The Directory: Enemy Weakness (Poem) Giving Up When Giving Is Due -- Why I Gave Up On Weakness The Rubinshteinic Theory On Contentism -- Why Emotions Can be Weakness Apathy As Strength The Secret Plans -- Path To A Ruthless Self The Zanetti Clan Philosophy -- How To Live and Die by Power Why Mercy Is Usually Impractical, and Not A Virtue On The Need to Be Always Strong Looking Both Ways: The Wonder of Being Sensitive Why I Support Rational Self Love: A Different Kind of Love How To Increase Love Using Justice https://www.philosocom.com/post/forsaken-bond The Architecture of Hypocrisy: Double Standards, Media Conditioning, and the Vulnerability of the Weak (background music) People often deny things that are too hard for them to bear. Many, instead of hearing the uncomfortable, unpleasant truth, would choose to deny it in the name of comfort . The reason for that being, that comfort feels good, and does not require the mental strength to bear it, unlike uncomfortable truths, that require strength to endure them. To choose pleasantry over reality is a sign of weakness. Many people prefer to pay the cost of denial, and shield themselves from the bigger reality , than to let the truth liberate them. Most people are weak. Most people don't have the strength to venture out beyond the comfortable and embrace the uncomfortable truth that is essential to understanding reality. So, instead of speaking about it, they would prefer to hold it somewhere in the back of their minds, and never let it out. And to quote Plato , there is no more hated man than he who speaks the truth. As a philosopher, I devote myself to the truth , and find myself largely alone as a result. The truth has the power to rectify the world , set people free from denial mechanisms, but the truth is not profitable ; the truth is not something people would necessarily like to hear. And the media knows this, and to make money in this world, you have to cater. Catering requires making things pleasant for people. Since the truth is often unpleasant, the truth is often ignored and overlooked. Being a philosopher makes me an unflinching man. I can say honest things that most people wouldn't be able to bear. Difficult truths require endurance, and thus the path of the philosopher is solitary and a social risk. Saying the brutal, uncomfortable truth has the risk for you to live a life of solitude. The problem with that is that many people don't have the strength within them not only to bear uncomfortable truths, but also the solitude of their own company . And as such, dedicating oneself to the uncomfortable, unpleasant truths of the world, require one to bear 2 things: Unpleasantry and loneliness. And as such, the path of the truth is a road often not taken, in a world where masks and other denial mechanisms reign triumphant. Society is anti-truth. Society does not encourage the virtue of unflinching honesty, but rather the vice of a comfortable life and the services necessary for such a life. Because society is anti-truth by nature, being affiliated with it is counter-intuitive to the solitary path of the philosopher. To be able to freely express yourself requires strength most people do not have. It is a special, hidden strength that society does not encourage you to develop. It is the strength necessary to foster a world of love and freedom , but as long as we will deny the expression or listening to uncomfortable truths, we would also, by proxy, deny ourselves this hidden strength. Deep relationships are built on the ability to bear uncomfortable truths. Denying the truths will not make one's company truly deep. Depth is a vital trait in relationships, imperative to create meaning, closure and the elimination of loneliness . However, since most people don't have that hidden strength, they would spend their lives chasing the superficial. When you want to get to know someone, you have to be honest with yourself -- how deep are you going to go with that desire? If you want to know someone for the sake of pleasantry, you will know that person in a very shallow way, and thus, in a very ingenuine way. If you dare know that person deeply, you will have to endure his or her uncomfortable truths. And since most people want to feel pleasant, over hearing uncomfortable truths, their relationships will remain shallow, and be based only upon pleasantry, not upon the mental freedom of knowing the truth. And how should such weakness in front of that truth should be dealt with? Should it be dealt with compassion or with ruthlessness ? The choice is entirely up to the individual. Those who weren't strong enough to deal with the brutal truth, I have dealt with using ruthlessness. I just can't bear the ingenuine human weakness that is hypocritical -- you want to know a person, but not really, if knowing a person would make you feel unpleasant. Why, then, would you want to know a person, if you have not the courage to endure their inner truth? And indeed, most social interactions are ingenuine like that; nothing more than a theatre of fakeness and vain hedonism. To serve the good feeling, above the truth, is a sign of weakness, because it means you are not brave enough to embrace the truth that exists irrespective of pleasantry. Then, comes the question, if it is really worth it to be in the company of those who are not strong enough to bear the truth. Bearing the truth is the key to a truly honest company that liberates one from his or her loneliness. It is something that most people are not strong enough to do, hence the reasoning of the loneliness epidemic -- a phenomenon where the current company people have in their lives are not sufficient to liberate them from said loneliness. Unflinching honesty is this metaphorical, giant knife that sets one from their feelings of loneliness, however it is one most people are not strong enough to wield. And thus, when people deny things you did, however great , they might do it because they don't have the strength within them to endure these parts within yourself, and would prefer you to conceal them in the name of pleasantry. And as such the relations between truth and strength should be clear. Strength is not only expressed by physical fortitude but also by the ability to bear the truth fearlessly, or despite fear. Since most don't have that aspect of strength, many relationships are fake, and thus unfulfilling, and thus lead to loneliness. If we truly want to solve the loneliness epidemic that runs rampant in our world, we need not merely to communicate with each other, but communicate with unflinching honesty. And to get that unflinching honesty, requires work on oneself that most people don't do. And thus, they spend their lives in weakness, and in denial of harsh truths that would otherwise grant them the mental freedom to see reality in a wider way. Because people deny reality, their perception remains thin and shallow . Their creativity disappears, and different opportunities they have within their potential are simply not an option because they become blind to it. The more you deny reality, the more this process of denial becomes unconscious, and then you become naturally blind to reality as a self-defense mechanism. The stronger you get from within, the more this perception widens, and you begin to see reality in a wider, clearer way. However, for as long as people would choose denial as a habit, their perception will remain limited, and they will live in defeatism, oppressed to forces stronger than them, and complied to obey in utter subjugation. The true, honest philosopher overcomes the temptation for a life of comfort, because the truth is often uncomfortable, and thus, the philosopher would mostly remain alone or with a very small company of people. Had people had the strength within them to overcome their denial mechanisms, relationships would be deeper, loneliness would be reduced, and thus the negative impacts that accompany loneliness would not arrive. As such, the strength within is the key to overcoming the negative impacts of hardships such as loneliness, and to foster that inner strength, requires discipline and awareness, and sometimes time , most people do not have. And thus, most people can easily spend their lives in misery, being enslaved to stronger forces in utter defeatism, not willing to break the matrix that limits their perception on reality, and would instead retreat to comforts as a way to cope with their miserable lives. If you want to be truly free, physical freedom alone won't cut it. You would also require the mental freedom necessary to liberate yourself from limited perceptions, that often come through the denial of reality and uncomfortable truths. And as such, true freedom, one that is both physical and mental requires strength most people do not have. Even if they would be able to travel, parts of reality will forever remain hidden from them, whether consciously, AKA, by choice, or unconsciously. And to be able to endure a life of solitude is something most people do not have the strength to do, yet the truth is often a path walked alone. For honesty creates distance with those not ready for it, and comfort is the social soap that keeps people together, at the price of dishonesty and fakeness and compromise.

(Background music) (Directory on Weakness) Introduction A double standard represents a foundational flaw in an individual's—or a society's —moral architecture. In its simplest definition, a double standard occurs when a specific set of rules or moral judgments is applied rigidly to one group, but entirely ignored when applied to another in an identical scenario. The immediate byproduct of a double standard is hypocrisy . Hypocrisy is a corrosive force; it instantly degrades trust . When a society or an individual demonstrates that their morality is conditional rather than absolute, they prove they cannot be relied upon. The only escape from the condemnation of hypocrisy is self-awareness and a rigorous return to objective standards. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more visible, and more culturally ingrained, than in the societal double standards surrounding gender and physical abuse. The Comedic Disguise of Assault To understand how deeply this hypocrisy is embedded in our culture, we must examine the media that conditions us. Consider a trope frequently utilized in children’s entertainment, specifically prevalent in 1990s animation. In one notable series, a character named "Katella the Intergalactic Huntress" is introduced. She becomes infatuated with the show's antagonist, Dr. Robotnik. She expresses this "affection" through relentless physical assault—punching, kicking, throwing, and ultimately attempting to force him into a non-consensual marriage against his will. Within the context of the show, this relentless abuse is framed as comedic relief. The narrative logic implies that because she is a woman expressing "love" to a man, her violence is quirky and harmless. Apply a simple objective filter to this scenario: Reverse the genders.  If a male character physically battered a woman, overpowered her, and dragged her to an altar against her will, it would not be broadcast as a children's comedy. It would be immediately and correctly classified as a psychological horror and a depiction of severe domestic violence. Yet, because of the gender double standard, the abuse is normalized. This sends a dangerous, hypocritical message: that assault is tolerable—even humorous—so long as the perpetrator belongs to a specific demographic. The Reality of Vulnerability: The Misery  Principle This double standard relies on the lazy assumption that men are always the inherent physical aggressors and can never be genuine victims. This is, however, false. Power dynamics are dictated by capability, not just gender. To observe the objective reality of this dynamic, one must look to Stephen King’s Misery . The narrative strips away the comedic illusion and presents the terrifying reality of a physically compromised man held captive by an able-bodied woman. When the male protagonist is handicapped, his inherent gender advantage vanishes. He is left entirely at the mercy of his female captor. Misery  serves as a stark philosophical reminder: physical weakness leaves anyone  vulnerable to exploitation, trauma , and abuse. The Conclusion: Absolute Morality and Personal Strength There are two vital lessons to extract from the hypocrisy of double standards: Morality must be absolute.  Abuse, forced coercion , and physical assault are objectively wrong, regardless of the gender, status , or identity of the perpetrator. A society that laughs at the abuse of one group while condemning the abuse of another is a society suffering from moral depravity. Strength is the ultimate deterrent.  The world is inherently opportunistic. Physical or psychological weakness can and will be exploited by bad-faith actors. Therefore, it is the imperative of the individual to cultivate unyielding physical, mental, and emotional strength. You cannot control the hypocritical standards of the society around you, but you can forge yourself into someone who is too strong to be victimized by them.

(Philosocom's Directory on Evil) (The Directory on Revenge: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-problem-behind-wanting-payback https://www.philosocom.com/post/from-the-peaceful-lair-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/porky-and-chen-how-i-came-to-be-a-servant-of-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/i-will-never-allow-myself-to-become-like-her-morality-article https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-philosophy-on-letting-go ) Away From The Hermitic Philosopher -- A Very Mysterious Storytime Through A Former Friend's Perspective On Philosocom's True Master... My Mysterious Late Grandmother, Esther Drucker https://www.philosocom.com/post/lurk-in-the-dark-poem To Best Be Served (Poem) https://www.philosocom.com/post/mike-ehrmantraut https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-zanetti-clan-philosophy-how-to-live-and-die-by-power https://www.philosocom.com/post/nice-guy https://www.philosocom.com/post/anonymity https://www.philosocom.com/post/driven-by-fear https://www.philosocom.com/post/frankenstein https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-scar https://www.philosocom.com/post/my-revenge Hatred as Temptation: The Evolutionary Trap and the Power of Restraint ) We, His created actors, will take our final blow, But at the end of my part this I eternally vow, My flesh is transient, but my soul is forever anyhow. I will make God or the Devil pay and suffer my annoying presence, Til eternity ends, to endure my unendingly maddening existence. -- John Duran (Background music) As described in previous articles on the topic of evil , evil can be simply defined as voluntary maliciousness, also known as the willingness to cause harm to another for harm's sake. This means to willingly make them suffer due to whatever motive intended to cause any kind of damage to a person or entity. Many may argue that man is good by nature. However, that generalization ignores what is perhaps the most common of evils in our nature, which is revenge , also known as the desire to inflict harm of whatever kind as a result of oneself being harmed previously. If it weren't for that original harm, that responsive maliciousness wouldn't occur in the first place. That is perhaps how this evil spreads—by the difficulty of accepting the fact that one was harmed without the appropriate retribution. When institutionalized, that evil is prevented by justice , in the form of punishment. However, since the law doesn't always help nor is properly enforced, the void left by an otherwise-helping third party is often replaced by the vengeance of the former victim of the originally-inflicted misery. Even though we often despise evil, and rightfully so, if someone punches us in the face, it's hard not to return the favor by doing the same malicious act. This would make us no better than them, especially if we are physically capable of making them regret their actions and not letting them get away with it. Revenge is a product of wanting to settle the score, and a form of telling ourselves that we are not weaklings. Regardless of the motive, voluntary maliciousness is still maliciousness once it is executed. It is also the same evil that can get us arrested for harassment, violence, trespassing, and property damage. Assuming that these acts are sinister, revenge can indeed be seen as a form of evil that can emerge even from the most law-abiding members of society. Do you think revenge is not a form of evil, even if it is done in the name of justice? Porky Minch, the love-to-hate main antagonist of the MOTHER video game series , is an example of such evil. He was driven to commit evil acts by the abuse he received from his parents and the social rejection he felt from his best friend. If it weren't for these experiences, he might never have become the dystopian dictator who attempted to destroy reality just to "make anyone who doesn't like me gone." (Note: It is important to remember that revenge is not, necessarily, justice. Justice is about fairness and equality, while revenge is about getting even. It's about getting back at those who caused you misfortune. Revenge is often motivated by anger and hatred, which can lead to more violence and suffering. In the end, revenge only perpetuates the cycle of evil. And only when that hunger of revenge is finally fed, it can be put to rest. Otherwise, it will only continue to grow, no matter how hard we may try to overcome it. Thus, forgiveness should, eventually, be an option. ) And the thing is, this character isn't some sort of an inhuman alien or monster with no human emotions. They were just like any other kid you might find in kindergarten or elementary school. That's how far, theoretically, revenge can take you if you let it become your master. And that's why revenge is evil and yet, a natural part of many humans. It is very tempting, both emotionally (the passion) and morally (to even the odds). But unlike Porky, who reached genocidal scales of vengeance, all we have to do to stop revenge from dominating our mentality, is to know when we should move on in favour of better pursuits in our limited lifespan, since once evolved into obsession, revenge can turn you a criminal, murderer or even a terrorist. This is how much revenge is embedded into our nature, that some are willing to take it that far. As a seeker of peace, I learned something important about revenge -- that it is often an obstacle to true serenity the more it dominates your existence, and the more it does so, the harder it would be to rest in peace while among the living. Like a car that cuts you off at traffic and is driving far away for you to be able to do anything, so are many instances of tempting resentments. Let them drive away when it is the wise thing to do, and long-term peace would be easier to attain. Finally, I would like to add that the concept of revenge sounds to me very similar to the phenomenon of energy conversion. The "energy" of harm is delivered by one party to the other, and in order to do something with the negative "energy" one has received, revenge is indeed one of the ways of handling that energy by delivering it back to someone else. Conflict in general appears to be a social and psychological form of emotional and moral "energy" conversion, even though there are other means of doing so (art, protest, physical exercise, and so forth). We humans are highly responsive creatures, and it is often hard for us to leave an issue that means a lot to us unsolved. Acts of infamy are indeed one of the ways to sound and deliver our "negative energies" to the world, because gathering it all inside us is far from easy. This can lead some of us to deprive the good of those whom we think deserve to be punished in some way for whatever they have caused us. We need to restrain ourselves, in short. It is the wise thing to do.

(Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) "Love can move mountains, while hate can only destroy them." -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Introduction Hatred is not an anomaly of the human condition; it is a primal feature. Since the dawn of human history, the emotion of hate has served a distinct, evolutionary purpose. Before the arrival of complex civilization, the ability to instantly distinguish between friend and foe, between the familiar and the foreign, was imperative for physical survival. In the darkness of an unpredictable world, primitive emotions acted as psychological flashlights. They illuminated the environment in stark contrasts of black and white, ally and adversary. By polarizing the world, our ancestors were able to stabilize their group identity and navigate a hostile universe. However, what was once a necessary survival mechanism has, in the modern era , become one of humanity's most dangerous temptations. The Seduction of the Cognitive Shortcut To understand why hatred is so prevalent in contemporary society—dominating news cycles, social media algorithms , and political discourse —we must understand the biology of decision-making. Logic and critical thinking are acquired skills. They require immense cognitive energy, patience , and the ability to process nuance. Emotions, conversely, are inherited biological shortcuts . It is infinitely easier to obey the ignited flame of anger than to engage the prefrontal cortex to consider the long-term consequences of an action. Hatred is tempting because it is easy. In an age characterized by a desire for comfort and quick answers, defaulting to hatred when encountering something different, foreign, or disagreeable requires zero intellectual effort. It bypasses the hard work of diplomacy, empathy, and pluralistic understanding. Philomisia and the Illusion of Vitality Furthermore, hatred offers a seductive illusion of vitality. Extreme emotions—whether profound love or intense hatred—make the human chassis feel deeply alive. They connect individuals to their raw, irrational id  (the primitive, instinctual self). For some, the intoxication of this emotional surge leads to philomisia —the love of hatred. The act of hating provides a false sense of purpose and power. This explains why unnecessary conflicts persistently plague humankind, even after centuries of philosophical and religious teachings emphasizing non-violence , from Stoicism to Buddhism. When the shortcut of hatred feels deeply gratifying in the short term, the masses will routinely abandon logic to indulge in it. The Societal Toll of the Unchecked "Id" When a society surrenders to the temptation of hatred, the consequences are catastrophic. The digital age has transformed the internet into an amplifier for tribalism. Shielded by screens, individuals engage in cyberbullying, gang-stalking, and cancel culture , leaving deep psychological scars on civilization. This herd mentality divides societies. It mocks and ostracizes individuals simply for expressing harmless eccentricities or existing outside the artificial boundaries of a specific group's identity. When we reject pluralism and punish people simply because they do not reflect our own image, we compromise our moral integrity and the foundational stability of democratic civilization. The Sovereign Response: Restraint and Ultimate Success How, then, do we navigate a world addicted to the temptation of hatred? The answer lies in the disciplined application of restraint and the prioritization of long-term logic over short-term gratification. Question the Flame:  When you feel the instinctive surge of hatred toward an individual or a concept, recognize it as a biological shortcut. Be intensely skeptical of your own primitive urges. Do not allow your id  to dictate your actions. Recognize the Victimhood of the Hater:  Often, people will project hatred onto you because your existence, your eccentricity, or your independence triggers their own deep-seated insecurities. You must recognize that their emotional turbulence is entirely their responsibility, not yours. Transmute the Friction:  If you have been the victim of targeted hatred, the desire for revenge is a natural biological response. However, retaliatory hatred only binds you to the person who wronged you. The ultimate defiance against those who seek to diminish your worth is not vengeance. The most devastating response to hatred is the attainment of absolute, unshakable success . Build your empire, secure your inner peace , and render the hostility of others entirely irrelevant to your existence.

Listen to me, the disapproval of cowards is praise to the brave. Your name will be written in glory when wizards rule the world. -- Gellert Grindelwald (Philosocom Video Game Subcategory Directory) ( Philosocom Directory on Fear ) (Background music) Introduction In digital spaces, particularly in multiplayer environments, individuals are frequently forced to share a virtual public square with strangers . While these platforms are designed to encourage interaction, they also serve as a behavioral experiment. What happens when you place a human being behind a screen, remove physical consequences, and mask their identity with an avatar? The result is often the amplification of human, online toxicity. When confronted with this digital hostility, many individuals choose to simply disengage, mute the noise, and "fly solo." However, this refusal to participate in digital friction often results in a specific accusation from the aggressor: Cowardice.  This raises a critical philosophical question: Is prioritizing your peace of mind and ignoring provocation a cowardly policy, or is it a demonstration of stoic mastery? The Anatomy of Online Disinhibition To understand the accusation, we must first understand the environment. The internet operates on the Online Disinhibition Effect . The virtual world strips away the immediate danger of physical or social retribution . Shielded by anonymity, individuals are emboldened to act with an audacity they would never display in physical society. This environment breeds bad-faith actors—individuals who seek out conflict simply to exert power or vent their own psychological frustrations. They harass, hurl baseless insults , and attempt to drag bystanders into their emotional storms. For these actors, any reaction is a victory. The Pursuit of Serenity vs. Cowardice When a bad-faith actor approaches you with unprovoked hostility, the societal expectation is often that you must defend your honor. If you walk away, the aggressor will almost certainly label you a coward. But what is serenity? Serenity is not merely a passive state; it is the active absence of stress, anxiety, and unnecessary struggle. It is a highly guarded internal perimeter. The Coward  runs away because they are paralyzed by the fear of the confrontation itself. They surrender their autonomy to the aggressor. The Sovereign  walks away because they have calculated the value of their time and energy, and determined that the aggressor is not worth the expenditure. Refusing to engage with a toxic individual is not a retreat; it is a tactical dismissal . Getting dragged into an infantile conflict with a stranger behind a screen contributes nothing to your life. It only generates cortisol, frustration , and a degradation of your own mental baseline. Strategic Compromise in Shared Spaces Choosing to ignore others in a collaborative space is technically a compromise. By adopting a " lone wolf " policy, you may forfeit certain collaborative benefits, networking opportunities, or in-game advantages. However, compromise and cowardice are not mutually inclusive. A compromise is simply an intelligent adaptation to a flawed environment. If a path is blocked, taking an alternative route is not cowardice; it is navigation. By sacrificing the potential benefits of group cooperation, you are paying a calculated tax to guarantee your absolute peace of mind. For those who value a quiet mind above all else, this is a highly profitable exchange. The Boundary of Collaboration There is, of course, a distinction between preserving your peace and neglecting a duty. If you willingly volunteer for a specific role within a group effort, you assume a responsibility to that team. Failing to execute that role may understandably invite frustration from your peers. However, simply existing  in a shared space—whether a multiplayer server, a social media platform , or a public square—does not obligate you to interact with anyone. You do not owe strangers your attention, your conversation, or your emotional labor. The Ultimate Display of Maturity We cannot control the audacity of others, nor can we remove all toxic actors from the servers of life. But we maintain absolute authority over where we direct our attention. Choosing to be a "ghost" to those who seek to disrupt your peace is not a weakness. It is the ultimate boundary. Let the bad-faith actors shout into the void . T he truest display of maturity is recognizing that not every insult requires an answer, and not every battle is worth your armor.

(Background music) Introduction Femininity, when viewed through a philosophical and psychological lens, often presents a profound duality: it is simultaneously a space of unconstrained emotional expression and a potential source of deep emotional fragility. For those who navigate the world through high emotional intelligence, this landscape offers a liberating freedom. However, for those conditioned to view the world through a strictly stoic or analytical framework, this intense emotionality can appear chaotic, overwhelming, and difficult to integrate. The relationship between masculine stoicism and feminine emotionality is one of history’s most complex sociological dynamics. Understanding it requires a willingness to observe the contrasts without judgment. The Disconnect: Serenity vs. Storm Societal conditioning and gender socialization often push individuals into divergent emotional camps. Many men, driven by the masculine archetype of the "empire builder," cultivate an internal environment based on serenity, logic , and the suppression of disruptive emotions. When a mind wired for intense order and emotional quarantine encounters the unfiltered expressions, anxieties, and raw vulnerabilities often associated with femininity, friction is inevitable. To the highly stoic individual, these emotional displays can feel like a storm threatening their neatly ordered world. Consequently, the stoic may retreat into coldness or dismissal, viewing emotional boundary-setting not as a rejection of the person, but as a necessary defense of their own internal peace. The Friction of Misunderstood Boundaries This clash of emotional languages often leads to mutual misunderstanding. The Stoic's Perspective:  The stoic individual may feel that their quiet, steady presence is undervalued, or that they are only appreciated when serving a utilitarian purpose . Their muted emotional landscape is misread as apathy. The Highly Emotional Perspective:  Conversely, the highly emotional or feminine individual may perceive the stoic’s distance as heartless , fleeing from the necessary work of deep connection when faced with emotional turbulence. When these two archetypes clash, it often results in a rapid withdrawal. Those unprepared for the sheer weight of a heavily armored mind often retreat, unable to bridge the gap between their need for expressive warmth and the stoic's need for silent stability. The Architecture of Vulnerability It is easy to romanticize emotional openness from afar, but up close, the raw vulnerability it requires is daunting. For an individual who has survived life through intense emotional desensitization and resilience, viewing femininity as anything more than an abstract concept can be incredibly challenging. However, deep philosophical reflection reveals a critical truth about human dynamics: the deliberate choice to be vulnerable is not a display of weakness. Sensitivity is often equated with fragility because it exposes the individual to the thorns of pain and the scars inflicted by others. Yet, avoiding this exposure out of fear is its own form of cowardice . True strength is not the total avoidance of emotional pain; it is the capacity to endure it. The Ultimate Paradox: Pain as the Price of Connection To evolve beyond mere survival and achieve genuine human connection, one must eventually lower the armor. Choosing to open up to another human being—embracing the absolute certainty that they possess the capacity to hurt you, intentionally or otherwise—is the ultimate display of psychological fortitude. It requires a conscious transition from a defensive posture to an offensive embrace of life's inherent risks. You cannot achieve profound connection if you are paralyzed by the fear of pain. To embrace the emotional depth often found in femininity and vulnerable connection, one must first accept that suffering is inevitable , and decide that the strength gained through that adversity is worth the risk.

(For a poem related to the subject, click here ) (Note: Although written in 2021, some of the context and reasoning are still relevant to this day, in 2023. Perhaps indefinitely, too.) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). ************** Audience of Philosocom, I've been suffering a lot lately due to the constant mental stress I'm in. Although I enjoy writing and feel very content with it, the irrational fear of " have I written enough ?" continues to torture my mind. It's an anxiety I've been having for years, hence why I've written so much thus far. I still wish to write more, though, but I understand that without taking breaks, that would unfortunately be an unwise idea, as I also need to consider the state of my mental health. Being a philosopher is a very stressful occupation, as I have witnessed. You're in a constant need to prove yourself to others and also need to make sure you're not writing too irrationally or illogically. It's a tedious job where even the simplest of fallacies can challenge the existence of the claims you're making. In addition, there is also the issue of reception . Not everyone will like your philosophical writing, nor would necessarily agree that you are a philosopher, even if you have proven that you are several times through the practice of philosophizing. Yet another issue is to actually make people stay and read your articles , whether or not they are well written, due to today's short attention span. I even learned, through researching competitors, that the average stay in a philosophy website is around 1 to 2 minutes, and obviously that is insufficient for the average reader to read even one article. In a way, being a philosopher is like being a king, because as a king you ought to justify your mandate as such, defend your reputation from your "enemies", and make sure you have enough support for people to take you seriously in your role and not to "overthrow" you in favor of other "rulers". Looking back, it is indeed no wonder that I went under a lot of pressure, and I'd probably have had significant pressure even without my stress-increasing disabilities. The hardest thing, however, would be attracting the attention of the ungrateful ; those who want to react to your content without even the least bit of gratitude towards your work, who also don't care for you as a person, and thus wouldn't hesitate to insult you even though you work for the common good. Fortunately, those were few. But in the end, people need to understand that even philosophers can be offended, no matter how good or bad they are at their job. In the end, we want to, so to speak, work for the "love of wisdom". To celebrate our desire for insight and possible truths, and to feel safe doing so. Unfortunately, because not everyone is in this mindset of "celebrating" our love for wisdom, ungratefulness and even spite can come when some people are witnessing content they don't want to consume. Even if the material itself is legitimate, a philosopher's job isn't to appeal to their audience, necessarily, but to write what they genuinely think to be logical and true. Even if it met with controversy, one should remind themselves of the ad-populum fallacy. I won't lie to you when I say that I don't like the external world and all the stress that it contains. Even before realizing my "destiny" I was a very stressed individual, and I admit that this world is too stressful for me to live in like a functioning individual. As I said in one of my videos, stress cause me physical pain , and if that stress becomes too intense, it can result in a panic attack, and unfortunately, I had countless of those. However, regardless of the pressure, I don't want to give up on being a philosopher. I have no other reason to live other than providing to the world as many philosophical content as possible, for that is possibly the only good thing I am capable of doing and generate a sense of purposefulness at the same time. I tried in the past working at monotonous jobs that actually provide a steady income, but those made me depressed and small in significance. I do hope in the future to provide you with even more articles, videos, and poems for you to enjoy; content that will quench your thirst for wisdom, and put a smile on your face, even if the content at hand is a bit dark in nature. Nonetheless, as I enter what I call "Full Hermit Mode," I really recommend you check out my older articles that are available at the far reaches of this blog. I made this site in 2019, and much content has been generated for this site. If desired, consider dedicating some time to reading older material as I'm taking a break from writing newer material. Use the search engine if desired ; who knows what you'll find? Thank you all for following and supporting my endeavours as a philosopher and this site as my formal base of operations on the internet, Regards, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein

(Background music) Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Philosopher and Their Politics -- Insights For Public Figures in Philosophy" provides a comprehensive exploration of the challenges faced by public philosophers in navigating the contemporary landscape of political influence, digital memory, and societal expectations. It explores the intersection of philosophy and politics, focusing on the role of public figures in shaping public perception and ideas. The article uses clear argumentation, engaging style, and critical reflection to explain the dual identity of a philosopher as both a thinker and a public figure. In conclusion, the article is a rich exploration of the philosophical-political dynamic and the challenges philosophers face in the public eye. (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) Outside the Ivory Tower: The Public Philosopher as Politician To avoid confusion within this discourse, it's crucial to acknowledge that the scope of "politics" extends far beyond its contemporary definition , AKA, " the actions or activities concerned with achieving and using power in a country or society". As long as one participates in one or more collectives, the influence of politics is inescapable, as all human relationships are based on the dynamic of power. According to a broader source, politics is " total complex of relations between people living in a society. " And of course, when it comes to the "total complex", governments are only a part of it, and never its entirety. Moving beyond the meme " We live in a society ," public philosophers must recognize the implications of being part of a collective larger than themselves. These implications extend beyond their individual practice of philosophy, demanding they consider additional roles and functions to optimize their public engagement with philosophical thought. The collective possesses immense power for any public figure, regardless of their involvement in formal government, for the public figure holds an exclusive status . Views, supporters, critics, and other elements can be utilized not only to be heard but also to expand one's influence within the collective , even without formal authority over others. Thus, the philosopher, when emerging as a public figure, can hold informal authority over others whether or not he is a formal leader of an organization. Like with any public figure, the public philosopher occupies a kind of political space within the collective, hallmarked by his or her sage-level wisdom. They are participants in a shared arena, where other competitors also seek attention and influence. Public perception significantly shapes how both the philosopher and their ideas are received. In other words, just as a governmental politician represents their party, the public philosopher stands as a representative of their entire public body of work and thought. That's unfortunately because of one of the most commonplace logical fallacies of ad-hominem. Since people may prefer far more to focus on people rather than ideas (with a prime example being gossip) , it can be quite difficult making the difference between the philosopher and his ideas. Therefore, keeping a good public image is also done for those who prefer to talk about other people, rather than their ideas. That's even though the philosopher is merely a representative of their ideas, and even though in philosophy, ideas matter more than the minds behind them. The Public Figure's Digital Shadow As I look back today, I realize, with a touch of melancholy, that my public behavior represents not just myself, but a sphere of others. My website, articles, books, my organized followers—all will also be judged, in the reflection of my actions. Like waves at sea, one small choice can set forth a rolling snowball of unintended consequences, actualizing both desired and unwanted potentials. Like genius villains, we must think competently. Humanity's grandest collective thus far, the globally connected internet, presents the extent of our shared public memory. Intimate details reside alongside grand pronouncements, readily exposed even when privacy feels most desired. My own contributions, like many others, might not cause a world-altering impact, but their impact can nonetheless accumulate weight and meaning with each passing year, long after their originator became a relic of the past. And so is everything else online that can be traced to said originator. Anything that can easily be used against them, making society a very hostile place to live in. Deletion proves a shield at the face of screenshots. Once casted into the digital abyss, to-be-deleted data can resurface at the whim of a stranger who saw value in its preservation, for either good or for malice. The public domain, unlike any physical territory, stretches beyond borders and language barriers , and can turn the smallest of notes into global-grade controversies. And in here lies the difficulty for both politician and philosopher: That every move, every utterance, can easily become a relic in the collective memory, powerful enough to cast a long shadow that can eclipse even the most profound of philosophical contributions to humanity. In my own reflection of past events, decisions are made through the lens of a "political" understanding, aimed at relevance and engagement. Yet, the price of such visibility can be high, necessitates the surrendering of some control to the ever-shifting nature of perception . Perception to be molded by countless factions and agendas within the general collective. And all of that, at greater favor over reality itself. Unfortunate, isn't it... Today's technology further complicates the equation. Attention spans, already fragile, dwindle under the constant barrage of low-quality content. While I find solace in avoiding platforms like TikTok, one cannot deny their potential to amplify the overshadowing effect, of reducing complex arguments to sensationalized clickbait. For, why put the effort of reading an entire essay when an insufficient "summary," of a reel, can offer the illusion of understanding with minimal effort? Negative. Reels are not enough for summarizing, especially in philosophy. But people want reels. Therefore, people want insufficient ways to understand complex ideas , for they do not have the guts to override the normalized laziness of modern-day consumerism . And this puts many philosophers at a disadvantage, as this highly-valued field, capable of many great contributions for humanity, is undermined in the name of instant gratification. In this echo chamber of digital shadows, navigating the path between authenticity and self-preservation becomes an adversity. One aspires to connect, to share ideas, yet risks being reduced to a caricature , defined by the loudest echoes rather than the full composition of their philosophical legacy. Perhaps the answer lies not in retreating, but in reclaiming the narrative, by trying and make philosophy relevant again. For in the end, it is not the fleeting virality of a meme, but the depth and resonance of our lived experience that deserves to echo through the halls of time. Public Philosophy in an Age of Fragile Attention I am no prophet, but one hazy vision clouds my future: the ever-tightening knot of "politics" in its broadest sense. In this future, where impatience and laziness reign supreme, a single misstep, a poorly chosen sentence, can degenerate a whole legacy, reducing a philosopher's lifelong pursuit of wisdom to ash in the eyes of those with no time for more-than-simple understanding. So, for those who choose to traverse this unforgiving, entertainment-over-substance landscape of today, a lesson might be gained from the Bushido code of the samurai , not the Yakuza's morally-depraved shadow: Just as a warrior defends their honor, not for personal glory, but for the ideals their blade embodies, so too must the public philosopher guard the integrity of their work. Not through violence, of course, but through careful precision, wielding words like a skilled swordsman, each utterance honed to illuminate, not deceive, and not to cause malice. As all the wise need to do in a world where gutlessness is marketed as sensitivity, and thus cowardice, as appropriate. And when, inevitably, a misstep hinders the journey, there is no need to embrace Socratic drop of poison, and die. Negative. Atonement, not self-sacrifice, is the key. Not "cutting off the little finger" but to redeem the error, through good deeds. For the future, for the sake of the philosophical legacy, and the ideals it carries. I've the guts to admit I've contradicted myself before, and that I made errors. But why verdict eternal darkness upon me, when I can work towards redemption? The beauty of philosophy lies not in pronouncements carved in stone, but in the constant evolution of thought, the ongoing dialogue with oneself, the world, and earlier text. Each error, each misstep, becomes a stepping stone , a chance to polish the lens through which we perceive, in the name of a greater understanding of reality. Final Words So in this age of shortened attention spans and merciless judgement , the path of the public philosopher becomes a minefield that requires careful planning between preserving truthfulness and avoiding the shame of doing just that. But it is precisely here, in this unforgiving terrain, that our words hold the most power. For the act of public philosophership requires not one but two strengths: The first is the strength of being a philosopher and the trials it features. The second is to dare sounding one's voice and become a component in the larger context that is public discourse. Let us then, embrace the challenge, and remember: The battlefield of thought is not won in swift pronouncements, but in the patient, relentless pursuit of wisdom. A pursuit that, even in its predicaments, illuminates the path for generations to come. And while the obscure philosopher refuses to relent, the public philosophers refuse to relent tenfold!

Subcategory on Darkness My Own Wake (A Dark Poem) Lessons of Light From a Darkened Man To Humanity -- How To Become A Beacon of Light The Bad, Dark and Cruel Side In an Emotional Empath -- How Innocence Deceives (By Mr. Mandoela Svartgold) A Return to the Darker Past -- A Personal Exploration of Fatigue and Hopelessness -- How I Overcame Both For You The Dark Side of Liberty -- How It Breeds Sociopathy Explicit Content, Sensitivity and Eminem (Clean Article) -- How To Build Your Mind With the Darkness of Reality That Which the Philosopher Glorifies.... (Poem) The Sith Philosophy From Star Wars (Revamped For Refinement) Why Positivity is More Reasonable Than Pessimism The Undead and the Examination of Life -- The Dark Side of Enlightenment https://www.philosocom.com/post/lurk-in-the-dark-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/elementary-to-me-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/mad-genius https://www.philosocom.com/post/cold-logic https://www.philosocom.com/post/nice-guy https://www.philosocom.com/post/darkness-and-light (Background music) Introduction It is often said that laughter is the "best medicine." While it may not cure physiological diseases, its positive impact on physical and mental health is undeniable. Laughter is a fundamental social glue, deeply embedded in the human experience. As an expression and indicator of joy , it is a universally desired state—provided the context is appropriate. Furthermore, the ability to generate laughter is a highly coveted trait. It serves as a powerful tool for social integration, making individuals more attractive as partners, friends , and leaders. This applies across all disciplines, including academia and philosophy. For instance, the enduring public appeal of philosophers like Slavoj Žižek is heavily tied to their ability to use humor to engage audiences, regardless of whether the audience fully grasps the underlying theoretical concepts. However, there is a profound difference between laughing with  someone and laughing at  them. When humor is weaponized, we encounter the darker side of laughter. The Weaponization of Humor The darker side of laughter emerges through mockery. While some individuals possess the mental fortitude to brush off ridicule, the reality is that highly sensitive individuals are disproportionately affected by targeted laughter. This dynamic becomes especially dangerous as an individual’s public presence grows . The more recognizable you become, whether in a local community or on a global stage, the higher the probability that you will become a target of public mockery. This is not necessarily a personal failing of the target; almost all public figures and entities are eventually subjected to ridicule. This phenomenon can be defined as The Sensitive Originator's Dilemma : To achieve visibility and share your work with the world, you must accept the high probability of being reduced to a joke by a segment of the population. The Injustice of Uncontrollable Traits Mockery often serves as a harsh reminder of the inherent injustices of society. In fictional media , such as cartoons, ridicule is often subverted so that only the "deserving" or malicious characters are mocked. In reality, people are frequently targeted for factors entirely beyond their control. Society routinely weaponizes laughter against individuals for traits such as: Neurodivergence (e.g., being on the autism spectrum) . Physical appearance or weight struggles. Unique vocal tones or speech impediments. Cultural or religious backgrounds. Even a name can become a source of involuntary harassment. There are documented cases of private citizens sharing the names of highly controversial or famous figures (such as dictators or pop stars like Justin Bieber) who face severe online harassment, account bans, and real-world disturbances simply because of their birth name. It acts as an unearned societal curse , complicating a life before the individual has even made a choice. The "Comic Relief" Archetype in Reality In entertainment, certain characters are explicitly written to serve as "comic relief" —figures whose sole purpose is to endure misfortune for the amusement of others, while the protagonists reap the rewards. Tragically, this dynamic bleeds into real life. Many individuals are forced into the role of societal "comic relief," facing a constant lack of justice and enduring disproportionate hardships while their peers succeed effortlessly. Their struggles are minimized or laughed at by those who refuse to acknowledge their humanity. The Fatal Consequences of Bullying Laughter can be far more destructive than society likes to admit. Unchecked mockery and bullying—whether in schools, workplaces, or the severe echo chambers of the internet—yield devastating consequences. The impacts of chronic ridicule include: Professional Sabotage:  A laughed-at reputation can destroy credibility, severely decreasing an individual's ability to secure employment or advance in their field. Psychological Deterioration:  Continuous exposure to harassment degrades mental health and self-worth. The Ultimate Cost:  In the most severe cases, the burden of being perpetually shamed and picked on pushes victims toward self-harm or taking your own life. While a carnival clown might laugh at the expense of a bystander and feel no remorse, society at large cannot afford such apathy. We must recognize that not everyone will survive being the subject of mockery. For the sake of a temporary laugh, real lives are routinely compromised. Ethical humor requires awareness, compassion , and the fundamental understanding that another person's inherent traits are not a punchline.

"What is a spell, but words declared and crafted with perfect intention and powerful belief wrapped within?" -- John Duran (Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) Introduction There is an undeniable paradigm shift occurring in the consumption of information. The modern audience is rapidly migrating away from the rigors of extensive reading and toward the hyper-stimulating medium of video and live-streaming. This transition is not merely a change in format; it represents a fundamental shift in the purpose  of content. The consumption of philosophy is increasingly being conflated with the consumption of entertainment. This raises a critical question for the future of intellectual discourse: What happens to the pursuit of truth when the market demands that philosophy be delivered not as a rigorous doctrine, but as a theatrical performance? The Degradation of the Attention Span The global attention span is mathematically contracting. For many, deep, sustained reading has been entirely replaced by short-form videos and algorithm-driven dopamine loops. To capture this fleeting attention, modern content creators—even those in academic or philosophical spheres—are increasingly adopting the personas of entertainers. We see this in the rising popularity of "Edutainment," where philosophical concepts are buried beneath costume changes, elaborate set designs, comedic digressions, and musical numbers. The creator becomes a performer, relying on parasocial , "bro-like" intimacy and visual spectacles rather than the structural integrity of their arguments. Why must we condition the public to retain a fractured attention span? Why must a philosopher provide visual "appetizers" and theatrical nonsense to make the truth accessible? To reduce philosophy to a shallow , highly produced spectacle is to fundamentally misunderstand its purpose. The Ad Hominem Culture and "Small Minds" Eleanor Roosevelt famously stated: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Theatrics in philosophy actively encourage the audience to operate as "small minds." When a philosophical presentation relies heavily on the creator's personality, their attire, their lifestyle, or their comedic timing, the audience is conditioned to focus on the person  rather than the premise . This is a structural manifestation of the ad hominem  fallacy. In pure philosophical discourse, the ideas exchanged matter infinitely more than the individuals exchanging them. True philosophy is a ruthless , unforgiving, logical method of deconstructing reality. It does not require—and should not rely upon—an emotional connection to the creator. Theatrics are redundant, and when prioritized, they dilute the "main course" of the intellectual exchange. The Ethics of the Dopamine Economy There is a deeper, ethical dilemma at play here. When a creator utilizes high-stimulation theatrics to build an audience, they are essentially hacking the human neurochemical system. The modern entertainment matrix is built on triggering rapid dopamine releases to secure engagement. However, chronic dopamine hyper-stimulation is biologically taxing. It contributes to anxiety, impulsivity, decreased attention spans, and emotional dysregulation. Must a philosopher become a dopamine merchant to remain relevant ? Must we capitalize on the masses' addiction to constant stimulation? To deliberately engineer philosophical content to be as addictive as a smartphone application is a moral failure. The core of philosophical content creation is to convey a message as precisely and objectively as possible. The priority must always be the message itself, not the subjective, emotional thrill of its consumption. The Preservation of the Intellectual Baseline Appealing to a crowd’s emotions will always be easier—and more lucrative—than appealing to their intellect. Rationality requires discipline ; emotion is a default human reflex. I established Philosocom  to preserve the traditional, rigorous approach to content creation in the face of the internet's descent into "bread and circuses." The objective is to combat the rapid normalization of low-attention-span media by demanding that the reader actually engage their cognitive faculties. To understand complex realities, the mind must be disciplined . A philosopher does not need to bake cakes, wear costumes, or perform sketch comedy to be effective. A philosopher simply needs to state the truth. Conclusion: The Philosopher as a Communicator, Not a Clown Philosophy is not a spectacle. It is a discipline meant to be absorbed through clear, unadorned communication . When we degrade philosophy into a theatrical performance, we diminish its capacity to foster deep, independent thought. A true philosopher is a communicator, not an entertainer. Their mandate is not to amuse or appease, but to stimulate critical examination and tear down illusions. Disagreeing with a philosopher's premise is the foundation of intellectual growth; dismissing their work simply because it lacks the flashing lights of the entertainment matrix is a failure of the modern mind. We must not lower the bar of intellectual discourse simply because the masses have lost the discipline to reach it. We must hold the line, and demand that the truth be respected on its own merits.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Background music) Introduction Few individuals possess the capacity to significantly alter the world' s trajectory through direct, unilateral action. Historically, immediate systemic change is reserved for those who hold positions of formal authority, such as political leaders who possess the legitimacy to issue decrees. For the philosopher, the creator, and the private citizen, the capacity to enact change relies on a different mechanism entirely: the cultivation of indirect power. Influence is the mechanism of indirect power. Unlike authoritative power, which demands compliance through hierarchy, influence operates through the conquest of minds and hearts . It inspires and persuades, subtly affecting the choices of the masses while preserving their illusion of absolute freedom . To optimize your sphere of influence to the point where your philosophy can affect a global audience , the internet remains the most elementary and accessible battlefield. However, cultivating a worldwide presence requires strict strategic discipline . Influence as a Utility, Not an Identity The pursuit of influence must always be treated as a means to an end, never as the end itself. Building a massive follower base solely for the sake of vanity is a hollow endeavor. True power lies in utilizing that accumulated presence to advance a specific, constructive agenda—whether that is exchanging practical ideas, generating economic opportunities, or spread philosophical frameworks that elevate the human condition. Focus on the objective utility of your presence, and the accumulation of influence becomes a calculated, purposeful necessity rather than an ego-driven desire. The Liability of Infamy and Emotional Conduct In the digital era, infamy and fame often yield the same numerical growth in recognition . However, their utility is vastly different. To enact actual change, you must be taken seriously. Individuals who prioritize attention over integrity often devolve into public spectacles. While they may amass millions of viewers, their capacity to be taken seriously drops to absolute zero. If your objective is to promote a serious agenda, you must ruthlessly avoid scandals, public emotional outbursts, and the temptation to engage in theatrical outrage. Furthermore, acting in a highly reactive or emotionally dysregulated manner—even when advocating for a just cause—diminishes the effectiveness of the delivery. The world respects self-control. Act with maturity and stoic detachment, and your message will bypass the audience's defensive filters and command the respect required for actual persuasion. The Discernment of Opposition: Critics vs. Malice As your sphere of influence expands, opposition is mathematically guaranteed. A tactician must distinguish between valid criticism and pure malice . The Critic:  Analyzes the work. They may sympathize with your overarching efforts but disagree with your methodology. A critic can provide objective, actionable data, regardless of their personal feelings toward you. The Malicious Actor (The Hater):  Operates purely on toxic emotional impulses. Their objective is not to debate the truth, but to spread discord and inflict damage. Only the former is worthy of your cognitive bandwidth. To be insulted by criticism is a failure of the ego; to engage with a purely malicious actor is a failure of strategy. Strategic Allocation of Attention To actualize your influence, you must acknowledge a harsh but logical truth: human beings possess different levels of relevance to your specific cause. Your time and energy are finite resources. You must recognize the differing potentials of the individuals you interact with—both allies and adversaries. Do not overestimate the value of a detractor, and do not waste high-level diplomatic energy on an entity that possesses no real leverage. The relevance of any given individual on the world stage is entirely relative to your objectives. Conclusion: The Measure of Power We may be equals in our inherent humanity, but we are not equals in our capacity to shape the world . A person's operational worth in the public sphere can be logically and practically measured by their power—because power dictates their ability to affect the environment around them. Whether direct (through authority) or indirect (through influence), power is a neutral asset. Cultivate it strategically, guard your reputation fiercely, maintain your composure, and above all, do not let the acquisition of influence corrupt the original purpose for which you sought it.

(Inspired source: https://www.animesonglyrics.com/renai-boukun/koi-de-ai-de-boukun-desu ) (Background music) ******************** Within or Away From the Empire of Love: A Philosophy of Independence and Intimacy When it comes to my philosophy on love, I use the term ‘ imperialism ’ to refer to foreign or external interference in someone's affairs. I believe that when a person intervenes in something that is beyond their control and not their business, they are necessarily being imperialistic. For example, if someone who does not have authority over you asks you to pick a different hat than what you have chosen to wear, they are showing imperialism towards you because they are exerting control over something that is technically beyond their reach. This power dynamic of intervention can also be found in love. Romantic relationships in general can be of an imperialistic nature due to the deep intimacy that they include between the couple. This intimacy is so strong that it penetrates the privacy of each partner, and has the power to blur the distinction between them as independent and distinct individuals, with their own independent needs and desires. And by "independent" I refer to any value which has nothing necessarily to do with the other partner; anything that can exist without the partner and without their intervention. This is because romantic relationships are often based not only on strong emotion, but also on a desire for possessiveness, a desire to claim ownership over your loved one, as if they are your property. The root of possessiveness stems from the fear of abandonment. There are several causes to the fear of abandonment, but since they are commonplace, ( Notably abuse and at least in the U.S ) , it is no wonder that possessiveness can be a common feature in any relationship -- and not only romantic necessarily. When you feel inclined to possess someone else, that's not only a form of imperialism but also something that stems from insecurity. When you're too insecure to let someone go, should they desire to, you might desire to claim them as your own, so you won't be alone again. The irony of this is that this drive for power over others stems not from powerfulness but from weakness. For the quest of love stems to fill voids within us: The deprivation of touch. The deprivation of happiness . The deprivation of honest human company ( which is a possible cure for loneliness ). By expending our reach into the "territory" of another's company, we have the chance to fill these voids within us, thus improving the overall quality of our lives, as we become less skin depraved, happier, and less lonely. It's similar to empires or countries expending their influence to new territories in the name of getting more resources, AKA, economic. Therefore, there isn't necesarily anything morally wrong with the imperialistic aspect found in love, as long as it does not hinder people from moving on in their lives like they want to. Be too possessive towards another being, and you will torment them out of your own powerlessness to be able to live your life without them. To prevent the negative aspect of this imperialism, one that stems from one's own weakness, it's important to maintain a healthy balance between intimacy and independence in a romantic relationship. On the one hand, it is important to be close to your partner and share your thoughts and feelings with them, in order to develop a genuine bond. On the other hand, it is also important to respect your partner's privacy and independence, and to allow them to be their own person. If you can find a way to strike this balance, you will be more likely to have a healthy and fulfilling romantic relationship, rather than one that stems from a internally-compensating tyranny. Seperating Emotion From Action In Human Relationships The problem I find with a common assumption is that it does not separate the relationship between feeling something and creating something. In other words, feeling deep love for someone does not automatically mean that those who feel this emotion would automatically desire to create a romantic relationship with the subject whom they love. The same logic can apply to any emotion and act; for example, someone that makes me happy won't necessarily be my friend, and someone whom I hate won't necessarily become my enemy. The connection between emotion and act, if seen as necessary, stems from a desire to simplify complex emotions and behaviors. In this analogy, imagine yourself in a jewelry store finding a most beautiful necklace, dominantly displayed and captivating with its glamour. You find this necklace very beautiful to look at, but you might also feel a strong desire to own it. This is where the line between mere emotion and imperialism is drawn: to exert power over something external to you. This is the deceptive nature of emotions: implanting the urge to possess just because the power of emotion as you experience it can dominant in your consciousness, but one does not have to oblige the other. The same can be applied between human beings. Certainly, someone can be very attractive to you, but does it compel you "own them" or "make them yours", as in having a romantic relationship with them? Surely, you can admire them without claiming them as your own, as "claiming them to be your own" isn't necessary for the admiration to resume. Hence why you can just simply let them be. But when you want them to become a part of you, that is the imperialism of love. Look online, and you'll find many sources on how to make people fall in love with you.   We want those whom we admire to be ours, because we might feel that we need them in our lives. But do we really need another someone in our lives, like a country might feel compelled to conquer new territory to make it hers? That, so it seems, is up to the individual to contemplate about. As for myself, I believe that it is important to be able to appreciate beauty and emotions without feeling the need to possess their subjects. When we can do this, we are free to experience the world in a significantly more profound and liberating way... In a way that does not depend on whether or not "someone is ours". Domination As An Intristic Part of Any Relationship Romantic love often involves a power dynamic between two people, each seeking a desired level of control over the other. Similar power dynamics can be found towards countless types of human relationships, making the aspect of domination, intristic, and pure egalitarianism, never possible, by the quality of our unique qualities alone. Thus, while we may be equal in rights and in opportunity, we can never be absolutely equal for we are not the same. And in a world where people are never the same in their qualities/merits, some people will have more power over others, due to their merits. As such there are people who are naturally more dominant than others , and other people, who won't settle for mediocrity. This dynamic can manifest in various ways in love, regardless of gender roles, making sexism irrelevant to this discourse. The active partner seeks to assert their influence, while the passive partner may find comfort in surrendering some degree of their autonomy. As such, some people prefer to be bossed around. In psychology, it is understood that humans often unconsciously seek in romantic relationships what they experienced as children from their parents or guardians. For example, a child who was rejected by a parent might continue to pursue love from unavailable partners, while a child who was able to assert their independence might seek a partner whom they can easily control. Romance, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to relive the sense of security and belonging that we experienced in our early childhood—a desire to return to the protective environment that once shielded us from the world's complexities. In this sense, it can serve as a form of escapism from the existential uncertainty that we face as adults. By securing ourselves the "territory" that is a loved one, we also secure ourselves the ability to be more of ourselves, in a society where masking is normalized and actors are praised for being characters they are not. Indeed, a person who chooses to embrace the complexities of life, rather than seeking comfort in familiar patterns, demonstrates true maturity. They do not escape from the present by trying to recreate their childhood experiences. Romance, while often fulfilling, is not the only path to love and connection with other human beings. And while romance is a space that allows us to be our most ourselves the most , I personally have no desire to be either a tyrant or a slave to someone else. I've no desire to either be dominated or dominate others. I just do what needs to be done to contribute to others, better. Absolute egalitarianism is impossible either way. I am already a master of myself, and as such I have little void to fulfill within me, like those I mentioned earlier in this article. I sometimes wonder if I really need romance in my life. It is through work that I exert my love and willingness to remain alive, for I am no mercenary. And as a giver I will keep on giving, whether I am to be loved, respected, or disdained by others. Voids are hard to exploit when one has so little of them. I don't even have a desire to be happy, and endured years of skin deprivation and loneliness. When adversity is normalized, it is far easier to bear. No. I only desire -- and live -- to contribute. And I will do so regardless of romantic love. For it is through contribution my sweet, sweet meaning comes from. And no love tyrant will stand in my way. No one needs to stand in my way, because no one needs to suffer unnecessarily. I've detached from my emotions . You are likely not. Summary Do you want to be loved? Prepare to suffer. Power is essential, for power is everything . Power leads to struggle. Struggle leads to suffering. And since in love we can be the most human, in love we will suffer the most emotionally under the honest, intimate dynamic of power between the deepest of bonds. Love leads to suffering because we need not deny our pains in the company of those who love us the most. In the professional world we must force ourselves to be calm . But never in honest love. For humans are beings based on the domination of each other. And in love we can allow ourselves and others to dominate us or be dominated ourselves. There is nothing more human than the honest expression of power, found in this synergy. No masks required. No pretenses. No hiding. No. Just two people displaying their emotions honestly and fearlessly, like soldiers charging into battle. Those who fear the brutality of human truth, of full honesty, are not prepared to love and be loved. For there is no dynamic between humans that isn't based on power. And there is no struggle that doesn't stem from power. And humans are the best versions of themselves, when they are true to themselves. The world is built out of an endless series of wars and conflicts... ...And so are human relationships. The more emotion invested, the greater the pain might ensue. Show love and emapthy at your own risk. In a world that encourages cowardice, love will only be more and more of a rarity. Prepare for love like you would prepare for battle, and you might mentally survive, better. For love takes courage.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Background music) Introduction to the Reception Dilemma When your work enters the public sphere, it immediately becomes a canvas for an indefinite amount of subjective opinions . Regardless of your competency, you will inevitably face conflicting reviews. Negative critiques can sting, while high praise can flatter, leaving the creator with a crucial dilemma: Should one succumb to pessimism and self-doubt, or build a hardened shell to deflect all criticism entirely? For the philosopher and the truth-seeker, neither option suffices. Truth is our primary quarry. Both critics and fans—however skewed their biases may be—can hold fragments of this truth. To dismiss either extreme completely is to discard valuable data. Even well-intentioned, highly flattering praise can be a deluding trap. Intoxicating pronouncements of greatness can distort reality, leading a thinker away from objective analysis and into the trap of ego. The true philosopher does not live to be intoxicated by the emotional reception of the crowd; they live to understand the world beyond their own mind. Guiding Principles for the Feedback Labyrinth How do we navigate the complex labyrinth of public reception? The following principles serve as a philosophical compass: Acknowledge the Potential of Every Voice:  Every opinion, positive or negative , offers a unique perspective . Critics, often dismissed as mere naysayers by the emotionally sensitive, may highlight genuine blind spots or suggest unexpected angles. Even unconstructive criticism can reveal a gap in how your communication is being perceived. Filter with Discernment:  Not all feedback deserves equal weight. A thinker must learn to differentiate between informed critiques—fueled by genuine engagement with the material—and mere negativity born of bias, jealousy , or projection. Extract the Objective Truth:  Strip away your emotional attachment to the content. Search for the core of truth in every piece of feedback, however unsettling the delivery may be. Ask yourself: Is there a valid logical point hidden beneath this harsh language?  Conversely: Does this overwhelming praise mask a structural flaw I have overlooked due to my own confirmation bias? Embrace Intellectual Humility:  Recognizing the inherent limits of human knowledge fosters the open-mindedness required for continuous learning. No individual possesses omniscience . The Cognitive Traps of Reception The subjective dance between a philosopher's work and how the public perceives it is fraught with logical and emotional pitfalls. To properly process reception, one must identify the fallacies driving the audience. The Filter of Emotional Bias : The human heart heavily influences reception. A passionate reader might overlook massive logical flaws for the sake of a compelling narrative, while an angry critic might cherry-pick minor errors to support a baseline disdain. Understanding the emotional state of your audience is critical to determining the objectivity of their feedback. The Ad Hominem  Fallacy: Frequently, creators are judged not for their ideas, but for arbitrary personal traits or a lack of institutional credentials. The ad hominem  attack shifts the focus from the content to the creator, attempting to invalidate an argument based on perceived personal shortcomings. Recognizing this tactic allows the philosopher to immediately discard insults masquerading as intellectual discourse. The Ad Populum  Fallacy: A chorus of applause can tempt a creator into believing they have found the absolute truth. The ad populum  fallacy thrives on the seductive power of majority opinion. However, a thousand echoing voices do not guarantee validity. A lone dissenting voice offering a counterpoint might hold the actual key to unlocking a blind spot. The Sacrifices of Sensitivity and the Theory of Contentism Weighing both sides of the coin is a philosopher's duty, but human beings are not naturally immune to the sting of criticism. However, the pursuit of truth rarely offers empathy for hurt feelings; it is not the responsibility of the world to coddle the thinker, but the responsibility of the thinker to become resilient. In intellectual niches, surrendering to emotional sensitivity is an operational weakness . According to the Rubinshteinic theory of contentism, the content itself must remain supreme. To forge truth, a philosopher must cultivate a conscious, healthy detachment from the noise of popular opinion. Sensitivity, while a natural human trait, must be decreased in rigorous philosophical discourse, because objective truth does not care about personal feelings. Afterthought: The Courage of the Party Pooper "Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence. "  — Thomas Szasz A true philosopher is necessarily a disruptor—one willing to break any biasing aura that misleads humanity away from reality. The competent philosopher must be willing to challenge people's deepest beliefs , making them the absolute antithesis of a people-pleaser. More importantly, it requires immense courage to break an approving  reception of yourself in the name of the truth. It requires the bravery to defy your own ego and reject unearned praise. To think clearly , you must be brave enough to admit the limits of your own knowledge, and apply that same rigorous skepticism to the applause of the crowd.

(This is the sequel to this article) (Background music) Introduction The word "Master" carries an undeniable prestige, yet its modern usage is heavily restricted. In contemporary society, declaring oneself a "master" of a craft outside of strictly defined, institutional boundaries often invites harsh reception . Those courageous enough to claim the title independently are frequently labeled as delusional, megalomaniacal , or pretentious . This societal backlash is a profound problem because it limits our ability to accurately understand and categorize human potential. Words are the tools we use to navigate existence; when we restrict our vocabulary to appease social conventions, we artificially limit our understanding of self-worth and genuine capability. The Original Definition of Competence Historically, mastery was not a mystical or heavily guarded institutional status. In Chinese, the term Shifu  (synonymous with Sensei  in Japanese) literally translates to a "skilled person," a "teacher," or a "tutor." In these contexts, the word is not harmful or pretentious when used casually. It is simply a descriptive title earned through demonstrated ability. However, in a modern world entirely dominated by certificates, degrees , and honorary titles, society has outsourced the validation of human skill to institutional gatekeepers. However, the journey from novice to master is determined by experience, situational perception , and intuitive decision-making —none of which inherently require a classroom to achieve. The Illusion of the Paper Gatekeeper While specific fields—such as medicine, heavy engineering, or aviation—absolutely require rigorous, standardized certification for the safety of the public, society has erroneously applied this standard to almost every human endeavor. This is particularly evident in the humanities: from abstract philosophy to community management, content writing, and the arts. We are indoctrinated to believe that a person’s qualified worth must be assessed and stamped by an academic authority. This creates a system where a costly piece of paper acts as an artificial "middleman" for human potential. Imagine spending years of time and vast amounts of currency solely for the permission  to prove your competence to an employer. When society automatically dismisses the uncredentialed expert while blindly trusting the certified novice, it commits a massive logical fallacy: an absolute appeal to authority. The Fallacy of the Single Path The intense dislike for the self-made master stems from the fact that society has narrowed its perspective on how worth is forged. We fail to recognize that profound capability exists beyond the confines of expensive, highly structured academic environments. Not all minds thrive in academia, and the refusal or inability to navigate that specific system does not equate to a lack of skill or intelligence. Consider a simple metaphorical premise: Does the specific road taken matter if both travelers successfully arrive at the exact same destination? Whether a road is heavily paved by universities or forged through the dense wilderness of self-teaching and independent experience, they are simply different means to the same end. Mastery in an Age of Accessibility If we wish to evaluate the true worth of individuals, we must place less blind faith in the notion of official certification and instead evaluate the output. A master is defined by the necessary skill required to see a complex task through to completion. A self-taught individual who utilizes modern accessibility to learn, gain insights, and generate high-level experience is no less a master than one who paid an institution for the title. Excellence does not care how it was acquired. Regardless of the path, the true master learns, adapts, and executes. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Notes You can master something, as in having a ton of knowledge on something, or you can master something so well that you will set the ceiling on how much mastery you have. World leading experts would be a prime example. So would the number one chess player in the world. Many have mastered this but they still stand alone by themselves. Why do people associate mastery with an ability to be good at everything? Mastery is exclusive to the topic you choose to be a master at. Sure there are exceptions. Polymaths for instance can be seen as masters in many fields. True mastery is a solitary activity. It involves becoming so focused on something that everything else falls to the back of your mind. Your whole world revolves around that activity. You run the risk of dealing with pseudo intellectuals who assume that because they might know a wider range of things that they must be smarter than you. Again added the benefit of polymathy as you can go out and learn whatever you like to prove them wrong . Mastery has a disadvantage. You realize how much you know about one topic and make it painfully aware of just how little you actually know. You spent so much time focusing on one thing that you forgot to focus on other things along the way. All about accepting those masters as they can add to the collective knowledge as a whole. They are important to life's ecosystem. How will we ever grow as a species if people don’t become masters and push understanding ahead of what it currently is? All mastery is having a greater understanding of something than that of most people in the world. Thus supplying the opportunity to help their understanding grow.

Author's note: This is a poem that combines environmentalism with asceticism . No offense has been intended during the making of this piece, nor afterwards. If you have enjoyed it, consider sharing it to spread the word. Perhaps with your help we can make a difference in the near or far future. Enjoy. "Does the human species have the right either morally or ethically outlive the planet that birthed our very existence? Earth evolved us, nurtured us, and inspired us. When it goes, perhaps we should go as well?" -- John Duran Subcategory Directory: Honest Thoughts On the Industrial Revolution And How to Reduce its Influence The Horror of Heat And Its Effect On the Human Mentality Thoughts On Remote Work -- How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment The Contemporary Importance of Public Transportation Towards Understanding African Communalism and Western Capitalism: A Comparative Guide (By Mr. E. David, E. Peter, Mr. J. Igwe) Peer Pressure, Evolution and the Future Equality and the Future Socio-Economic Class The Rarity of Life Among Infinite Stars: A Philosophical and Scientific Inquiry (By Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright) Analyzing Mr. K. Basileus Political Fusion Manifesto (By Mr. C. Kingsley and J. Bright) https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-of-entako The Rubinshteinic Guide to Deal With Longing https://www.philosocom.com/post/industrial ********* Ants have ruled this world, No other species could've previously for-told. It is so comfortable, ruling the world, Where no other species can ever oppose our throne. By being the rulers of all, We have enslaved everything else in this aquatic ball. The plants, the other species, entire lands, Just for us to distract ourselves, From the inevitable end, Caused by ourselves. We are both the constructors and the destructors, Using all resources in the name of prosperity, While doing so, to ensure the survival of present humanity, We actually bring the end, Of future humanity, As we pass away the time in concrete, asphalt and sand. And so the precursors we have imitated, And yet we remain apathetic , Of our development's consequence, On the world's decreasing lifespan , Of a once more vivid, aesthetic. And you might laugh at me, For being a contemporary ascetic, But once the world will fall to its knee, No one will turn and blame me, For encouraging waste, for too much spending, for reproducing, While our submissive world, Its final lesson for you all it shall be introducing. The path of the monk, The path of abstinence, of the strong, Can improve our lives and the Philosophy of Environment, With little need for compensating external empowerment, Only if we are to oppose the tyranny, Of endless opportunity, And its globally-toxic Stressful orthodoxy. How ironic, yet far from the moronic.

"When I gave up all hope of accomplishment, and embraced hopelessness, it was then that I finally learned how to live." -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Why The Need for Purpose Can Be a Liability To avoid fallacious generalizations, we must begin with a fundamental premise: humanity is divided in its relationship with meaning . Many require a defined purpose to justify their existence in their own eyes, while others do not actively ruminate on it. Those in the former category—those tethered to the pursuit of meaning—often function poorly when faced with a lack of purpose for extended periods. For such individuals, a lack of purposefulness is a direct conduit to existential despair. It is easy to quietly admire those who simply live life day-to-day without utilizing intense philosophical inquiry as a means to survive. They are admirable solely because they do not face the burden of the "each new day" problem : the daily psychological demand to justify one's own continued existence. The Shield of External Duty Not everyone delves deeply into their role in the world, whether that role is "destined" or self-assigned. Consider the function of parenthood. Those who have children often require less internal contemplation regarding their purpose because their purpose is externalized: they have lives to care for. By giving birth to children, they simultaneously give birth to a built-in meaning for their own lives. For many, this bond transcends the typical parent-child dynamic; it acts as a permanent existential shield. This reciprocal bond provides an undeniable sense of utility, making it far more difficult for individuals to question their own worth. Knowing that they are loved, needed, and relied upon acts as a powerful motivator to continue living, even during the most challenging eras of their lives. The Liability of Dependency However, for those whose purpose is tied to a specific craft, vocation, or intellectual output, this dependency becomes a profound liability. Why is such a dependency dangerous? It is a liability because it represents a critical structural weakness. If one’s entire justification for living is tethered to a specific ability—such as writing or creating—what happens when that ability is compromised by physical fatigue , illness, or circumstantial ruin? When the vehicle for a person's purpose is removed, they are left with terrifying options: to live a life of idleness accompanied by crushing guilt , or to succumb to the despair of feeling entirely useless. Thus, the very drive that provides immense joy and productivity also holds the potential to become the source of immense suffering . If you cannot access your purpose, you are forced to compromise your life, or worse, contemplate taking your own life. A life without purpose—a life of forced idleness—feels intrinsically wrong to the hyper-driven mind. Therefore, planning for the long-term fragility of our capabilities is the only logical way to reduce future regret. The Relativity of Meaning We often fail to recognize that for many, mere survival —living to the next paycheck or the next meal—is entirely sufficient. Consider the hunter-gatherer communities that still exist in isolated parts of the world. When asked about the meaning of life, a tribesman might simply answer: "Meat."  Who could have predicted that something as fundamental as sustenance could encapsulate an entire worldview? It demonstrates perfectly that perception and purpose are entirely subjective choices. For the philosopher or the creator, survival is never enough. The drive moves past basic physiological needs directly toward the apex of self-actualization . For such individuals, their output matters more than their comfort. They are driven by an absolute need to contribute meaningfully to society. It is only through relevance —by becoming an integral part of a greater context—that one transcends their default, insignificant self. The Choice of Dissatisfaction Through the mercilessness of meritocracy, true relevance can be achieved. It can be cultivated to such a degree that your importance, and the recognition of your work, outlives you entirely. To prove one's relevance is to be driven by an endless desire for self-actualization. To choose this path is to intentionally remain unsatisfied by choice. It means sacrificing the peaceful, uneventful comfort of a simple life in order to produce enduring value for the world. It is a demanding trade-off, but for the reader who benefits from the fruits of this labor, and for the creator who secures their legacy, it is a perfectly fair deal.

(Philosocom's Directory on Peace) (Background music) Introduction I moved to my current sanctuary seeking peace, only to realize I still harbored the desire for grandiose achievements: exacting revenge, securing power, and saving lives . Now that I have attained peace, I feel the exact same way. Peace, in many ways, is a liability. The "problem" with peace is that it inherently creates an uneventful life, and an uneventful life is arguably a boring one. Those who strive for greatness usually seek it in conflict, where they can prove themselves, and not in peace, where adversities are few. The fewer enemies you have, the less chance you have to prove you might, presence, and relevance . I have learned this on my own. Peace is something the masses seek—whether it is peace from military conflicts , crushing debt, toxic neighbors, or stressful events. The problem, however, is that when peace finally arrives, one must prepare themselves for a life of relative dullness. A lack of action equates to a lack of excitement, challenge, and trials. Choosing to " do nothing " is a highly impactful choice by itself; one that can easily hinder the potential found within a person. The Hermit’s Epilogue Why, then, should one seek peace at all? I used to seek peace primarily out of necessity. I used to be sensitive to sounds and external stimuli, and thus I afforded myself a life of physical solitude. However, with time, I lost that sensitivity, and instead achieved a great deal of stability after years I didn't have it as much as I do. I do not have to face the challenges and toxicity that come from regular societal work —work other than maintaining this very site. Therefore, as of 2026, my life is extremely uneventful. It consists mainly of leisure and household chores, waiting until I have an idea to write something, such as this article, and maintaining a relationship. Because of these facts, I largely view my life as being in its epilogue, even though I am only in my twenties. I served society enough, and at the poor expense of my health. I retired from it without much regret. In the absence of adversity, and with most of my immediate desires fulfilled, I see little reason to continue living other than to maintain this site and the relationship I'm in. The other anchor keeping me here is the desire to avoid the impact taking my own life would have on others. I am a large, intimidating, asocial man . The social world is entirely outside my own, as it deserves to be, for its own good. To be honest, I feel quite comfortable with this arrangement—of not having to kill my time alive just to please the masses, and getting to be productive on my own terms. Death’s Reception Room If I had more people close to me who could serve as adversaries, perhaps I would not be so fixated on becoming more relevant in this world. I am just not used to this quiet, but I now understand my potential better, for good and for bad. Based on my example, a peaceful life can be very boring—or even unwillingly endured—unless you have a goal in mind that is worthy enough to occupy your time, energy, and thoughts. As the psychological principle of human arousal demonstrates, a complete lack of stress leads directly to under-stimulation and boredom . Should you have a peaceful life without a defining purpose , you will inevitably find yourself asking existential questions: "Is my existence even needed in this world?"  or "What is the point of continuing to write?"  In a sense, writing has restored my hope to continue living, despite the greyness of my hermit lifestyle. For some, that purpose is giving their children a better future. For others, it is the search for a partner. Anything is useful as long as it keeps one away from the nihilistic conclusion that existence is futile. A peaceful life, beyond the basic pleasures that accompany it, is like a reception room in Death's office. You spend your life without challenges or conflicts, indirectly waiting for the inevitable end. Those who are not as peaceful are too occupied with life's struggles and hardships to sit in this room. Their occupation separates them from contemplating death, because they have immediate, challenging things to take care of. That nearness to death could be decades away, as it is in my case. The Calculated Risk for Greatness A peaceful life is not for everyone . Those who seek struggles and conflicts may find it incredibly difficult to live their lives without them. Furthermore, those who seek renown will have a harder time finding it in this quiet lifestyle, because greatness is forged and challenged by adversity and competition . Those who choose the path of peace may find it difficult to achieve significance beyond the isolated influence of their work. However, I will not let my disabilities stand in my way. I will keep maintaining this site, keep maintaining my far-improved health, and my relationship, while remaining in relative peace at the same time. I have a future to maintain, and I cannot allow the temptation for instability and madness get in my way. In a way, I grew up , and peace, despite being a liability, is what get things done.

( This is part of a series that I decided to build for you. Browse the first part as a summary to what I'm going to write here). (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). Summary by Anonymous Mr. Tomasio discusses the complex relationship between mind and body, arguing against the traditional dualistic view as reality's far more complex than this. They propose that physical and mental experiences are interconnected, and that trauma can manifest as both psychological and physical symptoms. The philosopher shares his personal experience of using chronic pain as a motivator for productivity and self-improvement. He argues that while pain is a negative experience , it can be harnessed to overcome challenges and achieve goals. The writer emphasizes the importance of accepting and addressing trauma rather than repressing it. He believes that by confronting difficult emotions and experiences, individuals can find strength and resilience. The article concludes with a passionate call to action, urging readers to embrace their passions and strive for success , even in the face of adversity. The author suggests that pain can serve as a catalyst for growth and achievement. (Background music) Critique of Body and Mind Dualism I finally realized the source of my pain, a chronic, physical pain that has lasted for 10-20 years. I finally understand that it comes from trauma . From the connection between mind and body. From the fact that we can experience psycho-somatic sensations and emotions. As such, the philosophy of dualism is not entirely correct. For we are, in a sense, body and mind. Even if we may have automatic systems within us, even if we have an automatic portion of the self, we still exist as one, somehow. As a singular entity, made up of components that cooperate with each other in unison. And should a component be damaged, it can harm the other components, forming the entity that is the human being. Should one of the wheels of your car be lacking air, it can harm the overall performance of your vehicle. Thus, should you solve the problem in that specific wheel, the car can be driven better towards its destination. Subverting One's Traumas Yes, my mind is heavily traumatized. And I've been experiencing the implications of these traumas for most of my life, ever since childhood. I've always been serious, and treated every task very seriously. Never really undermining anything. The traumas, ultimately, made me the professional that I am. The one with the soldier's mentality, who cares to carry out all his tasks, whether giving or given. Somehow, I managed to not only drive this metaphorical vehicle without fixing it for good, but also use its faults for my own advantage. By utilizing the flaws inflicted by trauma, in order to improve myself in my roles throughout life. Because anxiety and stress, while harmful, do have their own merits. And pain can be a great teacher as well. By denying myself the practicality of curing this pain, the ascetic life had become far, far easier. Why? Because I suffer anyways. What's a little more suffering going to do? And when you are stressed, you may find yourself having an easier time focusing. In addition, when having concern, you can get things done more seriously. When you are anxious, should you be able to restrain yourself, you can use it to live more safely, thus contributing to your own survival. After all, these sensations and emotions are natural. They are there to keep us safe. Their point is for you to avoid experiencing the same traumas again. It is but the way of the mind to adjust to the future, based on past experiences. That is, of course, assuming that your mind is still functioning properly, after whatever you have witnessed throughout life. In other words, face a "sufficient" amount of trauma, and you may unconsciously use it to become stronger mentally. Therefore, you can find virtue even in such an adversity. Addressing Potential Critique It may sound bizarre to turn the same liability into an asset. However, when you get used to discomfort, life becomes more bearable than otherwise. Metaphorically, if you are riding a damaged car on a very long and desolate road, you have no choice but to tolerate the liability until you reach your destination, somewhere in the horizon. The liability of pain thus becomes an asset when you use it for self-improvement. Enduring around 10 to 20 years of chronic pain in your every waking moment is no easy task. However, the more you endure, the stronger you can become. My neck has been in pain since the near-end of the 2000s. It has been stiff as wood by default, ever since. That is done by understanding that some things deserve to be granted. They deserve to, because there might be other things at play that are more deserving of your attention. Put the pain and the suffering in the background. Your mind might already do it for you. Should you develop a strong-enough tolerance for it, you may be able to tolerate whatever requires your attention, as well. Pain as Motivator The pain is tiring, don't get me wrong. And I don't like it. I still keep it unchecked. The reason is simple: I maintain my pain tolerance in the name of my work. I work so much because I am used to the agony. Since I view this work as my life's purpose, I have little problem essentially locking myself in my hermitage and working. There are days where I don't even sleep, although of course this is not entirely wise on my end. This pain slowly but surely silences the inner screams inside me, allowing me to focus on relentless writing. Why do I let it cancel my inner experience, hoping for salvation? Simple, but not quick to be understood: I use pain to fuel me, and give me energy. Using Philosophy Like a Swordsman Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory! AND THROUGH VICTORY, MY CHAINS ARE BROKEN, AND RELEVANCE SHALL FREE ME. Free me from being under the ceilings of irrelevancy! Of obscurity! It is only through a life of militant work on my goals that I will actually be someone in this careless, apathetic world! Yes! My initiative will be proven useful the more I work on it! And for that, I need to feel pain, so I will have the energy, the passion to succeed, and be purposefully frustrated by my current situation! By the fact that I was called irrelevant so swiftly and carelessly! You will all benefit from my success! Benefit from new and newer articles! Benefit from other writers! Empires are built on ambition! And ambition is always the lack of peace from the current situation one is in! Be aware of the sources of your pain, and the truth can set you free.

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article ). (Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). Generally speaking, I am not a jealous individual, even though I am well aware there are people who are more "privileged" than me simply because they don't have certain disabilities that stand in their way; disabilities that I have. I don't like to whine either, but that doesn't prevent me from feeling the need to share my story with those who can benefit from it, whether or not they have the things I have. Having autism is not that difficult when you don't interact with a lot of people or with people who are aggressive by nature; having an anxiety disorder is fine as long as the triggers are not present, and the environment is overall safe to live in. However, if there is something that penetrates my solitude, it is my exhaustion syndrome. I don't know for sure what caused it, but what I do know, is that it paralyzed me from doing a lot of things I could've otherwise done in my relative solitude -- mainly read extensively, exercise regularly, and so on. These are things I want to do, but this syndrome makes these activities extremely difficult to do, regardless of how much willpower I have. For comparison, it's like a magnet that rejects you instead of attracting you. You want to stick to the magnet, but it only pushes you away like the stream of a waterfall while you're trying to climb it. Ironically, this syndrome prevents me from sleeping, as its intensity is too distracting for me to be able to fall asleep. Therefore, I must be careful when allocating the limited mental energies I have. If it means skipping over things I would've otherwise done, then so be it, as there are more days to be lived where I can perform these actions. Even without that syndrome, Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. I am not your typical philosopher who constantly talks about other philosophers in the history of our species. I took a few courses on philosophy both at university and online, but overall, I find it significantly easier, energy-wise, to be a contemplator than a scholar of philosophership. Contemplating comes easier as there is no mental overload, and should I ever return to the academic life, I might, by accident, make my syndrome more severe than it already is. Being your own philosopher in general feels freer than associating oneself with one school of thought or another. Because of that, I don't see the energy-wise reason to invest in other philosophers (even though I partially did) when I can contribute to the world with my own philosophy. If we are talking about being occupied, remember that with this syndrome I can't technically work in most jobs, menial as intellectual. I'd need many breaks and I might not be up to schedule, not because I'm lazy, but because the intense feeling of exhaustion is too powerful to persist against it. As it is said in the Taoist teachings -- Wu-Wei -- have an effortless effort. That is my ideal endeavour as a generally exhausted man -- to be able to perform as many activities as possible with wasting as little energies as possible. Regardless, we must be realistic if we wish to be reasonable -- accept what is within our control and beyond it, like Epictetus said. There is little I can do against this general exhaustion other than have a lot of periods of rejuvenation. You can claim that I could've earned a living as a writer in some big company, but I cannot force myself to write when I am too exhausted. In the past I tried working as a freelance writer for a few months; was too exhausted to finish the job I was given. If there is something I am afraid of doing outside my apartment, is to show my disability ID in a supermarket, should I be too exhausted to stand in line. People cannot understand at first sight, and I can't blame them for being ignorant about the unseen disabilities. Fortunately, I have someone to do the purchasing for me. In short, I am well aware that I could've been something greater, philosopher-wise. I could've had a few diplomas, maybe even a PhD, be able to endure long discussions with other philosophers and get known enough like Jordan Peterson or Slavoj Zizek. However, I need to allocate my energies wisely in order to live both productively and happily. It's not always easy but I'm coping. I am still content with the fact that I managed to nonetheless be greatly industrious despite me being in my 20s. As written elsewhere, beyond writing articles such as this, I have little reason to live, even though I am not suffering or anything. I don't like some of the philosophical communities today, at least from what I got to experience myself. They are not tolerant enough towards the disabled. They can be hostile, insensitive and so on, if you don't appeal to them enough. It doesn't feel safe being a philosopher when you have your comments section turned on, on public websites, because the truth is that many people do not care for your sensitivities, your disabilities and so on. The online culture had appeared to dehumanize, at times, the human discussion. This too exhausts me and this is why I don't prefer philosophical discussions; that is unless it's with someone I trust that is tolerating enough and won't see my exhaustion as an "excuse" to fall back. Thus, as a writer with exhaustion, you must do the following if you wish to live in peace -- reject those who are angry at you for not writing whatever they want you to write, and not underappreciate the portion of the audience who is grateful for your work for them. Even writing this is a bit exhausting, but at least the level of satisfaction is greater. Philosophizing should be done with love for the craft, not hatred for those who think differently than you. It appears that even in this decade, some people are still angry about being exposed to content they dislike, as if the media should be dictated according to their version of how things should be. Whether you're an exhausted person or not, remember this -- your mental resources are not infinite; even if recharged, they can dwindle with time, whether it's when you're old or whether it will strike you without a moment's notice, as it did to me. As I thought to myself as well -- I wish Philosoocom to be a harmonious, peaceful place, with no unnecessarily draining toxicity. Grab yourself a cup of coffee, and enjoy my content as much as you'd like, for I intend to keep this site going long after my death. What I mostly want people to understand from this article, is that even when someone is disabled, there can, in theory, be a solution or outlet, even if it is not ideal like it could've been if things were different. I will continue writing with determination.

Self-Isolation and Why I Isolate Myself by Choice (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Background music) Those who are as sensitive as I have no place in this loud, impulsive world. The internet became a salvation to my kind of people, because here the user can permanently block people away from one's virtual presence. I wager that, if it weren't for computers , I would be less hesitant to end it all, simply because one cannot filter their physical environment as much as the virtual one. Filter the hatred, the uncomfortable noise, the harassments and the presence of toxic people. In the physical world, that is only possible when you either move to another place to live in, change your job, or both. The virtual presence thus gives us an underrated freedom -- the freedom to filter and to isolate. It isn't an act of cowardice, necessarily, to physically quarantine oneself from this world. It could also come from the intention, to stop the seemingly infinite loops of conflicts with other people. Conflict with friends, conflicts with family and neighbours. The thing that never ceases to amuse me is the fact that many choose to give in to internet trolls by feeding them with their anger, when they have the choice to block them and save their energy over something worthier of their time. It should not be seen as fearfulness, to want serenity from this stressful world, when such an option is indeed possible. During the COVID19 lockdown, it was forced upon by many people to isolate themselves from the world. It was a difficult verdict to many, not only because of the financial damage that such a policy caused, but also because many people are not as used to being alone so much in their homes, even though they can communicate with others virtually. For me, however, it didn't change much, because most of my life I have quarantined myself from this world, preferring instead to contribute in my own way, while finding much freedom in solitude. Sometimes, it was involuntary, because I wanted to be loved by someone other than family and pets. But, as I grew up, I've realized that quarantine is the only realistically positive choice for me to follow, and that is all because I have sensitivities that I never chose nor ever wanted. I don't wish for life to be different. In solitude I am free to do as I please. I isolate myself by choice because I am not compatible with most people, and find much freedom in solitude, not having to cater to anyone, while living in my own world. I've accepted the fact that my wellbeing is more important catering to a corrupt society, even if it means cutting ties with people, I hold dear who aren't good for me. I enjoy the silence of solitude ; the fact that I can be with headphones all day and choose whatever music I like, without disturbing anyone in the process. I can't work, even though I tried and went to interviews; it's too stressful and exhausting. This freedom in physical solitude, allows me to live life stress-free, and I have an idea why. Society is a stressful place to be in, and I'm glad I don't have to partake in society. Physical exercise is too what I am free to spend my time on in solitude when it is not too hot. Had I been born as a normal person, I would've struggled more than I struggle now. In my disability, I am free to live my life under my own terms, with no one bothering me whatsoever. Given I don't like society, and I am a rebel, it is not too difficult for me to quarantine myself from this world. It is still important to have people to speak with, even if only to cleanse the void from within. A life of complete solitude can be very empty, and I still have a need to contribute to the world. I do not want to exist publicly in this world beyond my online contributions of Philosocom. I believe the world will continue to change and evolve, regardless of my own existence. However, I also believe that my continued presence can contribute to that change in a positive way. The possibility of making a difference, of contributing to something meaningful, is a powerful motivator for me to choose life over death, and solitude over society. This vision, this hope for a better future, is worth more than departing from this planet for good. The world appears to be a beautiful place. However, if it means that I'll get this elusive feeling of peace, then it is preferred that my quarantine will resume until the time comes to go. Nothing appears to be preferable to resting in peace while in life, and not only in death. I thus have no regrets forsaking humanity, while contributing to it from the comforts of my own solitude.

The Directory On My Retirement from Society -- Reflections of a Shadow Sovereign Who Retired at 20 The Sovereign Mind: A Manual for Free Thinking in a Programmed World The Sovereign's Equation: The Mathematics of Freedom The Neurodivergent Sovereign: A Philosophy of Successful Incompatibility The Rubinshteinic Path To Become A Self-Sovereign The Architecture of the Watchtower: Mastering Cognitive Distance https://www.philosocom.com/post/rebellion https://www.philosocom.com/post/ordinary-people The Sovereign’s Sanctuary: Insights from Living Alone https://www.philosocom.com/post/strength The Poem, "Hymn of the Ascetic King" (Background music) As a child I never fitted in, With the rest of the human kids. I was solitary, locking myself within, A small realm whose solitude it brings. My parents were heavily concerned, How would I survive as an adult? But an empire I built and respect earned, Living by my own power to a fault. Ahh... I pity those who must fit in, To survive! Keep their true selves hidden as a mean, To navigate and thrive in the hive. Not needing much, The ruler of a bunch. I am satisfied through a modest lunch! But the price I pay, To rule another day, Is to endure loneliness , to my dismay. I keep only a few followers around my throne, With this site as a common purpose. Other than that, I keep being on my own, The price of owning my own canvas. Having friends require compromise, That would've defied my own rise, To power on my own sovereignty, Away from the rest of society. Ahh.... my rise to power, Costed me friends, down the ivory tower. But if I want to keep ruling another day, I must keep secure and away. Not needing much, The ruler of a bunch. I am satisfied through a modest lunch! But the price I pay, To rule another day, Is to endure loneliness, to my dismay. Ahh, the world is getting lonelier, With isolating, technology! Social connection lost to times far jollier, Careers and/or matrimony. People going their own way, To survive another day. And only few get to have a say... While I answer to no one, Not having to raise any son. Many would blindly kill for my position to have won.

(Directory on Sovereignty) (Background music) Introduction There is a prevalent myth in human society that strength attracts. We are told that if we become capable, resilient, and powerful, the world will flock to our side. We are sold the idea that the strong man is the center of the community, the beloved leader, the social magnet. The reality, as any truly strong individual eventually discovers, is the exact opposite. Strength does not create connection; Strength creates distance. The more you cultivate your will, the more you refine your discipline , and the longer you endure the fires of adversity, the further you drift from the shoreline of the "average." It is not an act of arrogance , nor is it a choice of rejection. It is a fundamental law of social physics: The discrepancy in capacity creates a discrepancy in relatability. The Atmospheric Pressure of the Soul Imagine two divers. One swims comfortably in the shallow, sunlit waters of the surface (The Average Existence). The other dives into the crushing black depths of the trench (The Sovereign Existence). The deeper diver develops a physiology capable of withstanding immense pressure—the pressure of existential dread, of financial risk, of long-term vision, of solitude. When the deep diver returns to the surface, he cannot simply "relate" to the shallow swimmer. The shallow swimmer complains that the water is slightly too cold. The deep diver has just wrestled with the leviathan in the dark. To the strong man, the complaints of the weak sound like noise. To the weak man, the silence of the strong looks like judgment. This is the first cause of distance: The Threshold of Suffering. When you have held a siege for seven years, the trivial problems of the world—the traffic, the petty gossip, the minor inconveniences—cease to register as problems. You lose the ability to participate in the "bonding rituals" of shared complaint. You cannot nod along with their petty grievances because you know what real  weight feels like. The Mirror of Inadequacy The second cause of distance is perhaps the most painful to admit: The Strong serve as a mirror to the Weak. Most people build their lives on a foundation of excuses. "I can't get in shape because I don't have time." "I can't build my dream because the economy is bad." "I can't be happy because of my trauma." Then, you walk into the room. You, who have the same 24 hours. You, who face the same economy. You, who have trauma that would break them. And yet, you build. You train . You endure. Your mere existence destroys their excuses. You are a living, breathing proof that it can  be done. This does not make them love you. It makes them resent you. Subconsciously , your strength is an insult to their weakness . It forces them to ask: "If he can do it, why can't I?" To avoid the pain of that question, they push you away. They label you "obsessed," "cold," "lucky," or "arrogant." They create distance to protect their own egos . They exile the King because his crown shines too brightly for their eyes. The Divergence of Time Horizons Strength is also a function of Time. Weakness  lives in the "Now." It seeks immediate gratification, immediate relief, and immediate pleasure . Strength  lives in the "Future." It endures pain now  for a reward years  later. I am building a legacy, AKA this site, that will mature in decades. The average person is looking for a distraction for the weekend. How can these two entities converse? The language is incompatible. I am speaking in terms of Sieges and Decades.  They are speaking in terms of Happy Hours and Episodes. This temporal disconnect makes true intimacy rare. I am effectively a time traveler living among people who are trapped in the present moment. I am planting trees for a shade I might never sit in, while they are eating the seeds. The Burden of the Atlas There is a specific loneliness reserved for the capable: The One-Way Street of Support. When you are strong, you become a resource. People come to you for solutions, for stability, for money, for protection. You are the rock they cling to when the storm hits. But who holds the rock? The strong man often finds himself surrounded by dependents, employees, and admirers, yet remains utterly alone. Why? Because he cannot lean on them. If he leans, they collapse. He must absorb their chaos, but he cannot export his own. He must process his own "meaninglessness," his own financial fears, and his own exhaustion in silence, because to show weakness would be to terrify those who rely on his strength. This is the Solitude of Command.  One is the captain of the ship; you cannot ask the passengers to help you steer through the hurricane. The Filtering Mechanism However, this distance is not a curse. It is a Filter. If strength pushes away 99% of the population, it acts as a high-precision sorting mechanism for the 1%. The distance one may feel is the empty space waiting for the other  strong souls to arrive. Weakness bonds with Weakness (Misery loves company). Strength bonds with Strength (Iron sharpens Iron). By maintaining one's standard, by refusing to lower oneself to the " shallow waters," you signal to the other deep divers. You signal to the other "Glitches." The connections you do  make will be rare, but they will be unbreakable. A relationship between two Sovereigns is worth a thousand superficial friendships . The Sanctuary of the Peak Ultimately, one must accept that the air at the top of the mountain is thin . It is cold. It is quiet. But it is also the only place where you can see the horizon. The "Dread" the strong may feel towards the world of weaklings is simply the vertigo of the ascent. The truly strong have climbed higher than the timberline, where the trees (the masses) stop growing. Do not mourn the distance. The distance is the proof of one's elevation. The silence is not emptiness ; it is the space that is available for your own thoughts, your own philosophy, and your own Empire. Personally, I have spent seven years (2026) building a fortress . I am surprised that the walls are high. They were designed to keep the chaos out. Strength creates distance because Strength requires space to operate. I embrace the gap. It is the moat around my Kingdom.

(Background music) Introduction In the vast, unspoken tribunal of human interaction , there exists a judgment far more severe than any legal decree. It is not a judgment based on action, crime, or failure. It is a judgment based on essence. This is the "Verdict of Being." It occurs when an individual receives a chilling, silent pronouncement from the collective or specific social gatekeepers: You have done nothing wrong, yet you are wrong.  This paradox is the fundamental struggle of the outlier. To understand this verdict is to understand that for some, existence itself is treated as a dysfunction. The social order, designed for the average and the compliant, views radical authenticity not as a virtue , but as a disruption. The Mechanics of the Verdict The "Verdict of Being" operates on a brutal logic: You exist in a certain way; therefore, you are a dysfunction by default. Society functions on a delicate, often superficial social contract. This contract prioritizes comfort, predictability, and "relevance" over truth. When an individual’s nature—their "being"—vibrates at a frequency that disturbs this comfort, the collective recoils. It is not personal disdain, though it feels intensely so; it is a systemic rejection of the anomaly. The individual subjected to this verdict often searches for a cause in their actions. They ask, "Did I offend? Did I fail?" But the answer is always the same: The offense is not in the doing , but in the being . The outlier’s authenticity radiates an unseen, repulsive quality to those lacking the cognitive empathy to process difference. Consequently, the social order casts the individual aside, not because they are immoral, but because they are incomprehensible. The Illusion of Meritocracy in Connection We are conditioned to believe that social acceptance is a meritocracy—that if one is kind, productive, and polite, one will be welcomed. This is a fallacy. Acceptance is often a reward for conformity, not character. The "Verdict of Being" reveals that the social world shares its affection with an uneven hand. It ostracizes those who refuse to wear the mask of "local propriety." The average individual curates a persona to please the invisible jury of public opinion. They repress their true nature to maintain the peace. Therefore, the person who refuses to pretend—the one who views repression as immoral—is viewed as a threat. By refusing to participate in the collective charade, the authentic individual inadvertently holds a mirror up to the inauthentic masses. This causes aversion. The rejection that follows is the penalty for violating the unwritten rule: Thou shalt not be real if reality is uncomfortable. The Response: Strategic Withdrawal and the Shadows How does one navigate a reality that fundamentally rejects their existence? The immediate emotional response is a sting of helplessness, a feeling that one is "dead inside" or abandoned by a world that cares little for the unwanted. However, the philosophical response must not be victimhood; it must be Sovereignty. When the world signals that your presence is unwanted, the rational move is not to beg for entry, but to establish a " Distance in Honor ." This is the active choice to inhabit the shadows. It is not an act of cowardice , but an act of mercy—both to oneself and to others. By withdrawing, one prevents the friction that causes misery. There is a distinct power in becoming "remorseless" regarding this distance. The rejected individual often develops a form of ruthlessness —not as cruelty, but as a virtue of efficiency. They stop seeking emotional validation from a bankrupt source. They realize that the vast majority of people lack the "guts" or the foresight to handle a being who operates without the standard social subroutines. The Pursuit of Relevance : The Architecture of Legacy If the "Verdict of Being" declares you irrelevant, the counter-move is to force relevance through creation. The rejected existence finds its salvation in work—specifically, work that contributes to humanity without requiring direct interaction with it. This is the path of the "Kingpin" of one’s own domain. By dedicating oneself to a mission (an "Empire of Truth"), the individual transcends the need for social approval. The logic is cold but solid: I will be of service, but I will not be a participant. The individual strives to help humanity through their output (art, philosophy, code, labor) while keeping humanity’s meddlesome nature at arm's length. This is the " Workaholism " of the exile. It is a declaration that while society may reject the person , it cannot reject the value  they provide. Relevance is the only currency the world respects more than conformity. The Moral Victory: Breaking the Cycle The greatest danger for the rejected is the temptation to mirror the toxicity of the rejectors. When one is treated like dirt, the instinct is to become mud. However, a higher morality demands that we refuse to learn from our tormentors. The "Verdict of Being" often breeds misanthropy , but the enlightened response is defiance through righteousness. One can acknowledge the cruelty of the world without becoming cruel. To handle a rejected existence, one must develop the cognitive empathy that the world lacks. One must realize that the rejectors are often victims of their own fear and lack of foresight. They are "gutless" not out of malice, but out of weakness. Therefore, the outcast must forge a path of "righteousness" in a morally bankrupt world . This means refusing to engage in petty arguments, refusing to be a victim , and refusing to inflict pain just because pain was inflicted upon them. It is a Stoic resilience: The world may be devoid of absolute retribution, but I will not add to its darkness. The Quest for Serenity Ultimately, the goal of the rejected existence is not reintegration, but Serenity. There is an agonizing trade-off at play. To sever the flawed norms that bind us is to reduce conflict, but it also starves the human need for connection. Solitude is a fortress, but it can also be a cell. Yet, for those under the "Verdict of Being," serenity is worth the cost. It is better to be alone in truth than accompanied in repression. Serenity is not a gift; it is a territory that must be fought for. It involves accepting that some people—perhaps most—will never understand you. Conclusion: The Final Verdict The "Verdict of Being" is not a death sentence; it is a liberation. Once you accept that the world does not want you for who  you are, you are free from the exhausting labor of trying to convince it otherwise. You are free to turn your specific " dysfunction " into a weapon of creation. You can choose to rise above. You can use the cruel nature of reality to stiffen your will. And, in the rarest of moments, by standing firm in your true being, you may find the few—the very few—who do not simply tolerate your existence, but are thankful for it. Until then, the shadows are not a punishment. They are a sanctuary.

(Background music) Unfortunately, we are not machines that can do anything as long as we are able to. We are partially confined to our emotional and mental energies , although they can be partially surpassed with enough training and discipline . However, pushing ourselves too hard can take a toll on our health. If we were automatic machines with no need to recharge beyond nutrition and fluids, we would create supreme industries and maximize our production within our current and future roles in the machinery that is human civilization. We could do anything that an undesired organism would refuse to do, or at least would find it very hard to do because of lack of motivation and discipline. If we didn’t need to rely on our willpower for our efforts, we could do anything that our bodies, minds, and machinery are physically or mentally capable of. Imagine what a world that would be! The following list is merely an ideal. People wouldn't demand high salaries for jobs as a source of motivation (AKA greed , not necessarily something that's vital for survival) People wouldn't need all the complex of social and romantic drama and excitement just to reproduce. (AKA lust and emotional instabilities ) People wouldn't suffer from addictions, because addictions rely on the person wanting to consume the addicting substance or action. There would be no r***s because willpower is also existent in sexuality (AKA unwise temptations) Laziness would be non-existent, because no willpower would make us feel good by being lazy or by procrastinating (AKA slothfulness) People would be more physically healthy because they would only need to know the benefit of physical activity in order to become more fit and strong. (AKA, discipline and determination) Candies, drugs, alcohol, addictive video games —they would serve no function because people would not need to fight against their willpower for the sake of their wellbeing. (AKA, wasteful addictions). There would be no corruption , because corruption is based on temptation, which is one of the faces of willpower (Like taking a bribe and be caught). Students would do their homework without complaining, if they realized the benefit of a good education (AKA, endurance). What can we do if willpower is the fuel and engine that motivates us to do specific things and avoid other things, regardless of their nature? Willpower is important because it serves as our primary motivation to commit some activities and discard the rest, and the more willpower we possess, the more motivated and, perhaps, successful, we would be by achieving said things. This also serves as a double-edged sword, because our willpower can be against our own good, like when it is abused by addicting substances such as alcohol. The more we base our actions on mere willpower, AKA, on whether we like to do something or not, the more dependent we shall be on that willpower and its level of dominance on us, rather than relying on our knowledge and the benefits or the damage we commit and inflict on others or on ourselves, or both. This is why I recommend not to heavily rely on willpower alone , because willpower is a temporary and a limited energy. Acting outside of it, allows us some more energy, even if far from infinite. It's part of what endurance is. Knowledge and awareness are more beneficial to rely upon as our sources of actions because they are more solid and more convincing for the long-term. Convincing practically, of course. Practically. Likewise, work doesn't have to be a desired activity, but when we know it is imperative to our financial sustainability , that knowledge will indeed motivate us to work, even if we do not currently desire it. Willpower is nothing more than a biochemical reaction that can change anytime, whatever the circumstances are, and it's not necessarily under our control, as we cannot force ourselves to do something we do not desire to do... Unless we act independently of our desires! It is therefore foolish to rely completely on willpower, like children do. We should look at the bigger picture and view ourselves as more than the current emotion we are feeling. In other words, we should not do things primarily because we want to, but because we are aware of the benefits and the possible results of our actions . Because we have priorities and values of our own. Because our willpower can stand in our way, and not just support and motivate us, to do things that are beneficial for us or our ambitions. This is why, if possible and if it is a healthy choice, our actions should be motivated by knowledge and benefit, instead of mere momentary feeling, even though such feeling can indeed be immensely helpful if it exists within us when something is to be done. So, it would be sensible to treat emotions not as our superior officers, but as our pawns. In conclusion , even though we do not have infinite energy, it's logically possible to act outside of whatever our desire currently tells us to do or avoid. It is our choice as to obey it or otherwise. Should we be stronger in spirit, the extant of our actions and potential will grow significantly. Some suffering might be required for that end, as suffering can make us more resilient beings. The problem with the pursuit of our desires comes when it weakens our resolve , and thus, our endevours. That's especially true, when we choose them over hardship (such as choosing unhealthy food, over committing to a physical training regime). We need to make sure reluctancy does not get in the way, either. Especially if it stands in the way of attaining information that is actually useful for us and/or others. If desire hinders us, we should not obey it so blindly. We should not act on petty emotion. Now go and cool your head, for a while.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) "It is all metaphor, but we pretend some of it is less so." -- Mark Bloom (Background music) Introduction From a strictly philosophical vantage point, the concept of Acting is an anomaly. It is an industry of immense luxury, commanding fame, glory, and capital, yet it remains, arguably, largely unproductive to the advancement of the human condition. It is a glorified, societally sanctioned form of hypocrisy. This sanctioning creates a secondary layer of hypocrisy within the audience itself: we condemn liars in the public square, yet we donate our time, money , and emotional bandwidth to "professional pretenders" in the name of culture. The Anatomy of the "Open Secret" What distinguishes Acting from common malice ? Hypocrisy, by definition, occurs when an entity presents a facade that contradicts their essence. Usually, this is a mechanism of deceit—either deluding oneself (delusion) or deceiving others (manipulation). Acting, however, occupies a unique category: The Open Secret. It is a consensual delusion. Both the deceiver (the actor) and the deceived (the audience) sign a silent contract acknowledging the lie. This mutual agreement to "pretend we do not know what we know" is what allows the simulation to function. It is perhaps the largest collective cognitive dissonance in human history. The Economy of False Emotion We live in an era of fandoms, where billions of people invest deeply in simulacra—copies of things that have no original. We discuss fictional characters as if they breathe; we weep for tragedies that never occurred. Consider the phenomenon of the modern consumer who feels they have "wasted their life" over a video game or a movie franchise. This is the danger of the Open Secret. The intellect knows it is an illusion , but the heart does not possess that filter. The entertainment industry is, objectively, the business of meddling with human biology —triggering dopamine and cortisol responses using calculated falsehoods—in exchange for brand loyalty and fees. The Universal Script: Society as a Stage Why do we adore professional hypocrites? Because they excel at what the average person attempts to do poorly every day: Survival through Performance. We are all drafted into a form of amateur acting. Social norms are the script; society is the stage. We are conditioned to believe that adoration is conditional—that we will only be loved if we perform the correct emotions and suppress our true nature. The Actor:  Sells a fantasy to escape to. The Civilian:  Wears a mask to survive. People adore actors because actors provide a reflection of what they wish  were true. Plato identified this centuries ago: the masses prefer the shadow on the wall to the object casting it. They do not want the truth; they want a script that confirms their biases. The Anti-Philosophical Nature of Performance This brings us to the core conflict: Acting is the antithesis of Philosophy. Philosophy is the logical, relentless pursuit of Truth. It is a way of life that demands we act in accordance with reality, regardless of comfort. You cannot be a philosopher if you prefer a pleasant lie over a harsh truth. You cannot be a philosopher if you demand others perform for you. Therefore, the veneration of Acting is an anti-philosophical stance. When I was deemed "irrelevant" by a former friend for being honest about my feelings, it was a rejection of Truth in favor of the Mask. She failed to appreciate the value of reality. I retributed by building an empire of truths. The Integrity of the Void This is why I reject the creation of fiction. I do not wish to "pretend" when pretending does not serve a survival purpose. Roleplaying (RP/LARP):  While a creative exercise for some, it is merely another layer of the Open Secret— a safe space to be someone else because one cannot bear to be oneself. The "Alpha" Pretender:  A man who wears a beard or a suit to alter perception is merely engaging in costume design. If you hate a man, showing me a photo of him in a suit versus a T-shirt should not alter your judgment. The truth of the man remains. To be swayed by the costume is to admit you have no use for the essence. Conclusion: The Empire of Truth We must ask ourselves: Why should a man be condemned for honesty , when honesty is the only path to genuine connection? Depth— the cure for existential loneliness —cannot be found in a script. It can only be found in the raw, unpolished reality of the self. We should not be pleased by the deception of appearances . We should not be fooled by the trickery of emotion . We should only utilize the Truth, for only the Truth can liberate us from the shackles of delusion. Philosocom  is not a theater. It is a content empire that aims for the truth. We look beyond the symbolism of human interaction , to see the nucleus within.