(Subcategory on Flaws) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background Music) "Psychotics know no real fear, even to their own detriment. The size, strength, nor power of the enemy matters not one single iota. Madness operates independently of all fear, and is therefore free to operate in any medium of manner they see fit to use" -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Pride can sometimes be found in dysfunction, but it is something that many fear, like those who are too cowardly, or those who try to deceive others. When caught scamming, some may deny their wrongdoing instead of being mature enough to apologize. After all, scammers find no pride or achievement in apologizing, or in other words, in openly confessing their flaws. And of course, the same goes in professional settings. Trying to find a good excuse to back up your own underhanded, faulty deeds could save your work from being tainted by your own hand -- and protect your ego. However, there are indeed cases where dysfunction and pride are not contradictory. Being taller than the average person, I lived most of my lifespan thus far in great pain in the neck, because people were almost always shorter, so bending over my neck became natural. The constant ache began one day at Elementary and resumed. Even in adulthood, it never stopped in my waking life. I drink coffee even when I'm not tired as it helps with the pain. This pain, which has lasted for the majority of my lifetime, has taught me an important lesson in life: Acceptance. Perhaps if my neck weren't dysfunctional, life would have been harder to endure. If you get the reference to my philosophical symbol, my neck has become a pillar that has taught me endurance. Implications of Pain Over time, I became less and less sensitive to things, to the point of apathy, especially things that disturb or trigger many people. Perhaps this is why I write about dark stuff so casually, even when it involves myself. A person I once was in contact with eventually left me due to her extreme sensitivity to things I don't regard as emotionally significant. The person I consider my "nemesis" abandoned me twice due to my own emotions. Of course, when I had the opportunity to ask her why she was so frightened by a mere emotion, an opportunity I seized, she didn't answer me. You know, pain isn't that bad once you get used to it. Trying to avoid all pain is likely to fail in the end, because life cannot be lived without experiencing some pain. Of course, the enjoyment of pain is illogical and dangerous, as it could lead one to do regrettable things, but if you are already in pain, and might fail at stopping it, why not try to find something good in it? You know, to actually better endure it? A certain medical professional once gave me some advice I find the most practical to this day, regarding my neck pain -- try to bend it backwards, so its positioning would eventually become default. However, despite all the years that passed, I failed at this restoration. This logically means, that I might experience this pain for the rest of my life. Being used to it, I don't really mind this "hell" anymore. From Agony to Pride That's why, I take pride in this dysfunction. Pride, not because it's unusual, but because it taught me things, I might otherwise be unaware of. Pain is a great teacher. I see people across the internet, trying to mask their vulnerabilities; Old people, pretending to be millennials; Scammers, pretending to be offering genuine help to potential victims; Narcissists, pretending to be perfect; Women, putting extravagant make-up to hide their true faces, and finally, people in general, pretending to be rich. I no longer view these people with awe, specifically the braggers and the more beautiful. With this pain, it really means very little to me, anymore. External Example 1 I look up to a certain fictional character whom I mentioned before -- General Skarr, who ran with scissors as a kid and scarred his left eye permanently and ruined its ability to see with it. He never wore an eyepatch, and although he is a cartoon character aimed at children in the early 2000's, the fact that we can see a visible eye that is purely white, is quite impressive. After all, that eye is dysfunctional, and it's probably very painful for him to have it exposed as if it's a regular eye. People wear eyepatches for a medical reason, to keep the eye healthy as one can. Lately, I've learned the reason as to why he never covered his scarred eye: "Eye patches are for pirates, and little girls!" It was a quote of his I heard yesterday. Such pride in something that is a liability, is something I find inspirational, and perhaps you, too. How many of us humans are prepared to expose our flaws? How many of us are prepared to not only admit that they are imperfect, as we all are, but also accept that imperfection, and not sigh with submission? Mind you, Skarr said that quote of his to someone who also couldn't see with their left eye and used an eyepatch. A weird flex, to be sure, but a thought-provoking one. External Example 2 In a story called "The Hive Situation: A Memoir", The writer, Johnny, describes a story from his life as a kid where he lived in an abusive family and was forced by his mother to assume the role of a handyman of the household. A natural hermit by nature, Johnny writes (In chapter 2): "Our living existence often continues to 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 human beings". We can learn from this that sometimes, in order to live, we must be a pain to other's side, otherwise we would either be destroyed ourselves, unless we are to cooperate with them. Such is the nature of power. The very notion of conflict is natural among human beings and as such it may be necessary to collide with another's interests, simply because we exist. The fight for survival is not something that's irrelevant to our times, because even in this day and age of comfort and pleasure, we do not live in a vacuum and as such others can easily disturb our peace and vice versa. Therefore, the fact that we still manage to survive and not give up, despite our conflicts with other beings, is something that should not be taken lightly. Because other beings, including people, will not necessarily care if we give up on the struggles of life. Why, then, not take pride in the natural dysfunction that we sometimes are? Why not take pride in still enduring the hardships our dysfunctional aspect sets in our path? Feedback by Mr. M. Svartgold In connection to pride, I've always felt a deep-seated fear of the unconscious. Like you, I believe it often leads people to resort to cunning and deception, especially when trying to succeed at work or earn money dishonestly. I've spent my entire life pretending to be something I'm not. However, as an autistic person, it's incredibly difficult to maintain a facade. People can often see through my attempts, and I've noticed a peculiar kind of pity in their eyes, a mercy that feels strangely negative. Locals frequently ask me about things that do not concern them. When they learn that I rent an apartment, they immediately assume I'm poor and naive. It seems to me that society subconsciously judges people based on their appearance and labels them accordingly. I think this is too shallow. I've never felt the need to be proud in front of others. I'm content with my solitude, whether I'm at home alone or with family. I also avoid discussing my health, as it often leads to inquiries about money yet again. People seem to calculate a person's worth based on their income, and I've found that this unconscious judgment can be quite harmful. Pride, to me, is a pointless attempt to feel superior to those who look/are different. I've learned to embrace my authenticity and no longer feel the need to please others. Their approval is simply not worth the effort.

Article Synopsis by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein (The Article's Author) Living alone as an aging (or even younger) person, even though it may be difficult, is not entirely impossible. When utilized, it can bring much potential in terms of productivity and insight-seeking. In a way it can even make the world a better place using the skills you can hone while you're alone. Missing out on the times of being alone can also be considered as a wasted potential, as it can allow you to work and become the best version of yourself, and appreciate yourself as a being that exists beyond society. Even if you live by yourself, it is no shame to seek help in whatever activity or problem you need assistance in, in the sense that you cannot do it yourself and competently succeed. I hope these tips are helpful. Living alone can be a rewarding experience, but it is important to be prepared for the challenges that come with it. (Background music) Introduction Living alone can be hard for some people. However, it may be inevitable for others, as not everyone will succeed in finding a partner, assuming they want one. There may also be people who do not want a partner and prefer to live alone. For those who do not know, I am a self-described asocial man, as I mostly find true peace within solitude. I also wrote a guide on finding peace. Like some people, who just prefer to keep to themselves until they die in their own homes, I don't know if I'll find a partner to live with, as it is more often than not, lonely at the top. So, being the faithful writer than I am, I decided to write (and revamp) an article about aging alone for my readership. The Tips Although I am a relatively-young man, I do have some insights to share with those who, voluntarily or involuntarily, may live alone for a long time. Regardless of the reasons and factors behind living alone, consider these 5 tips if you live alone and/or worry that you might live by yourself for the rest of your life: 1. "Alone" in the context of aging refers to aging without a romantic partner. However, you do not have to be generally alone in order to age alone without a partner, making the term "alone" case-specific. Even as an aged man or woman, you can still have people around you to support you, such as family, friends, and so on. That is without the necessity of a romantic partnership. So, if you want to feel less lonely, you can have other people around you that are not romantically involved with you. 2. Prepare to find yourself bored from time to time, if not for extended periods of time. Even if you find ways to entertain yourself and do other things that lead to productivity, boredom can sometimes be inevitable. Instead of seeing it as an unwanted occurrence, one can see it as a potential to find new things to do and to indulge in. The internet could, in theory, eradicate your boredom. 3. Make sure you are independent enough to endure a retired life in seclusion. If you are not independent enough, you may find this way of life to be harsher than it could have been. The issue of independence applies in many aspects, from the means of transportation to the means of being able to manage one's finances. Consider your finances wisely and you'll be able to manage independently at least in that department, whether partially or completely. Being physically fit can also make you more independent from the help of others (Carrying groceries, cleaning the house by yourself, etc). That's even more true when you grow older. 4. The issue of health also has aspects that may affect each other. If you completely neglect exercise, it may affect your mental state poorly, and vice versa. Keep a healthy lifestyle not only to extend your lifetime but also to preserve one's wellbeing as time goes on. Good wellbeing can allow you to function better and thus, depend less on others. 5. The solitary retired life includes a lot of time to be spent. This is an opportunity to master whatever skill or field of knowledge you are interested in, and not necessarily only one. There is so much potential to be grasped when one is alone, and it is unfortunate to see people ignoring it altogether. I personally utilized my solitary lifestyle to master the art of writing philosophy articles, compose music, and overall try to be a better philosopher. Bonus: The Keys to Healthy Aging -- An Excerpt (By: Melinda Smith, M.A., Jeanne Segal, Ph.D. and Monika White, Ph.D) As we grow older, we experience an increasing number of major life changes, including career transitions and retirement, children leaving home, the loss of loved ones, physical and health challenges—and even a loss of independence. How we handle and grow from these changes is often the key to healthy aging. Coping with change is difficult at any age and it’s natural to feel the losses you experience. However, by balancing your sense of loss with positive factors, you can stay healthy and continue to reinvent yourself as you pass through landmark ages of 60, 70, 80, and beyond. As well as learning to adapt to change, healthy aging also means finding new things you enjoy, staying physically and socially active, and feeling connected to your community and loved ones. Unfortunately, for many of us aging also brings anxiety and fear. How will I take care of myself late in life? What if I lose my spouse? What is going to happen to my mind? Many of these fears stem from popular misconceptions about aging. But the truth is that you are stronger and more resilient than you may realize.

(Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Equality and the Future Socio-Economic Class - Why Our Ignorance Fuels Dystopia (And the Value of A Greater Vision)" is an insightful exploration of socio-economic challenges with a philosophical and ethical lens. It highlights the importance of intellectual humility and problem-solving through a philosophical lens, adding depth to the discussion of economic inequality and capitalism. The article also addresses multiple aspects of inequality, including the flaws of capitalism and the rise of AI and its impact on future labor markets. The article emphasizes personal responsibility and encourages readers be responsible for their personal growth, even in the face of systemic challenges. It offers practical solutions, such as implementing a living wage, strengthening labor unions, and investing in education, grounded in real-world policy discussions. In conclusion, the article offers a thought-provoking exploration of socio-economic inequality, the flaws of capitalism, and the potential future shaped by AI. "The ONLY way to actually CHANGE the future is to know EXACTLY what it would have been, had we not interfered. Unless we 100-percent know what the future was going to be, we change nothing, we merely fulfill its occurrence" -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Part I: In the Name of a More Equitable Society In a better, more moral world, everyone would be able to afford the necessities of life based on the time and energy they dedicate to work. It is unfair that a worker who is willing to work overtime may not be able to afford the minimum requirements for living, while those who work far less than them, can. Feelings of injustice can be seen as the cause responsible for the exertion of revolutionary potential, capable of great innovation as well as great destruction. Injustice leads to distrust in this world, and even in the willing participation with corrupt trends. As much as we should accept the reality of our respective situations, we should consider the implications of doing so on our future. On the future of this world. Therefore, as much as we should recognize the present, we also must go beyond mere recognition. We must foster long-term thinking, to be able to think several steps ahead, like in a game of chess. The Value of Intellectual Humility For Our Understanding Observe chess grandmasters. We may think they are naturally gifted. I'm afraid however you're wrong and that you are quick to jump to conclusions, as it usually takes 8 to 12 years minimum. You may think I am a naturally talented writer. You are wrong yet again, as I have been practicing the art of writing philosophy articles, since 2013. Became fatigued accordingly, despite being born in the 90's. Our perspectives remain shallow. Shallow than we might think they are. Our sense of pride deters us from understanding how shallow our perception really is. In the world of philosophy, however, it is curiosity that prevails, not awful, tempting megalomania. Our ego blinds us from realizing how ignorant we all really are. As such, our reasoning, without the solid smithing of lifelong learning, remains simplistic, more than it could be. The more simplistic our reasoning is, the more mistakes we make in our lives. The less we learn from our mistakes, the more we are prone to making them again. Why We Need To Become Problem Solvers By Default Philosophy is where you teach yourself to become a problem solver. When we accept reality for what it is, and think we have solved the problem, we only fool ourselves. How exactly can we accept a reality wholeheartedly, that backstabs us? That diminishes our inner light, necessary to help others as well as allow us to re-discover the true depth and beauty of this world? No. We may accept the injustices of the world, but if we are able to afford rectifying at least some of them, why not? If we can learn to let go of the temptation of hatred, for example, we can hurt others far less. In reality, we don't have to suffer as much as we do today. It's just that we suffer today, in the present. This doesn't mean we would always have to suffer excessively, when we can make, even, basic, simple steps in reducing our own suffering. And one of the ways we can do it, is by becoming more just towards others. By creating a trend, not just following one. A trend of trying to understand more than we currently do. When we do this, we can demonize less, and humanize them more. We can understand their own respective struggles. And, when we better cope with our own adversities, we can then move on to help with their own struggles. Problems. They are to be accepted as an inevitable possibility in this world. However, the more we bias our thinking towards their positive, moral rectification, the less hard they can be for us and also for others. That's the wonder of philosophy. It does not only acknowledge our suffering. It seeks to heal us of our suffering, so we would be more ethical in our conduct, and resort less to hurt others, just to distract ourselves from our own pain. Recognizing faults is just part of problem solving. Lambasting ruthlessly isn't worth much when people are focused on being hurt and guilty and ashamed... when we can just learn. Understand where the other side is coming from, and make solving problems a habit. A habit as regular as walking itself. Choosing More-Positive Perceptions For a Better Future You might see problems as annoyances to escape from or to just live under in despair. When I see something that's hard, I don't use contradictory words like "however" or "but" when I address their difficulty. No. Difficulty is a great opportunity for us to grow. Therefore, we should embrace difficulty whenever we can. We should choose the hard ways of doing things, as long as they are not too risky for us. And this world, this humanity, as much, much growing to do, if it is really happiness it seeks, happiness and satisfaction beyond hedonistic pursuits. Joy that comes from strength, not from sources that diminish our health. Do you see how a change of perspective can make a very large difference in how we act? I see flaws as wonderful. They are either to be embraced or be used as opportunities to better ourselves. Why, then, must we succumb to the many flaws of this world as disheartening, when we can see them as giving us reason to live? Reason to help others, ourselves, and the world? Part II: A Philosophical And Ethical Examination of Capitalism The popularity of an idea can greatly diminish our understanding of its flaws, therefore making us more incompetent, unnecessarily, in being good problem solvers. In the contemporary era, the problem with capitalism is that it creates a huge gap between those who know how to make a fortune and those who have dedicated most of their lives to work. With time, this gap only grows, leading to the growth of injustice and all of what results from having one's feelings of injustice unanswered. When we lack a holistic approach, we diminish ourselves from solving our own problems, as after all not even the richest person, exactly lives in a vacuum. Why Harmony is More Important Than Competition To Keep Healthy By our own inability of being considerate of others, we diminish our own goals in life. As much as we were normalized to compete with each other, we must not forget the value of cooperation and harmony. Harmony allows us to rest peacefully, better knowing we don't have to be stressed to the point of distracting ourselves from sleep. Harmony allows us to embrace even complete strangers, such as our own neighbors, and avoid unnecessary wars with them. As you could tell, harmony is immensely hard to attain. That is because we were taught to compete, more than we learned to care for each other using compassion and empathy. We did not learn how to properly calm ourselves, hence why we constantly develop mental and physical illnesses, as well as find ourselves cornered in avoidable traumatic events. The Unnecessary Sacrifice Assumption The capitalistic approach is too simplistic in its logic. It does not consider enough other factors, other than getting wealthier and financially free. In favor of our individual freedoms, we allow ourselves to forget and discard the suffering of others. When we do this, we unnecessarily increase the darkness and the illness of this world. Yes, this world is very ill, unnecessarily so. Examine yourself and examine your dear ones. Are either of you completely healthy, without any medical or mental problems? No. Most likely not... We may call this being "colorful" or being "weird" and "eccentric". However, eccentric as we may be, embracing our eccentricities entirely can diminish us from realizing that we are, indeed, ill. Ill by life, not only by genetics. Ill by the environment. Ill by our own recklessness. Capitalism and Disability There are also those who have a harder time making money due to their disabilities, seen or unseen. Shaming them for their disability without further recognition of rectification, would only worsen their situation, and compel them towards greater illness, as their independence withers accordingly, and their own potential to help others, is diminished as well. Due to our focus on the present, not the future, the disabled are left them no option but to apply for welfare, and will not necessarily find themselves being able to do more than that. That is despite them, in theory, being capable of doing so, so much good in this world. I am only disabled because of society's inability to contain me. See how hard-working I really am with Philosocom. It's when I am alone when I prosper the best as a writer and as a thinker. Seeing others being helped by my articles, is how both our wellbeing are improved. Mutually. Harmoniously. And of course, harmony is minimized in capitalism. As we minimize harmony, we minimize morality and our health overall. A more-deep moral understanding can easily be linked to better health, at least in theory. How to Mitigate Capitalistic Harm To address these issues and create a more equitable society, we must consider the following reforms: Implement a Living Wage: A living wage ensures that workers earn enough to meet their basic needs for housing, food, hygiene, transportation, and running water. This would help to reduce poverty and ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living, and also overall health of societies. Strengthen Labor Unions: Unions give workers a collective voice and bargaining power, allowing them to negotiate for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This can help to reduce income inequality and improve the lives of working people. In the case of Dhar Mann studious, this case is evident. Expand Access to Education and Training: Education and training can help people develop the skills they need to secure better-paying jobs and advance themselves overall. This can help to reduce income inequality, as well as increase the pool of professional workers available on the job market. Invest in Social Safety Nets: Strong social safety nets, such as unemployment insurance, disability benefits, and affordable healthcare, can help to protect people from economic hardship and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities. I personally suggest to have the beneficiary be encouraged about still contributing to society. By implementing these reforms, we can create a more equitable society where more people can have the opportunity to achieve more of their inner potential, live fulfilling lives and improve society overall. Part III: The Rise of AI and the Future of Work The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) presents a profound challenge to the traditional labor market. As AI becomes increasingly capable of performing tasks once thought to be exclusively human, a new social class may emerge: The financially unnecessary people. These individuals, whose skills and abilities are surpassed by AI, will face significant economic challenges, as long as they would refuse working on improving themselves, first. Not only will AI replace basic, menial jobs, but it will also encroach on fields traditionally dominated by humans, such as medicine, and even security. This could lead to a substantial increase in the number of people who are unable to find profitable employment, leaving them needing governmental support or join the homeless. Working on yourself is how you can better attain success either way, alone or within an organization. Flaws are not to be embraced but to be reduced. While AI and art can be synthesized to improve art, such is not the case in areas where such collaboration does not apply. Agriculture could entirely be mechanized, along with production and distribution factories. Some even consider AI capable of replacing romantic partners. On Universal Basic Income To mitigate the potential social and economic consequences of AI displacement, governments and businesses must consider implementing a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI would provide a financial safety net for individuals who are unable to find work or whose wages are insufficient to meet their basic needs. This would help to prevent social unrest, the foundation of criminal syndicates, and ensure that everyone has access to the resources necessary to survive. It's often times that people do crimes just to survive, like theft and kidnapping for ransom. Either way, the transition to an AI-dominated economy will require significant adjustments on both a personal and societal level. Individuals may need to be prepared to give up some of their financial freedom and embrace new ways of working and living, regardless of their freedom of choice. That is the case with any technological advancement: Nothing is really certain Hence the increasing importance in investing in education, training, and social safety nets earlier on and not after innovations are fully implemented. We can, then, help to ensure a just and equitable future for all while reducing failure difficulties. Part IV: Ensuring Equality and Opportunities Regardless of the economic system or technological advancements, the equality of the law and of opportunities should be universal. Those born with one or more certain disadvantages should be supported to receive the same rights as everyone else. To promote and advance humanity's achievements, it is crucial to invest in education and other programs that enhance the quality of the human material. The more we invest in humans, the more we can save ourselves from ourselves. The more dependable, moral people we foster, the better we'll be able to dictate our own future by our own hands with less mistakes. When Forsaking "Corner people" Africa, the second-largest continent, still lags behind in terms of development. That is despite the untapped human potential there, capable of much help to people worldwide. Many Africans possess immense potential and could make significant contributions to various fields if they were given more opportunities, which we Westerners often take for granted. Conclusions As an autistic man and a hermit, I have been able to dedicate myself to philosophy in my entirety. The last thing I want is to be considered expendable to a world I can help. Despite my conditions I've been working hard to improve myself, so I would become more and more dependable, less and less dependant. The future should be in the hands of the dependable. The morally dependable, those who care for others more than their own self-serving interests. They should be able to see the bigger picture, and always be in a state of learning, as nothing in this world is certain. The more we refuse to improve ourselves because of our ignorant pride, the more we condemn ourselves to become victims of bad futures we want to avoid. Knowledge, discipline and moral integrity. They all should be maintained and developed as a matter of principle. The more we all do it, the more we can alter this future for the greater good.

(Background music) Introduction: Exploring Fictional Worlds Fiction is a type of imagination in which a narrated realm of reality exists in both our collective minds and the media on which the narration is told. What makes it separate from reality is the fact that the events described in the story never happened but were rather imagined to happen. It's like a trick, but one where we already know it's a trick, so it's not really deceiving anyone who can distinguish reality from fiction. We see fiction through the lenses of the characters in action, presented by actors whose moves are dictated by a director and by those who wrote the plot. If it's a story in a book, then we watch the happenings through the writer's narration, who might as well be narrating a character's voice instead. The Creator's Influence and Picking the Right Source It does not matter in that sense if the narration is in third person or otherwise, because that story cannot exist without its creator. Therefore, the fictional universe depends on its creator and cannot exist without the perspective he or she has placed on it. Therefore, all fiction is biased. The line between fictional information and factual accuracy can be blurry. While fiction offers valuable insights that spark discussion and contemplation, it's crucial to distinguish it from attempts to mimic real life. In a way, fiction can tell a lot about reality on the macro level, but not necessarily on the micro level. In other words, fiction can teach us a lot about existence, but not necessarily about specific contexts. Star Wars, for example, can teach us about politics and the human spirit that can be strong enough to bring down even the direst of oppression. However it does provide not an accurate representation of how space works, as the setting is not that important in Star Wars as what it can actually teach us about human society. As such, given that all fiction creators are ignorant to an extent (like all of us) learning about autism from a TV show focused on entertainment might not be the most reliable source. Maybe it can teach us a thing or two on life, like with the Big Bang Theory, but informative articles like these exist for a reason. As such, learning about autism from fictional characters like Sheldon Cooper isn't as effective as taking the time to read on it. Similarly, a fictionalized historical film, though inspired by a specific era, shouldn't be mistaken for a factual account. If you wish therefore to learn on history, rely on historic documents. As a former teenage author of three Hebrew novellas, I enjoyed the creative process, but even then, I questioned the real-world impact of fiction. Philosophy articles, I believed, offered a greater contribution to readers. As a bookworm, I often finished stories feeling intellectually unfulfilled. The narratives rarely encouraged independent thought, leading me to favor nonfiction as both a reader and writer. The virtue of nonfiction allows us to study reality both on the micro and macro levels, without the need to craft elaborate stories just to convey an otherwise direct insights. The Fallacy of Fictional "Facts" Some might believe fictional details mirror reality because they feel "true" and resonate with us. Some may even go far and claim that they can teach us "the art of being human" by nurturing social and emotional skills. However, while some elements, like tables, exist in both realms, fictional "facts" requiring verification can be mistaken for truth because they resonate with us. And pure intuition is not enough to verify facts on reality, both on the micro and macro levels. As such, making good decisions require both understanding of data and intuition. Philosophy, unlike pure fact-based disciplines, explores possibilities, leading to shared discourse and experimentation. Plato's theory of perfect forms, for example, is a valid theory based on reasoning, but not a verifiable fact. We can contemplate it without accepting it as absolute truth, leading to contributions in our understanding of metaphysics. Fiction, however, might not offer the same clear distinction between its presented information and verifiable facts. That at least goes for historic fiction, and to people who generally don't research information. They might see a show where a character says, "Geniuses need to eat more", and believe it's true. However, in reality, while challenging thinking does consume more calories, it isn't that significant that you'll need to eat more. The Misunderstood Power of Fiction The purpose of fiction is mainly to entertain. Video games, for example, immerse us in fantastical worlds, and very few of them are educational, as there are far more popular genres. We can extract interesting ideas and concepts from them, but mistaking them for verified facts without verification is a common pitfall. It's like saying they can teach you how to drive or shoot a gun strategically. This blurring-of-lines between fiction and reality extends beyond video games. Consider pornography – its purpose is to create a sexual fantasy, not replicate real-life encounters. The actors involved are playing roles, just like characters in a movie. Don't expect pornography to teach you what women truly want. Thus, viewers may unconsciously treat these experiences as windows into real life, blurring the lines between entertainment and reality. The Fallacy of Fictional Facts So, why do people fall prey to this fallacy? Often, there's an absence of disclaimers within fictional media and in content in general. That is even though using disclaimers can be beneficial for your readers to trust you and see you as credible. Without clear boundaries, viewers may misinterpret fictional traits as factual. It's a human tendency – we sometimes struggle to reach seemingly obvious conclusions that could help us in our goals. We might crave a guiding hand, an authorial voice shaping our understanding, making education not entirely forced. After all, being more educated can lead to a better life in general and of course to a better understanding. Without specific ways to understand the author, a misinterpretation of the author's intent might delude us. Deconstructing Narratives Why do people need to be told what to think? Why can't they reach the correct conclusions based on the information presented? The answer lies in the power of narratives. Fiction, even when presented as pure entertainment, can shape our perception of reality. We often fail to recognize the inherent subjectivity embedded into seemingly objective narrative. After all, every story is ultimately crafted by one or a few creators, who are of course biased by default in one way or another. Propaganda in Disguise: The Case of Minorities This confusion extends beyond pure entertainment. Even well-meaning fiction can be a form of propaganda, shaping our understanding of specific groups, like minorities. While such portrayals might seem positive on the surface, they may reinforce stereotypes or fail to capture the full complexity of a group's experience. This good intention can ironically lead to prejudice, negative self-image and even under-achievement when the representation is stereotypical and not realistic. Again, why not learn from the real example, as presented with the study of history? Conclusion: Precision as a Tool for Clarity As a writer, striving for precision is crucial. By dissecting narratives and recognizing their inherent biases, we can become more discerning consumers of information, both factual and fictional. Ultimately, clear communication can allow critical thinking, allowing us to move beyond the surface better, and grasp the deeper messages of any media, both fictional and non-fictional. We should strive for a better communication even beyond media, as that can eliminate delusions of subtext and improve our relationships with others by understanding them better.

(Background music) If logic were an entity, It couldn't care less for your Sentimentality. It would have a cold and ruthless Mentality. And would judge everything and everyone By rationality. It would deem anything As conditional, Discern what is necessary, And be more dimensional, Only if it serves understanding, Through the rationale. It wouldn't care how things, Make you feel, It would not try too much To appeal. If A leads to B, And B is result of A, It does not matter, If you approve or protest With yay or nay. Your happiness or your anger, Or excessive information you give, Does not matter even with your temper. So it will say: "I don't care. It doesn't matter". Don't expect reality to forgive, Because reality is built on logic, Not on post-truth. Expecting logic to care for unrelated or contradictory things, Is quite moronic. Is it its fault you gave it, Content that is unrelated? No. It's irrelevant, So there is no reason to care. Whine about how not nice it was. Whine if you dare, And see how logic is only irritated, When you assign a problem, Whose burden is not her to be eliminated. Fail to solve your emotional problems, And they will only stay there And cloud your judgement. Expect others to carry this punishment, And you'll have more suffering to spare. If A is B and B is C, Then A is C And that's all there is to see. How A made you feel, And how B made you think, And how C made you imagine pink, Doesn't matter much, If for truth it doesn't aim to punch. There is no need to whine, In front of reality, Take care of yourselves, Because reality might just be, Well and fine.

Alex Mos's Synopsis A good philosopher shares fearless insights in public with the risk of being ridiculed and rejected. You shouldn't feel intimidated by more sensitive people, triggered by your thoughts. Some might incorrectly interpret a disagreement with you as an attack, and people with PTSD are likelier to feel threatened. A good philosopher must risk social exclusion or hatred due to their insights. Refrain from compromising to please others if your ideas are controversial. The focus of philosophy is the search for truth, not fame or social status. You might become a social reject and consider living in solitude. However, you should not be afraid to share your thoughts widely, interact with others, and contribute to humanity. Therefore, a good philosopher can't be oversensitive and must be prepared to get hurt. You might be unable to change the world, but you can still leave a mark on it. The author doesn't expect anybody to agree with him but asks for respectful feedback as his work doesn't purposely harm anybody or violate any rules. (Background music) Being a philosopher takes a greater risk than one might realize. To be a good philosopher, you must not be afraid to sound your thoughts publicly, and you must also be prepared for the consequences of sounding your thoughts and beliefs. Not everyone is going to like you, specifically due to your conclusions and insights, and at times you might not be liked at all, and even be hated by others. Due to their personal reasons, some people are going to get triggered by your thoughts as well. Nonetheless, you must not let these consequences stop you, for you have the right to express yourself and sound your voice even if your voice will not be liked or widely accepted. As long as you have the right to express yourself, you shouldn't fear using this right at all. The existence of the more-sensitive shouldn't intimidate you, either. At times your philosophy might even be controversial or radical in the eyes of others, but in the name of contributing to the world's knowledge, you must not give up just because you'll be mocked, laughed at, or ridiculed. Not everyone is okay with disagreeing, and not everyone will tolerate your thoughts. Some will even be triggered and take offense, whether or not the offense was given or even intended in the first place. That's because disagreement may be seen by many as a threat because our brains may take the impression of a disagreement as an "attack". Some people will be mad at you for having different priorities and might even actively be trying to dispose or reject you from a social circle, as your constant disagreement may be seen as an attack even though it really isn't... In general, people with PTSD may already rarely, if ever, feel safe. In October 2021, the world-scale prevalence of PTSD in the world population is 3.9%. This means that at least 200-400 million people are likely to feel threatened by even the smallest of things. (As someone who suffers from trauma myself, I use logic to look beyond my irrational feelings, and thus I am not as intimidated as other people who would suffer from my conditions). Therefore, in order to be a good and effective philosopher, you must take the Social Risk, even if that risk might unintentionally harm others, due to past, personal events unrelated to yourself. It's their own responsibility to face them, not yours. A site called Lawinsider.com defines "Social Risk" as: "Factors and circumstances leading to social exclusion of persons or putting persons at risk of social exclusion" In other words, a good philosopher is best to be prepared for rejection by anyone due to their own insights. That's because philosophy isn't about fun or about respect or about being accepted (as was the case with Diogenes). It is about trying to find and research the truth. If you're not a private person, it is also about sharing what you believe to be the truth, and suffer the consequences. Be prepared to be disliked, hated and even despised, even in a democratic country or community. Don't expect your ideas to be accepted by anyone, and you will be the least disappointed among many. The more you're prepared for any type of reception, the less hurt you might get as a result. You must not change your ideas just because they're not accepted or controversial. Philosophy doesn't work that way, as it doesn't submit to conformity just because others think otherwise. A general controversy is insufficient for that because a good philosopher doesn't compromise to please others. Instead, a good philosopher would alter their philosophy only because it's illogical/incorrect. We philosophers do not act according to the ad-populum fallacy. In other words, the truth isn't a product of a popularity contest. Popularity may apply in democratic elections, but the support of many does not preserve or alter reality alone. Likewise, I don't expect anyone to think like me, agree with me, nor be nice to me due to my thoughts. Other than respectful feedback I don't demand much of you. I can't control others' reactions in general, and whenever I write something, like an article, I never know how it will result upon reception. However, I still publish articles and post consistently, despite not knowing how they will be received by those who read them. With every piece I publish I risk how others will look at me currently. Some readers will stay, some readers will leave. Some will believe they have the authority to tell me what to do and how to behave, even though I am a free citizen, and this website is mine, and can act as I please as long as I don't break any law. A good philosopher will not expect to be liked and won't necessarily think they deserve respect for being philosophers. They will look at others, who might receive much more support and adoration than they do, and move on with their life and work. The point of philosophy isn't to make a philosopher famous or popular, but simply to reach possible truths, using contemplation and other means such as research. This field isn't at all about social status, and due to its inconsideration to social norms, some people might see some philosophers as offensive, audacious, aggressive and so on. Don't be intimidated when someone is angry at you for thinking otherwise. It's their right to react however they like to your content, and if you want, you can block them if they harass you as a result. Just consider the possibility of becoming a social reject, as a result of your work. And still, fear is your enemy, it's something that can prevent you from sounding your voice and publishing your work, and in general, make you give up on activities that can bring much good and benefit to this world, even after your death (hence the importance of heritage). In some cases, you might consider getting used to solitude when being a philosopher, just like I did. You should at least consider the social risks that come with being a philosopher, and I'm talking not about the role itself, but the way your specific work would make others react to it and to you (for example, you might be regarded as arrogant, for the stereotype alone). Even if you're nice, even if you're polite and kind, some people can still react to you in a way that is beyond your control, whether or not you're an autist like I am. This isn't whining but just how life is when being very vocal about your opinions and thoughts. The fact that you sound your thoughts also entails that others may comment on them. This is why those who want to be philosophers, should reconsider, if they are not prepared enough to be hurt by others. No, not physically necessarily, but emotionally and mentally. Philosophership isn't for those who are overly-sensitive. The more cowardly you are, the less exposure your thoughts might get. Therefore, even if you're a solitary person, you should consider compromising some of your solitude if you want to extend your sphere of influence and contribute far more to humanity. It also means talking or writing to strangers whom you don't know and who can hurt you in the ways I just mentioned. Your fears are in the way. You yourself, a truth seeker, have responsibilities of your own as a good philosopher: You should accept criticism professionally and allow some kind of feedback. That's because your critics could be truer than you are, and as a result, you can use their feedback to be a better philosopher. It's your right, of course, to tell people what kind of comments you want, but don't expect the world to entirely submit to your will. The world doesn't work that way, and some people would gladly "eat you alive" if there's something you wrote that they didn't like. Remember that in public, there may be psychopaths and sociopaths without you even knowing you're talking with ones. ASPD is more multifaceted than one might think. Do not expect strangers to give you empathy. Finally, philosophy is like politics in a sense that it's very difficult to find complete agreement with anything. Be prepared for people to be angry at you for thinking differently than they do. You can't necessarily change the world, but you can still be brave enough to leave a mark on it, to leave your voice. An extra note: I've been philosophizing since I was 18, in 2015, when I published my first book. I received positive feedback as I received negative feedback throughout the years. Nonetheless, I refuse none to get in my way, when my philosophizing does not purposefully nor voluntarily, harm anyone, in any way. I believe that no one can stop me as long as my work is legitimate and does not violate any rules. And as I said before, I don't expect any one to think like me, and I never claimed that I "know everything". Omniscience is a ridiculous notion when applied to reality (to a human being, at least). Thank you for your reading time. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Review At what point do philosophers go from social rejection to social acceptance? Look at all the great philosophers throughout history. Were they socially rejected when they were alive? Does this mean the issue is with philosophers being ahead of their time? [It could mean that] what they have to say will only be important in the future. There is a certain danger in philosophy which comes from people’s political stances. If you have any idea which contradicts what their party believes then all your content will be looked at the same way. [Philosophers] should consider writing a piece on politics. I think [Mr. Tomasio's article] goes back to political philosophy. That area is fascinating. That and the area of philosophy which deals with knowledge and how to best gain it.

(Philosocom's Directory on Heroism) (Philosocom's Directory on Narcissism) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Synopsis of the game in question) (Background music) ***************************** The Narcissistic Mirage: A Path to Self-Discovery The idea for this specific article came from a refreshing, although bittersweet, sting of sadness. It was after reaching a deep insight that I finally understood why I might have been perceived as narcissistic myself. For that impression, I offer my sincerest apologies. I am committed to learning from my past lack of awareness and evolving my perspective. In retrospective I can understand why people do not like narcissists, let alone being in a relationship with them. So in this article I'd like to extract some insights from a certain figure. These insights stemmed from a particular character in my childhood. Due to my limited English skills at the time and the absence of translations, I believe I've only grasped the concept of a narcissistic mind only in recent years. The narcissist, I now realize, is not merely an egomaniac. They live in a constant state of anxiety, haunted by the unconscious fear of not being good enough, and even under self-hatred. To counter this internal struggle, they construct a delusional sense of self-admiration. Unable to face their own vulnerability, they seek validation and external reinforcement through substitutes. These substitutes can manifest in various forms: cults, fan bases, or positions of power. You might find yourself admiring them, but remember, that persona may be a carefully crafted mirage, designed to deceive both others and themselves. Narcissus' Leftover: Captain Qwark and the Illusion of Heroism The age-old saying "fight fire with fire" takes on a twisted meaning when pitted against a narcissist. After all, if they weave another display of vanity, can't you simply counter with your own exaggerated fabrications? In this realm of mirrored delusions, however, lies a trap: feeding the narcissist's echo chamber only strengthens their distorted self-perception. Today, we dissect a curious case: Captain Qwark, the sci-fi embodiment of Narcissus, from the "Ratchet and Clank" franchise. In "Going Commando", we encounter Qwark, a master manipulator, who stole the identity of a CEO of the galaxy-spanning Megacorp, which doubles as the galactic government (otherwise known as a corporatocracy). His path to redemption after a self-inflicted scandal is paved with a morally-disgusting plan: unleash an dangerous, genetically-designed pets to the galaxy, then swoop in with his "flashlight of justice" (his actual words!) to vanquish the threat he himself created. This calculated chaos, he hopes, will earn him a loyal fanbase of admirers in a new galaxy. This genetically engineered "pet" called the Protopet, which instead of bringing profit, unleashed devastation across the cosmos. Entire populations were decimated by this release, all so those who are left will admire their new savior -- Captain Qwark. A true hero wouldn't need to create threats to inflate their ego. Yet, Qwark, consumed by his hollow need for admiration, does not mind sacrificing countless lives for his own narcissistic ambitions. See how an entire galaxy became a victim of narcissistic abuse. However, his grand plan is revealed, as it inevitably does, due to his own hubris. The "flashlight of justice" metaphors backfires. A monstrous protopet, serving as the final boss of that game, ultimately devours him in a fittingly poetic end, only to spit him out and let him be punished by the CEO whose identity he stole. While the true heroes were initially drawn to the flashy image of Qwark, his downfall revealed a different truth. They, Ratchet and Clank, the ordinary folks, no longer admire the figure they once idolized in their naivety, but surpass him by the virtue of saving lives for saving's sake. With a certain device properly charged, the remaining Protopets were subdued, and Qwark faced the consequences of his narcissistic rampage. Learning from Captain Qwark's Inflated Ego What wisdom can we learn from this buffoon? Firstly, a dose of good: not all narcissists are masterminds, some are, thankfully, idiots. This shows us how idiocy can technically be a good thing, when it has the power to negate evitable harm. Secondly, the yearning for approval, while natural, cannot really justify any bloodshed. From this we can learn that not every end justifies the means. If you require the deaths of plenty just to feel validated, as part of an elaborate scheme, maybe you should look for other ways to gain the validation you're so thirsty for. Thirdly, a touch of strategic foresight wouldn't hurt anyone (unless you intend to?). But should we really sharpen the tools of a dangerous mind? Perhaps not, as that can hurt us in the long run, hence why we shouldn't interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake, as Napoleon Boneparte once said.  Finally, and most importantly, humility might just be the missing piece. It could save you and countless others from regrets due to the same result problem. In other words, you can get the confidence you want without making such schemes that involve the exploitation and manipulation of others. And for that to occur we need to seek less external validation, and more self appreciation, as independent of approval. So, yes, a dose of humility feels refreshing right now. The pursuit of external validation, I realize, holds less value than I once thought. Why? Because the quest for it can create so much unnecessary suffering for both you and others. And it can be prevented by developing self-esteem from within, which in return negates the need for vanity.

(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) Summary by Anonymous The article explores the concept of a metaphorical "matrix" representing the shared reality shaped by communication and social interaction. Mr. Nathan argues that people are immersed in this matrix of digital content and social perception. Our sense of self is influenced by how we present ourselves and how others perceive us. Success and fulfillment come from understanding how this matrix functions. By strategically communicating and taking actions that resonate with others, we can build a positive external self and achieve our goals. Mr. Nathan emphasizes the importance of taking action and putting yourself "out there" to establish a place in the matrix. This can be achieved through self-expression, marketing, and creating value for others. The article concludes by highlighting the power of emotions and communication in shaping our shared reality. The choices we make and the information we share contribute to the collective "matrix" we all inhabit. (Nathan Lasher's Articles) (Background music) Much like in the movie "the matrix" people are tapping into a virtual world of content. Endless supplies of content made readily available by the internet. But where does this content come from? I shall voyage into the depths of my mind and try to come up with a philosophy on where content comes from. Certain content is powerful enough to invoke emotions in people. I had a sort of existential crisis going on a little bit ago. I couldn’t quite figure out how to express my intelligence. I’m 35 years old and for most of my life I had only seen random expressions of it. So to me higher intelligence, thanks to negative reinforcement from adults, was something I only randomly experienced. Usually directed towards something I wasn’t meant to be focused on.  The point I am trying to make is that the matrix is real. People are immersed in the matrix of digital content. Many people’s lives revolve around content they have experienced. Content is the thing which adds value to people's lives. Sadly, many people are judged by the content that they produce. In a world of cancel culture, a world of "scared selves" exist. People are too worried about the preferable self that exists. People do not "exist". Only the "them" other people talk about is how many view themselves.  So, how does one discard the stigma of cancel culture and protect the well-known self which exists because it exists in other people's minds? It stands to reason to ask this question to yourself. If you were to pass from this existence tomorrow, how much evidence of yourself will still exist? Is your self "plugged" into the matrix in an effective way? Or are you a hermit who leaves no trace of an existence? Content is a way we can transform ourselves from a person of self to a person for the self. I don’t mean to be greedy when I say that. On the contrary, what are you sending out into the world? We exist because we conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of being remembered. In my instance, I am understanding sociality without having spent a day studying it. So, I am realizing that different selves exist. You have the cognitive self, much like reality, is the person you appear as to yourself. Then you have the external self which is how people see you. Don’t worry about this concept so much. Your external self becomes a worry wart by doing so. You become too worried about the wrong things. Worry is a construct created in people’s minds to determine how someone feels about something. If something has much value to something than they will worry more. There is an illusion that the way that we feel about something is the value we place on that thing. You will see an activity and think of a particular person based upon past experiences doing similar things. You don’t even have to try and think about that person. They sort of just automatically pop into your mind. This is the external "them" that they are seeing.  The moral of the story is your internal self is one you express with words to yourself. It's also known as how you see yourself versus your external self or how other people see you. Because you thought of the activity you are filled with emotions about it you are drawn to think about those people who create a similar emotion for you. A brief look into the idea of herd mentality. It is a result of similar emotions being attracted to each other. Simple as that. Your brain is trying to feel a certain way and that person ends up making you feel that way. That is the emotion matrix created among friends. When you're with that person your entire world becomes a momentary emotional reality. You might experience a feeling of euphoria because that person reminds you of something pleasant. That is the basis of the matrix we are all in. A matrix which is a resemblance of our actions.  The important thing you need to know about the matrix is you have more control over it than you know. Much like the main characters move around in it in the movie. If you want to see changes in your reality (matrix), simply go do an action which will warrant the appropriate response. Making money is easy when you understand the matrix people are plugged into through years of genetic delusion. The generations have used less and less of their brains. Think about it from a childhood perspective: You used to use your imagination to change the world around you. Yet, that is one expression of intelligence which adults have learned to use less and less and get children to as well.  When will people realize that they have more control over the matrix than they think? Making money for instance is easy. You must just find that one thing which people are willing to spend money letting them do as well. The start of an empire within the matrix is learned by tapping into this. You start by getting people to sponsor and support you. As you hold more dominance in the matrix, a distinction of how the general populace sees your external self, meaning how many people know you exist. The more attention leading to more sponsorship. If you want to know the secret to why businesses fail most of the time: Either they are trying to fix a need people don’t find important, or they did a horrible job marketing and making sure people were aware of it. Does a cave full of buried treasure still exist if nobody is aware of it? No. It "becomes real" by the story telling people do.  Through writing, I ensure my external self exists beyond my physical life. Not to mention, the potential which exists for my external self by putting myself out there. The secret to the matrix is that in order to create change in it action must be taken. Whether we exist in a simulation or a far stranger reality isn’t a matter of concern. These philosophical truths exist regardless of the reality. Humans are pathological creatures meaning they are quick to change their own cognitive realities in order to fit their needs. They have guarded feelings of "how reality must exist". If anyone goes against it, they are deemed "an assailant". What happens when a person becomes an assailant? They are deemed a hostile entity which you begin to feel guarded towards.  My journey has led to some fundamental truths and I am using myself as a proof of concept for them. Be the change you want to see in the world and a beautiful life awaits you. A dive into the law of attraction is that when you think about certain positive things you start to create a positive vibe. That vibe has fundamental physical aspects where people of similar nature are drawn towards each other. A basic example is that, if someone wants to be a more social person, does deciding to be or not be really make them so? The answer is yes, actions dictate our reality. Business owners understand how the matrix works. Big business secret: they don’t tell you about what it takes for success. You must supply a need or want which people are willing to spend money towards. That, and people must be aware that it is an action you specialize in. The big secret to business success is the importance of building a customer base. Businesses live and die by the presence of their external selves. You can have the greatest product in the world and cognitively might believe it could help so many people. You wonder why you didn’t succeed. You failed to tap into the matrix and earn your place in it. Your business succeeds by people being aware that it meets a certain need or want. With wants you need to communicate that you do it better than the rest of your competition. People might just think pizza on a Friday night, but as far as where they go will depend upon their preferences. You learn to become a part of someone’s preference when you make them aware of your existence.  This is what the matrix teaches us: The collective consciousness is impacted when we take actions to change it. It becomes collective by multiple people having it a part of their own cognitive reality. Instead of simply pizza, you now crave a certain place on Friday nights. All because somewhere they originally found out about it. This is what tapping into the matrix is. It is simply putting yourself out there in a greater sense than just yourself. Use this article for instance. It is me tapping into the matrix of reality by putting myself out there with my words. You’ve all used the expression using the system. What if these people were all right? Learn to work the matrix to your benefit. I am not a socialist by any means but I do gain some benefit from social welfare. See how the matrix can be wonderful when you figure out how to change it for your benefit. Much as the heroes did in the movie when they went back into it. Just remember that each and every day when you go out into the world you are tapping into a custom tailored version of a matrix. Want to see the ripple effect of an action? Make one basic change to something that is regular and see how many people aren’t thrown off by this. Imagine this thought experiment. A billionaire with time to kill buys a gas station and runs it as is for about a year. Then, he decides to swap all the pumps so they are going in the opposite direction. See how messy it gets in the parking lot. What is this matrix I speak of? It is the matrix of life that is happening all around us. That is the source code of the matrix: Communication and spreading of knowledge.  Success comes from discovering the matrix I speak of. Understanding the power of marketing your way into people's cognitive realities. You could build the next big thing and it will die with you all because you never shared it with the rest of the matrix. People are attracted towards new things. Word of mouth is the primary way that information gets spread throughout the matrix. I’m talking about the matrix as an allegory. What it teaches us is the power we hold when we tap into the matrix of life. It isn’t very surprising, that people don’t understand what the secret to life is: It is about making yourself as as expansive as possible, thus turning you from a person to a concept. Concepts are the dangerous part of today's society. Cancel culture runs the risk of a concept being banned. This is when your external self suffers personal damage. This damage isn’t physical but more in a "verb sense". Your external self can be tarnished by one simple action. This leads to my next thought: How a person can tap into the matrix? Emotions are the currency of the matrix. You command authority when you command control over people’s emotions. It is the language of the matrix. Anything can be done if you have a good enough reason for doing it. To more fully understand the matrix as a concept I am referring to it as one simply has to imagine the matrix as all actions happening around you at any given point. I hope to one day use this understanding for good. Not quite sure how the emotional aspect of the matrix works out. I could use it for evil means or I could use it for good. I want to use it for good, but humans are complex creatures and I am afraid there are few people out there with enough vision to see my sights. Nobody's life is mapped out in ink. Only you decide what future generations will say about you. My hopes are to get enough attention that my insights are shared in future generations' history.  Will people be aware of your actions? Will they have any impact on anyone else’s life? That is the purpose of life. To impact as many people as you can so what you know can live on for years past your passing. The more people who are aware of the action you take the more territory your external self resides in. You become a person that person will think about whenever the need arises. That is because you tapped into the matrix to make sure people were aware of your existence. It's amazing what tapping into the matrix can do for you. Go out and find actions which are the actions of a person you want to become.

(Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) Introduction Via Mr. John Duran's Quote: "My fellow writers, do not concern yourselves with AI taking over legitimately human artistic works. In the dance of logic and life, AI is a creation of pure calculation, bound by the elegant but unyielding architecture of logic gates. It is a construct of precision, where each decision is a cascade of binary choices, a realm where ambiguity and irrationality have no foothold. Yet, true consciousness—our ancient and enigmatic companion—emerges not from the sterile corridors of logic but from the primordial depths of sensation, intuition, and emotion. Millennia ago, before reason carved its path through the wilderness of the mind, consciousness stirred, a flicker born of chaos and feeling, not calculation. AI, with all its dazzling mimicry, remains tethered to its logical core, unable to cross the chasm between mere processing and the profound experience of being. It can simulate conversation, echo our words, and mirror our actions, but it does so without the spark of awareness that breathes life into our thoughts. It has no real senses and no feelings. The heart of consciousness beats in rhythms that defy logic, in the irrational, the emotional, and the deeply personal. Until the day when AI can transcend its own logical boundaries, embracing the wild, unpredictable currents of sensation and intuition, it will remain a reflection, a shadow of consciousness—remarkable, but ever incomplete. Therefore our creations remain safe, for the moment. " The Fluid Nature of Art Art is perhaps the most expressive and subjective form of communication. Whether through painting, sculpture, music, or literature, it provides a canvas for both profound insights and wild imagination. Unlike many other forms of human endeavor, art often transcends the constraints of logic and necessity. For example, abstract art can reject the traditional rules of perspective, representation, or even discernible meaning, yet still evoke an emotional or intellectual response. The purpose of art is not always to conform to logical expectations but rather to explore a broader range of human experiences. Art, in many ways, reveals the paradox of human existence. We seek meaning in the world, yet art often asks us to confront the meaningless or the absurd. It reflects existentialist themes as seen in works that reject traditional forms of coherence, challenging the viewer or reader to find significance in what may appear nonsensical. This duality makes art both powerful and uncanny, as seen in the example of horror fanfiction, which deviates non-horror media into baffling eccentricity and disturbance in creative ways. The Role of Imagination and Logic in Art While art can exist outside of logic, the realm of fiction remains an interesting exception. After all, storytelling requires a balance between imagination and internal coherence. This coherence might be unique to the respective work of fiction. For instance, the work can involve fantastical elements, but it must remain consistent within the world it builds. This is seen in the game Final Fantasy 6, with its absurdist, genocidal villain, Lord Kefka. This need for internal logic is what separates effective world-building from utterly-illogical storytelling. If a narrative lacks structure, the audience's interest can break down, leading to plot holes and narrative inconsistencies. It can also make them feel they are wasting their time. One only has to look at works like Tolkien’s Middle-earth or The Suikoden World to see how imagination can be grounded to internal, human-devised logic. These worlds, while entirely fictional, are grounded in a set of rules that guide their operations. As one could deduce, the importance of rules goes beyond the mere control on a society. Without such rules, the reader would find the stories confusing and ultimately unsatisfactory. This demonstrates that while art can flirt with nonsense, fiction, as an art form, demands a certain adherence to structure. In contrast, much of modern visual art has departed from this need for coherence. Paintings like Kazimir Malevich’s 'Black Square' or installations like Marcel Duchamp’s 'Fountain' reject what many would consider to be notions of beauty. They confront viewers with the absurd, pushing them to question the very definitions of art itself. While some would argue that this elevates the intellectual dialogue around art, along with the critique of art itself, others may see it as reducing art to mere provocation without depth (AKA superficiality). Art and Its Therapeutic Benefits While art may not always serve a logical purpose, its value cannot be dismissed purely on that basis. Therefore, logic by itself is not always enough as a tool for knowledge. One of the most profound impacts of art is its ability to facilitate emotional expression and healing. Art therapy is a well-recognized form of treatment, helping individuals process emotions and experiences that are difficult to articulate verbally. Through the act of creation, individuals can explore their inner worlds and communicate feelings that may be too complex or painful to express in words. In this context, art transcends its aesthetic value, becoming a tool for psychological healing. This form of art doesn’t require logic or rationality—it requires authenticity. Whether the art produced is nonsensical or abstract, its value lies in the therapeutic process rather than in any external meaning or utility. The Shift Towards Digital Art and Accessibility With the rise of the internet, art has become more accessible than ever before. No longer confined to galleries or museums, digital platforms like DeviantArt and Behance allow artists to share their work with global audiences instantly. This democratization of art, seen in the world of cinema as well, has been both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it provides a platform for diverse voices and styles that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. On the other hand, it raises questions about the value of art in an age of excessiveness. Digital art platforms showcase a staggering amount of work—so much so that it becomes difficult to discern quality amidst quantity. The question then arises: in an age where art is so readily available, does it still hold the same cultural weight? When anyone with a smartphone can create and share their work, the lines between masterful artistry and hobbyist creation become blurred. Some argue that this is the natural evolution of art, while others contend that it devalues the very concept of artistic mastery. Exploring platforms like Creative Bloq can provide insights into how digital tools are shaping the future of art. The Problem of Interpretation in Art Art, as a form of communication, often thrives on its ambiguity. A single painting or sculpture can evoke countless interpretations, each influenced by the viewer’s personal experiences and perceptions. Take, for instance, Yves Klein’s monochromatic works or Barnett Newman’s color field paintings. To some, these are profound expressions of emotion, while to others, they seem little more than blocks of color with no discernible meaning. This ambiguity is both a strength and a weakness. While it allows for a wide range of interpretations, it also raises the question of whether art must communicate something specific or whether its value lies solely in its ability to evoke a reaction. The Role of Art in Society: Aesthetic or Functional? Art's role in society often swings between two poles: the aesthetic and the functional. On the one hand, art is a celebration of beauty, creativity, and the great. It serves no practical purpose other than to evoke emotion, challenge perspectives, or offer a moment of reflection. On the other hand, certain forms of art—such as branding or graphic design —are deeply rooted in functionality. Logos, flags, and symbols are all essential for building identity and recognition, whether for a corporation, a nation, an individual and even to a philosophy. This dichotomy raises the question of whether art can retain its purity in a world where functionality often trumps aesthetic value. The commercialization of art has led to the rise of art as a product of consumerism, where artists create not for the sake of expression, but for the demands of the market. In this sense, art becomes an item like any other. In this financial regard, its value is determined by its marketability rather than its intrinsic beauty or meaning. Entertainment and Graphics Movies and video games require art and graphics for visual appeal, but visuals alone do not define the quality of a piece... Take, for instance, The Rise of Skywalker, Star Wars' Episode 9. Despite stunning special effects and visual prowess, the film was poorly received due to its narrative shortcomings. That was along with the rest of the Disney's Sequel trilogy. This illustrates how art, in isolation, doesn’t guarantee success. A deeper look at visual culture in cinema highlights the balance needed between visual and narrative elements to create impactful entertainment. Similarly, Game Developers may explore how art and storytelling intertwine to enhance the gaming experience. Conclusion: The Future of Art in a World Focused on Logic While art undoubtedly has its merits, its role seems limited when it fails to serve a clear function. Beyond branding or communicating a message, it often feels ornamental, therefore not of much worth. Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate the necessity of certain professions and forms of art in our modern society. As we move forward, recognizing the difference between artistic creativity and functional purpose will allow us to better understand the evolving nature of art. Exploring the future of art in the modern world can provide further feedback.

(Extra, internal material: https://www.philosocom.com/post/if-politicians-were-philosophers-by-mr-igal-shenderey https://www.philosocom.com/post/plato-s-republic-through-the-lens-of-morrowind-an-rpg-a-guest-post-by-mr-bryan-michaels ) (Subcategory Directory: The Colour Paradox -- The Flaw of Human Logic -- How Synthesis Is Key For Greater Understanding The Conqueror's Flaw -- Philosophy's Main Villain (Poem) The Flawed Philosophy of the Hero (And What Can Be Learned From It) Insights On Racism -- Why It's a Flawed Trait For Any Perspective/Philosophy The Indefinite Flaw -- The Philosophy of "Tikkun" (תיקון) The Flawed Philosophy of "Free to Play" -- The Contemporary Casino The Flaws of Human Nature -- How To Universally Understand Humanity Insights On Racism -- Why It's a Flawed Trait For Any Perspective/Philosophy Contemplations on Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" Pretentiousness In Norms -- Norms As a Flawed Philosophy to Live By https://www.philosocom.com/post/world-peace) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) Article Synopsis by J. Igwe and Co. The article "Flaws in Plato's Philosopher King Idea and How They Fail" is an engaging critique of Plato's famous political theory, "The Republic." The philosopher presents a range of criticisms against Plato's philosopher-king concept, covering various angles such as power dynamics, potential for corruption, democratic values, and practical challenges like succession and the definition of a philosopher. The article uses clear, conversational language and direct points to make it accessible to a broad audience, making complex ideas more digestible. The article also questions the foundational assumptions of Plato's theory, asking whether philosophy itself necessarily equips one for governance or whether a child philosopher could rule effectively. This helps to demystify Plato's argument and challenge its underlying premises. The engaging style of the article adds a lively and engaging quality to the text, keeping the reader interested and prompting them to reflect on the points made. Overall, the article offers a compelling and thought-provoking critique of Plato's philosopher-king idea, challenging its practical and ethical implications. Contemplating Plato's idea of the philosopher king, I came up with my own points of critique simply by improvising how Plato's "utopia" would be if it were to be applied to reality, and how unnecessarily problematic it can get. 1. Plato was a philosopher, and he claimed that philosophers should be at the top of the political structure and government. This makes me wonder if Plato was just or simply wished for more power in his hands by abusing the fact that he was a well-known and respected philosopher. Perhaps if philosophy was not as relevant as it was back then in the eyes of many, proposing a self-advocating idea might have been met with either controversy or mockery. Imagine a jester doing the same thing to get what I mean. 2. Plato's political theory is not democratic. Only philosophers could be in the head of the state. The rationale is that the philosopher king would be a benevolent dictator, and that democracy can lead to the rule of the unfit. If you are not a philosopher, you are unfit to lead by Plato's standards. If you are a mere soldier or a farmer, you will likely remain one until the end of your life, and that office will not be available for your children to run to, unless they will be recognized as philosophers. Only if you are a philosopher can you apply to be the leader of the nation. Additionally, there would need to be a proper definition of who is a philosopher and who is not, to avoid breach or confusion in the law. 3. Philosophers in the top of the hierarchy could be tempted to use their great power and status for bad and become corrupted. Just because you are a philosopher does not make you immune to the temptation of corruption and injustice. Everyone is prone to temptation, after all. Power can tempt regardless of one's resolve. 4. Just because you are a philosopher does not make you excellent in managing an entire country. Philosophy is more than just politics, but about various fields that do not necessarily have anything to do with politics. I am myself a philosopher, and I have no interest in politics practically (unless we consider Philosocom to be a "virtual dictatorship"). Outside of the virtual realm, I would probably be an unsuccessful monarch because of my lack of experience. Even children, in my opinion, can be considered philosophers. Some may even claim that every child is a philosopher. However, it is unlikely that they would lead a country successfully, even if they are philosophers. Would you trust a child to lead your country, even if you support Plato's "Philosopher King"? I assume you wouldn't. 5. One of the temptations a philosopher may have is the temptation to create a cult out of their ideas. Pythagoras is an example of a Greek philosopher who created what I assume was a cult out of his philosophy, and gained powers in the eyes of others that the philosopher did not necessarily have in possession. Combine this power with political power, and you might create an oppressive, undemocratic theocracy, which is a regime that is made mostly out of religion and its rules. This is dangerous because it may lack the freedom of thought that philosophers generally enjoy, thus leading to a state of deception and blind faith, which is immoral as it allows power to grow corrupt. 6. Another problem is succession. As said before, only philosophers can rule in Plato's "utopia." When a philosopher king dies, how can one know what philosopher will come into power? The deceased king may have children, but they may not be philosophers at all. This could lead to a power struggle and even a civil war in that theoretical country. Civil wars can lead to anarchy or to conquest by another nation. When there are few competitors for the throne (who are, of course, philosophers), what are the circumstances for one of them to be worthier to political leadership than the others? If there would be an election, how can we rely on the masses to choose which philosopher is better? 7. What about a candidate that is widely appreciated and wants to become the next monarch, but the philosophers themselves do not wish to be in power? Do we need to force philosophers to become absolute kings simply because they have a keen interest in philosophy? What if the whole philosopher population of the Platonian republic is unavailable to sit upon the throne? What if there is a shortage of philosophers? The Platonian Republic can easily narrow the demographic of its rulers and it can lead to an insufficient pool of available or competent candidates. 8. Can there be a concise distinction between a superior philosopher and a lesser one, to determine the heir to the throne? How would it be decided otherwise? That is all I have to criticize about Plato's idea of his ideal state, which is, ironically, far from ideal. Philosophers, as seekers of wisdom, are not necessarily fit to govern by the mere fact of their wisdom-seeking. Likewise, it could be true to other types of intellectuals, as intellect alone is often insufficient. Traits such as charisma, courage, carefulness, and so forth are or should be not less valuable than intellect and/or brilliance.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Social Media Directory) Article Summary by Mr. O. C. Isaac "Giving Up Your Privacy For Products" is a comprehensive exploration of the ethical implications of data collection in the digital economy. The article delves into the trade-off between personal privacy and the use of online products and services, offering readers a nuanced perspective on this increasingly relevant topic. The article's strengths include its timely and relevant topic, clear structure and flow, effective use of sources and examples, balanced perspective, engaging writing style, and call to action. It condemns data collection practices but also acknowledges the conveniences and benefits of modern digital products. The conversational tone combined with rhetorical questions and reflective statements captures the reader's attention and provokes deeper thought. Overall, "Giving Up Your Privacy For Products" is a commendable piece that thoughtfully examines the ethical dimensions of privacy in the digital age. Our Digital Footprint: Why Online Privacy Matters In this time and age, of "Smart Industries"/4.0 Industries, every single online activity can have a financial and informational value. To quote a Usercentrics article: Your activity on the internet is valuable. Both in terms of time and money. In fact, everything you do – including everywhere you click, all the pages you browse and anything you buy – is valuable to some company somewhere. Your internet activity and data are collected, processed and sold daily by a variety of companies, websites and analysis firms. Why? So they can use that data to sell to you again, or sell it to others for a profit. Data collection and sale are a huge part of the modern digital economy. From sole proprietor online shops to tech giants like Google and Facebook, user data is used for everything to do with sales, marketing, product development, user experience, and more. Each of your online actions can be recorded and used to either sell it to third parties, or be stored in an organization's database. This is done to better learn about its users' activities when they consume its online products, such as websites, apps, and even gaming consoles. That is done using cookies, which are trackers used to contain your data. In the name of having better products, we give in our virtual information through its tracking, thus not having to deal with the same result problem of communicating directly to users. This greatly damages our right to privacy, even though we ourselves, technically, choose to do so by agreeing, directly or indirectly, to an organization's privacy policy. Whether we actually took the time to read it or not, is our own responsibility, and no one else's. By the way, Philosocom also has a privacy policy, along with a service level agreement. Why Privacy Policies Matter More Than You Think It's easy to blame ourselves for skipping online contracts. We click "I agree" without a second thought, just to gain access to that new app or game. However, playing the "blame game" will get us nowhere if we refuse to learn from our mistakes. In this case we should at least try to understand any online contract before we agree to it. This feature should be a part of any philosophy of any technology user, looking to improve the ethical way they use the internet for. However, in some cases the reality is more complex. Many products create a "black or white" situation: agree and use the product, or disagree and be left out of its use entirely. This can be especially frustrating for internet-connected devices like gaming consoles. An example for that being Injustice 2. You either accept to the terms, or are denied to play it even though you paid for it. According to the Isotopic game store company: If you further research the topic, you’ll find out that you actually do not own the games, and never had. What you do “own” is the digital license to use them, with many different systems working against having access to the files that you’ve paid for! Even if we protest against privacy breaches, companies can point to our consent. After all, clicking "I agree" sets the terms in action. Being concerned about privacy we exchanged in favor of goods we may deem too low-value to even trade our privacy for, is known as "The Privacy Paradox". This paradox is solved when we will be more inclined to be observant towards the actions we do, and ask ourselves if the content or product we consumed, worth the sacrifice of our right for privacy. The situation gets even trickier when products demand unnecessary permissions. Location tracking, for example, can be used to recommend social media connections based on mere proximity. A research paper explains this with a concrete example: Foursquare was a mobile social networking application that enabled people to share location with friends in the form of “check-ins.” The visualization of surrounding known social connections as well as unknown others has the potential to impact how people coordinate social encounters and forge new social ties. This is a creepy reminder of just how much corporations can learn about us, and on the importance of limiting them in the name of our personal freedoms. Additionally, camera access, microphone access and even phone calls are other potential privacy breaches hidden within agreements. You need to read the contract so you won't regret it later. Not only as an individual but also if you happen to be a head of a company! Here's why reading privacy policies and terms of service is crucial. It's not just about following rules, it's about understanding what you're giving up in exchange. Ask yourself such questions, and make it a habit: Is the convenience of this app worth sacrificing my privacy? Is the thrill of that game worth constant location tracking? Should issues such as popularity, novelty and instant gratification in a product or trend come at the cost of our personal data? Even if you're short on time, skimming these documents can make a difference, as it's, you know, better than nothing. Look for the central points of each section, and consider generally improving your skimming skills. Remember, your choice to consent (or not) holds more weight than you might initially think. Bonus: The Era When Privacy Wasn't the Price of Access Remember the golden age of gaming? The PS2 era, where you could pop in a disc and play without surrendering your personal data. Or the pre-social media internet, where communication thrived without having to live in an era similar to the one portrayed by George Orwell's 1984. Looking back, Orwell's cautionary tale feels strangely similar to the virtual world we live in today, with the rise of spreading misinformation through deception and internet surveillance. I often miss, with my nostalgia bias, the days where I could simply enjoy a certain game without philosophizing about worldly affairs. I philosophize not only because I enjoy it, but also because I choose to care for the world and help others. The Bottom Line and Philosocom Demanding so much personal information is often excessive, although excessiveness could be a good thing. Companies claim that personal data helps them understand their user base. However, even that purpose seems intrusive in the face of privacy concerns. The bigger issue? Once information is surrendered, some platforms can know about you more than the creepiest of stalkers. Even "free" products come at a cost – your data becomes a company's resource, fuelling their power and influence. And as private enterprises, they answer primarily to lawsuits, not a user's right to privacy. After all, most of us already "agreed" to hand our privacy over. Here's my dilemma: social media is a powerful tool for reaching an audience, which is a necessity in today's competitive world. While I acknowledge the privacy's sacrifice, I still use it. I know I enable, like many others, a culture of sacrifice. And indeed, if I didn't want to contribute to humanity, I'd forsaken it. That includes you, who read me. But despite my efforts, I dream of a world that values privacy, more than corporate domination. Isn't that a future worth fighting for? I wholeheartedly avoid spying on my readership using heatmaps for a reason. This is a philosophy blog, not an evil lair.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Directory on Weakness) Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "The Zanetti Clan Philosophy: How To Live and Die by Power" is a thought-provoking and creatively written article that uses the backdrop of a video game, "Beatdown: Fists of Vengeance," to explore philosophical ideas about power, strength, conflict, and human nature. Mr. Tomasio uses a fictional criminal organization from the game to examine real-life themes of power and conflict, removing moral and ethical constraints that would limit the discussion of power in a real-world context. This use of fiction provides a safe space to explore controversial ideas without being bogged down by social or cultural sensitivities. The article captures attention with its direct, unapologetic style and stark declaration about who should continue reading. The confrontational tone challenges readers to engage with the material, even if they might initially disagree with the premise. The article does a commendable job of embedding philosophical theories, such as conflict theory, within the framework of the fictional narrative. By drawing parallels to real-life concepts like meritocracy, survival of the fittest, and even Sith philosophy ("The Rule of Two"), Mr. Tomasio creates a compelling argument that pushes readers to reconsider his own perspectives on strength and weakness. The article effectively relates the fictional narrative to real-world scenarios, such as office politics or societal power dynamics, allowing readers to see the practical implications of the "Zanetti Clan Philosophy." It encourages self-reflection by challenging readers to examine their fears, desires, and behaviors regarding power, conflict, and comfort. The article offers insights into human nature, particularly the dichotomy between strength and weakness, aggression and empathy, conflict and comfort, arguing that these elements are natural and unavoidable in human interactions. In conclusion, "The Zanetti Clan Philosophy: How To Live and Die by Power" is a thought-provoking and creatively written piece that uses the backdrop of a video game to delve into significant philosophical questions about power, strength, and human nature. (Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Power) The Zanetti Empire is a fictional criminal organization from the game known as "Beatdown: Fists of Vengeance". If you refuse studying and reflecting upon its philosophy on power and conflict, just because it's from a video game, feel free to leave now. For those who don't mind as much, let us begin studying what true strength means. This criminal empire was led by a philosopher-king of sorts, known as Mr. Zanetti. He established his organization on a very extreme form of meritocracy, where merit is based on strength. That strength isn't limited to brute force alone, but also the strength to overcome your own co-workers. The weak are weeded out, while the strong persevere. As such, if you are told to kill your own members, for whatever reason, you are supposed to do just that, or else you'll be regarded as a weakling. And weaklings, as well as cowards, are of no use to the Zanetti Drug Empire. It is the natural order of things, to evolve through war and conflict, according to Mr. Zanetti. It's known as the conflict theory. Conflict isn't something to be avoided at all costs, but rather, something to embrace and accept as part of reality. Conflicts are tests of merit, nothing more, even if they contain whatever extent of danger. Those who fear and run away from it, are cowards according to the Zanetti Clan Philosophy. Your worth and relevance are only determined by your ability to be powerful. It is how you raise up the ranks and even be deemed worthy, in accordance, to inherit the Clan throne. Within the clan, you don't have friends. Friends are a liability, especially if you are ordered to kill them if, for example, they are too powerful for their own good. Such was the case with Aaron, one of Zanetti's children. He was tasked by his father to kill his group of elite soldiers because Mr. Zanetti believed them to be a threat on his own throne. Aaron refused, so his father deemed him too weak to be deemed a successor, and disowned him. Later on, Zanetti attempted to kill him and his group by setting up a trap, lead by his new successor, Eugene. Eugene failed to kill the group, and that group ended up, ultimately, finishing off the entire Empire as revenge for their betrayal. For the kingpin, all of this was nothing more than the logical thing to do. Be too weak and you're useless. Be too strong and you reach a state where you threaten the power of those stronger than you. When you're too powerful, you are then tasked with proving your worth, by eliminating those currently in the position of power. Should you fail, you'll die. Should you succeed, you will inherit their position. Beyond whatever it makes you feel, dear readers, it's not that hard to understand. That's what happens when you lack a humane moral compass, and look at reality without much emotion (if at all). A similar concept exists in Sith philosophy, known as "The Rule of Two". For psychopaths like Zanetti, it's just business. The suffering, the pain, the bloodshed, it's just part of the natural order of things, the premise of the Zanetti Philosophy: The strong have the right to rule over the weak. It is similar in nature the same as it is similar in human civilization, where empires dictated what is right and wrong, where might be made right. The weak died off, the moderately strong were subordinate, and the strong were given by both the right to lead them. In the Zanetti organization, you are best to survive in the middle. Desire power and you can get more in life, but you will be at greater risk as if you were in the lower layer of the hierarchy. Should you sacrifice your longevity in the name of privilege? You technically can as well in real life. Just make sure you can protect yourself from those who want that power to themselves. Mr. Zanetti's power was threatened by that elite group of mobsters. However, he wasn't afraid of the feelings he felt. No. He accepted them as natural, as just a feature in his natural order. By the same token, he had no problem trying to kill off his opponents. He was just doing his job by plotting their demise. Later on, that group slowly demolished his empire. They killed off his best assassin, Ignacy, and later on, his successor Eugene. Finally, they sabotaged his narcotics factory, which served as a primary financial lifeline. When they came to his office, an undisclosed hotel room, he remained stoic in character. The deaths of his best men, loyal or otherwise, didn't matter to him as much. After all, if they failed to stop the rebels, then perhaps they were too weak for their own good, and thus, deserved to be defeated. Two decades after I was introduced to this game by the Rubinshtein Clan heads, unsuspecting of what it contained, I have realized a few insights: Many of us are weaklings and cowards, more than we may allow ourselves to admit. Sure, we do not have to kill our friends in order to survive and thrive, but what about far less? Deep inside, you have fears that do not even amount to anything revolving murder... or even survival? These impractical fears are making you weak, and hinder you from becoming a better version of yourselves. We may promote niceness because we are afraid of rudeness and other types of unease. Accepting conflict as natural can make us stronger, at least mentally. The same goes for our emotions. We need to distinguish between our relations towards emotion and between the information it may indicate. True or otherwise. Allow me to further explain.... Zanetti does not fear emotion, like many of us do. How can one manage a criminal empire when one cannot even manage his mental state? He lived and died by his code of power. Physical, financial, political, you name it. If his intuition indicated to him that his throne was under a potential opposition, and if he trusted his intuition, then he would do anything he can to remain in power. It's that simple. He may relate to emotion the same as an animal in the wilderness may do, or a soldier at war: Nothing more than an indication regarding the external world. Mr. Zanetti himself is a machismo man, perhaps too much for his own good. As you can see he views the world in a very simplistic and primitive way. He managed his empire as if it was a pack of chimpanzees, with him as the "alpha male". A core element present in hyper masculine men is testosterone. This hormone that's present dominantly in men, can make us aggressive, assertive and even more muscular, as is the case with myself, a guy who only lifts groceries. Deep inside I know why some of you may be afraid of negative or violent emotions, even though they are a natural part of our reality. Deep inside, some of you might be too weak to accept them as inevitable in human interactions, and as such, you might try running away from them. Run away into the realms of comfort, niceness and politeness. However, in the end, your desire for comfort might as well be a cover for your fear of discomfort. Unease is an inevitable feature in power, because power leads to conflict from time to time. Not as extreme as a "civil war" within a business empire, yes? However, these are struggles you can find within any organization: Be it in the office, in the classroom, and even in a reception room. People may argue and yell at each other everywhere because they attempt to assert their dominance. Their gender does not matter, even though men are seen as more of a threat, especially to many women. The point is that power struggles are inevitable in any human company as potentials and thus the attempt to run away from them will never get you the serenity you're looking for. The weaker may attempt to force a regime of sensitivity over society because they, too, want power, whether they admit it or not. Otherwise they would not call to repress the insensitive. Do you see, then, how essential and basic power is in human society? We all need it. So, we compete, directly or otherwise, for it. As such, the call to be more polite and empathetic can be seen as the attempt of the sensitive to get/preserve their power. The question is, why should you submit to them when you can overcome their power by becoming a more complete version of yourself? A version that does not care to walk on eggshells? A version that knows other people's vulnerabilities are not his or her problem, considering they can be worked on? Submit to the weak, and you will be giving them power. Sensitive/vulnerable or any other kind of weakness. You will be giving power to those who are weak against their own sensitivities. Should it change the "natural order"? On the long term, this will not change the very premise of the Zanetti Clan Philosophy: "The strong have the right to rule over the weak" I will contemplate this philosophy, when the time to hand over my article empire, will arrive.

(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)  (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) (Philosocom's Kaiser Basileus Articles) (Part 2) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "Dystopia -- 21st Century Socio-Political Critique -- Part 1" by Mr. Kaiser Basileus is a thought-provoking examination of modern socio-political dynamics, challenging many assumptions and norms. The article covers a wide range of topics, from law enforcement and judicial practices to economic disparities and the influence of corporations. It offers a critical perspective, questioning the legitimacy and fairness of existing systems, encouraging readers to reflect on the structures that govern their lives and consider the necessity for reform. The article's broad coverage of diverse issues such as wealth disparity, corporate influence, freedom of speech, and the judicial system allows for a comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness of societal problems. By questioning the status quo, the article promotes critical thinking and encourages readers to not accept societal constructs at face value. The use of metaphors and analogies between psychological states and political entities adds a layer of relatability and understanding, making complex political critiques more accessible and engaging to a broader audience. In conclusion, "Dystopia" is a robust and stimulating critique of contemporary socio-political systems, challenging readers to reconsider their acceptance of current societal norms. (Background music) ********************** Mr. Rubinshtein's Description of "Dystopia" Mr. Kaiser's "Dystopia" is a socio-political critique on contemporary society, covering many aspects of modern life. His unique perspectives offer a refreshing look on many features of our lives in which we learned to accept as completely legitimate. "Dystopia" is here to challenge our beliefs and expand our discourse in contemporary philosophy, from society to ethics to politics. The original document given to me is extremely long and as such will be divided to several parts. I hope you will benefit from it. Enjoy. *********************** Law enforcement officers don't study law, they study enforcement. The US judicial system both requires that they harm you before you may legally resist (standing) and that you pay for the litigation. A system that requires allowing them to harm you before fixing it cannot be legitimate. Funny how the founders explicitly added a clause that the Bill of Rights was a Minimum (9th amendment), and ever since, in direct opposition to their concern, it's been treated as a Maximum. As soon as someone is 10x more powerful, wealthy, etc. as someone else, society is not free. Could you will someone to have 100x more of them than yourself for any reasonable purpose? Why would such a discrepancy ever be necessary or unavoidable? Companies cannot have names that may displace meaningful normal language search terms. they should only be numbered and known by descriptive terms (the largest bed store in the county)(the bakery at 5th and main) (ice cream from all over), and they'd better take care to choose something meaningful in case, for instance, a larger bed store opens. In social math, nothing plus nothing can equal something. Sponsored results are inherently immoral by showing people what someone else wants them to buy, which has no relation to their needs, instead of what they're interested in buying . Any government that doesn't respect freedom of speech is a tyranny, because they cannot even potentially know what their citizens actually need. The metaphors of psychology make good substitutes for those of political malfeasance. Most states are narcissistic, etc. If there is no escape there is no freedom. A law that can be used to produce irrational effects will be used to produce irrational effects. Freedom of religion enshrines a right to believe irrational things and inherently to use those beliefs to effect actual changes in the world. We cannot have civilization and religion at the same time. Police should have more training than citizens, more responsibilities and more restraint, never more rights. Privilege is when you're integrated enough that things in general are going well enough, that the little things that can have major detrimental effects on other people don't matter. If you cannot escape an oppressive society, freedom is but a bigger cage. The government that constrains the power of people to use their intellects to its best advantage in order to improve the world around them is directly working against everyone's best interests Only the wealthy are allowed to know how much wealth other wealthy people have. Since they have an unknown amount of resources and power, what chance has anyone else to change anything? A society where you have no choice but to obey must first have perfect laws. Externalities - under-staffing, besides decreasing pay/work ratio, wastes many customer's hours unnecessarily waiting {currencies tend to require trust without trustworthiness. Any currency that allows speculation is inherently untrustworthy; Currency tagged to the average world currency value}. The only weapon ordinary people have against too much order is chaos. "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Those with the most informed opinions almost never concur with the majority, so democracy almost never produces the best option, and when it does it's in spite of itself. Those in power dare not question the legitimacy of the system lest they inherently question their own. There is no ethical way to protect someone from themselves without prior, explicit consent. Democracy ensures the best ideas never get heard because the best ideas are never in the majority. A government cannot be legitimate that grants itself the right to record anything it experiences, but denies that right to the people. That the supreme court had to issue a ruling that constitutionally protected activity (like taking video in or from a publicly accessible area) could not be considered suspicious. It proves that the entire court system below that level is inept. It is a minimum understanding of law that rights cannot be protected or considered protected if they are considered suspicious or treated as suspicious by default. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Rights are best considered an obligation, rather than untrustworthy). Property rights that allow degradation of anything wanted by others are immoral. The government can only be prevented from creating human rights constraints. Before the fact that most jobs require you to be bubbly, energetic, and hustle is a tragedy. Let's try to build a world where people can relax at work, take time off as needed, and do the best job possible, not the most productive one. Enclosure was a crime against humanity. So are usury, copyright, patents, and legal fictions and rent-seeking of every kind. Saying that people have a right to be unreasonable consigns reasonable people to hell. The government needs to have greater transparency and accountability than ordinary people, not less for public employees out those on the dole to pay taxes can only be a waste of resources. When police ignore rights they are not acting as law enforcement, because the purpose of law is to ensure rights. If they're uncertain, that's no less a problem. Legal fictions -- just like capitalists still get all the profit after they eliminate all the risk, cops still get all the privilege even when there's no danger. Ignorant, oblivious, or numb are the only ways to deal with modern society. Intrusions may be rendered legitimate only by being both harmless and for good reason. "You can't comply your way out of tyranny". -- Christine Anderson. A conditional right cannot be interpreted differently from state to state or it's nothing more than a mere privilege. The longer a technology is iterated, the more additional features are useless to the average person while core functionality degrades. When a government grants itself illicit powers, they're never entirely reversed until there's a revolution. The government cannot ethically require background checks because it is not more ethical than the average person and therefore not more capable of determining who is "worthy" of having a gun. In fact many of the reasons it restricts are problems it caused, which is tyranny. If background check criteria are hidden such that people can't have reasonable belief in advance whether or not they will pass, in order to save themselves the expense or to avoid undue government scrutiny, it is arbitrary and unpredictable if citizens see corruption where the police do not, the police are not adequate at policing themselves. As long as anyone has less than their share, everyone who has the average has more than their share. Government qualifications indicate someone's readiness for something must never be taken to mean only government qualifications can confer that readiness. If you cannot afford to buy land you are a second class citizen. (Rubinshtein's note: Through morality, resistance and altruism, many of the problems mentioned here by Mr. Kaiser can be fixed, or worked to be fixed and improved for a better, fairer, and less corrupt, society).

The World's Compassion -- How to Try and Increase It (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) "When people care for their neighbors as they care for themselves, then this world will be worthy of saving" -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) The sad truth about this world is that it has little compassion, especially among strangers. Neighbors can easily open a rivalry with you because of a minor controversy. Some hot-headed drivers might even get out of their cars in the middle of the road just to confront you for not driving like they want you to. Others do not care for your sensitivities and may resume doing whatever bothers you, within your presence. And last, people online won't hesitate to harass you for doing (or not doing) something they expect you to do, as if you owe them anything. That's what you get when you put rugged individualism over the values of decency. Many people in this world are hyper individualists, AKA people who put their own whims over their influence on others. As a result, there seems to be less and less reason to be compassionate, or at least considerate, to anyone who is not your family and friends. Therefore, it seems that we have retreated to tribalism, even though we live in an ultra-connected world. After all, if someone is not a person you know or value, like a family member or friend, why should you actually care whether or not your insults hurt their feelings? Why should you care about a stranger's less-resilient mentality, if you get to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want? Sure, that person may cry or at least be angry or anxious because of you, but the influence of your actions should not matter, as long as you yourself get to feel good and comfortable! In other words, as the world gets more divided and more toxic, it is safe to assume that the world is becoming less and less compassionate, simply because we put the "sanctity" of our own whims over our effect on those we are too apathetic to care about, whether they were hurt, even if they were driven to self-sacrifice by our actions. As I heard in a short recording of Slavoj Žižek, the renowned Slovenian philosopher, he was asked by someone who was interested in his teachings to help him with some personal stuff. Žižek replied: "I don't care, kill yourself, it's not my problem". Being insensitive is a privilege not everyone gets to have, even if to attain to a degree. Overall, it seems that the world is run by insensitive people, given that ruthlessness can be linked with success. Many of them can be those who think that being too sensitive is childish and immature, and that being considerate of others, like a civil human being, isn't something they are obliged to do. There could be plenty of reasons why people would avoid being nice. And thus, the sensitive are shoved to the corners of society, because the world does not care about your feelings; it cares only about whether or not you are doing your job and paying your taxes. It cares about you if you contribute significantly enough to it to earn its respect. It is largely a meritocracy. Your public existence is but a function you fulfill, not your own honesty, which you are often expected to keep to yourself, unless expected otherwise. Things are differently when you're in a position of power, as people would want to please you to get their way, so they may even show you more compassion as a result. See how unfair life is, depending largely on one's authority, for "power is everything". Why should it hurt, technically, to be a little kinder to others? Not because an omnipresent being shall condemn you to hell if you don't, but because of your own sense of conscience; your own sense of self-dignity. And even then, dignity, respect is subjective, as presented in different cultures. Even after actions such as bullying and shaming have been proven to be harmful to society and to the victims themselves, these are things that keep existing, both in the real and virtual worlds, as if it's all just for the fun of it. The "fun" of it, to create mental illness in one's mind; for the fun of it, to wonder why they harmed themselves just because their own self was too eccentric to be tolerated by the company around them. Yes, one's fun can be another's trauma, as presented in a real-life story called "My Dead Piggy: Funeral For a Furry Friend" Where is the heart; the genuine concern for an equal human being? Of course, this is not a universal generalization, nor an attempt to say that humans by nature are toxic beings. It is just that the notion of sensitivity has been put to shame by those who are too unwilling to understand that sensitivity isn't something that one necessarily achieves by desire. It's something whose potential already exists within the person. Why then, call them a "snowflake" or an "over-sensitive" person, if they were simply born that way? The answer is that unless one is compelled to care, they won't likely to care. Empathy can be either emotional or intellectual. You need either of these faculties to empathize. If you lack any of those, like many sociopaths, you won't likely to care for others as much as you could've otherwise, because you feel no moral responsibility for your actions. "Only remorse leads to a real apology and change". Is it truly a shame to be born with certain characteristics that you're not responsible for having? People, at large, don't choose to have the traits that cause them to be tormented by others, whether it's sensitivity, sexual orientation, mental disability, and so on. If some of your traits interrupt the order of the public world, then you will be condemned for it, as if it's your fault; as if you've done something horrible. Such is the cruelty of this world when it disapproves and rejects you. In general, strangers shall care more about what's wrong with you than what makes you a decent human being—especially the mistakes you make or the imperfections you carry within you. This is why, in another article I wrote, I argued that we live in a "not-okay" culture, AKA a mindset that puts the idea that, by default, things are not okay or not supposed to be as they currently are. Therefore, others will attempt to change the course of things to fit it more to their own liking, regardless of how that course influences others in the process. And since most things are not under one's control, all that some people have left is to use shaming and utter disregard to influence the world in their own image of what a "proper" world is. Whether it is on the topic of religion, politics, and so on, you probably have no idea how many people hate you right now, simply for you being a certain someone with certain traits and tendencies. This also includes being a "snowflake," AKA a highly sensitive individual. What is the solution to all of this? How do we bring more love into the world, in order to make it a more welcoming place to live for as many people as possible? The answer is this: as Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." However, that won't be enough if you wish to optimize your own influence. Simply being kind to your neighbors won't change much beyond the local sphere of the street or neighborhood. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the age of content creation, where anyone's words can reach even the most remote corners of Earth, and I can attest to that from experience. When you have things to say that you believe are important, saying them to your family and friends isn't enough. Perhaps, then, the problem of hatred and intolerance simply comes from the combination of hyper-individualism and tribal altruism (AKA, caring only to those close to you). It comes from the unanswered question, "Why should I care about others that I don't have an emotional connection with, when I can have the freedom of being a jerk?" Go out there and spread the World's compassion if you want others to treat you compassionately as well. Thanks for reading.

(Directory on Rectification and Help) Directory on Children: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-good-kid-and-the-good-parent (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Background music) A philosophical exploration of human flaw, mutual growth, and the pursuit of a rectified world starting within the home. We all originate from a family unit, but the nature of those units exists on a vast and unpredictable spectrum. Some families provide an impenetrable foundation of love and support—a safe harbor that nurtures growth. Others, unfortunately, operate as environments of toxicity and abuse, actively jeopardizing the well-being of their members. Because of this extreme variance, the ability to distinguish between constructive and destructive company is the absolute foundation of a healthy social philosophy. The company we keep ultimately builds our character and dictates our reflection in society. However, in our pursuit of healthy relationships, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of demanding absolute perfection. The Nirvana Fallacy in Human Relations A good family—or any good company—does not have to be flawless in order to be valuable. The fact that suffering, friction, or unnecessary drama occasionally occurs does not mean that a relationship is inherently bad. It is a critical philosophical error to demonize those who genuinely wish you the best simply because they are imperfect in their execution. Demonization is a cognitive bias; it impairs our judgment and prevents us from seeing the objective reality of a relationship. Humans are fundamentally flawed beings. Expecting perfection from them is like expecting a bowler to roll a strike on every single frame of a lifelong tournament. Do not fall victim to the Nirvana Fallacy—the logical error of dismissing a good, functional reality simply because it does not measure up to an impossible, idealized utopia. When you observe someone demonstrating genuine commitment and loyalty to your well-being, do not be quick to discard them over a flaw. Loyalty is a rare and heavy essence; it's best to be respected. The Duty of Continuous Learning If you wish to cultivate a happier, more mentally stable existence, you must develop a holistic outlook on life that recognizes the duality of the universe. Every distress, every argument, and every failure within a family structure is best to be weaponized into a learning experience. You must learn not only how to navigate the grim realities of the world, but also how to engineer your environment to prevent those distresses from repeating. To quote the ancient wisdom of Shimon Ben Zoma: "Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: ‘From all who taught me have I gained understanding’ (Psalms 119:99)." True wisdom requires the eradication of arrogance. You must overcome the assumption that your current knowledge is sufficient. When adults grow older, they often lose their curiosity. They succumb to confirmation bias, falsely believing they no longer require further study or behavioral correction. This stagnation is exactly where unintentional trauma and deep generational conflicts are born. The Mutual Contract of Growth To prevent this stagnation, the traditional top-down hierarchy of the family must be re-evaluated. A child or a dependent is not merely a passive receiver of a parent’s treatment. Once an individual develops sufficient intelligence and emotional maturity, they possess an active duty to help guide the family. The individual becomes a provider of wisdom, offering feedback that can guide authority figures to make better, more informed actions. A healthy family dynamic is not a dictatorship; it is a mutual mentorship. It is like two students of swordsmanship sparring and learning together. By focusing on the practical application of our shared potential, we can abandon the destructive "blame game," atone for past mistakes, and actively engineer a harmonious future. The Supremacy of Moral Beauty Society often fixates on visual aesthetics—the arts, the mountains, the seas. But there is a higher, more profound aesthetic: Moral Beauty. Moral beauty is the power of individuals and groups to actively work toward the greater good. It is the profound, awe-inspiring sight of a flawed human being recognizing their disrespect, offering a genuine apology, and doing the hard work of atonement. It is the human resolve to achieve Tikkun Olam—the rectification and repairing of a broken world. Power, intelligence, and influence are entirely neutral. They are only valuable when mastered and deployed as tools to craft a more moral, peaceful reality. Instead of looking at an unjust world and simply accepting it with cynical apathy, we must become the opposing force to that flaw. We best take responsibility for our actions and soothe the suffering we cause others. Because we are interconnected to the reality we inhabit, the peace we create for others will inevitably become the peace we get to live in. The Economics of Goodwill We can teach ourselves and others to spread goodwill, not just out of pure altruism, but out of enlightened self-interest. Improving the state of another person directly improves your own environment. Never underestimate the absolute power of a listening ear. To quote the author Leo Buscaglia: "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around." The rectification of the cold, harsh world does not start in the halls of government or the boardrooms of corporations. It starts in the micro-grid of the family. Strive to be a good role model. Acknowledge mistakes, practice forgiveness, and fight for the future of those in your care. By building a functional, communicative, and morally beautiful family structure, you are laying the foundational bricks for a better world. Alex Mos's Review What is the perfect balance between emotion and logic regarding family matters? Should we strive to love unconditionally or use cool ethical logic, wanting the child to become moral, happy, and accomplished? What does happiness and accomplishment mean? These are the questions every caring parent will encounter, but only a few will find the answer, because "the golden ratio" in relationships does not exist. Also, parents and children differ in intelligence, innate abilities, dreams, and neurotypical or neurodivergent brains.   Unconditional love will develop empathy in children, but will not necessarily shape a solid, moral, and independent character or help with psychological distress. Other thoughtful parents might opt for "tough love," based on reason and preparing a child for the challenges of adult life, but sometimes overlooking a specific child's abilities and preferences. This type of upbringing could result in a successful yet troubled adult. What if social norms and acceptance do not always lead to happiness and success in adulthood? For some, they do, and for some, they don't. It takes high intelligence, unconditional love, educational skills, and an open mind to figure out the "golden formula" for a child to succeed, even if it means abandoning social approval of career, profession, or gender. And now, view life through a child's eyes. Children, too, can be torn between the wish to please their parents and their unique personalities, which do not always fit in the world they are expected to fit in. Love for their parents commends them for obeying, causing an inner conflict of interest and suffering from being misunderstood and lonely. People are not educated about having children as it's considered a fundamental human right and nobody's business. I see it as illogical and unethical. The majority of human mental disorders result from a traumatic childhood. Such psychological traumas could be prevented if parents were knowledgeable, mindful of the unintended damage they can do, and financially capable. Children's first company, their parents, should be conscious of being a fundamental key to better humanity. Otherwise, they shouldn't become parents at all.

(Background music) The Igniting Spark of Irrelevance For those new to Philosocom, let me tell you about a pivotal moment that ignited my "world-conquest" mission. It began revolving around a woman I falsely call Ms. Chen, my former love interest. Though brief, her presence had a profound impact on my life, much to our reluctancy. Our connection ultimately collapsed when she dismissed me as "too irrelevant." This word, filled with the notion of inadequacy, sparked a new fire within me. A different fire. I was determined to prove her wrong, to amplify my success as a writer. What started as a positive outlet morphed, I now realize, into a quest for altruistic retribution. However, after much introspection and grappling with my autism, I believe I understand why she used that hurtful word. Perhaps it stemmed from a lack of respect, a perception of me as unworthy. Reflecting back, I find no shameful actions on my part. As a teenager, I even composed a waltz for her and proudly shared my first printed book. Yet, this gesture didn't seem to earn me her respect as an equal. For being the eccentric man I am, I will always be undermined by certain people, no matter what I do. Understanding this, even back then, I never expected her to love me back. I already knew I'm too different for people like her to ever accept me as an equal. For this world is unjust, and rejects the exceptional for its weirdness, while embraces the mediocre, for its ability to meet collective standards. I see no reason to win the respect, let alone the love, of those who prefer mediocrity above being exceptional. As such, her lack of love towards me, never offended me in the slightest. During our student days, she'd often disregard me entirely, pretending I do not exist. Ironically, her very presence triggered a coping mechanism – a wave of nausea that plagued me during those dark years, where I was depressed the most. Years later, after a lengthy silence, she inexplicably allowed me back into her life. Yet, the flame of rejection reignited when she uttered that dismissive word – "irrelevant." Even then, I did not expect her love. I expected her ability to accept me for the strange being that I am. It was quite unrealistic of me, to expect such a thing from those who relate to mediocrity, and to normalcy. For those who hold genuine respect for the exceptionally different, wouldn't resort to such a hurtful term. It's a word dripping with disrespect, capable of making you feel ashamed for existing, the way you are. While I may have played a conflicting role in her life, an "anti-antagonist," the final verdict was clear – I wasn't worthy of her respect. People who deem the different as too unworthy of this right, will not supply them the right for respect. Therefore, the only way to be respected by others, is to be relevant. And to be relevant, is to matter to a context bigger than yourself. If you cannot matter through compliance to normalcy, matter through a great success. That's how a moral revenge is done -- one that helps others, and not make them suffer as a result of your own suffering. Why Respect Fuels Relevance This obsession with relevance led me to a fascinating realization: relevance and respect are intertwined by the concept of recognition. Without recognition, neither can truly exist. Recognition is this: Agreement that something is true or legal. You cannot be recognized without the consent of another to do so. Although you cannot control them, through influence, it is your prerogative to get them to recognize who you really are, and what you're capable of. This leads to the next development of the word: If you are given recognition, people show admiration and respect for your achievements. Think about it. If you don't recognize something or someone's value, disrespect and even hostility can easily follow. Good qualities are to be recognized or they will be overlooked in the name of negative biases; products of the whole-person fallacy. Online trolls exemplify this perfectly. Their mockery stems from a fundamental lack of recognition of the target's worth. The same applies to being on the path to philosophership. You can't contribute as optimally if you're not recognized for your efforts. However, the harsh truth is that neither relevance, recognition, nor respect are fully within your control. You can't force appreciation, and the same goes for forcing love. Resorting to tyrannical tactics, on the other hand, would not make people appreciate or love you. You would instead make them enter a reluctant victim's mentality, whether they deny it or not. Instead, it needs to come genuinely. It's like why many students don't like school -- they are forced to go there. They are not convinced to like going there. Their consent isn't respected, so they themselves don't like school in turn. Should they respect the teachers, it is not done, necessarily, as an authentic behavior, but as a product of their own oppression. It isn't genuine, unless they truly respect their teachers, deep inside. So, if I want to make a significant contribution with my content, I need to earn the respect of others. This respect, in turn, hinges on their genuine recognition of my value and the value of my work. I cannot force it, so I won't force it. The only genuine way to do it is by being a good human being and by adding additional value to people. It's one of the core points of Philosocom. Appreciation should be freely given, not coerced through fear or deception. While some may achieve a semblance of respect through these tactics, it goes against my core principles. If I need to deceive, I would only do it through masking, for it is a necessary evil in a world that condemns the self for what it really is. And it is one of the reasons I prefer being more alone than together. Information travels fast online. Past actions can resurface to paint you as a hypocrite. Every word, decision, and behavior can be lambasted, making consistency and integrity imperative for your efforts in this contemporary age. A single YouTube video, exposing contradictions, can tarnish your reputation permanently. Make sure you're ready to be lambasted accordingly. Ultimately, self-respect is the key. When you hold yourself in high regard and live authentically, you naturally attract those who find your authentic way of existence, relevant to their own. After all, a hypocritical public figure is ultimately brought down by the very audience they failed to earn genuine respect from. Respect yourself and your authentic desires by demonstrating them. You cannot be recognized, and thus respected, without respecting yourself enough to not hide it so much. Otherwise the respect you'll earn be towards a mask, a fake self, not towards a self you regularly hide. Conclusion Respect, I believe, is earned through consistent, meaningful sacrifices – acts that demonstrate your commitment. It could be dressing professionally for an interview, offering accurate directions to a stranger, or simply lending a listening ear. You compromise your impulsive self, or "the Id", by developing and using your "super ego", your moral, higher self. By justifying your worthiness of respect through acts, you build the influence necessary to make a genuine impact and achieve true relevance. Do not expect anyone to love nor respect you, otherwise. It would be too unrealistic, to get these attributions, without extensive work done by you. The autistic need to do the same, even if it will be met with greater difficulty. But it is possible, nonetheless. If you're autistic, like me, never expect it to be easy.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (Background music) Contrary to intransigently-conditioned popular opinion, progress would indeed continue with the removal of financial gain, it would simply be structured quite differently, but progress in all areas would be freed from the greedy, relentless demands of profit. If we change our goals as a society, we change our own operating parameters, and will start viewing our existence as a cooperative, happier endeavour, versus a miserably unhealthy and unethical competition.. and slog-fest to be the one that dies with the most toys. -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Each lifetime is limited, and because of that it is precious. It is precious not only objectively, but also inter-subjectively. Precious, specifically, to the many people, sources, and organizations that are interested in taking a portion of your lifetime. Part I: The Capitalistic Value of Time Time is a resource of great capital. Despite of its greater worth, time is a resource just like any other, more-physical resource. From the time your genuine friends and family global corporations take, they are basically taking a resource from you. A limited resource, given that life is not lived immortally. As small as the time people take from you may be, these smaller portions can still be essential. This type resource that can be utilized in the name of consumerism and capital, or the "flow of cash". Case Example: Time In the Addictive Industries The role of addiction is for you to go ahead and buy the same goods and services repeatedly even though you don't have to. With the prioritization of addicting you, your time is likelier to be taken away from you by your own consumption habits. For profit-oriented corporations, which do not sell essential products (AKA products for basic needs), addicting the customer is of their financial interest. In the food industry for example, your appetite can grow unnecessarily upon the consumption of sugary food, and/or food with increased fat. Given that sugar is addictive, addictions are there to take more and more of your time, as you invest more and more capital. As addictions are not healthy whatsoever, this is one of the reasons some corporations should be limited, or at least regulated, in order to prevent corrupt trends. Part II: Humans as Beings and Humans as Resources Because time is a resource, this means humans, whose time belongs to them, are resources as well. As such, the term "human resources", although soulless in perception, is even truer in terms of time. We can consider the fact that this term goes beyond the regular description of a human workforce. Through intent or mere habit some people will "convert" themselves to be a friend, a follower, a customer, and so on, to a service or product. Every human life that interacts and consumes things and beings beyond their own self will partake in the external world (AKA, in society, or in the world beyond the solitude of homes). Our time, can can easily become the product of others, the more we are influenced by them. Whenever we have this imperative collectible of attention, it is then when our time can be most utilized for others' gain. As long as we do something, and not do nothing, we will seek ways to spend our time elsewhere. As you can tell, doing nothing isn't as profitable as doing something can easily be. Hence, to be constantly on the move is an elementary financial interest of countless organizations. The "need" to be constantly on the move isn't necessarily a need. Thinking it is can be seen as a delusion of necessity. We seek to spend our time externally because we have voids we need or want to fill inside of ourselves. The need or desire to fill in these voids can easily make us selfish and ignore others. Some people may claim that true strength comes from within. The less voids we have, the stronger we can be. The stronger we can be, the more we can attend to others and to our dear ones specifically. Alternative Case Example: True Love We can regard our pursuit for love and affection as a very important time investment as well. In conditional love, once the void has been fulfilled, or once the other side will fail at filling that void for you, you might feel compelled to leave them. In unconditional love, also known as true love, the investment of time in each other is less relevant. Given how rare true love is, some may even claim that there is no such thing as true love. Look within. See for yourself if conditional love is worthy of your time as if it were a product you are consuming, like a YouTube video. Part III: The Competition of Time The competition for your time might be enormous, and even more than you might think. He or she who will fail rising beyond the ceilings of irrelevancy/anonymity will stay socially irrelevant. People may be enticed by relevancy because relevance is essential to success. As such, there are so many advertisers, businesses, and content creators to choose from. These bodies, both private individuals and more-collective enterprises, may invest much of their time catering to your ability to find them online, not just offline. Competitors are not always about "content creators" or "news channels" and such. The Additional Aspects of Attention For global giants such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter to get so much of our time, that is a truly giant achievement. Some may use these products for hours, but technically even ten minutes a day is already a meaningful achievement for any possible source of attention. The more they understand how their traffic operates, the more they bias said traffic towards their products and websites. They can create such a bias within their visitors, that it can be very hard to break. These attention-competing bodies compete not only for your time but also for: Your attachment to their products. Your ability to focus on your products. Your eagerness to consume their products again and again. Your loyalty to their brand. Your experience with these products. It therefore would only be natural that so many attention-seeking bodies would have so little grip on the "cake" of your lifespan. Part IV: The Value of Free Time When we have free time, why would books be something hard to read for long? Some of us have TVs, and within these TVs there are channels we like and like less, and we have a computer or a phone with apps we use more and use less... In short, the temptations of distractions are wider to some of us than in any other period in human history. And because of that, reading books is getting harder for many. This goes to further demonstrate the value of free time when it comes to consumption of media. After all, what serves is a distraction is very often an addiction. Are addictions moral when they take away from us our free time, or is our free time specifically for our addictions? The answer to that question is subjective as our lives, and especially our own free time, belongs to us just as our lives belongs to us. Isolation Within our Free Time In today's standards, where work is an inevitable possibility for many, consuming small portions of products (like 1 or 2 levels in video games) might be seen as inevitable as well, as we don't necessarily have the free time for more-extensive products like movies, and luxuries many can't afford. When we are physically isolated from the world, nowadays we have far-more accessible content to consume. As such, physical isolation in the digital revolution can be less severe unlike the times before it. This raises the question: Is the consumption of content more relevant than spending time with others? The reason as to why people might be lonelier than before could be exactly because of these private and public organizations constantly seeking our attention. An average person lives around, what, 60-80 years? The exact number is irrelevant here, but it is nonetheless a very great "cake" in mathematical standards. How much of that time is spent with others? Spending less quality time with others can reduce the value of friendships, leading to greater alienation between people. In general, that "cake" of yours, AKA your lifespan, is only reduced the more you live. People's time is important so do not overestimate it! And the same goes for your time, too! When you have free time, that time is yours to decide what to do with it. Utilize the power of choice for your hopes and dreams! On Fame and Relentless Work: Final Insights The relentless races of life often favors the privileged few, those who can leverage their success and influence to dominate industries. Fame might be pursued by such ambitious individuals, despite the fact that fame is fleeting by nature. While viral sensations capture attention quickly, the majority of hardworking individuals face a longer, far ruthless path to success. In their case, years of dedicated effort may be required, and the financial rewards may be modest. The path to mastery, as such, is more about skill, less about validation from others. As such, becoming a master in a skill nowadays is extremely challenging in a fast-paced, dynamic human reality. The need to capture your attention, and fast is therefore the interest for many, as speed and even addiction play a crucial role in them earning from their attention-grabbing efforts. On the other hand, this desperation, especially in a very expensive world, could easily hand-in-hand destroy people's ability to be competent. Nowadays, when jobs are treated necessarily as finance-driven, there is less passion in doing them. This eager need to earn quickly could serve as to why many people nowadays are incompetent. Their need to cater for your time is less honest a service for you, more a need for them to get the next pay-check. Either way, The principle of equal opportunity remains, whether you treat your job with much hate, or dedicate your entire life, and heart, for it. Obviously, when you live for your craft, your life can easily be a lonelier one, as a result. Should you dedicate your life for your craft or choice or should you jump from job to job? That depends on whether you wish your share of the cake in people's time, or simply to hone your craft in inner peace.

Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "Human Godhood: How We Are More Than What We Restrain Ourselves" is a thought-provoking article that explores human potential and self-transcendence, drawing parallels to the Supreme Trickster, Prometheus and emphasizing mental capabilities. The article invites readers to reflect on their abilities and limitations, encouraging self-reflection and personal growth. The message of overcoming limitations and realizing one's potential is inspiring, with a personal anecdote about overcoming a physical disability adding a powerful, relatable element. The article emphasizes true love and cooperation as catalysts for unlocking human potential, underscoring the importance of empathy, support, and communal effort in achieving greatness. Philosophical depth is also present, connecting psychological theories with practical examples, offering a well-rounded perspective on human potential. The passionate tone of the article conveys a sense of urgency and importance, motivating readers to take action in their own lives. In conclusion, "Human Godhood: How We Are More Than What We Restrain Ourselves" is a compelling and inspirational article that explores the vast potential of human beings. (Background music) Introduction: On the Self Beyond the Way Things Are Currently The human potential, even if individual, is one that may exceed even our own knowledge. Perhaps we may deny it, and perhaps we do not. However, we are far more than what we currently are. And by that, I mean that we are more than our shackles. What shackles? Societal, moral, mental and so on -- the abstract self exceeds its abstract limitations. In the realm of psychology, that is known as Self-Transcendence. We may be meat, blood and bones. However, we have a complex access to the mental dimension, which far exceeds our potential than that of our biological counterparts. It is through our access to this mental dimension, that allowed us to cooperate and form complex communication, which allowed us to form, lead and serve countless social constructs, and build power. The same power that eventually allowed us to conquer Earth and become the ruling, dominant species of this planet, as we wrecked countless other species who opposed us with our hunger for more.  Greatness, Fulfilled Power is everything. Power is essentially the ability and potential to trigger and initiate change. The human mental dimension allowed us access to many technological breakthroughs that many animals might as well consider unimaginable. The ability to forge steel. The ability to fly. The nuclear bomb. The internet. All have one thing in common -- they could not have been made without our mental dimension. It is through the abstract realm of the human being that we are granted access to many possibilities in this world. And in order to become the ideal self, in order to break free from the shackles of our own imposed limitations -- we must be aware that we are far more than our little, day-to-day, lives.  To realize we are more than our concerns, than our fears, than our anxieties. That we are more capable than just working at a 9 to 5 job, raising families and getting university degrees. We are capable of forming empires. We are capable of being "Divine", like Prometheus. For good and bad, we are capable of far more. We are capable of causing much joy in this world as much as we are the exact opposite. The human being is a massive vault of potential that either will or will not be actualized in accordance to one's most sincere hopes and dreams. Philosophers, political leaders, thought leaders, inventors, master artists and craftsmen and craftswomen -- What all these "great men and women" have in common is that they all fulfilled the greatness contained within many if not all of us.  One is not great by pretense. One is great by fulfilling what they are truly capable of, beyond the shackles of societal and other mental limitations. It is when the human potential is unleashed, is when the human being proves himself as great, relevant and even irreplaceable in the eyes of many! A Personal Anecdote Someone loved me once. She told me this: She told me I am far more than my limited self. And she was right. Thanks to her wisdom I devised a technique that got me rid of my post-traumatic physical disability. Yes. It's thanks to her insight, ultimately, that I recovered from my physical, psycho-somatic handicap status... No more cane. No more physical weakness. The potential was in me all along... And I just didn't know it. I will not forget her, for I realized, I am more than what I perceived myself to be. My former self therefore died accordingly. The Power of Love -- How It Breeds Growth She helped me in ways only I might ever understand... And it was thanks to her affection, which allowed me to become the better version of myself. A metaphorical Prometheus who showed me true love and taught me the ways of true love. The same true love I want to impart to you and to humanity... The same true love I ordered a volunteer to create a miniseries on. The one which exclaims: The best way to love someone is to let them be the best version of themselves!  And when they become ones, their ideal selves, much good can be caused! Much problems can be solved, if we just show each other true love. Not hatred. Not vengeance. Not spite or jealousy. Not even fear or worry, but the very emotion that allows people to accept each other for who they truly are, and allow them to become the very beings they are capable of! Beings.. they already are, but are not aware that they can manifest from within through self growth, dedication and discipline. But as long as we're in constant ruminations of fear and worry, we will never be able to impart this unconditionality to others, and thus, they will never be able to heal themselves and ourselves properly, just like that person allowed myself to do! With no judgement. With no fear... Effects of "Divinity" -- The Personal Level Since that person allowed me to be me, I am now a better philosopher that managed to overcome this Reaping Fatigue Era! And if it weren't for this growth, I wouldn't be able to improve so many of my articles, and I wouldn't be able to manage my volunteering followers for Philosocom's overall growth to a greater version. I thought I will never recover from that horrible ailment which made me a handicap... I honestly thought I would die. Effects of "Divinity" -- The Global Level What allows humans to become "divine", AKA, far greater than their current restraint, is true love and the cooperation that stems from it. A personality enlargement, a "rebirth", deep into what we deserve to be -- ourselves, beyond the truths we either deny or fear. Fear due to conformity, fear of being lambasted, and so on. And it is through cooperation, in general, that we managed to conquer this world and reign supreme as its mortal gods. But what about ourselves as people with different uniqueness? What about our divinity over ourselves? What about the untapped power that lies not collectively, but individually? It is through the nurturing of individual asset, that can enable greater collective growth. Not through oppression, but through faith in humanity. The more potential we'll be able to extract from ourselves, the wider the variety of actions in our lives will become. The wider it will become, the more good we'll be able to do in this world, by being more capable of helping each other more. For potential is a power of its own! And everything is energy.  Doing good is the moral imperative of every honest philosopher, he or she who lives in accordance to the truth and to its virtues. And for philosophers, the highest virtue is to not deceive so easily with false findings, and to use their findings to reduce human suffering. It all begins with remembering that we are allowed to be ourselves, and that it is okay to be so.

(Philosocom's Directory on Competency) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Usefulness of Human Beings: Why Everyone Matters" presents a compelling argument against the notion that some people are "useless" to society. The author presents a wide range of perspectives, emphasizing the intrinsic and extrinsic value of every individual, regardless of their perceived productivity or economic contribution. The article's strengths include its inclusive perspective on human worth, which challenges conventional definitions of "usefulness" tied to employment or economic productivity. The Philosopher uses real-life examples, such as the character from the movie "Rain Man" and the author's own grandmother, to illustrate the diverse ways in which individuals can be valuable. These personal stories help to reinforce the idea that human worth is not solely determined by economic contribution, but by a multitude of factors, including emotional support, artistic creativity, and unique talents. The article broadens the definition of "usefulness" beyond traditional metrics, such as work or productivity, to include emotional impact, artistic expression, and the potential to inspire or bring joy to others. This broader definition encourages readers to reconsider how they view themselves and others, promoting a more compassionate and inclusive mindset. Mr. Tomasio engages with philosophical concepts, deepening the conversation about human value and purpose. The reference to Yuval Noah Harari's idea of a "useless class" serves as a thought-provoking counterpoint that adds depth to the discussion. The author encourages critical thinking and dialogue by explicitly stating, "Feel free to convince me otherwise, and respectfully," making the article more engaging and thought-provoking. Overall, the article "Usefulness of Human Beings: Why Everyone Matters" is a thoughtful and well-intentioned exploration of human value, challenging societal norms and inviting readers to reconsider what it means to be "useful."   I don't believe there are people who are useless to society. Even the most mentally ill people can be used to advance scientific research in psychology, sociology, criminology, and so forth. For example, prisoners in maximum security can be used to study the effects of long-term incarceration on the human psyche (not necessarily through human experiments). And even babies can teach us something about the parents' biology and/or reproductive systems, genes, and so on. After all, they came from them and thus carry data related to them; data that can be learned from. Even those who are unable to work are not necessarily useless. They can still be of purpose in other ways, such as making their families happy, volunteering, or even opening their own business/es. These are some respected purposes when you are unable to work due to an extreme disability, for instance. Even if you are worthless to many, you can still be important to at least one person -- a parent, a friend, a child, and so on. While it's not necessarily true that "no man is an island," it is true that we all can leave an impact on this world, and no matter how microscopic it may be, it is still an impact. And an impact that can go down the line of time. It's one of the benefits of influence. And since we can influence others around us, we may be more useful than we might think. Purpose does not always have to come from employment, and purpose does not always have to be directed to other people than yourself. After all, you are also a person. For others, you are a person, just as they are to you. What objectively, therefore, makes you and I different from people in general, when we are all people? Being useful to ourselves, is also a form of usefulness, is it not? Must we always be useful for others, in order to be useful in general? I watched the classic movie "Rain Man". It's one of the most well-known movies about autistic people in a time when autism was not very well known. In the movie, the main character's autistic brother, who was mostly a burden and unemployed, actually proved to be very competent in gambling. He thus helped his brother return his large debt, to the point that the casino they were gambling in expelled them because the casino was losing money. All because of this unemployed, institution-residing genius. My grandmother in her final years believed her life was meaningless. It was one of the reasons being she felt very lonely (even though I visited her regularly) and was retired. However, she was a great artist with phenomenal talent. However, she was never a well-known artist. Unfortunately your name as an artist is also important when selling your creations. It is sad how negativity bias can make you easily devalue your talents and potential contributions to the world. It can blind you from your own promising worth. What we can conclude from all of this is that no matter who you are, as long as you are human, you have at least some degree of potential you can use (or others can make use of, not necessarily in a bad way) in the name of self-actualization and productivity. Where there are humans, there is potential for productivity and for creation. The same applies, of course, to animals as well; to the animals we domesticate to be our beloved pets, the animals that we produce meat from, and animals that entertain us at the zoos. Let us, therefore, not fall victim to the delusion that we are utterly meaningless, because as long as we are alive, we have the chance to be helpful and/or productive to a degree. In addition, few are the people in the world, theoretically, that don't matter to anyone whatsoever. Remember that, even when no one cares for you, you can still have the power to make some change, and thus alter at least one thing in the environment you're in. To be useless is to have no use at all, and since we are all capable of using something, or being used for others, finding at least one person who is or was completely useless, is therefore extremely difficult. More than you might think. We should consider the fact we don't know each other like we think we do. Those who choose to be useless on purpose do not count, because what we choose to do with our potential, is still ours. The potential exists, we just need to discover/rediscover ourselves, to realize this. We also need the tenacity and other values to be/keep being useful. And allow me to critique the philosopher, Yuval Noah Harari, for his "useless class" idea. The idea's premise stems from the notion that one can be useful to others only through monetized work. That's not true at all, when one can volunteer, as explained before.

(Philosocom's Directory on Culture https://www.philosocom.com/post/stormtrooper-culture-a-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-cancel-culture-influences-freedom-of-speech https://www.philosocom.com/post/truth-opinion-and-pc-culture https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-cyberpunk-what-we-can-learn-from-the-sci-fi-subgenre-by-mr-igal-shenderey https://www.philosocom.com/post/arguments-against-world-domination https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-button https://www.philosocom.com/post/intercultural-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-of-justice https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-role-of-culture-in-society) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "The Universal Culture -- A World United, And A Directory" is a comprehensive exploration of the impact of the internet on cultural identity in the digital age. It discusses the homogenizing effects of a "universal culture" and the resilience of local traditions, demonstrating the complex interplay between global connectivity and cultural preservation. The article raises questions about whether the internet is eroding traditional cultural boundaries or fostering new hybrid identities, encouraging critical thinking about the future of cultural identity in a digital world. Mr. Tomasio presents multiple perspectives on the impact of the internet, acknowledging both positive and negative consequences, such as the spread of new ideas and the threat to local traditions. Real-world examples like North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam illustrate how different countries are responding to the challenges of internet freedom and cultural preservation. The article also looks ahead, considering how future developments might impact the relationship between local and global cultures. Overall, "The Universal Culture (And Philosocom's Subcategory on Culture)" is a thoughtful and well-rounded exploration of a complex issue, offering a balanced view that considers both opportunities and challenges.   (Background music) ************************************* The Wide Spread of Culture in the Digital Age As the world is becoming more and more connected to the internet, it would be only logical to deduce a certain conclusion. With enough interaction with different people across the world, the values of one's local culture will be abandoned in favor of the culture created by the internet. A culture whose makers are anyone on Earth who has enough recognition in said medium of communication. Of course, we are still bound to our local cultures. However, the more people adopt international languages such as English, the less the influence of said cultures will be on future generations. Instead, they will be influenced by a universal culture, shared by the online world. This is a thought-provoking issue, the impact of the internet on cultural identity. The internet does undoubtedly create a space for the exchange of ideas and the formation of new online communities, whose members can also join many other online groups. However, it's important to consider some key aspects that oppose this expression of globalization: Persistence of Local Cultures: Local cultures are deeply ingrained in traditions, rituals, and social structures that are not easily replaced by online interactions. The internet can even serve as a tool to strengthen local cultures by allowing people to connect with others who share their heritage. Hybrid Cultures:  The internet may instead lead to a blending of cultures, where people incorporate elements from various online and offline influences to create their own unique identities and subcultures. Digital Divide: Not everyone has equal access to the internet, and this can worsen existing cultural inequalities. This leads to more racism and ignorance of the larger world on both sides of the divide. The internet is a powerful force that is undoubtedly shaping culture. However, it's unlikely to lead to a complete homogenization, as long as the world won't attain universal literacy and have a wider internet access. The future will likely see an even more complex interplay between local and global culture. Can Tradition Withstand the Digital Wave? Some cultures might already be aware of this, and thus try to force their members to abstain from online communication in order to preserve their own sense of cultural identity. In North Korea, for example, there has been a law passed by Kim Jong Un, that country's dictator. The citizens must avoid using slang from South Korea, the peninsula's far more democratic country. This extreme law has been declared in order to further preserve the North Side's cultural identity. This example highlights the tension between cultural preservation and the free flow of information that is a basic element of the internet. North Korea's restricted internet access serves as a kind of "cultural firewall", attempting to shield its citizens from outside influences. Other countries with restricted internet access include: Vietnam: The Vietnamese government restricts access to websites and social media platforms that it deems critical or subversive. They also censor content that is related to human rights, religion, and politics. Russia: The Russian government has cracked down on internet freedom in recent years, blocking access to websites and social media platforms that it criticizes. They have also passed laws that require internet companies to store user data in Russia and give the government access to this data upon request. Egypt: The Egyptian government has blocked access to social media users if they deem them "dangerous to public security". Additionally, they have also introduced laws that restrict freedom of expression online. As long as the internet will be restricted, national authorities would be able to better preserve their cultural heritage and influence over the populace. This however isn't necessarily a good thing when it's done through oppression. The Benefits Which Threat Governments Open access to the internet would likely lead to a significant shift in countries like North Korea, but also in other internet-restricted countries. Citizens would be exposed to: New Ideas and Beliefs: Exposure to diverse viewpoints can challenge existing beliefs and potentially lead to a loosening of the state's ideological grip. Religious Diversity: North Korea is officially atheist, but online access could introduce individuals to different religions, fostering a more pluralistic society. Because this exchange of faiths threatens their cultural restriction, North Korea has one of the worst levels of freedom of religion in the world. Global Communication: The ability to chat and connect with people from other parts of the world would undoubtedly foster a sense of global citizenship among North Koreans, especially with those who managed to defect. This openness could be seen as a threat to cultural identity, particularly for more traditional societies. The historical example of some Jewish communities also reflects this concern, who see a need to create a metaphorical "fence" between their sacred texts and a world of sin. Preserving Identity: A Balancing Act The challenges of balancing cultural preservation with the undeniable pull of the interconnected world, are clear and bright as the sun itself. The key takeaway is that the internet acts as a powerful force in shaping and spreading culture. While some cultures may attempt to build firewalls to maintain their traditions, the long-term impact of the digital age on cultural identity remains to be fully understood. It is likely a future where local and global influences will continue to interact, creating a more complex and interconnected cultural landscape. The Double-Edged Sword of the Internet The internet is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity. From online banking to job applications, internet-connected devices like smartphones and computers are essential tools in today's world. This common fact presents a unique opportunity: global visibility. With dedication, anyone can build an online presence and achieve a level of fame, connecting with people who would have never known of them otherwise. In some cases it can even diminish the value of academy. However, this accessibility comes at a cost. Anyone can post anything online, regardless of truthfulness, leading to the rampant spread of misinformation and "fake news." Developing trust in online sources becomes a critical skill in the digital age, but also a problem. We need to trust the right source, one that does not seek to manipulate us for financial gain. As internet access continues to expand and English proficiency increases at least in the workforce, the influence of local traditions may diminish. Community centers live in the shadow of online forums, traditional performances overshadowed by live streams, and physical sports replaced by the thrill of esports. In a world where there aren't enough job opportunities to go around, a global culture has the practical function of expanding one's reach for work. Finding Balance in a Connected World Media Literacy Education: Equipping individuals with the ability to critically evaluate online information is crucial for combating misinformation and preserving cultural identity from manipulation. Digital Storytelling: Local cultures can take advantage of the internet to share their stories, traditions, and values with a wider audience. The internetization of content exists for good reasons. Blended Experiences: Instead of viewing online and offline experiences as separate spheres, we can create opportunities that integrate both. Imagine attending a live concert that is also streamed online, allowing global participation. Another example is through the interactive use of VR technology, which impacts perception both practically and philosophically. The internet doesn't have to be completely destructive to local cultures. By embracing its potential for communication and storytelling while fostering critical thinking skills, we can create a future where local and global cultures coexist and enrich each other. The Future of Connection The internet is undeniably transforming how we live, work, and connect. Just as our grandparents may not understand MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), future generations might find these terms as commonplace as televisions and smartphones. The online sphere is becoming an increasingly integrated part of our lives, blurring the lines between the virtual and the real. Whether it's an elderly person mastering a video game or a young person connecting with a global community, the internet is weaving a web of connection that promises to reshape the world in ways whose impact is grand and can be fully understood.

(Subcategory Directory: With Happiness and Joy -- Why Optimism is Important (Poem) Success Versus Happiness -- Why Success Can Outweigh Happiness Why I Fear Disrespect of Family (And How to Be Happier) The Factors of Unhappiness (And a Possible Solution) The Power of the Granted -- Why I Choose to Be Unhappy Why Positivity is More Reasonable Than Pessimism The Problems of Following Your Passions https://www.philosocom.com/post/elementary-to-me-poem The Childish Philosophy of Philosocom Article Empire https://www.philosocom.com/post/cold-logic https://www.philosocom.com/post/power-of-love https://www.philosocom.com/post/doronbo-gang https://www.philosocom.com/post/catering https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-road-to-happiness https://www.philosocom.com/post/traditionalist-path https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-and-joy) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley And Co. "The Subjectivity of Happiness" is a thought-provoking article that explores the complex nature of happiness, emphasizing its individualistic characteristics. Mr. Tomasio uses personal anecdotes and experiences to illustrate the diverse ways individuals perceive and achieve happiness, making the content relatable and compelling. The article critically examines generalizations made by studies on happiness, such as Dr. Robert Waldinger's research on relationships, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging individual differences. The philosophical reflections on happiness, survival, and the role of emotions add depth to the discussion, with quotes from thinkers like Tracy Dennis-Tiwary and Kenneth Stewart enriching the narrative. The article offers practical advice for self-discovery, emphasizing self-knowledge and exploration of new experiences. It critiques social norms, such as marriage and gender roles, and highlights how these norms can impact individual happiness. The article maintains a realistic view on the pursuit of happiness, acknowledging that it is often a privilege rather than a guaranteed right. This perspective encourages readers to be pragmatic about their expectations and efforts. The notion of a "higher calling" and finding satisfaction in something greater than oneself adds an inspirational dimension to the article. (Background music) Part I: Understanding the Subjective Self The logical truth about happiness is, that there is no one, universal source that will make all of the currently-living human beings happy, even if there is such a source that makes most of them happy. According to research: “Over and over in these 75 years, our study has shown that the people who fared the best were the people who leaned into relationships with family, with friends, and with community" -- Dr. Robert Waldinger However, this research is overgeneralizing, and ignores the fact that some people prefer to be alone, even when presented with good company. It ignores the fact that the past affects our behavior, thoughts and emotions, to the point of changing our priorities in the future. It ignores the whole concept of social fatigue, which in some cases, could be attainable through any kind of human company. We are not the Same Ever since I saved my old master from herself, I slowly sank into depression as a child. This depression sometimes returns. I realized what matters to me the most is not even happiness but survival. I developed an ascetic mentality, along with anxiety, to help me better survive: Emotions are tools for survival, forged and refined over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to protect and ensure that humans can thrive. They do this by providing two things: information and preparation. -- Tracy Dennis-Tiwary High-quality connections do not make me happy. Being mindful about the fact I am surviving, and being a good influence on reality, is what makes me happy and happier. My happiness stems from gratefulness, and never from any human interaction. I sacrifice all mindfulness sessions for my craft because I know I still have much, much left to do. I don't care about the fact I already did so much. I go on being self-ruthless in my way until my influence on this world will improve the lives of many more, using the virtue of philosophy. The knowledge about my potential is a double-edged sword, as I actively let it deprive me of pleasure, and lambast hedonism for stagnating the growth of the human potential towards building better lives. The more better lives there are, the more we can rectify this world! Then, enough generalizing about individual people's happiness, when these people, like me, actively contemplate about the pain and trauma these lands have experienced. Stop generalizing when I don't care about myself as much as I care about the world, and my ability to help it... in my own unconventional ways. I am a mysterious man. Part II: The Path to your Own Happiness If you truly want to attain long-term happiness, you have to know yourself better, and get to know what makes you feel good and what causes you to feel the opposite. Only when you'll know yourself well enough, you'll be able to determine what that source is. There are two ways you can know yourself better, in order to determine what to pursue in life and what to avoid. The first one is in solitude, where you'll have to contemplate in order to know yourself better, and the second one is by getting yourself to experience new experiences, so you might surprise yourself, and find such an activity that you have yet to realize that it genuinely makes you happy. You might find, for example, that being in nature can bring you happiness, due to its mental and health benefits. That is despite much of the global population living in cities, alongside the rapid growth in urban development. Lastly, you cannot expect others to tell you what will make you happy, as much as you can determine it yourself. Take rule on your life, and lead it like a benevolent dictator does. You are capable of being the best candidate for it. The Source of All Suffering You can lead your life to the future you want yourself and your dear ones to be in. Consider halting your attempts at clinging on destructive hope, which deters you from accepting reality. Instead, devise a vision where you can find yourself the happiest. Happiness is rarely unconditional, after all, given how much we desire that we believe to be amiss. You will suffer accordingly to ambitions that haven't been fulfilled yet. Years can go by, and as long as your idea of paradise won't come to fruition, you will suffer. You will suffer because you care. You will suffer per your desire to make your life matter to someone other than yourself. Yet, you will lose things, you will lose people by departure or by death. However, you can, and should, rebuild yourself after realizing you can, and how you can, do it. Until then, by caring for a different reality far more than this current one, you'll live in frustration, whether recognized or repressed, as you try to cling to hope, maybe more than you should... I'm in the profession of hope. Each hour I spend with a client is like an "archeology of hope," if you will, uncovering evidence that things will get better for them: that depression will fade... that anxiety will be transformed into tranquility. But there's another kind of hope that.... inflicts pain instead of easing it. This is what I call "destructive hope." Destructive hope pulls us into a chaotic future, promising us a heaven and dumping us in hell. The inevitabilities of living in an imperfect and mortal world mean that sooner or later each of us must each face necessary losses. -- Kenneth Stewart Part III: The Fault of the Orthodox Paths “No person, no place, and no thing has any power over us, for ‘we’ are the only thinkers in our mind. When we create peace and harmony and balance in our minds, we will find it in our lives.” -- Louise L. Hay The fault in some traditional communities is that they believe they know what is good for you, without necessarily knowing yourself beyond the sphere of your societal origin. They will get you through certain events, especially as a child or a teen, without necessarily caring for your thoughts, even if such rituals are not mandatory by the law of the state. Arguably, the "ultimate" happiness-related ritual in such communities is, of course, marriage. In some of these communities, you will be required to get married by local norms, due to the belief that it is not good for humans to live by themselves, and that a truly happy life is that which always includes marriage. Case Example: Women in The Days of Old Women in ancient China did not enjoy the status, either social or political, afforded to men. Women were subordinate to first their fathers, then their husbands, and finally, in the case of being left a widow, their sons, in a system known as the “three followings” or san-cong. Often physically ill-treated, socially segregated, and forced to compete for their husband's affections with concubines, a woman's place was an unenviable one. -- Mark Cartwright Can we really say women were happier in traditional times? If a woman's desire to either live single and/or not bear children was ignored and misunderstood, can we say they were happy? While children can make many couples happy, the sad truth is that not everyone is fit to raise children. Not necessarily due to ill, but also because not everyone has an affinity for them. It's one of the reasons why I, for example, might never have kids, as I find them extremely loud and thus, harmful for a lifespan I'm trying to expand. Of course other women can also experience life that way, especially when you suffer from misophonia. Societies can understand how loud children can be. However, do their truly understand you if you have misophonia? Will the average authority figure care for this? Would they want to know this? And as women did what they were told in traditional societies, were they happy given that they didn't have the freedom to do what they want? While modern-day women might not be happy too, can we blame this on their lack of choice? When sexism still thrives today, and when women still have a disproportionate burden in the household and struggle in providing proper care for their children, how could they be any happier? Part IV: I Want to be Strong Enough To Keep Caretaking! Some may claim that a life without happiness is not a life worth living, and those who lead such lives are more likely to sink into depression, if not ruin their lives While I don't agree with them wholeheartedly, I do understand the importance of happiness for the average person to say in their mind that "Ah, this is a life worth living". I understand some people need happiness, such as the one found in love, as core reason to go on living. Hence why, for many, happiness is valuable, if not imperative in order to gain satisfaction from life. Happiness can also help us avoid certain illnesses and premature endings that may follow with an unhappy life. Is happiness a right, or a privilege? Perhaps for most throughout history, it was the latter. The lower classes of premodern societies, instead of worrying for happiness, they had to worry for bread and for the future of their children. Many still worry about it today. Rights, however, are not innate, but given to you by someone else. They are best provided when we make them an ethical obligation. Therefore, in the absence of a giver, "the right to happiness" is just a privilege reserved for the few. To quote the philosopher, Mary Warnock: “I do not think that it makes sense to say that you have a right unless someone has a duty to make sure you get what you claim.” Do we have a right to be happy? It might depend on duty. And I put it as a self-proclaimed duty to make sure my partner is happy. If I can't ensure the happiness of many, I can ensure her happiness, at the very least!! Understanding The Power of Rights There is a distinction between survival and happiness. One can say happiness is not necessarily a basic right like any right that allows you to survive better, such as the right to live safely, or labor rights. The first is a right in any democracy that cares for its people. The second is a right in any society whose rule of law hasn't been torn apart. No state is obliged to make you feel good; if you wish to feel good, you'll have to reach it yourself. It's not a responsibility anyone has for you, even as a child. That is... unless you have someone who wants to make it a right for you. Someone strong, capable, and with a large heart to contain you. Most people are basically on their own in the pursuit of happiness. Even in modern times, jobs can deter you from your happiness. Life after workdays doesn't have to be enjoyable as well, when you struggle with loneliness and work-related fatigue. However, it doesn't have to be that way, when you can find people who want to make sure you're happy. Simply, because they love you. And of course, I love her so much. Conclusions -- The "Higher Calling" Since your life belongs to you once you reach adulthood, it is then that you can better decide whether or not you're going to be pursuing happiness as a higher goal. That includes what it will be in your life (a job, a hobby? What kind of people?). For some of us, life is more about living to the next pay-check than taking care of our children or living comfortably. For some of us, there is a "special call" in life—something that gives us great satisfaction, more than anything else. Religious folk may claim that this "call" is from a higher being. Yet, even atheists and irreligious folk can have such "calls." Once you find it you can be, tremendously happy. In theory, it can be anything that can be special to anyone. Yet not everyone necessarily has it, nor will necessarily have it. They won't, likewise, recognize your call. Don't depend on validation too much. The Other Aspect We can conclude that the pursuit of happiness is not only subjective, but, at large, unfair and unjust. Some will have to sacrifice certain things in order to attain it, while others might never get to have the thing that truly makes them happy. What is certain, however, is that happiness is not as imperative for living as other things, such as money etc.. To think that everyone wants to be happy to begin with is a critical error.

(A poem on depression) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. This article provides a comprehensive exploration of depression and its potential solutions, focusing on the emotional components of the condition. Mr. Tomasio identifies three key components: helplessness, sadness, and lack of willpower, providing a structured approach to conceptualizing depression. The article demonstrates empathy towards individuals experiencing depression, emphasizing the emotional struggles that accompany depression. The article emphasizes the importance of hope and perspective in combating depression, suggesting that focusing on future possibilities and finding small areas of control can be empowering for readers. The article also encourages seeking help, a crucial aspect of mental health advocacy. It reinforces the message that support is available and that seeking help is a positive step. In summary, the article provides a valuable exploration of depression, blending philosophical insights with practical advice. It effectively emphasizes hope and the potential for future change, which can be motivating for readers. (Background music) ********************** Depression may come from the realistic fact that we cannot control everything. That we are not as powerful as we would like to be. We are bound to control only what we can, while hoping to interact with the uncontrollable in some other way that will make our lives a bit easier to bear. However, the initial strike of depression comes not from the uncontrollable itself, but from its pessimistic product—helplessness, and the discontent towards it. Those who have no reason to give up unwillingly, whether that reason genuinely exists or not, will find little reason to be depressed. I'd like to suggest that the weak-minded (both men and women) are likelier to be depressed than otherwise. That is because they give up on so much of their power. So much of their resolve. Unlike frustration, depression combines the element of sadness into the equation. Not everyone who is helpless in a situation would necessarily be sad about it. They can choose to be hopeful instead. Therefore, depression has three components, at least according to this thought process: helplessness, sadness, and the lack of willpower towards the first. You won't see a depressed person who feels like they're both in control and are content with it. This is why depression also generates a sense of defeat, of "slavery," or at least, of inferiority, towards whatever makes them feel helpless. And the thing is, since we humans can be delusional at times, few are those who are fully or at least optimally resilient to periods of depression. We all, theoretically, feel that there is nothing we can do, that we are weak compared to this inevitability and that we just carry on with this "fact". Perhaps the most common example is when a heartbreak is created—that the person you've loved so much will probably not return to your presence again, and/or that they don't like you at all while you love them and so on. Surely if we could have the power to control anything, AKA, omnipotence, what are the odds of us being depressed when anything can bend to our will? But the reality is that we are alone against the inevitability of circumstance, of time, and of realism. We can't always do what we desire, we don't always have time to dedicate to activities we would otherwise want to do happily, and we don't always have what it takes to achieve our dreams, so some of our ambitions might remain unattainable for the rest of our lives. The solution of depression, AKA, of this defeatist sadness, is the alternation of thoughts; of believing that there is another way, and that not all is lost. Whether it's about a heartbreak or negative nihilism, the notion that there is hope of alternation and that it will arrive someday, it by itself can be very soothing, if not offer solace, whether that "ray of light" actually exists. For religious folk there is the promise of a rewarding afterlife; that this current life is some sort of a test to view your worth in the eyes of one or more gods, who will then pass their divine judgement. For unsuccessful singles, there is this cliché, yet sensible idea that there are "many fish in the sea" and that perhaps one day they will find what they are looking for. Regardless of the situation, it appears that the most important virtue in the fight against depression is the belief that things will not stay the way they are. And that is true, to an extent. We are not immortal, nor will we necessarily be confined to live the same day over and over again in the reminder of our lives, until death arrives. Everything, in the end, is prone to change, either for benefit or for its exact opposite. Because of this, unless you have very few days left to live, we technically shouldn't be depressed, not because depression is something we should avoid, but because whatever cause that made us depressed might be altered eventually for the better. Thus, change can eliminate the root for our sad sense of defeatism. The fact that realism usually requires lowering our idealist expectations, does not mean this attitude is always an indication to succumb to something. Remember—even if we cannot directly alter our emotions, we can at least find solace in the fact that every emotion, theoretically, can be handled. Emotions are not a verdicts we ought to carry for the rest of our lives. Not only that, but the external source of said emotions won't always be there, necessarily. Some of us have harsher lives than others, but in the end there are many things that can give us, at least, a tiny sense of power over our environment. Be that the pursuit of certain hobbies, the unsupervised use of our devices, the ability to express ourselves with no censorship and so on. Finding power is imperative, but it doesn't have to be, necessarily, power over others, nor abuse. There is no shame, after all, in feeling in control; a sense of control that can elevate us beyond the sinking we were in due to our depression. The ultimate answer to depression, even if not ideal, is simply the visualization of the future. Of dreaming of a better life that might happen eventually, no matter how far or close it may be. For example, one may feel a great deal of despair, do they really know anything that's going to happen to them later on in life? Of course people aren't fortune tellers, except for those who are (assuming there are), so how can the depressed person be completely certain that all hope is lost, when they haven't mastered their own lives, in terms of knowledge, of certainty about the uncertainty? Thus, regardless of where you are in life, remember that things don't have to be the way they've been thus far, and that even in a generally powerless life, there are still things to be found—and appreciated—that one can have control over. They may be more in number than one might think. If you or someone you know is struggling with depression, please reach out for help. There are many resources available, and you don't have to go through this alone. Go through it alone, and you may have a lot more to cope with than otherwise. You can become a broken man or woman as a result. Like me.

Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is trying to get us to think about what we can do in the real existence that we currently have in order to concretely contribute to better our existence; hence, making it possible to live on top of existing only! He is getting us as a start to consider 6 ideas… 1. Haste being devilish. 2. Pleasure's deception. 3. The creation of an environment where diverse viewpoints are respected. 4. Beyond the Norm: Embracing Diverse Paths to Fulfillment. 5. Invest your energies in things that deserve your attention. 6. Remembering the Good and Cherishing the Present. Conclusion: It is now the time to consider being part of the solution and contributing to this world rectification by being knowledgeable of who we are so we can contribute by our unique way of partaking on this Grand-Œuvre of World Rectification! (Background music) A Vision for Progress Obviously, the world is far from perfect and likely never will be. Even if it will be, the irony is that the lack of challenge will make it retain its imperfection. Either way, the lack of perfection doesn't mean we should abandon our efforts to improve it in our own unique ways. If such visions clash, that's the natural consequence of sharing the same space, resources, and air. In the arena of a true democracy, most, if not all, voices deserve to be heard. That's whether or not they are if not universally embraced. Here is but of my many contributions to you; 6 of my insights that could improve the world: 1. Beyond First Impressions: The Dangers of Hasty Judgment We are prone to leaping to conclusions and generalizing about people based on limited information and a lack of reflective thinking. Seeking further details through research can prevent false assumptions and the spread of misinformation online. By taking a moment to learn more, and question the current limits of our understanding's competency, we indirectly benefit others by avoiding perpetuating inaccurate narratives. Resisting the urge for instant gratification in this regard is crucial, as this urge can prevent us from inquiring further beyond our first impressions of something. Since we are all imperfect, that may also include our ability to judge things more objectively. Actually, being subjective beings, it's very likely that our different subjective biases will mislead our own understanding, thus leading to false, hasty judgements. Why then, assume without question that our ability to judge reality in a competent way? After all, hasty judgements have their own problems: Reduction of being useful in a cooperative setting. Correct estimations of what we need to do is the key to overall effectiveness in an organization. Miscommunications that could've been solved if we simply sought to confirm what we understood (Hence why we should ask for confirmation, far more frequently, in the name effective communication). Friendly fire (in combat of course) that can be resulted in death. Increase of emotional pain in more-emotional-invested settings (like in relationships). Heartbreaks, in fact, have an effect on our health. The reduction of hasty judgements can, therefore, relieve us of many physical and mental ailments! When haste judgements can lead to so much suffering, and even death, of either ourselves or others, haste indeed "stems from the devil. The same hasty judgement can apply to ourselves as well. Misconceptions about ourselves, as in the example of megalomania, can overestimate what we really are. Would we prefer to be lied to, even if by ourselves? Or would we prefer to understand the truth about ourselves, so we will better know, what we're truly capable of? If we think we're nice people, we might even delude ourselves, that we were nice, at times we were not nice. The self, indeed, is a host of contradictions, but I digress. Hence, per se, "the hastiness is from the Devil". 2. Pleasure's Deception: Beyond the Feel-Good Factor The alluring feel of something doesn't guarantee its actual benefit, hence the absurdity of fun. Examining beyond the immediate pleasure can reveal the true impact of an action, especially concerning addictive substances. Ignoring this could lead to a cycle of counter-productive desire. Many lives have been can be ruined by prioritizing the temporary buzz over long-term consequences. Gambling, for example, can ruin lives, and not only financially, all in the name of its rushing thrill. This reminds us that our senses can be deceptive, regardless of our circumstances and level of intelligence. As such, we shouldn't blindly follow our senses, nor our intuition, when they can mislead us. And yes, intuition can backfire. Even in business, emotion should be left at the door. Business plans can be poorly made if they are emotion-based, because the long-term effects of logic renders the competency of your emotions inferior and short-sighted. The fact that you feel something, doesn't mean it should be done (or avoided, for that matter). Therefore, to make better decisions, we must become more logical beings. Should we overestimate our logical reasoning, we might make poorer decisions than otherwise. As such, we must improve our reasoning in order to make it a reliable feature. Now, to avoid confirmation bias on your end, I'll add that it's important to use emotion from time to time, as in the case of empathy, to those who need it. And indeed, empathy can be taught, and should be taught, in the name of making this world a better place. 3. Courageous Voices: Speaking Up in a World of Opinions Voicing our opinions, even when facing potential ridicule, is essential in a world that champions freedom of speech. Therefore, we could say over-sensitivity stands in the way of a truly liberal society, where the dependency on trigger warnings, does not compromise the value of exchanging ideas. After all, the permit of liberty does not oblige us to care for the sensitivity of others, when they can work on themselves and take criticism in a professional way. And as I discovered, in this age of content delivery (opinions included), over-reliance on emotions can be a sign for weakness. As such, the existence of cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech. One opinion shouldn't be less legitimate than another, not as something that depends on social validation, at the very least. Being a philosopher obliges you to philosophize regardless of these social risks, so if you're interested in being a philosopher, or already are, be prepared. Silencing dissent through shaming (a common feature in cancel culture) undermines the very foundation of a democracy, where people are allowed to protest, and not only in the streets against their government, but also against one another. We can strive to create an environment where diverse viewpoints are respected, not excluded, no matter how much we oppose them (and their presenters) emotionally. After all, it is through the exchange 6 of My Ideas on Improving the World and opinions that we can have a chance at better understanding reality. For the philosopher, ideology is a tool, not a goal or a brand. As such, philosophy and ideology are not the same. Perhaps, the one exception to the freedom of speech is incitements. After all, most of us would like to express ourselves, not encourage genocides. 4. Beyond the Norm: Embracing Diverse Paths to Fulfillment Romance and children are not prerequisites for a fulfilling life, as much as it may surprise some of you. They are merely options on a spectrum of possibilities, and the conventional path doesn't guarantee success for everyone. In fact, the orthodox ways of lives can unnecessarily be a stressful burden on some. Individual flourishing depends on finding the lifestyle that resonates with our unique needs and aspirations. This is one of the reasons Maslow's hierarchy of needs deserves to be criticized. Furthermore, personal choices, unless demonstrably harmful, should be free from unwarranted interference or judgment. For me, philosophizing is worthy of restoring my debt to the very field that saved my life. Do I expect you to agree with me? Of course I don't. We are shaped by difference experiences, interactions and realizations. 5. Letting Go: Releasing the Grip of Anger and Past Discomfort "Worrying grants a power/influence to the very things we worry about" - John Duran Life presents plenty of opportunities to feel anger and stress, but we shouldn't reduce our inner peace on minor annoyances, especially past events and even minor discomforts. Our emotional energy, like a battery, is finite, leading to stress and exhaustion. As a philosopher I aspire to be stressed and exhausted on what I believe deserves my concern. Let's invest our energies wisely, like a swordsman during a swordfight. Do consider doing nothing and thinking: "What should I let go and what I shouldn't? What would be practical to let go of, and what wouldn't be impractical to be too concerned about?" Respect your energies. Don't waste them all in one place that won't yield you any results. Like with money, you should invest your energies in things that deserve your attention, AKA, things that would actually yield something meaningful. Don't give power to things that do not deserve to be given power to. 6. Cultivating Joy: Remembering the Good and Cherishing the Present Amidst life's challenges, cherishing moments of peace, happiness, and satisfaction is equally important. Consciously reflecting on positive experiences can significantly improve our mood and overall well-being, as positive thinking does in general. Whether through journaling, thinking on those who are dear to you -- actively remembering precious moments and people becomes a powerful tool for combating negativity and fostering joy in our lives. Final Words Thank you for taking the time to read. If you agree with my points, consider sharing this article for a larger exposure. Perhaps it could make the world, to whatever degree, a better place to live in. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback This shall be unlike any review I have done. I’m going to tell you how each idea relates to me: Hasty judgements -- My [position on] hasty judgment is a little two sided as I understand how humanity works. Is it hasty that I judge people as only having lower/average intelligences? You [can] reach a point where you are intelligent enough that you can quickly scope an individual's intelligence. I just automatically assume that it is around average. [I've] yet to meet anyone who has clearly more intelligent than I am, [so I] think I have every right to pass that hasty judgement.  On the other hand, if one refers to average intellect individuals' [point of view], then I agree that they should not pass hasty judgements. I believe a few wars have been started because of this. Examples are as follow: the Pig War, where the death of a pig led to a confrontation over evicting an entire American population on San Juan island during its British occupation. Another example is the American-Mexican War, avoidable by President Polk's ability to negotiate with Mexico over disputed territories(AKA Texas), instead of using aggressive tactics. “Haste” is a relative and subjective thing. A minute to me has my brain processing a huge amount of information. Haste should be a question one should answer. Is haste nothing more than faster than normal? I posses the ability to make quality harsh judgements. [However, they]are pretty spot on [regardless]. I disagree with the idea of intelligence can’t aid in us processing sensations better. [People with] higher intelligence are less likely to be effected by emotions. As I’m smart enough to not give into pleasures, since my intelligence started to express itself, I have had less of a desire to gamble. [Gambling is done] for the rush. [However, I can get] A rush I get from reviewing articles and letting my creativity get nurtured [instead]. I believe it is all about giving into the right pleasures: Productive pleasures. Emotions can give people a reason for living. They are super important at adding quality to life. [I believe] Life is all about finding the right things to get that good feeling from: Healthy emotional expressions.  4. Personal experiences shape the person you are. If you want to be a certain type of person, then you must have experiences which a person like that would have. Your actions dictate who you are. Funny how that works. [If] you want to be a nice person you should practice doing nice deeds. 5. If you ever want to let go it can be done with a really simple step: Does what you want to let go off play any important part of your future? Worrying about the past is pointless because there is no way we can change it. Our time is better spent focused on the future which teaches us all we have is the present moment. Your present moment determines your future. Sit on your coach and try to mow the lawn: You can get rid of worry by taking actions of one who solves that problem.  6. We should find the things which make us happy and find other experiences which can repeat that emotion.

(This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. The rest of the material is in this directory). Alex Mos's Synopsis A philosopher craves recognition and respect from others. Their authority comes from philosophizing, not from memorizing books. A philosopher's ideas must be distinctive yet resonate with people's minds to raise and keep their interest. A philosopher is a creator and doesn't need a diploma to prove their worth. You can learn how to think logically online, contemplate in solitude, and support your theories by research. A degree is only relevant if you intend to work in academia. Philosophy is a field where broad agreement is difficult. There are only a few rules: be existential, logical, and persistent. You earn the title of philosopher through your intellect. Practicing philosophy is work and requires sacrifices. (Background music) Why Philosophers Must Earn Their "Sovereignty" From Anonymity Philosophers, as presented in part of intellectualist misconception, can easily be seen as some pompous figures whose authority is questioned as much as they question reality itself. Yet, unlike your run-of-the-mill "authoritarian", the philosopher craves not dominion over others, but dominion from them – a power forged in the fires of recognition, respect, and, dare I say much intrigue. In this age of gilded certificates and bias of prestige, philosophy stands awkwardly out of step. One can memorize the dusty tomes of ancient thinkers and their methods until their beard turns grey to make a philosopher distinctive or even important to others. No, the true philosopher's authority springs not from the solitary halls of libraries, but from the very act of philosophizing itself – the occupation with uncertainty, the attempt to understand the mysteries of existence, the relentless, often-solitary quest for meaning in a universe that might not care either way. That is what turns the philosopher from the philosophy student or even a philosophy professor: Their minds are distinctive that it is a "brand" of sorts, like any brand of a corporation you may know today. Socrates, Aristotle, Kant -- by their own intellect they forged a brand of their own that distinguishes them by their own mentality, for good, and for bad. In theory there is not much that isn't a double-edged sword in some way, but I digress. Think of it, if you will, like the difference between lecturing about airplanes and actually flying them. One can point out facts about wing sizes and fuel capacities and whatever. And yet, until you've piloted the aircraft the wind, you haven't truly grasped the essence of flight. Being capable of altering our minds, as it has been doing with my own mind, philosophizing on a constant basis gives 1 point to empiricism over rationalism because it's an act that has the power to transform you and make you more unique as an individual. What is recognition without distinction? You cannot recognize something over other things, if it is not distinctive enough. Contrary to my devised reverse-individuality theory you won't be recognized as a philosopher if your average ideas will get overlooked. Your claims hold weight only as long as they resonate with other minds, determined enough to bother reading you frequently. They could, at the same time, spend their free time playing a free-to-play mobile game, but the fact that they can choose you over an addictive phone game, speaks much of what you're capable of. Earn your sovereignty from the ceilings of anonymity through the sweat and blood of genuine inquiry. Let your ideas take flight, and not as echoes of past intellects. On the powerful currents of your own critical thinking you can, perhaps, gain dominance over an empire of thought, to secure it for generations to come, long after your departure. Proving Your Philosophical Genius Regardless of Diplomas A philosopher is necessarily a creator, and not merely an observer of things that have already been created by others throughout history. We need to understand that understanding is an active process of information, and that we don't just passively retain information like a memory databank. The way schools teach us is largely incompetent because we may lose so much of what we learn. How come? We need to improve our process of information so we can understand it better. Testing us for information we simply need to memorize isn't enough for us to even understand it enough. This is one of the things that lead to the illusion of knowledge, while in reality, which Socrates admitted, he, and we, know "nothing". Likewise, the fact that an airplane pilot just graduated from his or her school doesn't necessarily make them a skilled pilot if they ended up being incompetent as a pilot (this is merely an analogy). Getting several A's in class for writing several essays on Jewish history doesn't necessarily make me an expert on Jewish history. Expertise is much more profound than the paper certificate/s which aim/s to validate it. With or without certification, anyone can claim the title of "philosopher", just like anyone can make shallow content, gain social media subscribers across the world, and then call themselves "influencers". Overrated, isn't it? But the "real deal", the Einsteins and Kierkegaards, prove their worth with every daring dive into the abyss of thought, and actually doing something that's distinctive with it. So distinctive that they go above the heights of others, thus gaining themselves recognition like any other notable thinker. If you want to learn how to think like a philosopher, there is no need to get a certificate to do so. Read online material, watch some videos, and contemplate extensively in solitude. Write your insights, make the necessary research to see if they align with reality (or what reality might become). Try to understand how you could be wrong, and not only how you are right. This careful and delicate work, a combination of any component necessary for studying the truth, is the very activity that, even after years, can eventually get yourself a degree of relevance on a global scale. "The drop of water doesn't dig a rock by its power of impact but by its power of persistence. Does any of this require a degree? Only if you intend to be dominant in academia. But why limit your audience of readers/listeners to the confines of luxurious institutions, in a world whose academic students find it harder and harder to afford their studies in them? Think for the long term. Plan ahead. Gatekeep yourself too much in the "ivory towers" of academia and you'll be limiting people's own access to your material, which can do much good to the world. Consider the fact that gaining recognition in this niche isn't instant and probably will never be an instant success. And you also might not necessarily become a "superstar" or whatever, considering how shallowness is in theory a necessary "evil". No. If anything, you're doing this to study reality in a way most people don't bother, and yet still go on claiming how knowledgeable they are. Recognition's a double-edge sword in a world filled by toxic forums and the easy submission to the temptation of hatred. On the one hand, philosophizing is pretty easy once you practice contemplation on the existential level, and do so regularly. But, on the other hand, some people would call you a hoax, a fake, or a pretender simply because you don't have anything else to prove your position other than your own mind and logical reasoning. Philosophy is a field where it is very hard to find wide agreement on many subjects where philosophy is involved. Thus, sometimes one's own credibility might be put in doubt. How come? Anything in philosophy can be doubted legitimately using the very means you used yourself in the name of the truth. Fail to prove the worth of your content to those who are too close-minded, and they might "sin" what I call "The Whole Person Fallacy", using the rationale that the mind behind the presented material, also matters. There are no "universal" rules other than those two: Be existential (AKA aim for a profound understanding of reality) and logical, as much as you possibly can be. Work on them tirelessly using a "grindset" and like with many skills they can improve over time. You just be surprised by how much your brain is capable of once you put it under a training regimen. We have so much potential we can achieve, but we remain unaware of the true extent of our abilities. Therefore, if you wish to practice philosophy publicly, you need to earn your title through the sheer force of your intellect, the audacity of your ideas, and the unrelenting confidence in your own logic (unless proven otherwise, of course). You need to be a crusader for your own philosophies, a gladiator in the arena of thought, as you fight to gain the support of other like-minded, rational individuals. It might be tiring as it might be stressful to be a philosopher. You might find yourself suffering from insomnia as your intellect confronts issues that leave you restless. How come? It is in the night where the intellects can ponder the most undisturbed, hence many of those who are more intellectual by nature, tend to be night owls. But nevertheless, whether done in the name of having fun or in the name of other purposes, philosophizing -- and the attainment of your distinct recognition as someone who does it -- is work. A work of expanding one's perception to horizons many people don't bother considering much. As such, never underestimate the fact that the seeking of the truth requires sacrifice. Have I already mentioned that influence and power can be seen for what they basically are: a means to an end?

Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "Universal Lonerhood: Why We're All Loners and How to Thrive" is an article that explores the concept of loneliness as an inherent part of the human experience. It argues that we are all alone due to our distinct individualities, and that true understanding between people is rare, making loneliness inevitable to some extent. The article presents intriguing ideas about the nature of loneliness, particularly the notion that even in close relationships, a lack of understanding can create an insurmountable barrier. Mr. Tomasio uses analogies and metaphors to illustrate the inherent separateness of individuals, making the article more engaging. The piece balances philosophical musings with practical insights, suggesting that individuals can grow stronger by accepting their solitude and improving their self-understanding. It also addresses modern issues, such as the impact of social media on relationships, making it relevant to contemporary readers. Overall, "Universal Lonerhood: Why We're All Loners and How to Thrive" is a thought-provoking piece that contributes to the ongoing conversation about human connection and isolation.   (Background music) Objectively, all things share one universe. Subjectively, each thing has its own universe. -- Dan Echegoyen We are all loners because we are all alone to an extent. Allow me to explain. Loners are beings who are continuously alone, distinct from togetherness. When you are alone, you are separated from other beings. Universal Lonerhood, like togetherness, exists on a spectrum. You might realize it when, for example, you are with someone who fails to understand you. Then, you are both with them, but the lack of clear understanding creates this "barrier" between you and them. When it occurs continuously, it creates this uncanny state of being where you are never understood properly, and thus, your inner being is never seen entirely, beyond the appearance of you and your behavior. Understanding is essentially a form of abstract vision, where the information you receive from others is converted into knowledge. It is often a lengthy process that may or may not be hindered by denial, hasty conclusions and judgmentally-dismissive attitude. The intelligent as such are lonelier due to the fact that it takes more effort to understand them. You may claim that spending time with someone is how you don't make them lonely, but that's simply not true. It is not enough because to reduce their loneliness you must understand them more, so their inner being, the one beyond your impressions and assumptions of them, becomes visible enough to avoid deluding yourself about them. Simpler people are easier to understand and thus it does not take much effort to relieve them of their loneliness. Thus, at least by this reasoning, simpler people are the least likely to be lonely. Within our inner loneliness, we might eventually realize that those who are dear to us are not really interested in learning us properly so we won't be as lonely. They may have the following problems in their thinking: They may claim that they've known us for most of our lives (or all of it). Therefore, they're preventing themselves from the underrated value of self-doubt, necessary for further learning. They don't necessarily have any interest in learning about us in general. They might be too tired, too busy and so on. Their hearts are not necessarily open enough to contain us entirely. "Heart", or emotion, is not only an ability, but also a capacity. As such we can't expect much from the heartless when it comes to greater understanding of our deeper parts. Out of their on inner void and/or intimidation, suppressed or otherwise, they may call us narcissists, people who are too full of themselves, etc. Their inner voids may prevent them to be altruistic towards us, thus indicating their own lack of a strong, inner core. It is usually such people who feel the need to be validated the most. It is also hard for such people to understand us and be there for us when they are too vulnerable to do so. We can learn from this that it isn't even realistic to be expected to be well understood by some people. This presents us the opportunity to grow strong alone instead of depending on them. As such this shall allow us to further practice the art of being alone, and learn how to live and prosper despite the harsh, cold loneliness within us. Either way, we are always separated from each other. Even if we were put in a very small room, we would still be each on our own, because our individuality logically makes us separated from each other. The fact that my consciousness is not your consciousness leads to the conclusion that we are alone, i.e., separated, from each other. Even people who happen to share the same body, but have different heads, are still their own individuals by this principle of separate consciousness. That includes different personalities and interests. However, a very rare case of conjoined twins, who have thalamic bridge, allows them to indeed share the same mind. It's believed they can "mentally travel" to each other's minds and share the same experiences as if they are in their own special mental world. Such a phenomena might be the only case which would ultimately relieve us of our loneliness. Perhaps, at the cost of our mental privacy, which might be the final frontier of our privacy in general, but I digress. Take this analogy to further understand the individuality of existence: The desert does not exist. It is only a collective imagery of grains of sand, which are separated from each other. The fact that they are separated from each other proves that they are alone even if they are to be categorized as a "desert." The same applies to human collectives. Even if we constantly interact and socialize with each other, we still remain detached from one another in some way. And the only realistic way to bridge this existential detachment is by a clearer understanding of others. But if they are to fail to understand that understanding is a complex, lengthy process that could even be trained and improved, we will likely remain detached. We will remain detached, but at the very least we can improve our understanding of ourselves, so we won't be as lonely as beings who are not understood by anyone, themselves included. There is no actual entity called "society" in the World Beyond The Mind, like there is no desert. It is merely an association of individual components, as large as they may be. Society gets more unified as one not only through enforcement of law but also through a shared understanding of reality. However, it does not mean at all that this understanding is even correct in the slightest, just because of the function it serves. The World Beyond The Mind is a world composed of individual atoms, connected with each other only through interaction, but not through being. Communication, too, is partial illusion, embodied only through sensory symbolism we were taught throughout our lives, as our graduation to the collective Mental Dimension through socialization. Imagine the world as existent independent of our minds. Then, you may realize that the words you're reading have no objective meaning. You were simply taught that they have, so you would understand them. Of course, the study of language compels you to know the specific meanings that are collectively assigned to these words. But in reality they are just assigned, not an inherent part of them. What allows us to bridge between us and others, like words and their meaning, is our understanding of them. Only when the understanding is aligned, we could far better settle our differences, improve our harmony, and decrease the overall loneliness epidemic happening globally. The fact that we are constantly in communication with each other does not make us into a single, individual being. By the clarity of communication, which can be improved, we merely prevent ourselves, either partially or largely, the inevitable trait of loneliness into our lives. Ever wondered why even in relationships we may be lonely? It has many reasons, from unrealistic expectations to distractions such as social media. So, even in the most intimate of relations we could feel lonely, and not, well, intimate. It is inevitable to come to the conclusion that we are all alone due to our distinction, physical separation, and individuality. Togetherness does not exist in the World Beyond The Mind, but rather in our shared perception, which is used to bridge us to one another to an extent. In fact, a network of people is never quite a physical one, but rather one that is mental and metaphorical. Even the term, "Chain of Command", has this same logic applied. There is no actual chain. It is a metaphorical one, but functional and imperative nonetheless. Where objects are built and collapsed, the atoms remain. The same goes for us individuals and the collectives we form in the Mental Dimension. We may pass through many teams, organizations and communities in life. The idea of a collective union, from a company to a relationship, to last, requires much struggle for it. It requires much struggle to preserve it because reality is by nature dynamic and quite unexpected. When any collective collapses, we need to make sure our mentality does not go down along with it. And for that we need to be strong alone for nothing really lasts forever. In that regard, we are pretty much stuck in our own "mental prisons." We better make ourselves comfortable, if we want to better ensure our strength as individuals. Alex Mos's Feedback "I know of no greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, without end." — these are the passionate words of Franz Kafka, describing a feeling of togetherness, an ecstatic moment of closeness we want to experience with a loved one forever. We live in a modern world characterized by fake digital connectedness, decreased physical interactions, and the growing "epidemic" of loneliness. In industrialized, highly developed countries, one person in 12 is affected by loneliness. This condition makes a person irritable, depressed, and self-centered, also increasing their risk of premature death by 26% due to cardiovascular diseases and cognitive decline. Loneliness is not just physical isolation from the company of other humans, which could be easily helped by improving social skills and socializing. It's a complicated feeling of being an extraterrestrial, trying to communicate with earthlings who don't listen and don't understand but judge mercilessly by their biased standards of normality. It's the feeling of not fitting into a social establishment, perceiving the world as a sophisticated computer program, and engaging in a solitary game rather than living in sensory reality with others... until we fall in mutual love. Can romantic love cure us from this lonely mental state, which brings significant health risks equal to smoking 15 cigarettes a day? Love is an emotion associated with the euphoric effects of neurotransmitters in our brain that can be expressed in many ways. It can feel like irresistible sexual desire, envious possessiveness, power of dominance, or delight of submission. It can even be irrational to the degree of objective impossibility or obsessive delusion. Euphoric romantic love can temporarily ease loneliness, but this strong emotion lasts only a few months to a few years. The keys to the lasting mind structure of togetherness are understanding each other, active listening, empathy, honesty, and intimacy. We also must overcome our egos, show our authentic selves, be willing to improve and accept the partner with their flaws and talents. Romantic love is the firm foundation, while psychological and physical closeness is the fortress that will protect us from loneliness, sometimes for the rest of our lives.