienation. I also refer the human race, and to the very components that make us "human", at least stereotypically, and are imperative for said common experience). Some may claim that there are points within us that connect to an infinite dimension of light. A dimension that can never be accessible through mere rationality and senses. Instead, it is gained through spiritual practices such as meditation. That claim therefore offers the notion that philosophizing is pointless when that is done on rationality alone. When it lacks emotion, intuition, and so on. Because it lacks the humanity, granted by a hypothetical divinity, in whose image we are made. A rational person might regard such a counterpoint as pure nonsense that remains baseless and illogical. That is also my inclination, but as a rational man, I strive to understand such notions, not discard them. What if they may be true? What if they may contain some truth, at the very least? So don't be surprised if I return to it in the future. Moving on. There is some death in philosophizing, as mentioned before. A death that isn't as literal as a natural death or a killing. It can be some of the parts that are regarded as "human." Mainly those associated with the human experience. We both elevate it and deem it as granted. The joy of ice cream, the beauty of a flower. Anything associated with hedonism, may be felt less to a philosopher. The reason for that is the reduction of said experience by the philosopher, through their rationalizing of existence. As said experience, for them, might as well be nothing more than an indication of reality. A source of information that might not necessarily be as reliable. Because when I see and smell a flower, instead of feeling its wonder, I only know how a flower looks, and how it smells. Nothing more, nothing less. I may carry on, even within a field of greenery and rivers. For I minimize their worth, as I already know how they look. Thus, they are mostly useless to me. Perhaps to other rational beings as well. Philosophizing can make one detached from "earthlier" reality, when it makes you ponder on loftier ideas instead. And of course, it makes you detached from other people's shared perception of reality, as well. And again, it's not about ascention or descention. It's about becoming distant from others, even if you're in their company. Thus, compared to them, you might be seen as strange. On the other hand, some activities in our lives are anti-philosophical. This is because they waste time that could have been put to this very craft. For example, manual marketing is a waste of time when compared to marketing that is done by paid advertisement, where your money literally works for you. Childish and less serious pursuits also make philosophers appear loftier in comparison. For some things, and people, become beneath you, even if they can bring joy to your heart. And many other activities associated with common humanity. The "immortal philosopher" is only immortal in the sense that, theoretically, there is no going back. You may retire from philosophy, but the tendency to philosophize may remain in your mind. It is a tendency that can minimize the beauty of life, in the name of truths that may as well be unattainable. Letting go of a mental habit is not so easy. Perhaps possible, but never ensured. If that tendency is never decimated while alive, the former philosopher may still be an "immortal," possessing the traits I presented in this article. In the literal transition between mortal and immortal, there is usually a point of no return. And that may distinguish, metaphorically, the philosopher from the rest of humanity. Understand that being a public figure and a philosopher means giving up on some of life's opportunities, so that you will not put your work to public shame. Osho didn't seem to care much at the time. And thus he forever tainted his name and work as a philosopher. I could have had specific girlfriends in my lonely life, if it weren't for my work. I cannot afford to make unwise decisions. I just can't. Therefore, giving up some of life's beauty is wise by default for wise philosophers. You are not doing this for yourself. You need to remember that being a philosopher, especially a public one, is a great sacrifice of some of your life's portions. Not necessarily in duration, no, but in its features. The sacrifices any philosopher will make, either in their lives or within their human experience, is done for the sake of studying the truth that exists beyond our assumptions and feelings. Well done to those who managed to become philosophers, while preserving their ordinary humanity. However, those who became philosophers and grew distant from it, can be regarded as metaphorically undead. As men and women who died inside, and mainly, if not entirely, exist for philosophy, for the love of wisdom. Hence the great difficulty in making philosophy a relevant feature within ordinary/common humanity. It's often hard to interest ordinary folk when you are dead inside. So if you are indeed interested in this secondary endavour as a philosopher yourself, consider studying rhetoric, and even pretend that you feel something, if it means you will get your point across. Hence one of the basic functionalities of our ability to pretend. It stems from the idea that we are not that important, all the time. And that sacrifices must be made, such as your own momentary honesty. And as long as I'm still capable of philosophizing well, with good quality, my original humanity does not matter. I am simply a distant being, and I am fine with it. For I am Tomasio Rubinshtein, the Undead Philosopher. And I live to serve you with my craftsmanship. A philosopher is a craftsman, and so am I, too.

(Background music) Ms Grace Gabbi's Summary This is an exploration of the internal struggles, darkness, and the potential for redemption within the human experience. It weaves a narrative that delves into the complexities of emotions, morality, and the battle between light and darkness within oneself. The use of the Jewish proverb at the beginning sets the tone for the piece, emphasizing the transformative power of even a small light in dispelling darkness. The introspective journey Mr. Tomasio takes, staring into ones own eyes, invites readers to reflect on their own internal struggles and self-imposed limitations. The metaphorical persona of the "Undead Philosopher" and the suppression of emotions in the pursuit of greater philosophization of reality create a compelling narrative. The acknowledgment of a flicker of light within the self-inflicted darkness introduces the theme of hope and resilience. The exploration of societal norms and their potential dangers, especially when they compromise morality, adds a critical perspective. It calls to look beyond societal expectations, and question the status quo. The piece skillfully delves into the internal battle between light and darkness, emphasizing the importance of embracing vulnerability and raw emotion. The recognition of the functionality of darkness and the acknowledgement that it can be harnessed for creativity and self-defense adds depth to the narrative. The personal revelation of harboring a monstrous shadow and the conscious choice to avoid letting it consume the remaining light speaks to the ongoing struggle within oneself. The call for empathy and understanding, particularly for the mentally ill and traumatized, adds a compassionate dimension to the exploration of darkness. The narrative reaches a powerful conclusion with the redemption theme, drawing inspiration from the echoes of a grandfather's forgotten light. The refusal to succumb to indifference and the commitment to building an empire on the embers of resilience, provides a hopeful and empowering resolution. Overall, "The Inner Child of Light" is a thought-provoking piece that skillfully navigates the complexities of human emotions, morality, and the constant interplay between light and darkness. It encourages readers to reflect on their own journeys and consider the paths of resilience, empathy, and love for humanity. A Journey Through Darkness and Light According to a Jewish proverb, a little light can dispel much darkness. Hold onto this wisdom if you ever find yourself engulfed by shadows, for even the tiniest spark can ignite a bonfire of hope. This proverb speaks to a fundamental truth: values like love, compassion, and empathy, have the power to banish evil, corruption, and vengeance. Now, stare deeply into your own eyes. Look beyond the self-imposed barriers, the conscious and unconscious limitations you've built, for hasty judgement is a great liability in our understanding. Eyes, they say, are windows to the soul, revealing the essence beneath the flesh. As I stare into my reflection, a chilling clarity washes over me. I am but a wisp of who I once were, tainted by the darkness that flows through humanity like waterfall. I made a vow, a pact with the void, to lose much of my emotions, to never again taste the bitter sting of rejection in such an unnecessary degree of intensity. A woman, my heart's declined flame, deemed emotion a folly, and punished my expression of it with icy silence. The fear of genuine emotion, beneath the societal philosophy of acting... how pathetic. To not let my emotions stand in my way, for over-attachment to them is weakness, I embraced the abyss, as I fell into it, stained with inks of disillusionment from the world, and from those I considered close to me. I adopted the title of the Undead Philosopher, a being who understands how the livelihood of emotion stand in the way of moral conduct, which can only be attained by becoming more logical beings. I buried my emotions deep, thus flattening their affect, and depersonalizing them from me. All in the name of greater philosophization of reality. But within the echoing chambers of my self-inflicted darkness, a flicker of light persists ruthlessly, proving that ruthlessness is a virtue. A tiny ember of defiance against the odds of my verdict of being, as I refuse to be consumed by the shadows. Refuse to be rejected as insane, for I can do so much good to this world. It is this ember, that holds the key to liberation from the confines of the self and its irrational traits. For the path out of darkness is not paved with the stones of emotional amputation, but with the courage to embrace vulnerability -- and prepare to suffer in the name of things such as love. It is in the raw, unfiltered expression of our hearts that we find our true strength, our resilience against the world's harsh attitude, which disregards our individual humanity. In such a world, emotional distancing is something many of us need to do in order to not only survive, but also to be more moral beings, untempered by the many emotional biases which govern our mentality with or without our awareness. Let them temper with you, and your choices will be sub-optimal. That includes choices on the moral level, of course. Remember, even the smallest spark can ignite a bonfire of hope. Even should we be cloaked in the shadows, we hold the power to become a beacon, a testament to the enduring resilience of the human spirit. And should we become beacons of sorts, we can dispel the darkness embedded within human spirits -- together. Shackled of Humanity by Norms Within the depths of my own eyes, I see a child of light, shackled by the innumerable walls I've built against the world's darkness. And yet, I believe in humanity, perhaps more than I ought to. This faith to blind me to the shadows creeping across human reality, breeded ignorantly by the naturality of trauma. Darkness, like a plague, can easily expand, its clutches reaching for those willing to trade their light for survival or ambition. This is why, we should be careful not to be like everyone else, when everyone else have no desire dispel the darkness in their external and internal realities... Norms can be dangerous, as well as they are pretentious. Some have succumbed to its lure, their inner flame extinguished forever, choosing normalcy over morality in a world morally depraved and sociopathic. All so they could fit in. All so they could be validated, as some of them may prefer bad company over practicing the art of being alone. We exist in a reality where emotions, thoughts, and opinions hold little weight unless deemed worthy by those who control the currency of care – a privilege, like relevance and love, bestowed with hesitation. Mockery and shaming become commonplace tools, wielded for personal gain. Even when care is offered, it is earned, a price tag attached to the basic human need for connection. It is rarely because of people's humanity. The irony, however, lies in the very assumption of justice, as something that exists properly. If true justice reigned, the undeserving wouldn't suffer the agony they endure. Videos like the one I present, where dehumanization is normalized for entertainment, are not mere examples; they are stark reminders of how depravity thrives on the cloak of normalcy... ...And exactly why normalcy is a poor philoophy, if you're going to justify it with "The Way Things Are" fallacy. To dispel this encroaching darkness, we must challenge the lines drawn between "normal" and "moral." While some claim morality to be subjective or illusory, its purpose remains clear: to illuminate the path from darkness to light, from depravity to virtue, from remorselessness to compassion towards other human beings. Abandoning this function, as many have, risks losing the very essence of our humanity, turning oursleves to crimes such as r***. The mentally ill, the traumatized, the abused – these are not the problems. The problems are those who trigger their decline in the first place. Those who go unbothered. Those who don't understand the holistic approach of human mind. They deserve our attention, our support. Not our mercy and sympathy, but our empathy. How can we call ourselves family members, friends and so on, when we disregard our family members and friends? I choose the path of morality, even if it means embracing eccentricity over normalcy. Norms are merely agreements, not binding chains, and I reserve the right to disagree when they conflict with my conscience. For the norms care not for my suffering. Morality does, as it does for you, as well. How Darkness is Redeemed by Its Functionality I harbor a monstrous shadow within me... a product of a burning desire to exact vengeance against those who promised me their trust, but failed to deliver. I have no desire to unleash this beast, to let it consume the light that remains. I instead choose to not be like them. The war between light and darkness is not a metaphor. It's a constant battle, waged not just externally but within ourselves. Ignoring our and others' internal realities can be most dangerous for the overall, external reality. When someone is in distress, the moral thing to do, for yourselves as well, is to show the necessary empathy, so they won't become heartless monsters. Darkness must be minimized, not for some utopian ideal, but to prevent the horrors that human darkness is capable of birthing. Through artistic expressions, like video games and stories with deep plots, we can utilize the less happier parts of us, and craft most wonderful things that can bring joy to others. It is far better than inflicting malicious suffering on others. From the twisted pleasure in another's suffering to the atrocities of war, the reign of darkness leaves behind a trail of human tragedy. Many of these tragedies are overlooked by the world. We must learn from them, so we won't repeat the same mistakes, only to deeply regret afterwards. Within the depths of my own eyes, I see the child of light, the original Tom I buried beneath layers of reason, logic, and a self-imposed name change. This is who I was, who I may never fully reclaim, for darkness, though unwelcome, has its uses, unfortunately... Purity is no longer my aim. I am a man who has chosen to venture beyond the safety of isolation. For I no longer care if I suffer or not. I care only to serve the traits of a good philosopher. Thus, darkness became not a shield. Darkness became an acceptable part of reality. An inevitable, part of reality, which I refuse to escape from, under the liability of peace and serenity. Ruthlessness, while born of darkness, can be a necessary tool in a world where not all deserve forgiveness. Would you forgive a tyrant who terrorized your people? Most likely not, for darkness, in its own twisted way, can be a counter-attack, a means to protect oneself from the toxicity of others by mirroring it back. Doing so could prevent abuse by refusing to enable the actions of the abusers. The Echoes of a Shadowed Heart -- My Redemption When hurt, we hurt in return. It's not always conscious, but a ripple effect in the natural circle of the abyss within us, most prominent in true narcissists. This abyss, I see it reflected in the emptiness that followed my grandfather's passing. Eccentric, deemed irrelevant, his little light flickered unseen, mourned by very little as a result. But while the world may scoff at the unconventional, I refuse to follow suit. I won't let the indifference that met his end, be my own. I will build my empire, not on the ashes of another's forgotten flame, but on the embers of my own resilience. I have become Mr. Tomasio. This article empire wouldn't be defined by mere retaliation. No. There are others who are important as well. Being altruistic is how people gain their benefit. And I live to contribute. In the echoes of my grandfather's forgotten light, I find my own spark, ready to blaze a trail that is far removed from the ordinary, far brighter than the indifference that followed with his end. The choice between light and darkness may not always be clear-cut. However, in the name of my own mental survival, both threads find their place, weaving a story of strength, defiance, and ultimately, hope. I will be his redemption, for I care enough about those other than myself. Even if they are dead, even if they minimized me. I refuse being weak. I choose to love humanity. Hail Philosocom.

The "Nirvana Fallacy", as the name suggests, can easily be used as an excuse to not improve our current performance, and/or justify said performance. For example, if you hire someone and they may do a bad job, they might justify their poor performance by saying that no one is perfect. Another title for this concept is the "Perfect Solution" fallacy, as it implies that perfection is impossible, thus we shouldn't even strive to be better. It is beyond me why many people wonder if others may think that they are not human. Saying that "I'm only human" is no excuse for not striving to be better at whatever you're doing, when improvement is indeed possible. We should not settle for a flaw that can be reduced, and obviously, perfection is often unrealistic. Just because perfection might not be reached at all, does not mean that our flaws cannot be worked on and be minimized in the name of better functioning. For example, we can improve our job performance by working harder and learning new skills. We can improve our grades at school by studying more and asking for help when we need it. On the contrary, difficulty does not even imply impossibility. Just because something is difficult, does not mean we should avoid doing it, when it can benefit us in return. Using the nirvana fallacy as an excuse to avoid rewarding hardship is silly, as that would reduce the benefit we're getting in life. It would be reasonable to avoid difficulties if there were other reasons, such as not having time, energy, or having a relevant disability. However, to cancel something uncomfortable, purely because of a fantasy reality, where perfection is a dominant feature, is irrelevant to the reality we're all in. If someone expects you to be completely perfect, AKA, lack any flaws whatsoever, then they might be suffering from a poor rationality. Whether they admit it or deny it, is a different thing. The point is that perfection, as an expectation, shouldn't even be relevant to begin with. That's especially true when the people in the conversation are rational beings. And as a specific reader keeps reminding me somehwere, most human beings are not rational. Thus, it is reasonable to answer unreasonable answers, when rationality is uncommon. It is reasonable to not expect others to see what you see as obvious, when you are more rational than them. So when I insist that perfection is a very unlikely feature in human existence, as it is obvious to me, I am no longer surprised when it is not obvious to others. By the way, "Nirvana" is a concept in Buddhism that is defined by the pure absence of desire and suffering. Obviously, a state of pure bliss, as desire leads to suffering according to Buddha, is a very ideal state of being. Whether possible or not among the living is another thing, as the focus in this fallacy is the assumption that a state of perfection/"nirvana" is either impossible or very, very difficult to achieve. The focus is also towards the delusional subtext, that the other people may necessarily expect us and/or our performance to be perfect. People with a perfectionist attitude may hold themselves in accordance to this fallacy, but this isn't megalomania, where the person may they are indeed perfect. The perfectionist takes this fallacy with a great liking, especially if they are not aware of this fallacy, existing as such. Thus, they would believe that, only with perfection, they will be good in whatever they are doing. Or excellent people, in general. They may hold perfection as a basic condition, while it does not even deserve to be treated as elementary, but as extraordinary. While it is all well and good that perfection is a rare occurrence in our world, it does not mean that we should submit to our flaws. We can become better employees, better employers, and most importantly, better people by reducing our flaws, morally or otherwise. The same goes for rationality. It can be improved through philosophizing, or at the very least, by understanding logical fallacies properly. I try to do both, and thus, my rationality has been improving over the years. The possibility that I am, by default, an irrational being (as humans might as well be irrational) does not excuse me, nor you, from improving. I do not call for perfect rationality. I call for an improved one. As that would help us understand the truth better, which is the point of philosophy.

(Audio Verison) (Background music) As we may either admire or despise the A.I revolution, as presented in writing, art and so on, we need to consider its potential for the long-run. A potential that can threathen humanity as a whole, should it be placed in the wrong hands. When it comes to military, we as humanity have yet to develop fully-autonomous war machines, even though we're doing quite well in the field of aurodynamics. Although we have yet to invent a fully autonomous, human-independent airborne drone, some machinery only requires minimal input on our end. We may call these planes "drones" but please remember that a drone is far more general. The term "drone" originally referred to a male bee whose purpose is to impregnate the queen bee. An "office drone" is a deragetory term for a monotonous white-collar office worker. I already knew that because I used to be one myself. As an "office drone", I, of course, didn't need to fly in order to do my boring job. And of course, A.I can be used in menial jobs as well (If you happen to work in Amazon, or know someone who does, you might already know that, too). The point I'm trying to make is that robotic soldiers are a real possibility for the future. The fact that most of them are currently airborne and semi-autonomous does not limit this potential. We need to understand that artificial intelligence (AI) has far greater potential than mere artists or language models. It can be implemented into a robotic body, and can follow orders blindly. AI-powered robots can be more competent, more durable, and carry out orders without question. Being an excellent soldier does not make one an excellent person. In fact, there is no correlation between the two. Sometimes, deserting a morally depraved military force is the moral thing to do. Assuming, of course, we can agree on some moral codes as objective. It might be far more appealing for a military leader, such as a warlord or a military contractor, to employ robotic troops for their cause, either partially or completely, if they can afford it. This would mean that smaller, rogue military factions around the world could be far more powerful than they currently are. They would have greater advantages over their enemies, be able to overthrow one or more governments, and perhaps, be competent enough to even challenge more powerful countries. Yes, warlords exist today, as well as military contractors. The latter are essentially private military companies. This external article is an example for contemporary warlords. (AKA, powerful people, military and politically-wise, without relation to a strong, national government). Personally, I would advise against even considering developing killer robot armies. I'm not even talking about manufacturing them. I'm talking about technologies that would be necessary to make them a reality. Robots are incapable of the moral values that many humans possess, unless those values are explicitly programmed into them. And even then, their programming can be hacked and changed, just like with a computer. It's not something you can do with humans (unless you incorporate some machinary into them, such as a brain chip, that allows it). Yes, brain chips can be dangerous due to that very reason: The ability to override someone's behavior remotely. Either partially or completely Star Wars handled this concept quite well. I might explore this idea in another article, but I digress. Psychopaths are examples of human beings who are incapable of empathy. As we know, empathy is necessary for morality. Therefore, if we never implement any empathy in a robot soldier, they could be even deadlier than a psychopathic human soldier. This is because of the advantages that I listed earlier, and in general, when comparing between man and machine. Empathy is not only a capability, but also a moral restraint. If we create a mechanical being without any empathy, it will obey us without question. It will not hesitate to kill our enemies, because it does not have to be programmed with mercy. And thus, as a theoratical warlord, the fate of countless can be in your hands. An atomic bomb can be countered by having another atomic bomb render your nation obselete. It doesn't have to be the same with military drones. Airborne or otherwise. Even North Korea has an airborne drone force. As a philosopher, I choose to avoid letting an AI do the thinking for me. I think I can do the job quite well. However, a ruthless, contemporary warlord might not think the same if they had access to AI like I have access to an AI language model. And of course, in relation, the implications of a rogue droid army could forever remain deadlier than an employed AI philosopher. I think we can all agree on that.

(Audio Verison) (Note: I once claimed that all importance is subjective. I now realize I was wrong... Partially wrong, that is!). The Strawman's Fallacy is a common logical fallacy that happens when a being or thing is either distorted or exaggerated beyond proportions, for the sake of rhetoric. For those new to the site, rhetoric is the art of convincing the other side. Many fallacies can be used for the sake of rhetoric, especially for an audience that does not know them, but I digress. It is called a "strawman" because you essentially take a different version of reality, and present it in a way that is supposed to imitate that reality's original version. It's just like an actual scarecrow that is used to imitate an actual human being in order to keep birds away from a farm. Since the birds are not aware that the scarecrow isn't a real human, they are deceived by this fallacy. (And fallacy, for that matter, is a concept that impairs our understanding of the truth.) In order for the strawman fallacy to work, I suggest the idea that we must recognize objective value/importance. Because if something has actual importance, that is independent of our perception, then Strawman's fallacy has every right to exist. On the other hand, if nothing had objective value, this fallacy would've been irrelevant, as things would always legitimately be prone to subjective importance. Because if an actual scarecrow would've been regarded as a human being capable of physically defending itself from a bird's attack, then it would contradict the original meaning of this fallacy: The meaning that argues for an objective difference between an actual guard and a downgraded, decieving version of one. Surely there is an objective difference between the two, correct? A difference that is independent of our subjective experience (a scarecrow only gives the illusion of defense). Physical examples of this fallacy exist in military warfare. By using decoys, we can outsmart the enemy faction, as they focus fire on the pretentious force, while we can outsmart them. These are examples because they cause the attacker to distort the decoy's own importance in their mind. Thus, you can even use this fallacy on yourself without any awareness. In contemporary reception of my writings, I'd like to argue that some readers may make a strawman out of them, by deeming them less-than-relevant because they felt that they were disrespectful, condescending, and so on. That's not even the point of philosophy, to please the audience in any way. The point is to research the truth, and everything else is minor in comparison. To minimize something's importance because of a subjective experience is therefore an incorrect estimation. And a strawman's fallacy cannot exist without incorrect estimations. I'm talking in terms of objectivity, here, as philosophy was never about people-pleasing. If it were about it, Socrates would avoid asking so many questions, and thus, bothering the citizens of Athens. When we dare to know, we may also dare to cause unease, unintentionally or otherwise. I, personally, have no intention to disrespect anyone on purpose. And I cannot control people's sensitivities. Thus, I now see little reason to be concerned with their ridicule. It's all because they miss the point of a philosophical text: to reach the truth. The strawman's fallacy may be combined with other fallacies, such as the ad-hominem fallacy, where you literally make a metaphorical strawman out of someone, and present them as the real thing. Combine this fallacy with the ad-populum fallacy, and you can make a mockery out of something or someone, purely because they are popular. I guess the stereotypical hipster may use this recent combination. In order to overcome this fallacy, we must aim to see things as they are. We must put ourselves in the eyes of a crow, and raise the possibility that the guard might be nothing more than a fabrication and not an actual threat. And to do that, we must not be so scared by the scarecrow. Succumbing to our subjective experience can mean that we will be deceived by our very own subjectivity. Objective importance does not have to be absolute in order to exist as such. Instead, it can be more rational than otherwise, and be based on conditions. For example, if I only have apples to eat, and don't have anything else to eat, eating apples is more important, right now, than eating food that I don't have (it's just an example). In this case, apples do not have absolute importance, but they are objectively important at the time, for the sake of one's survival. Thus, even if they are not that important in general, they are that important, now. We may degrade the importance of apples, using the strawman's fallacy, and fantasize about far tastier food. However, doing so would undermine the objective importance of apples to our survival in this specific anecdote. This is why I don't think we should put that much emphasis on our subjective experiences. Reality is not subjective, even if our perception of it, is. Both maturity, rationality, and professionalism stem from the recognition of reality, as external to our personal thoughts and feelings. And sometimes, of course, that reality may be more important than our experiences. This isn't to say that subjectivity is not important at all. It's to say that objectivity is imperative for the strawman's fallacy to work. Otherwise, what would it matter to the crow, if the scarecrow is a strawman or an armed guard, that could shoot it down? Their fear, or lack of fear, is an indication of external reality, thus its objective importance in this case. Anything else in this scenario, from the crow's side, doesn't matter. What matters, in this case, is its safety and survival. And for that to work, it must distinguish between the objective value of a strawman and that of an actual man or woman. Case dismissed. Afterthought: In order to reduce this fallacy from happening, here are some tips: Listen carefully to the opponent's argument. You need to hear them fully in order to know what they're talking about. Ask questions to clarify the opponent's argument. This will help you to understand their position better. Make sure they know that the questions are not rhetorical, but sincere, in order to be understood. Be willing to change your own mind. If you find that the opponent's argument is stronger than yours, be willing to admit it. It shouldn't damage your ego if you are sincere in knowing the truth, in this exchange of ideas.

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article). (Note: I do not deal with absolutes, for reality is most often than not, dynamic). ************************** According to my observations, there is a growing need in the world for something called emotional validation. Please note that I am not using scare quotes; I am simply referring to this concept by its more formal name. I may also use scare quotes when referring to other concepts such as trigger warnings. Apologies for the digression, dear readers. Anyways, "Emotional Validation" is "acknowledging and accepting a person's inner experience, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as valid." In logic, validity is an attribute that justifies a component in an argument. In other words, if "A is not B", then it is valid to claim that "B is not A" as well. For example, if I say that "all dogs are mammals", then it is valid to conclude that "there is no non-mammal that is a dog". This is because the converse of a valid statement is also true. Similarly, with emotional validation, someone who needs or wants to feel validated seeks to be recognized by the external world. This also means that they do not want to be judged or criticized. Am I correct? Of course, there may be exceptions to this rule, but it is generally true. It is understandable why people desire to be validated. After all, who doesn't want to feel good about themselves? I myself sought validation through world relevance, only to realize that I already had it, thanks to my work for you. I can clearly understand the hardship that follows from being shamed and condemned for who you are. Thus, to redeem one's self-esteem, they do not necessarily resort to doing so autonomously. External company seems to be a great help for that effort. I assume that this is one of the reasons why safe spaces exist. Because in a safe space, you are supposed to be safe from criticism and "attacks" on whatever you present (or even yourself). Sorry to digress once more, but as a philosopher, I am not fond of blaming. I am definitely fond of criticizing. It's part of the job. The philosopher is a critic of existence, as they recognize the fact that it is, by default, flawed. How can it ever be perfect realistically? Rhetorical question. The person who seeks to be validated is vulnerable by default. The validation-seeker is vulnerable because they seek something they do not have. What do they not have enough of? Confidence, of course! A person who is confident enough in their abilities and who they are would not need to seek validation. Here's an honest question, and feel free to answer me in the comments (or social media, DMs, whatever): Can there be a confident person who seeks validation? Compare this to food. If you feel satiated after a well-prepared meal, would you eat more regardless? The point is, validation is built on confidence, and the need for confidence has its own capacity. Just like with food and hunger. By the way, if I'm mistaken, and convinced that I am, I'm usually willing to re-edit my articles. So, my critique of emotional validation is this: We can, unintentionally, create an unhealthy dependence on being emotionally validated by others. It's "unhealthy" because it is an independent capability, at least by potential, that we can easily give away, in favor of approval. (Side note: The need to be validated can also be healthy because doubting ourselves is healthy to a degree if, for example, it helps us better understand who we are, and improve ourselves from that point forward). Likes, follows, shares, and the like on social media. These are components that can condition us to not develop this confidence from within. Should we compromise this capability, we might also compromise our potential to be assertive, and even charismatic. Perhaps, some of us would be so desperate for validation, that they would do very disturbing things. Merely for attention. And at times, for "pity-parties". By the way, I have no need for your pity. Despite my hardships, your pity does not help me in any way. So please don't offer it, as it is humiliating, just as it is to disrespect a genuine desire for contribution. And yes, I'm aware that I'm seeking this emotion to be validated. I'm trying to reduce bias, here, not to romanticize my point. And my point is that we need to build character! To grow our self-esteem, to the point that the function of validation will be less and less important for us! Of course, we deserve emotional support from time to time, and some people may deserve it more than others. However, why risk the unhealthy dependency on external approval? It can be compared to business. If we "cut out the middleman," we will save resources, such as time and energy. In this case, if we work to be more confident, the "middleman" that is other people will be less necessary. And therefore, we will save our limited resources for other activities. Look, I learned this the hard way as a fatigued man. Not the validation, no. The imperative need to cut expenses. When your energies are severely limited, your potential gets compromised. Do you wish for proof? I'll gladly give it to you, for fatigue harmed my very ability to walk. No, no, I'm not asking for your pity. I'm simply showing you the reasoning behind my critique. I think for the long term, if we waste too much of our time and energies, we will limit our potential. I'm not saying that emotional validation is a waste of time. I'm saying that we can cut some expenses if we work to build our confidence. Our confidence is a virtue, remember that. It's especially true when it is not too much. Obviously, confidence can be achieved without reaching overconfidence. Why would a rational being desire overconfidence? And yes! Confidence can save energy, dear readers! To be more precise, it can give you more energy. Don't believe me? I'll just put this here. Enjoy, and thanks for reading.

(For more on communication, click here) (As to how to be a philosophy blogger, click here) (Background music) Why Clarity is Key in Philosophical Writing The philosophical text often differs from other types of writing. If we approach it with a reasoning not aligned with its nature, we risk misinterpretation. This has been a frequent source of frustration for me, as my own work has been misunderstood due to this very disconnect. This is ironic, considering the reader's genuine desire to comprehend the text, wouldn't you agree? To navigate this conundrum, I'll focus on two main types of philosophical texts. One type, which I'll set aside for now, demands profound reflection on the reader's part. It's known as reflective thinking. The other, often more readily accepted as "wise," tends to be characterized by abstract and seemingly paradoxical reasoning. Examples of this can be found in the writings of ancient Chinese philosophers. To quote Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu: The usefulness of the pot lies in its emptiness. Now, here's the important thing: writing like Confucius isn't a prerequisite for passing a philosophy exam. In such situations, clarity and directness are far more valuable than cryptic pronouncements. Remember, philosophy is inherently complex, even when expressed in simple words. Why, then, burden your reader with unnecessary obscurity, when the understanding itself requires significant effort either way? Traits of a Strong Philosophical Text The intrinsic worth of a good philosophical text is not entirely subject to external comprehension. Its strength lies in its inherent qualities, regardless of misinterpretations by readers. The fact, for example, that philosophy is hard to understand, does not mean it does not get its point across, nor that it does not make any objective sense. It's in this case where the subjective should adjust itself to the objective, and not be redeemed. Firstly, such a text is self-sufficient. It presents all necessary information with minimal, if any, subtext. The duty lies on the reader to possess a grasp of logical fallacies, for the text might assume familiarity with them. By minimizing these fallacies, the text reduces potential misunderstandings. Secondly, a strong philosophical text strives for neutrality. Even when critiquing opposing viewpoints, it prioritizes clarity over bias. Explaining the rationale behind opposing positions, regardless of personal disagreement, is crucial. This applies especially when advocating against something – understanding its underlying logic is equally important. Subtext has no place in this pursuit, for omitting relevant data compromises the text's integrity. Thirdly, A competent philosopher is a skilled communicator. Philosophy thrives on diverse forms of communication, be it articles or videos. The core argument and evidence should be readily apparent, aiming to either persuade or inspire readers, thus proving the practicality and relevance of philosophy. Fourthly, a focus on ad hominem attacks distracts from the text's substance. Whether a philosopher is deemed arrogant or pretentious is irrelevant; the text itself and its potential insights hold precedence. While personal experiences can enhance arguments, using them solely for self-promotion is antithetical to the point of philosophy, which extends beyond the philosopher themsselves. Striving for Excellence in Philosophical Exploration A text set towards adoration or appreciation becomes one-sided, failing in its mission to illuminate reality for its readership. Philosophy seeks understanding, not indoctrination. Those who use philosophizing to push personal agendas are closer to ideologues than philosophers. While no writer is entirely responsible for reader misconceptions, misinterpretations based on perceived "subtext" or "tone" are solely the reader's burden. The author's responsibility lies in clarity and precision; hinting and implying only makes the message unnecessarily unclear. Write down all what you have to say, that's important for the text in order for it to be properly understood. Otherwise, people will attribute to you things you never wrote down or said; things that they believe you meant to imply, but never actually implied. Don't expect the reader to take what you take for granted, as such, as well. You and them might not have the same depth of knowledge, so expecting them to know the same thing you know, just because you're both engaging in philosophical interaction via your text, is counter-intuitive. Lay whatever needs to be laid down on the paper/file/whatever. To enhance your understanding of philosophical texts, including my own, mastering logical fallacies is invaluable. Identifying and minimizing these flaws improves comprehension significantly. It is something I myself attempt to do to this day occasionally, and remembering them all isn't easy at all. I may sometimes even devise my own fallacies, such as the Victory Fallacy or the Bored Man's fallacy. From this we can infer that there might be even more fallacies to be devised. It's important to acknowledge that not every philosophical text adheres perfectly to these criteria of this article's previous segment. However, even imperfect texts can offer valuable insights, and as such should not be discarded so easily. Striving for self-improvement, lifelong-learning and reflection on the quality of my own work, while deleting of unworthy pieces and revamping existing ones, demonstrates my commitment to delivering valuable philosophical discourse. Remember, readers of philosophy seek truth, not disguised propaganda. Cultivating Clarity in Philosophy Discourse By the way, any concept that requires more than common knowledge deserves a detailed explanation. Whether it's a concrete detail or an abstract idea, your readers deserve to understand exactly what you're talking about. This isn't just for their benefit, but for your own as well. If you want to be taken seriously, clarity is key. For example, mentioning a fictional character without context alienates newcomers. Just assuming everyone knows who Walter White from "Breaking Bad" is a major misstep. In many media analysis videos, this "assumed expertise" amongst viewers, creates a barrier to entry, hindering the very discussion the video creators aim to create. And don't fall victim to the ad-populum fallacy. The fact that something is widely known does not mean that everyone knows it. Not worldwide, and not even in a specific country. Summary This article aspires to equip both readers and writers of philosophical texts with the understanding and proficiency they deserve in this fascinating niche. By embracing clarity, and understanding how to cultivate the good traits of a philosophical traits, and aiming for mastery, we can unlock the depths of philosophical discourse. And as such, we can ensure inclusivity is included.

(I'm Mysterious) One of the things that keeps us intrigued by something or someone is the air of mystery that surrounds them. The fact that we may not know something can be fascinating, because there is something quite exciting about being left in the dark, even though we may be tempted to know more. This is why many of us hate spoilers for stories. We choose to stay in the dark on purpose, regardless of whether or not we will get the answers we are looking for. Of course, deliberate ignorance is the conscious choice to not know something, for whatever reason. In this case, it's for the reason to feel something that is more unusual. Recognizing this term is imperative to understand this article, and philosophy in general. What we get in return for mystery can be hope. Hope that one day, we may know. Sometimes, we may never know how or why, and the answers will forever stay in the dark. I have such a mystery from a certain story that has remained unclear for 20 years. There is something attractive about not knowing forever, what are the causes for some effects. My deceased grandfather was a mysterious man. He might've been an autist, like me, but he was never diagnosed, so none of us can ever know. I almost know nothing about him, by the way, and so doesn't my mother, his daughter. Thanks to him, I'm part Soviet. His childhood remains a mystery. So, I think we can rest assured that some of us desire mystery for the intrigue that it may make us feel. Wouldn't you say it exists in romance, as well? The secrets of the other person, not knowing completely who they are, exactly the person we are attracted to? Their past, their heart and mind? It might be especially true nowadays, where we may use the internet to communicate, not fully knowing who is the person on the other side of the screen. The philosopher has little to no desire to remain in deliberate ignorance. Even if the aura of mystery leaves them fascinated, they will sacrifice that feeling in favor of knowledge. For the philosopher dares to know. They dare to exit the Platonic cave, even if the outside world will be very disappointing. Why? Because reality often crushes fantasy, remorselessly. Reality disappoints, and shows us the true nature of the things and beings we once believed to be greater than they actually were. There is something ruining in the philosopher's experience. They don't seek "magic", they do not seek naivety. They seek reality, as in reality, lies the truth. And no matter what the truth is, they seek it, and only it, in their endeavor for wisdom. They may overwhelm others with the truth, as well. The non-philosopher may have a smaller capacity for it, for honesty. The philosopher, on the other hand, probably has the biggest capacity for it, than anyone else. For philosophy is the study and pursuit of the truth. And while the lady who smokes mysteriously may be fascinating to many, along with any other visual data, the philosopher looks at them deep in the eye, and overcomes the alluring barrier of mystery, should it be an obstacle. Many people seek to feel, to experience emotion. The philosopher seeks to understand reality beyond said experience. Impression might not commonly be a good indication of reality, no matter how good or charming it would make you feel. Because if you are a true philosopher, you will shove aside even the obstacles that make you feel good and charmed. And thus, the pursuit of philosophy is like the loss of humanity within you. Not of compassion, necessarily, but of enticement. Of the joy of experience, be it good or bad. It is almost... like becoming an undead. Almost like a point of no return, should you, like me, desire nothing more in this reality, but philosophizing. And that is why the philosopher is the lover of wisdom, for they put their pursuit as superior, if not, above all. You might realize that this is one of the reasons as to why philosophy isn't as relevant as other fields of life. It seeks rationality above emotion, all because emotion may be the inferior indication to reality. Compared to the rationale, that aims to understand, while it destroys fascination in its wake. That might as well be the trade-off of the rational man or woman: The reality of the sun outside Plato's cave, and not the entertaining shadows of the bonfire, within his cave. Prepare to be disappointed. Prepare to be upset. Disillusionment, especially of mystery, may do that to those who give up illusion. And this is exactly why I do not like fiction anymore, even though it used to entertain me a lot. I no longer desire to escape to fantasies. Hence why I've not been writing about them as much as of late. Even though I believe we can learn from fiction, it is a poor substitute of reality, which means that reality should be preferable to any honest philosopher.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Background music) From Hermitage to Public Square: How Philosophers Access and Wield Power A good philosopher is arguably not only one whose arguments are rational and reasonable. What makes them good is also their ability to generate and preserve power. By "power" I refer to the sociological aspect of the word: the ability to influence the world by making people do certain things, or make them avoid certain actions. And as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. So a good philosopher would handle their power wisely, as well. While their reliability stems from their reason, if they are public figures, their power exceed or can exceed beyond that. In other words, public philosophers are leaders because of their ability to exact influence. Not necessarily thought leaders, but leaders nonetheless. External to logic, the philosopher has two power bases that are universal to all philosophers who were active in society (AKA, did not leave it in favor of a complete hermitage). A "power base" is simply the source your power comes from. You may find this term more common in politics, but I digress. Money and other material means are irrelevant in this discussion. So I won't mention them here. They are also powerbases, but they are not necessary powerbases for all public philosophers. The powerbase of your money might as well be your wallet. The Philosopher's Power: Expertise, Respect, and the Moral Choice French and Raven discussed several power bases, and yes, I did some research. What we're going to focus on, here, are two power bases: expertise and referent. By the way, the term "referent" may be a misspelling, and could have been, originally, "reverent", which means "respected". "Referent" is a source for reference. A book can be a source one, as well. The philosopher does not need to be part of an organization in order to be in this role. They don't even need to be part of any collective, in order to be good, according to the definition I gave in the first two paragraphs. As such, expertise and reverence are not necessarily organizational powers, even though they can be. A freelancer gains their power from being a hired expert for a job. A well-respected member of a community may be treated differently than a member who is depraved of respect, such as a petty thief. A sociologically-good philosopher is one that is both an expert and is respected. In fact, these two values might as well correlate with each other in this case. Expertise is essentially the ability to apply the same knowledge, better than someone who is less-than-expert. What makes a philosopher different from a non-philosopher, is the former's ability to conclude deeper insights from the latter, when introduced to the same information. I've seen it myself with others. Feel free to think that self-proclaimed philosophers are pretentious people who think they are better than everyone else. Some of us actually commit to our self-given roles, instead. The Philosopher's Gambit: Moving with Respect to Win Opportunities Respect is imperative if you want your missives to be effective. Respect and admiration are not only an indication of praise. They also indicate potential for greater opportunities. Opportunities such as collaborations with others. Opportunities such as progression in your own field, as a philosopher, and so on. After all, you want to be taken seriously, correct? Be laughed by people constantly, and the extent of your power might be compromised. Try to look at life as if it were a chess board, and perhaps you'll better know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that human beings deserve to be treated like pawns. I'm saying that we should consider our decisions, as they have long-term implications. Increase your expertise. Practice philosophizing whenever you can. Make people respect you for your contributions. Respecting them as well is a great start. That is the key for you to increase your power, for whatever intention you have in mind. A Call to Moral Power The morally-good philosopher, on the other hand, will seek to apply their power for the sake of good. By "good" I refer to the benefit of humanity. The reduction of unnecessary suffering in our world. To make people believe in themselves, and choose life over death, whenever they are tempted to depart from this world, willingly. To contribute and to give people new points of thought to refresh their experience, and expand their horizons. This is why the expression, "with great power, comes great responsibility", comes here as well. And as a moral being I aim to be responsible for my power. For I know my words can have an effect on others. Both while I'm alive, and both after my death, when they will be succeeded. And as a morally-good philosopher, I see it a duty to bring some light into this dark world. My vengeful desire for World Relevance has already been achieved, and I'm achieving it gradually, with vengeance or without it. Wise Words, Wider Circles: Understanding the Impact of Influence I shed the burden of vengeance, releasing the anger tied to Chen. My pursuit of retribution ends here, for I choose to use my power for good, and not for external validation. Harboring resentment towards someone who hurt me with indifference is a path I will refuse to repeat myself. To succumb to such darkness would be to misuse the influence I hold. My memories of her will serve as a reminder to never become the being she was. Fortunately, the pursuit of goodness transcends the confines of religious dogma. It is, at its core, the desire to act with compassion and create a better world, regardless of one's faith. Would you agree? Those who hunger for power solely for its own sake, seeking only to accumulate more and more, are ultimately consumed by its emptiness. And as such power will still makes people feel lonely when they're at the top. For us who choose a different path, power is but a tool, a means to achieve a noble end. This applies equally to the ability to influence others. The greater the influence we wield, the greater the impact our actions have. Therefore, it is crucial to wield that influence wisely, with a guiding principle of kindness and integrity. So, let us strive to be good, not just for ourselves, but for the world we share. For this world has too much of true evil. Let us invest in compassion, in understanding, and in building a brighter future for all. May we never fall prey to the allure of darkness, but instead choose to be the light that illuminates the path forward to an age of less loneliness, and more acceptance and purposefulness.

(For the whole site's category on solitude, click here) (For the directory on success, click here) The Relations of Success and Solitude The expression "It's lonely at the top" suggests that those who are successful and/or powerful in their field have very few friends. This feeling of isolation can be a surprising consequence of the relentless drive required for achievement. This shows us that a great success isn't necessarily a prerequisite for deep, honest relationships with people. Success isn't a singular mountain you conquer. It's a continuous ascent demanding constant refinement and determination. This pursuit, even in the realm of social interaction, can be a solitary path. I speak from personal experience, which I will explain later on. Those seeking shortcuts often fall victim to "get-rich-quick" schemes. Desperate for results, they avoid the effort, becoming easy prey for con artists exploiting their vulnerabilities. My own journey has been one of solitude, even before fatigue became a factor. My focus on philosophy, both then and now, has kept me away from social and romantic connections. This path, while fulfilling in its own way, has inevitably led to a deep sense of isolation, which I define as cosmic-like and chronic. The appreciation and readership I receive may provide proof for my good work, but it doesn't liberate the feeling of being alone. For being lonely at the top involves being at a high peak of understanding not many reach. This may make it difficult to convey ideas even my most loyal of readers would understand properly. To Quote Mr. John Duran: Sacrifices and the Pursuit of Mastery Despite being only 26, I've accomplished a lot. But boasting feels pointless. The truth is, I find little joy in socializing, as I find little joy in anything either way. So, I work relentlessly, pushing forward even when I lack the energy. I made it into my habit, to work independently of my willpower. This has been my routine for years. Success often demands a mountain of practice, learning from countless mistakes. The key is continuous improvement, and keeping in on the straight and narrow. Empires are not built in a day for a reason. They relentlessly pursue their goals, striving for mastery – a title I've been fortunate enough to receive in philosophy by some of my followers. Since 2013, philosophy has been my singular focus, eclipsing most other aspects of life. At first the essays I wrote were very poor. It took years for my craft to be perfected or at least improve significantly. My success lies in making people want to read more by caring about my writings. However, hard work is no guarantee. It's a gamble on a future different from your current reality. However, beyond the very rare occasion, overnight success is a myth. It's a sacrifice few are willing to make, choosing instead to prioritize social hangouts, romantic love and even aimless global travel. These people might not go far with their ambitions simply because they don't invest enough time and resources to make something succeed. To even compete in whatever you're doing, not being lazy for instance is a great advantage for starters. The truth is, unless you possess the emotional capacity for deep connections, solitude may be your companion on the path to a success. And it's just a possibility that might as well never materialize. But there is no choice but to try, and try hard, if you even want good chance at getting whatever you want. What truly fuels this journey is an undying faith in your work and its potential impact on the world. The Internal Rival Who Consumed Me From Within Anhedonia, the struggle to feel joy, has become an unwelcome companion in my relentless pursuit of building Philosocom. I accepted this condition when I realized it helps me work better when I no longer depend on things to make me happy, for I am unhappy anyways, and am fine with it. The more I dedicated myself to work, the rarer joy became, until it vanished entirely. It's a void no amount of effort seems to fill. It was there, in a way, from the very beginning. I am not used for affection. As I began losing my emotions I also began not being really affected by it. My focus on becoming a better writer and philosopher left me respected, yes, but joyless and largely unfeeling. This website's success came at the price of profound loneliness which I taught myself to accept as unavoidable. The vast majority of my interactions are online. I also taught myself to accept this fact as a necessity. Working tirelessly, I worried about becoming a ruthless figure, consumed by ambition. I actively sought ways to connect, to feel loved – a defense against such a fate. However, I slowly fell from my personal grace when I failed doing so. I realized instead the virtue of ruthlessnes, no longer able to mourn the former self I discarded. The truth is, my laughter with others is often a performance. The professional thing is to pretend. I do it extremely well as it's a skill I taught myself to develop. While in reality I don't even feel the vast array of emotions I display. Humor requires less of an emotion and more of logic the ability to appeal to others. Just like my souls of which I have two. I have one in each shoe. My third one has expired and I don't have enough shoes for it anyways. It just had to be laid off despite the family it needed to feed. Humor is a good way to make people either love you or run away in terror. Mainly in circles, which is impractical, when the door is right in front of you. Anyways, I used yearn to feel something beyond the temporary lift of a cup of coffee. But then I realized this: People at large don't really care about what you really feel, but rather what you display to them. Thus your emotions are not necessarily important when it comes to many goals. Not as much as the proper and acceptable display of them, instead. Despite it all, Philosocom's success remains paramount to me. No obstacle will deter me from furthering its reach. I work not for myself, but for you, the users. The resources I gain fuel this platform's growth. I am not driven by profit as much as I am driven to give you the content I believe you deserve as Philosocom readers. A Lonely Path to Purpose Contributing holds the most importance for me. It eclipses everything else because I already worked on myself enough through philosophizing to care less about myself and more about others. After all I wish to be good and altruism is the highest good. Yet, after years of existential isolation dedicated to my work, I can't help but wonder if connection is a distant dream. Work has become my sole purpose, leaving a hollow echo in my personal life. This existence is undeniably lonely. Perhaps others on this path can relate. After all, "lonely at the top" isn't just a cliche. While it may not hold true for everyone, for many of us driven entrepreneurs, it's a stark reality. It's one that can only be surpassed by having faith in what you're doing. Extra Notes Being at the top can mean different things as success is goal-dependent rather than a universal notion. It can vary from being wealthy to being a genius. Either way, some level of high accomplishment is a necessity for success. Examples include: Business leaders/executives. Master writers. Paranoid Dictators. Savants. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Do not be altruistic at the expense of yourself. What good are you to anyone if you bury yourself trying to be selfless? You must maintain your own health to help with the health of others. Solitude can be eliminated by finding those who can get behind your dream or who have similar dreams to you. Such as a collaboration where you can be mutually beneficial to each other is a solid asset. It allows you to selfishly focus on yourself while at the same time being aware that you are helping someone else out in the process. Hail Philosocom.

"If we won't show mercy to the merciless, than how exactly are we morally superior to them?" -- John Duran (Background music) ******************************** Fading Embers I've been losing my emotions even more, like territories lost at war. Excitement, wonder, curiosity, joy, hope, and others - all have retreated, leaving me in a barren landscape of loneliness, like the one I traveled in, in my childhood. It's been a long while since I felt their touch. I don't know if I'll ever be able to reclaim them. I think that the only way I could reclaim them is by dispelling human darkness. And that is exactly what I plan to do with Philosocom. That is how I will redeem myself. I'm not the person I used to be, not even close. Even my physical appearance has changed. I seem stronger, more rugged, despite barely ever exercising. People even ask if I've been hitting the gym, which is funny considering I am mainly working on this site, and resting from it. Empathy.... cognitive and compassionate... are the only threads hanging me to this world who have foresaken my distress in the name of hedonism. Should it ever snap, the monster within me will surely be unleashed, leaving me forever broken, like Darth Vader: A being who lost all hope for the good of others, stuck in his own repressed emotional pain. Scars of Casual Cruelty Sometimes, it's the most ordinary people who inflict the deepest wounds. They hide behind the shields of "just a joke, mate" and "you need to move on". As such, they're absolving themselves of responsibility for the emotional damage they leave in their wake, while the norms enable the uffer they inflict. But can we truly absolve ourselves of the impact our actions have on others, simply because their mental state isn't entirely within our control? Is that a moral escape hatch, or a convenient delusion? Under moralist philosophies, it isn't necessarily karma or dharma that will come back at you. No. It is, rather, several possibilities: Revenge, a natural evil. A downhill that could lead to misfortune such as suicide. The turn of the mentally wounded to maliciousness, as with the example shown in "Breaking Bad" with Heisenberg. The attempt of the emotionally wounded to redeem themselves, thus becoming morally better than you. When you prefer your own joy over the impact you have on others, you could lead to either 4 of these happening. Hence why hedonism can be dangerous... the very person you undermined in the name of your personal pleasure can become either of the 4. And those who choose number 4 might as well be rare as number 4 requires both a sense of justice, compassion and hope. Not everyone have those, because not everyone chooses life (thus leading to number 2), not everyone understands the consenquences of their actions (number 1), and not everyone is able to see people as more than objects to be used for your own benefit (thus leading to number 3). I choose number 4. I choose to escape the abyss of Escapism. For I wish to confront my inner demons, and emerge victorious. It is an "abyss" because escaping from our inner demons is vain. We can't escape from ourselves competently. The pain we carry with us will only wither once its solved. And I want you to learn from me. The Rise of Chen I have no love for her, for Chen. Never had for years. I look deep in her image's eyes, and philosophize in my mind. What's in there, in the smiling abyss? Are those the eyes of a psychopath? Not necessarily, but liberty breeds anti-social behavior either way. And either way, she abused my emotions, and caused me trauma, with no remorse beyond politeness. Her sight, a while back, used to make me puke. I was fine in health. It was a post-traumatic response, and lasted for a few years. I loved her but she did not participate in my pain. And loneliness can be solved, not when we are with others, but when we understand their pain and carry them with us. That is the path of the compassionate person. Out of all the people I had in my life, back then, only one really cared for my distress. I didn't fell victim to the para-social fallacy. I knew I was alone, even in physical company. Now I look at her, and think only one thing: I will never allow myself to become the monster she was. The norms care not for this, and as such they allow emotional abuse, and condemn of honesty in the name of cowardice. We can't love other human beings if we are too afraid of agony, and prefer having fun instead. As such we need to prepare to suffer in the name of love. And I refuse agreeing to the shame of still, somehow, having faith in humanity, despite the things I went through with her and in general. I refuse enabling the poor moral conduct of normalcy, which disregards the agony of the individual. Disregarding the pain of another, can lead them to a path of great evil, break them apart, and even make them feel compel to kill themselves. I refuse to be like them. I refuse to be, like her. I refuse becoming the man I might become. Negative. The monster I might become. The remorseless monster that might've been her, as well. Within my meditations I was exposed to the shadows of myself. I know what I am repressing. And to keep repressing it I will seek to bring good to the world, even if it comes at my own expanse! I refuse letting abandoning those who I care about at their time of need. No. I will listen to their distress, and I will never, ever, ghost them, unless I have no other choice. Chen's eyes... they do not appear honest. They look like a pool of darkness, hidden by a visage of a smile that succeeds appearing normal. In fact, the smile doesn't even come to the eyes. The expression... it looks hollow. It looks shallow, ingeuine. Was she... using me? Did she discard me at my time of need, because she cared not for my suffering? We discard people... too much than we should. If so, I am irrelevant, only because... I was of no further use for her. She underestimated my importance, and carried on with their life, without further care. Her charm was flat. It always was. And so were her emotions. I was no more than someone to speak to sometimes, for her. Always was. Anything else of me never really mattered to her. Should I treat people like she treated me? No. She was morally weak. Even if she was a good person. She failed to apply her morals, causing me suffering, by deeming me unimportant. But... everyone can be useful. Everyone has the potential to help. To be of use. To contribute. We need to be less cowardly. To overcome our insecurities, and endure hardship despite of discomfort. That is the moral thing to do. And I refuse being morally weak, when moral strength can bring so much good to this world, and help people with their problems. We need to believe in ourselves more. And we need to believe in others more, as well. That... that is the path to light. To greater humanity. .... Choosing Humanity Over Darkness I stand before you as a survivor forged in the crucible of abuse and trauma, which is natural in this reality. Chen might've broken me into a man who chose celibacy for 8 years, deeming myself a monk, but I now declare with unwavering conviction: I will live and embrace the pain, necessary to be a moral human being. I have no desire to escape reality anymore, and I even plan to give my video game consoles as a gift. Why? Because video games are forms of escapism, of being someone you are not. And I want to be myself, in the real world, not in a fictional, virtual world where my consenquences have no actions. In 2014 Chen said to me that expressing emotions is a mistake. No, emotions deserve to exist, to bloom in all their messy, beautiful complexity. For emotions are the very essence of our humanity, and their expression allows us the privilage of true love: To be loved for the entirety of who we are! To deny them, to strive for a sterile, emotionless existence, is to court a chilling truth that can become: a being devoid of emotion is a being capable of unspeakable evil, should he or she lack cognitive empathy. It is a possible I refuse to embrace, even when it whispers promises of far greater power. No end justifies the means that dehumanizes others, that reduces them to mere tools. We must be soft, in a sense, in order to love... In order to not be lonely at the top. "Hate... Become emotionless... Trust no one. Emotions only get in the way of ruling this city" -- Zanetti, "Beatdown: Fists of Vengeance" Every human being deserves the right to express their emotions, to laugh and cry, to love and grieve... without fear or shame. Why should a confession of love, an act of vulnerability, be deemed a mistake? No... we need to be ourselves. We should allow ourselves... to be human. From Victim to Victor Chen will pay, not through vengeance, but through my triumph over the monster she nurtured within me. The monster that threatened to bloom should I succumb to the darkness, should I deny empathy, remorse, guilt, atonement - and above all, love. Love for myself, and love for others. For without these very emotions, the cornerstone of morality crumbles, leaving only cold logic as the final fortress, to protect a man from becoming a cruel tyrant! Humans are not tools to be measured by their usefulness, nor are they faulty for expressing their emotions. We are flawed, yes. All of, in our own way. But we shouldn't be condemned for being flawed. We should be loved for being flawed. For to be flawed is to be human. And in order to not become nor breed dehumanized dictators, capable of inflicting agony of millions, we must embrace and love our humanity. Our capacity for compassion and understanding is one that can not only save people from mental illness, but also from suicide. That is the strength that can make so much good in this world. The strength to be there for another, and partake in their suffering as if it was your own. The norms, which care not for the death of those who are not known or relevant enough, should be condemned as such. Caring shouldn't be a privilage reserved for celebrities! Join me in rejecting the monsters within and without, in choosing empathy over apathy, and in embracing our flaws! For it is in these emotions that we find the very essence of what makes us human. Not as just biological beings, homosapiens, but beings capable of morality insects and germs cannot (arguably). I will not let her win. Never. I will not be evil as a drug baron that fuel wars. I will stay an article baron that fuels thought. I am a gentleman. A moral being. The fact that others abused me, does not mean I should do the same. Learn from me. Hail Philosocom

(French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English version, below) Pourquoi les droits sont une obligation – les nôtres aussi (Pour en savoir plus sur le sujet des droits, cliquez ici) ***************** Comprendre les droits : autorisation versus droit Un droit, qu'il soit civil ou autre, est fondamentalement une permission. Lorsque cette autorisation à laquelle vous avez droit est violée, votre droit est soit ignoré, soit aboli, mais on a certainement manqué de respect. Lorsque vous disposez du droit à la liberté d’expression, vous avez l’autorisation de vous exprimer verbalement ou par écrit. Lorsque vous avez le droit de garder le silence, vous avez la liberté de vous abstenir de dire quoi que ce soit qui pourrait être utilisé contre vous devant un tribunal. Une autorisation doit être accordée pour en être considérée comme telle. Et pour que cela soit pris en compte, il faut le reconnaître. Un privilège est une autorisation exclusivement réservée à quelques privilégiés, tandis qu'un droit est une autorisation plus largement accordée. Et à ce titre, les droits ne sont pas nécessairement inhérents à votre existence. Certains droits peuvent être perçus comme objectifs, mais c’est uniquement parce qu’ils sont largement acceptés et tenus en haute estime. Comme beaucoup de choses, elles sont sujettes à la perception. Comme je l'ai mentionné précédemment, l'intersubjectivité n'est pas l'objectivité. Après tout, l’objectivité existe indépendamment de l’opinion, et les opinions qui sont largement considérées comme vraies ne le sont pas nécessairement pour cette seule raison. Le monde au-delà de notre esprit n’a pas besoin de notre existence pour exister lui-même. Cela n’exclut pas des élections démocratiques, ni même le respect des droits de l’homme les plus essentiels. Nous n’avons droit qu’à ce qui nous est permis, par des forces plus fortes que nous. Le rôle de la compassion dans le maintien des droits Pour que cette autorisation perdure, elle doit être appliquée et maintenue. Si vos autorisations ne sont pas prises en charge, vous devrez peut-être les abandonner ou avoir du mal à les préserver. Parce que si personne ne prend la peine de le faire, vous devrez peut-être le faire vous-même. En tant que tels, les droits ne sont pas sans tenir compte de ceux qui les appliquent, et parfois, ces derniers n'ont pas besoin d'être en uniforme, ni armés de quoi que ce soit... sauf armés de leur cœur. Les droits peuvent facilement être violés par n’importe qui, et pas seulement dans les pays déchirés par la guerre ou dans les dictatures. Vous n’avez peut-être pas toujours le droit de vous exprimer librement et vous n’avez peut-être pas toujours le droit de vous déplacer où vous le souhaitez. Les gens peuvent vous calomnier publiquement, ruinant ainsi votre réputation, et les gens pourraient ne pas respecter votre droit de préserver votre foi religieuse, ou même le droit de s'en abstenir complètement. Comprenez que les droits sont des conventions. Elles sont différentes des normes, même si ce sont aussi des conventions, mais le fait est que nous convenons simplement qu'elles existent, donc nous agissons conformément à leur reconnaissance. Qu'elles existent réellement, physiquement, moralement, etc., nous pourrions en débattre. Et pourtant, la reconnaissance à elle seule a un impact pratique sur la réalité. Nous ne pouvons pas être exactement certains qu’ils existent au-delà de notre esprit, n’est-ce pas ? Pas comme, disons, un objet physique tel que l'appareil que vous utilisez pour lire cet article. Vous serez peut-être surpris, mais logiquement, ces droits relèvent aussi de votre responsabilité, ainsi que de la mienne. Si vous croyez en la valeur du droit au respect, vous risquez d’agir de manière hypocrite si vous manquez constamment de respect aux autres. Des inconnus, des gens que vous connaissez, ou les deux. Celui qui respecte véritablement ce droit ne se moquera pas si souvent des autres. Mais comme les gens aiment rire quand ils le souhaitent, leur moquerie constante envers les autres et envers vous devient évidente. S'amuser n'est pas une bonne excuse pour manquer de respect à quelqu'un, mais si vous lui posez des questions sur son droit au respect, il pourrait répondre qu'il valorise ce droit, quelles que soient ses actions. Il est difficile d’être cohérent quand on n’est pas encore devenu un être logique. Les droits ne sont pas exactement absolus et peuvent être limités avec justification. Que cette justification soit logique ou non, c’est une autre affaire. Ils sont souvent justifiés lorsqu’un droit est sacrifié, partiellement ou totalement, au profit d’un autre. Par exemple : Vous pourriez ne pas être autorisé à manifester en raison d'une menace pour la sécurité. Dans ce cas, votre droit de protestation est minimisé au profit de votre droit à la sécurité. Et en parlant de sécurité, il est évident que chacun a l'obligation morale d'empêcher les autres de lui faire du mal. Autrement dit, s’ils veulent vraiment être à l’abri des abus. La violence physique, l'intimidation et d'autres actes similaires sont des exemples de ceux qui vous privent de votre droit à la sécurité, même s'ils l'apprécient, peuvent facilement conduire à la malhonnêteté. Comment? Ceux qui infligent des violences peuvent ne pas aimer subir eux-mêmes de la violence. Ne vous attendez pas à ce que tout le monde se soucie de vos droits. C'est irréaliste. Les personnes atteintes d'un trouble de la personnalité antisociale, par exemple, s'en moquent, à moins que cela puisse leur être utile. S'attendre à ce qu'un sociopathe/psychopathe fasse preuve de compassion, c'est comme s'attendre à ce qu'un chat devienne un chien. Les droits, en tant que tels, ont comme élément la compassion : le souci des autres êtres humains, en tant qu’êtres humains. Les tyrans peuvent abolir constamment les droits des gens parce que beaucoup d'entre eux sont soit des psychopathes, soit des sociopathes. Ils n’ont pas la capacité émotionnelle de s’inquiéter suffisamment pour accorder des droits à leurs sujets. Pas autant que dans les démocraties, du moins. Si tous les humains étaient des psychopathes, les droits civils et humains n’existeraient pas. Au lieu de cela, nous vivrions dans un monde où les forts ont le droit de régner sur les faibles, simplement parce qu’il n’y aurait pas d’organismes plus forts pour s’opposer à eux. De plus, la cruauté et le pouvoir sur les autres auraient été des vertus bien plus. J'ai lu un jour les paroles d'un tel être qui dénonçait l'existence objective de tout droit. Malgré moi j'ai été d'accord avec lui. Sa justification était la suivante : aucun droit n’empêchera nécessairement la mort, comme dans le cas du meurtre, mais aussi d’autres formes de mort. Et en effet, avec le manque de respect envers les autres êtres humains, la seule force capable de pousser quelqu'un à s'en prendre à autre chose, est une force plus forte que la sienne. Par conséquent, afin de remplir notre obligation morale en faveur des droits d’autrui, nous devons développer notre compassion et notre empathie. Les diminuer pourrait nous faire devenir... des monstres, de façon permanente. Je ne vous dirai pas ce que je veux dire par là, car je souhaite être plus discret. Je vous dirai seulement, pour l'instant, que c'est possible, car le mal peut corrompre. vous amener à complètement ignorer la moralité, et vous pouvez également devenir un tel monstre, sans aucun remède à portée de main. Il n’est pas réaliste de s’attendre à ce que tout le monde fasse preuve de compassion et d’empathie, car certaines personnes sont devenues ces monstres dont je parle… il y a un point de non-retour. Il est toujours réaliste, je crois, d'avoir confiance en une grande partie de l'humanité, qui n'est pas encore tombée dans ce dont je parle. Je crois qu'ils peuvent devenir des êtres meilleurs, grâce à la réhabilitation. Et peut-être devriez-vous croire aussi, nécessairement en eux, et pour votre proprs intérêt. Pour la démocratie. Soit pour sa création, soit pour sa continuation. La démocratie ne s'arrête pas au scrutin. Au contraire, cela se termine là où se termine notre empathie. L’empathie qui concerne non seulement les dirigeants, mais aussi les citoyens. De tous ceux qui ont encore assez de cœur. Éloge des droits et du comportement civil : piliers de Philosocom Je ne préconise pas d’aimer les étrangers. J'insiste plutôt sur l'importance de sauvegarder leurs droits, en ne vous permettant pas de les violer. Les respecter en tant qu’individus égaux de droit à vous peut équivaloir à valoriser la démocratie elle-même, et pas seulement les individus eux-mêmes. S'ils vous maltraitent, il est tout à fait acceptable de les retirer de votre vie, à condition que cela soit crucial pour votre bien-être et votre existence bien sûr. (Aimer les autres peut offrir un grand réconfort, en particulier à ceux qui se sentent isolés et à ceux qui ne sont pas moralement compromis par le côté sombre qui sommeille peut-être en eux). La démocratie vous donne la liberté de vous comporter comme un imbécile antisocial, mais pour le plus grand bien, vous pouvez aussi choisir d’être l’antithèse de cela. N'est-ce pas vrai ? Le choix vous appartient. Bien que Philosocom ne soit pas une démocratie, en tant qu'administration virtuelle, je respecte vos droits et j'attends de vous que vous respectiez également les miens. C'est ce qu'on appelle une dictature bienveillante. Je vous permets de vous exprimer à condition que cela soit fait avec respect et pour cela je refuse de vous obliger à révéler votre véritable identité afin de commenter. De même, j’accepte les critiques et les évaluations de mon travail parce que vous en avez le droit. La forte tendance au manque de respect en ligne ne me dissuade pas. Ici, c'est différent. Et cela le restera, au moins tant que je resterai à la direction. *********************** (English, original) (Background music) (For more on the subject of rights, click here) Understanding Rights: Permission VS Entitlement A right, whether civil or otherwise, is fundamentally a permission. When that permission, which you are entitled to is violated then your right is either ignored or abolished, but certainly disrespected. When you have a right to free speech, you have the authorization to express yourself verbally or in writing. When you have the right to remain silent, you are granted the liberty of refraining from saying anything that could be used against you in court of law. A permission must be granted to be considered one. And for it to be considered, it must be recognized. A privilege is a permission that is exclusively reserved for a select few, while a right is a permission that is more widely accessible. And as such, rights are not necessarily inherent to your existence. Some rights may be perceived as objective, but that is solely because they are broadly accepted and held in high esteem. Like many things, they are subject to perception. As I have mentioned previously, intersubjectivity isn't objectivity. Objectivity, after all, exists independently of opinion, and opinions that are widely regarded as true are not necessarily the truth for that reason alone. The world beyond our mind does not necessitate our existence to in order to exist itself. This does not preclude democratic elections, and not even the most essential of human rights. We are only entitled to what we are permitted to, by forces stronger than us. The Role of Compassion in Maintaining Rights For that permission to endure, that permission needs to be enforced, maintained. Should you not have your permissions supported, you might either have to give them up, or struggle to preserve them. Because if no one will bother doing so, then you might have to do so yourself. As such, rights are not without their enforcers, and sometimes, these enforces do not have to be in uniform, nor armed with anything... but their hearts. Rights are something that can easily be violated by just about anyone, and not only in war-torn countries or in dictatorships. You might not always have the right to express yourself freely, and you might not always have the right to move anywhere you want. People can slander you publicly, thus ruining your good name, and people might not respect your right to preserve your religious faith, or abstain from one altogether. Understand that rights are conventions. They are different from norms, even though these are conventions as well, but the point is that we simply agree that they exist, so we act in accordance to their recognition Whether they actually exist, physically, morally, and so on, is up for debate. And yet, the recognition alone fruits practical impact on reality. We can't exactly be certain that they exist beyond our minds, correct? Not as, let's say, a physical object such as the device you're using to read this article. You may be surprised, but logically, these rights are also your responsibility, as well as mine. If you believe in the worth of the right for respect, you may act hypocritically if you constantly disrespect others. Strangers, people you know, or both. A person who truly respects this right will not make a mockery of others so frequently. But because people like to have a laugh whenever they'd like, their constant mockery of others and of you becomes obvious. Fun is a poor excuse to disrespect someone, but should you ask them about the right for respect, they might say that they value this right, regardless of their actions. It's hard to be consistent when you've yet to become a logical being. Rights aren't exactly absolute and they may be limited with justification. Whether or not that justification is a logical one, is another matter. They are often justified soundly when a right is sacrificed, partially or completely, for another. For example: You might not be permitted to protest because of a security threat. In this case your right to protest is minimized in favor of your right to safety. And speaking of safety, it is quite obvious that it is anyone's moral obligation to keep other people's from harming them. That is, if they really care to be safe from abuse. Physical violence, bullying, and other such acts are examples of those who take away your right for safety, whether they value it, can easily lead to dishonesty. How? Those who inflict violence may not like to receive violence themselves. Don't expect everyone to care for your rights. That is unrealistic. People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, for example, don't care, unless it may be useful for them to do so. To expect a sociopath/psychopath to show compassion is like expecting a cat to become a dog. Rights, as such, have compassion as an element: A caring for other human beings, as human beings. Tyrants may abolish people's rights constantly because many of them are either psychopaths or sociopaths. They lack the emotional capacity to care enough to permit rights to their subjects. Not as much as in democracies, at the least. If all humans were psychopaths, civil and human rights wouldn't exist. Instead, we would live in a world where the strong has any right to rule over the weak, simply because there would be no stronger bodies to oppose them. Also, ruthlessness and power over others, would've been virtues, far more. I once read the words of such being, who denounced the objective existence of any rights. Unfortunately, I agree with him. His justification was: No right will necessarily prevent one from death, like in murder, but also other forms of death. And indeed, with the lack of regard to other human beings, the only force capable of someone pulling the trigger on something else, is a force stronger than them. Therefore, in order to fulfill our moral obligation for others' rights, we must grow our compassion and empathy. Decreasing them might make us become.... monsters, permanently. I will not tell you what I mean by that, for I wish to be more discreet. I will only tell you, for now, that it is possible, as evil can corrupt. Disregard morality completely, and you can become such monster as well, with no cure at hand. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to be compassionate and empathetic, as some people became these monsters I'm speaking of... a point of no return. It is still realistic, I believe, to have faith in many of humanity, who have yet to have fallen to what I'm speaking of. I believe they can be better beings, through redemption. And perhaps you should believe as well, necessarily for them, or for your own interests. For democracy. Either for its establishment, or for its continuation. Democracy doesn't end in the voting ballot. If anything, it ends where our empathy does. The empathy that is not only of leaders, but of citizens as well. Of anyone with enough heart left. In Praise of Rights and Civil Behavior: Pillars of Philosocom I am not advocating for loving strangers. Rather, I am emphasizing the importance of safeguarding their rights, by not allowing yourself to violate them. Respecting them as individuals equal to you by right, can equal to valuing democracy itself, not just the individuals themselves. If they mistreat you, it's perfectly acceptable to remove them from your life, provided it's crucial for your well-being and well-adjusted existence. (Loving others can offer great comfort, particularly to those who feel isolated and those who aren't morally compromised by the darkness within them). Democracy grants you the liberty to behave like an anti-social jerk, but for the greater good, you can also choose to be the antithesis of that. Isn't that right? The choice is yours. While Philosocom is not a democracy, like with any virtual administration, I respect your rights and expect you to respect mine as well. It's called a benevolent dictatorship. I permit you to express yourself as long as it's done respectfully and refuse force you to reveal your true identity in order to comment. Similarly, I welcome criticism and evaluation of my work because you have the right to do so. The high tendency of disrespect online doesn't deter me. Here, it's different. And it will remain so, at least until my demise.

2023 Note: Remember, even I, may be wrong. I never claimed omniscience. After realizing I was practicing sexual transmutation for the sake of Philosocom, I officially renounce my claims as asexual. (French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc. English Below) Se préparer à souffrir - Ma philosophie sur un cœur brisé Un cœur brisé est une expression abstraite qui définit la déception et l'échec chaque fois que quelqu'un que vous aimez vous rejette. Bien que votre cœur ne craque pas nécessairement lorsque cela se produit, une condition médicale, appelée syndrome du cœur brisé, existe. Je ne vais pas parler de médecine ici, et je ne suis pas un professionnel de la santé, seulement un philosophe. Tant que vous avez des gens que vous aimez dans la vie, la possibilité que votre cœur « se brise » existe toujours. C'est parce que vous ne pouvez empêcher personne de vous rejeter. Au Japon, il existe un type d'amant très mortel, appelé le yandere. Un Yandere est un amant qui est tellement obsédé par vous qu'il peut être extrêmement dangereux pour n'importe qui, y compris vous-même. Une recherche rapide sur Youtube peut révéler les fantasmes troublants de ces amants, kidnappant le spectateur, pour qu'ils ne s'échappent jamais. L'évasion, après tout, est un signe de rejet... Surtout si vous êtes emprisonné. Hum, oui. Hurrem, l'épouse du sultan Soliman Ier, était une yandere. Après avoir réalisé que mon cœur sera brisé indéfiniment par quiconque que j'aimerai, je renonce à mon serment de vivre comme un moine et de m'abstenir de femmes. Je ne sais pas si le sexe m'intéresse, mais je suis ouvert à l'idée, donc je verrai au moins par moi-même. Heureusement, être asexuel ne signifie pas que vous n'êtes pas une personne romantique. Les personnes aromantiques existent, donc le besoin d'aimer et d'être aimé émotionnellement n'est pas universel pour tous. Les gens peuvent avoir peur de l'amour parce qu'ils ont peur d'être blessés, et pas seulement rejetés. Ils craignent la souffrance et la douleur émotionnelle qui peuvent être incluses lorsqu'ils interagissent avec quelqu'un qui les attire. Ils peuvent avoir des problèmes de confiance, car l'autre personne peut, soudainement, les trahir en étant émotionnellement proche de quelqu'un d'autre. Et ainsi de suite. Ma décision de devenir "moine" était de réduire la douleur et la souffrance causées par les autres. Et qui peut causer la plus grande douleur émotionnelle, sinon ceux que vous aimez vraiment ? Et pourtant, un cœur brisé est "parfait". C'est "parfait" quand on se rend compte que la réalité est imparfaite. Que les autres sont imparfaits. Que tu es imparfait. Pourquoi alors laisser des défauts qui vous gênent, des défauts que vous ne pouvez pas forcément corriger, vous barrer la route, pour plus d'ambition ? Je ne me soucie plus si mon cœur sera brisé. Il a été brisé assez de fois, donc je suis déjà conscient de la douleur. Au lieu de cela, je rassemblerai les morceaux brisés et je construirai un cœur plus grand, jusqu'à ce que mon cœur devienne aussi fort que l'acier. Je parle métaphoriquement ici, mais vous pouvez suivre la même philosophie. Il en est de même pour mes fidèles lecteurs. Ils peuvent rejeter mes articles et même décider de se déconnecter indéfiniment. Cette possibilité ne me menace pas, car c'est une possibilité que je reconnais. Le but de la philosophie n'est pas seulement de trouver des vérités, mais aussi de les reconnaître. Les regarder droit dans les yeux, sans peur et avec beaucoup de courage. Il est, après tout, préférable pour le philosophe de le faire, plutôt que de vivre dans l'illusion. Correct? Oui. Après avoir parlé avec certaines personnes, j'ai réalisé que le "défaut" est le nouveau "parfait". On admire quand une personne est honnête à propos de ses défauts, et être malhonnête en la matière est un petit défaut. La personne qui fait semblant pour les autres, juste pour leur plaire, peut avoir du mal à gagner leur confiance. Cela semble également vrai dans la romance. Un homme vulnérable est également aimé, car cela signifie que l'homme est suffisamment ouvert pour vous. Je suis moi-même vulnérable, mais je n'ai plus peur d'être blessé une fois de plus, ou le temps après. L'amour demande des sacrifices. Sacrifice qui est noble. Un sacrifice moral et apprécié. Un bon amant est aussi un homme ou une femme qui sont aussi des êtres fidèles. Et la loyauté demande du courage, ainsi que de l'intégrité. Craindre que votre cœur ne soit brisé peut signifier que vous n'êtes pas assez ouvert à votre loyauté ou à celle de votre partenaire. Les gens aiment se sentir en sécurité. Non seulement financièrement mais aussi psychologiquement. Et pas seulement vos amis ou lecteurs fidèles. Les amoureux aussi. Ceux qui craignent un cœur brisé peuvent ne pas se sentir suffisamment en sécurité pour se sacrifier pour un autre. Parce que l'autre, ils ne peuvent pas le ou la contrôler. Parce que l'autre, peut toujours partir, et trahir. Terminons par ceci : Afin de vous préparer à ce que votre cœur se brise, vous devez d'abord réaliser l'inévitabilité de la douleur. Physique ou autre. Il n'y a pas de vie qui soit toujours sans douleur. Acceptez la douleur comme une possibilité, et s'il n'y a pas de danger réel, vous pourriez être suffisamment ouvert pour souffrir une fois de plus, au nom de l'amour. Au nom de lui, ou d'elle. Car la douleur est un produit du sacrifice dans de tels cas. La vengeance ne doit pas toujours consister à prouver que quelqu'un a tort. Elle peut aussi se définir par une vie bien vécue. Par une vie où il y a de l'amour. Et Chen ? Elle paiera de toute façon. Longue vie à Philosocom. ************************************** (English, original) A broken heart is an abstract expression that defines disspointment and failure whenever someone you love rejects you. While your heart doesn't necessarily crack when it happens, a medical condition, called Broken Heart Syndrome, exists. I'm not going to talk about medicine here, and I'm not a medical professional, only a philosopher. As long as you have people you love in life, the possibility of your heart to "break" always exists. That's because you cannot stop anyone from rejecting you. In Japan there is a very deadly type of lover, called the yandere. A Yandere is a lover who is so obsessed about you, they can be extremely dangerous to anyone, yourself included. A quick search on Youtube can reveal disturbing fantasies of these lovers, kidnapping the viewer, so they will never escape. Escape, after all, is a sign of rejection... Especially if you are imprisoned. Hm, yes. Hurrem, the wife of Sultan Suleiman I, was a yandere. After realizing that my heart will be broken indefinitely by anyone I'll ever love, I am renouncing my oath to live like a monk and abstain from women. I don't know if I'm interested in sex, but I am open to the idea, so I will at least see for myself. Fortunately, being asexual does not mean you are not a romantic person. People who are aromantic exist, so the need to love and be loved emotionally is not universal to all. People may fear love because they fear being hurt, and not only rejected. They fear suffering and the emotional pain that may be included when interacting with someone they are attracted to. They may have problems with trust, because the other person can, suddenly, betray them by being emotionally close to someone else. And so on and on. My decision to become a "monk" was to reduce pain and suffering caused by others. And who can cause the greatest emotional pain, if not those whom you truly love? And yet, a broken heart is "perfect". It is "perfect" when you realize that reality is flawed. That other people are flawed. That you are flawed. Why, then, let flaws that hinder you, flaws that you can't necessarily fix, stand in your way, for greater ambition? I no longer care if my heart will be shattered. It has been shattered enough times, so I am already aware of the pain. Instead, I will gather the broken pieces and build a greater heart, until my heart becomes as strong as iron. I am speaking metaphorically here, but you can follow the same philosophy. The same is true for my loyal readers. They may reject my articles and even decide to disconnect indefinitely. That possibility does not threaten me, for it is a possibility that I recognize. The point of philosophy is not only to find truths, but also to recognize them. To look them straight in the eye, without fear, and with great courage. It is, after all, better for the philosopher to do so, rather than to live in delusion. Correct? Yes. After speaking with some people, I have realized that "flaw" is the new "perfect". It is admired when a person is honest about their flaws, and to be dishonest in the matter is a petty flaw. The person who pretends for others, just to please them, may find it difficult to earn their trust. This seems to be true in romance as well. A vulnerable man is also liked, because it means that the man is open enough for you. I am myself vulnerable, but no longer fear being hurt once more, or the time after it. Love requires sacrifice. Sacrifice that is noble. Sacrifice that is moral and appreciated. A good lover is also a man or woman who are also loyal beings. And loyalty takes courage, as well as integrity. To fear your heart being broken can mean that you are not open enough for either your loyalty, or that of your partner's. People like to feel safe. Not only financially but psychologically, as well. And not just your friends or loyal readers. Lovers, as well. Those who fear a broken heart, may not feel safe enough, to sacrifice themselves for another. For the other, they cannot control. For the other, can always leave, and betray. Let us conclude with this: In order to prepare for your heart to break, you must first realize the inevitability of pain. Physical or otherwise. There is no life that is always pure of pain. Accept pain as a possibility, and if there is no actual danger, you might be open enough to suffer once more, in the name of love. In the name of him, or her. For pain is a product of sacrifice in such cases. Vengeance does not always have to be about proving someone wrong. It can also be defined by a life that is well lived. By a life where there is love. And Chen? She will pay either way. Hail Philosocom.

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article). Growing up is a process that can be done manually and independently, too. While we do grow up biologically and with time, growing up is also a mental process. It is a work that we can do with ourselves or with the help of others, in order to become tougher and be able to endure more of life. Today, we might be insulted when someone tells us that we need to grow up. We might regard it as an "attack" on our being, and we might regard that person to be toxic. However, what we need to understand is that sometimes the truth is toxic. Judgment of others may be toxic, specifically because it's true. Because we're flawed, and may need to work on ourselves and become better. Avoiding to improve at all, because feeling insulted or "attacked", is infantile. If you want to understand what it's like to actually be attacked, become a mercenary in a private military company. In masculinity, boys become "men" by this very process. By the process of becoming more resilient and prioritizing things and beings. Grown adults may be less insulted than younger people because they have made this mental work, and as a result, their minds are strong, and able to endure more from reality. Masculinity is therefore "toxic" because men might be expected to "grow up" more than women. They are expected to become more stoic, and/or more reasonable, and so on. And a "real man" is just an adult man who has grown up mentally. You don't need to be a "badass", or a man who does extreme things in life, for that mean. I'm not telling you that you should obey that verison. I'm simply explaining it with no subtext in mind. Don't attribute to me things I never said. I'm a writer, I can write text instead. The point of "growing up" is to become more practical. By "practical" I refer to our ability to manage our lives and our priorities better. For philosophy to be relevant we must apply its logic to real life. We should not delude ourselves that every feature of philosophy is irrelevant to the real world. Especially reason, and the daring to expand our horizons. For example, if you drive on your way to work, and you see a dead rabbit on the side of the road, the "grown person" will resume driving to work. That's because they are aware of their priorities, and because they can't exactly bring the rabbit back to life. We should stop using humanity as an excuse to preserve an infantile mentality. Yes, we deserve empathy and we deserve compassion, both ways. However, there may be more pressing topics at hand, than to lament a random animal who cannot be revived in any way. Topics like not getting fired. Topics like paying the bills, by working, and so on. The grown up person represses their emotions when these emotions are in their way for practicality. It does not mean that they should bury them and pretend they do not exist. I mean that we should reject our urges when they are in our way to practicality. Recently, in Israel, a female walrus was spotted in our country's beaches. Since it's very uncommon, the walrus became an attraction, and people gathered simply to record her. She was even mentioned in the news and in radio stations and what not. And all I could think is how minor it all is. Minor because I have better things to attend to, than to be amazed by walruses. Even if I were not a handicap, I would not waste my time to meet this "celebrity" in person (Sorry, couldn't find an English source). That is why you may find mentally-grown people, such as professionals, and even philosophers, to be arrogant. It's not that they necessarily think you're beneath them. It's just that they have other businesses to attend to. Businesses that are worthier of their time than something like a walrus. Things like work, like studies, and so on. People may be unavailable to you because you are not the center on the universe, obviously. The childish person, whether a child or an adult, focuses on things and beings that don't deserve their time. They give importance unwisely and with poor proportions. They would "make a mountain out of a mouse" from things such as an ice cream's flavor that they did not want (even if it is tasty regardless). They would be upset if the car they bought was not the exact shade of color they wanted ("Cool Grey" and not "Cadet Grey"). Finally, they will be frustrated if they would order a cup of coffee, and the name signed on it isn't exactly accurate. Childish people may also whine more, by this logic. I used to whine a lot, too, until I hardened up (In the mind, goddamnit). So when people threaten me online and give me "warnings", I am simply reminded of the times where I was actually threatened. In the one time where there was a missile attack and I was outside. When there was a risk that I would not make it home, after I went to a massive hike, and was moaning in pain all the way back. And more and more hardships. This is an example for proportions. When someone asks me if I'm feeling threatened over some content, or when someone "threatens" to block me... is it that bad? Really? Because when people feel "attacked" they might not be aware of this world's darker parts and of the horrors it contains to this very day. The logical conclusion to this article is that you should grow up, just like I did. Don't be insulted because that feeling can hinder you from doing something that is actually good for you. And of course, women can mentally toughen up/grow up as well. Being a woman is no excuse to remain fragile, when fragility stands in your way for a greater success in life. "Man up" is nothing more than a synonym. Women can do that, as well, and it's a sexist mistake to think that they can't because of a demographic-specific synonym. Words to live by (satire) Edit: For further clarification -- I do not call to bury our wants and needs. I'm calling to reject the temptation to be impulsive. Impulsiveness is a childish act. Every want and/or need as a place in the mind of the mature person. It's why they prioritize in the first place.

(Disclaimer: By letting other guest writers be a feature, it doesn't necessarily reflect the philosophical views of the site's main writer and founder, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein. If you wish to submit a guest post of your own, please send your application to mrtomasio@philosocom.com . Thanks for reading, and thanks to Mr. Sindel for contributing his second guest post for Philosocom.) (Translated to English by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein. Hebrew Below עברית למטה). (Rubinshtein's note: The logic in this article can be applied to other areas of life. Including philosophy. Please enjoy). ************************************* (English Audio) I will hasten to clarify that I do not pretend to be an expert, and I may be incorrect. However, I always enjoy sharing my thoughts about humanity's future. When I was a high school student, I entertained myself with animation programs that were available at the time. One of my videos became popular, and I was even asked by some strangers if I had made it. One evening in the 2010s, I told a friend that my dream was to create a cinema concert that would feature my animations. He mocked me and said that, as a cinema student, he knew it would never happen. He explained that the entertainment industry would never allow such a thing, and that the world would never have a way to distribute an animation in a cinema-industry format. He said that it all comes down to distribution, and that it is unlikely that there will ever be a network to distribute videos in our lifetimes. He also said that the world's powerful people would never allow such a thing to happen, as it would make them irrelevant. I pointed to my video as an example of how the internet could be used for distribution, but he smiled and explained that, in his view, the internet is too niche and is only used by a minority, compared to television and cinema. These days, it seems that the platform of short videos is on the rise. Even companies such as Meta and Google have built infrastructure to compete with China. I have mostly read complaints about these short videos, saying that they are shallow and nonsensical. Cinema is a way to tell a story. The truth is, even if we deny it, storytelling is the language of humanity. Perhaps we even formed words, according to my fantasies. What we are seeing here is a natural process, not a revolution. By a natural process, I mean the crumbling of power held by Hollywood and the different entertainment industries. But there never came the moneky that writes like Shakespere (for more on that, click here). The reason is that entertainment corporations are using their power to herd humanity like sheep, instead of telling the most interesting stories. When they do not, people, critics, and the audience are surprised. The easiest way to herd people is to speak to them with shallow and Machiavellian stories. This causes the audience to sit like disciplined monkeys and be brainwashed in silence. Hence why it's no wonder that when the cinema institution is totally cracked and could collapse, it's no wonder that the audience, who can tell their tell using said video platforms, choose to tell shallow stories to their followers as if they were sheep. But the truth is, there were cases where the cinematic institution was cracked, and the "monkeys" were more and more obedient to the revolutionaries. For example, in Rocky's picture show. It began, so they say, when someone began screaming. Then, the audience did whatever it had on its mind during the show. Even nowadays, there are instances where the Hollywood institution is showing its cracks. For example, teenagers vandalize a cinema hall during the run of the second Minions movie. While many are unaware, these are, in fact, the end of Hollywood's reign over its privilege to tell a story. Nowadays, this privilege belongs to anyone. In many cases, Hollywood has risen up to fill a gap that was created with the weakening of the churches. But Hollywood is a church as and of itself. The alternative deserves to be replaced with another. We are able to convert the virtual audience into a physical one, with no strict rules. Because the story will be interesting enough, and not lead to the crumbling of the event. And if someone yells something at the display, it is not forbidden. It is part of the experience. The show is supposed to be based on a "pay as much as you can" monetary system. Or barter. Or by nothing at all. In our time, when a movie projector costs less than ever before, and there are additional technological additions at hand, every place can turn into a cinematic environment. That is contrary to the orthodox cinema church. Initially, I thought of doing the event of anyone's story in nature. However, that can be included anywhere. Anywhere where a movie can create a cinematic space. But then I was told that it's already been done. And I replied, yes, it's done, but the movies that are shown are Hollywoodish, or stem from the entertainment industry. And thus, if we use technology and a virtual infrastructure to resume Hollywood's dynasty, then yes, let them enjoy. However, it is definitely not anarcho-cinema, sorry. Not even a middle stage. The whole point of this concept is to tell your story, and not that of entertainment companies. In fact, I think, anarcho-cinema's advantage and even the potential of short-video platforms, is that everyone will tell a story. That way, a variety of stories are made. And not just the same number of pieces in an institutional atmosphere. Even though currently, influencers are the middle stage of this concept, I still regard it as a positive progression. Every person, with technology, tell their story, and not just a few conservative directors at Hollywood. Eventually, the attention the new stars will recieve, be justified, and based on something, and not just on shallowness, as we used to recieve by the different companies. (אודיו בעברית) האנרכולנוע מכה שנית / מר אורי זינדל (הערה ממנהל האתר, מר תומאסיו רובינשטיין: ניתן להקביל את הלוגיקה של המאמר לתחומים אחרים בחיים. זה כולל גם פילוסופיה. בבקשה, תהנו). רק אקדים ואבהיר שמן הסתם אני לא מתיימר להיות מומחה, ויכול להיות שאני לא יודע על מה אני מדבר, אבל תמיד נחמד לשתף את קהל עוקביי בניחושים שלי לגבי עתיד האנושות. כשהייתי תלמיד בבית הספר התיכון, הייתי משתעשע לא מעט עם תוכנות האנימציה שהיו זמינות באותה התקופה. אחד הסרטונים תפס, ואף קרה ששניים או שלושה אנשים רנדומלים ברחוב שאלו אותי אם אני הוא אותו אנימטור שהכין את הסרטון. ערב אחד באמצע העשור הראשון של האלף השלישי, בשיחה עם חבר לספסל הלימודים סמוך לסינמטק ירושלים, אמרתי לו שהחלום הכי גדול שלי הוא ליצור מעין מופע קולנועי שיכיל את סרטוני האנימציה שלי. הוא גיחך, ואמר שכאדם שלומד במגמת קולנוע, הוא יודע שאין סיכוי שזה אי-פעם יקרה. הוא הסביר שתעשיות הבידור לעולם לא יתנו לדבר כזה לקרות, ושגם לעולם לא תהיה דרך להפיץ סרט מצוייר או מצולם ברמה של תעשיית הקולנוע. הוא הסביר שזה נופל על הפצה, ושכנראה בימי חיינו לא תהיה תשתית להפצת סרטונים. ושבעלי העוצמה בעולם שלנו לא יתנו לזה לקרות, כי אז יהפכו ללא רלוונטיים בעצם. נתתי את הסרטון שלי כדוגמא לשימוש באינטרנט בשביל להפיץ דברים כאלו, והוא בתגובה חייך והסביר לי שכפי שהוא מבין את הדברים, האינטרנט נישתי מדי ובעצם מיעוט משתמש בו, לעומת הטלוויזיה הקולנוע. בימינו נדמה שפלטפורמות של סרטונים קצרים בעליה, ואפילו מטא וגוגל בנו תשתית בשביל להתחרות בסינים. יוצא לי לקרוא בעיקר תלונות על הסרטונים הקצרים הללו, כמה הם שטחיים ומגוחכים. קולנוע הוא דרך לספר סיפור, והאמת היא שגם אם נתכחש לכך, סיפור הוא שפת האדם. יכול להיות שאפילו לפני מילים, לפי מה שאני מפנטז. בעצם מה שאנחנו רואים פה, הוא תהליך טבעי ולא מהפכה, שהוא התפוררות ריכוזי העוצמה שניתנו לידיים של הוליווד ותעשיות הבידור השונות. אלא שעוד לא קם הקוף שכותב כמו שייקספיר [לעוד מידע על אגדת אנשי המחשבים של הניינטיז, נא לקרוא את הטקסט הראשון בנושא], והסיבה לכך היא שתעשיות הבידור כמעט תמיד משתמשות בכח הרב שלהן בשביל לרעות את האנושות ככבשים במקום לספר את הסיפור המעניין ביותר [וכשלא, משום מה כולם, הקהל והמבקרים כולם מופתעים כל כך]. הדרכים הקלות ביותר לעשות זאת הן לדבר עם הקהל בסיפורים שטחיים ומקיאווליסטים. מה שקורה בעקבות זה - זה שהקהל צריך לשבת במושבים כמו קופים ממושמעים, ולעבור שטיפת מח המונית בשקט. לכן אין פלא שכשבית הקולנוע סדוק לחלוטין ועלול לקרוס, הקהל, שניתנה לו האפשרות לספר את סיפוריו בפלטפורמות הסרטונים הקצרים, בוחר לספר סיפור שטחי לעוקביו כאילו היו כבשים. אבל האמת היא שהיו מקרים בהם מוסד בתי הקולנוע נסדק והקופים היו לפחות ממושמעים ויותר למהפכנים. למשל, מופע הקולנוע של רוקי. שהתחיל לפי מה שמספרים מזה שמישהו צרח בזמן הקרנת הסרט, מה שהתפתח בהמשך לתופעה של סרט בו הקהל עושה ככל העולה על רוחו. גם בימינו ישנם מקרים בהם הממסד ההוליוודי נסדק, לדוגמא - טינאייג'רים מחריבים אולם קולנוע בסרט ההמשך של המיניונים. בלי לדעת זאת, בעצם מדובר בסימנים של קץ ריכוז הכח של הוליווד ותעשיית הבידור על לספר סיפורים, ותחילתו של עידן בו כל אדם יוכל לספר סיפור. במובנים רבים, הוליווד קמה בשביל למלא את החלל שנוצר עם החלשות הכנסיות. אבל הוליווד היא כנסיה בפני עצמה, בגלל שיש להם בלעדיות על לספר אך ורק את הסיפור של הוליווד. צריך לבנות אלטרנטיבה לאלטרנטיבה. ניתן לקחת את הקהל בתשתית הוירטואלית ולהמיר את זה לקהל למופע קולנוע מוחשי, בלי כללים נוקשים. כי הסיפור יהיה מספיק מעניין ולא יגרום להתמוטטות המופע. ואם מישהו יצעק משהו לעבר סרט הקולנוע, זה לא אסור, אלא חלק מהחוויה. המופע אמור להיות על בסיס של "שלם ככל יכולתך" או אפילו סחר חליפין, או אפילו - כלום. בעצם בימינו כשמקרן של סרטים עולה הרבה פחות ממה שעלה בעבר, ויש יכולת טכנולוגית, כל מקום יכול להפוך לחלל קולנועי, בניגוד לכנסיית הקולנוע. בתחילה עלה הרעיון להקרין את הסיפור של כל מי שירצה בעצם בטבע, אבל זה יכול לקרות אשכרה בכל מקום. כל מקום בו יוקרן סרט יהפוך לחלל קולנועי. ואז העירו לי שכבר עושים את זה, והערתי בחזרה, כן אבל ההבדל הוא שהסרטים שמציגים הם הוליוודים או מגיעים מתעשיית בידור. כך שאם משתמשים בטכנולוגיות והתשתיות הוירטואליות בשביל להמשיך את שושלת הוליווד, זה נחמד ושיהנו, אבל זה בהחלט לא אנרכולנוע, סורי, זה אפילו לא שלב ביניים. כל הפואנטה של אנרכולנוע היא למעשה לספר את הסיפור שלך, ולא את הסיפור של תעשיות הבידור. בעצם, לדעתי, היתרון של אנרכולנוע וגם פוטנציאלית של פלטפורמות הסרטונים הקצרים, הוא שכל אחד יכול לספר סיפור, וכך נוצר מגוון של סיפורים ולא רק אותם מספר סיפורים באווירה כנסייתית. אמנם כרגע משפיעני הרשת הם מעבר ביניים, אבל לדעתי דווקא מדובר במעבר ביניים חיובי. כל אדם מסוגל טכנולוגית לספר את סיפורו, ולא רק כמה במאים שמרנים מהוליווד. בהמשך תשומת הלב שיקבלו הכוכבים החדשים תהיה מוצדקת ומבוססת על משהו, ולא על בסיס שטחיות כפי שהורגלנו לקלוט על ידי תעשיות הבידור השונות.

I'm always tempted to turn into a monster, Permenantly, permenantly. If you think I have a lot of empathy, I disagree. I disagree! My mentality, is restrained! My mentality, is, restrained! My mentality, is, restrained! For I have a deep need for morality. The abusers, who play, the victim! Who are the ones that they put in charge? Whining, bias and affection! By consent, by consent, by consent, Is not desire, not desire! By consent, by consent, I live due to it, Not desire, desire! Living to philosophize is all I live for, It's my job! It's my craft! I'm a philosopher, not a bloody therapist, A stern heart! A stern heart! Pain, just an obstacle! Pain, just an obstacle! Pain, just an obstacle! For I have a deep need for morality. The abusers, who play the victim! Who are the ones that they put in charge? Whining, bias and affection! By consent, by consent, by consent, Is not desire, not desire. By consent, I live to it, Not desire, desire! (Love is rare, love is rare, love is rare, For some, for some). Godamn, there is always such a deep passion, To play a hero, The hero! It's because of those I'm not an innocent Tom, But Tomasio, Mr. Tomasio! By consent, by consent, by consent, Is not desire, not desire! By consent, by consent I live to it, Not desire, desire! Whenever I am encountered by a biased paladin, There's a memory: Death threat's a sin! By consent, by consent, by consent, For my empire. ... By consent, by consent I live due to it, Not desire, desire!

Ms. Tamara Moskal's Synopsis In a fictive world where sensitive people form the elite, their principal value is emotional empathy. They will censor every unsettling aspect of reality, limit freedom of expression, and promote cancel culture. They reject rational cognitive empathy because their understanding of reality is based on emotions and insecurities. We should oppose such a sensitive elite and encourage the development of assertive, strong, and courageous characters instead. Also, there is no place for sensitivity in philosophy, as the philosopher must present the truth, regardless of the emotions it evokes. Disclaimer I guess I should say that this article is going to offend some of you, even though I'm just critiquing an concept I devised about a specific trait in some human beings. If you are easily offended, find some ways to cope with your emotions. And don't expect me, a random stranger on the internet, to be responsible for your emotions and insecurities. Consult a mental health professional instead. Disclaimer No. 2: I am referring to emotional sensitivity, specifically, in this article. (Background music) ************************************************ "Vulnerability is the result of being unable to psychologically process sensitivity. People are sensitive creatures by nature. Vulnerability could be nothing more than a result of too much sensitivity to things that you are not familiar with. Think of it as becoming too easily stimulated by things" -- Mr. Nathan Lasher Introduction I theorize that a new elite might rise up in the world. This elite will be made up of people who deem their shortcomings as virtues. They will prefer that the world be a nicer and kinder place, even if there is no widespread agreement or consent for their ambition to come to fruition. These people will deem their vulnerability as a way to understand other vulnerable beings. They won't necessarily understand the value of cognitive empathy as a feature, while they are already sensitive enough emotionally, despite less suffering included in cognitive empathy. After all, one can be both resilient and empathetic using their cognition, thus reducing their own vulnerability, while still maintaining understanding of other people's situation. It's also a skill to be developed, but I digress. They will regard the pain of love as something that is worth experiencing. They will see their emotional impression as the true testimony of reality that exists beyond their minds. They would oppose anyone who disturbs their feelings even if that person is not an actual threat on them. They will threaten others and nurture cancel culture to enable their sensitivity at the price of the freedom of expresion. They would also encourage to diminish and censor anything that is dark, but part of reality, through the promotion and usage of trigger warnings. They will see assertive people as threatening and arrogant, simply because they experience some unease from them. They will use the term "violence" in a much broader sense than a physical fight, even when their own usage applies to their actions as well. As such, they will regard even something as simple as a prank as an act of violence. They will regard a loud voice as an attack, as well, an attack that destroys their fragile endeavor for niceness. They would also promote the creation and management of safe spaces, as a way to protect themselves and others from harm that doesn't really exist beyond their own mentality. That is despite the shortcomings that involve safe spaces. They may try to hinder exchange of ideas, like in some subjects involved in philosophy, because some subjects hurt their feelings by the mere mentioning of them. Finally, they will be confined to the limitations of their feelings, and might struggle to see things beyond the metaphorical flashlight that it provides. And a bonus -- they will "throw" their emotions on you, as if it is your problem to deal with. It's as if the cause is always held responsible for the effect, as if the cause deserves so much power over something that can be worked on. As if it's your field of authority to make sure their emotion will be just like they want it. However, in a reality whose people we can't quite control, we must become mentally stronger in the name of actualizing our potential. It's something that can bring much contribution to your own survival, in some cases (like in content creation). Therefore, such theoretical elite is to be criticized and opposed in the name of a greater liberty in society. It's how we can further preserve and expand the possibility of exchanging ideas and expressing ourselves without having to walk on eggshells, so to speak. From Eggshells to Steel I used to be extremely sensitive most of my life, and it had its ups and downs. However, the downs deluded me to believe that there is no escape from high sensitivity. It is with the use of reason that I became braver and tougher. Confidence can get you in a lot of places in life, and open a lot of opportunities for you to seize. If you don't grow up mentally, you will remain emotionally underdeveloped, and be offended by minor things that don't deserve much power. Such is possible through assertiveness, which is a core component in being confident. But if we do not teach the next generations the importance of building character, they will remain mentally weak and extremely irritated by many things throughout their lifetime unnecessarily. And that will, in a domino-like effect, make others be irritated themselves, thus reducing social harmony, cooperation, and mental health through petty disputes. This can harm their growth in life in many ways: financially, socially, romantic, and so on. Should we escape struggle like the plague, we will not let it build up our spirits, and make our nerves, be of steel. As such, adversity can be like a medicine to the mind. A generation of cowards afraid of derogatory terms like "cowards" because it does not feel nice, is one that may hide from becoming a better version of itself. It's a generation that may condemn the otherside through the fallacious self-defense mechanism of whataboutism, instead of understanding the other side. Should it not build self-confidence, it will remain insecure and may regard many things as threatening. From eye contact, to reasonable things that trigger unusual emotional reactions on their part. As such, sensitivity corrupts not only individual freedoms in society, but also our own understanding of some aspects of reality. It contains a cognitive-based corruption. Should we normalize sensitivity as a good thing, we would need to force others to accept the flaws in us that can be worked on by ourselves. We would hinder our ability to advance and develop in life through cooperation with tougher and more-blunt people, even though they can be assets to our hopes and dreams, just because we are very attached to our emotions. This in turn will unnecessarily limit the pool of people we would allow ourselves to work with. Becoming tougher, however, would expand our pool of human resources, along with the assets of the same useful people. Otherwise, on a collective scale, freedom of expression will be censored by the PC trends. The freedom of religion will backfire, and censor anything that hurts people's religious feelings, including nudity in art museums. And so on and on. And let us not talk about the freedom of thought, because there might be a "harmful" or "dangerous" thought, and one that does not. This can greatly reduce our right to exchange ideas, as expected in philosophy and other intellectual areas. To be sensitive to others requires an active reduction of personal freedoms all around, whether justified or otherwise. One cannot be sensitive to another without personalizing their reactions to the person's personal sensitivities. However, the more we won't accept others as beyond our control, the more we will unnecessarily suffer. The collective "sensitization" of individual behavior is there order to preserve a nicer, safer place for everybody. However, since those who are not sensitive, don't really need it, that "place" is only within the interest of those who are more sensitive, and/or those who refuse to become tougher. We need sensitivity to a reasonable degree. We need it to have emotional empathy, for example, when we lack the intellect for a consistent execution of cognitive empathy, which is independent of sensitivity, which is part of many of us by default. But when it calls for the limitation of other people's legitimate behavior, should we accept our above-average sensitivity? In the name of altruism, we should not use it to limit the freedom of others, when we can see our sensitivity as a problem to be solved. By solving it we would suffer far less and others would suffer less from us as well. Thus, we can be leading ourselves to a win-win situation, where general suffering is reduced without resorting to escapism. This fragility is what makes us walk on eggshells around others and censor ourselves in fear of being canceled. . I say this as someone who used to be very sensitive, and as someone who has met people who are even more sensitive than I ever was. In the name of greater functioning in society, sensitivity is to be seen as a problem, rather than a virtue. With the "Same Result Problem" theory of mine we can understand the value of being there for others and of caring about them without the alleged necessity of being sensitive. How come? Being tougher ourselves would better allow us to help others in their time of need, despite the discomfort involved when someone else is in distress. Why Resilience Wins in the Public Interest In the real world, many people will not care about you unless they have some kind of personal interest in doing so. It usually involves themselves, as a part in our brains naturally reduces our altruistic tendencies. You cannot force someone to care about you just because you are sensitive... Unless you do it at gunpoint? Anyways, the conscious choice of caring about your vulnerabilities lies with them, regardless of who they are. It is not yours to make. Why would it be in the public interest to compromise ourselves for the sake of a minority of people who are more sensitive than most? If we combine the desire for a more caring society with unchecked emotions, we get an "emotionocracy" - a nation ruled by feelings rather than reason. The more emotional someone is, the more they might be treated like a fragile snowflake who needs protection and care, "exempt" from judgment. Given the fact that we can change other people's behavior using our own, we can be treated differently ourselves. It is ridiculous that we live in a world where people can lose their jobs for being truthful to our bosses due to the prioritization of tact over problem-solving! Problems that can be worked on! This highlights the importance of building resilience. True growth comes from facing challenges and learning from criticism, even in spite of hurt feelings over poor-quality tact. As such, resilience could help everyone, regardless of their social and/or professional status. The Role of Sensitivity In Philosophy This is why emotional fragility has little place in philosophy. The core of philosophy is the relentless pursuit of truth, as unearthed through rigorous inquiry. A philosopher's role is not to sugarcoat reality or appease sensitivities in the name of political correctness. Their duty lies in uncovering and presenting the truth, regardless of how comfortable it may be. If you seek wisdom through philosophy, be prepared to confront challenging truths and potentially offensive ideas. Being "wise" yet unwilling to confront these truths is akin to deceiving the audience. It's about presenting the best available understanding of reality, even if it clashes with pre-existing beliefs or desires. Philosophers might be perceived as arrogant for their unwavering commitment to truth. But is it truly arrogance to fulfill your role with integrity? A mechanic wouldn't be considered arrogant for honestly diagnosing a car's problem, even if it's expensive to fix. Similarly, a philosopher seeking truth shouldn't be condemned for their findings. The pursuit of truth often comes with challenges. Be prepared to face criticism, even harassment, from those who may find the truth unsettling. This isn't a popularity contest; it's about intellectual rigor. Sensitivity is admired for a softer, "socially wise" approach, while the philosopher's pursuit of truth is sent to the corner. However, true wisdom lies in understanding the complexities of the world, even if it means confronting uncomfortable truths. Their dedication to truth ultimately contributes to a more profound understanding of the human experience. Sensitivity, on the other hand, can only repel it, if anything. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: "Living an emotionless life is no way to live. Emotions however should only be used to support existing thoughts. They become a problem when your emotions are creating initial thoughts in your mind. Sensitivity is not a bad thing. It allows us to be aware of things. Important to have but just don’t let it control your life. Use sensitivity for self awareness and nothing more. We are sensitive towards ourselves so you don’t have to be sensitive towards other people. Isn’t that what sensitivity is at its core? Built in alerts for the human body. The more you can learn to manage your internal sensitivity the more one will have control over external sensitivity. I might be coming from a different place with my responses. Autism resulting in heightened senses and the savant thing resulting in making it hypersensitivity. Sensitivity is way better than none. We sense to become aware of things. We must train our minds to be sensitive about the right things." Controlling your emotional sensitivity is actually a physiological problem. We must learn to control the actual release of emotions. If you don’t want to have the psychological response to the physical act of emotions being created then simply learn a way to lessen it. Sensitivity can be a wonderful thing if you don’t give in to the impulsivity which often accompanies it.

(2023 Note: Now that I compared myself to other autists, I've realized I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can be considered part of ASD, or the Autism Spectrum Disorders. I, however, am no longer sure if I am indeed an autist, even though I was diagnosed. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). There is a very automatic assumption in the field of norms: that he who is "perfectly normal" is also "perfectly okay." However, this is a false assumption, as desired traits such as kindness, charm, and good manners can be used as a front to hide who you really are. Furthermore, some people may use their normal status in society as a front to be jerks towards those who are not normal. Human beings are easily manipulated. By manipulation, I refer to the ways in which you can persuade others. If you appear charming to someone and are good at it, you may win their admiration, even if you are not the person you really are in their mind. Concealing is important and is sometimes okay, such as when you deserve privacy. However, it is not okay to use normalcy as an excuse to be a jerk to the outsiders of society. It is not true that everyone is capable of normalcy. Some people are just too eccentric for their own good. I may offend you, accidently, because I'm autistic, and autistic people can be insensitive to others. Intentionally or otherwise. I may come off as arrogant, even though I view myself as a means to an end, and not the end-all-be-all of my existence. In other words, I see myself as a tool for my work, and little else. Feel free to think otherwise, but you cannot read my mind, can you? Rely on my honesty, or deceive yourself into thinking that I am being dishonest. The choice is yours to make. I have already been treated poorly by others due to my eccentricity. This is all the more reason to not be a social being. Not all humans are social beings because not all humans enjoy socializing. Not all people like to hang out, and of course, not all interactions with others are social. It is nonsensical to deem every single interaction with others as social, because socializing is a recreational activity. We don't have to socialize with the cashier to have food, correct? We can simply pay and be on our way. This cooperation does not require anything but a financial transaction. I, on the other hand, never find much joy in socializing. When I communicate with someone, from a new visitor to my most loyal of readers, it is done for a reason that has nothing to do with recreation. For I have the mentality of either a businessman or a military officer. See me as proof to the incorrect assumption that all humans are social beings. If I wanted extensive solitude, I would be in it like I have been for much of my life. There is a certain "curse" in being eccentric by default. However, it does not mean that there is something deeply flawed in you. Being weird, by itself, is not a flaw. If you have very esoteric interests, it does not mean it's not okay to have those, just because many people do not share your preferences. An anonymous person online talked about their overwhelming experience in a big social event. Some autistic people may suffer from sensory problems, like I struggle very much with sound (misophonia). So, I offered my own insight on such matters: "If I were you, I would handle the problem at its source and not attend at all. If people question or think negatively of me, that is their own prerogative. I do not care. They are also free to find another victim to listen to their sacred norm teachings." I wrote this to show that it's false to think that norms know what's best for us. Why would someone with misophonia enjoy a noisy nightclub or a music concert, for instance? I attended one when I was a child, by a famous Israeli musician (Shalom Enoch, I believe). It was one of the most horrible nights in my life and I regret every second of it. It is not to say that Shalom Enoch is a bad musician. It is not even to say that I have bad taste in music. It is simply not wise to expect everyone to do the same things, just because they are considered normal. It is also unrealistic to think that someone is flawed because they are unable or find it difficult to comply with norms. Let me say this for now: It is pretentious to believe that norms are absolutely positive, because they clearly are not. We should not apply the teachings of norms to every single member of society. For example, if a young man or woman needs a cane, and it is considered abnormal for young adults to use them in public, would it be wise to take away their canes? Of course not, especially if they struggle walking extensively for whatever reason. We should not be too anxious about what others will think of us. Why? Firstly, not everyone knows what is good for us, so seeing other people as figures of authority, just because they are not us, is a poor decision. Secondly, submitting to others' expectations of us can clearly limit our potential to be more successful and to actualize our ambitions. I guess women in some cultures may know this better than me? Being limited from doing things because you are a woman is discrimination and a collective limitation of a society's overall potential. Should women just stay in the kitchen? "Well done" for limiting a whole demographic from contributing greatly to society. Less workers, less businesses, and less leaders. Be reasonable. So when I might be criticized for not being reliable when it comes to society, because I am an autist, I am not upset. After all, people are free to believe their own delusions and regard them as fact. I will still resume writing about society, just like I did when I devised Political Rubinshteinism. Or when I created a guide for a post apocalyptic society. Why should I be triggered by nonsense, made by people who might not be aware that people with autism can still learn about social matters and improve? Just so you know, I have a list of social guidelines to avoid making foolish mistakes. Do you think that people with autism cannot learn from their mistakes when interacting with others? Of course, people with autism can learn from lists that they themselves create. I have said enough, but I came up with the idea of having a list in the first place. To conclude, I believe it is safe to argue that norms have the potential to be flawed and even illogical. It is unwise to rely on a set of codes that are flawed, especially if done religiously. Remember, norms can be considered a term in ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. The purpose of norms is to teach us how to behave best in society. They are not objective facts, but . If the wisdom they provide is flawed and can be improved upon, why follow them so closely? Why take them so seriously when a better philosophy can be created or discovered instead? To reduce bias, I will state that I am aware of the importance of not going outside without clothes. I also know that it is important not to salute like a Nazi when in Israel. Do you think I am a complete anarchist? Finally, I am aware that it is important not to do both at the same time while in Israel. By not complying with norms, I am not saying that you should go to Israel and salute like a Nazi while nude. No, of course not. I am saying that you should not obey norms when it is unwise to do so, not when it is wise. It is wise to dress sharply when going to an interview. It is wise to be polite to those who deserve it. It is not wise to take off your clothes, and you already know the end of that sentence. I am successful in what I do because I minimize the importance of norms. Would you say it is normal for a man with no degrees to run a philosophy blog at 25 years old? Of course not, and that is why eccentricity is not necessarily flawed. Sometimes, it is extraordinary. And we should not fear it, be jealous of it, or even feel threatened by it. I am a philosopher, not a serial killer. The only thing I murder is microwave food, and it's not even meat. It's soy! And why should I fear norms as if they deserve the same treatment as an official law, when I can build an empire instead? Hail Philosocom.

""From what source does Ignorance spring? Not from lack of knowledge, but lack of desire for it" -- John Duran (Background music) **************************** Stupidity is quite the sensitive topic, because no one likes being called stupid, including people who are stupid. Vocabulary dot com defines stupidity as "The quality of being stupid. It’s the opposite of intelligence." It further explains that "Being stupid has to do with not understanding things, not learning from past experiences, and generally not using your brain, so stupidity refers to this quality. Saying that someone did something because of stupidity is an insult because it means the person really should’ve known better. Riding in a shopping cart tied to the back of a car and zinging around a parking lot would be the result of some serious stupidity." As usual lately, I will provide sources. And yes, the example that site gave is quite on-point. So, in terms of definition, we can agree that stupidity is just a poor quality of intelligence. With or without the potential to become more intelligent, the stupid person is dumb because they lack the intelligence to make wiser decisions and learn from their mistakes. Therefore, if we want to be wiser, we must also act more wisely, and in order to do that, we must improve our cognitive abilities. If we do not improve these abilities, not only will they remain unimproved, but they will also deteriorate with age. Hence the importance of stimulating our brains with intellectual content. I believe that reading philosophy can certainly help with this endeavor, making philosophy relevant even today. As does reading in general, of course. Of course, the point of improving our intellect is to avoid becoming stupid. Stupid mistakes can cost our own and our loved ones' lives, and it is one of the reasons we feel regret—so that we can avoid making these mistakes again. Fictional villainy, as well as real-life one, is defined by thinking in a competent manner. Stupidity may also be used as a criticism against democracy. It is a counterargument that claims that the "masses" are too dumb to choose what is wise for them when it comes to politics. It is a criticism that can be abused by power-hungry figures, to conceal their true nature and trick their voters with their manipulations. And since the masses might not be as wise as they should be, they might continue to make the same poor choices over and over again. And it tis through their incompetent choices that make democracies turn to kakistokracies. If the masses were smarter, they might choose candidates who are more suited to what they deserve. However, is it in the interest of the government for its citizenry to be smarter, when it can be used against its interest to stay in power? Therefore, it might be in the best interest of a democracy's current government to keep the education system poor and insufficient. Doing so can prevent the quality of intellect needed to have that government be elected out of power. If not replaced by elections, then by unwanted protests that disrupt work and public order. Intellect is something that can intimidate because it can give us the ability to have power over others by outsmarting them, and even remembering things they forgot about a long time ago. An unintelligent populace is, therefore, a less threathening one. Geniuses can be more solitary as a result. The education system is not necessarily there to make you a smarter being. It can be regarded as an institution whose point is to make you an obedient, submissive citizen. It is one that rewards you for obeying and punishes you for protesting orders and assignments. Such a system has the power to reduce the competency of the next democratic generations, as it punishes you for doing things a democracy allows you to do. From protest to non-conformist thought, to one's freedom of expression. It was only long after I graduated that I realized that I wasn't as smart as I was told, but I digress. A dumb person will continue to walk into walls when there are doors available. They may realize their mistakes, but since they are unwilling or incapable to reflect on their misdeeds, they will continue to walk into walls to get to the other side of the building. This is an analogy that is not as clear if we apply the same logic to reality. Try to look at things on a general scale and in the long term, like a mastermind would. Think with these two parameters in mind and you can greatly reduce the chances of walking into the same walls. Understand that you are not alone in an environment, and that other people should be estimated in accordance to their worth to your efforts. No, humans are not tools, but they can be either useful or harmful. Ignore this external potential, and you will run into another wall several times Some people or organizations might have an interest in you remaining less-than-wise. That's how scammers make a living, after all. If they educate you on how they trick you, they basically give away their trade secret. In general, if you give away your trade secrets, you will be "shooting yourself in the foot", so to speak. Secrecy is key to survival against competitors and customers who remain ignorant of your valuable secrets. For instance, it would be dumb of a villain to tell their secret plan to the hero, because they might use it against them. Even if the hero is about to be defeated for good, giving away your advantage might not be wise, should reality subvert your expectations, and run away from your clutches. And as we know, people like you and I are not exactly prophets, are we? And I quote a sentence from the original evil overlord list: "When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No." Why give information to an enemy? And yes, when you are being used, you can be seen as an enemy, not necessarily a trusted ally. Actually, it is quite dumb to feel offended when you are called stupid. I am only saying this because you can see it as an indication that more learning is required. The choice of giving in to our feelings of insult, is ours, and therefore, our fault of feeling deeply insulted. I'm sorry. Logically, looking at the potential and striving to have it is better than crying over an impractical feeling of insult. That's part of the rationale presented in the Universal Businessman theory of mine. This is not toxic positivity, it's just a better way to prioritize your reactions. Surely it's more productive to learn than to deepen the impact of feeling offended? One of the stupidest things you can do is to just settle with your stupidity, or with your current, poor quality of intelligence. Why? Because if you won't dedicate some time and energy to learn, you will remain with the same, lower quality of cognition. Stay with this lower quality, and you'll make the same mistakes again and again, and your ignorance will be abused by those with hidden agendas. And staying stupid is done by not desiring to be more knowledgeable. One of the reasons I'm a philosopher is because I am a student of reality. I'm not only doing this for extra material for articles. I'm also doing this to better myself as a person, given that knowledge deserves to be a virtue. And acting in accordance to the truth, allows us to make not only more-informed decisions, but also smarter ones. Knowledge deserves to be a virtue because knowledge can also be translated to power. It can give you expertise, it can improve your current performance, and it can even grant you an advantage over your competitors in whatever field of life you're invested in. It can even make you a more moral being, by understanding better how to show empathy and compassion to those who are in pain. Why, then, not get smarter, when this effort can clearly help you and others? The smarter you get, the less likely you'll get used without being aware of it. The reason is because your current stupidity can be someone else's asset. Keep it in mind and strive to improve your intellectual qualities whenever you can. And the only, potentially-universal obstacle in that path, is a lack of self-discipline.

Introduction My writings have been rightfully criticized for underestimating the significance of intuition in relation to reason. Intuition, in essence, is the ability to grasp reality swiftly using emotion, while reason may necessitate further inspection, making it far less spontaneous. Arguably, restraining one's emotions is insufficient for sound reasoning, for one must improve it in more ways. To give intuition its proper address, I've wrote this "rap battle." I acknowledge it's an unconventional form for a philosophical blog, but I occasionally enjoy writing poems, and I believe this one is philosophically fitting. After all, reducing bias is crucial in philosophy to attain a clearer vision of reality. If we minimize something, we risk underestimating its significance in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, even if I minimize something, as a philosopher, I should still grant it the space it may merit, both logically and in the eyes of my readers. All in the name of the truth and its study. Enjoy! (Reason, Verse 1) Surrender to Mr. Tomasio, For you are a component that don't fit, Otherwise, be cut in size, And afterwards cease to exist! I'm far more competent than what many of your fans claim, your followers, You'll be forced to sit and watch once again! You're irrelevant like Ms. Chen. You walked into this office and you already showed your flaws, When you tried to convince Tomasio of a spiritual realm, where wisdom flows. And yet you cannot logically prove any of the two, (Ho ho ho!), While I do what you can't: Be the belt of this writer's pants! You're pretentious, too hasty, You make mistakes for those who are not too careful, And then many couples are broken just because a moment's a bit too hateful. The answer to philosophy is the thing it is, for, designated: I deserve more respect, Now feel free to reply, Before you'll slowly die. (Intuition, Verse 2) To be honest, You're the opposite of modest. It seems like you are overconfident, I mean, it's apparent. (Hahaha) You make me laugh in embarrassment, You're megalomaniac! It's as if you know what you really don't, How usual... Like my speed I can bury you here in a single verse. Yes? Make you realize that you are just another component, not even the heart. Yes? While I move billions, grant millions, to any visionary that can rightfully use me, You only appeal to small portions of humanity! So yeah, let us compare sizes, buddy, I don't mind, For I am truly the trait that make fans march, with clarity, not blind! Remember that not everyone have the energies to think deeply and in effort, So why exactly would many die for your fort? (Reason, verse 3) You really should check my history, And know that I'm not to be argued with. You made many impulsive decisions, And then you pretend to be really good and efficient? And you mostly use Ad-Hominem, act like you're Eminem, Don't use whataboutism, it's infantile. Life is best lived when playing chess, Get it? Now, to clean this mess: An army of articles to disprove your ability, they are unending. Any player can press a few buttons for your bad ending. This incompetent ad-populist, is no match, a child's game, I will rationalize the human race! And only the slow, now finish last. (Intuition, verse 4) That's how the world is -- the more appealing, the better, And I can get far better ahead while you remain arguing with snobbish haters! Using whataboutism is infantile? I mean, man, you're killing me! Your romantic comments are laughable, While I'm the reason people make a family! Logic is boring, psychology's more contributing, You're a tiny moustache guy while I remain an Iron Man Stalin. I control countless hearts, and your empty threats? Are you compensating for something? Like your hidden ignorance...