The Rubinshteinic Philosophy Against Discarding People "Well, you know what they say. Can't bake a pie without losing a dozen men." -- Big Jack Horner (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). (Background music) Being discarded is one of the most challenging experiences anyone can face in life, whether it's at work, by a love interest, by family, or even by a group of friends. The possibility transcends the boundaries of wealth, privilege, and misfortune, as worth is estimated both emotionally and intellectually. However, due to a lack in either, who's to say we estimate people's worth in great correlation with our plans? Rejection is a universal experience, likely to occur at least once or twice in a lifetime, and its impact can be particularly severe depending on the depth of the connection with the person or group responsible for the rejection. Did you know? Rejection can be traumatic. Even "giants" like Mark Zuckerberg are not immune to rejection from the world when presenting their ideas and endeavors. At the initial time of this article's publish date (look above), Zuckerberg has recently announced that the major social media platforms he owns will be united under a new umbrella entity called "Meta", thus forming one of the biggest online empires today. While ambitious, this concept has been met with widespread ridicule, not only due to the logo's design but also because the word "Meta" translates to "she died" in Hebrew. Yes, "Meta" means "she died" in Hebrew (Met in male form) . Despite his immense power, Zuckerberg's external respect has long been disposed by many, who often cite him as an example of a "non-human" individual, disconnected from the rest of humanity (ironically), and is mocked for being a "lizard person" . (I myself am a tomato! Hehehe. Like Dr. Eggman I actually embrace the insult . Not giving in to belittlement can be done by subverting one's expectations . Also a good way to deal with rejection). Anyways, rejection/disposability is something that can happen to anyone. It doesn't matter who you are, or who you think you are, but as long as the other side believes you are unnecessary, they might be inclined to dispose of you from their lives. No one actually has the privilege of having either themselves or their reputation be non-disposable. Even the Abrahamic God is despised and mocked by many anti-theists . And the thing is, it's a very human, because pets who are loyal to you enough like dogs, will stay by your side until either one of you dies and even after your death. That pet doesn't even have to be a dog, it could be a cat. My own cat always returns after his outdoor adventures, and he is aware that it's his home and that I'm his owner and friend. I'm sure that, since I raised him, he won't abandon me like different people in my life have done. H e adopted me. However, relationships with other people are like a big interview, where you constantly have to prove to them, and vice versa, that you should not be disposed of and that you are still valuable to either them or the world in general. The world isn't like a video game where you can keep everyone you meet alongside you ( although some video games won't allow or ensure that ). Anyone can leave you in the real world at any time and it is a very isolating thought, because in the end, even with much power at your hands, you would still find yourself the most trusting person you can have (you). If you've been blessed with loving parents , they are the most likely people who will not dispose of you, because, unlike other people, they love you the most. During my late grandma's funeral, after she was buried, I was told that she loved me the most in her life, much to my surprise. People who aren't loving family and friends are the likeliest to dispose of you from their world, should they reach the conclusion that you are unnecessary. It's a cruel thing to do, even at work. But the truth is, not all of the people in one's life are seen by them as important enough to resume keeping. You know, this attitude can backfire by one of the heart's "naturally evil" emotions -- revenge. Why use your own power against yourself? You can preserve loyalty like a dictator does -- make it a collective interest. Constantly reward them with gifts and money and even marry them to your children. Being relevant is the key of staying in power and thus, be not disposable, but irreplaceable. But when you no longer have stuff to offer them, from contribution to their own survival, they might abandon you, if not betray you. That's especially true if you happen to be in a position of higher authority. Humans are political animals, as claimed by Greek philosopher Aristotle , and to be political is to be defined by interests. Hidden or otherwise. Some people do not care if they are disposed of. They are strong enough to move on to the next "phase" of people. However, when you value yourself far enough, you will feel hurt when someone you appreciate disposes of you, because being disposed of is a sign of no importance, and wastefulness. Why would someone like being unimportant; a waste; an irrelevancy; or dysfunctional? Unless you embrace your flaws, of course! But still, that message, that reminder, isn't something that everyone can necessarily endure, once it has been done multiple times, especially if it's in a field that's important to the disposed person. No one, for instance, would normally like to be fired from a job they enjoy doing. As I said before, I don't like to dispose of people. I was taught in life that since anyone with enough respect for me can help me as I can help them, there isn't much necessity in disposing of them. I even I received a positive review of my site, once, from someone I haven't seen physically in half a decade. Being good to others pays. Not necessarily by cash, but by other means as well. See how good it is to keep people in your life, even if they might not be as close as others? Anyone could be useful once they are on "your side", and thus I don't see any reason to dispose of people who are good to me and vice versa. Anyone can return the benefit sometime in the future. (It doesn't mean that others should "walk over you" per se, just for said benefit. Having standards is key to self-respect). How can you know whether someone is evil in a piece of fiction? See if they dispose of people who help them, from friends to faceless henchmen , from abandoning them to actually abusing or killing them. Then, you will know that they are indeed villains. Why? Because heroes do not betray the favor of those who are on their side. Many villains are too sociopathic/psychopathic to care about that. This is why I am determined to show her, t he one I made my nemesis , that I am relevant. I don't consider her evil, but I do believe she underestimates the value of having a vast network of connections. And I believe she underestimated me as well. Still, it's not my place to tell her to accept me; that's no longer my goal. My objective is to demonstrate to the world that she was wrong in calling me irrelevant, by adding irreplaceable value to the world in the form of Philosocom, my article empire. You don't have to like everyone and everything, but labeling someone "irrelevant"? I've had enough of forgiving such behavior; of maintaining the "dignity" to ignore it. This was the tipping point, after years of insults from people. The very thing that changed me and made me dead inside. And power is best gained in the name of doing good. So, I will be good. Imagine devoting eight years of your life to someone only to be labeled "irrelevant" at the end of that period. How would you feel, having invested so much time in such a careless person? That's when I realized that I am indeed expendable to some; the character in movies who is killed and forgotten, the worker who is laid off due to being an expense... The one with untapped potential who remains indefinitely side-lined. I will turn this into my strength, proving that even if she doesn't have to accept my company, humanity will, for more than my own lifetime. I will use it to become even more valuable to the world than I could've been. Learn from my example. It's the very reason I record it for you.

(Background music) (Philosocom's directory on death: https://www.philosocom.com/post/defining-death )   One's fate is inevitable. No matter what one does, fate will always come, and exists beyond your control. Fate doesn't ask you if you are ready to face it. Instead, you have to be ready to face your fate. Should you do so, bearing your fate will be easier. The ultimate fate of all human beings is to die. However, humans end up in different ways, and the future is not always clear to most... Therefore, for most whose future remains in the shadows, to face your fate, you must be willing to embrace the unknown, and march forward to it without regret. To live a life without regret, you must be willing to embrace yourself fully, and be brave enough to do the things you always wanted to do. Shamelessly, remorselessly. That's how you'll know, you have lived a life well lived -- under your own terms. Most people do not have the courage to step out from what they're doing in life and chase after their dreams. Security prevents them from doing great things and becoming the best version of themselves. Those who give in to security, are fated to live dull, monotonous lives , until retirement comes, and then that is it. But the question is, are they really willing to face the fate of such lives? Fate, is determined by our choices, for life is but a story of how you die. All your choices eventually lead up to the ultimate fate of death. Facing your fate means welcoming death with open arms. Those willing to bring it sooner than expected prevent themselves from the chance of living fulfilling lives, instead succumbing to temporary misery and suffering which tempt them to finally end it. That in my opinion isn't worth it, for suffering is there to make you stronger. It is like a bitter medicine, taken chronically. Should you not be able to face it, and fail to endure it, you hasten your fate in utter weakness, and leave this world without healing from the very suffering which is but a phase to make you stronger. The best way to face your fate is after living a life without regrets. The fate of death then becomes easier to carry. We are all bound to die, but not all of us are mentally prepared for it. To live a life well lived, you must chase what is in your heart. Bravely, relentlessly, and determined. You must sacrifice security for passion, comfort for daring acts, and fear for self-honesty . Only then, you will be able to live a life that is without or with little regret, which is the definition of a life well lived. Death is hard to bear, whether happening to ourselves or to our dear ones . However, the more you live your life without regret, the more you will be able to face your fate with far less difficulty than otherwise. Facing your fate is an act of bravery. Many would choose to run away from their fates through distractions and, like an ostrich putting its head underground, deny reality for what it is: A temporary journey with a clear end. The less you'll want to do, the easier facing your fate will be, as the more you desire, the more you'll suffer in the failure to attain it all. For a life well lived, desire has to end eventually, and in its stead, let peace take its place. And to face the inevitable fate of your death, bravery is not solely needed but also peace. To go and to leave this mortal realm both bravely and peacefully, knowing you did all you wanted to do. My fate is already known, for I am set for life. My cursed condition puts me in a unique situation where I can chase my dreams as a young, retired man. My fate is that of solitude, because the world around me will keep on focusing on its survival while I alone remain with all my wants and needs met. Whenever I am left alone, I am confronted with what awaits me decades down the line... a life of utter solitude. Solitude, therefore, is also how I will face my fate of death. Although young (2025), I am prepared to face my fate. All company I have is a temporary bliss. Of that I am painfully aware. Philosocom is how I gain my meaning and purpose in this world. That is why I spent much time and dedication on this platform . I live to work on it for the more I work on it, the better off I become in life. Through my own platform, I found love, I found purpose , and most of all, I found peace. However, I am aware that all the blessings that I get by working on this site are temporary. All the people that come and partake on this massive project are also bound to leave. Everything around me is running on borrowed time, and the chronic fate of dying alone remains. In order to go out without regret, I helped and saved people. In this way, I have proved my relevancy, and completed my arc of moral revenge . Without me, people would've died. That is enough for me to live life in long term peace, of accomplished relevance. I do not know what other blessings await me by working on the site , however I am well aware that I am bound to die alone. This site is like a crystal palm tree that drops diamonds on me, however these diamonds are prone to be lost to the fabric of time. I must do whatever I can to preserve this "palm tree" for the next generations, and leave a legacy behind me . It is within my control to face fate the way I want it, however the solitude aspect is an inevitable possibility. I have deviated from academic life to live a life of a hero and retired website owner. I do not regret forsaking the academy. Saving lives seems more meaningful than a mere degree. Lives are more important than degrees. I have no regrets, and I am ready to face my fate, whenever it will come. How about you? Will you choose a route of security and mediocrity, or dare to do great things in which could risk yourself and your sanity, even? The choice is up to you, for you are the narrator of your own story. The story of how dust becomes dust.

Recently (October 2025), an anonymous person pretended to be part of the organization behind the site, collecting money on my behalf even though I did not authorize this. We live in an age where anyone can pretend to be anybody. In today's age, anyone can pretend to be anybody they're not and say they can be affiliated with anybody. To prevent being scammed, it is important to apply critical thinking and to ask oneself if this is really the case. To make things clear, I do not struggle maintaining the site, and anyone else that tells you otherwise is lying. I don't send messages to send money, nor I send anyone to do it on my behalf. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS. The only legitimate way to donate to the site is through the "donate" button on the site's menu. Please know that the site is non-profit and all donations are optional. I am not responsible for any losses or damages resulting from responding to scammers misusing Philosocom's identity.

The Directory: A Story of Logic and Immorality -- Insights On Suikoden V's Cutscene, "Beaver Lodge Under Attack!" How a Game's Plot Improved My Moral Philosophy The Flawed Philosophy of the Hero (And What Can Be Learned From It) Furthermore on Death (And Reincarnation) -- How I Accepted My Death The Fort of Shallow (Poem) Bittersweet Satisfaction -- Settlement with The Inevitable -- A Unique Emotion? Contemplations on "Setsunai" The Mystery of Dreams & What Can We Learn From Them Depth In Simplicity -- Insights From Coin Tossing -- The Philosophy of Simplicity https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-humane-origins-of-corruption-graham-cray-character-analysis https://www.philosocom.com/post/uphill-battle (Background music) The Tragic World of the "Child of the Sea God" Troy is a character from Suikoden IV and one of the characters I was most impressed by as a kid. In a way, he is the ultimate anti-villain . He was a villain only because he was with the enemy faction, and nothing more, for he was a moral and noble man. Even when the main antagonists of the game committed genocide against an innocent island nation and even had their own minions there , Troy was the only one in the enemy faction to actually protest against the terrible weapon that was used, a giant beam as destructive as a nuclear weapon. Although portrayed as the key enemy of the game, he is rarely seen throughout the game because he is merely a pawn in a greater scheme and is only mentioned due to his being the main character's nemesis. Furthermore, Sir Troy is an excellent soldier and admiral. Despite his good nature, he followed a code of loyalty to his heartless nation to the point of death. In battle, He is only encountered twice in the game, and arguably he is the only enemy in the entire game who was willing to spare you, the hero. The allies that you happen to fight do not count, even when faced as opponents. In fact, the main reason I'm even bringing this obscure villain up is not because of my adoration for him but because of how he sees death and killing. For "Sir Troy", defeat through death is something honorable, worthy only of opponents who are strong enough to face him and remain formidable. It is a strange form of meritocracy, and a warrior's code . The only reason the game is beaten is because he chose to spare the hero (canonically named Razro) and his companions, when he could've killed them all, here and there, on their first encounter. His reason for this decision was that " the sea will decide their fate " (the game is mostly naval, set around a group of island nations). There was nothing stopping him but his own philosophy. No external resistance, no disobedient soldiers. Only him and "the sea". Whether or not the sea is a divine entity, remains unknown. Apparently, he was so renowned among his nation that he was considered a war hero and has been granted a peculiar title: " The Child of the Sea God ". Who is that "Sea God" entity is unclear, and yet even those who have only heard of Troy knew him by that title. When he tells his henchmen that "the sea will decide their fate", he raises a somewhat religious tone, as if the entire sea is a living entity, a god. Nonetheless, he dislikes being called by the very title he was honored with. This also reveals his modest character. The "Sea God", like with Troy, has spared the protagonist and his followers. Because of that, they eventually managed to build an opposition force, strong enough to defeat the main villain and Troy himself. That also applies to their fleets, which were decimated. The first fight with Troy is the only fight in the game where you are supposed to lose. In some games, you can beat "unbeatable" battles through mostly cheating, but in this game, Troy is the only enemy who, at the time, has infinite health, meaning he cannot be defeated even if you tried. I believe this symbolizes the fact that you are extremely weak against him and are unworthy to be killed by him. See this as an indication of Razro's hero's journey.   As you can see, this code of honor backfires on him, and he accepts it with complete grace . The game's final fight is with him once more. This time, you're fighting against him in his sinking ship, which he sailed as the last man standing. Even when his entire fleet is under the sea and his castle is decimated, he seems untouched by these facts . It could frustrate many other warlords and the like, but not him. This time, you're supposed to win. When defeated, the hero returns to his ship. Then, you are given a final decision -- accept his death or ask him to join you. This is a very dramatic decision, and yet it won't change anything. Even if you ask him to join, he will refuse, for he is a man who knows to accept victory the same way he can accept defeat -- even if it's his death -- with dignity. A true warrior; a naval samurai. He who lives by the blade, dies by the blade, like a samurai, like a ninja . Beyond opposition to the island-destroying weapon mentioned earlier, he shows no regret or protest. If "the sea" or his nation dictates it, he will live or he will die. With his undying loyalty, he serves and accepts his role as a mere pawn, despite his moral greatness. It can be compared to the loyalty of historic and Nationalists Japanese to their Emperor. I was told once by my former master that Socrates used to invent gods when he philosophized. That frustrated the public and the Athenian government. Troy very much reminds me of that eccentric philosopher, being a "ying" to his "yang" in a way. To both, their lives did not matter, for they served a purpose greater than their own , if reality dictates so. For Socrates, it was philosophizing; for Troy, it was war. Ultimately, both died because of their loyalty to the State. Both could've been redeemed, but both refused without protest. For some reason, this "very bad" game appears to teach me a lot. About life, about myself. It made me despise disposability, appreciate the little details, be naive, and strive to be friendly and good. When thinking about that game, it seems that there was only one truly evil villain , while the rest of them were eventually converted to good. One was a coward (Snowe), the other a naive fool (The Governor). A third, an atoner (Sir Troy); and the fourth is a wise old man and his son -- a skeptic of command (Colton and Helmut, who vanished after the war) . A very mysterious game indeed. The "ultimate" villain, the last one whom you need to defeat in order to beat the game, letting his own ship sink, losing himself to the depths of the ocean. Every character in that game appears to have a justification for their villainy or naughtiness, making them not as evil as they seem. Only one, a backstabbing manipulator (Graham Cray), is worthy of being called evil. Perhaps because of that whole experience, I find it extremely difficult to see the evil in humanity. Even when I am told that they are evil, even by my own haters, I still try to reason their motives as if they were characters from that game. When I realize there are at least 3 types of moral evil -- chaotic, neutral, and lawful -- I still can't truly comprehend the concept of evil as something to be condemned without paying full attention to a justifying motive or goal. In the end, I learned from Troy the value of being loyal to a philosophy. He is a self-respecting warrior. He was defeated. Therefore, he must die. Some may call him a fool, for he was given a generous chance of redemption , but he refused it, and that refusal is better than a lifetime of betraying his code, the code of the "Sea God". He was like a loyal husband to it, never betraying. This is how philosophy, even when noble, can be fatal to the one who practices it. Because they should not die by it, they can easily become a hypocrite of their own making. In a way, due to his honor, Troy allowed himself to be drawn to death. When your philosophy kills you, it is problematic. Socrates was loyal to a two-faced society , like Troy was loyal to a dysfunctional, divided empire. Playing so much of this game through childhood, I eventually began speaking and expressing myself in its language by default, inevitably. People called me a robot, a pretender, a bullsh*tter, and a condescending man as a result of that, but in the end, all I did was remain true to my word, as did Sir Troy. When told that the matter has been settled, by the one who beats Troy, Troy says: "Yes, it has. I remained true to myself until the end. I remained A warrior... You have my gratitude". Numerology Analysis by Mr. Roland Leblanc Heth, the letter of transformation, beckons Sir Troy. A test, a trial of mutation, a journey into the All There Is. This is his quest, his Lech Lecha,  a pilgrimage inwards towards the self. As the Child of the Sea God, Sir Troy carries the vastness of the Yam within him. This Yam, the Hebrew word for "sea," symbolizes both the outer world beyond our network of "islands", and the inner depths of existence as well. Sir Troy understands his role as a catalyst, influencing the life purpose of his adversaries while remaining true to his own existence. To master both inner and outer worlds, one must listen to the themes of inspiration, intuition, and even dreams. It is in this balance that true guidance resides in knowing who we really are, and acting true to ourselves like Sir Troy seemingly does. With no denial needed at all!

(Directory on Rectification and Help) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Suikoden Content) (Background music) Ever since I opened up Philosocom, I went against this world. This world needs rectification. This world exploits and deceives the masses, and many people live miserable lives. It saddens me to see it. I want to rectify this world. People don't seek this as a product. They seek shallow things instead, as this world gets annihilated by climate change , product of consumerism. I seek to rectify the world because it is the right thing to do. However, the right thing rarely gets noticed when it's done. I helped many people sustain themselves during war, when I lived as a refugee. I even saved lives, and got engaged. Ever since I saw the woman I am engaged to, I sought to cleanse myself of my darkness, and cleansing myself of it I did, by helping many people and even saving lives from despair . However, did my good deeds get noticed? No, they didn't. Yet, I did them anyways. I did them because they were the right thing to do. As a child I grew up on an obscure game named Suikoden IV, about a hero who got wrongly framed for murder , and yet he did the right thing every single time. That game shaped my moral philosophy , and that hero, Razro, is a character that is basically my role model. He saved people, forgave those who sought to fight him, and thus redeemed himself from the bad things in which he got inflicted with, with great bravery and heroism. By his own power, Razro liberated nations from oppression by just being himself. By my own power, I saved lives, helped many through Philosocom, and rectified myself from my darkness, cursed upon me by an unjust world. This world is rigged against wisdom. No one's buying wisdom en masse. People are becoming brain-rotten . The truth is not something that is catered to, but something that is explored and said even when uncomfortable. Philosophy, at its rawest form, has nothing to do with catering, and to cater, you have to give up on yourself. Wisdom is rarely sought because this is a twisted world where the corrupt thrive and good people suffer . I have long decided that beyond my contributions to this world, I want nothing to do with it. I know I am rare, and I wish it wasn't the case. If more people wanted this world to be rectified, and actively did things to rectify the world, then it would've been a better place to live in. I know I am but one man, but as one man I did much to so many people to help them. I don't seek recognition for doing the right thing, and I don't need validation for doing the right thing. I saved 6 people from despair and one of them told me that no one saved them before hanging up on me forever, feeling betrayed because they experienced that I forsake them. I still do not regret saving them, because doing the right thing is the right thing to do, and helping people is always good. However, this world goes against saving people. It goes, instead, for worrying about yourself above all. During the course of a war, I had a little Suikoden IV adventure of my own, where I rose to power and helped so many people. However, I remain in obscurity because I don't seek fame for my actions. And, I will not tell whom I saved because the right thing to do is to maintain discretion. In this corrupt world , you can do all the right things, and still remain alone and even a failure . You're not supposed to be just , you're supposed to be wise in terms of worrying about yourself above anyone else. I'm sorry, but such a prioritization goes against my morals. I am probably one of the most moral people in this world, but I don't really care. All the good things I did, were because of my sense of justice. I have no ounce of regret of helping all these people who contributed to the site, while saving some of them from existential despair. I am fighting an uphill battle in a world rigged against wisdom. I don't know if I'll ever win it. Yet, you miss all the shots you don't take. To this day I fight this world by being a moral and honest man who just wants to contribute. Think about it... All I want to do is to rectify the world , and to contribute. That is so rare that it might be hard to believe. Yet, I am a rare person, and of that I am painfully aware. I just poured and poured money on this huge project called Philosocom, helping people throughout the world. Yet, this world is rigged against me. However, at least I get to do what I like, and I like to rectify the world. This is who I am. I want to make the world a better place, and I know how hard it is, when it is so easy to misplace your trust in people. I am a solitary creature. All I want is to rectify the world and be left alone . I want no rewards, no trophies for my good deeds. I just want to do good and live in peace. I know how hard it is to be good in this world. I chose a most hard route. I live ascetically while I invested much into a site that rarely gets me a financial return, yet I do it because it is my passion. I passionately write, I passionately help people. I know I can be seen negatively because of scammers , because like in Suikoden IV, it is so easy to frame good people for bad things. Yet, despite everything the world throws at you , if you continue to be good, you must resume resisting the urge to break bad . You must resume being strong, and redeem yourself from your darkness. There is no reward for it, no crowd to come to cheer you up. This world is unfair, and I am fighting an uphill battle to rectify this world through my writings. I am not whining; I am not seeking pity for being unrecognized. All I want to do is the right thing. I am not a martyr, I am not a saint, nor I am a savior . At this point of my lifelong journey as a philosopher, I am just a good person who wants to rectify the world. And even if I fail, at least I tried. I tried hard. Worked hard for little return. I'll admit, I wanted to give up many times. Yet, in my quest to always be strong , I decided to resume working on a site that gets me very little in return. I reconcile myself by the fact that I am doing something I like, something many people don't get to do. This world is unfair, unjust, corrupt and immoral. By being brutally honest as a good person , I go against it. Even if people don't believe me, even if they think it is too good to be true, I still keep at it. I want after me to leave a glorious legacy of an empire that did good to the world. And even if that good will remain unspoken of, and below the radar , just like the lives I saved, I'll continue doing it, because that is the only thing that makes me feel alive inside. Like Eggman, who fights an uphill battle in a world rigged against tyranny, I fight the same type of battle in a world rigged against wisdom, justice, and all that is good. Why do I do this? Why won't I focus on my own self-interest like everyone else does? In reality, I do. By helping people, I help myself feel better. By making the world a better place, I feel better with myself. I am dead inside . I am in love with ethics. Ethics are the only thing that helps me feel alive. Doing good as a way of life resurrects me from the dead and helps me feel good about myself. I want to rectify the world! This is who I am! I am crying from joy as I am writing this because world rectification is the only thing that mesmerizes me. Contributing to people helps me feel alive. Good can be exploited so easily in this world, so I prefer to play it smart and be left alone. This is why I live like an ascetic hermit and rarely speak to anyone beyond a small circle of people. I wish it was different, but I must retain my good nature in solitude. I cannot do it as a social butterfly. I suffer from loneliness but I don't care. I will be strong! I will be good! By my own power, I will do the best I can to rectify the world, and continue fighting an uphill battle in a world rigged against wisdom because I am like Sysyphus, but happy. And to continue to fight this world, you must keep imagining Sisyphus being happy.

(For the whole site's category on solitude, click here ) (For the directory on success, click here ) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe And Co. The article "Why It's Lonely at the Top – A Personal Perspective" delves into the complex relationship between success, solitude, and personal fulfillment . Mr. Tomasio's candor and sincerity resonate with readers, as he shares his personal experiences of loneliness and anhedonia . The poetic structure of the piece sets a contemplative tone, blending ideas of power and isolation. He also weaves philosophical insights into the narrative, providing readers with a thoughtful reflection on success beyond mainstream media. The article emphasizes hard work and sacrifice, dismantling myths like "overnight success," providing a more grounded understanding of what it takes to reach the top. Furthermore, his emphasis on contributing to others and the belief in altruism adds a moral dimension to the discussion on success. The article effectively captures the complex emotions and struggles that often accompany success. Its blend of personal reflection, philosophical insight, and raw honesty make it a compelling read. (Background music) Introductory Poem: Powerful and Powerless Solitude, by side! Power and night! Followers, thrive all fine. My solitude works me, At her mine! I failed, to overthrow, Her shining might! Volunteers, thrive all fine, But I'm a prisoner of Solitude's light! I thought, I'll be less lonely, Once, I gained authority! But with it I was born, With it I live, With it, I'll live until I die! I won't be victimized, For I'm not terrified! I'll gain more power, As I contribute, To the vast horizons, Of humanity! The Relations of Success and Solitude The expression " It's lonely at the top " suggests that those who are successful and/or powerful in their field have very few friends. This feeling of isolation can be a surprising consequence of the relentless drive required for achievement. This shows us that great success isn't necessarily a prerequisite for deep, honest relationships with people. Success isn't a singular mountain you conquer. It's a continuous ascent demanding constant refinement and determination. This pursuit, even in the realm of social interaction, can be a solitary path. I speak from personal experience, which I will explain later on. Those seeking shortcuts often fall victim to "get-rich-quick" schemes. Desperate for results, they avoid the effort, becoming easy prey for con artists exploiting their vulnerabilities. My own journey has been one of solitude, even before fatigue became a factor. My focus on philosophy, both then and now, has kept me away from social and romantic connections. This path, while fulfilling in its own way, has inevitably led to a deep sense of isolation, which I define as cosmic-like and chronic. The appreciation and readership I receive may provide proof for my good work, but it doesn't liberate the feeling of being alone. For being lonely at the top involves being at a high peak of understanding not many reach. This may make it difficult to convey ideas even my most loyal readers would understand properly. To Quote Mr. John Duran: The beings of enlightenment bear a great burden in their spirits. They are destined to walk far and wide, seeking wandering restless souls, open enough to listen and understand. Which seems an impossible task, so their real burden is that they are bound to walk utterly alone across a devastated landscape of ignorance and obtusity. Sacrifices and the Pursuit of Mastery Despite being only 26 (2024), I've accomplished a lot. However, boasting feels pointless . The truth is, I find little joy in socializing, as I find little joy in anything either way. So, I work relentlessly, pushing forward even when I lack the energy. I made it into my habit, to work independently of my willpower . This has been my routine for years. Success often demands a mountain of practice, learning from countless mistakes. The key is continuous improvement, and keeping in on the straight and narrow. Empires are not built in a day for a reason . They relentlessly pursue their goals, striving for mastery – a title I've been fortunate enough to receive in philosophy by some of my followers . Since 2013, philosophy has been my singular focus, eclipsing most other aspects of life. At first the essays I wrote were very poor. It took years for my craft to be perfected or at least improve significantly. My success lies in making people want to read more by caring about my writings. However, hard work is no guarantee. It's a gamble on a future different from your current reality. However, beyond the very rare occasion, overnight success is a myth . It's a sacrifice few are willing to make, choosing instead to prioritize social hangouts, romantic love and even aimless global travel. These people might not go far with their ambitions simply because they don't invest enough time and resources to make something succeed in whatever you're doing, not being lazy for instance is a great advantage for starters. The truth is, unless you possess the emotional capacity for deep connections, solitude may be your companion on the path to success. And it's just a possibility that might as well never materialize. But there is no choice but to try, and try hard, if you even want a good chance at getting whatever you want. What truly fuels this journey is an undying faith in your work and its potential impact on the world. The Internal Rival Who Consumed Me From Within Anhedonia , the struggle to feel joy, has become an unwelcome companion in my relentless pursuit of building Philosocom. I accepted this condition when I realized it helps me work better when I no longer depend on things to make me happy, for I am unhappy anyways, and am fine with it. The more I dedicated myself to work, the rarer joy became, until it vanished entirely. It's a void no amount of effort seems to fill. It was there, in a way, from the very beginning . I am not used to affection. As I began losing my emotions I also began not being really affected by it. My focus on becoming a better writer and philosopher left me respected, yes, but joyless and largely unfeeling. This website's success came at the price of profound loneliness which I taught myself to accept as unavoidable. The vast majority of my interactions are online. I also taught myself to accept this fact as a necessity. Working tirelessly, I worried about becoming a ruthless figure, consumed by ambition. I actively sought ways to connect, to feel loved – a defense against such a fate. However, I slowly fell from my personal grace when I failed to do so. I realized instead the virtue of ruthlessness , no longer able to mourn the former self I discarded. The truth is, my laughter with others is often a performance. The professional thing is to pretend . I do it extremely well as it's a skill I taught myself to develop. While in reality I don't even feel the vast array of emotions I display. Humor requires less of an emotion and more of logic the ability to appeal to others . Anyways, I used to yearn to feel something beyond the temporary lift of a cup of coffee. But then I realized this: People at large don't really care about what you really feel, but rather what you display to them. Thus your emotions are not necessarily important when it comes to many goals. Not as much as the proper and acceptable display of them, instead. Despite it all, Philosocom's success remains paramount to me. No obstacle will deter me from furthering its reach. I work not for myself, but for you, the users . The resources I gain fuel this platform's growth. I am driven to give you the content I believe you deserve as Philosocom readers. A Lonely Path to Purpose Contributing holds the most importance for me. It eclipses everything else because I already worked on myself enough through philosophizing to care less about myself and more about others. After all I wish to be good and altruism is the highest good . Yet, after years of existential isolation dedicated to my work, I can't help but wonder if connection is a distant dream. Work has become my sole purpose, leaving a hollow echo in my personal life. This existence is undeniably lonely. Perhaps others on this path can relate. After all, "lonely at the top" isn't just a cliche . While it may not hold true for everyone, for many of us driven entrepreneurs, it's a stark reality. It's one that can only be surpassed by having faith in what you're doing. Extra Notes Being at the top can mean different things as success is goal-dependent rather than a universal notion. It can vary from being wealthy to being a genius . Either way, some level of high accomplishment is a necessity for success. Examples include: Business leaders/executives. Master writers. Paranoid Dictators. Savants. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Do not be altruistic at the expense of yourself. What good are you to anyone if you bury yourself trying to be selfless? You must maintain your own health to help with the health of others. Solitude can be eliminated by finding those who can get behind your dream or who have similar dreams to you. A collaboration where you can be mutually beneficial to each other is a solid asset. It allows you to selfishly focus on yourself while at the same time being aware that you are helping someone else out in the process.

The Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-live-with-or-without-luck https://www.philosocom.com/post/trust-and-luck https://www.philosocom.com/post/bound-to-suffer-the-philosophy-of-general-skarr https://www.philosocom.com/post/when-accidents-benefit-the-victim-savant-syndrome-analysis-featuring-a-savant https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-the-education-system https://www.philosocom.com/post/save-yourself-jin (Background music) Introduction The idea that a curse is some kind of magical spell executed by wizards or sorcerers is a false belief, that is likelier to exist in tales of fiction than in realities. While the notion of curse is not universal, some people are indeed "cursed" in some way or another, with them not being able to do anything about it. Furthermore, the more they mainly focus on their misfortune, the more the origins of their negativity blinds them from seeing the positive aspects of the world around us. This, in turn, hurts their fabric of happiness. Therefore, a misfortune is either amplified or reduced by the subjection of our perception. Genetics: The Indication of A Flawed Reality Whether be it an illness, a permanent circumstance or a condition that cannot be cured like autism, the idea of "being cursed" is more realistic than some may think, simply due to existence being flawed. After all, what are curses, if not the very representatives of this flawed universe? Furthermore, how can we rationally deny this reality being filled with flaws? As such, genetic dispositions are often the result of the problems our ancestors had. The past is always key in understanding the cursed flaws we have inherited from those who are no longer with us. Children, although having a will independent of their parents, may still suffer the problems their parents had. As such, Nietzsche's poor health condition stemmed from the genetics he inherited from his ill father. Psychologically, we can logically deduce that Nietzsche's unique philosophy, which many find relatable to this very day, helped him endure his unfortunate verdict of being, that stemmed from his genetical and environmental factors. How to be Grateful for Misfortune For the more infantile mind, it is easier to be ungrateful and entitled than grateful and modest. That is because of many humans' hardwired tendency towards pessimism. This hardwired tendency is a curse by itself as positivity is far more practical and reasonable. Positivity allows us, after all, to rectify the very problems we suffer from. Look back at your darker past. Can you be grateful for it? For all the traumas you've received? How willing are you to consider being grateful for it? Many people would struggle with this, as they would not find reason to appreciate their misfortune. They instead prefer to appreciate their fortune. However, in the name of growth and in the name of development, we should focus on being grateful in general. As we are grateful for our misfortunes, we can be more mindful of them. As a result, we can build upon them. Build an empire with same bricks that were thrown at you. -- Anonymous When we build upon misfortune, we can subvert it , and create something of greater virtue. There are, unfortunately, some things in life that cannot be helped, no matter how much treat they get. Applying philosophy on reality can turn these misfortunes into creative outlets. As such, people of misfortune may find themselves becoming excellent writers, poets and even philosophers. The Seeds of The Human Potential If it weren't for these misfortunes, that changed the trajectory of people, we wouldn't have creative geniuses such as John Duran , a sage who spent much of his life being homeless. We wouldn't have Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac and M. Svartgold , who both wrote much for my site. We wouldn't have Diogene s, who contributed much to the Greek philosophy of old. We wouldn't have Nathan Lasher, w hose brain injuries made him a savant and an expert on mania. We wouldn't have Gandhi , who helped revolutionize India from the imperialism of British rule. We wouldn't have Roland Leblanc , whose disillusionment from the Christian Church allowed him to delve into the arcane and volunteer to my aid for many years. This exemplifies how the human inner seed of light is able to endure against all odds, and deviate from the orthodox fabric of human society, fostering profound realizations and roles. Realism and Divinity This realistic notion of "curse" isn't something that necessarily came out of a divine reason (like an ancestor who has done something awful). Existence was always unfair and not people don't always get what they need or want. As people grow from unfortunate circumstances, they might find themselves not only becoming tougher, but also more compassionate. The more compassion we develop, the more we can understand the unique circumstances of others without resorting to mere pity. Often, those who had the most unfortunate of circumstances, can grow to become stronger as a result. Therefore, when the human spirit overcomes distress, it can become unrelenting. It can foster itself from mere specks of dust into a concrete, sharp ruby diamond. Therefore, being cursed with something is very much a result of mere unfortune rather than a divine punishment. However, regardless of metaphysical origin it can be weirdly twisted for the greater good. The Underserving Unfairness Even if you are, for instance, a very devout believer in whatever religion , you too can be cursed -- cursed with a dire illness, a difficult weakness, a disability, very bad luck and so on. One's zealotry doesn't save them from the infliction of curses. After all, everyone is prone to curses as a possibility. Furthermore, when you are a person of great virtue, living in a morally depraved society, you might find your moral fortune a double-edged sword. This can be seen in Jesus Christ's example, who got crucified by the oppressive, uncaring Roman Empire. Therefore, fairness is not an objective criteria. Rather, it depends on the subjective context you are in. In a more rectified world, folk such as Jesus Christ, and even my own late Master Numi, would've been far better off. The Inevitable Sacrifice Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty -- Socrates In a world consumed by financial materialism and eroding corruption , the moral paragons often find themselves at the bottom of the societal hierarchy. I am myself in a way, a cursed man. In the days of old, I would've been considered one of the greats, along with many of my contemporaries, such as Kaiser Basileus. A sensitive man, I also have Asperger's Syndrome. Given how hard it is to understand Asperger's, alongside the fact it is no longer considered a relevant term in the eyes of prestigious authorities , I am extremely hard to understand. As a man who saved people from themselves, yet is emotionally detached, I very much understand and appreciate the interconnectivity of reality, that "we are all one". However, I am basically a moral loner with autistic tendencies. Lacking emotional empathy, I instead employ cognitive empathy. I prefer to live a more-solitary life, despite my immense potential, because being misunderstood is very common with complex people like myself. I am not a social man, I am a moral man instead. Often times I am also a romantic man. I deem social interactions an utter waste of my time, and as a result I may appear weirdly hostile despite my love for peace and harmony with the world. Most folk are simpler compared to me. Seeing depth in simplicity , allows me also to appreciate the virtue of being simple and regular. After all, it allows them to navigate society better than myself. As I stim to regulate my emotions, I can appear intimidating and scary. My late grandmother was a very difficult person to deal with. Understanding morality very intuitively, I have saved her from herself when I was 10. My grandiose moral paragony is not seen. My lack of emotional attachments to most people can make me seen as a narcissist. I live as a shadow of the very world that has forsaken my dear grandmother. However, as many folk may choose to forsake her memory, I refuse to forsake the memory of my greatest friend, which was her. Since I accept how complex I am in both genetic and environmental dispositions, I find the most solace avoiding most people. I do not seek your pity, for a change of perspective can deem me a very fortunate man. While I can't work, I don't have to work. While I can't fit in, I don't have to fit in. In my "misfortune", I am a very free man. Free to do whatever I want in solitude. Free to contribute in my own way. My disadvantages in this twisted world are advantages of their own, some will only have when they are retired. I am set for life, can write whatever I want, and am free to rest and contribute in my own ways, never having to be a corporate slave to society, never having to serve in the military where compulsory service exists, free in solitude to live and love under my own terms. As a gesture of love towards my late grandmother, I have sacrificed being part of the very orthodox fabric that has forsaken her. In my late 20's, I have already saved several people from themselves. Ever since her distressful sayings, caring about most people was extremely difficult for me. What I care about, is mourning this unfortunate world, and praying for an improved one instead. Without my intricate curse I could've been a happier person who did not need to isolate himself from the world just to be happy. Subverting your expectations, I developed to become a healthier man thanks to my own research. Therefore, despite my unfortunate upbringing, I am more unrelenting and healthier than people considered more fortunate than myself. Despite my disabilities, I am free to do whatever I want, a privilege people only have when they are retired. I find my sacrifices inevitable because I will never be accepted by most people for who I am. My relevancy instead is in my moral paragony and in much of my free philosophical articles I leave to humanity. It is in my hope humanity will keep enjoying my wisdom for many years to come, and use my unrelenting work to improve themselves, help each other, and find hope in being alive and embrace their mortality. Amen.

(Philosocom's Directory on Luck) (Background music) There once lived a man, in a small village. His name was Jin. When Jin was born, he was cursed by the gods with a terrible mental illness , that turns him into a monster every time most people get to him. By being himself, Jin terrorized the village with his deadly curse . People were afraid of him, and all because he was himself. Jin was a good man, and wanted to help people , but his curse rendered his life, one of solitude and isolation from the rest of the world. Ever since Jin was born, his mother tried to protect him for as long as she could. He grew up different, and never had a normal life. He was sheltered from the rest of the world because his mother felt that something was different about him. It was that deadly curse that rendered him abnormal. Always different, always an outsider . With it, and unintentionally, Jin hurt a lot of people, in rampages that made it hard for them to move on. Had he just masked who he truly is, life would be easier for him. But it felt wrong to mask, and Jin was a good person at heart, despite his terrible curse. When he grew up to become an adult, he saw his mother in the final moments before he was banished from the village for the cursed man he is. It was then, when his mother told him: "You have to save yourself, Jin. No one is coming to save you. No matter how many people you will help and save, no one will come to save you. Save yourself, Jin, and you will be able to survive out there, independently by yourself". She then closed the door to her house, leaving him all alone to do as he pleases, to set on a journey and explore the world as a lone traveler, and an eternal outsider. Jin sat alone in forests and mountains, towns and cities, and would cry. He would help the homeless by giving them food, and would counsel those in deep despair, saving them from themselves. But regardless of all the good he did, he was left alone. That's why he cried. Because no matter the amount of help he gave to other people, no one would save him from himself, from his deadly curse which made him monstrous. To those he helped, he was seen like a God incarnate. To the rest of human society, he was seen as a monster. And those whom he helped couldn't serve his company, because they had their own lives, and had to survive no matter the help he gave them. Jin was left alone no matter the many people he helped. In his isolation, Jin went insane . He rose to power over many people, whom he helped, saved several people from themselves, and even met a love interest who had it in her to accept Jin despite his monstrous curse. It was during his rise to power over the kingdom he had built, that he realized that people are self-serving, and mainly care about their own survival-hood. That's what they are programmed to do, and Jin was merely the one who temporarily granted them this opportunity. The kingdom wasn't sustainable, so Jin disbanded it, with everyone going their own way. Jin's love interest stayed, and was impressed with his ability to have his feet on the ground, despite his isolation-induced insanity. And even in love, Jin cannot expect her to save him. As his wise mother said, he had to save himself from his deadly curse. No matter where he is. No matter what he does, no matter what he chooses. His curse is one that will always be with him even longer than his love interest. If he won't save himself, no one will. It has to come from him, and only from him. The deadly curse will always be with him for as long as he lives. He will be a monster. He will scare people by being himself. Masking his true form is the only way he can navigate much of the world, but to Jin, pretending makes him feel empty and vain , so he chooses to be honest for as long as he can, for it is honesty that makes him the good person he is, and redeems him from his terrible curse. Jin sought to be a good man despite his curse. He deemed it the right thing to do to help people without expecting them to be there for him when he needs them the most. He must overcome his curse by his own power, every single day, as to not be consumed by it. And as hard and isolating as it is, only he must do it. Receiving help from the outside world means opening up the risk of his monstrous form to consume them. He must press forward on his journey of eternal struggle against his curse. People wanted to get to know this curious fellow, who seems always to be on the go, but he rejected them not because he hated them, but because he wanted to spare them of his monstrous form, which could hurt them. Jin didn't want to hurt anyone, but he knows his curse makes it easy, given his past experiences at the very village that banished him for it. Ironic, the very smiles that are directed at him could be his very own undoing. And as his wise mother said, he had to save himself. Because when these smiles turn upside down, no one would necessarily come for him and be his savior. Only he can be his own savior. It is necessary for his survival. And so, despite his potential to forge meaningful relationships with the world, he is only left with his aloof love interest, whom, due to a terrible illness of her own, would render her lifespan far shorter than his. He would outlive her, and when she is gone, he will be fully alone like he was before he met her. She is but a temporary visitor, and that is something he has longed to accept. And so, at nights when she went to sleep on their eternal journey across the world, he would stand guard to protect her. He isn't her savior. He is no one's savior but himself. Even those he saved from themselves; he cannot expect to be their savior. Everyone has to move on from these fragile, traumatic moments. He stood guard as he struggled against his own monstrous curse, threatening him to consume himself from the inside. At these quiet nights where no one was there but himself, the curse was most dominant in its capability to consume him. Having vowed to always be strong, Jin fought against his curse simply because he had to. In the night when everyone is asleep and only, he is awake, he has no choice but to combat his curse, or else he would slowly grow into a deadly, psychotic monster. There were times when the curse had won, and he turned into a hideous monster that repelled people. These people were afraid and did not want to do anything with him. That curse has no cure. It is something to overcome and live despite its terrible influence. That night, he was tired and gave up on guard duty, to sleep along with his love interest. The next morning, he was terrified to see that his curse had consumed her during his sleep, and now she is dead. Screaming in despair, Jin walks the plains and mountains and fields of the world yet again, all by his lonesome. No one has saved her from himself, and no one will save him from himself either. Saving himself from himself means other people are saved as well, and that night he failed. Had he continued to guard her, she would be safe. Yet, he let his guard down and now she is dead. That's the price he needs to pay for being too exhausted. With his curse, he must stay vigilant. If he fails staying vigilant, the curse may consume another being. By saving himself, he saves the world by collateral. It is his purpose, that the world is spared from his curse. Anyone who comes too near, risks being consumed. His love interest knew what she was getting herself into, and so she left the world before her disease did it for her. It is his purpose, that such a mistake won't happen ever again, even if it means being alone for the rest of his life. With his quest for redemption ends along with his curse, Jin continues his journey, with only his mother's words as his sole companion: "Save yourself, Jin".

A Game of Risk (Poem) (Background music) To conquer the world, Is something that many can do. (Even I, and even you too). However, it is, A question of if you'll actually achieve this. (Potential does not guarantee success). You will succeed and fail, All dependent on the roll of the dice! (Deserving does not mean you'll prevail). So be cold, as ice, And see if the cards will, win, once, twice, or thrice! (Life's but a game of..) Risk! Even if solitude's a possibility, There is no immunity; From ill, From the suffering that be either distant or immediate; Yes. So don't be still, Don't, just wait, For the fatigue to just disappear away! For you can still conquer every place where there's a Kate… So give, demonstrate, what you have to say! Red, yellow, grey, Can all make you wish to stop and keep at bay! (For some it's just the push of a certain button). Green, and blue, Might tempt you to desire defeat. (Many people, that's what they might want to do). But why give up? Why give up when you can make a feat? (Even if it will consume nine thousand a coffee cup). Think on your, behalf, On the probability of being greater, than yourself! (Life's but a game of..) Risk! Even if solitude's a possibility, There is no immunity; From ill, From the suffering that be either distant or immediate; Yes. So don't be still, Don't, just wait, For the fatigue to just disappear away! For you can still conquer every place where there's a Kate… So give, demonstrate,  what you have to say!

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Communication) Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright The article "How Subtext Creates Delusion -- Why We Should Pick Other Communication Approaches" critiques the use of subtext in communication, emphasizing the importance of clarity and directness. The article provides a clear thesis and purpose, arguing that subtext can lead to misunderstandings and delusion, and direct communication is a more effective alternative. The article highlights potential pitfalls of subtext, such as misinterpretations, missed cues, and unchecked biases. It emphasizes empathy and compassion, underscoring the ethical dimension of communication. Introduction: The Murky Waters of Subetext Subtext, an unspoken layer of meaning beneath the surface of words, can be a source of frustration for anyone. As a man that prefers honesty and hates masking, subtext takes on a whole new level of complexity, as people might not be aware of my relentless straightforwardness. The attempt of another to find a subtext that's not even there, can make us feel misunderstood, frustrated and lonely, as our words interpreted in ways we never intended. And thus, people's minds deceive themselves by choosing "the truth" they wish to hear. Here's why subtext is illogical as an effective approach: Misinterpretations:   We may say something literal, only to have people assume a hidden meaning we never implied. This can be confusing and frustrating, as we struggle to understand the source of their misunderstanding. A Single Layer Delusion: We can fail realizing what the other side is referring to, while deluding ourselves that we know. In reality we can have two different conversations, pretending to be one. Undecipherable Code:  Subtext relies heavily on social cues and unspoken assumptions. And of course, these assumptions often go unquestioned, and assumed as fact. These can be challenging for people to interpret, and especially autists who remain uninformed, instead of inquisitive. This makes the whole subtext "code" seem illogical, uncritical and unpredictable. The problem is two-fold: Missed Cues:  When subtext goes undetected, the intended message can be lost, leading to missed opportunities for connection and understanding. Unchecked Inner Confirmations:  Conversely, people can project their own interpretations onto the message, mistakenly reading subtext that wasn't there. This can create confusion and even conflict, caused by the "truth-altering" nature of our confirmation bias. A Two-Way Street, Not a Solo Act Communication is simplistically regarded as a transfer of thoughts from one person to another, like a basic case of supply and demand. However, the reality is far far complex as it is subtle... For people, in general, are poor critical thinkers , and are therefore unaware of the biases which govern them from the shadows of their minds.... People may choose poor timing to react, compromising their thought clarity. This in turn can make them understand and react poorly, while increasing their implusivity under the temptation of hatred , the desire for revenge, and blind rage. Combine heightened sensitivity with the affiliation bias , and people could think you're trying to insult those they are affiliated with, insulting them in turn, indirectly, and unintentionally... For the immature mind, mere criticism can cause distress, marking you as a threat in their matrix. When One Way Becomes Two Timer... Communication therefore is reliant not only on cooperation of understanding, but also on the ability to dechiper how another's mind operates.... That is, unless you have no desire for that. Understand how Michael Corleone works (Screenrant Blog): Michael was a master at keeping his emotions to himself, whether talking to loved ones or staring into the eyes of enemies he planned to have murdered mere moments later. When Vincent makes an outburst about wanting to retaliate against Joey Zasa , he gives him this calm advice. Being the hotheaded character that he is, Vincent doesn't take it and Michael's next suggestion is delivered much less calmly. Still ["Never let anyone know what you're thinking"], this is an iconic Michael Corleone quote from a much older and wiser Don who's starting to truly resemble his father. Effective communication lies not only in great literacy. Rather, it's also the ability to compel the other side to want to understand what you're saying. One way to do it is by active listening. Pay attention the thoughts of another with greater focus and you can build greater trust and harmony. However, you should reveal your honest thoughts to those who won't hesitate so easily to betray you. Therefore, your true thoughts should be heard by those who appreciate the essence of loyalty. The Role of Internal Synergy Fail to unlock the hearts of those who can contain you,  and you'll compromise the greater competency of their intellect. Try to remember that the mind and the heart often work in synergy. Do not sabotage that union in another, for they might not understand the ways of your own cognitive function... Well, sometimes our brain is not as powerful as we think! Did you know that your heart sends more messages to your brain than your logical brain? There is more being studied and discovered about this, but a great organization to follow is the HeartMath Institute. Our heart can sense and send messages to our brain, which are more regarded by the brain than our logical thinking.   When our thinking and heart have two different messages it creates incoherence, causing our body to be unable to act or move forward.... [It's] important to find where we might be having incoherence in our thoughts. (SynergyStrategies). Should you find yourself in a communication malfunction , remember that is rarely a one-sided issue. It's a "tango" that requires both parties to be clear, open-minded, and willing to listen and learn. Thus, recognizing the pitfalls of subtext, and whatever leads to its false understanding, we can all work towards more effective communication. One that fosters understanding, professionalism , comapssion , and empathy. Why Clarity Has the Sharpest Razor Clear communication  relies on both the speaker's ability to express themselves effectively and the listener's ability to interpret the message accurately. When it comes to subtext, this interaction turns even more complex, especially for those who struggle with social cues. Therefore, based on the rationale of Occam's Razor , the sayings we should pick the most, are those who are the clearest. On the other hand, relying on subtext can lead to unnecessary complications.... A simpler, for competent choice is to embrace clarity. Say What You Mean:   Instead of relying on subtext, be direct and upfront about your message. Choose words that convey your exact meaning. Context is Key:  While avoiding subtext altogether might not always be possible, providing clearer context can significantly improve your message's impact. Explain your thoughts and feelings directly. Try eliminating room for misinterpretation. Conclusion Direct communication that also focuses on moral values such as compassion, empathy, kindness and peacefulness, is one you can use both to be understood, AND save yourself from regrettable conflicts. Conflict often involve coercion , which shouldn't be normalized for its negative affect on our mental health. Since we require to be in good mental health in order to think more rationally , we should use our words in ways that can improve it, not deter it. Both, in ourselves, and in those dear to us.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) Altruism In Isolation "Living alone isn't so bad." -- Razro , Suikoden IV It appears that my capacity of human emotion has been dwindling, bit by bit. It's not even something I'm sad about. I'm just beginning to naturally see this existence in a lesser regard. Not because I want to, but because it happens so intuitively, the more I philosophize . The things which we hold in high regard, what is their point, beyond the function and purpose which they serve? A rare rainbow means very little to me, for a rainbow serves little functionality and purpose, beyond being an eye-candy to millions. I've been in a largely physical isolation for most of my life, training my tenacity and logic relentlessly by writing and renovating philosophy articles. I let my heart be broken online and offline so I would grow accustomed to pain and suffering. Having very few people being in my physical company, I only began seeing the world with even more repulse. Repulse, not because I hate the world, but because I don't really understand its significance in the overall scheme of things, beyond the functionality and purpose it serves to me. By the same token, I began seeing my worth less, beyond the same criteria which I began ruthlessly judging this world by. And I don't need a heart to contribute to others. I don't need a heart to do the right thing, when I understand the value of things beyond whatever they make me think or feel. When you reach a certain amount of independence from other people, you then begin to question their necessity in your life beyond the mentioned criteria of usefulness and worth. I was criticized by a minor antagonist about me being so hooked up on machinery to live -- the gaming console, the computer and so on, instead of actual company. But I don't need to go outside wherever I happen to live at the time, and experience life orthodoxically, when I can use reasoning and research to get the data I want. The data I can use to contribute to this world, and thus contribute to myself, by refusing being a klumnik. Perhaps, since my childhood, I'm simply a solitary animal , rather than a social one. Perhaps I keep this site afloat so I could justify my existence, in a life that is otherwise useless and dysfunctional to the social order I am forced to be in. And I don't need to care about you on the emotional level to contribute to you by your consent. I don't need to unmute my emotions to be a good person. I don't need to liberate myself from my loneliness to be meaningful to you through my unforgiving work for humanity. I don't need to live together with my emotions to get be a relentless altruist, and thus, to clear the gap between me and the ideal self. The self I need to be more productive in your name. Unfeeling and Uninhibited "When it comes to a battle of wills, I have no doubt that mine should prevail against yours!" -- Graham Cray , Suikoden IV I really like the delusion that we need friends in order to be happy. It is a very broad generalization, because once you get used to your own company, the necessity for friendship would decrease. It's also possible to delude ourselves using our feelings towards this value, by unintentionally committing the parasocial fallacy , but I digress. A delusion I like even more is the generalization that we all want to be happy . But I do not understand what do I gain by being happy. We might as well devise a machine with a button that which each press, we become happy. Hehehe. A life of pure joy can easily be a problem when we discard anything else that practically deserve our attention, like problems, and like other people's distress ( thus making that life "pure" ). If I was capable of true human independence, one where I would succumb to the egoism that lies in wanting to be happy, then I might as well be even more solitary than I already am. And had I been more solitary, I would be less willing to help those in need. I would avoid listening to people's problems. I would avoid helping people believe in themselves, and lastly, I would avoid helping suffering people, whose names I will never mention as examples in my articles. Therefore, wanting happiness is a waste of my efforts, when tuning in to the problems and the distress of those I can help, contributes far more to the overall good of this reality. And we don't need emotions, nor dependence on a certain state of emotion, in order to know all this and all the insights I deliver to you in this article. I am speaking to your rationale, not to your heart. And should you ask, in fair criticism, why should we even care about others, my answer would be this: It's our choice and we're entitled to our choices as people capable of free will . And if I want to surrender my will to altruism, I will. What makes our will free lies in our determination to lend our willpower for whatever value or effort we hope and dream for. Compare this to a freelancer who gets to choose who to work for. And I am unfeeling the same as I am unrelenting. As long as I have purpose, and as long as I know what do to do attain that purpose, I've no reason to let anything, or anyone, stand in my path. I don't need to be happy to do just that. I just need the amount of discipline required to persist. Any increase of human emotion... any increase that hinders purpose, deserves to be mercilessly burned to the ground, muted, silenced. The delusion that emotion deserves to be highly regarded, even emotion which makes you suffer, is quite amusing to me. When it stands in your path, when it causes grief to your efforts, why entertain its rebellious presence so much? Why desire emotion which paralyzes you? Why desire emotion which makes you unstable? isn't emotion, ultimately, nothing more than a biochemical drug, created within the body, triggered by external affairs? Could I be making the strawman's fallacy by asking these questions? And you cannot change my mind, when I already understand that altruism is morally good, and that there is no greater moral good than altruism. I've worked on my ego. It no longer has the emptiness it used to have. Nothing I will do will satisfy me, because I am not after satisfaction. I am after productivity, and I am after it, by choice. I never understood this need to be someone else's, or for someone else to be yours. I just live my days alone, contributing to the world, and I still remain alive, either way. All the emotional complications that follow -- what is their point, in the large scheme or things? To make you escape from the inevitable monotony of life? But I don't need to escape. I don't need to cower from the grief of being alive, when I can cope with it, and stare it down to death . Why, then, should I escape? Embracing Sacrifice While Battling the Shackles of Being a Human "A soldier shouldn't act on personal feelings." -- Hauser , Suikoden II I just belittle the importance of emotions, especially those who serve more as an obstacle than anything else. I have no use for obstacles, the same as I have no use for weakness. I belittle anyone and anything, myself included, when any of those become a liability, and thus are needed to be relentlessly improved. Nothing and no one is perfect, but it does not mean we should keep things, or even ourselves, the way we are. I don't mind sacrificing much of my life just to get a goal, when that sacrifice is necessary, for said goal. Peace, while deserves, can often be a liability, when we act, think and behave in its name alone. Like with happiness, some things, matter as well, in the name of success. And what is success? It's when you get what you set your eyes for. Perhaps if I cared less for the success of my altruistic pursuit, then my capacity for human emotion would be bigger. Anything that makes me excited, would've gotten far more attention. Far more attention, than it actually deserves. Why do emotions even exist, beyond the ensuring of function and purpose? Why should I continue to exist, if not for a function and purpose which exceeds myself? Why can't we just regard what serves us, and disregard that which not? Is this all a product of overstretched influences, which we allow due to our various weaknesses? And what is weakness? Anything that makes us more vulnerable than we should, for our plans. But I, I refuse to be weak. I cannot be a relentless altruist, should I choose weakness. I cannot be a relentless altruist if I whine. I cannot be one if I sink into depression. And I can't be one if I choose to want to have fun and happiness above all. So, I simply won't. I will burn to the ground, and lock away, any internal component which hurts my inner core. And I became a relentless altruist by being ruthless to myself. That is how you will benefit from me, the most. Be one yourselves, and others will benefit from you, more.

Summary by Anonymous The article explores the concept of irrationality and its impact on human perception and understanding of reality. It argues that humans often limit their understanding to what they consider "possible" within their existing framework, dismissing anything outside this as "impossible" or "nonsense." The piece suggests that this limited perception hinders our ability to grasp a more fluid reality that otherwise may appear utterly irrational for us. To approach the truth, we must question our own limited perceptions and embrace the possibility of a more complex reality. Furthermore, Mr. Tomasio delves into the nature of irrationality, highlighting how it can manifest in various forms, such as anxiety and misplaced concerns. The writer emphasizes the importance of a logical mind in accurately assessing reality and making informed decisions. The author concludes by advocating for a balanced approach, recognizing the limitations of intuition and the value of critical thinking. By questioning our own rationality and embracing the unknown, we can move closer to overcoming our respective, mind-prisoning perceptions. (Background music) "Mankind has very limited tolerance and patience for matters they do not comprehend! Only perceiving the possibilities that they are willing to accept as 'solid', only within their self-decided concept of the possible. Concept/things and events that are considered "impossible" aren't acceptable for such limited perceptions and attitudes, so they remain so, but only to a point. A more fluid and irrational reality inevitably punches through the curtain of common perception here and there, and is instantly denounced as utter nonsense " -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Irrationality can be defined as something, such as a concept or even an emotion, that is too deluded to be based on reality. It's something that can make us deluded as well, should we be convinced by it. As we know, delusion is an enemy of philosophizing, as the point of philosophy is to stay farther from it, and not the opposite. Philosophy is the verbal study of reality from a logical standpoint. However, logic is not only a matter of capability but a matter of expanding our knowledge. The more irrational a being is, the less of a grip they have on reality. A grip of reality cannot grow if we refuse questioning our current understanding of it. Thus, without expanding our understanding of reality, we hinder our own rationality by our hubris and confidence. How to Get Closer to the Truth If one wishes to be closer to the truth, one must decrease irrationality as much as possible, by decreasing one's perceived rationality. That is done by questioning your limited perception, and accepting it in the first place. The more limited your perception is, the more reality can easily appear irrational to you. The question then remains: Are you the logical one for not inquiring further about reality? Or, is reality the one being illogical? Being limited people with limited knowledge, reality is far, far more absurd than we might realize. We never have full knowledge. Therefore, reality is necessarily absurd. Thinking that we understand reality competently without further inquiry and questioning, makes us all the more absurd and irrational. The Nature of Irrationality The irrational may have false notions about reality, which could make them a poor judge of it. He or she who lives more in a fantasy world, and correlates their imaginations on their reality perception, cannot be deemed as having a good rationale. Why would they? There are tendencies within us humans that are irrational, in a sense that they are not grounded enough to be objectively defined as correct estimations. This, in turn, leads us to over-react. For example, people who suffer from anxiety, like me, may find themselves having certain emotions that are too out of proportion with regard to the world outside the consciousness. Over the smallest of things, the irrational person can find themselves in deep anxiety, for instance. Misplaced anxiety is a proper example of irrationality. In some people, anxiety is more common than others. Using reason and by taking care of ourselves, these anxious patterns of behavior can be reduced. The Functionality of a Logical Mind The point of a good cognition is to be able to correctly estimate reality and base one's actions upon said estimation. The more accurate it is, the less one is to be guided by their own delusions. The less one is governed by delusions, the more rational they can be deemed. A good philosopher is expected to have an excellent quality of cognition because their brains are work tools. Having their brains in good conditioning means that they can be more in line with the reality that exists beyond their minds. That is the difference between the good philosopher and the crackpot philosopher. The crackpot theorist will not have their ideas grounded on reality, for example. A good fictional example for a crackpot theorist is Kefka from Final Fantasy 6. By the way, rationality and intelligence may correlate but they are not codependent. Dr. Eggman is an example of a character who is extremely intelligent but is too crackpot, or irrational, in order to be successful as an antagonist. That's how mad scientists usually are. Hyper intelligent beings who lack the rationality to apply their intellect in a way that will overcome their enemies. As such, you may find that intelligence alone is insufficient for your plans to work out. Case Example I used to fear public transportation before I began using it regularly, as I, at the time, mostly went to places by foot. However, that fear was irrational as the only obstacle that awaits in this case is my own lack of awareness, should I either miss the bus or miss the station (Which happened several times regardless). I have grown up since then. No one should be anxious about something like public transportation, as it by itself lacks actual danger that is worthy of us to be anxious towards. There may be exceptions, yes? But I digress. The Weird Concerns of Humanity Whether we like it or not, many of our concerns are irrational. It's not only because they are not grounded enough, but also because there is not much usefulness in having them and giving them a deserved place in our minds. It's a matter of both functionality and understanding. Discard both, and still hold a concern in high regard, and you might as well stay irrational. When we are concerned about something that cannot be helped, we might often make the mistake of letting this worry too much space, too much "power", or importance. Importance to us, of course. Importance that might as well be both false and even dysfunctional, or harmful to our endeavors. This is why having a calm mind is imperative to be the better judge of reality. The thing is, even if there are issues that are worthy of importance, it doesn't always mean we can do anything to fix them, if at all. People may be afraid of getting old, for instance , but it's not like it can't be prevented through natural means, correct? We can extend our lifespan but we can't live forever, can we? Then, worrying about getting old is impractical because we'll be old regardless of what we do. Our hair may get white, our skin paler and we may even encounter certain medical conditions that can hinder us in some way. This still does not mean we can solve these problems if these worries are without solution, no matter their value to us. Being Grounded in Reality Using Philosophy And that is indeed the overall irrationality that exists within different anxieties, or in other words, in our different feelings of distresses when we are to believe that something bad might happen. That's where reasoning can come in, or in other words, philosophizing. It's point of it is to clarify us from delusion and ground us more in reality. The more grounded we are in reality, the more we can rid ourselves of unnecessary, impractical and unrealistic anxieties. When did I happen to miss the bus? That is an irrelevant question that could just increase our anxiety. It should be a given that the bus has left the station and is now on its route forward. Feeling distressed because of it and because of the implications that may follow, won't necessarily help one bring the bus back, get to work in time and so on. My distress won't help, thus giving it too much importance would be irrational, compared to thinking what else can be done to get to the office . Correct? In philosophy, we must come in terms with things which are either possible facts or given facts. We must recognize the facts and the likelihood of things being fact, so we will not deceive ourselves so unnecessarily. It's obvious that the bus moved on, but maybe it should mean that we should move on too because the past cannot be altered, for it already happened. If anything, the past deserves its place when it is functional, AKA, when it can help us work towards a better/different future. I utilized my mental scars for work, for example. I utilized my vengeful tendencies to be a better philosopher and to focus more on the craft of article-writing. Using the past as a means to an end is better than wasting time and energy in lamenting it. I suppose we can agree on that. No amount of worry will get that bus back, so if we want to make it to work, we must think instead of another solution, since sinking in distress is irrational when it is impractical. It would've been practical if it were productive in any way. Perhaps we can learn that, when we miss the bus, to think of ways to reduce that chance of that happening again. The Essence of Practicality Remember: There are times where practicality matters more than our personal sentiments. Such is the case in professional settings. As such, I regard myself, or at least aspire to be, a consummate professional , when it comes to my work as philosopher and as Philosocom's founder. If something, like a poor article, doesn't meet results, I will consider deleting it or at least revamp it massively. It's nothing personal, even if emotional investment is or was included. My readership matters more, as it should. Lamenting over how disappointed I am over an article I thought would be interesting, is irrational as it is impractical. I am not an artist by heart. If my emotional attachment gets in the way, I take a pair of metaphorical scissors and cut it loose. Being able to distinguish between "Kli" and "tochen" is the key to understanding reality more accurately. Hence why I dislike the anxious tendencies within me. For the vast majority of the time, these anxieties are baseless not even on logic itself. It may exist within me, despite my knowledge that there is nothing to be anxious of. Such is the nature of generalized anxiety disorder. That's my only mental disorder, which I'm handling using logic. Rationality calms me. I am chilling in my apartment at midnight, no noise outside my headphones, and of course, no physical threats whatsoever. Why am I anxious now? Despite said tendencies, I have no idea. So, instead, I choose to avoid giving it an undeserved position. Accepting Our Ignorance If we wish to overcome irrationality, we must look beyond it . To the world beyond the mind. We must accept the notion that there might be things we are not aware of yet. Or, perhaps, underestimate or overestimate. Underestimate, like the importance of rest. Overestimate, like a minor discomfort. That is also the fallacy that lies with bias, as bias can make one overlook things, while also making other things more significant than they actually are. For better, like a test we excelled in despite worry. For the worse, like an error in a math equation that ruined our calculations. I was told several times that I should consider the intuitive part of the mind. It's part that is more spontaneous and that is not calculated at all; to " go with the flow ", to "be like water" and so on. However, as a philosopher, I must inquire: What makes intuition rational enough when we are not supposed to question it? What if intuition can make one more delusional, and thus, stay further from the truth? Why should we ignore Socratic questioning, when it could yield practical results? I do not claim to be the most rational being, as I am consumed by impractical anxieties. Anxieties I am trying to purify out of my system. Being more rational is key to being good at being a well-respected philosopher. That is the point of philosophizing to begin with: To get closer to understanding reality. With your clarity of thought, you can bring much good to this world, by helping others in need. It's the moral thing to do. Conclusion Do not find anything as given fact, before you can rest assured that it's either a fact. Likely, your emotionality is irrelevant in this case and can mislead you from the truth. Some things are easy to accept things as how our poor rationality draws them to be. Do not yield to it so easily, if it is indeed poor. Question your own rationality, and improve it, if you prefer the truth over your own false beliefs.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Why Science and Philosophy Are Imperfect (And Why It Could be a Good Thing)" presents a compelling argument that the inherent imperfections of science and philosophy are their greatest strengths. It encourages readers to embrace doubt and questioning as vital components of intellectual growth. Mr. Tomasio presents a well-articulated argument that highlights the dynamic nature of scientific and philosophical inquiry, emphasizing how doubt and questioning are crucial components of both fields. This perspective offers a fresh and thoughtful approach to understanding the roles of science and philosophy in human progress. The article offers a balanced examination of faith vs. reason, acknowledging the appeal of faith-based knowledge while questioning its validity in comparison to the constantly evolving nature of scientific and philosophical understanding. The use of metaphors and imagery effectively illustrates the endless pursuit of understanding, making abstract concepts more relatable and memorable to the reader. The article also encourages intellectual humility and curiosity by acknowledging that humans are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge. It also advocates for continuous questioning and curiosity, positioning these as key virtues in both science and philosophy. This positive message aligns with the broader goal of fostering a culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness. Overall, the article succeeds in promoting a thoughtful reflection on the value of imperfection in our pursuit of knowledge.   (Background music) How Science and Philosophy Fuel Our Understanding Science and philosophy have a common goal in mind -- to better understand the mysteries of existence. Unlike some religions, which might claim to possess definitive answers, science and philosophy are, by default, flawed. They are flawed for they always needed to be doubted in order to have their bodies of knowledge advance forward. As such, doubt is an uncanny virtue. But this is flaw's not a weakness. It's a strength. It is precisely the flaws, the problems, and the conflicts that drive us to seek solutions to our questions and problems. These default limitations push scientists to constantly test and refine their theories, while philosophers grapple with fundamental questions and challenge existing assumptions. This ongoing process of questioning and refinement is what fuels our ever-expanding understanding of the universe and ourselves. Therefore, due to them being an asset, a tool, flaws are to be embraced. A Flawed Yet Enduring Journey Science and philosophy, in their relentless pursuit of understanding, grapple with a fundamental question: Can we ever unlock all the mysteries of existence? Perhaps the vastness of the universe and the intricacies of consciousness will forever remain partially veiled from our grasp. After all, as humans, we are inherently limited in our capacity for knowledge, forever away from omniscience without ever truly reaching it. The quest for omniscience is a Sisyphic one. However, by embracing the existentialist approach to the monotony of our work as intellects, we can still be motivated to resume our efforts nevertheless, deeming it our calling, and not our burden. This limitation stands in grand contrast to the pronouncements of some religions. They claim for definitive answer, found as absolute knowledge, often housed in sacred texts or pronouncements from revered figures. Religious folk may claim that it is through faith, and not through the study of philosophy, where the truth can be found. And as such, faith becomes not a substitute to knowledge, but the key to it, instead. If to quote the article in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy on Faith: Faith is thus understood as a kind of basic knowledge attended by a certainty that excludes doubt. ...Faith-knowledge is not only ‘revealed to our minds’ but also ‘sealed upon our hearts’. But if such a key exists, one that is revealed to us, one wonders why its secrets remain hidden, and deserve of trust (AKA faith) when it has been proven that doubt is useful to research the truth. Why wouldn't these answers be readily shared with the world, rendering the endeavors of scientists, philosophers obsolete, through the need to always be questioning? After all, if a path to ultimate understanding has already been laid out, through credible research methods, wouldn't it be the most rational course of action for all humanity to follow it? After all, trust is to be gained through demonstration of a claim, not just through its mere statement (like through a testimony, which could be proven false). The very act of claiming absolute knowledge through several trust-related biases , exposes a potential flaw. Perfection, by definition, leaves no room for error, for it is pure of it . However, how can one be certain of absolute perfection without acknowledging the possibility of flaws? Without flaws in paradigms that aim to show us the truth, the need for philosophy and science wouldn't exist, as they are first and foremost methods of discovery. If these paradigms, or models of truth, leave no necessary room for doubt, which can be proven, then all we're left to do is to study them and not commit to philosophy nor to science. This problem of unchecked certainty, which deserves to be questioned like everything else , isn't unique to religion. It manifests in individuals, nations, and anything blindly worshipped, and in any society or individuals that would condemn you for questioning. Love itself can fall prey to this tendency, painting its object in idealized hues, oblivious to the cracks beneath the surface, and to the pain that follows. The pursuit of knowledge, despite its inherent limitations, is a far more rewarding and enduring endeavor than the embrace of supposed infallibility. Science and philosophy, with their openness to revision and questioning, allow humanity to engage in a continuous journey of exploration. Although this imperfect process may never grant us complete understanding, it is through this very struggle that we continue to learn, grow, and expand our grasp of the universe and ourselves. Between Certainty and the Embrace of Ignorance We often associate philosophy with the "love of wisdom," yet the act of philosophizing can often be a far cry from a blissful state. Those who delve into philosophical inquiry often grapple with the uncomfortable reality , hidden by blissful ignorance. However, ignorance isn't always a blessing. This chronic, seemingly-eternal state of unknowing can be unsettling, when entire theories can collapse in face of new evidence, thus proving you wrong after much time of thinking you're in the right. Compare this to a scientist that's constantly revising their theories in the face of new evidence. This inherent limitation of human understanding extends beyond philosophy. The promise of absolute knowledge, often promised in concepts like the infallibility of the church , presents an enticing alternative. The comfort of a definitive answer key, enshrined in sacred texts or pronouncements, seems far less demanding than the never-ending quest for truth. It therefore appeals to the human mind, which often works on shortcuts , and diminishes in comparison the relevancy of philosophy . Yet, accepting such pronouncements without question raises concerns. Blind acceptance, devoid of critical examination, can lead to idleness and decline of intellectual curiosity. Furthermore, the very claim of absolute certainty can be suspect. How can one be truly certain of perfect knowledge without acknowledging the possibility of error? This struggle between the allure of certainty and the embrace of ignorance can be present all aspects of human experience . We crave simple solutions and definitive answers, yet true growth often stems from grappling with complexity and acknowledging the limits of our understanding. While the notion of never achieving omniscience may seem daunting, it is this very sisyphic struggle that fuels our intellectual journey, and elevates our understanding towards greater heights. It is through the ongoing process of questioning, revising, and exploring that we expand our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Perhaps the true value lies not in the destination of perfect knowledge, but in the very act of exploration itself, that leads to far-shorter-ranged goals for our intellects. The pursuit of specific knowledge, with all its imperfections and frustrations that may follow, is what needs to be sought more practically, than the unrealistic notion of absolute knowledge. Like generations before us, and those that follow, we may never reach a point of absolute understanding. However, this shouldn't hinder our progress in any field of research, where we still have much available to discover.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Directory on Culture) Her Articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophical-discussion https://www.philosocom.com/post/trying-again https://www.philosocom.com/post/patience https://www.philosocom.com/post/stop-overthinking https://www.philosocom.com/post/discipline https://www.philosocom.com/post/tomasio-rubinshtein-1 https://www.philosocom.com/post/art-of-earning https://www.philosocom.com/post/right-investment https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophical-reflection (Background music) Introduction Praise for justice is easy, but putting it into practice is challenging.  When we are lucky, we forget it, but when we are hurt, we utilize it.  Justice, according to philosophy, is a method: a disciplined way of seeing people, causes, laws, and outcomes.  This essay investigates how justice may evolve from a phrase to a habit—how a life, business, or society can become fair not by chance, but by design. The goal is practical: seven dimensions of justice, each with a clear route from concept to everyday practice, followed by a closing moral that connects the dots. 1. Persons as Ends, not Means  Philosophical discussion of justice starts with dignity . A fair existence presupposes that each individual is an end in themselves, not just a tool for someone else's agenda. In reality, this implies that choices are made with the permission and interest of people impacted, rather than just for them.   It is the distinction between utilizing people's tales to embellish our arguments and genuinely hearing the allegations those stories make about ourselves.  When dignity is prioritized, rules become discussions rather than impositions, and relationships seem legal in the greatest sense: led by respect that does not sway to convenience. 2. Equality of Worth and Clarity of Difference  Justice is not uniformity. Treating dissimilar instances similarly is as unfair as treating like cases differently. Persons have equal value notwithstanding significant variations in need, history, and restriction. A just practice investigates what justice demands in this situation, rather than what seems to be symmetrical. Fairness might entail equitable sharing or tailored help to make opportunities really accessible.  Philosophically, this is the transition from crass equality to equity—the kind of equality that is concerned with whether individuals can genuinely stand where the rules allow them to. 3. Reasons to Show Your Critics Power without explanation develops anger , whereas explanation without honesty fosters skepticism.  Justice exists when arguments are public, consistent, and compelling enough to persuade a reasonable opponent. If you can't explain why a rule exists, it's not fit to govern. If you can't explain how a judgment may be challenged or altered, you haven't designed a fair procedure.  Providing answers is the currency of legitimacy, not a sign of civility. The more explicit the logic, the more peaceful, even controversial, conclusions may be accepted. 4. Procedure and Outcome in Honest Tension Some argue that justice is primarily procedural—fair rules, open hearings, and equal opportunities.  Others argue that justice is mostly about the outcome—whether people are housed, educated , healthy, and safe. A philosophical perspective rejects the false choice.  While end without process is force, process without result is drama.  Just institutions pose two questions simultaneously: Was the procedure fair? Did it consistently create humane outcomes?  When either response fails, modification is required.  This two-sided perspective prevents us from calling a failure fair because we followed all of the stages, or a shortcut merely because we like where it landed. 5. Accountability, Chance, and Repair Work  We hold individuals accountable; luck complicates everything. Some are born into bigger doors, safer neighborhoods, and more reliable mentors. Justice acknowledges this without abolishing the organization.  As a consequence, we have a twofold ethic: we require individuals to account for their decisions, and we push communities to rectify the unequal starting lines that compound the penalty of minor errors.  Repair may take the shape of second opportunities, accessible paths back into shared assets, and rules that limit the role of accident in shaping a life.  Justice without repair becomes cruelty, and repair without accountability results in drift.  Together, they create moral sense. 6. Listening Before Judgment Judgment without hearing is a type of theft: we violate the other person's right to be understood.  Just practicing slows down enough to hear how activities seemed from a different perspective.  This is not sentimentalism; it is the minimum prerequisite for a reasonable reaction.  People vary not simply in what they do, but also in what they intended to do, how they viewed their alternatives, and the pressures they experienced.  Listening sharpens judgment, transforming harsh penalties into nuanced replies and many arguments into manageable misunderstandings.  If justice is the proper relationship between people, listening is the key to that relationship. 7. Everyday Fairness: Simple Rules That Scale Grand statements about justice are meaningless if our everyday actions contradict them.  Everyday fairness is founded on simple norms that we can realistically follow: honor commitments; reveal conflicts of interest; credit ideas where they originated; apologize exactly when you wrong ; freely provide compliments and assign criticism sensibly; Do not hoard positive information or hide unpleasant news.  These behaviors are not ornamental. They are the everyday mechanisms that make a fair culture apparent and sustainable. A person who lives with them transforms rooms into safer spaces to think and work. Conclusion—The Moral of the Story  Justice is not an abstract monument; it is a set of lived commitments : dignity first, equality of worth with consideration for difference, reasons that stand up to scrutiny, procedures married to humane outcomes, responsibility tempered by repair, judgment informed by listening, and small, repeatable habits that make fairness ordinary.  The lesson is straightforward and difficult to forget: be the kind of person whose reasons can be shown to those most impacted, whose rules you would accept if you swapped places, and whose habits make it simpler for others to stand erect.  Practice this, and justice will no longer be a flag hoisted during a crisis.  It becomes the tone of your existence—the constant rhythm through which trust is developed, wrongs are righted, and shared living becomes not only feasible, but also beneficial.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Directory on Rectification and Help) (T. Siddika's Articles) (Background music) Introduction to the Philosophical Reflection Every human being asks at some point: What does it mean to live as a true human? Is it to achieve wealth, to build power , or to leave behind knowledge? Philosophy answers differently. To be human is not merely to exist, but to live with monushotto (humanity) and bibek (conscience). These are not gifts we receive fully formed, but qualities we must cultivate through reflection, discipline , and ethical living. A society may build great cities and advance in science , but without humanity and conscience, it collapses inward, becoming cruel and restless. The ancient philosophers understood this well. As Aristotle declared, “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” Thus, the task of philosophy is not only to sharpen thought, but to awaken compassion and guide conscience — so that we may live well with ourselves and with others. Humanity: The Heart of Being Human Humanity is not a luxury ; it is the essence of our being. It is the recognition that each person, regardless of status , carries an equal dignity. When we see the suffering of another and feel it as our own, we touch the core of humanity. The Stoics believed that all people share a common reason, a divine spark within. This view dissolves the illusion of separateness to harm another is to wound oneself. Humanity is therefore not mere sentiment, but a philosophical stance the affirmation that all life is interconnected. Without humanity, intelligence becomes manipulation , and power becomes tyranny . But with humanity, even the smallest action carries greatness, for it honors the shared value of life. Conscience: The Inner Tribunal While humanity teaches us to feel, conscience teaches us to discern. Bibek is the inner tribunal before which every action is judged. We may deceive others , but not this inner witness. As Immanuel Kant wrote, “Two things fill the mind with awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Conscience is not automatic; it requires cultivation. Just as the body must be trained to gain strength, conscience must be exercised through reflection, self-examination , and dialogue. Socrates spoke of the daimonion, the inner voice that warns against injustice . In our time, when external noise overwhelms inner silence, to listen to conscience is itself a philosophical act of courage. Cultivating Humanity in the Self How does one grow humanity within? Philosophy suggests three practices: Empathy through Imagination: To place oneself in another’s situation is to break the walls of selfishness. This was the essence of Rousseau’s moral philosophy. Simplicity of Life: Excessive desire hardens the heart. By living simply , we create space for compassion. The Buddha’s path of moderation remains a timeless guide. Recognition of Shared Fragility: All humans suffer, age, and die. Awareness of this common condition awakens tenderness rather than arrogance . Humanity is not abstract; it must become habitual. When practiced daily, it shapes character until kindness becomes second nature. Training Conscience Through Philosophy Conscience, too, requires deliberate training. Philosophy offers methods for this discipline: Reflection and Dialogue: As Socrates showed, questioning one’s life is the path to virtue. By asking “Why is this right” or “Would I accept this if done to me” we sharpen our moral sense. Moral Imagination: Reading philosophy, literature, and history trains us to weigh different perspectives, strengthening conscience against ignorance . Accepting Guilt as Teacher: Rather than fleeing from guilt, philosophy urges us to examine it. Guilt reveals the gap between our action and our ideal — a painful but fruitful guide. Through such practices, conscience becomes less a whisper and more a steady guide. The Union of Humanity and Conscience Humanity without conscience is blind feeling; conscience without humanity is cold judgment. Only together do they create genuine moral life. A human being guided by both can love wisely and act justly. Consider justice it is not merely following law , but balancing compassion with principle. A judge without humanity is merciless; a friend without conscience may excuse harm. Philosophy teaches that true goodness requires both — the warm heart and the clear mind. Challenges in a Troubled Age In our age of speed, competition , and digital distraction, both humanity and conscience are at risk. People rush past one another, chasing profit while forgetting presence. Violence, exploitation, and dishonesty grow where conscience falls silent. Yet, this very age demands more philosophy, not less. To pause and cultivate humanity is to resist indifference . To strengthen conscience is to resist corruption . The more the world forgets its humanity, the greater becomes the philosopher’s duty to remind it. Practical Philosophy: Helping Others Through Self-Work One cannot truly help others without first working on oneself. Philosophy is not escape from life but preparation for it. By nurturing humanity, we develop compassion to act; by sharpening conscience, we develop wisdom to act rightly. When we help others from this foundation, our actions are not shallow charity but profound solidarity. To feed the hungry, to comfort the grieving, to speak truth against injustice — these flow naturally from a person who has united humanity and conscience within. Conclusion — The Moral of the Story Philosophy teaches that to be human is more than to breathe; it is to cultivate monushotto and bibek until they shape every thought and deed. Humanity without conscience risks sentimentality; conscience without humanity risks cruelty. But together, they form the core of a life well lived . The moral is clear before we can change the world , we must first change ourselves. By nurturing humanity in our hearts and conscience in our minds, we prepare to become instruments of peace, justice, and love. As Rumi said, “Be like a tree and let the dead leaves drop.” In shedding selfishness and pride, we grow into true humans, capable of healing a wounded world.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Background music) (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). After years of abstinence, where I voluntarily gave up on the "golden" parts of teenagehood and, from now on, young adulthood as well, it seems that I managed to actually tear apart my long-felt crave for romantic love and comfort. I did this not because I am afraid of love, but because I really see it as something that limits our freedom and confines us to a specific person and to our relations with that person. You might be wondering why someone would do that, why would someone choose by free will to give up on something that largely appears to be a central part of human life. Here, I will attempt to answer this question -- how and why I gave up on love. 2020 was a year of both physical and mental isolation , forced by a lockdown that managed to collapse the entire world. Thinking about that year, I've realized that it didn't really affect my functioning and way of life, as I am already a man who isolates himself from both physical, social, and romantic contact. I have always been a bit of a loner , and I have always found it difficult to connect with people on a deep level. I am not sure why this is, but I think it may have something to do with my upbringing. I was raised in a very strict household, and I was never really allowed to express myself freely. This may have led to me developing a fear of intimacy, and a belief that I am not good enough for anyone. Whatever the reason, I have always been content with my solitary existence. I have my own hobbies and interests, and I am perfectly happy spending time by myself. I do not feel lonely or isolated, and I do not feel the need to be in a relationship. I know that some people may find this strange, but it is simply the way I am. I am not afraid of love, but I do not see it as something that is essential for my happiness. I am content with my life as it is, and I do not see any reason to change it. Or at least was, for the most part. Seeing other people online craving to get back to the way things were, to be able to hug, kiss, date, and make love, appears very alien to me because that desire for intimate contact no longer exists within me... Even though it sure did, like a decade ago, it decreased significantly afterwards. (Only to rise again... eventually) It feels strange when I'm comparing myself with others in the regard of physical intimacy, because it's as if I too am supposed to desire it. However, as long as I have something to do in the time I have, intimacy is far, far from important to me. I'm not talking necessarily about sex but about even glimpses of affection. It appears I no longer have a desire, let alone need, to love and to be loved. Therefore, it seems that my initial theory about solitude was correct. Humans (at least some, in this case), as adaptable animals, can adapt so well into an environment to the extent of even being able to overcome things we see as fundamental to human life, such as the quest for a partner to be your companion and to provide for your needs . At least some, can, like Beethoven and Issac Newton , who died alone? We are told by society that we are social and even romantic animals, and that it is not good to be alone. And yet, I spent most of my time in solitude. I talk to people only a few minutes a day and nothing more. I wonder if I managed to actually overcome the social nature embedded in humans. I don't know if anyone can overcome their inherit social nature (assuming everyone have it inherited), but I believe I know that, if you manage to be alone for long periods of time, even if you are by nature an extroverted person, then you too can have a chance at converting your nature to that of a more solitary one. As said before, it's like literally tearing apart the social aspects of yourself. For example, back when I saw more people on a regular basis, I indeed was more talkative and had a bigger desire to socialize and to see these people. However, when the frame under which we were meeting disappeared, the "need" to socialize was indeed merely a desire to pass the time, something that can be done nonetheless with all modern conveniences. Hmm... Seems like we are a very adaptive species. And yet, an important question that has been left unanswered is, why would anyone choose solitude over the company of another, let alone, become more solitary-by-nature? What is there in solitude that does not exist in socializing? I can at least answer from my own perspective, that the outside world isn't as rewarding and gratifying to most as it is to few, including me. I can even confess that most of my suffering throughout life was a product of interacting with others, familiar as strangers, and that solitude was far more comforting, rewarding, and benefitting for me than society has ever been. However, I don't choose solitude over society because of gratification alone. Becoming somewhat of a hermit had given me the absence of distractions I needed to become far more productive as a writer, as some of you may already tell. Writing, while a form of communication , is a very, very solitary activity, requiring both focus and as much minimal distractions as possible. Even in my life at school, I needed much privacy to just be able to focus, whether it was homework or the books I was working on. I hope that you can better tell why I prefer solitude over company, and why I am relatively happy when I realize my social nature has been significantly diminished in favor of a more solitary one. Whether those were bullies, trolls, or just people who didn't understand my condition , the External World treated me quite poorly, and while not everyone were like that, the influence of the former was significant. You may claim that I see the world in a darker shade , when in reality I simply tell what I feel and think, without necessarily biasing it to match my narrative. Realizing that my former suffering was significantly decreased when I was alone, I am confident when I say that I do not like people in general, and hence why I prefer giving up on my social nature, along with the things that come with it, such as affectionate physical contact that many in this world find to be missing in their lives. I can be a nice and polite person, but that doesn't have to contradict what I just said. I believe that, based on my example, you too can become more free by practicing solitude , and it even can make you more independent, even from the basic level of the desire to socialize and even from the desire to be in love. The only reason I am open-minded to the possibility of being in a relationship is because I have never been in one, and wish for further evidence in my contemplations, along with more credibility. Other than that, I don't really see it as a basic need like I used to. And this is how, and why, I gave up on love. ................... But no more. The best revenge is living well. After nine years, I am back. Back and willing more than ever. Willing, more than ever, to get the woman I think I deserve. Whoever you will be. I am more of a romanticist than any of you might think. I simply repress it, as I do many things. As I wrote before, only I know myself, for only I have been in my subconsciousness. And likewise, my former love-of-my-life will pay. Pay. With the success I deserve.... ....And the success the lady deserves. Article Review by Alex Mos What is romantic Love? There are many definitions and countless expressions of affection, yet nobody can describe it accurately. Being in romantic Love is desired, idealized, and frequently depicted in art because of its euphoric, energizing, and beautifying properties . Sometimes, Love can be feared and criticized for its irrational, addictive nature and the emotional vulnerability it causes. To love and be loved back is a mix of confusing feelings of strength and surrender, adoration of each other, fear of loss , and mutual sexual arousal. Unanswered, failed, or abusive Love can be traumatic and lead to obsession, aggressive behavior, depression, and despair.   Romantic Love is as old as humanity. Yet, the recognized right to form legal unions with a lover is relatively new. Traditionally, marriages between men and women were transactional and aimed to produce offspring as "God commended and Nature intended."   Benedict Douglas argues that the modern account of Love shares a moral foundation with human rights, which involve individuals' capacity to choose how to live. A fundamental freedom to love a person we fell in Love with seems obvious; however, Love is one of psychology's most complicated human concepts and has been strictly regulated through the ages by highly discriminatory societal and religious norms. The liberty to love, including the legal protection of same-sex unions, equality of all partners in marriages, freedom of sexual expression, family values, and rights of minors and children , is a crucial aspect of human rights.   The essence of Love lies in the profound desire for togetherness. In Plato's Symposium, Aristophanes tells how Zeus split a pre-human spherical being into two counterparts, becoming two humans. Although Plato argues that Love should be a search for the ultimate good, not one particular person, I interpret his myth as a metaphorical reminder that every human has an "entangled," perfectly fitting counterpart. In Love, the counterparts intuitively form deep mental connections besides undergoing the usual physiological changes. The mental alignment of both counterparts amplifies each other's energy waves, making the lovers more energetic, relaxed, and healthier. The "lovers-counterparts" do not seek societal validation, an internal power struggle, or gender role abuse because they live in mutual harmony and understanding. If one partner thrives, so does the other, and vice versa. They complete but do not limit each other, becoming the best versions of themselves.

Alex Mos's Synopsis: Philosophers can be allegorically divided into two factions: Wizards and Sorcerers. The "Wizards" are academics who mastered philosophy by studying it. The "Sorcerers" are philosophers with innate abilities to philosophize with or without a conventional education in the field. Getting an academic degree is the most respected way to become a philosopher; however, some philosophers became influential thinkers without education. People often underestimate the natural talent to philosophize and believe a degree is needed to be an accomplished philosopher. The author's innate skills prove them wrong , as he has written hundreds of articles and books without academic schooling. Philosophy should not be limited to academia. It can and should be practiced by anybody with an affinity for logical thinking and empathy. The author is determined to become a renowned philosopher and contribute to humanity through philosophical non-academic works. In English, or at least in role-playing games, the terms "wizard" and "sorcerer" may seem synonymous, but in fact they are very different , and that difference, I believe, should also apply to philosophy and philosophers. The Wizard is a master of their craft through their ability to study and experiment, while the power of the Sorcerer comes from their own innate skill. I myself read mostly to research my articles, to back them up with facts and to confirm the arguments I made and make. I do not have any degrees and yet I am good at philosophizing. I therefore belong to the "sorcerer faction" in philosophy, rather to the "wizard faction", which is common to regard philosophers as belonging to. Like with fictional sorcerers I can technically make a philosophy article out of any subject, without the necessity of reading several books about it. That's because like sorcerers, my talent to philosophize is innate, not acquired. It's part of who I am, and I would've been a philosopher by heart even if I did not take the very few philosophy courses I took at university and online. Some of you thought I am a doctor, that I have a degree, that I am an academic lecturer. Negative. It is all mainly natural for me. Of course, the differences between the sorcery and wizardly factions do not have to be polar opposites. In fact, people who have a natural affinity for philosophizing, like the Sorcerer has for his magic, may study it like a Wizard does, to enhance their already-existent abilities. It is not like studying philosophy academically will make the innate philosopher lose his or her innate ability. Functionally, external study is but an improvement, and improvement does not cancel what one already has. It is mainly a matter of whether or not you can philosophize "out of thin air", or in other words -- philosophize so naturally that people would think of you as an authority in your field, with or without your educational/academic achievements in philosophy as something to be studied. Philosophizing is a skill, and not only a field of study. However, what many people fail to realize, both within and outside of philosophy, is the fact that being well-versed in philosophical ideas is but one way to be a philosopher -- the way of the Wizard, the conventional way, the academic way. Those who base their philosophizing on their innate talents, like some kids naturally do , are what we can call natural philosophers, or "Sorcerers" as an allegory. This isn't to be confused with natural philosophy , which is a specific philosophical movement that focuses on natural events, and isn't about philosophers themselves. The more respected way to become a philosopher today is by the way of the Wizard: Through education and the continuous study of well-known philosophers, their theories, arguments, and so on. That is the orthodox way devised and conquered by academies, the only places on Earth where you can feel secure about being a philosopher -- through the degrees they give you, by remembering concepts of greater philosophers and putting them on assignments. The irony of this is that some of these philosophers, like Socrates and David Hume, were never academic philosophers themselves. According to some research I did, there are even freelance , degreeless philosophers. The origins of philosophy, however, are not Wizardly but stem from the Sorcerer archetype: From the innate desire to better understand the world and the universe by contemplating and asking questions. The desire to understand reality is the most innate drive for philosophizing there is. As written before, Socrates was not academic and never wrote anything himself; his philosophership came not from academic research but from inquiring about things to the people of Athens, which is what made the Athenian court accuse him of " corrupting the youth ". What if Socrates was born today and not back then? What if he lived in an age where his original philosophizing was undermined by the "dictatorship" of the academy? What if his thoughts and theories about the world would be discarded because he didn't read books, didn't write anything himself, didn't "do his research," and so on? And yet he is classically deemed as the founder of Western Philosophy. Where it took years for plenty to be accomplished in philosophy, for Socrates it came naturally by being "assigned by birth" to the "sorcerer" faction. This is why the way of the "Sorcerer" in philosophy is so underrated, because people believe that having an innate skill or affinity for philosophy is insufficient. When people ask me where I have gained the material to write so many books and articles, they fail to realize the underrated power of the mind ; that there are people who are more contemplative than others, and that's what essentially makes them the philosophers in the method Socrates used: by asking, researching from within, and coming up with your own answers. The mind is a very powerful tool which, in my case, granted me my freedom from being a physical handicap. I view my mind not as something to be proud of, for the intellect isolates me from the world, but as something imperative for my survival and for my work to you, my readership. I do not take pride in being a genius. I take pride in still being able to survive after all I went through. My mind is a work tool , not an aim. My desire to survive stems not from arrogance but from wanting to work for you! In fantasy, Sorcerers do not read books to enhance their abilities; they do not subscribe to certain schools or universities; they do not have masters of their own to teach them how to do their magic; they are simply born with the gifted potential to cast spells , like some children are born with the natural need to inquire about things; things that non-philosophic adults think of rarely, if at all. And indeed, philosophers should be seen on a spectrum ; a spectrum of natural skill and book-smarts . I myself used to read plenty of books, but since the Reaping Fatigue Era started and finished, I can no longer read books, much to my sorrow. I am, however, trying to restore my reading skills by reading articles online, that serve as research for Philosocom's material. It's why I'm nonetheless capable of sourcing my words on a very large scale -- which is going to be all of the site's material. And if I wasn't a "sorcerer" by nature, you wouldn't even get the material you've been reading here that I wrote. However, I don't let it break me because I know that metaphorically. My material comes mainly and innately and intuitively rather than empirically or with external research. That virtue, unfortunately often seen very negatively by those who are unaware that philosophizing is also an innate need. Anyone can become a philosopher as long as they develop that "muscle" within them. Hence why I wrote a guide on the matter. And that "muscle" is not the sole product of well-respected institutions that grant you certificates over something you can be even without them. Those who are "sorcerers" by nature don't necessarily have to adhere to the authority of the so-called "wizard" faction, which dominates the contemporary world. I'd like to assume that it is difficult to explain those whose skill in philosophizing is not innate, if at all, that philosophizing can come naturally. That's because the ability to understand the other side may often than not require one to search within themselves, in order to confirm what they've been told. After all that's how empathy works. However, it's quite hard to understand something someone else has, but do not have yourself. Ultimately, logic is what makes a philosophical argument cohesive and sensible. It is the electricity of electronics, the "Ki" of monks and martial artists, and so on. Likewise, there are people who are more logical and more inquisitive than others, and that's what could eventually turn them to philosophizing -- just like Socrates did. Some people are just more in-tune to logic, like empaths are more in-tune to the emotions around them. Logic is but the meaning, the " logos ", this reality is built on. And when you show a deep understanding of it through insights that come intuitively, then you might be a "sorcerer of logic". Philosophy should not be the sole property of the academic elite. It should be spread across the world and practiced even by the most common of people! Basic and even advanced philosophical questions should be tackled by anyone without the fear of being seen as pretentious, and being a philosopher can be an occupation as well as a hobby. People told me I shouldn't philosophize for I am a pretentious man. Look where I am now when I resisted their words. Let us return the original naturalness of philosophy to contemporary philosophy. Those who are unable to read books or don't get a degree like me shouldn't be excluded by the academic elite. By the same token, people who don't write philosophy, shouldn't be excluded as well. After all, it was once more Socrates who didn't even write anything. Should we discard him for not being a writer, and for being a stonemason? Would not it be a waste of potential to discard him from academic and non-academic discourse, due to these reasons alone? Philosophy is a thing we do for love, arguably, and not for the sake of being more professional than the "common man." Likewise, philosophers shouldn't fear being wrong, for mistakes are a path to the truth. Universities and other high-level institutions shouldn't monopolize such a basic field; people should philosophize in the convenience store, at cafes, and on the internet, just like I do. Furthermore, it deserves to be profitable because profitability is also one of the ways a field earns its relevancy in a capitalist-based world. It is time to stop seeing philosophy professors as more respected just because they were able to afford or had the opportunity to earn degrees. I too wanted to be a philosophy professor, but it was too late for me due to the Reaping Fatigue Era of my life. However, it will not stop me from trying to become and be seen as a philosopher just like any other philosophers, who gained their philosophership through either "sorcery" or "wizardly" means. Remember: philosophy is older than the conception of academic institutions. According to my research, the first academy was Plato's academy , and of course, Plato was far from being the first philosopher. Fun fact: there is no difference between the two in Hebrew (sorcerer and wizard). If I didn't know English, this article wouldn't have been completed . Learn at least more than one language and your understanding of reality can be improved. And yes, I've no reason to let my lack of academic expertise to stand in my way of working for humanity, and making this world a better place using my, and others', philosophical insights. Hail Philosocom. Bonus: Real-life examples of the two archetypes Wizards: Plato: Founded the Academy, one of the first institutions for higher learning in the Western world . Focused on studying and building upon the ideas of his teacher, Socrates. Aristotle: Another student of Socrates who compiled a vast amount of knowledge on various subjects and created a complex philosophical system based on logic and reason. Immanuel Kant: A highly influential German philosopher known for his critiques of reason and his exploration of ethics and metaphysics . He heavily studied the works of previous philosophers. Karl Marx: Developed a social, political, and economic theory based on historical materialism. Studied philosophy and economics extensively as a member of the disciple group known as the Young Hegealians , apprentices of Georg Wilhelm Hegel . Confucius:  A Chinese philosopher who emphasized the importance of morality, social order, and personal relationships. He founded the revered school of thought known as Confucianism, a social and moral philosophy.   Much of Chinese education throughout history was developed thanks to him. Soren Kierkegaard:  A Danish philosopher who focused on individual subjectivity and existential anxiety. Dubbed as "The Father of Existentialism" . Known for his original and often paradoxical ideas that challenged established philosophical norms. A doctor in theology. Sorcerers: Sitting Bull: A Native American spiritual leader and tribe leader. His wisdom quotes are his philosophical legacy to humanity. Lao zi: The mysterious founder of Daoist philosophy . His life is surrounded by mystery, and he has no known formal education. Much of his wisdom, then, must come from somewhere. Blaise Pascal: A mathematical autodidact and polymath , this genius was mainly homeschooled, and yet he contributed much, such as the first calculator to be practically used.

(Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. The article "Why Positivity is More Reasonable Than Pessimism" offers a compelling exploration of the impact of positivity and negativity on one's mental and emotional state. It uses engaging metaphors to make the concept more relatable, while presenting a clear argument that positivity is preferable to negativity. The article also touches on deep emotional concerns, such as depression and Self- sacrifice thoughts, making the case for positivity more urgent and impactful. Part I: How Positivity Pulls You Up When Negativity Threatens to Trap You In general, it is safe to assume that being positive is a more preferred state to be in than constantly being pessimistic and bitter . This is because negativity is like a force that pulls you down, into the abyss of depression and other probable illnesses. Positivity, on the other hand, is an effort you make in order to resist the negative "gravity" that is trying to pull you into the "darkness" of illnesses , depression , and even Self- sacrifice thoughts. The Science Behind Positivity Impact on Mental Health: Reduced stress and anxiety:   Positive emotions can help regulate the stress hormone cortisol. Increased mental resilience:  Optimists tend to cope better with adversity. " I worked on myself to [always] look at things in a positive light, Otherwise, I would not have survived." -- Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson Lower depression risk:  A positive outlook can buffer against depressive symptoms. Enhanced cognitive function:  Positive emotions are linked to improved problem-solving and creativity. Impact on Physical Health: Strengthened immune system:   Positive emotions can boost the immune system's response to illness. Lower risk of heart disease:   Optimism has been associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. Faster recovery from illness:   A positive mindset can aid in recovery from physical ailments. Pain management:   Positive emotions can help alleviate pain perception. Key Studies and Concepts The Broaden-and-Build Theory:   This theory suggests that positive emotions expand our awareness and therefore make better decisions. "According to this theory, experiencing any positive emotion should immediately and temporarily “broaden” attention, cognitive, and behavioral responses. This is in comparison to negative emotions which narrow our attention and behaviors to the threat in our environment so that we can behave in such a way as to avoid or reduce the threat." -- The Pennsylvania State University Optimism and resilience research:  Numerous studies have shown a correlation between optimism and better outcomes in various life domains. Mindfulness and meditation:  These practices often cultivate positivity and have been linked to improved well-being. However, this is not always the case, revealing to us the value of balance even in meditation. Positive psychology:  This field of psychology focuses on understanding the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive. "Positive psychology is a branch of psychology focused on the character strengths and behaviors that allow individuals to build a life of meaning and purpose -- to move beyond surviving to flourishing. Theorists and researchers in the field have sought to identify the elements of a good life. They have also proposed and tested practices for improving life satisfaction and well-being." -- PsychologyToday It's essential to balance positivity with realism.  While optimism is beneficial, it's equally important to acknowledge negative emotions and challenges. A healthy mindset often involves finding a balance between the two. Part II: Negativity As a Dead End on Life's Highway This can be looked at in the following way: imagine you are climbing a vine in the jungle and suddenly you look down at the distant ground below. This sight fills you with fear as you realize there is a reasonable probability that you will fall to your death. The most obvious solution is to not look down too much and continue climbing (or going to the next vine and so on). However, it is certain that looking too much at the ground will eventually shatter your assertion and your self-esteem and make you afraid for your life. I wouldn't say that pessimism equals death,  but for the sake of the metaphor, imagine that you are extremely high in the sky, climbing the vines of a jungle. You know that if you fall, it will not only kill you, but it will take a few minutes for you to hit the ground. It is with the strength of your enduring spirit  and with your hopes and dreams,  that you can prevent yourself from falling off the vine into the abyss below... My question is this: What is the practicality of succumbing to bitterness, when it is a force that pulls you down from the height you have managed to reach thus far? Why fall down if it hurts your interest in even getting through life (assuming you are not fully complete with the option of putting your life away? Even if it is not apparent, too much and/or regular negativity hurts the mind's health: If you're someone who analyzes your thoughts, it can be challenging to differentiate negative thinking from the regular worries that everyone has. Feeling sad about an upsetting event is normal, just as worrying about financial burdens or relationship troubles is something we all do from time to time. It’s when those feelings are repetitive and pervasive, however, that problems arise. -- Emma-Marie Smith It doesn't happen instantly, but it happens slowly. It slowly pulls you down into the darkness, where you find it hard to see, where it is cold, and where there is the potential of despair. It's the acceptance of submitting either temporarily or permanently to said "darkness," caused by losing most if not all the "height" you maintained throughout your life. It is not practical to sink into the quicksand of emotion. It will leave you deluded and unhealthy. The Value of Emotional Practicality Beyond the "edgy" appeal to the dark side of the human condition , there is really no reason to be generally pessimistic when pessimism doesn't do the job a mindset should naturally do: To maintain and improve our good physical and mental conditions. However, we should consider it to be more practical... Occasional negativity can serve a purpose and not dominate one's mindset. We should be recognizing that occasional negative thoughts are a normal part of life, and we don't have to be letting them dominate one's mindset -- Mr. O. C. Isaac This is where I bring the concept of emotional practicality. It is as simple as it may sound to you. Thoughts and emotions that don't serve your endeavors in life, whether positively or practically, are best to have their functionality questioned. Without doing so, we may be letting them become a regular habit in the stream of our thoughts. Take note that this is not a hedonistic approach ; addictions also reward you through gratification. However, unlike a healthy positive mindset, they can be destructive if left uncontrolled. The reasoning behind the practicality of positivity is not only because it makes you feel good, but also because it prevents you from doing the worst of all; From committing self-sacrifice, to committing mass murder, to abandoning all hope for remedy, hope, or salvation. Part III: Cultivating Resilience in the Face of Darkness “Today it is bad, and day by day it will get worse―until at last the worst of all arrives.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer The problem with pessimism is that it can slowly but gradually lead you to self-sacrificing thoughts if left unchecked. Like any kind of addictive substance, it is like a killer that hunts you slowly if you're not going to set a limit for it, if not defeat it entirely. Those who wish to be liberated from pessimism should thus look at themselves as if they are recovering from alcohol, drugs, and so on. I'm talking of course about the "serial" pessimists, those who are regularly negative. Of course, it's their choice to be made. As for the liberty of thought and emotion, it is okay to be sad, angry, to cry, and so on; It is far preferable than forcing oneself a façade of happiness. Happiness is there as an indication of being in a positive mental state for a long period of time. It is to be worked on if one seeks not only to live from day to day but also to feel "alive" beyond mere survival, beyond staying alive. Viktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor, took much solace in the power of the mind: “Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.” Genocide survivors have their own victories over their former oppressors, in the form of good lives and families in a nation capable of protecting them from their enemies. Conclusions: Seeing Beyond the Shadows of Negativity Whether or not you agree with my thoughts, a great deal of surviving a genocide attempt is to resist the impracticality of pessimism even in the direst of times. Even if you have failed , at least be glad that you tried. In order to reach a state of regular optimism, look at yourself as a gunslinger. Whenever something unfortunate happens (or at least, something upsetting), shoot first! Try to find at least one positive thing about it or about yourself in relation to it. Don't just submit to an emotion just because you're beginning to feel it. Subvert your own expectations. Remind yourself what you might really prefer! “I happen to like to shoot first, Rekkon . As opposed to shooting second." -- Han Solo Once you become accustomed to finding positivity in almost every opportunity, no matter how small, you will then acknowledge the fact that not everything has to be all gloom and doom. That is, even if it appears so at first sight and because of the negativity bias . Remember that much of what appears in front of you is not necessarily there, but in your mental life. Bonus: How to Discipline Yourself For a Life of Positivity Practice daily gratitude for the things and beings you have. Train yourself physically, like in running, long-distance walking, or yoga. Surround yourself with positive influences, both for your health and for your mind's wellbeing.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Philosocom's Directory on Uniqueness) (Nathan Lasher's Articles) (Background music) Part I: The Data of The Mind Qualia  has different meanings if you get its many intricacies. It can be used to describe properties of sense-based data. In this case it is referring to all nonphysical things in a picture such as color or other attributes of the visual experience. This would be like seeing a striped tiger. In this case I am referring to you being aware of the stripes without knowing exactly how many there are. Qualia in this case would account for you being able to know something exists without the basic principles of how we learn to understand things. You already understand there are stripes in a wayless way. To typically understand something , we must understand all the items basic components and how many there are. An exception to this would be the tigers stripped. We don’t need to understand quantity to determine something's quality.  To further explain what the idea of sense data is, you don’t need to see a dog to visualize a dog in your mind. What it is referring to is the fact that people’s minds help them fully visualize something without needing to look too closely at it. Your mind has already developed a picture of things Like a photographic memory vault. Part II: The Subjectivity of Experience Two individuals will have different visual experiences when they see something. Imagine a tall skyscraper. A security guard would have seen the building every day, so its appearance is already constructed in the guards' mind. Due to experiencing one it will determine the visual experience the guard would have by visiting another building. Similarly, a tourist would have an entirely different visual experience due to not being familiar with tall buildings. Example is a person from the Midwest who lives in a farming community and decides to visit New York City. The tourist's visual experience would be way different than that of a local. There is a deeper meaning to the differences in experiences among people. Neuroanatomy is similar to a fingerprint. Each nonrelated person would have different cognitive features. This means a person processes sensory data differently than other people who have the same experience. As such, a person who processes sound differently might have a different experience at a Phil Harmonic Orchestra than someone who processes it differently. Our cognitive features determine how we process sensory data. The idea of qualia represents the intrinsic non-representational properties.  This primarily refers to non-physical things and how we interpret them. Sound would be another. Go to a country that doesn’t speak your native language and take a minute to just stand and listen to all the people talking. How you hear them is what qualia refers to. If you know a different language you process those sounds differently than someone who doesn’t know it. Qualia as Personal What this means is every experience is unique to the person. Blue is a descriptive word which can be different to different people. The qualia surrounding the philosophy of mind is what I will be trying to dive into in this article. Qualia refers to the nonphysical properties of things. Anything that involves the processing of sensory data. Sensory data is a metaphysical aspect of philosophy. All real matter gives off sensory data. It is how two objects communicate with each other. The reason for people not understanding it revolves around people having different experiences and different sensitivity to this data. Now, what I hope to achieve in this article is to explain qualia from a neurodivergent perspective. I process things a bit different than most people simply because of the genetics I was born with.  Why qualia is such a huge area of conversation, is because nobody understands why sensory data can have different effects with different people. I believe I may have figured that out. There are two reasons why this is true. Different cognitive features mean processing data differently among people. The other side of things is the fact that humans have incredible abstract cognition going on. Your body is very good at memorizing sensory data. When you encounter the same sensory data again, your brain recalls your previous encounter with similar senses. Your brain is constantly evolving its ideas about stuff.  Due to this constantly evolving nature, people are really set in their beliefs. A construct they have built up in their minds over their lifetime. Every person has different experiences, so every person has different material to work with while trying to process that sensory data. Part III: The Role of the Past Historical memorization of sensory data occurs so that your brain won’t need to process it as hard when it encounters the same one in the future. This new encounter with the same sensory data allows your brain to update its knowledge on the item with a solid foundation to go off of. This is why elderly individuals hate technology, well, some of them do. They have no historical experience with it, so new things are difficult for them to process because they have nothing relatable to go off of.  So, we can deduce that your history will also determine how you process sensory data. It isn’t just sensory data but entire experiences which your brain is constantly trying to absorb and add to your memory bank . I am a genius thanks to my experiential intelligence. To add on photographic memory, I believe I understand why people have different experiences with qualia.... It is a matter of cognitive difference and historical experience. The other reason for the subjective nature of qualia is due to every person being different and having different histories to go off of.  Qualia is an inescapable aspect of life. I believe history and different cognitive structures, resulting in sensory data being processed differently, is the real reason for subjective experience. Part IV: Personal Reflections I believe it took someone with bi-polar and autism experiencing life differently to really understand the subjective reality that is qualia. I process things incredibly different than most people. Though I am still human, so my experiences aren’t that subjective.  Everyone has built their own system of preferences over their lifetimes. Your preferences will determine how you process reality and ideas. Emotions also come into play in reference to how we process things. Things which create a good emotion are often things we want to do. This subjective experience isn’t the same for everyone. As such, my love of golf is very subjective, or in other words, very specific. Qualia refers to the things I will experience while out on a golf course. Things that make me happy yet aren’t true of everyone. It is based upon my preference of wanting to be out on a course all the time.  Conclusions The point of this article is to talk about what life is like for someone who processes things in a very illogical kind of way. I know that I live in a world of qualia. I have a non-duality about myself and see the world so much more differently than most people. Those characteristics which make up an experience yet aren’t the result of anything physical. It is an aspect of metaphysics which I feel people could do a better job of understanding. Qualia is a matter of descriptive wording. Those things which make experience different to each person. You can’t define it in terms of an absolute. As it is subjective it is beyond a universal definition. Qualia can be said to be how humans interpret reality. Of course, interpretations are up to the person doing them.

(Start of Ms. Angie Hincks Article Series) (Philosocom's Directory On Dreams) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Note: Parts have been edited for greater clarity and learning). (Background music) ************************************* Part I: The Doppelganger Talk Twin means double, twofold, or two by two, and peak means the highest point/mountain. This is the allegorical meaning of Noah taking the animals into the ark two by two. In the allegory of Noah, he took in not just one set of twins into the ark but many sets. The arc represents the arc of light in which one part of a set of twins sit within a dimmer light (nocturnal dreams) and the other within a copied or simulated light.... the diurnal (daytime) dream at the highest electrical point which is the light show... the greatest show on earth. A doppelgänger is a German term that translates to "double walker/goer" in English. It describes a phenomenon where a person encounters an exact duplicate of themselves, often characterised by a shadowy, ghostly, wave-like appearance that extends across time. However, it's not a phenomenon; it's a perfectly natural occurrence. Metaphorically speaking, these doppelgängers, like all doppelgängers, are the same entities as you, that travel in your nocturnal realm just as they and you ALSO DO in your perceived awakened realm --- most people know that to be subjectively true because this identical duplicate is the same you that you subjectively experience every night during sleep or naps —it's not a supernatural event but rather the same you, your subconscious twin (mind as opposed to you in the physical- which is brain) in a parallel world. Similar to cells, doppelgängers self-mutate, multiply, and reproduce into copies that incept into dreamscapes. That's why, when returning here into the immersive dream, we find ourselves in a copied environment full of surreal and intriguing characters that feel "real" due to the sensory machine/body, yet at times doesn't feel right or make sense- almost like living in a cartoon world. (Editor's Note: Debateable Not only was Francis Bacon a ghostwriter and doppelgänger for William Shakespeare (as it was claimed... at the very least ) but Bacon frequently identified himself as "the herald of the new age." When you recognise your existence in a more profound layer of immersive dreaming, and connect the dots, you'll realise that these unfamiliar and familiar figures are symbolic and allegorical characters—archetypes of the subconscious, all products of both my and YOUR imagination and story world. As the dream machine itself (given that the brain in darkness can only simulate -- copy), you breathe life into these characters because you are their creator. This process echoes the tale of Pygmalion, the Greek god who fell deeply in love with his exquisitely sculpted creation. With the blessing of Aphrodite (the goddess of love), his creation came to life. Your twins communicate through your subconscious, your imagination, engaging in what's known as "twin speak" or when you re-adjust the words becomes "twins peak/twins PEEK." Part II: The Blur Between Fiction and Real-Life Talk This form of communication is twofold -- a paradox (as the quantum world tends to be) because not only does it utilise a HOOK to get conscious imaginations to “buy in” to a story. It also utilises the hook to stay attached to the other counterpart -- through an obscure/hidden language with an ulterior meaning characterised by allegory and symbolism— that is essentially what double speak means. A hook from Old English “hoc” is a curve or angle (ultimately of light). Immersive dream characters and organisations like politicians or NASA that Never give A Straight Answer, operate in this manner of double speak specifically, not meant to deceive you (unless you interpret it so) . Rather, it is to prompt introspection and reading the space in between the lines of narrative in your interactive and immersive story world (called "Real-Life").... That is the role of all seemingly nefarious “characters”. All stories, are stories about YOU. and so I am going to connect for you the allegory of the American drama series “Twin Peaks” that ran in the 1990’s via the American Broadcasting Company (ABC- alphabet languages) network (or web) that influenced other such eerie stories like “The X Files”. In the quiet town of Twin Peaks, the death of a teenage prom queen weaves a mysterious connection between the subconscious mind and immersive dreamscapes. The subsequent murder investigation, led by a peculiar FBI special agent (that is you) sent to assist in resolving the case in the quest for answers, takes a surreal turn. Guided by cryptic clues revealed in his nocturnal dreamscapes, the investigator unravels a “web” of secrets and lies that envelop the town and its eccentric residents. What begins as a standard murder mystery transforms into a profound examination of the duplicitous lives hidden beneath the veneer of seemingly ordinary people.... In other words, we are talking about YOUR duplicitous life and your twins. Twin Peaks unfolds as a secret hub or crypt for dark and paranormal mysteries, inviting audiences into a realm where the boundaries between dreams and reality blur (Edtior's note: Like in the Silent Hill games) . The once quaint and “agreeable” town becomes a canvas for unveiling the cryptic depths that lie beneath its surface, exposing a world of intrigue and suspense. Herein lies the mysteries of dreamscapes. The storyline takes an entrancing turn as the immersive dream, believed to be real, becomes a key element in the unfolding drama. This is the “hook” of the story that draws the audience in. This is also why Twin Peaks became known as the most extraordinary piece of television “art”, before even being aired... The reason lies in the ENTANGLEMENT of the web, of the story, with our intuition. Our intuition makes us feel things are real and concrete even when they're not... Have you wondered why? The convergence of crime solving and the exploration of elusive landscapes within the subconscious unknowingly lures audiences into a world of intrigue and mystery... thus adding an IMMERSIVE LAYER to the unfolding dream. This quantum entanglement adds a layer of complexity, inviting the audience to question the nature of reality that propels viewers into a world where the nocturnal dreams of the investigator become integral to un-raveling the secrets of the town and its inhabitants in Twin Peaks. The enemy or the villain is found in ALL immersive and gripping suspense-filled storylines fuelled by fear to hook you into the story and ultimately to “capture” your imagination and entangle you with the characters/doppelgängers to get you to believe that the story-world is real. Such as Captain HOOK and Peter Pan characters as well as Klaus Schwab and whoever the next government villain happens to be. We tend to take ABC named “characters” found in words, lines, and their narratives literally. Part III: The Intuition Relation Talk This is what makes these stories so captivating, giving them a sense of "reality" and essentially driving the story forward. It's not the story or the character you are meant to look at, but the principle that the story or character represents or symbolises.... which is always about YOU. They (the represented layers of reality) aim to generate an electromagnetic push-pull effect because, much like you, at their essence, they also embody the essence of photons or messengers (angels/angles) of light. A beam of light, containing photon particles, enters at an angle through the pineal gland or any reflective surface, from parallel worlds. It's not too challenging to conceive, considering you visit these parallel worlds every time you watch a movie on screen, TV, computer screen, dream during sleep, nap, or engage your imagination. You, and only you, created this communication "system" and network pathway to your counterparts —a remarkably clever system indeed, as we like to be entertained or “mused” It is an off-stage on-stage system between the artist and his beloved gaze -- his audience. Your subconscious atomic twins initiate the "push" from challenging and villainous archetypes to prompt you to retract inward before getting absorbed in the drama of external distractions, characters, organisations, groups, narratives, etc. This prevents you from being influenced by fear-inducing stories that don't align with your own, and empowers you to craft a reflective response— enhancing your ability to respond effectively. Accepting stories and people literally at face value can lead to a distorted worldview and contribute to significant mood and anxiety disorders, evident in all the gaslighting and confusion fostered by religions and the immersive CULT-ure we are part of. The inclination to interpret the immersive and literary landscape literally, gives it a sense of "reality," despite the ongoing deep-seated feeling that we are still in a state of dreaming. This inclination is instilled in us from a young age, reinforcing the idea that everything is genuinely real and must be regarded with seriousness. Final Part: The Light and Symbolism Talk Masonic figures, politicians, celebrities, and others, function as directors and messengers within dream narratives —termed as stone hands in the language of printing and regarded as the gods of sleep and dreams in mythology. They are essentially beams of light (photons) that ascend into an immersive avatar body machine, mirroring the daily process you undergo when you seemingly "wake up" or arise. In essence, they are an integral part of you because they represent an extension of you. That same light in you is connected to the brain in you, to your consciousness. You are the same angle of light that rose up from parallel worlds beyond the constraints of time last night in sleep, into your avatar body this morning. They utilize gestures like waves, eye symbols, and handshakes to convey symbolic messages in a non-verbal language , purposefully avoiding literal straightforward answers. They are not meant to be interpreted as nefarious (again... unless you choose to make them so) but they are OFFERING you a wave, functioning as a universal (masonic) "handshake" to get you to communicate with your unconscious mind.... or as some prefer to call... God, or the universe itself. On-screen, they use the recurring downward pyramid symbol when resting their hands, strategically directing attention to the larger pyramid at the bottom—akin to an iceberg—signifying your dream world.... These symbols serve as guides, pointing you toward the archetypes or mythological dream characters trying to communicate with you from the invisible realms. (Editor's note: Are they doing it intentionally? Not necessarily. Their symbolism, as with everything mentioned here, is resonated with you, as the guest writer explained herself. Resonates with your own uniqueness...)

Wisdom For Website Creators/Owners (Poem) A website is like a physical space, In a sense that it will sometimes get visitors, Sometimes more, sometimes less. A school doesn't have to be populated, At all times without exception, In order for it to deliver its function: Help people study and have them graduate. Sometimes the school's visitors, Will have other things to do in their lives : Get too sick, get a day off, or even be at a vacation. Do not expect that all those who visit, Will, every day consist, At entering your virtual halls, When they have other places to be patrons of, Just like shopping malls. Sometimes, the visitors will visit one time, Never to return again, And other times, people believe they have something to gain, So they will visit your halls once more, And therefore, Might develop loyalty to your brand. Remember Epictetus' philosophy, For it is something to behold: There are things one can control, And things that do not, Within the global society. Be grateful for all who visit, With good intentions, For they are worthy to be mentioned, In the halls of your mind. Remember that you are in a marathon, And not in a sprint, And that will, hopefully, Give greater hope to your spirit. Whether one will visit less or more, That is their decision, Not yours. The best thing you can do, Is to make them care enough of you. Strive to treat your visitors in a way that's nice, And try less, to put them on thin ice. Those who feel welcomed, And believe they will benefit, Will come more, And might even recommend your halls to another. Remember that even if their visit is not your decision, Their visit's fruition, Can be part to your own content and behaviour. Finally, when it comes to your image, Remember this: Show more, talk less. Their visit is beyond your control, but nevertheless, What you present/provide is more important, Than who you claim you are.

Article Summary by Mr. Lucien Sage The article "The Rubinshteinic Functional Critique on Religion" explores the tension between religion and philosophy, highlighting how skepticism and inquiry can challenge absolute truth and unwavering faith. It uses historical examples like Baruch Spinoza's rejection by Jewish authorities and certain Islamic views on philosophy as "haram." The piece uses a football field analogy to illustrate how rigid religious beliefs limit intellectual exploration and debate. It critiques religious approaches that suppress dissent and use threats of eternal punishment to enforce conformity, arguing that such tactics hinder intellectual growth. However, the article acknowledges that not all religions are anti-intellectual and some embrace philosophy as a tool to refine faith. The article advocates for open dialogue, the use of philosophy to analyze religious beliefs, and tolerance as ways to reconcile faith with intellectual inquiry.   (Background music) (Philosocom's subcategory on religion) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) Navigating Faith and Reason: The Role of Philosophy in Religion In some Islamic circles, the concept of "haram" restricts the study of philosophy because it encourages you to be a free thinker, operating on his or her own logical accord. Similarly, some Jewish circles still reject the works of Baruch Spinoza , a philosopher who challenged the traditional view of God. These examples raise a fascinating question: What is the point of the philosophy of religion from a religious standpoint, when much of philosophy involves skepticism and free thinking ? If, as a religious person, you're expected to accept established doctrines and doubt is discouraged , what purpose does philosophical inquiry serve within a religious framework? Faith vs. Inquiry: The Conflict Between Religion and Philosophy Religion often provides a framework for understanding the world, offering comfort, purpose, and a sense of community. To quote Mr. John Duran: Does religion have its place? Of course it does, to give faith to the hopelessly lost. Does science have its place? Certainly. To dismiss and dispose of faith with the irreplaceable reasoning of faithlessness Oddly enough they both lead to the same final destination via uniquely different road. However, its core strength – unwavering faith – can sometimes clash with the inquisitive nature of philosophy . Herein lies the " functional paradox " of religion: Different religions/religious sects discourage questioning established doctrines. This stems from the fundamental belief in their own absolute truth. Imagine a vast football field representing all possible beliefs. In some religions, a large section is deemed "off-limits" – questioning their core tenets is seen as disrespectful or even blasphemous. This restriction, like a single, centrally located goal, limits the playing field for philosophical inquiry. Let's explore this analogy further: Confined Play: A child raised in a strictly religious household might be told, "This religion is the only true path." This might restrict their ability to explore other beliefs and philosophies, just like being confined to one side of the field with only one goal. Peer pressure works that way in general, as it is meant to confine. Limited Debate: The core tenet of a religion being the absolute truth discourages open debate. Discussions become one-sided affairs, lacking the back-and-forth necessary for philosophical exploration. An opposing idea might be seen in a reduced value due to the strawman's fallacy. This uncanny impact on idea exchange can lead to a crisis of faith, as could be experienced as members of religion, by either faith or ethnicity. Logic and reason might demand exploration beyond the established boundaries, which can lead to questioning or even abandoning the religion altogether. As such, under certain societal contexts, the social risks of philosophizing are higher. This highlights the internal tension between unquestioning faith and the human desire for understanding other viewpoints towards reality. It's important to note: Not all religions fall into this restrictive category. Many encourage thoughtful engagement with their doctrines and even embrace the role of philosophy in enriching faith. As such, some may even go and claim that religion needs philosophy for faith to be affirmed. The key takeaway is that the relationship between religion and philosophy is complex. While some religions might struggle with the questioning nature of philosophy, others find it a valuable tool for deepening their faith. A Philosophical Critique of Religion Religion offers solace, meaning, and a sense of belonging. However, a core tenet – unwavering faith – can create a fundamental tension with philosophy, which thrives on questioning and critical analysis. That is similar to science, which is based on these values as well. This tension highlights a paradox within religion: The Claim of Absolute Truth: Different religions may place themselves as the sole repository of absolute truth. This creates a barrier to philosophical inquiry. Just like a king who demands unquestioning loyalty, such religions restrict the field of exploration, leaving little room for doubt or alternative perspectives. This is a paradox given that several religions may claim having absolute truth, which means that we need to include other faiths in our thinking in order to understand which one is right, if at all. Either way, when they contradict one another, at least one of them could be wrong, and it can by any of them in theory. This claim of absolute truth creates several problems: Stifling Doubt:  Philosophy begins with the acknowledgement of ignorance – the Socratic principle of "knowing nothing." This allows for exploration and the pursuit of knowledge. Religion, however, often discourages doubt, hindering this process. How can one claim absolute certainty about God or religion when admitting ignorance is considered a flaw? Fallacies of Time and Dominance:  Religious traditions can be seen as an endorsement of truth. But from a philosophical standpoint, even extinct religions could hold some truth. The longevity of a religion or its number of followers doesn't guarantee its factuality. This could have something to do with the ad-populum fallacy and with the time-lapse fallacy when combined in this specific argument. The Coincidence of Birth:  Many people inherit their religion by circumstance of birth. Imagine a world map painted in different religious colors. Where you land on this map does not depend on you. This raises the question of whether faith is truly a personal choice, or simply a product of geography and history. The Abrahamic dominance in the world is a result of colonialism and in part, religious missionaries. It's not necessarily due to the Abrahamic religions being correct. The same applies to capitalism as well, whose morality should be questioned in the name of helping others. This paradox doesn't negate the value of religion.  It provides meaning and comfort for many. However, it highlights the potential conflict between blind faith and the human desire for a better understanding of reality. It's important to note that: Many religions embrace philosophical inquiry. They see it as a tool for deepening their faith, not undermining it. As such, not all religions are anti-intellectualist in nature. This critique focuses on the tension between absolute truth claims and philosophical inquiry. It doesn't deny the possibility of religious experiences or the positive role religion can play in people's lives. Faith and Reason in Dialogue The tension between religion and philosophy exposes a potential problem within certain religious sects. Functional inflexibility  arises when a religion prioritizes absolute truth claims over open inquiry, as a way to maintain social harmony . This can lead to: Suppression of Dissent:   Individuals who question established doctrines risk condemnation or even ostracization, as exemplified by the historical treatment of figures like Solomon Maimon and Baruch Spinoza. This stifles intellectual exploration and undermines the very essence of philosophy. The Threat of Eternal Punishment:   Some religions use the threat of hell or other forms of eternal punishment to enforce conformity. This creates a manipulative effect , discouraging critical thinking and independent exploration of religious ideas. However, it has been proven that the use of coercion is a poor way to organize and lead people due to various reasons The Path Forward Despite this tension, a more harmonious relationship between religion and philosophy is possible. Here are some potential avenues: Open Dialogue: Religions can encourage thoughtful engagement with their doctrines, fostering a space for respectful questioning and debate. . Philosophy as a Tool: Philosophy can be used to analyze and strengthen religious beliefs, leading to a more nuanced and intellectually rich faith. Tolerance: It should be preferrable to let people themselves because there are some things that can't be changed by us. Letting go is therefore a tool that can be used to keep discussions from derailing into petty conflicts over ideas, instead of exchanging them peacefully. Conclusion A healthy balance between unwavering faith and the pursuit of knowledge can enrich both religion and philosophy. Religious belief can provide a foundation for meaning and purpose, while philosophical inquiry can deepen understanding and challenge assumptions. In this way, both disciplines can contribute to a more fulfilling human experience.

"When we free ourselves from fear of failure, it radically changes our perspective and even our tactics." -- Mr. John Duran (Subcategory Directory On Failure: The Failure of the Juche Philosophy The Eggman Principle -- When Eternal Failure is Inevitable Virtue and the Failure of Education The Philosopher Who Attempted to Overthrow The Japanese Army -- How Philosophy Can Be Practical The Two Philosophies of the "Invested Vagabond" https://www.philosocom.com/post/life-tests-and-solitude To Best Be Served (Poem) https://www.philosocom.com/post/mike-ehrmantraut https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-ultimate-wish https://www.philosocom.com/post/butterfly-effect https://www.philosocom.com/post/doronbo-gang https://www.philosocom.com/post/trying-again ) Difficulty of Failure (Poem) ------------------------------------------------------------------- One time as a child, A cleaner came to our home. As I put my head in bed to rest, She came to my room, Needed to change her clothes After her hard day's work. She told me: "Don't look at me while I undress", And me, who never knew nudity, Promised I won't. As she changed her clothes, I put my head inside the pillow, Knowing that, if I put it out of it, I will break my promise, And thus, will fail. I wondered, back then, how women look, But the need to be fair, At least in the eyes of myself, Were stronger, Than the need for immoral knowledge. As she told me that she finished changing, It was the day that I knew, That I am strong enough, To trust myself; To trust me and my word. If I broke this promise to this anonymous woman, Then my word will be a failure, And failure, I refuse to reach, For failure, is a great difficulty, For those who see themselves, As greater than their temptations. When you say a word, make sure that you can keep it up, Or else you will not succeed, In the quest for being honest, And for being seen, by others, as honest. Now, although ascetic, I know how nudity look, And I have no regret, For keeping my word, As a child that wanted, To be good, to be okay.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) Overview and Commentary of Gandhi's Philosophy Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was an Indian civil rights leader and a national hero at the time and in general, who sought to liberate India from the British Empire, through a very unconventional method: Nonviolence. Revolutionaries, such as Lenin, Che Guevara, believed that violence is the key for liberation against oppressors and imperialists. However, Gandhi was very unique in a sense, that he refused in any way, to liberate his country through any violent mean. No weapons, no liberation fronts, and no rebellions; Only prayer, pluralism, pacifism and understanding. Gandhi was a very religious man, and even though he was a Hindu, a religion that is arguably polytheistic, he believed in one God, and used this reasoning, to say that nonviolence and acceptance are the appropriate answer to our societal problems. After all, according to him, since we were all made in God's image, and since we are all His creations, then we must not fight each other, and instead, seek common grounds and unity. In a sense, Gandhi was more of a universalist than a Hindu, as he sought to have peace among anyone who he came by, and that of course includes all of India, and the world in general. He even wrote letters to Hitler, requesting him to not fight, but that letter was intercepted by the British. Thus, even though I doubt that Hitler would care much, he never received words from him, whilst he could. As some may know, India is a very diverse nation ethnically, culturally and religiously , having a lot of ethnic groups, religions and languages. To unite them all through peace is something that is indeed very difficult to do, but it was something that Gandhi managed to do to a degree, as he managed to live one year after India's official independence from the British Crown. However, he was assassinated by a Hindu paramilitary volunteer, three bullets in the chest, mainly because said volunteer opposed Gandhi's acceptance towards Islam. For assassinating a national hero, that extremist was executed. Gandhi was violent throughout his life, but his violence was one that was not only rare but something that he saw a deep, great regret towards. To quote him: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary. The evil it does is permanent." For such acts he saw as sinful, he was an ascetic who would fast as a form of atonement, something that is also common in Judaism and Islam for that function. For much of his life he abstained from meat, and at times would only sustain himself from fruit and nuts. As one could learn from his very thin frame, he was truly a master at asceticism, and as an ascetic myself, who mainly drinks water and coffee, I sympathize very much with this personality. However, I find it hard to accept Gandhi's pacifism, due to the fact that some nations survived this long through military might. I am very thankful, regardless, that I am not a violent person and I would hate it to inflict pain on others, at least personally. I prefer dedicating my time helping, instead. In his autobiography, I recall Gandhi saying that he was once pushed aside by someone in the middle of the street due to racism . As some of you may know, Gandhi was a lawyer by profession , and yet, even though he could've sued the racist, Gandhi instead shown the person compassion and forgave him, just like he forgave anyone who would stand in his way aggressively. This makes sense, as he wished to eradicate violence, and not breed it further. To fight fire with fire, and to present venom when received venom -- that is not the philosophy of the pacifist, the philosophy of those who wished to remove violence from the face of the Earth, regardless of the reason behind it. It is a shame that Gandhi was assassinated for practicing his pluralistic ideology . But what can one expect from a pacifist who wants to unite his nation, and the world at large, under the principle of non-violence? Of course, one is to be met with resistance when disagreement is at hand, but to assassinate a literally harmless individual, for wanting to make peace with another religion, that is beyond my understanding, I'm afraid. I am not a pacifist, not at least like Gandhi. When someone walks over me, I seek to retaliate. The idea of vengeance, to show the world that some people were wrong, is something that as a philosopher, brings me much satisfaction, even in the mere thought of it. One of the functions of philosophy is to prove that an accepted idea isn't necessarily true , and unfortunately, this is a function I refuse to give up on , especially when such potential fills me with joy. Despite my eccentric tendencies, I only write to contribute to the world. Please do humour this fact, as in general, I mean no harm to anyone. Mistakes are made, but mistakes must be learned from, for a better world. Thank you for your time, and thanks to one of you, for suggesting me to write about one of the previous century's most important revolutionaries. It is with my hope that I did not disappoint. Alex Mos's Feedback "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong, " wrote Mahatma Gandhi, underlining the strength of character needed to overcome the victim's negative emotions of resentment and anger. Without forgiveness, the destructive chain of vengeance is imminent, leading to pain and suffering for many. We should prevent "instant retribution" at any cost by controlling anger and hatred, the source of regretful decisions and violence. Immanuel Kant described forgiveness as an imperfect, conditional duty because it depends on repentance and the nature of the wrongdoing. Is it ethical to let wrongdoers go unpunished? Is it our moral duty not to prevent wrongdoing to ourselves and others in the future? In cases of abuse , the wrongdoer should be reported to authorities, judged, and punished by Law. Not taking action because of forgiveness makes us comply with future violations. Interpersonal interactions often result in misunderstandings, disappointments, and suffering. We unconsciously and sometimes willingly hurt each other out of frustration, envy, and powerlessness. Don't let others harm you repeatedly. Take action to protect yourself, and then try to forgive because forgiveness will liberate you psychologically. Yet, if you can't forgive, strive for self-improvement and relevancy as a constructive and virtuous form of retribution. Remember that your success is the most effective revenge.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Background music) Unveiling the Seeker and the Guide While both philosophers and gurus can be seen as guiding lights on the path to wisdom , there are key differences between their roles. This article explores these distinctions, highlighting the unique characteristics of each pursuit. The Philosopher: A Lifelong Learner in Love with Wisdom Seeking, Not Converting:  Unlike gurus who aim to enlighten others, philosophers are primarily truth-seekers driven by a love of wisdom ( philosophia in Greek ). They may not necessarily have a following or even publish their ideas publicly. That is despite the importance of fandom to their heritage. Beyond Labels and Stereotypes:   Being a philosopher doesn't require specific credentials or an air of superiority . Anyone, regardless of profession (like Socrates the stonemason ), can embark on this lifelong quest for knowledge. The Importance of Openness: A key tenet of philosophy is embracing doubt and openness to diverse viewpoints . Their work thrives on critique and the constant exploration of new ideas. The Guru: A Guide on the Path to Enlightenment Authority Figure with a Mission:   Gurus ( derived from Sanskrit "gu" for darkness and "ru" for light ) traditionally hold a position of authority. They aim to lead individuals from ignorance to a higher state of consciousness, often focusing on existential or spiritual matters. The Responsibility of Teaching:   A core aspect of a guru's role is imparting knowledge and guiding others on their journeys through illumination . This inherently carries a risk of deception if the guru's wisdom is unfounded. The Modern Guru : A Shift in Meaning.   The term "guru" in modern usage can sometimes be a casual term for an expert or master in a particular field. However, this usage deviates from the traditional concept of a spiritual leader. This is not to be confused with what is understood by some as spirit guides. The Importance of Intellectual Humility Philosophers Embrace Ignorance:    The very act of seeking wisdom implies an acknowledgement of lacking it . This intellectual humility is a core trait of philosophical inquiry. The Burden of Expectation on Gurus:   Gurus, by definition, claim a certain level of knowledge and enlightenment. This can lead to skepticism and a higher bar for trust compared to philosophers. Fake gurus may try to cheat their way to create the impression that they are up to the task of being truly enlightened teachers, and not phonies. For example, they would expect you to "trust the process" of indoctrination, despite not being able to answer your philosophical questions. To appeal to you in their seemingly sage-like aura, they may even try to love-bomb you. That is despite not necessarily having any/much profound insight, similarly to the average pseudo-intellectual . Conclusion: Seeking Truth with Integrity While both philosophers and gurus serve as guides on the path to understanding, their approaches diverge in intriguing ways . Philosophy cultivates a questioning spirit, encouraging us to critically examine knowledge from all angles . Gurus, on the other hand, offer established paths for attaining wisdom. Both the philosopher and the guru must prove their worth in order to be considered credible sources. Otherwise their insights will be discarded by those who can make good use from it. Despite their contrasting methods, both share a noble objective: the pursuit of truth with intellectual integrity. Philosophers approach this through relentless inquiry, constantly refining their understanding. Gurus provide frameworks that can illuminate the path, even though it's vital to approach their teachings with a discerning mind. From their relentless pursuit of the truth, philosophers may suffer from stress and exhaustion . Gurus will have to solve trust issues and forever serve as noble role models to reduce the notion of being regarded as scammers. Both roles have their perks and their downsides, and much of the downsides can be reduced by beoming more moral and by learning how to reduce stress. Ultimately, the quest for truth is a shared journey, unless done alone . Whether through critical exploration or established guidance, both philosophers and seekers strive for a deeper understanding, fostering intellectual honesty and a willingness to learn and to record their observations. Alex Mos's Feedback Philosophers and gurus are expected to answer existential questions that science and religions cannot. Philosophers are researchers who use logic, critical thinking, and creative thinking to examine everything connected to life and humans in the ongoing search for truth. Gurus are teachers possessing wisdom, which might partly result from logical thinking but also have a vital spiritual component. The teachings of gurus concentrate on the human spirit and soul. Philosophers' goal is to find answers to questions, whatever they are. For centuries, philosophers have been respected and admired as scholars, but many chose to work in solitude, withdraw from society , and be primarily recognized in academic settings. On the other hand, Gurus have always been worshiped by their followers and considered enlightened teachers. Nowadays, in the internet era, with abundant access to information, philosophical wisdom can reach everybody interested for free. For this reason, philosophers who run popular philosophical blogs on social media can be seen as educators to many followers outside academia, much like gurus.