(Background music) Breaking the Fallacious Circle Circular logic, a common logical fallacy in everyday conversations, hinders clear and effective arguments. It occurs when someone attempts to justify a claim by simply restating it in different words. Imagine a circle – the argument starts and ends at the same point, offering no real progression or additional evidence. Circular logic, despite its flaws, remains a common stumbling block in communication. This essay delves into the reasons behind its prevalence and explores strategies to overcome it. Here's how it works: The Premise is the Conclusion: The argument begins with an assumption presented as a fact. Going in Circles: The "evidence" provided to support this assumption simply rephrases the initial claim. Essentially, it's like saying "A is true because B is true," and then defining B as "A, but rephrased." This repetitive loop creates a false sense of justification without offering any new information. Let's visit "the coffee example": Premise: Coffee is tasty. Circular "Reasoning": Because coffee is fun to drink, it's tasty. Here, "fun to drink" simply rephrases the idea of "tasty." While some might find coffee enjoyable, this argument doesn't explain why it's considered tasty. Of course, a tasty drink is necessarily one that's fun to drink. It's not the product of another. A stronger argument might explore the unique flavors, aromas, or stimulating effects of coffee that contribute to its tastiness. An arguement that builds and strengthens the original premise. I don't really know why people may not think I know what I know when I present what I know in a question. If I ask why coffee is tasty, the question implies that I know, or think I know, that coffee is tasty. I don't see much point in telling me what I know once more when I've already looked for a reason. I asssume people do it because we are programmed to socialize, not necessarily to make sound arguements. I'll explain further later on in the article. By recognizing circular logic, we can improve the quality of our arguments, better understand cause and effect, and ensure clarity in our communication. Why Circular Logic Persists One key factor is the confusion between reasons and premises. A premise sets the stage for an argument, while reasons provide justification for the claim being made. Circular logic, however, blurs this distinction. Think of it like building a house. The premise is the foundation, and the reasons are the bricks that build upon it. Circular logic attempts to construct the house using only the foundation stones, offering no structural support or additional explanation. Even philosophers, constantly grappling with complex ideas, can fall prey to circular reasoning. The sheer number of logical fallacies, and the ever-evolving nature of philosophical discourse, can make it challenging to maintain perfect clarity. However, recognizing this vulnerability, and even accepting it as an inevitable possibility, can be a part of the philosophical journey towards greater clarity than currently. Another solution lies in cultivating a critical eye for reasoning. Here are some strategies to combat circular logic: Challenge yourself: When presenting a reason, ask if it truly explains the premise or simply restates it in different words. Have you learned anything new, that doesn't already exists in the premise either you or others have presented? Seek outside perspectives: Discussing your arguments with others can expose potential circularity. Further critical thinking can reveal that you may be in an echo chamber, repeating not only the same thoughts, but the same reasoning, as if that reasoning adds into the existing one in a debate/chat/etc. Circular logic can be used to reinforce one's insecurities by appealing to emotion, rather than giving additional value. Examine the underlying assumptions: Sometimes, circular logic stems from unexamined beliefs, that only reinforces your confidence in them, rather than explaining them in greater detail. Analyze the base of your arguments to ensure they are not simply repeating assumptions. By actively identifying and avoiding circular reasoning, we can elevate our communication and arguments, fostering a deeper understanding of the world around us, and deter ourselves from using further fallacies as a result. While the established fallacies cover a wide range of errors, exploring new ways arguments can be dysfunctional can contribute to our understanding of logic. As such I devised a variant of circular logic,appealing to the state of the greater picture. The Way Things Are Fallacy Circular reasoning often manifests in a specific, frustrating way. This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to shut down discussion by claiming something is simply "how life is" or "the facts of the matter." While these statements might seem harmless, they offer no real explanation and hinder genuine understanding. They simply state what we already know. If you didn't know how something is, why would you acknowledge it as existing? Imagine asking, "Why are some people evil?" Responding with "That's just how the world works"s, or "that's just how some people are". This fails to address the complexities of human behavior. It simply restates the initial observation without providing any insight into the root causes of evil. The Way Things Are Fallacy is problematic for a few reasons: False Closure: It creates a false sense of closure by presenting an existing state of affairs as an unchangeable truth. This hinders curiosity and discourages further investigation. Submissiveness to the Status Quo: By accepting things "as they are" without question, we surrender the power to analyze and potentially improve upon them. This can lead to a sense of learned helplessness, practically enabling oppression in organizations and society. Disagreements Disappear: This type of circular reasoning shuts down dialogue and prevents productive disagreement, by stating the obvious and the established. It assumes the initial statement can't be altered, ignoring potential counter-arguments or even solutions, if the premise indicates a problematic reality. Acknowledging reality is a crucial first step, but there is no logical need for redundancy. It might be a rhetoric or emotional need, but rarely if never, a logical one. In philosophy, the key lies in moving beyond mere acknowledgment. We must delve deeper by: Seek Underlying Causes: Instead of accepting "that's how it is," ask "why is it this way?". Explore the historical, social, or psychological factors that contribute to the situation. Consider Alternatives: Is the current state of affairs inevitable? Could there be different ways of thinking or acting that could lead to a more positive/different outcome? Why We Settle for Circular Reasoning Circular reasoning, despite its flaws, often becomes a tempting shortcut in our fast-paced lives. This section explores the social pressures that contribute to its occurance. Society often prioritizes efficiency and productivity. We're expected to fulfill our roles – get a job, complete our education, meet our commitments, etc. Philosophy, with its inherent questioning and potential for social disruption, can be seen as a hindrance to this efficiency. This pressure can lead many to adopt circular reasoning as a means of maintaining the status quo and avoiding the potential complexities of deep thought. Furthermore, philosophical exploration can be unsettling. Unconventional conclusions like nihilism or anarchism can challenge our established belief systems and force us to confront uncomfortable truths. This potential for disruption can discourage, leading us to settle for a comfortable, even if superficial, acceptance of the way things are. However, not tackling the depths of reality in our minds can be regarded as a form of escapism, alongside many activities that hinder us from such thoughts. Reason's essence lies in providing new information and evidence to support a claim. Circular reasoning fails to add any new insights, therefore compromising its own value. As to why people resume using circular reasoning in conversations, is not entirely within my understanding. I presume it also has to do with masking information from others. We might not be always interested in knowing or telling the truth, so we use circular reasoning to give the illusion of additional value, which "enriches" the conversation. Some people might not be even interested in the conversation's functionality. Some of them might want to discuss for discussion's sake. It's one of the reasons I often stay clear from social communication. I prefer learning, not socializing. Our inherent human tendency towards illogicality further strengthens the case for conscious effort. We are not naturally logical creatures, and falling prey to fallacies is a common human experience, for it's both innate and normalized, as I found with whatabouism. The pursuit of philosophical inquiry should not be motivated by a desire for attention. The usage of circular logic can rhetorically be used to assert people's confidence in your authority, thus leading to a synergy between it and the authority fallacy. A professional who redundantly explains the same things, but in different rephrasing can be mistakenly seen as giving additional value to a captivated audience. True philosophical exploration thrives on a genuine curiosity about the world and a desire for deeper understanding. While external validation can be the positive reinforcement insightful work, it should never be the driving force, when at its basic, philosophy is the seeking of truth. And the truth, no matter how agreeable or controversial, does not need external affirmation in order to exist. And you cannot fulfill this basic purpose if you use circular logic. You cannot seek your way out of a cardboard box if all you're doing is spinning around,like a record. Conclusions The possibility that some may find fallacies appealing further emphasizes the need for clear communication and critical thinking skills. Just because someone finds an argument persuasive doesn't mean it's logically sound or even non-redundant. The burden of understanding lies on both the speaker and the listener to identify and dismantle fallacies to ensure more-meaningful exchange of ideas. For those reading philosophy and/or being philosophers themselves, try to avoid circular logic as much as possible, even if answers like "That's how life is" or "It is what it is" may be regarded by many as a reasonable insight. All it takes to avoid circular logic is to distinguish between reason and premise. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I think global education has failed at preparing us better for one factual truth: We are all humans with our own cognitive realities we live in. I believe something that needs to be part of education is how to best interact with another reality and the main kinds of realities there are. I think education is missing talking about reality with students. That and English classes should prepare students on presenting better structured premises. Debating and arguing should be a class for children at younger ages. Teach students how to better express themselves, not simply punishing students for trying to do it on their own. Circular logic exists because of qualia. People can’t understand why people have attached so much emotional value to something. They feel something and want other people to feel the same thing. Half the time it isn’t about the thing itself but the emotion it brings. Emotion is a strong thing.

(Subcategory Directory on Darkness) Article Synopsis Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "Explicit Content, Sensitivity and Eminem (Clean Article) -- How To Build Your Mind With the Darkness of Reality" explores Tomasio Rubinshtein's dichotomy, describing a high level of sensitivity in social interactions and an emotional detachment towards explicit and mature themes. Mr. Tomasio attributes his emotional resilience to exposure to dark content, particularly the music of Eminem, and discusses how this exposure helped him build mental strength. The article delves into Eminem's lyrics, highlighting themes of societal dysfunction and personal struggle, and reflects on the transformative power of facing harsh realities. The article's engaging introduction captures the reader's attention by presenting the author's personal dichotomy, while the use of personal anecdotes adds a relatable and authentic touch. The analysis of Eminem's music is thorough and insightful, discussing both disturbing and deeply-human elements. The article tackles thought-provoking themes such as the necessity of confronting uncomfortable truths and the role of mental training in personal development. Furthermore, the mention of neuroplasticity and the ability to rewire the mind adds a scientific dimension to the discussion. In conclusion, the article is an engaging and thought-provoking piece that effectively combines personal narrative with cultural analysis. (Background music) Introduction: Understanding Selective Sensitivity My personality appears to be very dichotomic. On the one hand, I possess a high degree of sensitivity, to the point where I sometimes feel a need to withdraw from social interaction to recover from its "ordeals". On the other hand, I seem relatively unaffected by explicit subjects such as self-sacrifice, gore, and other mature themes. That is even though many highly sensitive people do, as seen by their triggered behavior from horror movies. I am by the way apathetic even to the horror genre. This apparent contradiction is how stereotypes are broken and "The Whole Person Fallacy" is compromised as it should be. In other words, it may seem strange that I used to be deeply affected by insults while remaining unfazed by things that trouble others in their mental worlds. However, humans can be that unique, and some traits that they have wouldn't necessarily come in effect depending on the situation at hand. Because it may appear to you very odd how I used to feel terrorized by the yells of others in real life, but completely emotionless when I explore and discuss the philosophy of a Finnish school shooter who was a philosopher as well. However, it is easily explained by the fact I have misophonia, and thus am necessarily highly sensitive to sounds which people find plausible. Of course, I even find a man becoming an acquired savant plausible. I didn't blink an eye when he told me of his injuries when I wrote with him an article on the matter. The idea therefore that all highly sensitive people are these fragile beings who always need trigger warnings and treat them as if you're stepping on eggshells is nothing more than a generalization. Knowing that I had to reduce this heightened sensitivity in order to attain my desired success in life, I began strengthening my weak spirit from the very early years of my life... Path to Becoming a "Rubinshteinic Butcher" Interestingly, I learned English largely through video games and music, particularly the music of Eminem, a rapper known for his controversial and often disturbing content. A synopsis of a book researching his many rap songs (Over 1400), comments: In terms of lyrical content, no area has been off-limits to Eminem, and he has written about domestic violence, murder, r***, child abuse, incest, drug addiction, and torture during his career. But whilst he will always be associated with these dark subjects, Mathers [Eminem's real name] has also explored fatherhood, bereavement, mental illness, poverty, friendship, and love within his lyrics, and the juxtaposition between these very different themes (sometimes within the same song), make his lyrics complex, deep, and deserving of proper critical discussion. Looking back at those songs from my early teenage years, I'm surprised I wasn't more repulsed by their lyrical themes. No. I listened to them daily, trying to memorize some of them. Listened to them at night when I went to bed. I immersed my mind with such dark content in order to slowly build myself into the largely emotionless man I am today. You can see that, based on my example, the mind can be trained. When it is trained, it can develop and change in accordance to the simulation it receives. The Calm blog reports: You can train your mind to be more focused, clear, and efficient, just like you can train your body to run the 3,000m or master taekwondo. Thanks to mental strength training and “neuroplasticity” (the ability of the brain’s neural networks to change through growth and reorganization), anyone can rewire their mind to become stronger, healthier, and fitter than ever before. All it takes is time, practice, and consistency. Understanding Eminem's Musical Darkness See -- Without Me Let's just say the content was quite explicit, and I'm surprised very few questioned my exposure to it, especially considering I understood most of the lyrics after translating them online. Eminem's music is undeniably dark. It delves into the many themes of societal, domestic and personal dysfunction. Dysfunctions he used both to entertain, provoke audiences and used to develop himself as a man. But this darkness isn't there for shock value alone. Let's dissect it further.... A Reality of Living Despite the Struggle: See -- "Rock Bottom" Eminem's lyrics often paint a grim picture of his upbringing and the struggles faced by many in the ever-increasing lower-class populace of the U.S. By using graphic language, he forces listeners to confront uncomfortable truths, otherwise ignored or denied. This isn't a glorification of life in the brutal streets of Detroit, Michigan, but a raw portrayal meant to spark awareness to "the corner people" of America. The Slim Shady Persona: Slim is usually depicted as a violent, sociopathic criminal. He has a very large ego. He also seems to not have any sense of right-or-wrong. -- Villains Wiki Much of Eminem's darkness stems from his alter ego, Slim Shady. This character is a personification of rage, frustration, hatred, and the darker aspects of human nature. By embodying Slim, Eminem allows himself to explore these emotions without apology or remorse. Carl Jung describes our dark side as essential for our greater awareness and for the success of our good plans in life... “Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.” Evolution of Darkness: "The bridge of the song features a dialogue between Eminem and Dr. Dre, where Dr. Dre questions Slim Shady's behavior and calls him a "base-head." This dialogue adds another layer to the song, highlighting the internal conflict and struggle Eminem faces with his alter ego" -- "My Name Is" Analysis (SongMeaning Blog) While early Eminem was known for shock rap, his darkness has evolved. Songs like "Darkness" from his 2020 album tackle gun violence and addiction with a chilling honesty. His darkness now reflects a deeper social commentary, referencing the growing occurrence of mass shootings that emerge across America. From Retreat to Resilience As you can tell I was done with being treated with disrespect and mistreatment due to my former sensitivity, a very long time ago... Ever since the 2000's, in fact. I saw no reason to embrace it, when it left me lonely, depressed and suffering. Being misunderstood is its own mental pain, followed by the feeling of being unseen. Pain I can further extinguish with my ruthlessness quest for greater communication. Growing up, I learned to navigate social challenges by retreating: escapism, seeking external intervention, or hoping problems would fade. These coping mechanisms, while seemingly "psychologically safe", left me feeling powerless and yearning for a more assertive self. The endless cycle of distractions, professional help, and avoidance coping, offer only temporary relief. They fail to address the core issue: the need to establish one's own worth in a merciless, unfair modern world. The idea that one's life lacks inherent value because they're poor, because they're degreeless, because they work/ed in low-prestige jobs, is something I refuse to accept undoubtedly. My mental training is and will resume to be done in altruistic solitude. And I expect no trophy, and for good reason. Short Conclusions While facing the darker aspects of life at a young age was painful, it served a purpose. It forced me to develop resilience and a thicker skin. I learned that sheltering myself from life's harsh realities only weakens one's spirit. Facing challenges head-on builds strength and character. I choose the way of the Enduring Pillar. How am I supposed to research a reality I'm too fearful to explore? Hahaha... Some emotions deserve resistance. And some socio-economic ways of oppression, too. To quote Mr. John Duran: Is the American capitalistic system ethical or rational or even logical considering the ravaging of the natural resources and decimation of billions of lives required for the wealthy to acquire more wealth while the poor fight for their scraps? Is any of this right?

(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) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The interview with Andy Oppenheimer, conducted by Ori Sindel and published on Philosocom, offers a fascinating insight into the artistic and thematic elements of Oppenheimer Analysis' music. The conversation reveals the deep thought and historical context behind the lyrics, shedding light on the creative process and the messages embedded within their songs. The interview provides a platform for Oppenheimer to share in-depth stories and reflections, such as the 1930s science magazine's role in the song "Modern Wonder." It enriches the reader's understanding of the music by connecting it to historical events and figures, such as the connection between "Cold War" and the historical Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb. Personal anecdotes add a personal touch to the interview, making the music and its creation process more relatable and engaging. In conclusion, the interview succeeds in providing a meaningful look into Oppenheimer Analysis' music, capturing the essence of their creative process and thematic concerns. (Philosocom's Ori Sindel Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Background music) The Interview in Question This is a short interview of mine, discussing the lyrics of OPPENHEIMER ANALYSIS, one of my all time favourite musical projects. S: Good afternoon Andy Orion Oppenheimer. I have always been curious about the general meaning of the song "Modern Wonder". Additionally, I am wondering what the modern wonder mentioned in the song is. O: "‘Modern Wonder’ was a 1930s ‘boy’s’ popular science magazine (paper not glossy). I had a collection of the magazines given to me by my boss when I worked at Omni Magazine, around the time Martin Lloyd and I formed Oppenheimer Analysis in 1981. The song is about a time traveller and his lover who get separated and propelled into the future, the ‘late atomic age turning into chronic rage’ – and its devastation all round… “here we lie in disarray surrounded by the present day”. “Should we tell them what we know” – means that we are living in the future of atomic destruction, so do we tell the people of the past what we know about the terrible future?" O: I love that song. Martin played a favourite instrument of mine – a twelve string guitar – on the track. I think it was in the first ‘New Mexico’ collection on cassette tape." S: In your opinion, did the song "Cold War" happen to be some kind of a precise guess for our present events? After most of us “thought it was over”? O: "It was in part a warning for the time we were living in then – 1982, the height of the early 1980s Cold War – but from the point of view of as the Oppenheimer of history (now immortalised in THAT film) during the 1950s Cold War. He was ousted from government circles during the Cold War McCarthy witch hunt phase, in 1954 - having built the atomic bomb – partly because he warned of the dangers of a nuclear arms race - and opposed the development of the H-bomb. “We thought it was over” refers to the end of World War II, we thought it was over… (I am singing as the historical Oppenheimer) - “warn you of the danger I’ve got to get a hold” “Your blood runs cold” “'When you think you only did what you were told'” – guilt from building the bomb but under military oversight" S: Who are the devil's dancers, and what does the devil symbolise in the song? O: "I took the phrase from one of the atomic scientists who said building the bomb was dancing with the Devil. "I didn’t refer to the bomb specifically, just ‘the future’s here said the pioneer’ – and turned it into a catchy bunch of lyrics vaguely about scientists being “The Devil’s Dancers”. Martin’s arrangement and our composition of the tune turned it into a dance track. "Never in my/our wildest dreams did we expect this song to get so much exposure later in the Internet era. Had we got a recording contract back in 1982 this song would probably have charted… it’s been covered and even featured in a Miss World contest and Lord knows what else… "Yet it isn’t my personal best, by a long way – I’ve done some great songs since after Martin died (in 2013). Mostly with Mahk Rumbae (Oppenheimer MkII – The Presence of the Abnormal, Out in the Field) and I am still composing songs – there’s a stunning album coming out this autumn (Songs From A Constellation) with Crystalline Structure on TONN Recordings. "But The Devil’s Dancers are so catchy that I guess it just caught on among electro club DJs and the ‘collectors’ of early synth pop music." S: Who is the “HE” referred to in “Behind the Shades”? O: "I had to really think hard about this one! It was the first song Martin and I did. I based it on The Man Who Fell to Earth. I had that total Bowie look when we first got together. "So - [in the song] I am Thomas Jerome Newton, sitting in the big black car, wearing the sunglasses - Behind The Shades – and I’m now a multi-millionaire after falling to Earth and making a fortune. "I think that the ‘he’ and ‘him’ is some American corporate giant who doesn’t core about me or anyone else… he’s the one with the real power, not me. He will bring me down. “I don’t care whose empire it is, I know that I can’t see him behind the shades… And he’ll never see me…Or bother to care who I am”" Key Takeaways The interview explores the stories behind some of Oppenheimer Analysis' most popular songs. "Modern Wonder" is inspired by a 1930s science magazine and explores the concept of time travel and a dystopian future. "Cold War" is a song written from the perspective of historical figure J. Robert Oppenheimer, reflecting on the dangers of the nuclear arms race. "The Devil's Dancers" references the quote from an atomic scientist about building the bomb being a dance with the devil. The song doesn't explicitly mention the bomb but uses the phrase metaphorically for scientists. "Behind the Shades" is based on the movie "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and explores themes of wealth, power, and alienation.

See -- "The Circle of Life" song, Elton John, Martin Cook (Background music) The Pridelands -- A Communist Monarchy The Lion King is not just a movie, but a franchise of several forms of media, including the first movie, several games, and to my knowledge, a single show. The franchise tells the story of a fictional country, led and inhabited by animals, called the Pride Lands, and about the power struggles between at least two factions: those who wish to preserve a concept called "The Circle of Life" and those who are against it. The main theme of the franchise is food. Food is not just a way to survive, but also a source of authority. This authority can be used to justify one's kingship in the Pride Lands, and also to overthrow a current ruler. "The Circle of Life" is both a philosophy and a fundamental principle in the Pride Lands. It states that food must be rationed. In other words, if you are hungry for fish, you need to make sure that you not only eat enough, but also leave enough for others to eat too. "The Circle of Life" is an interesting concept because it teaches us the importance of sharing limited resources in order to make sure that everyone has their fair share of the food they need to survive. However, it is also a socialist concept, as it holds that natural resources should be under the authority of the law and the government, and not be privately owned. It's also known as central planning. Therefore, Mufasa's rule, and later on, Simba's rule, is a socialist one, because their leadership intervenes with the food supply of their own citizens. In the Pride Lands, you cannot eat as much as you want. You need to eat as much as you need, and have enough left over for others too. The whole kingdom is essentially one big commune of various species who need to eat each other in a way that does not discard other animals. It is not exactly a vegetarian or vegan nation, but for carnivores, it is not as easy to live there due to the "Lion King" theme of sharing and not hoarding or looting. The Opposing Antagonistic Force The main "evil" animals in the franchise are the hyenas. They are often portrayed as foolish, malicious, and incompetent, but I would not call them evil just because they are very hungry carnivores. The reason for them to be the antagonists is not only because they followed Scar, a main villain himself, but also because they defy the "Circle of Life." In other words, they are "the bad guys" because they do not care about the socialist idea of sharing your resources with others by government decree. It is because "A hyena's belly is never full". The Hyena Clan throughout the franchise were marginalized social groups who were forced to keep to themselves, but under Mufasa's and Simba's rule, they became a disenfranchised minority who were denied access to the food they needed to survive. As a result of this forced isolation, the hyenas were often very hungry, having to chew bones in places that were portrayed as dark and distant from the main regions of the Pride Lands. The hyenas might have been foolish, but it was Scar, Mufasa's brother, who manipulated them into believing that they would "never go hungry again" by serving under him as the new king of the Pride Lands. Scar: Master Manipulator Scar, unlike the other monarchs throughout the franchise, did not care for his people when he overthrew his brother and tried to kill his nephew, Simba. As a result, the Pride Lands turned from a socialist monarchy into an anarchy ruled by an apathetic, power-hungry king. Since Scar did not care for the Circle of Life and saw himself as the most important being than any other, the Pride Lands became chaotic and dystopian. The reason being that Scar wanted to be king for the sake of the title and for the food that follows. In that sense, he was indeed more villainous than his hyena henchmen, because he basically manipulated them in exchange for his dream: To take what was taken away from him. Scar was the heir to the throne, until Simba was born, and thus became the new heir. Mufasa did not care enough, not for his brother's dream, and not for the hyenas whom he oppressed and isolated from the prey they needed to survive. So, it is obvious that both of these entities would retaliate and overthrow the original king. Mufasa underestimated his own brother. The Circle of Life: A Flawed Philosophy to Live By "The Circle of Life" is a flawed philosophy because we are individuals who don't really like to share our own resources with others by law. That is because some of us are hungrier than others, make more money than others, and so on. In a socialist state, the collective is at a higher priority than the individualist, as individualism is about personal liberty, and as a result, your own property is not entirely of your own but in the hands of everyone else. It is faulty because you are, as a result, depraved of your basic liberties. Communism can be seen as an extreme form of socialism, even though there are several sects of communism, and even though socialism can be applied to democracy as well. Therefore, they are not necessarily the same thing, even though they could be regarded as parts in a bigger spectrum; a spectrum that is based on sharing private property, such as income taxes, with others. Welfare, for example, is a democratic socialist/social democratic concept because those who live on welfare receive their money from the taxpayer and thus the income is distributed in the name of equality. However, you don't need to be an authoritarian state, like in the case of communism in some cases, in order for welfare to be served to those who need it. The problem with "The Circle of Life" concept is the fact that it breeds antagonism from those who are hungrier than others, in The Lion King at least. It also forces you to be considerate of others whether you like it or not. If it was a perfect notion, any animal in the Pride Lands would have gotten the food they required in order to sustain themselves, and that need would be enough to surpass their selfish desires. And indeed, the circle of life prioritizes needs over desires, and only does not mind desire as long as it does not clashes with needs. However, both are important. This problem comes from another problem, too: The fact that resources are limited, and therefore, get smaller and smaller with every share. As more and more animals get what they need to be fed, some might not get enough, like the hyenas, who were marginalized and excluded from the rest of the country. Imagine you have a thousand apples and need to divide them between 50 people each month. If you did the math right, every individual would get 20 apples. See how quickly a thousand apples became 20 apples, shared between a population of people who could at best form a small community. However, how are you supposed to sustain yourselves with 20 apples a month if there are at least 30 days in a month, if not 31? And the thing is, some people have a greater appetite. Why? Because some are bigger physically, and thus need to eat more; some are children, whose food is necessary for their development; some work in physical labor so they need food for more energy. You get the idea, right? The Circle of Life is lacking because it disregards people as individuals with their own distinctions and needs. A rhino is not a crocodile, a bird is not a lion, and so on and so forth. This is why, the Pride Lands, as a country who was mostly socialist and/or communist throughout the franchise, was vulnerable to succession wars by those who valued individualism over collectivism. It makes sense, because resources are often limited, and are even more limited when shared with others. As much as I remember, there are only 5 countries nowadays that are socialist: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea (or the DPRK). It's reasonable that socialism and/or communist did not really work in the world as a government method, not only because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also because having to share your resources makes you poorer than you could have been otherwise. Thus, it is difficult for a socialist state to prosper if the benefit earned from work is constantly divided and distributed. End Note I will end by reminding you that there are different forms of socialism since Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, but remember a quote which I believe is his: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Should you not strive for more in life, if you are capable of doing so, you will be left with apples, and not apple pies; pies are usually more satisfying than mere fruits and require more than apples to make. And to survive better, one must prosper.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) Abstract The article of existence, necessity and potential, argues against the "Bodybuilder Argument," which suggests that because you have the potential to do something, you must do it. I use the example of bodybuilding to show that just because you can build muscle, doesn't mean you should. They argue that potential is a possibility, not a necessity. The article expands this concept beyond physical fitness to other areas of life, such as having children, getting a higher education, or getting married. These are all things people can choose to do, but there's no obligation to do any of them. I conclude by arguing that people should focus on their own desires and not be pressured by societal expectations. They should develop their courage and critical thinking skills to make their own choices about how to live their lives. This can provide a sense of liberation from societal constraints, by seeking alternative solutions which can actually solve our problems. (Background music) Introduction: Why Are You Not a Bodybuilder? Let me begin this article with a thought experiment: Are you a bodybuilder? If not, why not? Your physique possesses immense potential, waiting to be sculpted through merciless training. Ignoring this potential retains you to average strength, at best, and lowers it, at worst. See how is this a fallacy? This concept, which I call the Bodybuilder Argument, extends beyond the gym. It applies to anything with inherent potential, often mistakenly seen as a mandatory path. It also extends: Beyond the bedroom. (The Issues of Sex) Beyond the academics. (The Degree Fallacy) Beyond reading lengthy books. (On Reading and Writing In Philosophy) Let's dig into this further like an unexplored ruby deposit. Imagine being born with the capacity to create life. Does this then necessitate procreation? Just because you can build a bodybuilder's physique doesn't mean you must. Likewise, having a reproductive organ does not mean you must use it to reproduce. Understanding The Argument's Fallacy The Bodybuilder Argument confuses opportunity as destiny. While potential exists, it's not a higher calling by its own. You are either forced or influenced to see it as such, or you genuinely see it as such by your own free[r] will. The idea of potential-as-destiny is that of perception. And perception is a choice. The state of being in a metaphorical matrix, is a product of choice. Expanding the potential of our intelligence can better allow us to understand of the unconscious choices we make. You know, they can do you harm. The Bodybuilder Argument a product of "The Way Things Are" Fallacy. You cannot effectively accept other ways of life if you undoubtedly think your ways are the best. Observe this flawed reality. Do you think looking fit like Johnny Bravo will get you true love? Muscles and other attractive physical features, are not always enough, and for good reason. To quote Swani Jena of Medium: If you are born a human being, whether man or woman, pretty or ugly — and you don’t have a purpose in life, you are as good as doomed. No one needs a crown, evening gown and sash to have a purpose in life. What difference is there, in things such as reproduction, higher education, getting a driver's license, marrying, enlisting in the military, and so on? You can do these things, but even if you should do them, there is, ultimately, no existential motive or being that forces you to do them. The only force is a perceived one. A paper tiger is, as such, most frightening when it creates the idea that you should be intimidated. But should we be really intimidated from the world's largest cannon, when the Schwerer Gustav Gun isn't a practical weapon? Why We Should Also Develop Virtue Conversely, what quality is a body-building boyfriend that would abandon you the moment he finds someone other than you he suddenly likes? This isn't a shallow matter. It's in fact quite ethical... It concerns relationship ethics, specifically. Reality is often far more complex than mere orthodoxy, and requires a unity/synergy of several values. In the case of "If I'll to be a bodybuilder, I'll be more attractive", let us quote Confucius: The way of the superior person is threefold; virtuous, they are free from anxieties; wise, they are free from perplexities; and bold they are free from fear Let us not, in any way, confuse potential and recommendations, using our many convincing biases. The fact they tell us to act in a certain way, does not make it a Kantian-like Categorical Imperative, correct?. Orders, including one's from our intuition's authority fallacy... Without the well-critical mind, tell us we must or mustn't do things without our rationality's ability to resist. How can the herd mentality be surpassed if there is not a strong-enough cognitive force to oppose it? How Conformity Breeds Stagnation Why do we succumb to conformity at all times? We often fall into conformity because we fear what others will think of us. Metaphorically, we might want to be bodybuilders because our peers are also ones. But we cannot be virtuous, and therefore more attractive, if we choose to remain cowards. Virtue can be seen as a dimension of love, designated to further the welfare of another. But while conformity may highlight one methodology, it might compel you from seeing the bigger picture. As such, being "a bodybuilder" is insufficient, when reality calls for the application of several methodologies, to solve the same concern. Thus, physical attraction alone could use attraction of other kinds, as well. Must we solely use training to develop our muscles, due to our influence by popular culture's idealized body standard? Should we be bodybuilders so we won't feel left behind, and feel like outsiders? Solving the Bodybuilder Argument: The Value of Courage Observe how such reasons, to develop oneself, are based on fear. You might improve your body. But can you really hone it until you'll finally feel content? How can you feel content if you prioritize perfectionism over contentment? Ironically, perfectionism can draw you further into depression. And you cannot love yourself, if your self-image causes you great sadness. Furthermore, the opposite of love is not hatred, but fear. To quote Liam Blume: The rejection of a set of features that we do not accept in ourselves causes many problems. When we do not accept ourselves out of fear, we do not love ourselves. Fear is the opposite of love. If we want to be loved more, why hide our insecurity behind a temple of muscle? Why not consider working on your courage, instead? For courage is not the absence of fear. It's rather the ability to act despite it. You can't love effectively if you refuse to be courageous. And you can't love effectively, if you choose criticism over appreciation. It is something that can in fact destroy relationships. A person you love is mentally distressed. What use would your V-shaped body be if your heart isn't strong enough to embrace him/her, and assist them in their recovery? Can you really help a distressed person by focusing on criticism, more so than believing in them? To believe in a person and display it directly, after all, you must develop the muscle that is your heart. You might claim she would need a certified psychologist. However, we require courage to see the truth, and realize we can elevate more things than mere weights. We can also lift spirits of those who are dear to us. We should understand how strong we can really be, for raw muscle may lift weights, but cannot lift a depressed heart from the pit of despair. You cannot flex your way to help others. What you can do, is to focus less on your ego, and direct your attention at the problem at hand. It is the mature thing to do. Whether I be rejected as insane for my unconventional methodologies, I care not. To quote Mr. John Duran: The closer you get to understanding reality, the more insane you are considered. Conclusions Look around you but look deeply, too. There is more to life than society, religion, funds, and transactional benefits. The concern of "What will others think about me?" might not deserve such importance, when you have the power within you to act despite it. There is, first and foremost, yourself and your true desires. Reinforcing them with logic can yield greater results than exclusively reinforcing your body with muscle growth. The only "necessary" thing in the world is survival. Once we fail at it, we cease to exist, and then, we cannot do anything, because, we'll be dead! Therefore, survival is the basis of all potential. In the end, the fear of many is the fear of being a "klumnik", a being that hasn't done anything significant to be respected by their society. And yet, you can realize your freedom, not only from the law, but from the norms as well. You can realize, then, that contribution and problem-solving can be done without trophies and without a bias of prestige. In other words, it is pointless to focus on methodologies that do not, yield, or even hinder, the results you're looking for. Why would society force upon you its so-called "unwritten laws" and "unwritten ideals", when you have both the logic, the discipline and the faith in your actions, to create the success you want to have? For their refusal to deeply understand your struggles, your ambitions and your pains, some people deserve to be discarded.

(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) Abstract The principle of self-sufficiency is a cornerstone of Cynic philosophy, offering a powerful antidote to the dependence on external circumstances that characterizes much of modern life. By embracing self-sufficiency, individuals can cultivate inner strength and resilience, leading to a more fulfilling and virtuous life. The examples of Diogenes, Crates, and other Cynics provide practical insights into how this principle can be lived out, challenging us to rethink our values and find true happiness within ourselves. Cynic philosophy, with its emphasis on self-sufficiency, virtue, and simplicity, offers profound lessons for modern society. In a world dominated by materialism and consumerism, the Cynic ideal provides a blueprint for a more fulfilling and sustainable way of life. By adopting principles of self-sufficiency and virtue, individuals can find true contentment and contribute to a more equitable and resilient society. The enduring relevance of Cynic philosophy lies in its challenge to conventional values and its advocacy for a life grounded in nature and virtue. As we navigate the complexities of modern life, the wisdom of the Cynics can guide us towards a more meaningful and ethical existence. (Philosocom's O. C. Isaac's Articles) (Background music) Introduction to Cynic Philosophy Cynicism, a school of thought founded in ancient Greece, offers profound insights into living a life of virtue and self-sufficiency. Emerging in the 4th century BCE, Cynic philosophy was founded by Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates, and later popularized by Diogenes of Sinope. The Cynics advocated for a life in harmony with nature, free from the superficial values of society. They rejected materialism, social conventions, and advocated for self-sufficiency (autarkeia), which they considered the cornerstone of a virtuous and fulfilling life. Origins and Key Figures Cynicism, rooted in Socrates' teachings, is a philosophy that emphasizes virtue and self-knowledge. Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates, is considered the founder of Cynicism, advocating for an ascetic lifestyle and independence from external circumstances. He believed that wealth, power, and social status were irrelevant to a virtuous life, and instead promoted self-control, resilience, and a disdain for luxury. Diogenes of Sinope, the most famous Cynic, epitomized the Cynic ideal through extreme asceticism and public disdain for social conventions. His life and actions were not mere eccentricities but practical demonstrations of Cynic principles. Other notable Cynics include Crates of Thebes, who gave away his fortune to live a life of poverty and virtue, and Hipparchia of Maroneia, who married Crates and lived according to Cynic principles. The teachings of Antisthenes, Diogenes, and other Cynics had a significant impact on later philosophical traditions, including Stoicism. Cynicism's radical critique of social norms and materialism continues to resonate today, offering a powerful reminder of the importance of virtue and living a fulfilling life independent of societal expectations. Fundamental Principles of Cynicism The core principles of Cynicism revolve around living in accordance with nature, practicing self-sufficiency, and valuing virtue above all else. Cynics believed that true happiness could be attained by freeing oneself from societal expectations and material desires. Their philosophy was radical, often involving deliberate acts of shamelessness (anaideia) to challenge social conventions and reveal the absurdity of societal values. Living in Accordance with Nature Living in accordance with nature was a fundamental principle for the Cynics. They believed that human beings should live in a way that is consistent with their natural state, free from the artificial constructs of society. This meant rejecting the pursuit of wealth, power, and luxury, which they saw as corrupting influences. Instead, they advocated for a simple life, focused on fulfilling basic needs and developing inner virtues. Practicing Self-Sufficiency Self-sufficiency, or autarkeia, is central to Cynic philosophy. It signifies an independence from external circumstances and a reliance on one's inner resources and virtue. For the Cynics, self-sufficiency was not about isolation but about developing a resilience that allows one to live virtuously regardless of external conditions. Valuing Virtue Above All Else For Cynics, virtue was the highest good and the only true source of happiness. They believed that virtue was sufficient for a fulfilling life and that it could be achieved through rigorous self-discipline and living in accordance with nature. This emphasis on virtue led them to reject societal norms and material desires, which they saw as distractions from the pursuit of a virtuous life. Challenging Societal Conventions Cynics often engaged in deliberate acts of shamelessness (anaideia) to challenge social conventions and reveal the absurdity of societal values. By acting in ways that defied social norms, they sought to expose the superficiality and hypocrisy of society. These acts were not meant to be rebellious for the sake of rebellion but were strategic demonstrations designed to provoke thought and encourage others to question their values and behaviors. Understanding Self-Sufficiency (Autarkeia) Self-sufficiency, or autarkeia, is a central tenet of Cynic philosophy. It signifies an independence from external circumstances and a reliance on one's inner resources and virtue. For the Cynics, self-sufficiency was not about isolation but about developing a resilience that allows one to live virtuously regardless of external conditions. Definition and Importance In Cynicism, self-sufficiency means being content with little and finding happiness within oneself rather than through external acquisitions. This idea contrasts sharply with contemporary views of success, which often equate happiness with material wealth and social status. Cynics argue that dependence on external factors for happiness leads to a fragile and vulnerable state of being. True contentment, they claim, arises from within and is anchored in virtue. Self-sufficiency is about cultivating an inner strength that makes one impervious to the ups and downs of life. It involves developing a mindset that values personal integrity and ethical living over external validation and material success. By focusing on what is within one's control—namely, one's own thoughts, actions, and attitudes—Cynics believed that individuals could achieve a state of enduring happiness and tranquillity. Examples from Notable Cynics Diogenes of Sinope Diogenes exemplified self-sufficiency through his ascetic lifestyle. He owned nothing but a cloak, a staff, and a bowl—until he discarded the bowl, realizing he could drink with his hands. This anecdote underscores the Cynic commitment to minimalism and the belief that less is more. Diogenes' rejection of material possessions was not just about renunciation but about demonstrating the possibility of living a fulfilled life with the bare minimum. His life was a testament to the idea that true freedom comes from needing little and being satisfied with what one has. Diogenes' interactions with Alexander the Great further illustrate his self-sufficiency. When Alexander offered him any favor, Diogenes famously replied, "Stand out of my sunlight." This response highlights his independence from external sources of power and wealth, showing that his happiness was rooted entirely within himself. Crates of Thebes Crates of Thebes, another prominent Cynic, gave away his wealth to live a life of poverty and virtue, teaching that material possessions are unnecessary for a fulfilling life. Born into a wealthy family, Crates chose to abandon his fortune to pursue philosophy and live according to Cynic principles. His voluntary poverty was a powerful statement against the values of his time, emphasizing that true wealth lies in virtue and wisdom, not in material possessions. Crates' relationship with Hipparchia, who also adopted Cynic principles, further exemplified self-sufficiency. Together, they lived a life of simplicity and virtue, rejecting societal expectations and finding happiness in their shared commitment to Cynic ideals. Their partnership was based on mutual respect and a shared dedication to living a virtuous life, challenging conventional views on marriage and gender roles. The Broader Implications of Self-Sufficiency The concept of self-sufficiency in Cynicism extends beyond individual practices to a broader critique of societal values. Cynics argued that society's emphasis on wealth, status, and external success distracts individuals from the true source of happiness, which lies in living virtuously and in accordance with nature. By advocating for self-sufficiency, Cynics sought to empower individuals to reclaim their autonomy and focus on what truly matters. In a modern context, the Cynic emphasis on self-sufficiency offers a powerful counter-narrative to consumerism and the relentless pursuit of material success. It encourages a re-evaluation of what it means to live a good life, suggesting that happiness is not found in external acquisitions but in the cultivation of inner virtues and resilience. Practical Steps Toward Self-Sufficiency 1. Simplify Your Life: Reduce your reliance on material possessions and focus on what is truly necessary. This might involve decluttering your home, reducing your consumption, and prioritizing experiences over things. 2. Develop Inner Resources: Cultivate virtues such as wisdom, courage, and self-control. Engage in practices that strengthen your mental and emotional resilience, such as meditation, journaling, and self-reflection. 3. Embrace Minimalism: Adopt a minimalist lifestyle that prioritizes quality over quantity. Learn to appreciate the simple pleasures in life and find contentment in what you have rather than constantly seeking more. 4. Foster Independence: Work on becoming more self-reliant by developing skills that allow you to meet your own needs. This might include learning to cook, grow your own food, or repair items rather than relying on external sources. 5. Practice Mindfulness: Be present and mindful in your daily life. Focus on the here and now rather than worrying about the future or dwelling on the past. Mindfulness helps cultivate a sense of contentment and appreciation for the present moment. Benefits of Minimalism Minimalism leads to reduced stress, more financial freedom, and a greater sense of control over one’s life. By focusing on essentials, individuals can enjoy a higher quality of life with less. Case Studies Modern Minimalists: Stories of individuals who have embraced minimalism and found greater happiness and freedom. Tiny House Movement: An example of living simply and sustainably, reducing one's ecological footprint while increasing personal freedom. Ethical Implications The ethical dimension of Cynicism is integral to its philosophy. Living a virtuous life is central to achieving true happiness and self-sufficiency. Role of Virtue in Achieving Contentment Cynics believe that virtue is the only true good and the foundation of a fulfilling life. Virtue involves living in accordance with nature, practicing honesty, and being self-sufficient. For Cynics, external circumstances are irrelevant to one's happiness; what matters is the state of the soul. Comparisons with Other Philosophical and Religious Teachings Cynic ethics share similarities with other traditions: Stoicism: Emphasizes inner tranquility and virtue. Buddhism: Advocates detachment from material desires and living a virtuous life. Christianity: Early Christian ascetics were influenced by Cynic practices, valuing poverty and virtue over wealth. Challenges and Criticisms While Cynicism offers valuable insights, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Potential Criticisms Extreme Asceticism: Some critics argue that Cynicism’s extreme asceticism is impractical and harsh. Social Isolation: The Cynic disdain for societal norms can lead to social isolation. Addressing Criticisms Balance: Modern interpretations of Cynicism can adopt a balanced approach, emphasizing simplicity and virtue without extreme asceticism. Community Engagement: Encouraging community involvement while maintaining independence can mitigate the risk of isolation.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) A Skeptical Look at the Simulated Universe Theory I do not understand how uncertainty about the origin of life can lead to the conclusion that we are living in a computer simulation. The existence of a simulation presupposes a creator, and that creator's origins would be equally as puzzling. Who would simulate an entire universe of planets and species? Why would they do so? These answers remain unanswered beyond our attempt to determine the existence of gods. And even then, the existence of one or more gods does not mean that we live in a virtual simulation. Moreover, Computer Simulation Theory are not solely created out of nothing; they often involve significant investment of time, resources, and expertise. And yet, even if we are to have the "how", the technicalities, we still lack the "why". Even if we'll have the science, we may lack the philosophy. If our universe is a simulation, who stands to profit from it? The financial motivations behind most simulations raise further questions. If entities external to our universe are profiting from this simulation, who are their customers? What form do these customers take within the simulation, and what is their role? After all, a product is there not only for its producers, but also for its audience of consumers. If we are a virtual product, we must have been created for the sake of these two parties. But we don't even have any ways to know who are the members of these two parties. Can we truly be sure of something we can't both reason its purpose and infrastructure? It seems unlikely that they would be humans or animals, as we possess self-awareness that is not characteristic of non-player characters. They may be code-driven objects without self-awareness, similar to contemporary artificial intelligence. And yes, AI does not have it yet. Regarding the "customer" party whose simulation is here for -- Why would anyone choose to inhabit a rock within a reality of endless possibilities? Why would they enjoy contemporary life if contemporary life can easily be boring? And if the customers are not really players, why does this reality exist at all? Surely an unprofitable simulation would have been shut down long ago. It's important to remember that the simulation hypothesis remains unproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, and its validity is ultimately a matter of individual belief. Like any hypothesis, it could be right or wrong. The financial aspect of simulations casts doubt on the simulation hypothesis. Perhaps the answers lie beyond the realm of profit and entertainment, in motivations we cannot yet comprehend. But the very irony in all of this is that we ourselves may create or participate in stimulations just to refresh our own experience and escape from reality. It's one of the main points of many games -- doing things we are incapable of doing in real life. Either way, if we, the "virtual agents"/"NPCs" of this universe, create simulations within this simulations, perhaps there is something faulty within this simulation. It isn't exactly profitable when your own virtual agents dislike the simulation they are in, and seek to escape from it so much. Trapped in the Game: Debunking the Player Hypothesis in the Simulation Theory If we reject the notion that we're just NPCs stuck in a grand cosmic videogame, does that automatically make us the players ourselves? While the allure of being the masters of our own digital destiny is tempting, closer examination reveals a dissonance between this hypothesis and the reality we experience. Unlike true players, we lack any evidence of an external life beyond the boundaries of this simulated world. Because if you're trapped inside a virtual reality, you might as well know you are, by having recollections of a reality beyond this "virtual prison" called "real life". While even the most dedicated gamer can step away for a sandwich and social interaction, our existence here seems absolute, with death the only potential escape hatch. And even then, the escape that's death is one that goes through a metaphorical sphere of unknown darkness. Moreover, our needs, desires, and motivations seem to arise solely from within this reality. A passionate gamer playing for days still yearns for food and social interaction outside the virtual world. Conversely, we find no such hunger for an existence beyond our own. The lack of a clear separation between player and their character further weakens the hypothesis. Unlike the controlled avatars in "The Sims," we face no divine puppet-master dictating our every move (unless we cancel out the idea of having free will). Our choices, fueled by internal or external influences, shape our paths. An external entity pulling the strings could simply eject or "ban" us from the simulation without needing an in-game reason – but people don't just vanish into the void. Furthermore, our reality presents several differences from a typical game/simulation: No lag: Time marches on relentlessly, free from frustrating network delays and server crashes. In games where there are several computers, the lag also depends on the computer's processing power. But we don't have that issue in real life, do we? Jet lag, fortunately, fails to be the time-manipulating force a virtual lag is. No save/load: Reloading from an earlier point or quitting simply isn't an option (unless you subscribe to the debatable concept of reincarnation). No password required: We don't need a login to access our own lives. No character creation: Our physical forms are shaped by biological processes beyond our control – no selecting pre-made avatars or tweaking stats here. Self-development and character creation is not the same even in video games (which can be translated to a "level up") No fourth-wall breaking: No amount of meta-commentary will alter the game's rules or influence other players to the point of making them aware of a "fourth wall", when there isn't exactly one visible to our eyes. No hacking: Infiltrating another person's mind with godlike control remains science fiction. Although you might be able to, in the future, using brain-machine interface, you wouldn't be able to turn the whole planet to cheese by hacking into a metaphysical code. No cheat codes: Instant wealth or bending time to your will exist only in fantasy (or, you know, in games). While we may speak of "killing time," it's merely a subjective term within our perceived pace of life. We lack the ability to pause or rewind. Ultimately, the "player hypothesis" crumbles under closer scrutiny. Our lack of external lives, the absence of game mechanics like saving and loading, and the inherent autonomy of our choices paint a picture far removed from the controlled environment of a typical video game. While the simulation hypothesis itself remains a matter of open debate, the idea that we, the seemingly trapped pawns, are somehow also the puppeteers pulling the strings simply doesn't hold water. Beyond the Game: Rethinking Reality Even if we entertain the notion of a simulated reality, a more fundamental question arises: Why do we need to be in a simulation at all? Could our own reality be the simulating entity, the one that generates other simulated, "subjective realities" within it? In the face of such existential questions, the void emerges as a constant presence. It doesn't go away, but stays permanently whether or not it had an origin like anything else non-void. It remains with its three expressions of space, seclusion and silence, the ultimate backdrop that exists for certainty, whether or not anything exists or ceases to exist. Perhaps the answer lies beyond the confines of our simulated understanding. Perhaps the only constant is the void, the ever-present emptiness that both birthed and will outlast all metaphysical theories, and all being and things. The void doesn't disappear, making it, technically, a "something". And in virtual simulations, as in real life, everything is data. That includes void as well, given that it is also a "something". In a stimulation, every possible interaction is stored. And voids are the ones that allow these interactions in the first place (like the ability to move in an empty room, the fact that being alone is occasionally an inevitable possibility, and so on). To quote Paul Richmond from Quora, as a summary: "Multiple bits would be required to track any single bit used to describe our universe. As our universe may be infinite, only an infinite computer would be up to the job in that case. If our universe is finite, clearly the tracking computer would have to be so great as to appear infinite to our minds" Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Wouldn’t life in a simulation make everything more understandable? There is just one major reason why we aren’t: All simulators have restart options. So we are living in one with no reset which only gives us one life to live. Your right to ponder why this doesn’t make any sense. Point in case if this were a simulator there would be no organic material in it. Either that or they make 3d printing very realistic in the future. I also don’t see why individuals in a simulator would be required to have lungs and need oxygen to breathe. So I’m not going to go with a simulator. I’m going to go with a creator giving us a very nice cage to play in. Don’t know how else you would describe earth. I also have one fundamental problem with a simulator theory. It would imply life is a game. You want to know who the customers are if this is a simulator? Look into betting if you want a financial motive. Who says we aren’t in a simulator but were still given free will and other species are betting on what will happen. Imagine watching all of humanity on a tv you could flip through. Individuals will be on anything. What if humanity was just someone’s joke? Lets give these apes intelligence and free will and see what happens! If this is a simulator I want to know who supplies the gear for it. Some ungodly level of processing power and video graphics. What if we are in a giant game of risk? Can governments not make us move when they want us to? The sim theory is definitely nonsensical as what would the purpose of law and order be? Think I could use the simulator defense to try and get away with murder? Have you ever seen the movie Inception? Simulator in a simulator would kind of be like that. Maybe the matrix was right about people needing to wake up. What if the simulation is nothing more than the cognitive reality which is created by our overlords? Those people who are trying to keep civilization together, so they do so by putting as many people as possible into one frame of mind. Who says a simulator can’t be created which allows free will? It would just be a setting option. It would be like putting pets into a cage and expecting them to do what you want them to. No, the most you can do is put the toys in there in hopes they will play with them (aka the Earth). Could the purpose of life be to settle as much of the universe as possible? Just need to evolve to the point of being able to do so...

(Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Background music) (The Subcategory on Despair and Surrender: Hope In Despair -- How It Could Be Found (Poem) Giving Up Your Privacy For Products -- The Ethical Philosophy of Contemporary Privacy Giving Up When Giving Is Due -- Why I Gave Up On Weakness Bind Yourself! A Way to Not Give Up (Poem) On the Solitary Lifestyle and the Idea of Defeatism -- Why Solitude Isn't Necessarily About Giving Up How and Why I (Formerly) Gave Up On Love Accepting Reality I: Accepting the Pain https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-secret-plans-path-to-a-ruthless-self https://www.philosocom.com/post/woman-s-tale https://www.philosocom.com/post/butterfly-effect https://www.philosocom.com/post/anonymity https://www.philosocom.com/post/salvation https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-rectifier-s-despair) Part I: A Personal Case Example Being a man with a massive physique who ruthlessly worked to be his master's competent solitary executor, I have suffered from over-body-fat for many years, no matter how physically active I was. Despite being an ascetic hermit, I invested a lot on working on myself, physically and mentally, and became regularly hungry and fatigued as a result to this very day. I have purposefully neglected society and I purposefully neglected other people's love and empathy towards me, so I could focus on becoming a ruthless communicator, as to better and better deliver my grandmother's wishes unto an awful world that made her despair. I actively searched for ways to lose belly fat, and, in some periods, I've been the most active person I have ever been. Yet, despite all the hours of walking, the gym, ground exercise, and healthy eating, I have failed to reduce my annoying, unnecessary fat. All the time I spent working out and eating healthy appeared futile, as I got even more fat, regardless of the activity I attempt to maintain on a regular basis. The only way for me to not give up, which proved successful, was to intensify my asceticism even further, to the point I become near-oblivious to my hunger, as I work on Philosocom and function nonetheless. I am a very hungry man, as I am driven by pain to improve my philosophy skills further and further. I need more food than the average-sized human being, and even more than people who are as tall as me. I am driven by the intensity of my emotions. Also, I am hard-wired to be more depressed than happy, and hard-wired to work very hard. On Specified Hopelessness My ambitions, ironically to my asceticism, are wide and only end when I die. I refuse to retire. Nothing satisfies me fully. Eating jungles of vegetables and meat, I would often remain unsatisfied as if I didn't eat much. Even on an average day, when I get to eat, food used to be one of my top subjects when thinking. That is, until my transformations. On an average day, whereas an average person eats 3 meals a day, I used to eat 9, I believe. It didn't change my hunger. Nowadays, eating 2 or 3 meals hasn't changed it either. I have accepted my suffering as for granted. I only talk about suffering-reduction because most people are not ascetic, but rather, hedonistic. All of the wasted time on physical health, which was quickly deteriorated by exhaustion, made me realize how futile my attempts to reduce my body fat were. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to become healthier, without compromising my ambitions, is to hone my asceticism even further. To accept my hunger, physical as well as mental, as unseparated from my own existence, for the rest of my life. I don't care whether I am liked or not. I don't need my ambitions and my pains sympathized nor empathized nor validated. If I am not about to die from starvation, I can wait several hours until I get to eat. I am unrelenting for my work and I am more and more independent of the external world when it comes to my inner peace. Part II: Analysis of My Demonstration Based on my personal example, giving up should only be made when there are absolutely no other options left, or when the options (and people) are far too incompetent to deal with the problem. Those who give up early are not aware of their potential, and those who give up late are unaware of their own futility. Therefore, the middle ground is to stop trying when there is no other alternative, or when the alternative is too costly (Not necessarily in money). Based on this, there's a difference between giving up on a core activity, and giving up on total hope; pure despair, versus specified despair. Thus, some activities, when given up, can help us amplify the efficiency of our other/main activities. Thus, some giving up is good, for some activities, based on our respective philosophies, aren't worth it. A hopeless liability, when given up could boost the fruition of new possibility, subverting said liability. If you are in a reality where you do not tolerate it enough, at least make the best of it, while you're in it. Conclusive Musings On The Expression It is strange to use the word "up" in "giving up" because "up" is supposed to be something better-spirited, like a stand-up routine. Yet, when you give something "up", you give it to something or someone that is above yourself. Therefore, giving up can be seen as an expression of modesty, where the self is not the goal but the means that gives itself up for the goal. Helping others, is when you literally give up your resources, time especially, for their aid. Therefore, not all forms of giving up are forms of defeat, but sometimes strength too. It's just that we are biased to see the term in a pessimistic manner. The expression can also give us the following insight: When you give up, it is our choice afterwards, whether to look down in despair, or look up in hope and/or resourcefulness. The usage of my personal situation has led me to create something new, AKA, look "up" for something else that is and will resume being far greater than myself exclusively, as a result of giving up. "Giving up" could simply mean "stop what you're doing and look forward to something else thereafter". When we give up on caring about something, it can be a strength for us, as it can increase our focus on doing something that might be more important currently. Conversely, when others are dependable on us, it can become a weakness more than a strength. It really is a more natural term than it appears for most of us.

Alex Mos's Synopsis The trolley problem explores the moral choice of diverting the runaway trolley to a side track, resulting in killing one person and saving five. The other choice, inaction, means letting five people die. The experiment has a few practical limitations when applied to reality. It allows only these two choices; however, more options are possible, such as finding a way to halt the trolley. Real-life ethical dilemmas often involve causing "lesser" suffering to prevent a greater one. However, can we distinguish between "justified" and unnecessary harm? An interesting aspect is the higher value placed on a leader's life than others, which is morally incorrect. Also, the trolley experiment ignores the legal implications and societal factors like a duty to act or punishment. There is a third alternative to the trolley problem: don't intervene and don't sacrifice people for a greater cause. Instead, try to save them, get others to assist you, and become a courageous hero. Otherwise, if you are not strong enough, run away. The author lives life in a way that, for all costs, refuses to cause unnecessary suffering. (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (2025 Note: For the sake of my sanity, I will not save more people than I already did. 7 is enough for me). (Background music) A Flawed Framework for Real-World Dilemmas? The trolley problem is a cornerstone of ethical thought experiments. It presents a grim scenario: a runaway trolley unintentionally towards a group of people, capable of running them over. You a mere bystander, have the chance to intervene and divert the trolley to a side track, killing only one person instead of five. Do you pull the lever, and why? The problem's purpose is to explore the boundaries of morality, in situations where sacrifice is not to be assumed, but necessarily recognized. It forces us to consider the value of a single life versus multiple lives, and whether inaction is morally equivalent to causing harm. However, the trolley problem presents a limited framework for real-world ethical dilemmas. Here's why: False Dichotomy of Action vs. Inaction: The scenario assumes you either act (pull the lever) and become a "murderer" or do nothing and be complicit in multiple deaths. In reality, ethical dilemmas often involve exploring options to reduce harm altogether. Perhaps alerting authorities, applying the emergency brake, or finding another way to stop the trolley exists. Why must we resort to the intentional murder of people? Must we choose the path of suffering in all cases? Can't a path with no unnecessary suffering, be found? And not only in such extreme cases... but in relationships, too. Must flowers bloom at the inevitable decline of others? Focus On Killing Vs. Saving: On the other hand... real-world dilemmas may involve causing harm to prevent a greater one. Think of self-defense or administering a painful medical procedure to save a life. Some adversity is, indeed, necessary, for a stronger mentality... As sad as it sounds. But can we really distinguish, between this "altruistic" suffering, and between one which is unnecessary from the start? Must we always start wars for a more peaceful future? Legal and Social Consequences: The thought experiment ignores the legal implications of the action. In most societies, the act of diverting the trolley wouldn't be considered murder, but rather an attempt to save lives. Social factors like duty to act or potential for punishment are also absent from the scenario. In a morally-depraved society, diverting the trolley will less likely to bring you the justice you may deserve. The "Leader Position: The argument that a single life, especially that of a leader, outweighs the lives of many is an interesting take. However, it simplifies leadership and societal structures. A leader's death wouldn't necessarily equate to societal collapse. Furthermore, the moral point of leadership is to help others, and not be above them in priority. The Moral Maze This reminds me of a joke I once heard: "Why did you kill him?" the judge asked. "I didn't do it, the gun did!" If a large-scale cannon is being recharged, why take the handle when you can't even abort its fire? The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment that forces us to confront a terrible choice. And you will kill, if there are only two options. You will cause grief. And, you can even cause people, such as your victims' friends and family, be vengeful towards you, and plan your downfall. You cannot have a clear conscience, by partaking in this dilemma in its traditional form. There is a third option. Must you intervene and cause death? Do nothing, and someone will perish. Someone however will perish even if you intervene. Avoid causing harm, and you can have a clearer conscience. Learn to let go of what will cause suffering either way, and you won't cause suffering in any direct way. Do not take responsibility on a noble cause that is done on the exploitation of others. Do not make people victims for a greater cause. It's not worth the world you'll be creating in your actions... A world where wars, and the traumas that follow, deserve to be justified in the eyes of society. A world where people become but pawns for greater schemes, worthy to be discarded when they outlive their use in your plans. Can you really look in the eyes of people, whose dear ones you've killed? Can you take responsibility when you cause grief to others? Why should we accept such a world where sacrificial suffering and trauma are justified? Where one is killed, so another would live? Change the trajectory of the trolley, and you will kill. Run as fast as you can to the railways and scream in distress, and you might save them. If they are tied, and you are not physically alone, then rally up the people around you quickly, and engulf the flame of life in their hearts, so as many of the trolley's victims will be saved! Must we act alone? Why can't we employ others to assist us, in saving the lives of the distressed? Why must sacrifice of life be the only choice? Why shouldn't we work towards their rescue, even if it will risk us? You need to get risks to get what you want! You want to save as many of them, then muster the strength within you, the courage, and do what it takes to increase the chance of people not dying overall! Do not work for death! Work for overall life! Otherwise, stay out of this! If you are not strong enough to help others, run away! Heroism requires strength. I prefer keep on saving people from the trolley that self-sacrifice. I will NOT make another fall victim to self-sacrifice, just so others would not. I prefer risking my own mentality, over causing pain, and even death, to another. I prefer to distress myself than choosing who is to be distressed. I don't want to cause unnecessary suffering.... I refuse. Bonus Comment From "St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missle" As a young person, I heard a variant of the trolly car problem. A trolly car engineer had a child. The child liked to play upon the tracks. One morning, the engineer advised his child, "do not play on the tracks today. I will need to change the lanes, and the gears will crush you." Tragically, his child did not listen. The trolly car approached, and the child was playing carelessly amid the gears. The engineer faced a dilemma... let a train full of people derail and die, or kill his child. As it was one of those paternalist sorts of messages, the engineer killed his child and the moral of the story was that children should listen to their parents (it wasn't a very good story). Noticeably, this problem is nearly identical to the standard trolly car problem, and the act of taking his child's life is not justifiable. The confusion added to the problem of this child being the engineer's changes nothing about the moral impact of the dilemma. When we see and bond with people, our instincts make us protective, accepting, and more ready to defend these people than others. This is a very natural survival instinct. Our same instinct causes us to dismiss outgroup positions within a fraction of a second. This too is a survival instinct; to trust those who have built trust, and distrust those who have not built it (and such is also a morally defensible. Nobody is entitled to trust upon demand. Respect is owed. Trust is earned). It becomes problematic when twisted by propaganda, that some people are "our people" and "other people" aren't. Indeed this is how all blood libel begins. I think the truth is we are all each other's children. Imagine a modified version of the dilemma... Instead of careless play, what if the person's child comes under extreme stress of some kind, perhaps even duress, and the child intends to destroy the track and intentionally kill those on board? Is it justifiable then to take action to defend people against your own? Might it even be obligatory, as the original dilemma attempted to assert? Perhaps.... Every war is brother and sister against brother and sister. All conflict is friendly fire. George Orwell said: "War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil." I disagree with him only to the extent that defending against a war is not a lesser evil. Defense becomes justifiable, perhaps even obligatory, by the circumstance of the unjust harm presented by the aggressor. It is the nature of the aggression, however, that justifies defense, never whether we are close to one side or another. We are all family.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Caligula Effect" explores the concept of irrational subordination to authority, using historical examples like Emperor Caligula's reign as a metaphor. Mr. Tomasio uses Caligula's reign as a backdrop for discussing arbitrary and irrational authority, making the concept relatable to everyday situations. The article also engages in philosophical inquiry, asking readers to question the legitimacy of power structures and the role of collective resistance in dismantling unjust power structures. Additionally, the article presents fictional and historical examples of "The Caligula Effect" in order to ground the concept in a greater framework. In conclusion, the article presents an interesting and creative exploration of power dynamics through the lens of "The Caligula Effect". (Background music) ********* Living for yourself often requires the destruction of others for us to continue, in every respect. Both financially and socially. But living existence often requires the detriment of others. We must ultimately destroy them, or recruit them to our cause in order to live and often indeed profit finally, though the very thought is abhorrent to me. This is the lot of all living beings. To be alive requires the sacrifice of others, one way or another -- Mr. John Duran The Main Body "The Caligula Effect", not to be confused with a game with the same name, is a term I made in an attempt to describe the reasoning behind being subordinate under someone, who does not have much reasoning, to deserve loyal subordinates. In other words, I made this term in order to explain the phenomenon, where a figure of power and authority, have those, even if they are being incompetent, mad, hated and so on; Just like Emperor Caligula himself. Did you know? The name "Caligula" is a nickname and wasn't Emperor Caligula's true name. Apparently, the nickname means "little boots" in Latin, and he got that nickname, because his mother used to dress him as a Roman soldier when he was a child. Anyways, despite being an absolute ruler for life, this Emperor was only in power for only 4 years. His reign died with him, when he was assassinated by a military faction, whose power was stronger than the Roman Senate itself. As Emperor, Caligula was insane, and some may call him today "The Mad Emperor". He would butcher his own citizens, appoint his own horse to a position of authority, have temples in his name, and deem himself a God. Obviously, his position wasn't necessarily respected, but certainly feared. But how about this, for thought? What if Caligula's power wasn't that important? What if his power was merely given, by others, and none more? What if, he could've easily been disposed of as a tyrant, if no one would've respected his own authority, practically? The absurdity of such power, which is given, can be regarded as "The Caligula Effect". Have you ever thought to yourselves, why do certain people have their power? Is their power, necessarily objective? A fact, like the dawn of day, per se? Is there anyone that cannot be rebelled against, even by questioning, alone? So, by this philosophy, it makes a lot of sense that Caligula only survived 4 years as Emperor. Some democratic leaders ruled far longer than he did, and their leadership is divided by terms, not for life! Do you see the irony? When you are a democratic leader, your leadership is supposed to represent the will of your people. On the other hand, when your leadership is forced by power alone, it is easy to be rebelled, and even be the subject of assassination attempts. Why are dictators despised? It's not necessarily due to their personality or behaviour, but simply because they are in authority, regardless of whether or not we asked them to be in that position. The mere fact that they are dictators, can be seen as a disrespectful gesture to our own consent, or lack of it, of their positioning. However! The fact that we may disapprove of their position, does not mean we don't allow it. How come? The answer can be simple: We allow it, as a collective, by not resisting, or not resisting enough. By giving up on this idea. Of course, we as individuals can rebel for ourselves, but it does not mean others will not be in the way, EVEN if said others, disapprove of the leader, themselves. In other words, disapproving is not the same as resisting, even though one could lead to the other. This is why, the main solution to the "Caligula Effect", is by collective resistance, and not simply by disapproving, hating, or despising the figure in question. By resistance, I refer to the disrespect of their authority, practically, and not only or simply by words, or any other form of media. One can claim that teachers are "Caligulas" of their own, even if they're not mad like the Roman Emperor himself. The only rule that grants them their legitimate authority, is compulsory education. Even if the class members hate being at school, their hatred alone is not a form of resistance, against the figure that represents that authority. They may hate all they want, but next morning, they will attend school, all because they "have to", by the law in question. It's not like students love to learn, necessarily. But the fact that they were never asked that question, and the fact that their answer does not matter practically, is the most basic example of the "Caligula Effect" today. To simplify -- the "Caligula Effect" is essentially the lack of reasoning to obey through subordination, while there appears to be a greater reasoning, to do otherwise. In a sense, it was "good" that Caligula was assassinated by his own guards, as his rulership was absurd, both in practice and in legitimacy. A rulership of a real-life psychotic clown. Perhaps, his own legitimacy was from his predecessor, Emperor Tiberius, who chose him to be his successor. Other than a dictator's "natural" ways of coming down from power, such as death or resigning oneself from that position --- the only way to resolve this "effect" is to make a collective effort, to overthrow his or her authority, from their subordinates (us, usually). To do so, it is imperative to convince others, that collective resistance is justified, by the lack of reasoning, present in the current state of affairs. To end this article, I'd like to give examples from fiction and history, where this effect applies: Fictional Examples 1. In Jimmy Two-Shoes, Lucius Heinous, the show's villain, only has authority because of his vast wealth. In an episode where he became poor, he practically lost all his power, because everyone stole everything he owned. His girlfriend, for example, was only there for the money, and never for love. Nonetheless, no one other than himself, likes him. Without the salary he provides to his workers, he is nothing. 2. In The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, Dr. Robotnik's power might as well come from the fact that his henchmen are too foolish to betray him. However, there are exceptions, but they are few. In addition, their dangerous job, which gets them severely injured, goes unpaid. Historical Examples Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, argued in his work Leviathan that humans are inherently selfish and violent. To avoid chaos, he proposed a social contract in which people surrender their individual rights to a powerful sovereign in exchange for protection and order. This absolute authority, akin to a Leviathan, could be seen as a Caligula-like figure. While the sovereign might not necessarily be insane or cruel, their power is derived from the fear and obedience of the people, rather than their legitimacy or moral character. Michel Foucault, a 20th-century French philosopher, explored the ways in which power is exercised through institutions and social structures. He argued that power is not simply repressive but also productive, shaping individuals and their behavior. The concept of the panopticon, a prison design in which inmates are constantly watched, is often used to illustrate this idea. The fear of being watched can lead to self-discipline and conformity, even in the absence of direct surveillance. In this sense, the panopticon can be seen as a metaphorical representation of the Caligula Effect, where individuals submit to authority out of fear and the perception of constant surveillance. Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s, established a cult of personality around himself. He was portrayed as an infallible leader, and dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Stalin's power was based on fear, propaganda, and the control of the state apparatus. While he was not necessarily insane in the same way as Caligula, his tyrannical rule and the fear he inspired among his people are examples of the Caligula Effect in action. Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean military dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990, seized power through a coup d'état supported by the United States. His regime was characterized by human rights abuses, including torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Pinochet's power was based on military force and the suppression of dissent. His rule is a historically-late example of the Caligula Effect, where a powerful individual maintains control through fear and intimidation. While the specific circumstances may differ, the underlying principle remains the same on the historical, real life degree: individuals or groups can maintain power through fear, intimidation, and the perception of their authority as absolute.

(The Directory: The Problems of the Overman -- What Nietzsche Didn't Consider Nietzsche's Eternal Return and the Temptation of Immortality: How to Love Being Alive https://www.philosocom.com/post/nietzsche-s-ideas) Article Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "What We Can Learn From Nietzsche's Personal Life (And the Directory on Nietzsche)" provides a comprehensive analysis of Friedrich Nietzsche's personal struggles and his philosophical outlook. The structure of the article, split into various parts, effectively demonstrates the connection between Nietzsche's lived experiences and his intellectual contributions. Overall, the article is informative and thought-provoking, with positive and negative aspects (flaws) defining the piece. Positive aspects include the integration of life and philosophy, which highlights how Nietzsche's suffering influenced his thoughts, particularly on the "Will to Power" and the critique of societal values. Additionally, The article avoids overly academic jargon, making Nietzsche's complex ideas more accessible to a broader audience. The balanced tone of the article presents Nietzsche as both an extraordinary thinker and a flawed, complex individual, with discussions on his isolation and romantic defeats adding depth to the narrative. On the contrary, the article might overemphasize Nietzsche's suffering as the primary driver of his philosophy, as he also drew inspiration from a wide range of intellectual sources and cultural contexts. Further exploration of Nietzsche is therefore encouraged, as the philosopher's overall work is hard to understand, and could be read in different orders of books for potentially-diverse points of view. Mr. M. Svartgold greatly amplifies the article with his own understanding of the eccentric thinker. In conclusion, the article offers a compelling introduction to Nietzsche's life and work, blending biographical detail with philosophical inquiry. (Background music) Introduction Friedrich Nietzsche's life was profoundly marked by a complex interaction of social, mental, and physical struggles. His health deteriorated over time, culminating in a debilitating mental breakdown and eventual stroke at the age of 44 due to his lifelong neurological illness. These afflictions significantly impacted his life's journey, forcing him to adopt a nomadic existence across Europe in pursuit of suitable climates for his health and ultimately resigning from his academics as a young professor of philology. He was a wanderer both physically as well as philosophically, embracing the way of the wandering intellect. Paradoxically, Nietzsche's delicate state served as a worthy challenge for his intellectual brilliance, making him weaker in body, but stronger in spirit. Freed from academic constraints in 1879, he embarked on a prolific nine-year period as an independent philosopher, supported by a modest pension and the generosity of friends. That nine-year period were his final years before his collapse in January 1889, leaving him mentally deranged for the last 11 years of his life. During these years, he produced a remarkable volume of work, publishing nearly one book annually until he finally succumbed to his various severe illnesses. According to Gustavo Figueroa, a Chilean researcher, Nietzsche suffered from: Lingering migraines. Gastric disorders. Loss of Visual Acuity. Rheumatism. Intermittent Affective/Explosive Disorders. As such, Nietzsche was an unfortunate, unlucky man whose genetic history contributed to his declined health. His illnesses' genetic connections are evident in his father, a Lutherian pastor who died in his 30's due to similar issues. And from his genetic verdict of being, rose one of philosophy's most remarkable and controversial giants. Some consider him "one of the greatest and most important philosophers in history". From his unique agonies, a unique man was developed with unique ideas from his own... Part I: Examining a Solitary Figure Despite his intellectual brilliance and the charismatic behavior of his works, Nietzsche was essentially a solitary figure. His health issues, combined with his critical moral philosophy, often isolated him from mainstream society. That is the case of many brilliant people -- they often suffer from the loneliness of genius. He maintained a circle of close friends, including Lou Salomé, Paul Ree, and the Founder of the Schopenhauer society, Paul Deussen. However, these relationships were marked by intense intellectual exchanges rather than deep personal intimacy. Such emphasis on the intellect made the German philosopher abandon his former friend, Richard Wagner, the famous German composer. It is claimed Nietzsche believed that Wagner sought to be popular, rather than focusing on unleashing his, authentic, artistic self. This makes sense given the philosopher's praise of art and artists over the "critical barbarians". It is why, if Socrates lived in his time, it's logical they wouldn't be able to be good friends with each other, for Socrates lambasted emotions, and claimed they lead to false reasoning. Nietzsche's Romantic Defeat Nietzsche's views on love were complex and ambivalent. While he admired the power and intensity of romantic passion as a natural force, he paradoxically saw a need to oppose the whole concept. Being a complicated man, his relationships with women were often platonic, marked by intellectual exchange rather than romantic involvement. And yet, there seemed to have been an exception... Lou Salomé: Perhaps the most significant woman in Nietzsche's life, Salomé was an intelligent writer who captivated him intellectually, yet chose to reject his marriage proposal. Their relationship was a complex interplay of friendship, intellectual stimulation, and unfulfilled romantic longing. She rejected him as well as his friend, Paul Ree. If it weren't for her husband, the languages master Carl Andreas, who couldn't bare the thought of her not marrying him, she might as well had lived her life as a true, willing celibate (and not an "incel"). Other relationships: Nietzsche had other female friends and acquaintances, including feminist thinker Malwida von Meysenbug and Cosima Wagner, Richard Wagner's wife. These relationships, however, did not evolve into romantic attachments. Being an asocial loner, he never married. Ironically, many philosophers never did. This historic trend led Professor Jonathan Wolff ask: Why do philosophers make unsuitable life partners? A Small Intermission It's essential to note that Nietzsche's personal life was deeply intertwined with his philosophical explorations. His ideas about the nature of love, desire, and human relationships were shaped by his own experiences and observations, and not only through mere academic research. This methodology, which synthesizes the personal and the professional, inspired me to write personal-based articles, as well. Part II: Between the Personal and the Philosophical It's a compelling argument that Nietzsche's unique circumstances—his health struggles, unconventional relationships, and solitary nature—were, paradoxically, triggers for his extraordinary philosophical output. Had he enjoyed greater health, a conventional career and an average lifestyle, along with the common success in finding love, the evolution of his thought might have been vastly different. Nietzsche's life serves as a reminder that even in the darkest corners of experience, there is potential for growth and transformation. By adopting a holistic view of our lives, we can begin to identify hidden opportunities within our challenges, and see them not as mere difficulties, but as "investment deals" for our respective crafts. This can subvert the idea that we're very much unfortunate. Just as Nietzsche distilled profound philosophical truths from his suffering, we too can find meaning and purpose deep within the belly of adversity. It's a testament to the human spirit's capacity for resilience and adaptation and discipline, required for it to develop and improve the world. While life often presents us with hardships and setbacks, it's essential to cultivate a perspective that allows us to see beyond immediate suffering. By recognizing the potential for growth and learning within our challenges, we can transform adversity into a catalyst for personal and intellectual development. A Meta-Philosophical Examination This invites us to consider the complex interplay between adversity and creativity. It's not to suggest that suffering is desirable, but rather to acknowledge that challenges can sometimes serve as unexpected breeders of innovation, resilience, and profound insight. After all, unique individuals often face unique challenges, compelling them to find creative solutions. One of the hallmarks of philosophy lies within its potential to solve problems. It would make sense then, that many people would turn to formulating philosophical ideas, as well as study them, to help themselves and to others. It also makes sense that many people involved in philosophy are eccentric. There is a strong link between this, creativity and by proxy, with solving problems (unconventionally). Philosophy, as such, can be seen as both a personal and an intellectual struggle. In some cases, especially when the context is political, the struggle is also collective. Part III: Nietzsche's Adversities as Philosophical Fertile Ground Nietzsche's physical and psychological afflictions provided a unique lens through which he examined the human nature. Furthermore, his isolation and chronic pain forced him to confront fundamental questions about existence, suffering, and the nature of reality. The Body as a Battlefield Embodiment and Being: Nietzsche's deteriorating health brought the body into sharper philosophic focus. He explored the relationship between physical and mental states as synergetic to each other, thus challenging the Cartesian mind-body dualism, which views them as completely different. His concept of the body as a conflicted battleground, incapable of pure rational thought, can suggest that logic is more learned than it is natural. The Will to Power: His struggle with illness intensified his focus on the will to power as a fundamental force in human existence. It is regarded as an irrational force that seeks mastery over others, oneself and so on, depending on individual distinction. He saw his own body as a microcosm of this struggle, with the will to overcome pain and suffering as a manifestation of the inner spirit, affirming that life has value. The Outsider's Perspective Critique of Society: Nietzsche's marginalized position allowed him to develop a critical perspective on societal norms and values. His isolation from academic and social circles, driven also by his poor health, enabled him to challenge conventional wisdom without fear of being ostracized. Revaluation of Values: His outsider status fostered a radical re-evaluation of traditional morality. He questioned the foundations of Christian ethics as condemning the pursuit of mastery (AKA, a "Slave Morality"), and proposed a new system of values based on affirmation of life and individual strength ("Master Morality"). This understanding greatly helped him mentally survive his conditions. Perhaps if it weren't for his philosophical exploration, the thinker might've died as soon as his father did. Yet, the son of the Christian minister died at the age of 55. That's despite both men having awful health. This shows how philosophical inquiry could extend our lifespan. Conclusion In essence, Nietzsche's adversities served as a catalyst for his philosophical exploration. His physical and psychological suffering provided him with a unique vantage point from which to examine the fundamental questions of human existence. His work serves as a clue to the human spirit's capacity to find meaning and purpose even in the face of adversity, tendencies for nihilism, and depression. Article Feedback by M. Svartgold Regarding Nietzsche's article, I want to give Mr. Tomasio and the readership an opinion. When it comes to solitude in Nietzsche's personal life, a subject that may seem painful, it's important to note that some people, including Albert Einstein, found solitude to be a valuable tool for learning. There are individuals, not necessarily mentally but neurologically, who understand and have seen, like me and Tomasio, and like Nietzsche, the true nature of the world beyond the matrix of Plato's Cave. Nietzsche perceived the world as a masquerade in which he had to play a game to win the company of others. As Mr. Tomasio mentioned, Nietzsche lacked real, deep friendships and remained unmarried throughout his life. This solitude was instrumental in shaping his unique perspective and enabling him to express his ideas with greater clarity in his writings (Despite still being misunderstood like many intellects). Yet, he possessed a profound understanding of the fundamental nature of life and the social and intellectual games that must be played. Wagner was one of those individuals who sought to play a game, unlike the authentic Nietzsche. Nietzsche's legacy extends beyond his controversial views on women. His intellectual pursuits and personal growth helped him overcome health challenges and achieve significant success. He demonstrated the power of solitude and introspection for personal development. Nietzsche's analysis of human nature and emotions, as well as his exploration of power and adversity, offer valuable insights for understanding our own lives, showing how deep existence really is.

(Philosocom Directory on Work) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Co. The article "Thoughts On Remote Work: How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment" explores the benefits and implications of remote work in modern society. It emphasizes the advantages of flexibility, autonomy, commuting reduction, mitigation of office politics, and personal reflections. The article highlights the benefits of remote work, such as increased job satisfaction and productivity, reduced commuting time and costs, and lessened environmental impact. It also highlights the potential for remote work to mitigate office politics, which can be a significant source of stress and distraction in traditional work environments. In conclusion, the article provides a thoughtful exploration of remote work and its benefits, offering a balanced perspective that includes potential challenges and a wider range of implications. (Background music) Part I: How Private Computers Revolutionized Work For those able to work by solely using a computer, remote work could arguably be the future of many employees and freelancers. If so, then there will be less of a need to drive to a specific location every day, privately or publicly. And, there will be less need to share a space with other people, just to fulfill a job you can do anywhere as long as your computer has an internet connection. Remote work is arguably the best way to work because it means that your work hours will be very flexible if you're able to finish your job for the week. Imagine working intensively for a few days in a week, to the point that you are left with no work for the time being. Then, you could do whatever you want until another series of tasks comes your way (or look for those yourself, with no binding contract). Why work 5-6 days a week when you can condense the work to a smaller number of days and take extra days off? Why not take longer breaks and divide your work time in a way that will bring you more comfort and less potential exhaustion? That way, you might even become more productive! The Restraints of Real Life If you're easily bored by being in one place, why not work in one or more cafes while enjoying coffee? During a vacation abroad? Or even in your own bed, next to your partner or pet? If the work is done remotely, it doesn't have to matter if you're a freelancer or an employee of a specific company. The freedom of choosing a location and time will be on your own shoulders, as long as the task at hand is done. As more and more people become licensed drivers, the roads will only get more and more filled with traffic. In turn, an increasing number of traffic jams will require you to either use public transportation or simply wake up earlier than you should. Furthermore, the popular trend of going to work via car is costing you money, of course. The typical U.S. driver lost 51 hours to congestion in 2022, about an hour each week. That's 15 more hours lost to congestion than in 2021, and all that time wasted in traffic jams hit pocketbooks hard, costing the average American driver $869 in lost time, according to 2022 Global Traffic Scorecard by the mobility analytics firm Inrix. -- David Schaper. And, it's all just to get to work on time. A specific position you don't necessarily need to waste so much of your time, money and your health, just to perform it. The Value of Unconventionality When you work remotely, you can wake up whenever you want. It's of course under the obvious condition that you'll actually work, not slack off, or degrade into incompetency. The problem with "orthodox" work, AKA work that requires you to be in a certain place exclusively, is that it might require you to be confined to a certain area or even country, limiting your freedom of movement. Now that we have the internet, we can hire the services of people across the world without needing them to be local to our own office or any other physical location. We don't even have to meet them in person ever, and as such, won't have to find ourselves so much in office politics. They occur less in virtual spaces than in physical offices. Much of it causes unhappiness, resorting workers to protect their mental health from it. Therefore, unless you also seek to make friends in the office, is there much point advocating this orthodox way of work when we could encourage more remote working? Also, due to increased rate of office rent, there is also an increased rate of office vacancy, at least in the U.S. Part II: Points of Contrast Different companies can't afford as much remote work as other industries, still hallmarking the traditional importance of physical spaces. From the global media company Yahoo to the massive online platform reddit, some companies abandoned this feature entirely. Yahoo blamed it for lack of innovation. Reddit blamed it for lack of coordination. A Microsoft study claims remote collaboration is more mentally challenging. Some people require a sense of community for their wellbeing. Remote work can only intensify the loneliness of remote teams. Remote work can harm corporate culture, therefore reducing the competency of teamwork and team bonding, which can greatly increase work output if done correctly. Urban planners may design cities to lure digital nomads as residents, who are known to be remote workers. This comes at the cost of declining downtown businesses, ruining local revenue. Downtowns are basically business centers. Conclusions When it comes to both remote work and the digital era, physical places and products should be pretty much "dead," unless they must be physical, such as art and other merchandise. If you work somewhere where your presence is necessary to be gathered in a common space, such as a factory, and there's no other option, then the exclusion applies here as well. Therefore, remote work is never always possible, making physical spaces for work, production and distribution, a "necessary evil". However, if possible, why work in a physical space or even produce physical items when you can do so remotely online? Why suffer the traffic jams every day and force yourself to wake up abnormally early as a result? Why have a computer in an office when you can have one at a café, on vacation, or even at home while you're in your pajamas? Of course, some people have their own reasons, which are legitimate. Some jobs give you a car, for example. So, if you've moved somewhere else, you'd still have to drive a longer way to work, but with it being sponsored by your company. Still, remote work could indeed be the future of much of the world's employment. For some people, like the autistic and the extremely empathic, remotely-working in an environment you can choose per your own design could be ideal.

(Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future. More on my philosophy on the past has been written). Alex Mos's Synopsis The author refuses in a state of "Post-Purpose" where previously set goals have been achieved. He chose the solitary path of an ascetic, providing guidance and help to others. He is determined to contribute to humanity using pain and existential suffering as motivation. To live a successful Post-Purpose life, we must resist the frustrating need for new goals and break the desire and materialistic consumption cycle. Chasing fleeing ambitions repeatedly creates a necessity for new achievements, often leading to addiction and depression, mental illness. Perfectionism is futile. Embracing flows and striving for higher standards are realistic and desirable. The author illustrates the Post-Purpose approach by comparing the struggle of a fictive character, Bojack Horsman, to his strategy. Bojack is stagnant, obsessively trying to reproduce his past success and looking for external validation. In contrast, the author also refused his Post-Purpose, but unlike the character, he embraced his discontent, and let go of the past to grow as a human. True happiness lies in finding and pursuing a long-lasting, realistic goal that leads to personal fulfillment and growth. *********************** "My purpose has vanished once it has been achieved. Just like a video game that has been finished, it can still be enjoyed without starting a new game, be it a complete or partial reset of its development. A post-purpose life is to be both appreciated and learned by as many people as possible, but only if we ruthlessly refuse to overcome our attachments to our emotions." -- A renovated response of mine to an answer request on Quora. (Background music) ************************* Navigating a Post-Purpose Life As many of you may already know, my journey has been unconventional and full of pain. While other young adults are just embarking on their life's path, I found myself in a state of retirement, never needing to actually work for a living. Unlike most who seek guidance, I’ve become accustomed to offering it, understanding the importance of helping others. And while many yearn for love, marriage, and family, I chose the solitary path of a the ascetic, rarely even contemplating romantic love as a practical possibility. Unlike many I have the opportunity to live in a state of "Post-Purpose," where all previously set goals have been achieved. Despite my ability to rest on the laurels of life, I refuse doing so, and I refuse relentlessly. For I understand that as long as I can contribute, I should not waste that potential being idle and succumbing to pure joy. I don't live to have fun. I haven't felt pure joy since 2008. My existence is fueled with chronic pain, and I use the pain and the emptiness as motivators. Treating them as problems to be solved is an orthodox mistake of logic that does not look both ways. The question that lingers for myself and others like me is how to navigate a Post-Purpose life. To live such a life, we must resist the frustration that compels us of needing a new purpose, one that throws us back into the common cycle of seemingly-endless desire, capitalized by greedy companies. This cycle thrives on the belief that achieving a specific milestone (finding love, securing a certain career) will unlock permanent satisfaction. But true fulfillment, I believe, is a conscious choice, not a destination reached by external pressures or fleeting desires. It is mainly done when we gather the strength inside, to make the regular choice to let go. Choosing Contentment VS Living In Endless Loop Indeed, a post-purpose life is a conscious decision, often taken after achieving what we once deemed essential. It's a recognition that ceaselessly chasing ambitions only creates an insatiable hunger within. A mind already blissful with satisfaction doesn't need more purpose. The pursuit would only leave a void. The point of this hunger, just like with the physical hunger for food, is to get something done. To get something done, you must become fit enough for the task which your hunger sets you off to. Therefore, discontent has its own practical functionality. It's there to make you displeased with yourself or with how things currently are, so you'll be willing enough to work towards a change. When we breed insatiable hunger, we turn ourselves from serene people, to people who are constantly stressed by their own discontent. This discontent fuels the modern materialistic loop – an anxious, short-term cycle that breeds frustration and emptiness. It is, you see, a self-feeding cycle, idea for others to abuse for greater profit. The consequences of never being truly content slowly become visible: addiction, depression, mental illness. The Post-Purpose approach, when embraced holistically, offers an alternative to this chronic suffering. It not only satiates the mind but also shields us from these pitfalls. In a sense, we better equip ourselves to choose our own hunger. To reduce our suffering, we should choose hunger that can be satiated permanently. And in here lies the dark side of purpose-seeking. It can devolve into a relentless obsession, particularly when the desired purpose is unrealistic or unsustainable. As such, we may, without sufficient foresight, choose to suffer impractically, believing we're doing enough work to quiet down our thirst towards being content. In reality, why bother investing so much energies and resources towards activities that cannot completely fuel our satisfaction? This question applies only to those who want to be satisfied, to those who want to feel joy constantly and to those who see discontent a problem for these ends. For me discontent and even agony are assets, not liabilities to get rid of. Largely, I've no desire to discard assets. Both in resource, and in people. I don't live to be content. I live to work. Work is how I mentally survive in a world whose pleasures I find absurd and exhausting. Why would anyone want to be fatigued? Perhaps it's time to collectively acknowledge the futility, even the counter-productivity, of the pursuit of perfection. Perfectionism isn't a realistic venture Striving for high standards, is. I prefer to embrace the flaws and live despite the struggle, than delude myself to believe in a painless reality. According to the Paradise Paradox, we are programmed to be displeased. And displeasure/discontent, as explained, has its purpose in our survival and in our success. Embracing a post-success life, where we savor the fruits of our achievements, may be the key to long-term contentment. However, can we truly live in peace with it? Most of us can have the opportunity to revel in life's pleasures without needing to constantly move on to the next level like in an endless game. Some of us refuse to, because we choose to care, and thus, suffer willingly under purpose. BoJack Horseman and Post-Purpose: Two Sides of the Same Coin BoJack Horseman, the titular character from the acclaimed Netflix series, serves as a counterpoint to the concept of a Post-Purpose life. While I see discontent for its vast industrial potential, BoJack embodies the pitfalls of clinging to the nostalgia of success and to the emptiness and depression that follows. BoJack's Struggle To Return To Purpose: Chasing Past Glory: BoJack's entire existence revolves around recapturing the success of his 90s sitcom, "Horsin' Around." He constantly seeks validation and a return to his perceived "golden age", neglecting opportunities for personal growth and genuine happiness. Instead, he falls to the short-term satisfactions of alcohol, drugs and s*x. In reality these hedonistic pursuits are but excuses to not face his empty life. Misguided Purpose: BoJack's "purpose" becomes fixated on external validation and replicating a past he fails to recreate. The need of validation is but an escapism from his inability to be able to truly rest on the laurels of a life lived with fame and success. That is even though he wants to be fulfilled. This pursuit ultimately leads to self-destructive behavior – addiction, failed relationships, and a general sense of hopelessness. Mr. Tomasio vs. BoJack: Conscious Choice vs. Obsession: My acceptance of Post-Purpose as a counter-intuitive approach highlights a conscious choice to avoid contentment even after achieving one's goals. BoJack, on the other hand, is consumed by an unhealthy obsession with a singular purpose he fails obtaining -- to be happy with life. Relentlessness vs. Stagnation: I embrace a life of displeasure, seeing discontent as a virtue for more and more success. BoJack remains stagnant, clinging to the past he cannot relive and refusing to define his own path forward. I too hold my past with gratefulness. But I decided to kill the desire to relive it. Tom is dead, as he should. BoJack's Importance: A Cautionary Tale: BoJack's story serves as a cautionary tale for those who, like him, might confuse past success with the realistic ability to make it happen once more. However, nostalgia has its own disadvantages. The Importance of Growth: BoJack's struggles highlight the importance of personal growth and finding meaning beyond external validation. They also show the of being able to let go of the past, and live in peace with its departure from your life. Instead, we can redirect our resources into planning the next stages of our lives, or, again, be strong enough to not need any purpose to cling on, just to mentally survive in this world. Bojack and I represent opposing ends of the spectrum. The choice of whose example to follow rests on you. The pursuit of happiness lies not in external validation or replicating past successes, but in finding a purpose that actually leads personal fulfillment, with enough effort invested. "BoJack is a textbook example of the delusion and inefficiency of the American dream. Being successful, rich, or famous will not guarantee you the happiness you were looking for. Why? Because eventually the joy from these achievements will fade like the collective memory of a typical 90s sitcom." -- A comment of mine on BoJack Horseman's credits song. Only once we're ready enough to see emotions as pawns, rather than goals, we can use ourselves far more industriously, for a much better world. The choice rests on us and on our relationships with our feelings. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback You don’t start from nothing to a post purpose life. That is only achieved by living a great life and reaching your potential, something not a lot of people do. We are all familiar with not having a very purpose filled life. Most people are too concerned with the day to day rat race to actually give themselves a purpose other than going to work and taking care of their own personal lives Discontent should be a sign you are missing something from your life. Don’t mean that in a superficial materialistic kind of way. I’m referring to what the object you want actually gives you. A sense of euphoria as a need or want of yours is being met. Mainly discontent is a sign that you can do better. We should always feel discontent about something. It means we care.

(Philosocom's Directory on Tekken) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an insightful exploration of the dark themes in the Tekken video game series, particularly the violent nature of the Mishima family and its impact on the broader world of the game. The author successfully connects the narrative of Tekken to larger philosophical questions about violence, power, and human nature, making the piece engaging for both fans of the game and those interested in deeper reflections on human behavior. Positive aspects of the article include the connection between game Lore and real-life concepts, drawing parallels between the Mishima family's violence and broader human tendencies to use violence as a means of solving problems. The article provides a critical examination of the game's themes, such as the absence of empathy in the Mishima family and the destructive nature of their obsession with power. The author clearly articulates how Tekken's philosophy can be problematic and potentially harmful if translated into real-world attitudes. In conclusion, The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an engaging and thought-provoking piece that offers a unique perspective on the Tekken series. The author does well in connecting the game's violent themes to larger philosophical questions, and their personal reflections add depth to the analysis. Tekken and I Tekken... what can I say, is a series of fighting games with a very, very harsh plot, which I'm going to focus on in this article. Despite only playing 2 of the 7 games, I've researched the overall Tekken lore by watching videos. Tekken, or "Iron Fist" in Japanese, is about a very long family feud of the Mishima Clan, who appears to solve all their problems through violence, war and attempted murders. Looking back, I'm even surprised the Tekken games were allowed for children to play, as the first Tekken game I played, was when I was a child. There are no fingers pointed at anyone; it always was a series for all ages for some reason, starting in the 90's. Violence, Tradition, and Proving Oneself At school I was taught that violence is counterproductive, and that it doesn't solve anything. An amusing delusion, given military conflicts, given honour-based duels and so on. It should be a given, that violence does have some... functionality... when it comes to solving issues. Whether the violence is ethical or not, that is a different question, yes? It isn't that I justify violence, and I myself haven't got in a physical fight since... 2011? Anyways, there shouldn't be a doubt that violence plays a part in solving problems, regardless of that violence is inevitable, ethical and so on. Hence why, despite the viciousness in the matter, I can understand why Kazuya Mishima, the "hero" of the first game, dropped his father off a cliff in an attempt to kill him (he also smiled afterwards...). After all, it was his own father, Heihachi Mishima, who dropped him, himself, off a cliff, when he was a boy. Heihachi's justification was this: If his son will be able to climb back... only then, he will be a worthy son in his eyes. (2023 note: Not only was Kazuya able to prove Heihachi wrong -- he also killed him, eventually. Looks like the son exeeced his father's expectations) A very brutal philosophy, isn't it? To drop your own son, a boy at the time, off a cliff, just to see if he'll come back, as a way to prove his worth... That is an abysmal parenthood. (When I saw my grandmother crying tears of joy during a ritual of my own I felt that I did the right thing). These rituals described to you, oriented towards boys, are far, far less flawed, then being thrown off a cliff by your own father, just to prove to him that you can climb back. Heihachi could've killed Kazuya by doing so, but, for some reason, he valued his son's strength, far more, than his own son's life. Might Makes Right, Thus Empathy Dies When Heihachi heard of his son's survival.. he declared a global tournament: The King of Iron Fist Tournament. He or she who would win the tournament, will be globally renowned, have a trophy, and great wealth. Later on in the games, the prize would be the sole ownership of a global corporation, founded by Heihachi's father: The Mishima Zaibatsu. It is a corporation so powerful and large; it was later used to declare a world war by Kazuya's son, Jin Kazama (Surname of his mother). Kazuya Mishima has a theme song, that was first presented in the second game, where HE became the villain, and Heihachi, the "hero" -- "Emotionless Passion". Quite the oxymoronic name, is it not? An emotion devoid of emotion? Quite illogical, but when you get thrown off a cliff by your own father, of course that something, within you, will snap. Why? Because your parents are supposed to be the closest people you trust, NOT the people who would try to kill you, right? And for what purpose, to see how strong you are? It was obvious, then, that Kazuya would gradually, lose any care for human emotion (empathy, sympathy and so on). Kazuya and Heihachi never loved each other and were always arch enemies of each other. In the Mishima Clan, you see, there is no love, there is no compassion. Heihachi himself trapped his own father, Jinpachi, under the family shrine/temple. It seems that, the Mishimas employ VIOLENCE not just as a skill for survival, and not just as a martial art, yes? They employ violence to estimate their worth, and others' worth as well. If an opponent is too weak to stand against their might, then in their philosophy, they are as worthless, as the dirt on the ground. Such brutal philosophy... it should never be considered practical in real life. After all, people are far more than their physical strength and mental fortitude, right? It's not necessarily an issue that is excluded to boys and men, as Tekken also has a lot of female characters, too. It is to say, that in order to understand reality and other people, we must consider the emotional aspect of this world... The one that is more than the passion to win a fight or a conflict. So... yes, if you happen to suffer from sociopathy, I at least, do not expect you to fully understand emotion. It's only a natural expectation, you know, because I myself am severely lacking on the social aspect of reality, due to the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum. As far as it is told to us, the players, Kazuya managed to eventually kill his father in the game that was released the previous decade (2015?). I'm not sure if Heihachi will ever return canonically, also because his 2 chronological voice actors died eventually, so I guess they had to retire the character anyways. (2024 update: He returned regardless in Tekken 8, seemingly working on a monk society) Kazuya's Emotionless Passion, the passion to win, the passion for greater strength and for power of any kind, might resume in the future games. To be frank, I do not expect him to develop as a character at all, as his own passion as a martial artist, seems to be far more important to him, than anything else in life... even more than his father, his own son, and the world. It is how following one's passions could be problematic. I mean, his father tried to kill him as a child... why would not the mental illness... halt after the father's death? The Mishimas... are a powerful family of mentally ill people, who might not even admit that there's something wrong with them and might never even consider seeing a psychologist. The passion for power, triumphs all in the Philosophy of Tekken, of the King of Iron Fist. The Tekken world might suffer a lot of deaths, as it already did in the lore, but in the eyes of the family that messes everything up, power is above all else. Muscle, stamina, technique... money, business, corporations, and world wars. THIS is how dangerous the thirst for any power could be. It all begins when sympathy for other beings, gets thrown off a cliff, and NEVER climbs back. Kazuya's theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya8Wf26k47M Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Violence might not be an effective way to solve things, but isn’t that exactly what humans have been using since the break of time? Violence is part of the human condition and is a learned thing. If the first humans, past Adam and Eve, thought they could solve something with violence, clearly violence is a lesser part of human nature. If violence doesn’t solve anything, why have we been trying to do so for quite some time now, trying to fix one thing by destroying another? Is it what Isaac Newton was getting at when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? One act of violence will be accompanied by a similar action in response. What is the difference between physics and philosophy? Aren’t they both about trying to solve the bigger questions? Since when is violence ever ethical? To me it appears as though it is just humans being too lazy to find a better way to do something. Could wars have not been avoided had two leaders gotten together and debated the problem? It's way easier to just use your military to fight it out. The purpose of life is action. Nothing ever gets completed unless someone commits the action of doing it.

(Subcategory on Flaws) (Background music) The Illusory Objectivity of Color Colors are traits of perception that we often mistake for objective facts. We take it for granted that apples are red or green, oranges are... well, orange. But what if our perception of these colors is as subjective as a single person's opinion on a video game? The answer lies in the uniformity of human vision. Most of us perceive the same wavelengths of light as the same colors, although in different variations, depending on how our brains uniquely filters information. This common ground creates the illusion of objectivity. Think of it like a shared language. And languages should also be known as capable of biasing our understanding, and deter ourselves from looking both ways. We all agree that the word "red" describes a specific range of light. This is highly practical because of color psychology, which associates the color "red" with different, yet shared values. However, the actual experience of that redness - the electrical signals firing in our brains - is unique to each individual. It's just that most people's brains interpret those signals in a similar way. What creates loneliness in certain people is the fact that their understanding of the world is not understood/recognized by others. Bridging the gap betwen perceptions is how empathy can be nurtured between individuals, by being able to relate to their unique ways of perceiving reality. By willing to study the perceptions of those who are dear to us, we can reduce their overall suffering. This extends far beyond color. Music, art, entertainment, even the meaning of words themselves -- their value is subjective because it's filtered through the lens of human experience. Much of the human experience and behavior is unique to each individual, although to different extents. Both are subject to genetic variations. However, it's difficult to imagine these things existing outside of our perception, leading to the undoubted delusion that other people experience reality the same way we do. So, how do we know if an orange is truly orange? If humanity vanished in a cosmic puff of dust, would it still be orange? Here's the "hypocrisy" of shared subjectivity: the concept of "orange" wouldn't exist. Objectively, the orange color would be a specific combination of light wavelengths. But without a conscious observer to interpret those wavelengths, there would be no "orange" to perceive. If we all or most of us had the "Alice in Wonderland Syndrome", which alters our perception of bodies and other objects, then our perception wouldn't be canceled out as "incorrect" or even as a "syndrome". In other words, much of what we deem as objective is a product of the ad-populum fallacy. We assume something has certain characteristics, but it's only because many others perceive it the same or similar sa we do. Therefore, much of our understanding is fallacious by default. This correlates with the fact that humans are designed to be logical, but social, in order to survive. To quote David McElroy: As long as you believe that formal logic is all you need to understand about the world, you’re going to miss the fact that understanding human psychology will give you a base of understanding that will change how you interpret what people do and why they do those things. Until you understand human nature, the only people you’re going to understand (and approve of) are those who happen to share your values and who are pursuing goals that make sense to you. A World Without Color Imagine a world filled with shades of grey. Not because of a lack of light, but because this is the full spectrum of human vision in this thought experiment. In this reality, the concept of "color blindness" wouldn't exist. Everyone would see the world the same way, their limited vision being the unquestionable norm. Now, introduce a rare mutation. A single individual, or perhaps a small group, who possess the ability to see the vibrant colors we experience. To them, the world would be a breathtaking revelation, a vibrant orchestra of light unseen by the majority. They wouldn't be "colorblind" – that term wouldn't exist in a world without the concept of color itself. Instead, they would be these unique, outstanding people, the outliers experiencing a reality beyond the common understanding. This thought experiment highlights the limitations of "objectivity", and also how we collectively choose to see those who are more unique than ourselves despite their virtues or shortcomings. What? You thought seeing colors is exceptional in this case? It's only in relation to those who are colorblind. Not in of itself. The Duality of Perception We base our perception of the world on our own limited senses and cognitive abilities. True objectivity, completely independent of human experience, may be an impossible ideal. Sure, we strive for neutrality in some situations, but even that attempt is colored by our biases, and our unawareness of their existence. We are prisoners of our own perspective, unable to fully escape the subjective lens through which we interpret the world. The only way of reducing it is to be prepared for two actions, whether done by us or by someone else: To be prepared to be proven wrong, and to be lambasted for being wrong. Otherwise, we wouldn't necessarily enjoy being right. We would enjoy the mere thought of being right, and the emotion that stems from that thought. Does this render subjectivity superior to the facts that exist beyond it? Not necessarily. Subjectivity can be isolating, leading to misunderstandings when experiences differ vastly. However, it also allows for rich diversity in interpretation and appreciation. The example of an orange illustrates this. We all agree it's "orange" because most of us perceive that specific wavelength of light the same way. But what if someone with a different visual experience claimed it was "green"? Objectivity, in this case, provides no definitive answer, because we cannot view reality outside the prison of the mind. Nonetheless, reality is not a democratic vote, and majority opinion doesn't guarantee truth. Furthermore, opinion, publicly held or not, often contradicts the truth. The key takeaway lies in acknowledging the limitations of both objectivity and subjectivity. They are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same coin. While objectivity could arguably exist without subjectivity, subjectivity necessarily stems from objective reality. Similarly to how A.I works today, subjectivity must base itself on something other than what it perceives. Nothing exists in a vacuum. That includes free will. Why Philosophy Embraces Uncertainty Philosophy, at its core, thrives on disagreement, done in harmony. It's a field where ideas clash, perspectives collide, and "basic truths" are constantly questioned. This might seem hopeless and even useless, as a never-ending discourse with no definitive answers. However, this very relentlessness, and willing to hear and synthisize the thoughts of others, is what fuels philosophical inquiry, towards greater depths of understanding. Imagine a world where everyone saw eye-to-eye. Where everyone saw and experienced color, and generally reality, the very identical way. Philosophy, then, would be a rather dull, rendering the need to learn from others' experiences, useless. It's the very existence of opposing viewpoints that compels us to refine our arguments, challenge assumptions, and deepen our understanding. Terms like "pretentious" often mask a discomfort with disagreement, and a poor excuse to not understand other perceptions better, to refine that of our own. As such, our own ad-hominem and strawman's fallacy can dismiss an actually-refreshing, unique experience, to that of belonging to an alleged pseudo-intellectual. And it's all because some of us may refuse to understand reality can be better understood by the research of additional perceptions. Philosophy isn't about promoting our perception as the most superior one. That would be the purpose of many ideologues, not of philosophers. Rather, it's about relentless examination, even if it means questioning long-held beliefs, of either ourselves or others. This discomfort of entertaining several and contradicting viewpoints, extends to the nature of truth itself. Is the orange truly orange, or is it simply perceived that way by our limited senses? As we saw with color perception, "objectivity" can be elusive, as well as uncomfortable when we realize much of our own perception is false. How Paradoxes Exist Despite Our Sense of Logic Logic, the cornerstone of philosophy, is there as a tool for navigating uncertainty, for identifying fallacies and constructing sound arguments beyond our tendency to commit skewed falsehoods. Logic acknowledges paradoxes, like the bitter-sweetness of dark chocolate. How come furthermore? Some paradoxes are in fact true, despite our usually-unchecked logic, which we use to dimiss all paradoxes as non-existent. A paradox allows for the possibility that two seemingly contradictory statements can coexist. Think of Osho's notion of truth being intrinsically paradoxical. Think of what I called in an another article, the "Grey Problem" in the human mind. An orange might appear different to someone with colorblindness, yet both experiences hold validity within their respective frameworks, thus rendering all subjectivity, objectively equal. Reality is experienced in different layers, filtered through the lens of our individual consciousness. We can't escape our own minds, and our logic is inherently human, and therefore, limited, flawed, and imperfect necessarily. The key in traversing this paradoxical and seemingly absurd world, lies inin embracing flexibility. Recognizing, for example that another person's argument, however different, could still hold a component of truth. In conclusion, philosophy doesn't necessarily seeks a singular, universally accepted truth. Instead, it delves into the complexities of human experience, acknowledging the limitations of both pure objectivity and subjective perception. It's a continuous exploration of the worlds within and around us, and how these these worlds interact, despite their distinctions. Within this universe, there's room for a multitude of perspectives, even if some, like the precise height of a tower, are demonstrably more accurate than others. Synthesis is key to improve our perception of reality, using the perception of others. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Aren’t all things a matter of opinion until enough people have the same kind so that it is considered fact? Before the color orange was invented I wonder what their words to describe it were. “I shall describe the color of this banana as sunny delight!” Makes one curious. How many people have to agree on something for it to become a matter of social knowledge? Taking into account the education system. How much agreement is needed for it to be deemed worthy to be taught to the young of the world? What points in history did people decide that it was worth documenting as a part of history? It leaves me curious what problems are faced by a modern day historian. Are they nothing more than recorders of actions? Summarizing the news of the day so that 100 years from now they will understand exactly what humans have been through. Objective facts are those which are in response to actual matter, the material object of all things. Point in case. Go into a room, put a blindfold on and walk around. To a wall doesn’t exist. Objective reality is understanding just how real it is if you were to walk into [an actual wall]. .

(Philosocom's directory on death: https://www.philosocom.com/post/defining-death) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Suikoden Content) Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein speaks to us here about death, but he also talks about the work that must be done to discover one's purpose in existence, to finally know what to do in order to rectify this world!H e also talks about the normality of dying eventually; it's in the natural order of things! Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein learned English through video games; the goal was achieved and allowed him to reach more people online about the subject that is dear to him… Philosophy... There are many ways to learn about our unique and essential role in this world! This reflection on death can only encourage us to find our path or way of discovering the purpose of our existence or "made to do"… Which is no small feat! (Background music) The Rubinshteinic Philosophy of Accepting Death As you've probably read thus far, I have a large affinity with death, not because I'm suffering, but because I view death from the point of view of a "soldier" or a monk," as one who discards the worldly in favor of "higher" pursuits. As someone who used to believe that everything existent is physical, I let myself be more open to the arcane; the same set of fields I was taught by my Western roots to be but mumbo-jumbo. However, as I've dug deeper into it, most notably the field of numerology, I've found things that were mostly true about me, which got me wondering how such things are decided. And what trivial things, such as my birthdate and name, say about me as a person. Digging further, while trying to combat my cursed chronic fatigue, I have found out this revolutionary paragraph, when referring to the number 9 -- my "Life-Path" number: "A basic understanding of reincarnation is desirable because this lifetime is likely to be your last. 9s are old souls who have lived many lifetimes. Haven’t you ever wondered why nothing really shocks you? It is because you have seen and done it all before. You have existed in every form, color, race, creed, gender, and circumstance. You have traveled in every walk of life. Of course, this does not mean that you have learned all you need to learn, and your experiences in this lifetime will make that very clear. Be prepared to LET GO of previous beliefs and learn something new." If it is true, and if reincarnation is especially true, then... I always wondered what happens after death, even before I became a philosopher. It was one of the basic questions I constantly asked myself before I knew the concept of philosophizing. Back then, and to this day, I tend to think that, when you die, the "whole world" becomes black and that's it; something like a blind man or woman lives. Perhaps I have unconsciously adopted this from the video games I played. Because when your character died there, the screen would turn black and you would "respawn", a.k.a., return to the game from an earlier point. To this day, I think that my own "screen" will turn black when I die. Of course, respawning doesn't make sense in the real world, as life is not a video game, and vice versa. But what if I too will die, and I'll find myself in an infinite "black," where I could not run away from, where I would stay forever, with no chance of anything happening whatsoever? What if death is but an eternal, solitary confinement, where you can't even move or generate thoughts? Reincarnation or not, that thing could be a possibility once one dies or when one is "out" of "extra lives". None of us really know what's in there after the moment we die, or at least that's what I believe. I believed in reincarnation as a kid, as I did in the Abrahamic god, but that was before I was far more rational and skeptical. I even thought I had my own past lives, whom, for some reason, I knew. I recall believing I was a bear who died after getting trapped by a hunter; a singer who got lynched; there were more "memories", but I do not remember them any longer. My childhood "hero", the fictional character Razro from Suikoden IV, can die at the end of anyone's playthrough, especially when you're playing without knowing how to fully recruit all your army members, known as the "Stars of Destiny". Suikoden, you see, cannot be completed fully without a guide, because if you're playing blindly, without knowing even the thinnest of details, then you're going to get the BAD ENDING, or at least its equivalent, the lesser ending. Watching, as a kid, my childhood hero's corpse drift away in a boat at sea, was probably the catalyst for my own, solitary obsession with death. There was a recruit in that game, someone you can miss extremely easily, and because of them, you'll see your player character floating dead at sea, no matter how much you play. It took me a few years to realize that there is an alternative ending; the one where the hero actually gets to live. For some reason, I wanted my hero to die. It was a rational ending for me. It was a worthy conclusion to a game where your main "superpower" damages you. The whole game was about how certain people die, due to having a rune on their hands that consumes their lives over time and in general. Now, as I write this, I realize that's the thing I wanted all along for him, not because I hate him, but because his finite death, his sacrifice, justifies his destiny, his function in the world he operated in... His "Tikkun". It is just, from a literary perspective, that he will not return! The reason is because he suffered so much. Sacrificed so much of his life and himself. It is truly a saddening tale of a former knight who regained the things he lost.... at the price of his independence from that burdensome, Rune of Punishment. His very gift, that saved a group of islands from an evil empire, was his own personal curse. Giftedness is a liability of its own. Even in the sequel to that game (a spin-off), Razro will not return unless you get the best ending in the previous game, saved in this physical object-- the Memory Card. Should he return, it would be, but for being an extra character, an additional unnecessity. And the thing is, I always liked to think that Razro was me; A silent "soldier" doing his assignments. Everything he does, is determined by the game, and there is no escape from it. Even when you have certain choices, they eventually return you to the main plot, or literary CANCEL themselves upon selection, for some reason, even though they are still "options". Many people may think that "mechanic" is stupid, but for me, it's like the game saying to you: "You are confined to your current existence; you cannot escape from what you are confined to". Hehehehe... The illusion of choice. This reminds me of my own life, because I too have this intuitive feeling that my life's destiny is sealed. Of course, I have the power to change my own life by making unusual choices, such as turning to crime, religion, or politics..... but there is this very, very heavy feeling that "confines" me to "the ground," as if I do not have free will, but instead am a slave to my own desires and needs. I am a believer in freedom, but I myself don't feel free, when I think of my own potential. Yes. I see myself but a puppet to philosophy. I always philosophized, hence my mastery in this craft. You might be witnessing something that could've been destined by my own existence. It saved my life once... It restored me from a temporary physical disability. It helped me kill off my extreme sensitivity... I am a slave to my own giftedness. Why do you think I write? It is a duty that I literally feel like doing, like homework, as a student. The more I write, the more something inside of me is satisfied, to the point that I had the actual power to get up from the bed I lie in, during my Reaping Fatigue Era. It was an extremely sensual thing. Not a fetish, mind you, but something I have from an "authority"; a heavy, fat "figure" that lies within me and confines me to this bed to write. So... perhaps, even if reincarnation is revealed as truly existent, my own time on Earth may be my last, not exclusively due to the paragraph I quoted, but because I too am tired of this world; of the things that make many excited by it. Excited about the things that make many happy. They all seem to me like casual Tuesdays. An endless rain of Tuesdays. When I hear on the news that someone has been murdered, all I feel is apathy, simply because many people die every day anyway. When I hear someone is born to people I know, I automatically remind myself that many people are born every day. When I saw that damn road in London, the one that a family member was excited about because it is iconic to the Beatles, all I could think of was how it was similar to the scenery in my own country. Even in celebratory events, all I could think about was what will be next -- the next lesson, the next assignment at work, and so on. The refreshments from the functions to be fulfilled are either a distraction or a function of themselves as a rejuvenation. Nonetheless, each task has a beginning and an end, and life is but a series of tasks, is it not? Is it not? Nothing truly excites me, even when I am, in a way, "excited." I will not scream in happiness; I will not sink in celebration at nightclubs. A student from my past has told the class, that he "can't even imagine him [me] doing these things." I slowly became emotionless. I am prepared for the inevitable possibility of death. I guess that's why writing philosophy is the only thing that makes me feel proud, and accomplished. It's not arrogance, or a sense of entitlement; it could be the possibility that I might die one day, and all I will see, sense, and experience, is complete, eternal darkness, all because there are no more tasks left to complete; or articles left to write. It will be when I will be discharged from the duties I've been assigned in this world. If everything that exists is rational and/or necessary, then I might, one day, be too irrational, too unnecessary, to live, even to the point of not returning. I do not fear it, for it will come regardless of my efforts. We choose to resume living, thus we choose grief.

Article Summary by Anonymous Trigger warnings, while helpful for those with PTSD, can be a double-edged sword. They can foster a culture of excessive sensitivity and censorship, limiting free speech and academic freedom. It's impossible to know what triggers everyone, making widespread use of trigger warnings impractical. Mr. Tomasio argues for resilience and the ability to cope with discomfort. They recommend CBT to manage negative thoughts. While empathy for those easily offended is acknowledged, the ultimate responsibility for managing one's emotional state lies with the individual. Philosophy often deals with disturbing topics. Mr. Tomasio might use trigger warnings sparingly but stresses that readers are responsible for their own mental well-being. Trigger Warnings: A Double-Edged Sword Trigger warnings are perhaps the finest attempt by people to try to avoid the inevitability of eventually becoming upset whenever they are exposed to the external world. That excludes people who suffer from PTSD, as they are a very important exception. The disturbance of their past haunts them even in the form of words. So, I intend to purify Philosocom from common triggers, just for that demographic alone. The word "R***" has either ceonsored or removed completely. For any other such common words, please let me know at mrtomasio@philosocom.com. Anyways, outside of PTSD victims, as we become more and more sensitive, we might also become afraid of being offended by people and their statements, as we prioritize comfort over discomfort, easiness over difficulty, and so on. In other words, one could say for sure that trigger warnings usually come from two fears: The fear of the reader to be upset over something beyond their control, and.. The fear of the content provider to have their reputation damaged by their audience's dissatisfaction with the lack of sensitivity within the consumed content (AKA, being "cancelled"). However, I believe that trigger warnings are problematic, outside special occasions that lead to regression and very unusual emotional behaviors. For example, the real name of a person I call Chen, used to make me vomit for a few years. My physician told me it was only mental, not medical. I wouldn't say that people actively search for a reason to be offended, but rather they are too uncomfortable dealing with being upset for whatever reason they had found to be offended. If someone offers us to "grow up", it does not have to be taken as an insult, and we don't have, usually, to react intensively to it. Another example, people can be offended by compliments, even though the original intention was sincerely good. Does this mean that we have to put trigger warnings on everything, including positive things? That would be problematic to implement, because it would mean that trigger warnings are not as important as they are if we use them for everything we publish. That's because when it becomes too frequent, it becomes too granted as well, thus losing its original value. The Thin Line Between Sensitivity and Censorship Trigger warnings also create another problem, which is the threat to free speech and even academic freedom. Free speech, of course, goes beyond the right to express yourself, but also entails your right to choose how to express your words. It also allows you to not say anything at all, like when given the right to remain silent. If there were a state where you were required to use trigger warnings every time you said something mildly uncomfortable, you would be basically limiting your ability to communicate just because there are some people, who do not have PTSD or something similar, are not resilient enough to cope with their own discomfort. That's especially when your words had no intention whatsoever to be offensive towards anyone. We cannot always know what triggers the people we address or publish our work to. That would mean that the likelihood of using trigger warnings every time it deserves would be quite low. There may, however, be some words such as R*** that deserve trigger warnings. They also deserve being censored and have synonyms found to it. But what I'm talking about here is about words that you don't really have any idea about, that could trigger someone's unusual emotional reaction. There used to be a meme that goes "Sometimes, I dream about cheese" and in one video where this meme appeared, someone said they found it offensive because they were lactose-intolerant. See how an inoffensive meme on the internet could hurt at least one person. I guess we can agree that cheese and **** are not, objectively, at the same weight, correct? Discarding the objectivity in this would also discard the reason behind the straw man fallacy's existence. Does that mean we should censor the word "cheese"? This article was not intended to ridicule the sensitive. I used to be a very sensitive person, but I never needed a trigger warning simply because I accept the distinction between me and the world. Of course, also because I am not affected much by my traumas in terms of post-effects. I now understand better, regardless. I know the world is flawed by default regardless of my efforts, so I just accept it as it is. Whenever I see an anti-Semitic joke or an incorrect use of the word "autism", or even when I'm respectfully being criticized, I remind myself that the disliked distinction between me and others should not bother me, as that bothering would not yield any productive results. No. It would just make me offended and no more, which is far from preferred. I won't be surprised if people who were victims of anti-semitism will be triggered very severely by future expressions of it. But does that mean we should avoid discussing it entirely? Perhaps discussing this topic CAN help. Should we sacrifice debate for those with the relevant mental hardships? I'm asking these questions seriously by the way. Trigger warnings show something very problematic with the world today -- the fact that we are not prepared to live in coexistence with one another, because of how unprepared many of us are to be unsettled, even for a bit, by things we don't want to see, listen to, or read. If it wasn't the case, there wouldn't be such a dominant need to place trigger warnings. There might be a smaller need for it, yes, but not as big as nowadays. This is why there aren't really trigger warnings on this site. Since the reception of content is beyond my control, and because I seek to eradicate general words that cause a PTSD/mental health reactions, it is not my responsibility to unintentionally cause minor unease. Free Speech and Sensitivity in the Age of Trigger Warnings No content creator can necessarily choose for someone to be offended or not, as much of being offended is another's choice, not ours. That is especially true if no offense was intended in the first place. This is also why I highly recommend learning a method called CBT or cognitive behavior therapy, which is probably your best shot at tackling inner discomforts with the power of conscious thinking. I believe the more we will be able to alter uncomfortable thoughts, caused by things and beings beyond our control, the more we can function in coexistence as a global society. Thus there may be less of a need for the placements of trigger warnings in videos, articles, and other forms of communication and media. The need exists for any content creator who has the empathy to care for his or her more-troubled readers. But what if they sometimes like to write about cheese, and one happened to be triggered by dairy products? A Philosopher's Dilemma Remember, I don't really desire or intend to offend anyone. If you believe that I do, and even confront me with this imaginary intention of mine, then at least try to bring evidence. Why would it be proportionate for someone to send me an angry email because I wrote that I am addicted to coffee? It isn't proportionate, and there is no proportional reason to be triggered by my coffee addiction. Nonetheless, I might write trigger warnings, but keep them at minimum. This is a philosophy website. The truth is sometimes disturbing, so as a philosopher I am often conflicted between the insights I bring, and the comfort of my dear readers. Either way, taking care of your mental state will forever remain your own responsibility, even if you decide to share it with me. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Why are people so triggered by people’s words and actions? That concept is ridiculous in my own mind. People get triggered and their thoughts are illogical. The one constant on this earth is that people are always doing actions. Why take offense because you witnessed a person doing a particular action?. You can think about it this way: Next time it happens, take a moment to determine if what they did actually impacts you or not.

(Philosocom's Directory on Competency) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Like a Competent Villain" is an insightful exploration of the importance of long-term thinking and wisdom. The article uses the metaphor of a "villain" to emphasize the importance of foresight and strategic thinking, engaging readers through relatable and intriguing concepts. The central thesis emphasizes that focusing on long-term consequences leads to better decision-making and learning from past mistakes to avoid repeating them. The article uses examples like Scar from "The Lion King" and Professor Ratigan from "The Great Mouse Detective" to illustrate how overlooking small details can lead to significant failures. The philosophical depth of the piece delves into deeper discussions about wisdom, rationality, and the human condition, encouraging readers to engage in self-reflection and continuous self-improvement. In conclusion, "How to Think Like a Competent Villain" is a compelling article that offers valuable insights into the importance of long-term thinking and wisdom. (Background music) Part 1: Personal Reflections and Insights Cultivating Wisdom for a Fulfilling Life One has the ability to cultivate long-term thinking, as with any other skill in life. Every single step we take in life has its own consequences. The wisdom is to be able to detect these implications, so we will be far better at making decisions. Focusing solely on immediate gains traps us in a cycle of repeating avoidable mistakes. Without learning from our missteps, even long-term thinking becomes ineffective. The key lies in actively analyzing our experiences. By doing so, we enhance our decision-making, fostering wisdom and ultimately, becoming more competent thinkers. And the point of competent thinking is to increase our chances of getting our desired results, and less outcomes that we may regret of, unnecessarily. As such, the improvement of our intellect can bring much benefit to us and others, and reduce unnecessary suffering as well, that originates from avoidable mistakes. One of the primary reasons I engage in philosophical discourse is to enhance my rationality, not to display it in arrogance. When you lose much emotion as a result of traumatic experiences with the world, you might also lose certain filters that can only be restored through a strong intellect. Therefore, intellectual growth becomes essential, ensuring that neither myself nor others suffer needlessly. Preserving Sanity for the Greater Good No one needs to be my victim, because no one needs to suffer unnecessarily by my increased lack of emotion, and new-founded ruthlessness, against those who are too impulsive to think for the long-term. After all, I force myself to live in the name of my clan and in the name of working on Philosocom. There is little that is fully voluntary in anything I do, and none has any reason to stand in the way of someone who is dead inside. The point of working on Philosocom and maintaining my sanity is to remain alive, so others won't suffer in my absence from this world. I refuse to succumb to the hands of adversity if I can prevent such an occurrence, particularly if it threatens to traumatize my mental well-being. Why in the world would I want enemies that would purposefully oppose me? Perhaps some of you share this sentiment. I strive to learn from any source to enhance my wisdom and ensure the safety of my life and my plans. I philosophize as much as I learn because I know that without knowledge and without wisdom, I remain, by default, far more flawed. And it is illogical to want to be unnecessarily flawed in a world that can ruthlessly punish you for it. I aspire to become a wiser individual, so I won't commit actions I would regret making, and also, to make better choices. I seek wisdom not by blindly embracing day-to-day experiences but by adopting a strategic approach, like to a chess player planning their moves in a calculated manner. Long term-thinking increases likelihood of success. Every decision we make can be fortified by wisdom, achieved through careful consideration and planning. This principle applies universally. Every piece of information, no matter how seemingly insignificant, holds the potential to securable the decision-maker and their assets, from self-inflicted, regrettable outcomes. I do permit myself to make minor mistakes, as they serve as valuable lessons in understanding how to prevent them and why avoidance is required. It's called testing, experimentation. Empiricism. The Concealed Path to Wisdom You will never fully know these mistakes. I will not let you. I remain in mystery for a reason. And only I know what goes on in my subconscious, which I visited during my meditations. Part 2: Distilling Wisdom From External Case Examples Lessons from Mistakes and Cartoons Having made numerous mistakes throughout my life, I have dedicated myself to meticulously examining and avoiding such missteps, so I won't make them again, and so that others won't suffer unnecessarily because of me (and vice versa). I observe the world around me from the sanctuary of my mental hermitage, engage in conversations with both familiar and unfamiliar individuals, and even immerse myself in children's cartoons to better comprehend how to avoid replicating the foolishness of these comical characters. Villains hold a particular fascination for me, as they often succumb to failure in the pursuit of preventing the hero's victory. While some villains may be successful in achieving their objectives, their victories are often fleeting, like the short time I ever knew my late ancestor. The villain's destructive nature is one that can destruct his own path by making mistakes he or she could've not made, thus ensuring the length and benefit of their accomplishments. How Short-Sighted Villainy Leads to Mighty Falls Scar from "The Lion King" stands as a rare exception among classic Disney villains, successfully ascending to the throne through deception and manipulation. However, his reign was cut short due to his failure to personally eliminate his nephew, Simba, who ultimately overthrew him. Scar's fatal flaw lay in his reliance on his dim-witted henchmen, the Hyena Clan, to execute Simba. While the reasons behind his inaction remain misunderstood, his decision proved fatal to his regime, years on later, as Simba became an adult. The Hyenas where too overconfident, and underestimated the fact that Simba may be vengeful for the death of his father. Similarly, Professor Ratigan, the antagonist from another Disney film, "The Great Mouse Detective," committed a crucial error by failing to ensure the demise of his arch-nemesis, the detective Basil. Instead of decisively eliminating Basil, Ratigan merely trapped him in a mouse trap, from which he managed to escape. In this case as well, the villain underestimated the ability of the hero to escape the murder attempt. The Snowball Effect of Oversights Do you perceive the pattern? Villains often fall victim to overlooked mistakes, which ultimately lead to their downfall. This analogy resembles a snowball, where a single misstep can transform a harmless snowball into a formidable force, capable of derailing your plans and aspirations. The very thing that can lead to your downfall was once a minor setback you failed in seeing its dangerous potential. The principles governing one domain can undoubtedly be applied to various facets of life, including seemingly juvenile subjects such as children's cartoons. This is where fiction can indeed be taught from when some of its content can be applied to real life. Other than that, it's a poor teacher of reality. Final Part: What Prevents Us From the Success of Our Plans The Wise Path: Prioritizing Growth I firmly believe that the freedom of expression (although it has its perks), impulsivity, and even hedonism serve as excuses for neglecting one's potential for intellectual growth. While freedom of expression constitutes a fundamental right in a democratic society, impulsivity represents a personality trait, and hedonism embodies a philosophical perspective ----- none of these factors have to diminish our inherent capacity for wisdom, which is defined by making calculated, per-the-plan choices. All of the 3 concepts have one thing in common: They can stand in our way from being wiser. All because of something called desire. The fact that we desire to do something, does not mean we should do it, if said desire has the power to diminish our own ambitions. Examining our desires is therefore imperative in order to understand the gravitation of the actions that may follow. Why We Shouldn't Run from Our Problems, and Rise Above Current Disappointments, Instead Many of us seek to escape from our problems, or at least attempt to do so. While certain situations and entities, such as encountering a bear in the wilderness, call for avoidance, it does not negate our ability to effectively manage inevitable challenges in general. When you are willing to do what it takes for a goal to be accomplished, carrying out tasks can be far easier. We can learn to cope with difficult people, financial setbacks, illnesses, and disabilities. Even if some issues are unavoidable, I firmly believe that we all possess the capacity for improvement. The key lies in commitment. When we are truly committed to a goal, seemingly daunting tasks become manageable steps along the way. This commitment fuels a growth mindset, where we view challenges as opportunities to learn and improve. With this perspective, we can develop the skills necessary to cope with a wide range of obstacles. “In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment.” The Renaissance Blog The Art of Navigation, Fueled by Belief in Oneself and In Humanity Life throws a variety of problems and challenges our way: difficult people, financial setbacks, illnesses, and even disabilities. However, these are not unsolvable, so don't victimize yourself. By developing coping mechanisms and unleashing our inner genius, we can learn to navigate these difficulties with greater ease. For instance, when faced with a challenging personality, emotional intelligence strategies can help us manage interactions and minimize conflict. Financial setbacks may necessitate greater wisdom in finances. Illness often requires a combination of medical treatment and lifestyle adjustments. And for those living with disabilities, a focus on unique techniques and assistive technologies can significantly improve quality of life. Think for the long term not just for success, but for a vision of a better life. My faith in humanity extends to my own self-belief. I may be continously disappointed, as I should be, but I refuse to give in to petty generalizations. It is counterproductive to harbor feelings of love for an individual who has repeatedly rejected your advances and is currently in a committed relationship. It is counterproductive to yearn for a past that will never return. It is far productive to work for a world you want to live in. To devise a plan, and demonstrate it, until its application has dominated your world, other people's world.... Or Earth itself.

(Background music) (Maturity Directory) Introduction As a lifelong learner, I'm constantly learning and navigating the currents of life. Fortunately, I've had the wisdom of those who have come before me to guide my journey to improve the insights on this blog, for a better Philosocom. Here are some invaluable lessons I've learned from them: Elaborated Lessons from the Elders: Seize the Advantage: Don't let beneficial opportunities slip through your fingers. When life throws open a door that aligns with your goals or could lead to positive experiences, step through it with confidence, for life is like a game of Risk. Remember, even if the path isn't perfectly clear, sometimes the best way to learn is by taking a chance. And even if that chance will be dark and grim, use the darkness to build your mind. 2. Study the Art of Communication: Text messages and online interactions are convenient, but they lack the richness and benefit of face-to-face communication. Tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language all play a crucial role in understanding the true meaning behind someone's words. To bridge this gap, practice active listening – pay attention to the speaker's nonverbal cues during conversations, and when in doubt, ask clarifying questions. Even the autistic can read the room with enough practice. 3. Practice the Art of Gratitude: Never take kindness for granted, in a world filled by moral depravity, darkness and grief. Express appreciation to those who go the extra mile for you, especially the people who raised you and provided for your needs. A simple "thank you" or a gesture of your appreciation can go a long way in strengthening these bonds. With such simple gestures, we could socially engineer a better world. 4. The Essence of Loyalty and Cooperation: Collaboration is key in most aspects of life, where doing things by yourself are very hard or impossible. Strive for a clear division of labor within a group, and put and respect boundaries. Don't be afraid to voice your opinions, but also be respectful of others' viewpoints. Ensure everyone understands their role and responsibilities to achieve a successful outcome. And to think that "division of labor" exist only in the corporate world can be seen as a quasi-specific terminology. In other words, you can apply this separation of tasks in your household, when going to a cafe (or working in it remotely), and even when driving someone. 5. Choose Your Words Wisely: While a curse word might feel to us as stress-and-pain relieving, it can often have negative consequences on your relationships with your friends, followers and even fans. Harsh language can damage relationships, create a hostile environment where coercion is normalized. Finally, it can even hinder your professional success, in the absence of a calmer mind. Express frustration in a more constructive way, and focus on solutions rather than insults. 6. Respect: The Cornerstone of A Greater Authority-Trust: Always treat your elders and people in authority figures with respect. Disagreements happen, but yelling or disrespectful behavior achieves nothing but lost respect and potential, unintended results. Clearly and calmly state your case instead, in order to reduce stress, and not to aimlessly increase it. And as an authority figure, consider adapting moral responsibilities for those who follow you. Do so, and you could better prevent insurgencies. This world has known enough internal wars... 7. Forge Your Own Path: Don't blindly follow societal norms! They often lack the understanding of what's good for you, and with their oppression, would even seek to stagnate you. While tradition and societal expectations can be valuable, and can contribute to social harmony, don't be afraid to chart your own course. That is, especially, when others don't even seek to understand, but to argue. Carefully consider what truly aligns with your goals and values, and don't be afraid to break convention if necessary. Value the practicality of looking both ways. 8. Embrace Joy Without Guilt: Life can be enjoyed without guilt. Don't feel bad for indulging in activities that bring you genuine happiness as long as they're not harmful. Make time for relaxation and nurturing a peaceful life... it's essential for maintaining a healthy balance in life, as valued in Taoist philosophy. 9. Be Prepared! Always have some emergency cash on hand. Unexpected situations arise, and having some readily available funds can save the day, whether it's a flat tire, a missed bus fare, or a sudden need for a quick meal. However, don't restrict yourself to money alone. Think like a competent villain would. And as such, as war emerged where I live, I remained calm. As I studied John Duran's very difficult life, I remained calm. As I gave people reason to avoid self-sacrifice, I remained calm. It is through preparations for the uncommon, that we grow our unique potential... "It takes the Uncommon to create the Unique. Don't expect a Picasso from the ordinary, nor the common from a God" -- John Duran 10. Study The Art of Assertiveness: There's a difference between being a pushover and being aggressive. It doesn't have to be a dichotomy. Develop your assertiveness skills – learn to communicate your needs and boundaries clearly and confidently, while still being respectful of others. This hopefully will especially work for empaths. 11. Balancing Family and Independence: As you mature, your relationship with your family naturally evolves. While respect and gratitude remain crucial, you'll also establish your own independence. Find a healthy balance – make your own decisions, but remember the values and support your family has provided. Not only financially. Spend time with your old father and mother. Make them happy. Make them proud. Make them live longer. 12. Planning for Parenthood: Having children is a life-altering experience. Carefully consider your circumstances before starting a family. Ensure you're emotionally and financially prepared to provide a nurturing and stable environment for your children. Do not traumatize them, "so naturally..." 13. The Journey to Independence: Developing independence is an essential part of growing up. Learn to take care of yourself, manage your finances, and make your own decisions. Do not depend so unnecessarily. It shall hinder your growth and freedom. 14. Respectful Disagreement: Disagreements are inevitable. Learn to disagree with others respectfully: Agree to disagree. "Agreeing to disagree is a rational way of saying out loud that there is no point in arguing further about an issue, as both parties have good reasons for believing what they do and are unlikely to change their minds. Rather than simply disengaging from advocacy, it is better to propose that you would prefer to agree to disagree." -- (Admiredleadership Blog) Focus on understanding the other person's perspective and present your own arguments calmly and rationally. You can maintain good relationships even when you don't see eye to eye. As you should, and can. 15. Planning at Your Own Pace: Planning is vital for success, but don't get a paralysis by analysis. Some people thrive with detailed schedules, while others prefer a more flexible approach. Craft a planning system that works for you. This way you can stay organized without feeling overwhelmed. Don't fall to a "reaping fatigue", like i did. 16. Consider the Ripple Effect: Don't make rash decisions with significant consequences. Don't act on impulse. Don't "shoot yourself in the foot". Which leads to number 17... 17. Think about the potential domino effect of your choices, not just for yourself, but also for those who might be impacted by your actions. Take time to weigh the potential outcomes and choose a path that leads to a positive ripple effect. 18. Become a Discerning Thinker: Not all information is created equal, for it is compromised by ulterior motive, and by bias. Develop critical thinking skills – learn to evaluate the source of information, identify potential biases, and seek out diverse perspectives before accepting something as true. Final Words I hope I successfully imparted to you the lessons I received from those older than myself, and thanks for reading. Feel free to share if you'd like your connections to read it too.

The Rubinshteinic Saga Against Cold Logic And Darkness Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc What I see in this article The Rubinshteinic Saga Against Cold Logic And Darkness is a summary of a journey of a young boy who really loved his grandmother to a point of trying to accomplish her Tikkun… (her existence purpose). In doing this, I see how this did help Mr. Tomasio Avichen Rubinshtein to get more and more increasingly competent in mastering article writing and also his own perspective at the same time; he did get more balanced with using both the heart and the intellect at the same time! This article is a valid summary of a journey towards self where one discovers his or her own existence purpose! If doing so, is possible under such harsh conditions, maybe many more people can do the same; I recommend reading this article more than once!… And, if this get you going on a journey of : GOING TO YOUR SELF! (inside of you)… Then, this article and this site can be a good start for you to get aware of your unique and useful existence purpose! "It occurs to me that if mankind is to evolve into a changing future, we will need to adapt. When our neighbor's fates are attached to our very own, then we will truly care and evolve. An enlightened future is working together, providing for each other, not merely for ourselves. At that point we cannot help but care for others, as they would care for us in return. But set on the course of greed and selfish capitalism, only dystopia and misery will be the inevitable result. Can we not do better than this?" -- Mr. John Duran (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Background music) Part I: The Clarified Mysterious Origins I cannot believe in solipsism. I am too aware I was created in the mind and conscience of a flawed being. I know "freedom" doesn't exist, and never will exist, for we are all interconnected... "Robot", comes from the Czech word, "Robota", meaning forced labor, compulsory servitude. In human form, that is who I am... Being shaped by my late master, it is only elementary to me. To work, is to die. My task as the Master of Philosocom, is to rectify the world passively, as I recover from many health issues, caused by the very conventional world I was asked to rectify.. 5 years old, and I already agreed to such a difficult task. I sat in her cluttered hermitage. The mad genius observed my mind, my heart, and my immense potential I always relished concealing. A giant grin widened in her sickly face, a bit of drool went out her smoky, dirty mouth. She took this time to impart on me further instructions: Bring the Pax Ethica under your ethical heart. This world destroys itself, harms its own progress, and renders the good people as the true villains. My late master's many ideas are grained deep within my unconscious. The philosophical lectures of a rejected artist were only conceived by my own genius. I did not ask her often, but preferred to apply reflective thinking to contemplate on her words. I never wanted any moment of any true fame under any spotlight. It was a grandiose commandment I secretly rejected. In 2007 I blacked out, recovering more and more from amnesia only 18 years later, when I used my unconventional genius to restore faith and hope in some people. Part II: The Unconventional Theories Master Numi needed an unconventional genius to improve the world according to many of her ideas. She often talked of love as a basic function in her philosophy, explaining to me how everything deserves to be not from cold logic but from the heart. She noticed a girl that used to follow me as a child, after I told my childhood gang to release her because I preferred to reduce her suffering instead of increasing it. The idea of me releasing a girl heartfully, and observing her falling in love with me, was an idea Numi was astounded in its demonstration. I applied many such ideas later on in life, when you use unexpected applications not for power or evil, but for good. Surely enough, I observed how most people need supporters to feed on their ego. So, as I expected of myself, I dismantled my ego in utter mystery, not caring for the very conventional frameworks that make this world the cyberpunk hell it grows to be. Over time I enjoyed disabling myself, as to preserve my energies, for the world Master Numi had in mind. As I lied low, I rectified many across the very planet that, in weakness, decided to forsake her. She wanted me to rise and shine, but it was something I was always too strong to resist, instead preferring in ethical isolation, to inspect the world's surroundings. I never saw need to prove this world the genius I got, and thus I never initiated my genius fully. For her words of me rising to stardom hit me like a curse, a dash of energy that never clicked in my slowly-darkening heart, as I realized her mind and my mind deviate away from each other like stars being pulled away by different magnets. Fame repelled me. The noise, the adoration, the melodramas I already visioned; The idea of irrational screams of herd-minded people alerted Numi and me in different directions. Numi hyper-focused away from her grandiose speeches, and I? I remained introspective, defiant of her extroverted ideas. I imagined screams and blabbering of people that will never see me for my immense loneliness, forming theory of minds that are never of my mind. It wasn't long before I left, and imagined the face of a dark mind; a mind that realized this world is too silly to see me beyond its own lens. My eyes turned steadfast on analyzing a world I figured out is just a theatre of masks. A resting **** face formed in my expression, as I crossed into increasing darkness. My creative imagination moved on its own, as it mocked this world for its failures to conceive the sheer speed of my changing mind. Every skin cell in my body felt forsaken long before she realized only I chose to stay loyal to her side, 2 years later. Despite mirroring each other's audacity, the doors opening me to a destiny of her own making I enjoyed closing throughout my life. After all, they distracted my own vision.. And as I put on music on the computer where I lived in mental solitude, I danced. The flood gates of my eyes opened wide, as I dreamt of a rectified world according to my own understanding: An ideal utopia, inspiring people across the world to be morally better. It is something I never lost sight of... As many others were several miles ahead of me in life, I despaired. In my despair, I found hope. Confused looks I received as I spoke of nihilism in elementary school, and as I handed out philosophy books of my own making, in high school. Instead of responding back, I allowed myself to grow dark and aloof, subverting the world in my introverted force, getting rid of ill-gotten misconceptions unexpectedly. And as people approached me, I relished in being unmasked, creating mental barriers between me and them, to send them back further. And so, I danced to grand music only I bothered to research, across small hermitages throughout the land as my physical bases. At times, I didn't care, for a world I already knew failed to understand me. It.. thrilled me, to see the failures of others' false and tragic impressions. I wished to forever be a hermit, for I already knew the wonders of the external world are nothing more than the product of our own, personal qualia, destined to imprison most for most of their lives... Including, me. In span of a young life, I passed most, and there is little I can do, to relate back to the conventional content matrix. As more doors I closed after me, I felt it was finally over. Yet my arms, my body, my mind, were still young... The understanding I was young always frustrated me, as I spew my wisdom across a mystery article empire. I fell. For what seemed an eternity, I fell in increased darkness, farther and farther into an abyss of my own making. The darkness began rising ever since the age of 5, when I discovered, empirically, what deviation is. Under the PTSD and amnesia of saving Numi in the age of 10, I couldn't see her lovely, cartoonish smile, as my life went by. Eventually... I didn't want to do anything, but to restore my inner child of light back, as a retired young adult. That deep darkness... what was that? Part III: The Breaking Good I couldn't bear the darkness, as all grew helpless compared to me. As such, I had nothing left but to find my own way back into the light. Enigmatic figures, smiling and well-intentioned, I chose to teach, and only they realized just how warm I really am. One of them caught my eye; a beautiful genius who evoked in me, a light I was desperate to restore. Burdened by dissonance and grief, we stared each others' souls. Compared to her mind, mine was revolutionary, and acted unexpectedly. My brain transformed endlessly. Under a revolutionary neuroplastic paradigm, it transformed in a display that was perceived as utter insanity. Some minds finally turned utterly perceptive. Yet they scanned around and found nothing more than physical displays, appearing strange and alien to them. That, and a massively growing article empire below the planet. Was I, replaced by a false persona? Replaced, by an alter ego with mechanisms unknown to anyone but itself? Yet only I believed in my own, transforming genius... And to begin playbacks: "You are too irrelevant for me. Please don't send any more messages. You need to respect others' wishes. I just wanted to know you. You exposed your true emotions and that was a mistake". Stupid, stupid "Chen". She failed. And many, many many other people failed to apply what I call warm logic. Warm logic... is when you actually include the other person in your reasoning. Not just your own theory of mind on them. Warm logic.. is the key to be seen, and thus, no more lonely. Yet, it is through the failures of me and others, that I chose to dismantle my dark mind, and on its neurological ashes, I built a mind based not on cold-hearted logic... but logic that greatly considers others. The failures of the cold versions of my mind are not the end. And I'm never going to give up. For my brain will always transform. I want my darkness gone. I see my cold-logic a challenge... A rival to my bound-breaking self-denying limits. And you? Your understanding of the world will eventually be... rectified. You might not be able to fully process my unconventionality. It might not compute. Thus I still relish in conserving myself as I observe the world beyond my evolving mind. Part IV: The Hyperdrive Determination My followers found their eyes widening in astonishment. An Undead Philosopher displaying compassion and grace before their eyes. A self-described hermit beginning to smile more often, designating his transformative nature to that of positivity. They were rarely conscious, as I began speaking of a late master long dead. As soon as it plugged unto the world, some managed to embrace my smiles and laughter, as they relished in being subverted for the greater good. Spikes after spikes of mental anguish, my understanding sought to liberate itself from the unconscious. It was but a prisoner to a self-imposed, toxic mental prison for Numi's many grandiose commandments I fulfilled. I, a self-built one-man army, built to surpass my late master, am but a mere human. Yet there is nothing I could do to rectify, when understanding always falls on the other side of every exchange. I felt every faulty mental infrastructure I built for Numi, being shattered by my own unrelenting spirit. After every sleep and rest I felt unbalanced emotions and widened awareness, with my head decreasing in temperature with every major break of dark-minded neuropaths. Most remain clueless. I can finally accept the reasoning for their universal ignorance in peace. I kept knowing, deep inside of me, most would just keep failing. Is their cluelessness a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps. But, perhaps humanity's lack of inflexibility is nothing more than a disability... A determined end due to their learned helplessness, having to cater to the very conventions that bring this world into utter corruption and alienation. The conventional machine shall keep rejecting me, as I reject myself to the feet of a long gone master. I do not have the drive to lift my head, for it was there when I felt it... A surge of empowerment by those finally beginning to see me beyond their mental cages... In hyperdrive, my brain transformed more into the light. Before most could grasp my situation, I recovered from many health impediments. I could only look into the mirror, and smile often like I never smiled before. My old sage appearance turned into that of a younger man, as I grew out in a remarkable small period of time, as I hungered. My productivity only turned more unrelenting. And I renovated, and renovated, in passionate speed that kept remaining utterly incomprehensible, as I did everything I could to keep containing myself. But being truly accomplished is seldom easy, isn't it? I felt sadder as I kept being reminded by my mind that mastery is never ending, and that the success of world rectification is always indefinite, thus a never-ending wisdom path. I grew desperate, work after work against my darkness' ruthless advance! And I have yet to succeed... I would remain hungry to purify myself of it... For as long as it takes.... Perhaps I will always be dark. But at least the dark... will never again be as heavy as it was...

(Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The Emotioncracy: How Sensitivity Can Corrupt (And How to Reduce Sensitivity)" is a thought-provoking article that explores the concept of emotional sensitivity and its impact on individual behavior and societal norms. Mr. Tomasio challenges readers to critically evaluate the growing emphasis on emotional sensitivity in contemporary culture, arguing that it can lead to a restrictive "emotionocracy" where feelings override reason, free expression, and open discourse. The article is ambitious in its scope, introducing the idea of an "emotionocracy"—a society ruled by emotions rather than reason. This novel concept prompts readers to think critically about the balance between sensitivity and resilience in public life. The author's personal reflections add authenticity to the argument, making the discussion more accessible and engaging. Despite the critical tone toward emotional sensitivity, the article acknowledges the value of sensitivity to a reasonable degree, emphasizing the need for emotional empathy and self-awareness while warning against allowing sensitivity to become a controlling force that limits freedom and open debate. This balanced perspective strengthens the argument, as it recognizes that sensitivity has its place but must be managed effectively. The article uses theoretical constructs such as "cognitive empathy" versus emotional empathy and the "Same Result Problem" theory to add depth to the discussion. It does not shy away from challenging popular norms, such as safe spaces, trigger warnings, and political correctness, by critiquing these elements. This critical stance fosters a valuable conversation on the potential downsides of excessive sensitivity in public life. The article effectively engages with philosophy, highlighting the role of philosophy in confronting uncomfortable truths and underscoring the importance of resilience and a willingness to engage with difficult ideas. Overall, "The Emotioncracy: How Sensitivity Can Corrupt (And How to Reduce Sensitivity)" is a stimulating piece that raises important questions about the role of emotional sensitivity in contemporary society. 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 freedom of expression. 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 irritate 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 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. Personal Reflections I got to remind myself of a very good reason to abandon society. The over prioritization of behavior is anti-democratic and people over prioritize it because their sensitivity is too high, they find reasons/excuses to be insulted. I remember this happening from several people and several platforms too. By not being a "soy-boy" myself, and attempt to let people be more themselves, I basically don't partake in this destructive behavior against democracy itself. 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.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Genuine intellectuals possess several characteristics that distinguish them from pseudo-intellectuals. The most defining trait is that an intellectual mind relies on logic over emotions. Secondly, true intellectuals communicate to study and understand complex ideas and abstract concepts. In contrast to pseudo-intellectuals, they value criticism and can explain "profound statements" in simple words. Another intellectual feature is curiosity, which leads to self-learning and broad knowledge based on research from multiple sources. Conversely, pseudo-intellectuals often don't research, or use untrustworthy sources such as social media. The fourh characteristic of intellectuals is their debating skills and ability to see their mistakes as opportunities for growth and self-improvement. In contrast, pseudo-intellectuals are often emotionally attached to their ideas and don't handle criticism professionally. The author aims to gain valuable insights through his sincere intellectual pursuit, and share his philosophical website with the world. His main objective is to contribute to the ongoing quest for knowledge. (Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (Background music) The Hallmarks of a True Intellectual This guide explores the key characteristics that distinguish genuine intellectuals from those who merely pose as such. By understanding these hallmarks, you can better evaluate the ideas you encounter and engage in more meaningful intellectual discourse. Logical Reasoning One of the most defining traits of an intellectual is their reliance on logic over emotions. According to PsychologyToday, intellects are "prone to live in their heads, [and as such] they may be largely cut off from their emotions". They base their arguments on sound reasoning, avoiding logical fallacies that cloud judgement. Consistency in logic is imperative, ensuring our arguments are internally coherent and well-supported. Furthermore, intellects would be open-minded enough to realize and admit the limitations of logic, and as such be willing to criticize their own approach. 2. Mastering Communication The speech of intellectuals is characterized by inquiry, enjoyment of sharing knowledge, and openness to new perspectives. Their communication skills are made for study and for the understanding of complex ideas. This is to nurture the effective exchange of abstract concepts. Note I: While the ability to articulate complex ideas effectively is a hallmark of an intellectual, it shouldn't be misunderstood as arrogance. Some intellectuals may exhibit arrogance, but complex communication is not inherently tied to a superiority complex. That is because those suffering from this complex, and are thus compelled to be arrogant, are unable to face criticism. This stands in contrast to intellectuals who understand the practical value of criticism and of being proven wrong. Note II: Many psuedo-intellectuals, with awareness or without, may use what Stephen Law may describe as "Pseudo-Profoundity". In other words they may use words to give off the illusion of depth where there is none. It's possibe to detect pseudo-profoundity by following these steps: Look for any obvious reasons why a "profound" statement is wrong. If still suspecting, ask the supposed intellect for a clearer explanation. Remember: Simplicity can often be a display of depth when the intellectual easily explains complex ideas 3. A Hunger for Knowledge Intellectuals possess a broad and varied knowledge base, often extending beyond their formal education. Sometimes they are knowledgeable, even as philosophers, without much higher education, if any. They actively engage in self-directed learning, researching diverse topics and forming their own well-informed opinions. Their intellectual curiosity drives them to explore various sources, leading to a richer and nuanced understanding of the world. An intellectual isn't satisfied with a single source of information, even within their area of expertise. They actively seek out multiple perspectives to develop a comprehensive view and to reduce bias. That includes opposing viewpoints. This might make them realize that their initial biases mislead them from the very understanding they sought. A pseudo-intellectual on the other hand may fall more easily to misinformation, especially to that found on social media, or may even not research at all. They would claim they are well-versed in subjects they aren't, just because it seems or "feels" obvious to them. But this very sense of obviousness is how Socrates managed to prove how ignorant people really are. 4. Testing the Strength of Ideas Debate serves as a testing ground for intellectual prowess. Intellectuals excel in debate due to their logical consistency, effective communication, and a deep understanding of the subject matter. They are comfortable admitting they are wrong, prioritizing learning over winning the argument. Mistakes become opportunities for growth and refinement of their ideas. A pseudo-intellectual, on the other hand, may take counter-arguements to heart, not understanding they're being too emotionally attached to their ideas. Additionally, they may also not be able or willing to take criticism professionally, derailing the conversation to ad-hominem "attacks" and insults to take the attention out of their own. The Pseudos Among Us Here's where you can add a specific example of a pseudo-intellectual in action: Look for someone who uses big words or complex concepts superficially, avoids admitting mistakes, or relies on emotional appeals over logic nor evidence. By understanding these distinctions, you can navigate the world of ideas with greater clarity and engage with genuine intellectuals for a more enriching and productive experience. Addressing the Skeptic: A Matter of Motivation You might argue that some who dedicate themselves to intellectual pursuits, like myself, could be labeled pseudo-intellectuals. However, sincerity of intent makes a great deal of difference. My goal isn't to collect a reputation for being "smart" but to gain valuable insights and share them with the world. My intelligence is merely the tool for this lifelong commitment and I don't need its glorification. Publicly, especially. In an age where content is king, it's the end-result that matter the most. This desire to contribute and enlighten, not simply impress, separates genuine intellectual endeavors from the stature of a pseudo-intellectual. They, after all, are not really genuine, especially if they are not willing to improve and hone their skills, like every intellect should, in the name of a greater understanding of reality. Ultimately, a true intellectual is driven by a love of learning and a desire to contribute to either themselves, others or both. They are lifelong students, constantly evolving and seeking new knowledge. By fostering intellectual humility and prioritizing the pursuit of truth, we can all engage in more meaningful and enriching conversations. If my website, contributes to this ongoing quest for knowledge, then I've achieved my goal. And that, in itself, is a truly rewarding endeavor, even more than my former desire to prove my relevance. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback My experiences have always been blatantly obvious as to who the pseudo intellectuals were. Growing up in the public education system many of my teachers would have snobby attitudes like they were geniuses compared to their students. When you would ask questions and they would get defensive like “We are not talking about that in class right now". They would be dismissive like their way was the only correct possible way. Not many realize that it is the children who should be teaching the adults. Adults should learn from kids for one reason in particular: Imagination is children using their raw intelligence for a purpose. It takes a large amount of intellectual power to be able to add things to our sensual field. Things such as visualization of objects that aren’t there. I know this sounds crazy, but to me it is impressive and something we should learn to nurture in kids as they grow up. As with intelligence -- logic alone should not be used to measure intelligence. There are different expressions for it. Take a famous artist. Not all their art pieces will be based upon logic. What is logical to one person might not be logical to someone else. Learning to communicate through that barrier is what philosophy is about. [Intellects] have to translate logic across intellectual boundaries (to communicate effectively).

Synopsis by Alex Mos: A high IQ is a virtue but can hinder human connections. “Scary smart” people can be intimidated or even rejected by others because of their high intelligence. When brilliance is the reason for loneliness, it becomes an interpersonal burden. Without friendship or love, highly intelligent people may look for relevancy in influence, becoming accomplished workaholics. (Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (Background music) How High IQ Can Hinder Human Connection Intelligence is surely a virtue to be praiseworthy. However, we need to take into consideration that even this very virtue has its own flaws, at least when we interact with other people. In such cases, high intelligence might as well be a liability. It can be a liability when people are overly submissive to their emotions and gut feelings, especially when the information these components deliver is false. When these mental components deceive us with our consent, we express irrationality. For example, it is irrational to be intimidated by things and beings that do not pose a threat to us. And yet, if we succumb to the irrational aspects of ourselves, we can burn bridges with other people just because of a false sense of being threatened It's possible to detect when people are intimidated by your high intelligence, and there is even a slang called "scary smart". If you are highly intelligent, you may find that people around you might start to avoid you, act defensively when you talk to them, and yes, even reject you. I guess... it was one of the reasons I got rejected one time by someone, once.... Moving on. When Brilliance Breeds Isolation Highly intelligent people may find themselves more alone than others because it can be difficult for many people to relate to them. Former friends may say that they are "from different worlds" (as I was once told), and those who feel intimidated by them may disrespect them as a way to protect themselves from threats that only the intelligent person "sees." In a sense, high intelligence can be an interpersonal burden. As such, I personally do not take pride in it. I am proud of the fact that I used my intelligence to survive post-traumatic symptoms. However, as you can see, my intelligence is nothing more to me than a means to an end. Thus, intelligence can hinder you socially, romantically and even sexually. Ironically, there is something called "too much intellect". It is "too much" merely because it can hurt your personal appeal in the eyes of others. Of course, it is also "too much" because we need connections to survive and to thrive, meaning that if people decide to disconnect with you due to your high intelligence, then it is a liability in that regard at the very least. Intelligent people are also lonelier than otherwise. Of course, the negative impacts of constant rejection and social isolation can affect poorly on one's mental health. This is why there isn't necessarily any shame in being mentally ill -- it's not necessarily your fault. Navigating the Complexities of Intelligence and Social Connection In the absence of friendship and/or love in one's life, one might decide to seek their sense of collective worth elsewhere. In power and influence. In being admired by the world. In being relevant more than the average person. In the absence of these elements, one may seek respect and authority more than otherwise. It's all because we have a need to be valued. To feel like we matter. If we do not matter, why should we even love ourselves? And if we do not love ourselves? Why should we choose to live? Highly-intelligent people may live outside of the social world merely because of who they are. They won't necessarily be as loved or befriended as others (or initiate these actions themselves). They can be abused by those who feel intimidated by their intelligence. And as such, intelligence is not entirely a virtue. It is a virtue when it helps you and/or others in life. It's not a virtue when it stands in your way for healthy connections with the outside world. Those who are less intelligent might not be as aware of the hardships of being highly intelligent. They can easily submit to their confirmation bias, cherry-pick the facts on the matter, out-right deny reality, or use short-term ad-hominem fallacies that have little-to-nothing to do with the general issue. It's quite pathetic, I admit. It's pathetic only because I pity their inability to understand beyond their poor rationality. So, we can say that being less-than-rational has disadvantages of its own. Obviously, the highly-intelligent are often more rational. So yes, being "scary smart" can arguably scare people away. If it didn't have this distinct quality, highly intelligent people would be less lonely. And perhaps I would have known the love of another, empirically by now. When Loneliness Fuels a Obsessive Flame So, I take solace in constantly working, and thus turn a liability into an asset once more. It's the practical thing to do, you know. I used to think that workaholism is futile. I now take it back. It's better being a like that than depressed, lonely and irrelevant. And I've been alone far enough, and won't be surprised if some of you had enough of being alone, as well. It can eventually feel like the fun of being alone, overstayed its welcome. It's why I chose this work, despite being asocial. Anyways, I don't like intimidating anyone. I like living. Since I like living, the choice to endure the loneliness is mine and mine alone. Whether or not this existential problem will be solved in my personal life is beyond my control. So, all I am left with is to work as much as I can. Because I know for certain that intelligence is the last thing that can hinder this activity. And it is the only thing I seem to be good at. Other than being rejected for who I am by various people, of course. It's their own prerogative. Regardless of emotion, it wouldn't make sense to confront people for exercising their prerogatives in ways that I do not desire. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback High intellect requires demonstration so people can better understand what it is and how it affects their own lives personally. People can accept demonstrations more easily than they can concepts of intelligence. Let your intelligence be demonstrated as much as possible so people have a better understanding of it. Unveil the mystery so to speak. It should also be noted that intelligence itself is not the problem for most people. They have difficulty understanding how it is expressed. I believe anyone can get behind intelligence on a general basis. Yet, as expressions are simply the result of genetics forming different cognitive features, it can best be understood that the reason for isolation is because your brain simply works differently than other peoples. Loneliness is a state of mind. The feeling can be changed at any time if the right context is added to your situation. Think of isolation as less separatism and more of it as unbiased thinking. Really loneliness's biggest contributor is simply not discovering the herd with which you exist. Otherwise you will always remain a lonely horse or cow out to pasture. (or use any animal of your choosing). Remember at the end of the day it doesn’t matter your intelligence level. We are all humans with some just being a little different. Best advice I can give is for people to stop referring to intelligence as a scale and more like a spectrum that some people can move around on more easily than others.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (The Directory on Nietzsche) (Philosocom's Svartgold/Svarl Articles) Article Summary by Mr. O. C. Isaac Mr. Mandoela Svartgold's article "An Overview of Some of Friedrich Nietzsche's Ideas" delves into his philosophy, focusing on key ideas such as communication, morality, self-knowledge, and genius. The author emphasizes the relevance of these themes beyond manipulation or control. Nietzsche's views on communication are analyzed, with the author arguing that mastery of language allows individuals to shape their perceptions. He critiques collective punishment and the concept of God, arguing that religious doctrine often fosters resentment rather than a love of life. The article also delves into Nietzsche's warnings against conformity and crowds, particularly in religious settings, and his observations on the emotional struggles of youth. The article also delves into Nietzsche's skepticism regarding self-knowledge, questioning whether individuals can truly understand themselves. The discussion on genius and opportunity is presented, with the author referencing works like Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and Twilight of the Idols, emphasizing the importance of context in interpreting Nietzsche's often-misunderstood views. Some of Nietzsche's ideas I identified with So, I'd like to highlight the enduring themes in the Friedrich Nietzsche's work. These themes are surprisingly free of any desire for control or manipulation. My deep understanding of the author's work, gained through multiple readings, allows me to identify these recurring messages. By exploring these enduring themes, we can gain valuable insights from Nietzsche's work. I trust this analysis will be appreciated. The Art of Words: Nietzsche on Communication -- Nietzsche explained that every sentence can be rounded to the benefit of the person himself if he knows how to express himself adequately. That is, you can make a person understand you the way you want if you are fluent in speech and learn to leverage it to your advantage. Perhaps he warned others that a word is not enough. A person should ask and understand what that person means before deciding as he sees fit. "Bright words, inventions, and brilliance, everything can be twisted". Nietzsche on Collective Punishment and the Concept of God -- In his pre-Zarathustra writings, Nietzsche explores the idea of collective punishment. He suggests that the concept of a universal death sentence, where everyone suffers the same fate regardless of their actions, could be seen as a form of collective punishment for humanity's ills. This aligns with his critique of a vengeful God who imposes suffering on all. He writes: "The world's trouble is a collective punishment for everyone." In The Decline of the Idols, he further criticizes the idea of God as a source of control and punishment. He views religions that portray God as a "sick" or vengeful being as detrimental to humanity. Such a God, he argues, fosters resentment towards life rather than celebrating it. "God, is like the God of the sick, God like a spider, God is like a spirit -- this is one of the greatest acts of corruption in humanity. God is a hostility and a disappointment to life. Is it such a victorious world?" Nietzsche on Crowds and the Soul in "Beyond Good and Evil" -- In his book Beyond Good and Evil, translated by Dr. Israel Eldad, Friedrich Nietzsche criticizes the stifling effect of crowds on the soul. He argues that those with a "soul to breathe fresh air" – those who value individuality and independent thought – should avoid them. Here, "fresh air" symbolizes freedom and authenticity, threatened by the conformity and "impurity" Nietzsche associates with crowds. He specifically warns against churches, where the presence of a large group fosters hypocrisy and stifles the expression of a genuine soul. "If you have the soul to breathe fresh air, and because the soul has degrees and edges. If you want to rest and breathe, you should avoid entering the churches because there is a crowd in a certain holy place; there is also hypocrisy there. And when there is a crowd, there is impurity." The Trials of Youth -- Young people, driven by emotions and passions, often make choices that later bring shame and regret. They yearn to change, to create a new path, and shed the perceived excess of kindness associated with their youth. This disillusionment with their initial innocence can lead to a suspicion of their own feelings, a state Nietzsche called "voluntary blindness." Later on, when the young soul, tortured by continual disillusions, finally turns suspiciously against itself—still ardent and savage even in its suspicion and remorse of conscience: how it upbraids itself, how impatiently it tears itself, how it revenges itself for its long self-blinding, as though it had been a voluntary blindness! Believing their emotions are unreliable, some young people may be tempted by revenge. However, Nietzsche argues that seeking vengeance creates a self-fulfilling cycle ("boomerang"). Each person's soul develops through unique stages, and a lack of emotional maturity in youth can lead to these struggles. The Enigma of Self-Knowledge -- The maxim of "know thyself" compels us to grapple with a fundamental question: can we ever truly understand who we are? Every triumph and setback shapes our perception of human nature, leading us to question: does success alone define someone's character? Are there unseen accomplishments that paint a more nuanced picture? Anti-thesis -- In his book Human, All Too Human, Friedrich Nietzsche highlights the crucial role of understanding the subconscious. He argues that the subconscious acts as a "narrow opening" through which hidden truths can emerge. However, this very gate can also allow "lies" to sneak in. This implies that not all our thoughts and beliefs are reliable, and critical self-reflection is necessary. Better To Be Heard - In his influential works, Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche emphasizes the importance of communication that transcends mere words. He argues that effectively conveying one's message requires a level of artistry akin to music. Nietzsche suggests using vocal tone and delivery to create a "musical" effect. This implies that the way we speak, with its rhythm, emphasis, and melody, can significantly impact how our message is received. Nietzsche and the Potential for Genius -- Friedrich Nietzsche frequently explores the concept of genius. He doesn't necessarily believe everyone is a genius in a specific field, but that everyone has the potential for greatness in some area. The crucial factor, according to Nietzsche, is opportunity. When presented with an opportunity, a person needs to seize it and develop their talents. Nietzsche acknowledges that even in fields one finds uninteresting, success can be achieved. However, the lack of passion for the field might hinder the individual from fully expressing their genius. "The genius conceives an idea and executes it through his belief that he is God. The genius raises victims in the form of humans and grants them rights to weapons, to work." In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche delves into the potential downsides of genius. He suggests that a published genius, consumed by their creation, might become distant from humanity. This distance can resemble a god-like figure, detached from the consequences of their work. The metaphor of "raising victims" likely refers to the potential negative impact a genius's creation can have on others. Granting "rights to weapons" could symbolize the power dynamics inherent in the work a genius produces. This power can be abused, with negative consequences for others. Context and Misunderstandings -- It's important to note that Nietzsche's writings often criticize the aristocracy. It's unlikely he argued for them to receive more rights simply because of wealth. He might be suggesting that the privileged position of the aristocracy allows them greater access to opportunities for developing their talents, potentially creating an unfair advantage. Sources Beyond Good and Evil - translated by Dr. Israel Eldad Thus Spoke Zarathustra - translated by Ilana Hammerman The Sunset of the Idols - translated by Dr. Israel Eldad

Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "How to Become Your Own Professor (A 'Self-Professor')" explores the concept of self-awareness and personal growth through solitude. It offers an intriguing framework for understanding oneself and navigating solitude as a means of achieving deeper self-knowledge. The central thesis posits that by becoming one's own "self-professor," individuals can harness their inner potential, develop a personalized philosophy, and attain a more authentic and resilient sense of self. The article excels in articulating the value of solitude as a tool for self-discovery, emphasizing the connection between solitude and spiritual exploration. It emphasizes the importance of self-knowledge, acknowledging both strengths and the shadowy aspects of one's psyche. The concept of self-professorship encourages readers to take ownership of their intellectual and emotional development, providing an empowering approach to personal growth. In conclusion, The article offers valuable insights for those seeking to enhance their self-knowledge and embrace their inner potential. (Background music) (Subcategory on Book-Related Content) "If we are the results of both our own choices, and the choices made by others, that's a complex web to orchestrate" -- John Duran Knowing the Psyche The psyche is made up of many layers, varied and twisted. Staying in the inner world, AKA, solitude, is the perfect time to start exploring the individualism that lies within you. Getting to know yourself is something of great importance, and all the more so in solitary activities, like writing. If you do not learn to know yourself, you are bound to suffer and sink into a thick fog of unconsciousness, when you do not know what your body and mind need at one moment or another. It's your job to be in-tune with your body and mind in order to know what is best for you. Each of us knows himself or herself to a certain extent. Most of us know when we are hungry, thirsty, stressed, and the like. But why would it be enough to reach the heights of human self-awareness? Time alone has the potential for a most fruitful spiritual journey. A journey that can help the experimenter convert it into positive solitude. And he, as a loner, must know his own complexes - the contents of his personality, his motives, hobbies, principles and the like, in order to attain positive solitude, for one must enjoy himself, to enjoy solitude. The reason isn't that I, Mr. Tomasio, said that he must. I do not work according to the authority fallacy's faulty logic. The reason is that self-knowledge can lead to self-acceptance. And self-acceptance is key to endure negative solitude. You need to know what there is to accept, in order to accept it. That includes the shadowy parts of yourself. Only in this way will he/she be able to formulate a philosophy that will give meaning to his/her life. A personalized philosophy, whose purpose can make solitude far more bearable. Otherwise, he would surely sink into gloomy nihilism. Sink, and not endure the emptiness of the universe successfully. Not endure the insignificance of their own reality. Not strive to be far more significant than otherwise! In the end, it will be inevitable to admit the unavoidable insight: The one that says, that personal identity is the sum of the stories we tell ourselves. For the truth that is the self, is one that develops per the thoughts that it thinks and believes. Man has never had an authentic, deep, and hidden nucleus: A default, rich and cohesive "core" when he or she was born. Instead, it is one that is formed in its physical and mental development, In contact with society, and/or alongside it. We create ourselves using our mental resources, it's called neuroplasticity. But how much does man know about that self-created nucleus? His ultimate, life-long creation? As long as he will choose to deem himself or herself as the victim, he would never be aware of the fact that he is the master, the authority, and the potential professor, of his or her own self. When a person is asked to talk about himself, he will surely start with everything that others have given him: His name, his origin, his socio-economic status, his family. Nothing that is really his intellectual property necessarily. By "intellectual property" I refer to details that are products of his own making, and not to things that must be related to copyright. I'm speaking of details which have little to do with others. Hence why much of us are products of our environment, for we let ourselves be influenced so easily by others. However, this can be changed. When it comes to the self that exists partially independently of others, this is also where loneliness comes in - when a person finds himself alone, the great spiritual journey begins. The journey to finding his intellectual/spiritual property -- the gradually-developing nucleus of their own making. The portions of it, that are his or her own making. For we are not entirely the shaped pawns of external influence -- we also have some degree of agency over ourselves. And that agency can, at times, overcome the external world, by allowing ourselves to become the best versions of ourselves. What is, in fact, "spiritual/intellectual property", according to what I'm referring to? You may not acquire or import any such spiritual property. That amorphous and unexplained property is deep within you, even though it isn't inherited or inborn. Our genes are still developed independently of family, as they are influenced by other factors as well. The Untapped Power of The Self It's your psychological nature, not your sociological one. It's one that exists regardless of the people around it. For people to come and go. Your self remains as long as you breathe. It's your authentic system, which is in the background as you manage your day to day life. The one you mask, intentionally or not (like in the process of denial). You can only get to know her, through the indefinite power of potential at your disposal. Through knowing what you're truly capable of. And how can you know about that power? It can be evident from the practice of your craft. And the more you practice, the more you can improve. And since energy is everything, and energy is power, then power is everything. If we speak in a more cosmological language, then everything you create in the most creative and sincere way... might be from an intentional desire from a supreme creation. That which is produced from the same property I wrote about. The inner genius. It's the very same mental power that develops and forms in you as your body cells. Mentality manifested into physicality. It's breathing and emitting, born and dead, expanding and shrinking. A dynamic, mental organism, which you can harness for your own interests, like I harnessed it in the name of Philosocom. It's the power we all have inside of us. One that is flexible as a bamboo tree, deep as a nuclear reactor. It is the untapped essence of life - what connects man with his existence and disconnects him from others thanks to his solitary, distinct individualism. Thanks to the fact, they are capable of being separated from others, in the name of training, in the name of their craft. Emotional attachment to others is as flexible a mental component as any other component. Hence why I am largely relaxed during times of war. And also why I take criticism professionally. The reason is that the human mind is capable of flexibility and can be shaped per our desires. We just need to be aware of it first. In order for the experimenter to gain experience and be more independent, recognition is at demand. Since he or she probably does not communicate with others when alone, they are isolated from others, even from the virtual company of others. And one cannot know themselves properly without this distinction, without this isolation, temporary or otherwise. Some have called it a curse, since social consciousness strongly condemns isolation, sees all human beings as social creatures, and generalizes all aspects of human communication as strictly social. At the same time, there will be those who, by faith, will believe that it is good to avoid any kind of isolation. However, should one not escape it, the recluse can become a creative, sovereign, and even free person from the negative principles that society has attributed to isolation. The notion of isolation as purely negative is a make-believe fact, one that preaches to all to blindly recognize it as, indeed, objective. No entertainment of the possibility that there are some who are not social. Some humans are even anti-social. The loner can be someone who rethinks things. Only through rethinking will they break through intersubjective barriers, knowing that this nature is indeed intersubjective, and not factual, just because there is a wide agreement on some beliefs. When a person thinks about things anew, they are capable of re-modeling their inner and ideological structure. The potential to remodel our beliefs is also how one can gain leadership and intellectual authority over themselves. The structures of his or her faith undergo renovation, cleansing, and shaping. A reassessment of all the things in which they have believed or learned to believe so far, in order to develop greater horizons. Horizons towards understanding of a self that is more distinct than that of others and thus, one that can understand better as such: A unique, special being. A distinction so aware, so realized, until it is alienated from their former skin; the skin of a former, less-ideal self; Just as a snake sheds its skin and develops a newer skin than its predecessor. The point of self-professorship is to realize who you truly are, and extract the potential of said self, in a reality where it would otherwise lay dormant. Just as science is meant to explain how the world and the universe work, so the professor of the self develops his or her mind, for both knowledge and application. He or she devises theories about the components of it, and as a result, these theories may work together to create a robust and functional identity, an identity that is greater than otherwise, an identity that can be suited for your needs and ambitions. For the self can greatly be a means to achieve an even better end. That is why I sacrificed much of my emotion. They were in the way of my intentions. And if the professor himself or herself finds that their mind is weak, dysfunctional, or defective, they can do two things: Lose an attempt at self-inquiry and turn to others, or develop self-inquiry and turn to their own resources. They would understand what's wrong with them. Whether or not they will accept their own faults or work to reduce them, is their own prerogative. Remember, loneliness is a time of survival and struggle. Solitude is a time of peace and prosperity. There is no solitude without loneliness (unless you like being alone automatically). And deep, existential meaning might not be attained by being alone without struggle, first. If you do not know how to light a fire, make containers, hunt, etc., you may face hunger, despair, and even death. If you know how to do these things, you will also know what is good for you, personally, while alone. Such knowledge can show you how to avoid the things that harm you and threaten your peace. Society can provide you with all your needs and be a source of support. It can provide validation and affection when needed. But if you do not know how to provide all these things for yourself, you will not be able to know yourself in depth. Why? Because you do not necessarily need validation from the outside world, unless it is imperative to your survival. When you know yourself more completely, you might understand that much of what is outside of you can already be found within yourself. That includes self-validation. Therefore, a greater self-knower validates himself or herself. No one that is not your therapist is responsible for handling your emotions. The self-professor does not reside in a greenhouse, per se. He or she takes care of himself or herself without having to be in a greater collective, and without needing a safe space. For his potential of self-security is already within him or her. Just like an actual professor is confident in their words, the self-prof is confident in his or her respective expertise. Unless they are in court (and I am not providing legal advice), it is their job to lecture about themselves when necessary. It is their job to tell others that they are not the same. After all, if you are mentally dependent on society, you do not need to know yourself. Self-awareness, at its core, is a tool for better mental health. Those who are not lonely or do not lead a solitary life do not need this tool. There are countless people who can do the effort for you, such as psychologists and other advisors. If you are not a loner, why would you learn to know yourself if it has no functionality or contribution? That is, of course, unless you realize, deep within, that over-dependence is faulty.