The Search Bar

(Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (Philosocom's Directory On Uniqueness) Article Summary by Lucien Sage The article "But No Bubble Was Created -- In Defence of Escapism" explores the concept of detachment and escapism as misunderstood yet valuable traits. Mr. Tomasio reflects on their personal experiences with isolation, beginning with their first spoken word, “bubble,” which metaphorically represents their lifelong sense of detachment. Despite appearing isolated, detached individuals often possess deeper insights and understanding, yet they are frequently misjudged and alienated by society. The piece argues that societal norms tend to reject such individuals, labeling them as outsiders, disabled, or even villains, despite their intellectual and creative contributions. Many detached thinkers, from philosophers like Socrates to writers like Emily Dickinson, have been marginalized due to their unconventional ways of perceiving the world. Mr. Tomasio embraces their detachment, choosing to play along with societal stereotypes while focusing on his work rather than social interactions. He argues that escapism is not necessarily a weakness but a conscious choice to avoid unnecessary suffering and stress. By retreating into solitude, one can achieve personal growth, resilience, and self-improvement without conforming to societal expectations. The article defends escapism as a legitimate means of self-preservation and personal evolution. It asserts that individuals should prioritize their well-being, discard toxic societal influences, and use adversity as a tool for growth rather than destruction. We all live in artificial bubbles of reality. -- Mark Bloom (Background music) Introduction Much to the irony of my life, my first ever word was expressed at a late age when I was shooing pigeons for my amusement at a small park. The word I said was "Bu-ah" or "Bubble" in English. The word "bubble" symbolizes isolation and detachment. Ironically, I was always a detached being. As detached as my late master was. The even bigger irony is that I, a detached being, often find myself understanding more than the average person, but not being understood myself.. The Bubble Paradox In a way, I only appear detached, as many detached beings appear. Paradoxically, it is us, the detached beings, that understand far more than many people, although our below-average ignorance is merely perceived... Thus, our bubble-like detachment is merely perceived... In leadership, it is often lonely at the top... Leaders, being naturally detached, often have to be the most knowledge and competent out of all their organization. Societies, in their blinding hubris, may reject the detached beings as insane, despite the many wonders detached people can offer to this world.. Detached beings may often be profound sages, profound artists and profound writers. One example of a profound writer is the poet Emily Dickinson. Societies may encourage the detached being to feel guilty and ashamed of their natural tendency to be an outsider. Many misunderstood geniuses in both fiction and in real life are often seen as villains and antagonists. Many villains in fiction, for some reason, are often doctors, like Dr. Eggman. Many such people are likelier to get traumatized and be treated as less-than-humans (AKA, de-humanized). As a result, a lot of them, including philosophers, are known to be solitary hermits. Contrary to stereotypical beliefs, many detached beings may suffer greatly from depression and from problems related to their self-esteem. Societies have struggled understanding detached beings from the dawn of history, like Socrates, who was dismissed as the "mad gadfly". Those unable to see beyond the narratives of their own making, will not see the detached being for who they are. Instead, the detached being is likelier to read you like an open book, and derive profound insights from single encounters. Case examples within Philosocom are the Newcomer's Fallacy and the Timing Bias. Societies that foster the idea that they understand such unique individuals, will only encourage said individuals to want to avoid conventional societies, instead of partaking in them. Instead, these individuals will either be left solitary for all their lives, or finding themselves having to establish alternative frameworks, being empowered by a misunderstanding society to deviate away from it. That is despite the immense potential many such detached beings have, which can be used for the greater good of many societies and organizations alike. The more detached a being is, the less they will cater to many ideas societies may hold dear to their hearts. From traditional religious views to commonly held concepts like identity politics. Despite being vastly different, mainly when it comes to their brains, detached beings are human beings just like any other human being! That is despite that societies may purposefully handicap such humans with labels such as "disabled", or worse than that, "retarded", and will absurdly prevent such beings from succeeding in the world in more-traditional ways. As understanding always has to come from the other side, it is often, indeed, pointless to explain one's true self to the other side. The world often rewards those who can mask their true selves, and pretend. A world that encourages us to put on masks, as if we are in a real life theatre, deserves to be rectified, and instead, be evolved into a world of health and wisdom. A rectified world is one that will include the voices of many detached thinkers across the world, imperative for this world's betterment, and for a better future for all of humanity as a species. Why I Purposefully Play Along the Silly Stereotypes Although I disagree with the concept of a predetermined universe, the word I said was like a hinting clue for what my life is going to be -- a self-enforced bubble of isolation through which I communicate with the world. I could easily go and talk to people physically, but the question is... why should I bother? Why should I kill time and suffer along the way? Unnecessary suffering I should reduce, not increase! So yes, I'll just keep playing along that I am more detached than I actually am. If that is the role the silly societies of this world are going to give me, I might as well play that silly role, and be left alone as a result, to work on my glorious article empire until I die! I am not afraid or anxious of social interactions. I am simply too much of a workaholic to care about them usually.. Furthermore, my extensive research on stress has revealed to me that my stressful nature, and the stressful reception that comes from it, can unnecessarily traumatize many. I prefer not to traumatize, but to live in harmony in societies, as I lay low in them.. In the name of morality, it is preferable to reduce stress, not increase it. When a "Bubble" is Encouraged During what I call the "Metropolitan Era" of my life,, I suffered much because of hypersensitivity. As such, I spent much of my life living in a self-ruthless, ascetic fashion, as a way to get tougher. Surviving much distress independently, both physical and mental distress, I ironically became tougher than most people... And perhaps... to tough.. in a world that is overburdened by social sensitivities.. And trigger warnings, as well. My ascetic training, that lasted for around 10 to 20 years, compelled me to create and foster a mental "bubble" around myself that goes beyond the physicality of living in solitude... Honing my own mind in solitude, I exist beyond conventional research and conventional demographics, as many hermits may do. As such, the concept of being normal is obscure to me, and what I perceive as normal for me, is obscure to most people. As the worker lives to their next paycheck, I lived to the next scream I either listened to or produced myself as a result of a panic attack, or the occasional PTSD flashback that came from saving my own grandmother as a child. In the past as a weaker being, whether they were the screams of teachers, students, babies, or neighbors -- every single attempt at creating a "bubble" around me was met with impracticality and failure. As you can tell, conventional societies just seem to develop in me, as well in many detached beings, far far more negative experiences than positive experiences. That is because many societies prefer you to blend in and diminish your own gifted, detached nature. And in the despair of always appearing far more detached than one actually is, one may find hope in many, many alternative pathways. The very rejections, one can use to hone his or her mind, to become stronger than the average person, and subvert the expectations of many, in physical detachment. As people told me that escapism is not good, they might not realize how my "escape" from the external world, is there for me to confront head-on the adversaries within my internal world. Given that what the mind cannot conceive, it cannot achieve, I see no reason to prove such people wrong. I prefer to be oblivious to such silly remarks and hone my strength in solitude, as I rise myself from many many pains, and treat my mental adversities as medicine to me. I don't think most people deserve meeting me in person. I don't think I deserve meeting most people in person. I think the wise thing is to spare people, avoid battles, and find things that make me happy, and them. Although I ideally support the idea of not discarding people, unfortunately this flawed world encourages me to do just that... I prefer to look within my many flaws, and fix them in solitude, without needing the help of psychologists. Rarely going out is something only the mentally strong can endure like a casual "Tuesday". That goes for me, too! Conclusions From all of this you can learn the following insights: "Escaping" shouldn't always be condemned when it can bring you the relief you are looking for. Escaping is a matter of perception/impression. Those who don't understand perception are not likely to understand you properly. Such people, unfortunately, deserve to be discarded if that is the wise thing to do for one's own mental health. Even if it means sacrificing certain things, a most important priority should be having a good, pleasant life, where you can finally be at the ease that humans deserve to be for the sake of their health. One's own "bubble" might be another's place for great misery. "Bubbles" are that subjective, and all subjection depends on the uniqueness of the individual that perceives them. People deserve to do things that do not cause them much misery. If misery already exists, then it is wise to use that misery as a tool for growth, rather than a tool for evil. Additional Notes Because of my Philosocom research, I care little for the world beyond the necessities and beyond my oath to my late master, to rectify this world as long as I live. Perhaps some stress is an inevitable possibility, but one should be able to discern, when stress is inevitable, and when it is a delusion of necessity.

Are you depressed? Do you see no reason for fun? Do you think you have little reason to live, Regardless of who you are, and of what you've done? If you wish to keep yourself, Away from the liberating knife, Remember the following: The more things you got to lose, The less reasoning you'll have, To die. Of course, death is eternal, And possessions are not, But unlike death, which is permanent, Possessions are to be maintained, If we wish them to endure the rusty influence, Of long, long times, Times that extend, even, To numerous generations. Remember this: Should I die, This website won't cease to exist as well, And yet, I have far more to lose -- Hundreds of articles, days of hard work and so on, were finished. But work is far from over. The more things you got to lose, Both in possession and in potential, The less willing you'll be to die, prematurely or maturely. Everything, thus, that is in the danger, to go away with you, Needs a heir, to extend its lifespan, And after a heir is accepted, the cycle goes on, As long as the line of heritage, Sees a good-enough reason, To maintain a long-term legacy, A term so long that could go on For hundreds of years! If you value your life, or if you wish to value it, Leave a legacy. The legacy will keep your feet on the ground, And prevent you from becoming a balloon, That shall fly away from the Earth, Into eternal obscurity. Thus, if you wish to live a life That has been well lived, Mere pleasure is insufficient. For pleasure can be lost, Even after years of delight. You have to be remembered, If you wish your life to be meaningful and contributing To anyone that is more than yourself exclusively. In other words, if you want to resume living -- Have things to lose! Whether or not you are alive or dead. A legacy is important not only for preservation, But to be of servitude to others, Thus giving you far more meaning, Beyond your own lifespan. Children are not necessarily a good form of heritage, If they are to eventually forget you, their ancestor. Do something that will justify your existence to both you and others, For you to become a far more distinct, appreciated and helpful, individual!

Art by Ms. Esther Drucker Nowodworski (RIP)‏ (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Health, Body and Delusion - How Your Body Image Depends On You" explores the relationship between body positivity and self-perception. It provides a comprehensive overview of body positivity, addressing psychological and societal influences, and the internal struggle individuals face. The article encourages self-empowerment by emphasizing the importance of cultivating healthy self-esteem and appreciating oneself, empowering readers to take control of their self-image and self-worth. The article critiques societal norms, highlighting cultural variability of beauty standards and debunking the myth of a universal ideal body. It also offers a balanced perspective on health and appearance, encouraging readers to pursue a healthy lifestyle while maintaining a positive body image. Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between body image and self-perception. It has the potential to be a highly impactful piece that encourages readers to embrace body positivity and self-acceptance. (Background music) Part I: Body Positivity: More Than Looks "People need to realize that models get [professional] hair and makeup, incredible lighting, and we know how to pose. I’ve been doing this job for almost 10 years so I know how my body looks good from different angles. But I don’t look like that in real life. I’m like every other girl; there are things I wish I could change about my body, but I try not to think about them too much." -- Sara Sampaio Even the most conventionally attractive people can struggle with crippling self-doubt, while those deemed "unattractive" by societal standards can cultivate a greater sense of self-appreciation. This is because our perception of our bodies is often a self-reflection, a psychological construct rather than a purely physical one. Body positivity, at its core, transcends the limitations of the physical. It's not about ignoring health concerns or pretending medical issues don't exist. It's about recognizing that our self-image, that critical voice in our heads, can be wildly out of sync with reality. True body positivity goes beyond aesthetics. It focuses on building healthy self-esteem, independent of the clothes we wear or the shape we perceive in the mirror. It's about accepting and appreciating ourselves for who we are, not just the vessel we inhabit. The Mental Dimension of Body Image Whether or not we choose to accept who we are is our prerogative because our lives, like our bodies, belong to us, and are not the property of others. As such, while the freedom of expression allows anyone to criticize and judge us, it's our choice to whether or not to accept who we are. That is whether or not we wish work towards what we wish to become. Thus, we need to create this mental barrier between our sense of self and between what others think of us. While both of these are equally legitimate perceptions, People are allowed to judge us the same as we are allowed to heavily disagree with them. As such, the ability to sustain a good body-image is also a matter of resolve, a mental struggle towards being confident within our own skin. The more mental strength we'll be able to gather, the more we could withstand and recognize the existence of opinions which would disapprove of us. And by "us" I refer to either of those: Who we currently are, What we might become, should we fail to meet societal expectations. What we might become, should we succeed to meet societal expectations. The mental and social struggle in this issue cannot be denied therefore, as we will be judged either way. In people's company, that is an inevitable possibility. Part II: The Internal Battle -- Making the Clear Sense of Distinction There's a misconception that "body positivity" is society fixing a problem for individuals. The reality, is might be more about an internal, personal struggle towards finding inner peace. It's a battle fought within each of us, regardless of our physical appearance, and often regardless of external validation. Here are some points that need to be known to fully understand this body-mind issue: Beyond Aesthetics: True body positivity isn't about forcing someone to believe they are "beautiful." It's about dismantling the false idea that self-worth necessarily correlates with physical perfection. In reality, however, the happiness that comes with a good sense of self worth, as well as happiness in general, is subjective to the individual. It would be illogical to expect that the same goals give all people happiness once they're achieved, thus the path of happiness is based on self-knowledge, and not on social trends. The Impact of Looking Within: While our self-image is internal, it bleeds into the external world. Low self-esteem can lead to social withdrawal, impacting relationships and productivity. By cultivating the inner strength to exist despite the external significance, we can reduce its overall influence on our mentality by refusing to comply and submit to it. When you fully understand every part of yourself you are less likely to be impacted by the world around you. You can become more sure of yourself, and your assertiveness can be used as protection. From Apathy to Empathy: In a world defined by its general apathy to individuals, it's often unrealistic to expect empathy from others, and that especially includes strangers and those who refuse to understand us properly. If anything, the best thing we could do is to not be disappointed by this fact, but work towards giving empathy to ourselves. To accept ourselves despite our flaws, and choose to work on these flaws should we ever decide to. We do not have to fully accept our flaws when we can muster, by desire, to change these flaws through training and discipline. Either way much of our ability to empathize with ourselves depends on our resolve to do so. We're the first people who can love our own selves. Health Beyond Appearance: Health is crucial for a productive society, and body positivity can be a gateway to healthier choices. When we accept our current state of our bodies, we're more likely to take care of our bodies – physically and mentally -- to preserve it. Role model Kim Alexis claims: "I remember trying every fad diet … starving myself for four days in a row. I remember trying the Atkins diet, which was low carbohydrate, high protein. If I didn’t drop ten pounds in a week, I was on to another diet. I think I was a normal person before I started screwing around with all these diets.... [I've suffered] long-term health effects from the crazy diets.” Breaking the Materialistic Machine: Society isn't just a "profit machine." It thrives on a diverse and fulfilled population, who can contribute to others despite financial profit being made. Body positivity empowers individuals to pursue their passions. Our bodies are there as tools to help us achieve our hopes and dreams, and it's why the body is capable of much adaptability. Part III: Reframing the Discourse Let's shift the focus from body image to a healthier lifestyle. Encouraging healthy habits – whether we're individuals talking to friends, parents raising kids, teachers guiding students, or content creators influencing followers – is a far more productive approach. Over time, this can positively impact body image on a broader scale, than trying to be pleasing to the demands of large-scale organizations and corporations. They don't necessarily care about your individual uniqueness, as much as they seek to turn a profit like the average business. Here are points to consider for a healthier mindset, which can improve body image more effectively: Obsession vs. Appreciation: Constantly obsessing over minor imperfections is a drain on time and energy. However, a healthy level of self-awareness is important. The key lies in appreciating our bodies for what they can do, rather than solely focusing on appearance. By improving our self esteem we can live in greater harmony with our imperfections. We could also thrive alongside them, if they don't serve as significant obstacles in our path to self-actualization Criticizing the Ideal Body Myth: The concept of an "ideal" body is a cultural mirage that won't necessarily bring you the happiness you seek. Firstly, there's no universal standard for beauty, as different cultures, and individuals have varying preferences. Some women, for example, were found to be attracted more to overweight men. That's despite the fact that an ideal, stereotypical body isn't overweight. Imagine showing people from around the world a range of physiques – who they find attractive will differ greatly. In Tajikistan, for example, unibrows are considered a "symbol of feminine beauty and purity". Conversely, fashion models who appear unhealthily thin in Western cultures are stereotypically presented as the epitome of female beauty. We can therefore deduce that an "ideal body" is not objective but is subject to perception. Understanding Modeling: Models showcase clothing, not human ideals. They're essentially "human clothes hangers." They are there to influence you to buy clothing and accessories, not to tell you what you should become or look like. They are there to inspire you to buy, not to inspire you to follow their example, as the default definition of a role model suggests. They only necessarily model appearance. The rest of their functionality is attributed subjectively. While modeling can be lucrative, it doesn't contribute significantly to society beyond vanity. There are far more impactful and valuable ways to contribute to the world. As such, pure beauty deserves to be criticized. The Delusion of Looks: People can be delusional about their appearance in both positive and negative ways. Some believe they need improvement despite being attractive to many people, while others believe they deserve admiration for external qualities that aren't there. However, to play the devil's advocate, delusions can be used as a self-defense mechanism. To quote Jess C. Scott: “What’s the whole point of being pretty on the outside when you’re so ugly on the inside?” Conclusions Ultimately, the choice on our bodies, both in perception and action, is ours. We can succumb to unrealistic beauty standards, or we can cultivate a healthy self-image that values our bodies for their capabilities and focuses on overall well-being. To expand and utilize our lifespan and our mental health, we can promote healthy living and self-acceptance. We can work towards a society where everyone thrives, not just in terms of social worth, but in all aspects of life. Our choice forever begins on the individual's consent. Respecting other people is also expressed by respecting their consent. Your self-worth is defined by the width of your belly only if you choose to. With your permission you can choose to focus on other aspects of who you are, such as the strength of your will and the vastness of your potential. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback You begin to understand self worth when you start to fully understand yourself and what you have to offer to the world. When you realize stuff of this nature, people's opinions mean little as they can’t take away from facts. It really does boil down to presenting yourself in a way that you want other people to see and think of you as. Any time you let others decide your worth you will always be in for a disappointment. Create a value that other people can’t so easily deny.

(Philosocom's Directory on AI) (Background music) Definition of Machinery A robot is a mechanical being, an entity that is not organic at all, excluding cyborgs, which are only partially mechanical. The difference between a robot and a machine, like the device you are using to read this article, is that robots are autonomous to an extent, either partially or completely. However, both a robot and a machine can be programmed far better than humans. The term robot stems from the Chezch word, Robota, which means forced labor, or enslavement. Now that we have defined what a robot is, let us proceed with today's missive. Main Points I believe that robots are one of the greatest problems of the far future, and it is not necessarily because of the lives they can take or the jobs they can replace. A robot can technically look like anyone and anything, which means that robotics has the potential to deceive anyone, should this field reach a state where it could develop and produce imitations of anything alive (or maybe objects, as well, for that matter). Thus, a robot can be the ultimate deceiver. Firstly, imagine a scenario where a robot is designed to mimic the appearance, behavior, and communication style of a loved one or a close friend. This robot could interact with you in such a convincing manner that you may not even realize it is not the actual person. It could use its advanced artificial intelligence to learn about the person's preferences, memories, and mannerisms, allowing it to deceive you into believing it is the real person. Secondly, consider a situation where a robot is programmed to imitate a public figure, such as a politician or a celebrity. This robot could attend public events, give speeches, and interact with the media, all while convincingly portraying the personality and characteristics of the real person. It could manipulate public opinion, influence decision-making processes, and even engage in deceptive activities without anyone suspecting its true identity. Thirdly, imagine that a child of yours is gone missing, but you wouldn't know about it because its robotic clone will deceive you away from that possibility. Who says that there is need for a "soul" in order for a machine to do exactly that, exactly as it was programmed to? Why should the existence of a "soul" or the lack of it, somehow influence the ability of a highly complex robot, to make you believe that it has a "soul"? These examples highlight the potential dangers of advanced robotic technology and the need for vigilance in distinguishing between humans and robots in the future. Forget the cliché that a robot is some metallic-looking machine that speaks funny, as that cliché is as stereotypical as green aliens with giant black eyes riding on saucer-like UFOs. Just like anyone can impersonate any person online, something that scammers do, there could be a future where robots would have the capacity to impersonate real people and pretend that they are not mechanical. The reason this is a threat for the far future is because of the creators' intent when making them. Imagine robots who can look like someone you know, act like them, communicate like them, distract you from their true intentions, and assassinate you when you least expect it. Back at university, where I studied the Philosophy of the Mind, I recall learning about an analogy made by Wittgenstein. According to this analogy, we can't really know whether people have minds. This thought experiment is known as the Beetle-in-the-box. Maybe they don't have minds, because how can one know when all you see is a face? Maybe you have a mind or a consciousness, but it does not mean anyone else, other than you, has. Maybe inanimate objects do have minds or souls, according to folklore religions, but according to Wittgenstein or to this analogy at least, we have really no way to know. Maybe you have that box which contains a butterfly, but the fact that you may see others with similar boxes, does not mean that they contain butterflies, so, there's really no way to know, unless the box is opened. Some people believe robots do not have "souls" or are inanimate. If souls are metaphors, we might as well insert what these metaphors mean, into the robot. I'm not really going to go down that route, because I don't think it really matters. Just bear in mind that some funerals were and are made for robots such as mechanical dogs, which could indicate that, at least in some opinions, some machines do have souls, and yes, I looked that up. Let's say that there will be an age where robots will be able to be designed exactly like a human.' This would not only question the ongoing functionality of reproduction but would also surpass the potential liability of genetics. No more intercourses, no more pregnancy, and no more genetic downsides, necessary for the creation of humans. Who said humans have to be biological, or completely biological? What if we'll be able to order a human, who would be exactly like an original, organic human, but only original and not organic? Why is the biological component so important in determining the worth of a being, if that being can be far better, or at least to one's original design and wishes? The idea that robots are often perceived as lacking humanity, who lack no "soul" and no personality, either isn't completely true, or doesn't have to be true at all, in the future. I don't know how a biological consciousness is formed, and perhaps no one does, according to my academic studies at the time, but bear in mind that it can still be imitated mechanically. How? I'm not a roboticist, but I do know that artificial intelligence can learn from past experiences, just like we do. I even managed to write short stories with the help of A.I, which probably learned how to cooperate according to my inputs, using its experiences with many other users. Look at it like a tank and a tankman. The tank is capable of movement and operation, but the one behind it is its "mind", or the tankman. A human imitation, or a mechanical human, could be the same -- an artificial intelligence software, installed within a mechanical body that appears very identical, if not completely identical, to a human being. Consider the implications of this idea, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps in the far future, any robot could be designed, both visually and psychologically, to be someone you know and/or hold dear, but only a replacement, without you knowing. Imagine that there are elections and one of the candidates is nothing more than a robotic impersonator of the original. Conclusions Whether or not souls exist, we must prepare for a farther future where such advanced robotic technology will exist, and not be a sci-fi concept anymore. We should consider developing ways to see the "beetle" that lies in a box that might as well be mechanical. Why? Because that future could be grim and ruin our trust in other human beings, as they might as well not be organic, but mechanical, and as a result, could be programmed with hidden motives. Parents, partners, friends, all could one day be nothing more than killer robots, programmed just like said people, only to distract you from the truth. And as truth seekers, as philosophers, we can consider being less trusting of other beings, the more technologically advanced humanity gets, and likewise, robotic technology, design, and intelligence. It's just like on the internet, but mechanical, and as a result, potentially far better at the job of deception. And finally, I am aware that my readers are not robots, especially those whom I'm in greater contact with. As a young man, I know that this awareness might decrease with time, assuming I'll live long enough, to see "robot humans". If you're younger than most, like I am, I'd suggest considering this approach too. So, make sure your new wife isn't a metallic product of some shady corporation. You might regret it later on, just saying. Case Examples: https://futurism.com/meet-jia-jia-chinas-super-realistic-humanoid-robot https://www.hansonrobotics.com/sophia/ Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Robots have the same problem as AI in that they can only do what they are programmed to. They are mostly created to do jobs which humans either don’t want to do, or which an AI might do better. It eliminates a certain percentage of human error. Would an easy fix to uncover the potentiality of a robot existence be as simple as asking them questions no computer can answer. What’s the weather making you feel like? A robot’s response would sound rehearsed, whereas a human possesses the ability to add vivid imagery to their responses. Plus, another sign would be in the imperfections you see in your interaction. Humans make mistakes. Simple as a stutter or sneeze or itch. There are certain things robot’s can’t mimic. There is a reason why robots won’t ever be opted over humans. Yes, they might allow you to be in multiple places at the same time. Think of the potential of a chip where you can see through the eyes of any of your robots. But simply seeing a video doesn’t give you the full human experience. Humans like to be active, so why would we want a robot to do anything for us? It's along the lines of a friend telling you about going to an amusement park. Your robot's actions would be considered your actions, but you would still remain depersonalized from it. Plus, robots would never be able to surprise you as none of their actions would be random, a human trait. Keep in mind that robots are intended to replace humans in the job market, Making it vitally important to be properly educated in a field which robots can’t. Surgeons or any other technical field would still need humans. So, all robots did was raise the bar in the labor market. [Their existence] force people to learn in order to survive. [You] can’t tell me though you aren’t at least a bit relieved you aren’t forced to do the same mundane tasks they had to do 100 years ago. Can’t really call it a debate because technology has already surpassed every single human out there. Really mundane tasks have stopped needing to be done by humans. Has the implementation of robots not made your life better off? Also, you must realize that robots are all around you. Electronics which can perform tasks, just can’t do anything which it isn’t told to do. Your computer is a robot of sorts as it can do many things, except it requires a user to tell it what to do. Be the same with all futuristic types of thoughts on robots. You're onto something that the actual issue is an appearance one. Out of fear of cancel culture, no company would dare make a robot which looks like a human. Think about all the people out there who are afraid of robots which look like humans. How many tv shows and movies have been made which discuss that exact thing? There is too much of a theology issue by making anything which replicates a human, visually that is. They already can make a robot which looks exactly like a human. Again, [it] goes back to the cancel culture thing with no company wanting to be the first to touch that "can of worms" [that would destroy their own reputation].

Subcategory Directory: How to Think Like a Competent Villain On the Incompetence of Others -- How to Use Logic to Retain Your Own Competence The A.I Philosopher -- How A.I Could Even Replace Human Philosophers (And How to Compete As Humans) Autism and Social Incompetence -- How My Ethics Stand in the Way, As Well The Usefulness of Human Beings -- Why Anyone Could be Useful When Are Guilt and Shame Useful and When They Aren't (By Mr. M. Svartgold) The Philosophy of The Mastermind -- How to Become One https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-brainrot https://www.philosocom.com/post/mad-genius https://www.philosocom.com/post/secret-life https://www.philosocom.com/post/melancholy https://www.philosocom.com/post/doronbo-gang The Philosophy of Law Enforcement: Ethics, Power, and the Burden of the Badge The Architecture of Individuality: How to Stop Being Expendable Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "On 'Correct', 'Competent' Philosophies -- In Quest For the Ideal Philosophy (And Directory On Competency)" presents an ambitious exploration of developing an ideal and competent philosophy. It presents a well-thought-out framework and attempts to define the essential components of such a philosophy, while emphasizing the necessity of intellectual humility and critical thinking. Positive aspects of the article include its ambitious scope and thoughtfulness, its emphasis on logical consistency, correspondence with reality, and the ability to provide fulfillment, and its focus on practical utility. The article also critiques idealization and fanaticism, highlighting the dangers of blind acceptance of ideas and advocating for skepticism, critical thinking, and self-reflection. In conclusion, the article provides a stimulating exploration of the quest for a competent and ideal philosophy, presenting a thorough set of criteria that such a philosophy should meet. It highlights the importance of evidence, logical coherence, and practicality, as well as the dangers of blind belief and fanaticism. (Background music) Introduction Most philosophers agree about most things; that Trump is an odious incompetent, that the climate emergency is real and drastic, that Mozart is better than the Bee Gees, that coffee is a basic human right, that *** smells, and the pope is Catholic. And all that goes without saying, so the stuff you get to hear about [where disagreements are made] is the odd region where things are as yet undecided. -- "unenlightened", The Philosophy Forum A "correct" philosophy can be known as a philosophy that is most likely to reach the truth with the greatest likelihood. Such a philosophy would be so likely accurate, that it would be able to overcome the ease of being disagreed upon. As one would know, philosophers can rarely have a complete agreement over any philosophy. This is why so many philosophies and philosophers are criticized and even lambasted despite the length of sensibility a philosophical theory might have. However, have we ever considered an exception to that rule? Have we considered the idea of a philosophy so sensible that very few, who are well versed in philosophy, would completely agree with each other on? In theory, making such a philosophical theory/idea would require much dedication, much mastery, that it would take much practice to assemble together, for both the scholarly and the intuitively gifted (AKA the "Sorcerer" and "Wizard" factions). Given the hardship of ever reaching such a complex and skillful notion, there is no wonder intellectual humility is such an important virtue in any intellectual field, and in philosophical research in particular. The Ingredients in Question.. I would like to suggest a methodology towards crafting the most ideal philosophical theory on any subject whatsoever. When crafting the "ideal theory", it should possess all the following traits: Correspondence: This philosophy would be based on evidence from the field that it is concerned with. It would also be based on research and personal experience to strengthen its logic, making it difficult to refute that logic by trying to contradict it. To further reinforce it, and steer it away from the Anecdotal Fallacy, it should also be based on the personal experience of others throughout the world as well, with evidence that can be verified. The most reliable evidence would be able to be verified by different disciplines, strengthening the main argument of the theory overall. Such correspondence would go with the idea that the universe is unified by logic. Logical consistency: A philosophical argument is built on premises, which are composed of claims. The arguments of the philosophy would be based on consistent and logical claims, which would not contradict themselves, and would be rational and convincing. It would not contain any paradoxes, since paradoxes would severely damage the stability of that philosophy's logic. Furthermore, it should be completely pure of any fallacies, both common in their recognition, and both in fallacies that might not be well known (AKA, devised by philosophers of their respective contemporary times). Beneficial: It is possible to say that there are two types of philosophies: one that is only meant for the sake of philosophizing and little or nothing more, and a philosophy that can be practical when encountering life and its various problems (Like Taoism and personal philosophies). The "ideal philosophy" philosophy should be able to answer not only philosophical questions, but also daily and global ones, that can help those who follow it to navigate the currents of existence. In other words, it would be a philosophy with a great deal of relevance applicable to people across all walks of life. Fulfilling: That philosophy should, above all, provide meaning for its followers, and not only a short-term meaning, but a grand, existential one. It should, for instance, be able to answer and attack the logic of nihilism, which claims that life is objectively meaningless. This is something many would agree upon simply due to lack of evidence against it (AKA The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy). In this case, it should motivate people to continue to live and even assist them to stay away from suffering thoughts and such tendencies. Hard to refute, such philosophy would be able to effectively fulfill the problematic voids that allow such philosophies to endure and be widespread in agreement. Convincing: It should be able to be practiced not only by intellectuals and philosophers, but also be approachable to the common people, who do not indulge in intellectual or philosophical matters on a regular basis. That way, even an individual of lesser intelligence would be able to understand at least a small portion of it, without the need to indulge in its complex components. In other words, such philosophy would be able to convince even those who avoid philosophy due to apathy, lack or intellect, or due to the "Bored Man Fallacy". Maximizing: An ideal philosophy should encourage people to bring out the best in themselves, develop into ideal optimal selves without overly sacrificing their health, and enhance their talents to new levels. This would make society much more productive and fulfilled than it already is, prevent stagnation, and motivate people to be more moral. In other words, such a philosophy should be able to effectively maximize the virtues found within ourselves and within our work and behavior. Criticizing My Own Methodology Among thousands of comrades, among ten thousand enemies, only you, only you, only you made me forget my dream. ...I sacrifice. -- Griffith, Berserk The question is, is it possible to invent such an ideal philosophy? That is, a philosophy that meets all of these conditions optimally, with minimal flaws that would make it easily vulnerable to sensible criticism of both geniuses and regular folk alike? Furthermore, it is important to be able to distinguish between a philosophy of this kind, and a philosophy that is merely presented to you as ideal. When a philosophy is presented as supreme above other philosophies, it is highly advised to be critical, or else you may be vulnerable to being brainwashed, deceived, and manipulated. This is why a truly ideal philosophy isn't to be taken lightly, and isn't to be accepted so quickly. Negative, it should be examined for any flaws that would deem it very much imperfect. Presentation, especially through rhetoric, is quick to deceive the most faithful of people in it. Hence the danger of fanaticism. And of course, a philosophy presented as such as ideal, could be very destructive, shooting itself in its own foot, in the embodiment of the followers which practice it. You can see this in the fall of the Scientology Church. In theory, many organizations, countries and businesses succeeded and failed based on their organizational philosophy, for instance. The Functionality of the Truth When we fail to act accordingly to the truth, we would only deter ourselves to the change we wish to see in this world. After all, truth is but a component of execution. The truth is the key for one to make informed decisions, which is one of the basic expressions of the logical being. When you underestimate, overestimate or completely ignore reality, you could lead people to unexpected, difficult failures. These failures can be avoided through flaw-detection and through critics who are capable of making sensible counterarguments. Many people who accept the philosophy of their choice as ideal and the most correct are, usually, those who are cult members and people who do not use the art of doubt to free themselves from incorrect, perception-restricting approaches to life. I find this problematic in the world of religions, for instance, hindering the pro-philosophical function. Under the wrong hands in positions of authority, this can lead to them losing their individuality, and perhaps even their property and money. Conclusions We shouldn't trust in those who offer us the exact, absolute truth. Putting our trust without examination is an unlucky move. On the other hand, when we refuse learning from anything and anyone, we technically deter ourselves from our own research (Conventional or otherwise). Ideally, any idea must be examined and verified before being accepted as accurate. The same weight of consideration should then be amplified at the sight of those who claim to possess an ideal philosophy in whatever field that philosophy may be about. As ad-hominem as it may sound to you, marketing is a double-edged sword that can be used be skilful people to hide their ulterior motives. There is a certain saying: "Do not view anything to be a Torah from Mount Sinai." This means: do not fall into the trap of blind belief or faith. Instead, work to improve your logical skills, and you will become independent from possible enslaving and deceiving theories of the power-hungry and of the megalomaniacs.

(Philosocom Success Subcategory) (Philosocom's Directory on Failure) (Background music) A street survivalist who rarely shows himself. Despite his appearance, he's actually fairly rich. -- The Sujimon Sujidex (A Fictional Directory for "Super Jittery Men" on this "Sujimon", Yakuza 7: Like a Dragon) The "Invested Vagabond" is a very special enemy in one of the video games I've been playing recently. I'm bringing this character up because of the symbolism I find within him. The "Invested Vagabond" is your archetypical hermit from days of old. Think Yoda or Obi-Wan from Star Wars—that's the guy, with the same old rags and all. The thing is, the game he's in is not some sci-fi world or a fantasy world, but instead in contemporary Japan. He has a cane and his appearance is dirty, with a wild-looking face like a caveman. Compared to the other enemies in the game, which are already unique, the Invested Vagabond is different, but not in an edgy or pretentious way. He looks like he belongs in a cave rather than the underground of a Japanese city where he dwells. In short, he is like the Hermit in the respective tarot card within a contemporary setting. The Invested Vagabond is a special enemy because he is a symbol of challenge and investment. He takes interest in each fight he appears in, or else he would stay in the shadows where recluses like him choose to belong. If you manage to defeat him, which is difficult regardless of your power, he will give you a lot of rewards. However, if he loses interest in the fight, he will run away like a coward, never to return during that fight. For some reason, he is extremely resilient. No matter how good your weapon is, each hit will only make him lose a tiny portion of his health bar. There appears to be nothing you can do to increase the damage dealt to him, but pure chance of a deadly strike. In more advanced terms, he is basically a "Tank", or a character whose purpose is to absorb damage while the other characters on his side attack you with less risk of being hurt themselves. He is both a hermit and someone with great contribution to any fight he decides to join. He can be a frustrating figure. You can invest the majority of your fight in trying to defeat him, only for him to eventually decide to ditch the fight, thus wasting your time and effort. If he ditches the fight, there is nothing you can do to prevent or restore his decision. Other than that, he is largely absent, found almost entirely in the deep underground network of a Japanese city featured in the game, making him a relatively rare encounter. The Invested Vagabond is a symbol of challenge and investment. He is a test of your skill, patience, and willingness to risk failure in favor of great bonuses. He is also a reminder that the rewards of success are often worth the risk. Since some rewards deserve to have resources sacrificed for, some risks are worthy to be taken. If you defeat him while in battle, your reward is guaranteed -- a chance of becoming significantly stronger from the particular fight. If you are willing enough to take the challenge of defeating, then you should do so, even when the odds are basically against you, due to his possible decision to ditch the fight at any time. It could be in a minute or two, but regardless, it is essentially fighting against a randomized limit that can be over at any time. Similar to real life, when contacts may ghost you no matter how much you care for them. A sad reality. The reason why he reminds me of a certain person, is because they both chose to ditch me, and in both cases, I cannot do anything to restore it. If I did things otherwise, perhaps she would continue to stay in my life to this very day. Unrequited love may happen when you make the wrong choices with the other person. Stalking, as presented in this story, is a dangerous, irrational way of loving someone. And it won't get the other person to love you back, either. Love has its own share of wise and unwise decisions, even if it "breeds madness" Even in the irrationality of love, one must make wise decisions, and wise decisions are made by rationality. It is known as practical reasoning. As such, there is also wise planning that can defeat this Vagabond enemy more quickly, thus reducing the chance of them escaping. Practical reasoning applies in both departments, whether one is invested in love or in gaming. And like with the Invested Vagabond, it can be too late. I can only imagine the opportunities I would've had if I had made certain decisions at certain moments before her departure. If I only said one word instead of the other, one thing instead of what I actually said, then perhaps my life would've been different. And yet, love clouds our judgement, as it did with mine. The Invested Vagabond was invested in the fights he featured in, just as the few women I've had in my life were invested in mine. Somehow, I've failed both kinds often. This enemy symbolizes the guilt of a missed opportunity that will never return (unless you fight another Vagabond in his stead later in your adventure to the depths of the underground). But unlike video game enemies, each woman is a unique person. Watching the cursed Vagabond appear before me, I can't help but feel melancholy, whether or not I manage to actually beat him in a fight. If I fail, I will be reminded of my own failure as a man; if I beat him, I will be reminded that I could have done other things in my own life to "win" the hearts of the very few loved ones I had in my life. A love interest is a special someone, just like this enemy, and even more than him. They are not to be taken lightly, both because of their potential, and because of how easily that potential can slip away, like sand in the wind. No matter how much you invest yourself in them, nothing will ensure their presence in your company. However, should you manage to "win," then they can change your world, transform you, and make you more experienced ("leveled-up" in gaming terminology). It is never easy... Due to the uncertainty of romantic relationships, I've decided to stop looking for them for around 8 years of my life, simply because of how unstable they can be, both practically and emotionally. I didn't want to be "invested" in them because that opportunity could easily go down the drain, along with all the investment I myself have made in them. Failure is so frustrating. This enemy is an incarnated oxymoron—a great and wasteful opportunity at the same time. If you invest too much of your time in him, he may escape while the other enemies beat you down without your retaliation, as your retaliation has been invested in him, not them. Imagine being so close to defeating him, only to find him escaping. By the same token, imagine nurturing a connection with a woman, only to find out she ghosted you, despite the time and efforts you put into her. Both cases remind us of how powerless we are against two things: Chance/luck, and the heart of another. In true love, you must accept the reality of another. And if they leave your presence permanently, the most painful aspect in true love is to let go. It's all up to your priorities and your philosophy in life, whether to invest or not in others on a deeper level. Investment, in general, is a gamble. Hence the practicality of philosophy in general—it helps you live better and in line with the truths of life. Perhaps, there are times where gambling resources, even if the only resource is time itself, is worth the bother. The choice is up to you. Either focus on making attempts, even if you fail, or choose to retreat to only that which is certain even if those are less bountiful. If we are prepared for yet another failure, we may not be as disappointed as otherwise.

(For more on religion, here are some materials I wrote: https://www.philosocom.com/post/thoughts-on-prayer https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-religion-and-democracy-struggle) Synopsis by Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac The article discusses the Shinto religion, a prominent Japanese faith that emphasizes rituals and respect for the kami (spirits) in the natural world. It compares this with Western religions like Christianity and Islam, promoting a sense of community and respect for diverse perspectives. Shinto's unique blend of religious practice and atheism allows it to coexist with other belief systems, such as Buddhism and Confucianism. The article highlights the importance of Shinto's emphasis on practice over belief, personal responsibility, and community service. (Background music) Shinto: A Path Without Dogma, Beyond Belief The Shinto religion stands apart from many others in its remarkable freedom. Unlike its Western counterparts, built on singular divine authorities and core beliefs, Shinto offers a path without inflexible dogma or mandatory beliefs. Its essence lies not in unwavering faith, but in the practice of ceremonies and rituals. This characteristic makes Shinto particularly fascinating, especially when compared to Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam, where faith is the cornerstone of adherence. In Japan, where Shinto is the most practiced religion (while having some presence overseas), many individuals engage in its rituals and customs without necessarily subscribing to its specific beliefs. This disconnect, uncommon in other religions, highlights the unique flexibility and adaptability of Shinto. An Unbound Path, A Web of Spirits, and A Nation's Folklore Shinto, the "Way of the Gods," expresses a different kind of truth. Unlike the rigid structures of many religions, it offers an unbound path, less concerned with unwavering faith and more with the practice of rituals and respect for the countless spirits, the kami, that weave through the fabric of existence. Your faith, or lack thereof, matters less than the deep respect Shinto compels you show to these invisible forces, each a supervisor of some aspect of life. The Shinto rituals are but a way to show respect to these spirits. This lack of dogma and central authority sets Shinto apart. No founders, no prophets, no afterlife rewards or punishments. Just a vibrant tapestry of shrines scattered across Japan and in some places around the world. There is even one in a small European country called San Marino. Each one of these a haven for a specific kami. From the bustling streets of Tokyo to the serene slopes of Mount Fuji, these spirits, the kami, are said to exist alongside us, guiding and influencing our lives. These havens are also meant to serve as links between the earthly realm and supposed spiritual realms. During World War II, this reverence for the kami reached a great peak, with the Emperor himself declared a living kami, an embodiment of the divine. Generally, the Japanese Imperial Family is considered to be descendent of the Kami themselves. With the fall of the Japanese Empire by the allied powers, Emperor Hirohito had to issue the Humanity Declaration, denouncing his divinity. This unique position, though no longer officially recognized, still resonates with some Shinto sects, Japanese monarchs as divine, like with the Shinto Taikyo sect. But Shinto's true strength lies in its adaptability. Its open embrace of other philosophies, like Buddhism and Confucianism, allows it to coexist and even blend seamlessly with other belief systems. This flexibility fosters a sense of community and respect for diverse perspectives. Arguably, the practice of Shinto rituals can be compared to mindfulness meditation, which allows us to appreciate the many features of existence and even potentially solve the Paradise Paradox. In essence, Shinto offers a path without pressure, a faith/religion without dogma. It's a vibrant meditation of spirits, mindfulness towards of existence, a celebration of tradition, and an excellent way to nurture respect towards your surroundings. Unveiling the Kami, Spirits of Shinto Imagine a world unseen, a layer of reality woven with invisible threads. In this realm, according to Shinto, dwell the kami, countless spirits that infuse every aspect of life, according to Shinto philosophy. Their presence is said to permeate the universe, governing it. Even a force of nature can be regarded as a kami. The number of kami is as vast as the imagination itself. Some estimate it to be around 8 million, even though that number is actually associated with infinity. This can serve reflection of the boundless energy that flows through the cosmos, symbolizing the infinity of the universe. Whether one can actually directly communicate with these spirits remains a mystery, but Shinto offers a path to influence their impact through rituals and festivals. These vibrant ceremonies are not simply displays of cultural heritage; they are a bridge between the seen and unseen, a way to express gratitude, seek blessings, and maintain harmony with the kami (which can be seen as: Maintaining harmony with reality). Offerings of rice wine, music, and dance create a sacred space where humans and spirits commune, forging a connection that is supposed to transcend the limitations of our physical senses. The Emphasis on Practice The relationship between Shinto and its practitioners is fascinatingly unique. Many who participate in Shinto rituals and visit shrines do not necessarily identify as strict followers. As such, Japan is one of the most atheistic countries in the world. Ironically, yet factually, this does not contradict the fact that Shintoism has an overall following of a little bit over 100 million. This means that, in a rare exception, you can be both a religious devotee and an atheist. This may seem ironic, especially when compared to religions like Judaism, where outward expressions of faith are often deeply intertwined with personal beliefs.. This difference speaks to the core of Shinto's philosophy. It is less about subscribing to a specific set of doctrines and more about living in harmony with the natural world and the spirits that inhabit it. Respectful conduct, honoring traditions, and participating in rituals are seen as ways to cultivate a life of balance and well-being. Shintoism teaches us that we can practice morality, like respect, without the needing of having specific beliefs or feelings, as morality can be practiced with technique. As such, you can even be "dead inside" and still be a respectful, moral human being. It's a matter of choice, of conduct, while the person behind it, stands pale in comparison. A Philosopher's Enchantment with Polytheism As a philosopher, I've been exploring the vast collections of human belief systems, resorting once to even have a conversation with a self-identifying sociopath in order to understand their mentality. Polytheism, with its multitude of gods and deities, offers a unique perspective on the divine. It allows for individual interpretations, acknowledging the diversity of human experience and the multifaceted nature of the universe. In contrast, the Abrahamic religions, with their singular God and systems of reward and punishment, present a more structured and codified approach to faith. While both hold profound truths and offer paths to meaning, the flexibility and inclusivity of Shinto's polytheistic framework can be particularly captivating. Exploring the Unseen Shinto invites us to peek beyond the veil of the material world, to consider the possibility of a reality that's filled with unseen forces. It is a call to appreciate the interconnectedness of all things, to cultivate a sense of reverence for the natural world, and to engage in practices that foster harmony and balance. Whether or not you choose to embrace its tenets, Shinto teaches us that the universe may hold more mysteries than we can ever truly fathom, justifying the rationale behind Socrates' self-professed ignorance. A Gentle Path of Harmony Shintoism stands apart from many religions in its refreshing lack of dogma and emphasis on personal responsibility. Unlike Abrahamic faiths with their rigid doctrines and concepts of sin and punishment, Shinto offers a gentler path, weaving together reverence for nature, community service, and self-improvement. As such, according to the Shinto Online Network Association: the Shinto concept of the sin and also the concept of the Shinto ethics have no identical difference from the secular sin or social ethics is taught through the social education in order to support the continuous development of the community. While Shinto acknowledges the concept of misfortune, it doesn't frame it as divine retribution. Instead, it emphasizes restoring harmony with the kami, the spirits that permeate the natural world. This restoration comes not through penance or guilt, but through proactive acts of good: participating in community festivals, volunteering at shrines, or simply showing respect for the natural world. Unlike religions with strict doctrines and centralized authorities, Shinto does not pressure to conform to many rigid beliefs, and rituals and ceremonies are often open to anyone, regardless of personal beliefs of any kind. All you are required to do is to perform the ceremonies and maintain your dignity. This openness makes Shinto one of the most tolerant and inclusive religions in the world, fostering a sense of community and respect for diverse perspectives. As a philosopher, I appreciate Shinto's focus on personal responsibility and self-cultivation. It aligns with the core philosophical pursuit of understanding the world and ourselves, and finding ways to live a meaningful and fulfilling life. Shinto's emphasis on harmony with nature resonates with ecological philosophies, while its emphasis on community service echoes social and ethical philosophies.

(Philosocom's Subcategory On Religion) (Background music) Defining Gods Whether or not we believe in the existence of one or more gods, there is no denying that gods are often depicted as magical beings. They are often said to be able to manipulate time and space, tell the future, and have many other supernatural powers. Therefore, we can say that the existence of magic is sometimes seen as imperative to the existence of gods. If one believes in one or more gods, one may believe in the existence of magic. So, if we wish to determine whether divine beings exist, we must first determine if there is such a thing as magic. What is magic? It is not the same as the tricks performed by modern-day "magicians." Magic is the ability to manipulate or alter existence using one or more supernatural powers. Teleportation, time travel, omnipresence, and so on -- gods, whether created by mankind or actually existing, may be said to possess magical powers in order to exist. Otherwise, they would not be the all-powerful entities that they are said to be. And the difference between supernatural beings such as gods, and other such entities, associated with the paranormal, is that they are not as divine. Thus, in order for an entity to be deemed a god, they must possess supernatural abilities and be divine. In Indian culture, you may be deemed divine or godlike should you possess certain moral qualities. Of course, it does not mean you are a supernatural being, so even if you may be respected to the point of being called a "God", you lack supernaturality, for you are a mortal being just like me and any other human. Epistemology I am a rationalist and an empiricist. I believe that knowledge is derived from both experience and logic. I have never encountered any supernatural entities or witnessed any of their powers, so I do not believe in magic. However, since having an open mind is key to understanding reality, I will give this the benefit of the doubt. Either way, I theorize that the concept of magic was created in order to explain the unknown. In the past, people did not have the scientific knowledge to explain natural phenomena, such as lightning and thunder. So, they created gods and other supernatural beings to explain these phenomena. Today, we have a much better understanding of the natural world. We know that lightning is caused by the build-up of electrical charge in the atmosphere, and that thunder is the sound of that charge being released. We no longer need to rely on gods to explain these phenomena. The Abrahamic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, promote the idea of the most ultimate god ever imaginable: Yahweh, or simply God in English. Who is God? If he exists, he is thus the most ultimate magician in the universe, responsible not only for one thing like a Thunder or a War God, but literally for everything that was ever made, is being made, and will be made. If existent, then there is no true entity more powerful than an omnipotent being, who possesses many other omni-based abilities. Being omnipotent is enough to have all the power imaginable (and beyond comprehension). Because of such ultimate responsibility, logic dictates that it would take an immense amount of evidence to prove that Yahweh created the stars, the sky, every material, every organic being, and so on. That includes any other omni-based power, that stems from omnipotence. This sheer amount of responsibility that takes to prove so much as created by said entity is one of the reasons why I am, personally at least, still an atheist. I don't only not believe in the concept of magic as something that exists like anything else that is more taken-for-granted. That's because there is so much to prove that was created by the Abrahamic God, that I find it immensely difficult to believe in them. This brings us to the question: Does magic exist? Remember, if we are to find the idea of one or more gods a realistic idea, we need to also find magic as just that: an idea that is just as plausible as anything else that we find plausible. There will be, of course, people who will tell you that supernaturality exists; that there are or were certain creatures such as goblins, giants, and ghosts that were recorded in human history. But let us not forget that our perception can deceive us as much as it can help us find the truth. Hallucinations, for example, are a prime way our mind deludes us into believing there is something in our sight or senses that isn't actually there. This is an experience that can be realized by taking psychedelic drugs or by suffering from starvation, or by having mental disorders such as schizophrenia. So, should we trust a starved or a drugged-infused man, or people such as scientists and philosophers? Of course, everyone should have their story told, but not every story is necessarily correct even if one strongly believes it is. Thus, not every personal source deserves to be deemed reliable, unfortunately. As I learned more and more about logic, I eventually realized that we humans are not purely logical beings, and are prone to constant mistakes in our estimations. Perhaps most of us know that the law should not be broken, but what are the odds the "average" person will know when they are making a logical fallacy such as ad hominem or ad populum? Logic, therefore, is to be learned, like any other field of knowledge. It is quite embarrassing to see how regularly these two fallacies are made. It only shows the importance of learning them in order to enhance our understanding of reality. If we talk about gods and logical fallacies, perhaps the biggest logical fallacy when it comes to gods is the Ad Infinitum fallacy. The belief that everything has to have a predecessor implies that even cosmic creators need to have one/s as well. The problem is, even when a predecessor to a cosmic creator is found, we must not forget that even that predecessor itself needs another predecessor, and the list goes on infinitely. This is the problem that I and perhaps many others find with the concept of creationism: we eventually have to consider the possibility that there is no definitive start to everything. This is why it is possible that the universe is simply infinite not only in space, but in time as well, and why time itself is eternal. Conclusion In order to determine the existence of gods, three things are imperative: 1. We must determine the existence of magic, as gods are magical beings. It's a given that all gods are divine. 2. We need to decide whether or not the universe has to have a definitive, ultimate beginning, in order for it to exist. 3. If the universe does have a definitive beginning, we must decide if it was created by either a magical entity or by scientific, physical reasons. The third point is only relevant if the universe does indeed have a definitive beginning. If the universe is not infinite in its history, we must decide if it was created by either a magical entity or by scientific, physical reasons. An alternative possibility is that it was always there, with no definitive start. Another possibility is a concept called eternalism. If eternalism is true, then God/s exist outside of time, and therefore is/are also the creator/s of time. If existence was created magically, then everything, technically, is magical to an extant. However, if everything has one or more physical origins as the sole, necessary factor of existence, then the existence of magic/supernaturality is simply unnecessary. In conclusion, I believe that the existence of gods is highly unlikely. I believe that the concept of magic was created in order to explain the unknown, and that the Abrahamic religions are based on fallacious logic. However, I am open minded enough to admit I am wrong. It is all done in the name of reality. For philosophy is the study of truth, and not the advocation of one or more ideologies, regardless of the truth. So, I'm willing to remain an agnostic atheist, in order to keep an open mind. Click here for my thoughts on agnosticism.

(Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (Background music) Truths are composed of three components: evidence, information, and logical structure. There cannot be a truth that is not evident, that does not contain data, and that is not based on logical reasoning. Even the sources of an illogical act, such as making a mistake or being incorrect, contain logical reasoning that has led to that illogical act. In other words, poor reasoning still exists and leads to logical conclusions, and that is one of the reasons the brains behind different acts, matter. Evidence is a result of experimentation, existence, or both. There may be truths that cannot be found through experimentation, such as pure logic, which can only be experimented with through representations, rather than directly. For that matter, pure logic is one that does not incorporate empirical principles. Still, evidence by definition is something that exists, and thus serves as reason to believe something as true or not. That evidence may be on the physical (concrete evidence) or abstract level (evidence depending on shared concepts that are widely seen as truth in the field of "the mental dimension"), and which is also dependent on other representations in order to exist. Evidence can be either singular or plural, while each piece of evidence has different levels of relevance to the point one is attempting to prove. The same evidence could not only prove different things, but also things that are the exact opposites, ironic as it may sound. Surprisingly, there are 21 different types of evidence. The stronger the specific connection between the evidence and the point being attempted to prove, the more likely that point is true. Everything is information. Every detail one notices or creates, regardless of the importance one relates to it, is information nonetheless. More awareness and higher sensitivity (not to be confused with sentimentality, which specifies emotions) leads to reception of more information, from sensory to intellectually. Therefore, those who receive external and internal stimulation more intensively could be naturally more intelligent than those who are more insensitive and more unaware. Still, this intelligence does not prevent one from negative consequences, such as being more likely to feel exhausted, being more likely to be prone to stress and anxiety, (like when you're a philosopher, for example) and so forth. Nonetheless, every truth contains information, and that information could lead us to discover its logical methodology. Yet, data can be both correct and incorrect. This is why an important trait of being wise is to be able, or at least attempt, to distinguish between the two categories of information, when receiving it. Accepting every information as true can lead to, and even strengthen, one’s ignorance of existence. Everything has a reason and it does not have to be divine, if such option exists in the first place. Even if you get to a wrong conclusion, to a fallacy, when solving a mathematical problem, there are still factors which made you (or the opposite) to commit a fallacy in the equation; factors, which are representations of a logical structure. Basically, everything, from truth to lie, from material to material-based idea, is a representation of a logical evolution/process. Existence after all is multi-layered. Now, just because everything has a logical origin behind it, it does not have to be perfect, i.e., to be devoid of flaws, to be one. After all, if logic exists in reality, and reality is imperfect, then logic too can be imperfect. The problem that comes, however, is that if everything is information and everything is an origin and a representation of a logical methodology, how can one differ between truth and deception? even if there is related evidence. After all, evidence can be fabricated, and evidence alone is insufficient for it can be misused to distort our understanding. As I said, the same evidence can be related to different possibilities, which could also oppose each other; even opposing theories to one is trying to prove, also contain data and are, too, a representation/origin of a logical structure. I can offer a possibility: A theory that has the most specific evidence, the most trustworthy information sources, and the least logical fallacies/flaws is the truest theory/assumption. Truths can be both absolute and relative. They are relative to the object/subject at hand, and within it, specifically, they are absolute. Such “paradox” is possible by the absolute and relative being at different layers of existence: The relative is when relating to something as a part of a collection, like an ideology or a social construct; The absolute is related to something specifically, free of any collection, i.e., without regarding any collection, nor anything else, beyond the thing/being itself. In other words, as part of the world beyond the mind, independent of our thinking. And, everything which is not the true, i.e., which does not apply to the last highlighted sentence, is a lie, a deception. In the age of misinformation it is difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. However, as a philosopher and head of Philosocom, I strive to understand the truth and provide you with my findings, in hope that my insights are indeed correct. It is one of the reasons I revamp many articles here and attempt to verify what I wrote with sources. After all, you all deserve it.

(The Immortality Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/love-recognition-immortality https://www.philosocom.com/post/nietzsche-s-eternal-return-and-the-temptation-of-immortality https://www.philosocom.com/post/drawing-the-line-in-rubinshteinic-individualism https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-never-ending-solitude-a-story-by-mr-brad-michaels https://www.philosocom.com/post/sisyphus-and-jason-voorhees https://www.philosocom.com/post/life-after-death-1 https://www.philosocom.com/post/neolithic-spirals) (Background music) ************************** The Allure of Immortality Since the dawn of mankind, people have been haunted by the idea of death. This unknown, the ultimate end of our existence, stands as an undefeated foe, forever threatening the continuation of life as an inevitable possibility. Death arrives in many ways, through the horrors of war, the presence of illnesses both physical and mental, and the control of hunger, appetite and thirst. In a desperate attempt to cheat this inevitable fate, humans have longed for a mythical elixir of life, an artifact that would ensure immortality. An endless existence unhindered by the fear of death and whatever may lie beyond the mortal realm. But why are we so terrified of our own mortality? Despite its inevitability, the very thought of death can easily shake our skeletons. It represents the unknown, a void beyond our common understanding. We fear the pain and suffering that may precede it, the loss of being with loved ones, and whatever may succeed both. Ironically, this fear of death, a daily reality for plenty, might shrink in comparison to the potential dangers of achieving immortality. That is, of course, should immortality ever become a feature in our lives, despite the fact that aging is most likely an evolutionary feature, rather than a design flaw. The pursuit of endless living, while seemingly alluring, carries within it the potential for unexpected drawbacks that would make us beware of what we wish for.... It raises questions of overpopulation and resource depletion. It threatens to create a society where the lives of the immortal few hold more value than the lives of the many mortals. Furthermore, it stands in the path of the natural cycle of life and death (AKA the status quo, for either good or bad), and may require an indefinite amount of housing in a limited amount of land (whose maximum capacity might eventually be reached with the permanent presence of the immortal beings). The Grim Promise of Immortality While the prospect of endless life may seem alluring, the reality of immortality is filled with danger, posing a significant threat to the very existence of humanity. Our planet's resources, including living space, food production, and readily available jobs, are inherently limited, regardless of our technological advancements. Achieving immortality would create a scenario where the demands of an ever-growing population far outweigh the capacity of our resources and job opportunities, leading to a catastrophic imbalance of food shortages, potential diseases homelessness, poverty and unemployment. Even colonizing other celestial bodies like Mars and the Moon would only provide a temporary advancement at the feet of any immortal being that can outlive each and every planet and moon. These new frontiers too would eventually reach their own capacity of immortal habitation, leaving these new beings facing the same dire consequences as they did before... only at a far quicker rate. For the immortal being always consumes in order to live, and death is the end of their use of the external world. An immortal being is therefore one who will always use, and sometimes abuse and reduce, their local environment, outliving anyone and anything that will not last forever. And nothing lasts forever in this immortal-free reality. Do you see my point? The sad truth is that death serves a crucial purpose in maintaining the delicate balance of existence. By dying, we contribute to the sustainability of our planet and its resources, ensuring that future generations would inherit a habitable world. When we die, someone else can take some of our positions. From our houses to our job positions. Being immortal can mean that we have an indefinite hold on these limited holdings, until the immortal outlives them and seeks another holding to consume. The immortal is, therefore, a chronologically-endless leech of the universe. While overpopulation is not yet at a critical level today (as the whole human population can in theory fit the state of Texas), the fact remains that our current economic system relies heavily on the production and consumption of unnecessary goods and services, under the philosophy of financial materialism. This "luxury" spending, common in prosperous nations, indicates an excess of consumption of resources in a world where plenty of sources of energy are not renewable. However, a clear indicator of overpopulation would be when the economy can no longer support the purchase of these non-essential items, as even the wealthiest individuals face financial limitations. Either way, a population of around 8 billion, mortal beings, is not something we should necessarily be worried about, while the world's largest country, Russia is bigger than Pluto, and only contains around 1 to 2 percent of the human population. Despite the potential economic solutions, the necessity of death cannot be disputed. Dying, in a sense, becomes an unintended "act of altruism", that ensures the long-term well-being of our species by preventing depletion of all resources that cannot be used indefinitely. So, as long as we humans die, we can still grow into more billions of members as long as we expand to new territories, and live less in overcrowded cities, where the population densities are the biggest (as in the case of Hong Kong). It is important to clarify that this argument does not endorse murder, or any form of premature death. Rather, it aims to emphasize the vital role death plays in the natural cycle of life and its importance for the long-term future of humanity. Meaning in the Face of Mortality While the idea of endless life may seem alluring, the reality of immortality is filled with danger, posing a significant threat to the very existence of humanity. Who knows if our technological advancements could ever compete with the increasing demand required for immortal beings? Achieving immortality would create a scenario where the demands of an ever-growing population far outweigh the capacity of everything, leading to a potential catastrophic imbalance, thus forcing us further to consider colonizing other worlds after we destroyed Earth with our endless consumption. Regarding the question of what lies beyond death, I remain unconvinced by the concept of an afterlife. This notion, in my opinion, arose from the human need to explain the disappearance of loved ones and the existence of their lifeless bodies after their discovery. It holds the same theoretical weight as Plato's "World of Forms," a hypothetical realm of perfect forms that we supposedly reference when imagining the ideal versions of things. And by "theoretical weight" I refer to "understandable using our intellect, but hard to support its logical framework". In my view, evidence reigns supreme for its complementary potential to convince the audience that we are right beyond the realm of mere speculation and wonder. Without concrete proof to support an argument, it remains merely a possibility, confined to the realm of theory. While logic plays a crucial role in our pursuit of truth, it is ultimately incomplete without the collaboration of evidence. Conclusions While the desire for immortality is understandable, it is essential to recognize the immense danger it poses to humanity. Even with the potential of colonizing other worlds, the finite nature of resources and space dictates that death remains a vital stabilizing force, ensuring the continuation of our species for generations to come by limiting our collective demand for resources to sustain and entertain our collective might, as Earth's conquerors. Perhaps, focusing on the impossible dream of immortality, we should focus on making the most of the limited time we have, according to our individual plans and aspirations. We should strive to live meaningful lives, whatever we may define "meaningful" or "successful" as. Our existence is fleeting either way, and it is precisely this finite quality that grants it with such underrated value, for it can end at any time. Peace and acceptance can thus be attained in the face of death, knowing that our lives, though finite, have mattered with our goals either achieved or attempted.

(Part 1-2) (Part 3) (Part 4) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Co. Mr. Roland Leblanc's "Using Numerology and Gematria to Understand True Love" explores the concept of true love through the analysis of a quote by the poet Kalen Dion. Mr. Leblanc uses numerology and gematria to understand the relationship between numbers and letters, and biblical exegesis to assign numerical values to Hebrew letters. He aims to use these tools to understand true love and encourage readers to consider them for self-understanding. The article also introduces Kalen Dion, whose work combines personal experiences with philosophical and spiritual reflections, emphasizing themes of recovery and self-reinvention. Leblanc's analysis, initially prompted by a surprising identity, highlights his curiosity and commitment to exploring the intersection of numerical and linguistic symbolism in understanding profound human experiences. ******** (Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: I sent Mr. Leblanc to write an analysis on a poet's quote using gematria and numerology. This is but a prologue of a very large document he wrote. The document will be released in small bits, AKA articles, over a large period of time, and gain a subcategory of their own. This prologue is an introductory piece that attempts to make sense out of these two fields, and how they can be used to study reality. Using both fields, Leblanc extracted quite a lot of insight out of a poet's quote, Mr. Kalen Dion The reasoning of this article will serve as the basis of this series on Philosocom, called "Using Numerology and Gematria to Understand True Love" While can be seen as "semantic jugglery" by critics, it's important to note that these both methods are but the means, and not the end. The end is the insights Mr. Leblanc extracts, using his arcane expertise. Thus, the practical rationale of this series stems from consenquentialism, with the point is to extract insightful content for Philosocom's readership). (Background music) *********************** Dear readers, I now realize that the sentence onto which I am currently using Numerology and Gematria is this one: '' Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them''. I must confess that I did not expect to be able to produce some insights from this unique quote from the poet and writer, Kalen Dion. All these insights will be converted to articles and will be proofread and edited by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein. I was surprised, and using both Numerology and Gematria, I have found some aspects worth sharing with you. I hope that the following parts that I am producing in articles will shed some light on how to use Numerology and Gematria. As well as present to you how they can be used to gain insights on this reality. I hope that this can help you consider using Numerology, and maybe you might consider using those useful tools as well if you feel like learning how to use them. First, let me tell you what Numerology is... Everything in the universe has an energy vibration – and numbers are no different. In fact, every number (and letter) has its own unique vibration that contributes an influence upon the story of your life. Therefore, numerology is the study of the relationship between numbers and letters and their influence on our personality and life events. It is an ancient metaphysical science that reveals the blueprint of every human being's life and is one of the most accurate and powerful self-help tools available today. (1. See reference at the end of this article.) As for Gematria, I have translated from French a definition that I found in a text that I downloaded a while back: (2. see reference at the end of this article). “Gematria is a method of biblical exegesis that establishes a correspondence between the letters, words, and verses of the Torah, on the one hand, and numbers, on the other. As such, it opens up new horizons in the understanding of the text.” – Chalom Leubmen The word “gematria” is a pun based on the roots of geometria and gramma-metria. The gramma-metria (or gematria) is the measurement of the letters of the alphabet (gramma). This system assigns equivalences between words of identical numerical values. The Hebrew letters have the particularity of having a numerical value, which makes it possible to draw parallels between different words with the same arithmetic value. The kabbalist uses certain processes to open the doors to the intimacy of the words and verses of the Torah. As Marc-Alain Ouaknin tells us: “Gematria opens up a new textual space of relationships and transitions. By passing from the word to the number, gematria introduces infinity through a finite system, for a progressive enrichment of the phenomena, through the intelligible relations that enclose them. The gematria of a word indicates to us that there will always be a difference between the written word and the set of terms capable of expressing it.” Note: I use both methods in order to gain insights. I know that there is some discrepancy between the two methods, but I believe that one must remain open to considering both and make up their own mind about the results. Now, who is Kalen Dion, the author of the words that I am studying for Mr. Tomasio's request? (3. See the link to his website at the end of this article.) “A lover of all things creative, Kalen Dion has taken his work beyond the realm of mere artistic expression and into the fields of philosophy, cultural commentary, and human behavior. Channeling his personal experiences with abuse, alcoholism, and mental health, his work strikes very pragmatic chords, making his expression accessible and relatable to an incredibly broad audience, reaching millions of people every day. His earlier work, focusing largely on spirituality and faith, reflects his lifelong study of the many immutable and intangible truths of the human experience. His more recent work deals with his own recovery journey, life beyond trauma, and how to reinvent and reinvigorate yourself on the other side of addiction and abuse. His upcoming books combine philosophy, spirituality, and his personal experience through the relatable musings that he has grown to be known for. Encapsulating energy and emotion that is common to us all, he uses his distinct expression and unique style of translating the human experience, giving voices to every feeling.” As for how and why I was tempted to make some analysis of the words involved here, I can tell you that what struck me is the fact that those words were forwarded to me by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein as a sharing of exchanges on the painting and the words. In fact, it is strange, but, at first I thought that Leo and Kalen Dion were the same person; as, I had noticed that the Leo was at the left, and, a Hebrew hyphen known as a Maqaf caught my attention. Hence, the impression that the author was : Leo Kalen Dion. And looking at the message together with the way the painting was traced, I had to look forward and find out more. The message together with the painting is what got me curious to check even further! This is why I feel like sharing my findings and feeling and, I sure hope that this might be something that might be of interest for you! 1. Numerology by : Michelle Buchanan 2. https://www.kabbale.eu/guematria-temourah-et-notariqon/ 3. https://www.kalendionpoetry.com/about

Modesty and Estimation: Philosocom's Directory On Ego Management The Directory: The Philosophy of Self-Love and the Ego -- Why Self-Love is More Than Legitimate On Having A Bigger Ego -- The Conflict of Reaching For the Skies VS "Staying Human" The Solitary Egotist Dilemma -- To Contribute Or Not To Contribute to Others? Pride In Dysfunction -- The Philosophy of (Embracing) Flaws The Eggman Philosophy -- Utilizing Self-Appreciation -- Why He's A Worthy Role Model The Barrier of Modesty -- How It Hinders Us https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-heisenberg-of-philosophy-within-a-shadowy-intellect https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-be-proportional https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-the-bigshot-and-why-wise-guys-are-dangerous The Tales of Dusts -- My Challenge... To You! https://www.philosocom.com/post/mike-ehrmantraut https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosopher-king https://www.philosocom.com/post/grandiosity (Background music) “The first half of life is devoted to forming a healthy ego, the second half is going inward and letting go of it.” -- Carl Jung I've often pondered the relationship between modesty and personal excellence. My experience suggests that a certain level of self-confidence is essential for individuals who possess exceptional abilities. Yet, the expectation of humility can sometimes hinder our recognition of our own potential. The concern of appearing arrogant has, at times, held me back. Despite my own dislike of arrogance, I've been accused of it due to my direct and often very logic-based communication style. It appeared to many as hostile, yet that is how logic is. Robotic. Emotionless. Ruthless. Ruthless not only towards others but also towards myself. It's been frustrating to be misjudged, especially by those who've known me for a long time. It is carried by strange feelings of guilt and shame. After returning to my darker past, I used that darkness to transform myself into the best version of myself, like the anti-villain Heihachi Mishima. I have grown much mentally over a shorter lifespan overall. Like a computer, I update myself independently using my own philosophical inquiry. Slowly but surely I find myself isolated from many people due to my rapid, several transformations. Slowly, my mentality requires people to not only think but act like geniuses, in order to understand me. My ascetic transformations appear unreal to the vast majority of people... as I slowly and gradually found myself liberated from my own cane. My own medication. My own depression. People are not used to people like me who focus on revolutionizing themselves. People are not used to others who seek to rectify this world one step at a time... My understanding is updated by my own hands, and their understanding stagnates itself to the conventionality of their orthodox understanding. With their stagnant understanding, they are surprised each time. Failing to consider the bigger picture as others fail doing it as well. It is lonely at the top for any master. That includes sages such as myself. You merely think the last paragraph is depressing because your habit is to judge the present based on past events. Unwilling to learn, the understanding of many people will remain stagnant, and even deteriorate, in an ever-changing world of instability, protests and demonstrations, and the naturality of trauma. Epictetus' reminder that some things in life are beyond our control, including the choice of external perception, has been particularly insightful. While I can influence my actions, I can't control how others perceive me. I can't force people to think of me in a certain way, and my social challenges, stemming from autism, make this even more difficult. However, I prefer not making excuses, and not whining. I prefer to work on myself, for life... life is a task. A series of tasks. I refuse blinding myself because of my many strange accomplishments. Blinding myself would only prevent further growth into the continuing, never-ending journey to greatness. I prefer to learn from everything and everyone. To be done with it. To rest, and to press forward after respite. Possessing exceptional skills in a particular field doesn't inherently make one superior to others. Superiority and inferiority are context based. You identify the context, you act accordingly. That's it. Like a gun, ego is a tool. Hit your target, not your foot. A philosopher's legitimacy is earned through consistent engagement with their subject matter, not solely through formal credentials. Even a child could be a philosopher if they possess the intellectual capacity and inclination. The realization that even the most accomplished individuals are vulnerable to criticism has helped me persevere. I've faced my share of negative feedback as a writer, but it hasn't deterred me. Negative. I refuse to relent. I prefer to construct my intellect not just from constructive criticism, but from anything I receive. Anything. I estimate myself according to where I'm at, to when I'm at, and then I try to decide correctly to the context. Then, I use the context to help me. Then, I leave the context to another context. Finally, I learn from any context, I grow, I reduce mistakes, I rectify mistakes. That is all. If we believe in our abilities, we shouldn't be afraid to express that belief. However, it is not a matter of fear but of making the right decision per your goals each time. Of course living is tiring as a result. Philosophy is inevitable, however, in strategy and in planning. The field of philosophy, particularly in the 21st century, can be challenging due to its accessibility. Anyone can theoretically become a philosopher, which can lead to skepticism and criticism. To establish credibility, philosophers must consistently engage with their subject matter and contribute meaningful insights. They must demonstrate their worth. They must relentlessly press forward to reveal to this world the true relevance of philosophy. A philosopher is essentially a deep thinker who contemplates life on a regular basis. This intellectual pursuit should be respected, regardless of one's personal opinions. However, for justice to be served, justice is to be worked for. We should see our importance after we succeed more and more. Not before we've accomplished our goals. The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary. -- Vidal Sassoon For those who may have negative opinions about my work, I encourage them to seek out content that aligns with their preferences. Reduce your stress, and employ your intuition to explore my vast empire of articles, until you find the articles that resonate with your inner being. With your inner truth. With your heart. Use your heart to help yourself with your problems. That is more important than my accomplishments.

(Definition of militarism; Only 2 and 3 apply to this article: Militaristic - definition of militaristic by The Free Dictionary) (This can be seen as an extension to my political philosophy of Rubinshteinism/Political Rubinshteinism) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright The article "Why I am a Militarist -- Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Militarism" presents a clear and direct argument for militarism, emphasizing its importance for national security and survival. It uses historical and contemporary examples to illustrate the practical implications of military strength. The balanced perspective acknowledges the need for balance in military spending, as excessive military spending can detract from other important areas like education and healthcare. The critique of John Lennon's idealistic views adds depth to the discussion, challenging the practicality of a world without countries and militaries. The philosophical depth of the article is tied to broader questions about self-defense, rebellion, and the nature of peace, encouraging readers to think beyond immediate political considerations. The article's relevance to current events, such as in Libya, makes it relevant and timely. Emphasis on self-defense resonates with fundamental human concerns about safety and security. The realistic view that wars are often avoided due to their high financial cost aligns with the overall argument for maintaining military strength. Overall, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein presents a well-reasoned and thought-provoking argument for militarism, rooted in practical considerations and philosophical depth. ******************** The Importance of a Strong Military Unless you are a very fortunate, small paradise of a nation such as Andorra or Liechtenstein, it is the nation's armed forces that ensure its survival for decades or even centuries. That is because, should you not have a big enough or a competent enough military, then your country is likely to be in danger either from the inside or outside of its borders. Countries like Liechtenstein simply do not need a standing military because it's unnecessary to their vastly-lucky, consistent geopolitical situation. Even if you live in a stable region, having a powerful military will ensure that such status quo will resume. For example, if it weren't for South Korea's military strength, it wouldn't be a formidable adversary to North Korean aggressive desire to unify the Korean peninsula. Therefore, it is imperative that every country that wishes for the safety of both itself and its citizens allocates a significant enough portion of its budget to the military. A military, however, does not need to have a pompous budget in order to function effectively. You don't need, for example, to have an army stronger and more advanced than that of the United States in order to protect yourself from regional threats; that is of course unless you're being invaded by them, which means something has to be done. However, since superpowers like the U.S. has international standing military-wise, you might not want to be too much aggressive with the armed power you have as a political leader. So what if you despise someone in your geopolitical region? Consider their allies. It is important to find a balance between having a strong enough military to deter aggression and not spending so much on the military that it comes at the expense of other important needs, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Fail to keep a proper financial budget between the departments of your government, and it can have an impact on the military as well. The North Korean armed forces may be large in size, but they may die due to starvation, to the point that they may raid their own citizens just to survive. If the North Korean government spent enough on argiculture, as well as other ways to gain food, this wouldn't happened. And of course, it's quite demoralizing when the troops that suppose to protect you, attack you just because they are hungry. On Self-Defense Rationally, every nation has the right to protect itself. That may be true to an extent even on the individual level. Regardless of this premise, some nations may believe that counter-attacks are also legitimate forms of self-defense. Whether this is true or not is a matter of debate. The premise itself, nonetheless, is true to Japan and its Self-Defense Forces, the same as it is for tyrannical North Korea and its People's Army, as the suffering of its populace does not necessarily legitimize invasion and attempted liberation. Why? Because they have the right to protect themselves as well, no matter how righteous such invasion is. Furthermore, a successful liberation attempt might even worsen the situation, should the next local government be incompetent. That is the case with Libya, that remained unstable even 10 years at least after their dictator's death. Can we really say Libya has been improved just because of the world's good intention to liberate it from its tyrant? I believe one of the reasons why there aren't many wars in the world today is due to how expensive they are. It's more than just keeping the peace, but it also could be the abysmal financial cost of wars, while trade is far more preferable to sacrificing your army and its many expensive war machines in battle. However, it does not at all mean that we should just dismantle countries' militaries in the name of world peace. It's impractical as this situation can be abused. That is why I am not a pacifist. Critique of John Lennon's Words John Lennon has said something interesting in one of his songs: "Imagine there are no countries; it isn't hard to do". Is it, really? Dismembering the militaries of all nations, including nations themselves would quickly lead to chaos and disorder, unless some kind of an international security force is to be strong enough to preserve the safety of all nation-less humans. And even then, that security force can become corrupt and make use of little-to-no opposition from the rest of the world. The only such alternative I can think of are superheroes, which of course are too fictional to become a reality. Such people might save much money as they require less maintenance than an artillery division... But still, it is too impossible to have a single hero or heroine eliminate an entire terrorist organization. If that was only possible.. They can grow corrupt themselves, either way. As long as there is a desire in one or more people to rebel by breaking the law or threatening the lives of someone, there will always be a need for security that is used to protect people from others. Should there be a total death to the desire to confront someone to the point of threat, John Lennon's vision will remain highly impractical. And for that, people need to know that they may be punished, either by imprisonment or by execution, in order to keep people in line. Whether or not execution is a fair method of punishment, is a different matter. This is why guns are needed -- to serve as a counter-threat against those who might consider defying the law and the safety of the nation, both from external and internal spaces. The reason why the U.S. allows private possession of arms comes from its constitution: To allow its citizenry to protect themselves from a corrupt government and/or tyranny in the name of freedom. Of course, this has its downsides as well in America, like people who abuse this constitutional right and become mass shooters like a certain philosopher I covered on Philosocom before. (Note: his shooting occurred in Finland, but I believe he would've done the same, per his radical philosophy, if he was American). You can say, therefore, that there is a certain "good" in weaponry, even if they kill others. Not all uses are for the greater good, but when they are, they can prevent a lot of suffering that would otherwise have happened. Either way, it is necessary that we protect ourselves because, as long as there are other human beings, there will always be a potential threat on our lives. And that is one of the reasons I prefer to isolate myself from this violent world, and focus my work. I've been traumatized enough. Conclusion: Force As Necessary for Security Peace is a desired state for many: A world without brute conflict. But achieving and maintaining peace is a complex challenge. The contradiction between pacifism, the rejection of violence, and the need for military power is a hindrance to an effective, long term solution to security. While the desire for peace in pacifism is understandable, history is filled with examples of aggressors who exploit the good will of others, from Emperor Caligula to love-bombing cult leaders. However, without the capability for a measured counter-offensive against their authoritarian power, true peace can remain elusive. The burden often falls not on the peaceful, but on those who disrupt the peace. Even in a hypothetical post-apocalyptic scenario, the need for security persists. An armed force wouldn't just defend against external threats, but also potential internal strife. Rebellion can lead to a domino effect of punishment and stricter controls on the entire community. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. This is evident in the July 2023 military coup in Niger, a revolutionary takeover which harmed the West African nation, deteriorating its many developments. The approach to achieving peace, however, depends on the political climate, and pacifist deeds can be too impractical to be categorical imperatives. Instead, the path for national improvement lies in reform, addressing the root causes of discontent, which are individual to each country, democratic or authoritarian like Myannmar. And under an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, armed resistance may be the only viable option, although a risky one. Underground movements, like the entire Polish Underground State, are difficult to organize, but can offer a spark of hope in such oppressive situations when are forces to be reckoned with. Nonviolent movements, while admirable, face significant challenges in implementation. Though successful examples like India's Gandhian movement exist, their effectiveness depends heavily on specific contexts (AKA, cultural tendencies for harmony thanks to spirituality). Ultimately, the quest for peace requires a nuanced understanding of power dynamics. While pacifism offers a moral ideal, a world without the capability for self-defense is a world ripe for exploitation. The goal is to find the right balance, where force serves as a check-and-balance mechanism and not a threatening trigger, leading to social harmony.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Directory on Weakness) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Why Mercy Is Usually Impractical, and Not A Virtue" is a thought-provoking and well-structured piece that challenges conventional moral wisdom. It is well-structured, passionately argued, and enriched by personal narrative. Mr. Tomasio challenges the moral concept of mercy by re-evaluating it through the lens of power dynamics and personal strength. The discussion on empathy as an alternative to mercy is particularly strong, arguing that empathy fosters equality and mutual respect, avoiding the condescension that mercy can entail. Overall, "Why Mercy Is Usually Impractical, and Not A Virtue" is a compelling and thought-provoking article that encourages readers to rethink their approach to compassion and strength in their own lives. ************* Silencio! Who do you think you are? I never want to see your face again! Leave this room immediately, and never come back! -- Zanetti to his son, before being defeated by the son's own power. Power, Pity, and Equality: Rethinking Mercy Mercy. A loaded word, often associated with power imbalances between the strong and their actions towards the weak. But is that all it is? In simpler terms, mercy boils down to choosing not to punish someone you have the power to. It's also known as forbearance. A judge sparing a condemned criminal, a victor showing kindness to a defeated opponent... These scenarios highlight the inherent power dynamic: mercy is a gift bestowed by the powerful upon the powerless. A gift unnecessary, and those, a privilege for the weak and unfortunate. Video games explore this concept too. Mortal Kombat's "mercy" mechanic lets you spare your opponent, offering them a second, smaller chance to defeat you. But is this true kindness, or just another way to praise your own dominance? Can humiliation really be disguised as compassion? I find mercy condescending, for it can easily be forgiving towards thus who failed applying ruthlessness as a virtue, and thus, become stronger. It implies the receiver is inferior, needing one's benevolence to survive, while they can use the harsh reality as a trial to become stronger. And philosophers too, in face of reality, should pass trials to hone their skills in truth-seeking. Instead, I prefer genuine empathy, where I seek to understand your situation and feelings, not judge or pity you as someone who is weaker than me. It's a horizontal connection, two equals meeting eye-to-eye. Now, some might ask, "Doesn't compassion always involve mercy?" Not necessarily. Empathy can exist without the power dynamic, necessarily attached to mercy. It's not about sparing someone from a consequence, but about seeing and feeling with them, even if their choices differ from yours. It's about being part of their suffering and working towards an understanding. And when you enable mercy, you might also encourage them to remain weak, defeatist, and unwilling to help themselves. And defeatism is a trait of any philosophy of life that can hinder you from progression. Enable defeatism, and you'll enable the impracticality of staying in the same spot, relying on the exclusive, unnecessary mercy of those stronger than you. That is while you might be capable, instead, of working your way up, becoming a subject for mercy, no more. Ultimately, I believe we should move beyond the traditional model of mercy, a concept of power structures where the "giver" holds the upper hand, while keeping the underdogs stay in their spot of weakness, which can, also, be exploited. Keep yourself weak without taking care of healing them, and you will suffer unnecessarily. We need not nurture a culture where weakness isn't to be taken care of. On Emapthy, Shame And Ruthlessness Instead, let's embrace empathy, a concept where understanding replaces pity and equality thrives over condescension. This shift has broader implications. Can communities built on empathy and mutual respect create their own justice systems, rendering the one-sided power dynamics of traditional mercy obsolete? Can we rewrite the narrative of power and compassion, replacing it with a web of understanding that benefits everyone? These are questions worth pondering as we move beyond outdated conceptions of mercy and strive for a world where equality takes center stage. Begging for mercy is often followed by shame. However, in a world where empathy is lacking, people may have to be at the mercy of others just to exist and, at times, just to get things done. As we refuse to show empathy for others, choosing mercy instead, we keep the weak weaker, and the strong stronger. Mercy, therefore, is a preserving resource for the continuation of power imbalances, thus preventing people from working towards being stronger, by making mercy a virtue, over ruthlessness towards the self. For the key to become stronger is for one to be ruthless towards oneself. How I Helped Myself Recovering From Chronic Fatigue My chronic fatigue made something as basic as sitting feel like a marathon. I know, I used to walk those marathons, pushing my limits for hours. These days were behind me for years, until I realized I am capable of more than what I let myself to be. Now, while I appreciate your concern, please understand: pity failed where ruthlessness prevailed. At age 25 I began using a cane. At age 26 I liberated myself from the cane's tyranny by refusing to stay weak. My grandmother, born in the shadows of Argentina's control by Juan Peron, a supporter of Nazis, knew firsthand the sting of misfortune. She escaped that nation, known for its antisemitism, but the scars of that time lingered on her mentality as her mental health declined further and further. As for the family I have there, I send them my deepest sympathies, not pity. I pity them not because people deserve to work towards strength. Pity often misses the mark. It can distort someone's reality, making them feel worse, and even underestimate their own power. My fatigue was real, but I never allowed myself to fully succumb to it, for otherwise I would've given up on life. Understanding is the most basic currency I crave, for understanding is key to a more moral world, and there is no empathy that does not stem from understanding. Yes, the world can be harsh, with its fair share of the empathy-challenged. But I hold the hope that humanity can choose a more egalitarian path, where everyone is treated with dignity, regardless of circumstance. I've only begged for mercy in my darkest hours, blinded by self-loathing. Those days are over. Now, I strive for clarity, as I try to see the world with reason and compassion. Because I suffered so much, I am willing to care enough not to apply unnecessary suffering on others. As such, I wish to spare people the suffering associated with mercy. That's because, as said, mercy is followed by shame, and shame can be agonizing. It's the spirit that defines strength. And by spirit I refer to our willingness to persevere without relent. I've embraced a simple life, as I work towards a legacy to be passed down through generations. This asceticism, though esoteric, has forged resilience within me. And the more resilient we are, the less mercy we would need from others. As such, the less we would be required to suffer, by begging for the stronger aid of others. Even with disabilities, strength can bloom. In the name of strength, we must think beyond the disability. Counter Points 1. The Nature of Mercy Article: Mercy is a top-down act of power. Contrasting View: Mercy can also be a bottom-up expression of human compassion, independent of power dynamics. It can be a recognition of shared vulnerability and a desire for redemption. 2. The Role of Empathy Article: Empathy is superior to mercy as it promotes equality. Contrasting View: While empathy is valuable, mercy can complement it. Mercy can be an act of grace that transcends understanding, while empathy provides the foundation for a compassionate behavior. 3. The Consequences of Mercy Article: Mercy can lead to weakness and to unnecessary dependency. Contrasting View: Mercy can also inspire hope, resilience, and a desire for personal growth. It can be a catalyst for transformation. 4. The Definition of Strength Article: Strength is defined as self-reliance and overcoming adversity without external assistance. Contrasting View: Strength can also be demonstrated through compassion, forgiveness, and the ability to support others. It is not solely about individual achievement. 5. The Role of Power Article: Power imbalances are inherently negative and should be avoided. Contrasting View: Power can be used for both good and evil. It is the intent and actions of the powerful that determine the outcome. 6. The Value of Weakness: Article: Weakness is something to be overcome and avoided. Contrasting View: Weakness can be a source of humility, empathy, and connection. It can also be a catalyst for personal growth and societal change. 7. The Nature of Society: Article: Society should be based on equality and individual responsibility for their own choices. Contrasting View: Society is inherently interdependent, and compassion and mutual aid are essential for collective well-being.

(Background music) Quiet Joys and Restless Souls For some, a life of relative peace is sufficient for them to call it worthy. It's a life that is with few disturbances and with a greater deal of perks by comparison. There are many who prefer to live their lives privately, keeping a small group of family and friends around. They're largely undisturbed by the many worries celebrities have to deal with regarding their privacy. This quiet contentment is a liability by itself, however, when it comes in comparison to what many of us are capable of doing and becoming. While I try to respect this lifestyle, which the shamelessly arrogant may call "mediocre," I confess, I belong to a "different breed". I guess that I would rather leave a mark, for better or worse, than live a life of little impact on the world beyond one's job and personal commitments. The call to action, to make a difference, burns too brightly for me to simply find comfort in the everyday. Finding Purpose Through Philosophy You see, privacy is a very comfortable thing to have. It's a shield against judgment and criticism, which many of us may lack the professionalism to handle. However, comfort can become a trap, an "easy" way to live that avoids the potential impact we could have on the world. Therefore, the choice to live in greater privacy than otherwise is a sacrifice of its own -- the sacrifice of our potential. For a while, I found solace in a peaceful, anonymous life. However, serenity alone couldn't satiate the urge within me to contribute. Like joy, it was an emotion, pleasant but ultimately limited. And thus, the more-peaceful life can often be a result of denying ourselves the lives we want to lead. Sometimes, the peaceful life just doesn't correlate with our ideal selves. This realization sparked a crucial question: What does it mean to live a meaningful life? If impact is the goal, some serenity and comfort must be sacrificed. In my case, this means dedicating time to writing and sharing my thoughts, as they are a way to offer something beyond myself. This compels me to face the reception dilemma at the cost of my serenity. And in philosophy, a good philosopher would seek out the truth even if it requires him or her to sacrifice their comfort. As such, truth-seeking is a form of sacrifice. My limitations, like stress from demanding jobs, steered me towards philosophizing, which allows me to avoid unnecessary drama with others. Unlike traditional education, my auto-didacting ways aren't as exhausting or stressful, even though they can often be to some degree. Logical reasoning, the core of philosophy, seemed like a skill I could hone with the investment of minimal resources. Thanks to online platforms like Udemy, I could explore these ideas without the pressures of exams or overwhelming workloads. Philosophizing, for me, isn't about self-glorification of my character. If anything, that would be the a pseudo-intellectual purpose. Instead, It's a tool, a means to an end: A way to be useful to others according to my abilities. Monotonous jobs left me feeling empty and exhausted. It was hard to bear and made me deeply contemplate on the vast emptiness of the universe. Ironically, the act of writing philosophical articles doesn't trigger that intensive exhaustion. I attribute this abnormalcy to my neurodiversity: People's minds process reality differently, and in the case of neurodivergent people, it's done to the point of partial disability. This makes the world unaccessible to people like myself, who are prone to greater intensity of fatigue. As such, the beauty of philosophy lies in its accessibility to anyone willing to learn and better understand reality. Beyond logic, there are few conditions on the path of philosophership. It's about free thinking and the pursuit of new ideas. My inspiration for this paragraph is Diogenes, who an eccentric street-dweller. There's no single "philosopher" mold – anyone curious and willing enough can participate. While degrees offer and reinforce prestige bias, they're often unnecessary for personal exploration. The information is readily available online, often for free. This has led me to devise the degree fallacy. This diminishes the relevance of universities in the context of philosophy. In today's information age, with knowledge readily accessible, formalized education may not be the only path. And we can pursuit the same goal without being so stressed by the orthodox paths. Of course, philosophy isn't for everyone. There are sciences, religions, and even entertainment that offer alternative perspectives. However, the continued existence of philosophy speaks to its enduring, relevant value. Even in a world filled with empirical data, there's still a thirst for contemplative insights, attained by the intellect, with or without empirical research. And this is what keeps me going, providing a purpose beyond mere self-gratification. That is despite my limitations as a neurodivergent being. The question of philosophy's relevance in the 21st century is one everyone who engages with it should contemplate. The reasons people seek philosophy are diverse – a desire for deeper meaning, an alternative to religion, or an escape from financial materialism. The reasons could even be professional, and even be related to the value of true love. Whatever your motivation to read Philosocom articles, your presence validates my reasoning to resume being a relentless altruist, inspired by the Salaryman philosophy. It's because of readers like you that philosophy, and Philosocom specifically, remains relevant. Your presence enables the offering a unique perspectives in a world dominated by the ruthless competition of other fields and activities for your time. From Serenity to Significance As to my "beef" with the so-called "Ms. Chen," that ambition for vengeance might as well never be direct. However, symbolically, to me, she represents the "common" man and woman; the very audience I wish to eventually expand my content's influence to. Those who think philosophy is irrelevant, unaware of its perks. My goal isn't only to resonate with philosophy seekers like yourself. With enough contribution to the world, I aspire to reach a broader audience, the "common folk" who might not actively seek philosophy but could benefit from its insights, and become moral. This ambition, as such, necessitates a shift from the comfort of privacy and serenity. Ultimately, such comfort hinders my ability to make a significant impact. The pursuit of "greatness," in this sense, is not about personal glory, but about maximizing my potential to help others. In the end, the choice is clear: a life of quiet contentment, intentionally hindered by challenge and potential for greater influence. For me, the call to contribute to the world, to challenge the "Ms. Chens" of the world through the power of ideas, is far more compelling than a life lived solely for myself. This is the path I choose, a journey from serenity to significance.

Articles on Masculinity: https://www.philosocom.com/post/healthy-masculinity-a-critique https://www.philosocom.com/post/5-problems-with-masculinity-in-today-s-society https://www.philosocom.com/post/my-10-laws-of-manhood https://www.philosocom.com/post/man-as-contra-how-to-contrast-others https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-existential-isolator-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-guide-to-mental-survival https://www.philosocom.com/post/my-philosophy-on-being-cool-why-it-s-important Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "Manhood and Adulthood: Philosocom’s Guide to Masculinity" is a philosophical critique of traditional and contemporary gender norms, emphasizing the need for individual authenticity. The article challenges readers to explore the intrinsic nature of selfhood, unshackled by societal constructs. It emphasizes that there is no "universal definition" of masculinity or femininity, encouraging readers to embrace their unique self without being boxed into predefined roles. The article critiques gender roles, acknowledging that both men and women suffer under rigid social expectations in different ways. The discussion on repression highlights how both men and women face their own set of restrictions, creating a balanced critique of gender constructs. Philosophical references and metaphors, such as the Bhagavad Gita quote, elevate the conversation and add elegance and accessibility to the discussion. The exploration of male loneliness, introversion, and trauma is well-articulated, critiquing the societal tendency to view men as more intimidating due to their size and facial hair. The article makes a strong case for emotional introspection and understanding. In conclusion, "Manhood and Adulthood: Philosocom’s Guide to Masculinity" provides an intellectual and thought-provoking reflection on masculinity and human existence. ************************* The man who is always engaged in the welfare of all beings, who is free from the sense of I and mine, who is contented, and who is unattached, such a man is a Yogin -- The Bavaghad Gita (Background music) ************************* Part I: The Unchained Bladesman A man is a man, not a puppet dancing to the chain of outdated or contemporary societal norms. A man is not defined by his actions, but by his existence. Men and women are loved because they exist, more because they do things. Their actions are merely an expression, of what makes them hated or adored: Their unique existence, which biases people to either despise them with every fiber of their being, or to desire to be around them and love them. Existence of one thing resonates with another, through unique subjective perception. The mental construct of gender limits that inner light to shine and to attract love, through actions that are made, and do not express gender roles, but the inner self. The one that seeks to actualize its potential, to deprive itself from the pain of being something it doesn't want to be, but is expected to be regardless of any, any consideration of that self! Regarding the Useful Human Element Masculinity and femininity do not have to do with limiting others and ourselves. They are both expressed when we allow ourselves to bloom. Bloom, like flowers. Bloom, to become truly magnificent. Therefore, you can never have a universal definition for gender, like you can never have a universal definition of a human being. We are more unique than our simplistic naked eye meets ourselves when we look from within. The universality of truth stems from this intricate interplay between objectivity and subjectivity. When your inner stars align, and allow a harmony based on truth. That, is when we allow ourselves to nurture the gift of love: the long, enduring appreciation of one another. Part II: Misconceptions and Their Solutions A mature flower is mature not only through time but through its own, unique development. A mature flower is a healthy flower. Time is only one parameter in every evolution of progress. Our masculine and feminine selves, regardless of whether or not we are men or women, are expressed when we give each other this loving gift: The gift of allowing each other, to be the best version of the self. Limitating as a Delusion of Necessity Limitations are there to oppress people, thus hindering them from expressing their distinct existence, thus preventing them from embracing the fabric of happiness. The basic and only necessary condition to be a man is to reach adulthood and be a male. The basic and necessary definition of a man boils down literally to a male that is an adult, AKA, a male that is no longer a kid, teen, or boy. A healthy man, and a healthy woman are those who are allowed, as well as allow others, to be more and more themselves. We grow out not only of age. We can grow out of illness and misery too. Maturity, is about growth. Growth of age, growth of our inner light, necessary to make humanity a lot less infantile in its awful behavior. Does an adult male, AKA a man, have to fit into a specific category of personality and behavior in order for him to be a “real man"? No. If you put all the flowers in the same, restrictive, uniform incubators, not all of them are going to survive. Strict uniformity is the enemy of human growth. On Normalized Infantility If you want men to not be infantile, you need to stop repressing them so much. Both genders are repressed. Men are repressed far more in some aspects, just like women are more repressed, in other aspects. Gender roles repress humans per the assigned category. Categorization allows weak leaders to repress people in diverse ways. Every, everyone is repressed per their social category, given by their uncaring leaders and figures of authority. Repression is unhealthy as it prevents us from growing up beyond just the parameter of time. The "True Man" and "True Woman" Myth Men and women are "real men" and "real women" in their own respective ways! Some men and women naturally fit their gender roles. However it doesn't mean others can or should fit these roles, necessary for their unique growth. The real, raw actualized self is not expressed because you are a man. It is expressed because you allow your inner seed of light, to grow and prosper. Your inner seed is to be fought for, as you become a truth warrior. As you rebel ruthlessly against those who are too fearful, to resist their fears, and allow you to be yourself. Part III: The Universality of Loneliness Why do men have their own unique brand of loneliness? That brand is a social construct, not something biological. The misery of male loneliness is as painful to males as it is painful to others who value them for the fact that they exist. Extroversion and Introversion are fluid. Our personalities change per our need to be ourselves, per other people's reaction to our honesty. Extroversion is nurtured by harmony and love, introversion is nurtured by trauma. The naturality of traumas biases people to be introverted. The more we are alive, the more traumas we may experience. With each trauma, we have to process information, resorting to solitude. Those who are busy processing emotional data, and process mental content in general, can't afford learning how to be social. Women can have a more pleasant time because the female brain is hardwired for social cognition and verbal communication. The male brain has a stronger connectivity within the two hemispheres, rather than between them. To Each Sex Their Own Men are stereotypically seen as a threat more than women. With our natural ability to grow facial hair, we become more intimidating no matter how sweet and sensitive we are. Being mostly taller and larger than women, we are naturally more intimidating. Seen as a perceived threat by default biases and the past traumas from abusive men, we can be rejected more easily than the clean-faced, smaller woman. Rejection is painful. Emotions require processing. Solitude is vital for rest and for sleep. As such, men are usually better in motor skills and perception than women. Of course, it's why men make better soldiers and hunters. That, and the fact that we by average are taller, more intimidating, and have greater muscle mass than women. Natural soldiers and hunters in more than just warfare, we men are usually more goal oriented, and often care less about developing deep, meaningful relationships like many women try to. Failure to balance more than ourselves only hinders ourselves, not just others. Therefore, specified loneliness affects others as well, in a world interconnected by reason, action and circumstance. Women are often better at bringing people closer to them due to their charm. Men are often better at repelling people away from them. Women may have their own loneliness due to the difficulty of balancing societal expectations in a world of increasing arrogance and individualism, and their own desire for a profound, emotional connection. Males are lonelier and repressed because their intimidation factor draws people to be away from them. Final Words and On the Interplay of Features Genes and the environment are mutually interactive, which implies sexism is a habit our brains develop, and thus becomes truth. The brain is developed by habits. Habits are developed and changed to survive, for survivability rests on adaptability. We are conditioned to repress and be repressed by an uncritical, arrogant, pretentious human environment, that really believes it knows what it is doing, and thus turns its most competent followers, to darkened, twisted beings, from Darth Vader to Metal Sonic. Sexism therefore exists and is hardwired in the human brain. However, sexism is anti-human as all forms of social categorization, as these mental frameworks are our chains. To expect growth using concepts that hinder growth, is illogical. Therefore, sexism is illogical. Sexism is merely a developed tendency because behavior is contagious. In addition, humans regulate themselves to conform for the sake of surviving in society. Depending on applying illusions to reality, the human brain may struggle discerning the logic it developed and between the world beyond the mind. As much as we may try justifying things we're biased to confirm, logic is limited per our inability/lack of desire to expand our knowledge, and per our hubris.

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article). (Background music) Have you craved physical contact from other human beings? I'm not talking about anything romantic necessarily. I'm speaking about the hug of a friend, for instance. I'm talking of... umm.. Well, as someone who lived much of his lifespan as a monk, I didn't really have any other examples... Skin Deprivation, also known as touch starvation, is a condition where you crave for physical touch from another being. Those who claim that loneliness is a state of mind (something I used to believe too) is not entirely true, when we are prone to skin deprivation. As of writing this article I am unaware if it's possible to rid oneself of this bothersome feeling. I can only tell you that I tried it myself, as part of my initial philosophy as a self-imposed monk, around a decade ago. Surprisingly, there are quite significant benefits to human touch, and as a more seasoned philosopher I had enough with arguing with the truth. And I can tell you that, in the rare times I was hugged as an adult, that it does feel refreshing... especially when you live in forced seclusion due to a respiratory disability... In terms of functionality, touch is several things. It is: A need. I am unaware of a human being who never needed it. A limited resource. You are dependant on someone else to touch you, and that's their prerogative. A mental right. By "mental right" I refer to your wellbeing. That you may deserve to be in good wellbeing, psychologically, simply because you haven't done anything horrid that justifies otherwise. A privilege. Only those who secure other people to provide point 2, will get it. The field of romance can surely be ruthless and unforgiving, when you realize that your need is not something you deserve to be handed to you. It is something you deserve to at least try and get from those who don't owe anything to you. ...It's why other people's presence is a privilege. Never forget that. They can always leave. And in some cases, you may need them more than they need you. Compare it to a worker and an employer -- you may need the money more than he/she needs you. I'm sorry, but that's perhaps why we will never have pure equality. It's because the relations between supply and demand are rarely even, if at all. It would only make sense that we will compete, then, because then we have the choice between suppliers. And in "suppliers" I refer to other human beings, and the demands they can give us. If you, yourself, fail to compete against other suppliers, you may be left alone, even as a supplier, and then might become more of a demander than a supplier. Loyalty in any human connection is also one where there is this sufficient transactions between supply and demand. Of at least two sides, of course. Be a poor supplier to the other person and they will either be disloyal or straight out abandon you; Be an excessive demander, and you will overwhelm your "supplier", to the point that they will leave you. However, a supplier is not always around or even available to be made a connection with. If there were always people who could hug you, people won't be suffering from skin deprivation, correct? Other people's physical company is a privilege, far more than their virtual one. Thus, in the absence of a supplier of physical contact, we must still endure life in the name of survival... And in the name of purpose. A purpose helps me a lot to endure this hellish reality called my life. For those new to the site, feel free to read more in your free time using the search bar. Anyways, I believe it was Nietzsche who said that “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” And understand, I have a hidden reason, a hidden "why" for this site that I have yet to reveal to any of you. In order to ensure that "why", I will resume concealing this greatest "why", which still makes me endure this painful reality. Why? Because when you hold a purpose in such high regard like I do, nothing... nothing, is good enough of an excuse to stand in your way. That includes skin deprivation, and the fact that I turned an handicap due to my medical disability. Don't expect it to be easy to have friends in this world, let alone partners. According to a Good-Therapy blog, single men get lonelier than women, because women are socialized to build friendships, and thus, they are likelier to have more dense social networks than their counterparts, and foster greater intimacy with their close friends. Men, on the other hand, may be less willing to expose their vulnerabilities and distress, due to socialization. For they are expected to "suck it up" and keep things to themselves... ...Just as I was constantly told by a female teacher. She didn't really recognized my agony. She just thought I chose to look at things very grimly. No. I was simply rewarded for being stoic and obedient. And when I told another class I just learned to live with all the noise (despite suffering from misophonia), the whole classroom just laughed at me, thinking I was joking, for some dumb reason! Many people are, in a way, imbeciles, for choosing to laugh and mock before understanding one's distress. A distress which can be far greater than their minds may even bother to consider. The unwillingness to consider the possibilities, and be vulnerable to be proven wrong, SO EASILY, is humiliating. However, neither them, my medical condition, or my intense skin hunger, which can bother me greatly, will stand in my way. Disrespect me, and you will become part of the problem. I am not writing just for myself, you know. I'm not self-centered. And I have no use for your humiliating pity. Understand -- I just need you to not position yourself as an obstacle in my way for my hidden purpose. Because those who do, for whatever dumb reason, intentionally or not, are my enemies. Be a good person and just let me live in peace. I had quite enough with meaningless conflicts, online and offline. I am the one who chooses to still live. Keep it in mind.

"Freedom, Justice & The Pursuit of Happiness" -- Party Motto (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 Politics) (Philosocom's Subcategory on African Philosophy) PUBLICATION YEAR,: July 27th , 2023 AUTHOR: Mr. Machiek A. Cayier EDITOR: Mr. Tomasio A. Rubinshtein ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Machiek Machiek Akuocpiir Cayier, is a South Sudanese intellectual elite, public influencer, poet, philosopher, scientific communicator, who is based in East Africa. He was born on December 30th, 1993, at Hoor Machiek Amuong, Berle-Sophi Village, near Mapuordit, Yirol West, Bahrl El Gazal, Southern Sudan Autonomous region (2005-2011), The Republic of Sudan (1985-2019) **************** Foreword: In the pursuit of a better South Sudan, we, the members of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM), "A Vanguard Party of South Sudan," come together with a shared vision and determination to bring about positive change for our nation. We stand for Social Democracy, Pan-Africanism, and South Sudanese Nationalism. SSNRM is a National Social Democratic, Pan-African, and South Sudanese Nationalists Non-violent Revolutionary Movement to change South Sudan. We envision a country in which: Youths are represented and given opportunities to lead their people, have basic rights, proper education institutions, and opportunities to serve in their government. Elderly people have access to a better healthcare system. Women and children have a promising future for their own lives and fair economic statuses. And for that, we write a political manifesto and constitution of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM) and its youth wing, the South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM). **************** Table of Contents: SECTIONS OF THE POLITICAL MANIFESTO: 1. Foreword: Appearing above. 2. Section One: History of South Sudanese Peoples. 3. Section Two: The Visionary and Mission of South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM). 4. Section Three: Mission of South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM) as a youths wing. 5. Section Four: The Main Important Values of South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM). 6. Section Five: South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM), Strategic Visions, and Leadership. CONSTITUTION: 7. Section Six: The Constitution of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM). This manifesto outlines our values, mission, and strategic visions, as well as the mission of our youths wing, the South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM). **************** SECTIONS OF THE POLITICAL MANIFESTO: Section One: History of South Sudanese Peoples: In this section, we acknowledge the rich history and struggles of the South Sudanese people since: * The Turco-Egyptian conquest of Sudan between (1820-1824). * The Mahdist State, (1885-1899), * Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (1899-1956) * And Republic of Sudan (1956-2011), * SPLM/A, Government of Southern Sudan, Autonomous Region (1983-2011), * South Sudan Independence (2011- Present day). We recognize the importance of preserving our cultural heritage through the 64 tribes of South Sudan, while also learning from the challenges of the past. Our history serves as a reminder of our resilience and unyielding spirit in the face of adversity. Section Two: The Vision and Mission of South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM): 2.1 Vision: Our vision is of a united, prosperous, and inclusive South Sudan. A vision, where all citizens, irrespective of age, gender, background, or religion, have equal access to opportunities, basic rights, and a promising future. 2.2 Mission: Our mission is to spearhead a nonviolent revolution that seeks to bring about social justice, equal representation, and better governance in South Sudan. Through democratic processes, we aim to empower the marginalized and address the pressing issues facing our nation. Section Three: Mission of South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM) as a Youths Wing: The SSYRM functions as the youths wing of the SSNRM, with a specific focus on advocating for the rights and interests of young people in South Sudan. The mission of the SSYRM includes: 3.1 Empowerment of Youth: The SSYRM aims to empower young individuals by providing them with educational opportunities, skill development, and platforms to actively participate in decision-making processes. 3.2 Representation: We seek to ensure that the voices of the youths are heard and that they are adequately represented in all levels of government and policy-making bodies. 3.3 Youth-Centric Policies: The SSYRM will work towards the implementation of policies that address the unique challenges faced by young people, including access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Section Four: The Main Important Values of South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM): 4.1 Social Justice: We stand for social justice, equality, and fairness, ensuring that no one is left behind and that all citizens enjoy equal rights and opportunities. 4.2 Democracy and Rule of Law: The SSNRM advocates for a democratic system that upholds the rule of law, transparency, and accountability in governance. 4.3 Inclusivity: We promote inclusivity by valuing diversity, respecting the rights of minority groups, and fostering national unity. 4.4 Peace and Nonviolence: Our movement is committed to resolving conflicts through peaceful means, promoting dialogue, and building bridges between different communities. Section Five: Strategic Visions, and Leadership: 5.1 Strategic Visions: The SSNRM aims to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders, including government institutions, civil society, and international partners, to forge a path towards positive change. 5.2 Leadership: Our leadership is committed to leading by example, upholding the values of integrity, and prioritizing the interests of the people of South Sudan above all else. Section 5 Conclusion: The South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM) and its youth wing, the South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM), are dedicated to effecting transformative change in South Sudan. We call upon all citizens to join us in this noble endeavor, as together, we can create a nation-state that we can all be proud of—a nation that offers hope, opportunity, the pursuit of happiness, and prosperity for generations to come. Section Six: The Constitution of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM): The South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement: A Social Democratic, Pan-African, South Sudanese Nationalist, Non-Violent Revolutionary Movement. Preamble: We, the members of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM), in pursuit of national prosperity, social justice, and unity, hereby establish this Constitution to guide our actions and aspirations. Committed to the principles of social democracy, Pan-Africanism, and South Sudanese nationalism, we seek to build a united and inclusive South Sudan where every citizen can flourish. This Constitution outlines the structure, objectives, and core values of the SSNRM as a national social democratic, Pan-African, and South Sudanese nationalist non-violent revolutionary movement. Article I: Name and Nature: 1.1 Name: The name of the organization shall be the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement, hereafter referred to as the SSNRM. 1.2 Nature: The SSNRM is a non-violent revolutionary movement, committed to effecting positive change through peaceful means and democratic processes. It upholds the principles of social democracy, Pan-Africanism, and South Sudanese nationalism in its pursuit of national development and unity as a vanguard party of South Sudan. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: A vanguard party is a political party that is the "spearhead", or the leader, of a political revolution). 1.3: The Ultimate Guiding Principle: The SSNRM shall adhere to the ultimate guiding principles, which shall serve as the foundation of our movement. 1.4: National Unity and Reconciliation: We will always strive for unity and reconciliation of all South Sudanese People, transcending ethnic and regional divisions. Article II: Vision and Mission: 2.1 Vision: The SSNRM envisions a united, prosperous, and inclusive South Sudan, where all citizens, irrespective of age, gender, background, or religion, have equal access to opportunities, basic rights, and a promising future. We aspire to create a society that upholds the values of social justice, democracy, and human dignity. 2.2 Mission: The mission of the SSNRM is to advocate for social justice, equal representation, and better governance in South Sudan. Through peaceful and non-violent revolutionary means, we aim to empower the marginalized, promote democratic values, and address the pressing issues facing our nation. Article III: Core Values: The SSNRM is guided by the following core values, which shall be upheld by all its members and leaders: Section 3.1:Social justice: We believe in creating a just and equitable society, where the needs of all citizens are met, and no one is left behind. Section 3.2: Democracy and good governance: We are committed to democratic principles, ensuring that the will of the people guides decision-making and that leaders are accountable to their constituents. Section 3.3: Inclusivity: We value diversity and strive to foster a sense of national unity by respecting the rights and interests of all South Sudanese communities. Section 3.4 Peaceful co-existence and non-violence: We advocate for peaceful resolutions to conflicts and promote dialogue as a means to achieve lasting stability and development. 3.5 Social welfare and sustainable development: We prioritize the welfare of all citizens, aiming to provide access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities for all. We are committed to achieving sustainable development and economic prosperity for the benefit of all South Sudanese citizens. 3.6 Human rights: We prioritize the welfare of all citizens, ensuring the protection of human rights and the provision of essential services. Article IV: Provisionary Mandates: The SSNRM shall focus on the following provisionary mandates, to adress the immediate needs of the nation: 4.1 Ensuring basic rights: we shall advocate for the protection of basic rights, including access to education, healthcare and clean water. 4.2 Promoting youth empowerment: We shall prioritize youth empowerment through education, skill development, and opportunities for political participation. 4.3 Enhancing healthcare: We shall work towards all the establishment of a comprehensive and accessible healthcare. 4.4 Addressing economic challenges: We shall propose policies to address poverty, unemployment, and economic inequalities. Article V: Membership: 5.1 Eligibility: Any South Sudanese citizen who subscribes to the principles and values of the SSNRM is eligible for membership. 5.2 Rights and Responsibilities: Members shall have the right to participate in the decision-making processes of the SSNRM, uphold its values, and contribute to its activities. Members shall also be responsible for abiding by the Constitution and promoting the objectives of the SSNRM. 5.3 Accepting declarations of a membership: Any individualseeking membership in the SSNRM must make a formal acceptance declaration, pledging to uphold the constitution and principles of the revolutionary party. Article VI: Organizational Structure: 6.1 National Assembly of National Revolution: The supreme governing body of the SSNRM shall be the National Assembly of National Revolution, comprising of representatives from all states of South Sudan and relevant constituencies. 6.2 Executive Committee of National Revolution: The Executive Committee of National Revolution, shall be responsible for formulating policies, implementing decisions, and representing the SSNRM to external entities and make critical decisions. It shall be elected by the national assembly. 6.3 Responsibilities: The National Executive shall oversee the implementation of party programs and ensure coordination among different bodies. 6.4 Youth Wing: The SSNRM shall have a dedicated youth wing, known as the South Sudan Youths Revolutionary Movement (SSYRM), to advocate for the rights and involvement of youths in their government. Article VII: The Political Bureau of SSNRM 7.1 Composition: The Political Bureau shall be the highest decision-making body and shall be composed of senior party leaders. 7.2 Responsibilities: The Political Bureau shall set the overall direction and strategy of the SSNRM and provide guidance on key policy matters. Article VIII: Secretariat of National Revolution 8.1 Composition: The Secretariat shall be responsible for administrative tasks and organizing party activities. 8.2 Responsibilities: The Secretariat shall maintain records, handle communications, and support the smooth functioning of the SSNRM. Article IX: Main Duties of Revolutionaries of SSNRM 9.1 Main Duties: Revolutionaries of the SSNRM shall actively promote the party's principles, participate in party activities, and engage in grassroots mobilization. Article X: State Level Bodies 10.1 State Level Bodies: Each state shall have a state-level body responsible for coordinating party activities within its respective jurisdiction. Article XI: Duties of SSNRM State Level Members 11.1 Duties: State-level members shall advocate for the implementation of party policies and ensure effective representation of their constituencies. Article XII: County Members 12.1 County Members: Within each state, county-level members shall work towards the party's objectives at the county level. Article XIII: Main Duties of County Members 13.1 Main Duties: County members shall mobilize communities, address local issues, and promote party initiatives within their counties. Article XIV: Payam Level Bodies 14.1 Payam Level Bodies: Each county shall have Payam-level bodies responsible for party activities at the Payam level. Article XV: Main Duties of Payam Level Members 15.1 Main Duties: Payam-level members shall facilitate local engagement, implement party programs, and report to county-level bodies. Article XVI: Boma Bodies 16.1 Boma Bodies: At the grassroots level, the SSNRM shall have boma-level bodies responsible for community engagement and organizing. Article XVII: Main Duties of Boma Level Members 17.1 Main Duties: Boma-level members shall mobilize their communities, disseminate party information, and encourage participation. Article XVIII: Sources of Funding of SSNRM as a ” Vanguard Party of South Sudan”. 18.1 Funding Sources: The SSNRM shall derive its funding from voluntary contributions, fundraising activities, and transparent donations. Article XIX: Other High-Level Provisions 19.1 Other Provisions: The SSNRM shall have the authority to establish other high-level bodies as needed to advance its objectives. Article XX: Leadership and Elections 20.1 Leadership Election: Leaders of the SSNRM shall be elected through democratic processes, reflecting the will of the members. 20.2 Term Limits: Leadership positions within the SSNRM shall be subject to term limits to ensure regular and inclusive leadership transitions. Article XXI: Amendment of the Constitution 21.1 Amendment Procedure: Any proposed amendments to this Constitution must be presented to the National Assembly of National Revolution, and approved by a two-thirds majority vote. Article XXII: Dissolution 22.1 Dissolution Procedure: The SSNRM may be dissolved through a democratic decision taken by the National Assembly of National Revolution, subject to a two-thirds majority vote. Article XXIII: Ratification 23.1 Ratification: This Constitution shall come into effect upon ratification by the National Assembly of National revolution of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement, (SSNRM). ******** Final Words: In witness whereof, we, the members of the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement (SSNRM), do hereby adopt and enact this Constitution, underscoring our commitment to the principles of social democracy, Pan-Africanism, and South Sudanese nationalism in pursuit of happiness, a united, and prosperous nation-state.

(Definition of Ontology: What is Ontology? - Definition & Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com) ****************** Religion can be described as a "theistic philosophy," a philosophy that relies on one or more gods to give philosophical reason to our lives, a reason beyond the sexual and biological processes that lead us to be born by our parents (or in other scientific ways). There are exceptions, but I digress. While science can provide us with accurate, observed explanations, religions do not, for there is no inherent purpose to our universe, beyond what we create in our mentality and grant it. The same lack of exact accuracy may be present in philosophy as well. For philosophy and religion are not mathematical but verbal concepts, and verbality isn't as accurate as numbers. By the same token, a religion can be considered an ideology. However, there are differences between the two. This is why there is no "one, ultimate, universal, logical" truth when it comes to philosophy, not only theist philosophies. You can argue with representatives of many religions day and night, but what makes religious discussions and arguments so extensive is that there is no inherent meaning to this universe, making the philosophical purpose of our existence theoretical and up to potentially infinite interpretations. (Note: By "Philosophical purpose" I refer to one's reason to exist in one's eyes. One that without it alone, one would become depressed even if they have all their "earthly" wants and needs). As such, perhaps only ideas that can be proven are worth discussing, if their discussion would indeed lead to their discovery. As to how ideas are known, is another topic. Purpose, a creation of both atheist and theist philosophies, is not something that exists in the physical universe, which is the only existent universe. "The only existent universe" can be regarded as the one that exists beyond our minds. Should our imagination exist at the same degree of "existence" as the world beyond the mind, and it can be proven empirically, then we could further complicate things and claim that everything exists. You cannot use scientific methods and experimentations in order to interpret philosophical purpose, because philosophical purposes are concepts which only exist in our consciousness, in what I call the Mental Dimension. "The Mental Dimension" is an illusory one, since it cannot succumb to scientific observations. Because we humans are fragile beings, we normally create and seek purposes for our lives in order to compensate for our fragility. By "fragility" I refer to our mental toughness. Hence why can be hard for many people to be nihilists, because nihilism may require mental toughness not everyone has. Depression can break you. To avoid the void inside us that we might even fear, we do this by creating and believing in "absolute truths." The illusions we create are the backbone of our mental existence, and they help prevent us from collapsing into insanity, depression, or suffering tendencies. We may use them unconsciously to deny external reality. What allows religions and other philosophies to create purpose is the absence of a grand purpose in the world beyond the mind. What allows me to be in a room and to navigate around it is the space, the void, that it contains. With void comes freedom. (Note: I wrote "absolute truths" sarcastically. The world beyond the mind is, for example, an actual absolute truth). So it is with philosophical purposes: What allows one to come up with a possible purpose for living is the lack of purpose that living in a purely physical universe has. It is not the discovery of something that already exists; it is rather an idea created by us humans in order to feel fulfillment, create moral guidelines, and gather humans in collective under a system of accepted ideas. It's the role of cultures and the nature of ideologies to do so from a functional and political perspective. Philosophers whose philosopher-ship is well respected, like Confucius and the second Indian President, may even get power and prestige thanks to their ability to fill in the void of meaning in their societies. As such, philosophers can have very distinct influence in any society. And thus we create not only purposes, but other fantasies as well, which we see as existent even though there is no coherent proof for their existence: A spiritual realm, an afterlife, an organ named "soul," angels, demons, heavens, hells, and so forth. We do this in order to back up our confidence in the purpose or set of purposes we have created in a universe devised of matter inside a grand, possibly infinite void. This is where we begin to deceive ourselves by believing in things which have no scientific evidence. We may connect our feelings with these philosophies. This is a mistake because of the existence of actual absolute truths. Religions and other ontology of philosophies have no physical existence; they only have physical representations, which we humans grant them or assume they have. These representations include symbols, books, artifacts, buildings, and so forth. We do this in order to be even more sure that this universe has an inherent purpose. They also do not exist in a "spiritual" realm, because there is no evidence for a spiritual realm (unless/until proven otherwise). Therefore, they exist in our illusions, and because we humans are also partially illusory beings, we relate to the physical reality, the world beyond the mind, through illusory concepts and traits. In other words, we attempt to understand the universe in both scientific and illusory ways, making our understanding of the world beyond our minds non-absolute and open up for interpretations. It is therefore only natural for us humans to understand the world under illusory terms, and then believe that these illusions truly exist beyond our minds. In reality, however, each and every one of us may be delusional to a degree, as a result. This age of post-truth doesn't bring any help to this situation at all. We create a set of illusions to create purpose in a universe that lacks one. It is only natural to do so for the sake of our collective survival: of creating rules, principles, norms, and ceremonies. We then see them as reality even though their purposes are to unite people as the illusory human creations that they are. When we do not question said concepts, we possibly ensure the supervision and the authority of those who create, manage, and provide it to us: governments, churches, corporations, and so forth. Like Diogenes we may be seen as eccentrics for questioning them. However, they deserve to be questioned in the name of the truth that exists beyond ideologies, religions and even falsely-proven philosophies. For there exists truths beyond whatever can be proven as false and therefore, as not true. When we do find ourselves in such a realization, that the world-beyond-the-mind is meaningless by default, we suffer. Suffer when realizing that much of what is considered as true and unquestionable, is the exact opposite of that. That is when the transition begins -- from a "typical" human being to a fully fledged philosopher. You see, being a philosopher is not only an occupation/profession but a state of being... A state of being where you can be quite dead inside, as a result. We escape what we are not strong enough to handle. Why? Because only the weaker escape from what they cannot handle with their strength and courage. Spirit-wise included. Then, we may justify our escapism as just, in an attempt to cut off completely our fears from a possible existential crisis. (It could be the same fear our primal ancestors had when they evolved into homo sapiens, and reached a complex enough level of consciousness that needed to rely on abstract concepts in order to continue their uncertain survival in a world populated by predators and wilderness). Animals other than humans do not necessarily need a philosophical purpose in order to live. However, they might operate on a logical reasoning of their own. Compare this to objects of various weights that need to be carried towards indefinite locations. The easier, or simpler, entities are, the more likely they are to be carried, making more complex ways to carry them unnecessary. Do you think animals need philosophical purposes? I am not sure. My cat can live the same day all over again without having an existential crisis. They have a "philosophy" of their own, I suppose. However, since we humans have a very complex level of consciousness, we have reached a point where a justification for our existence can very much help us when we have our elementary needs fulfilled. Abraham Maslow knew what he was talking about when he discussed self-actualization as a need. This is our weakness as complex beings: the desire to create a purpose when we are complex enough to be able to realize the lack of philosophical purpose the universe has. We escape the world beyond the mind by creating illusory worlds, either our private fantasies or "worlds" that exist by shared and agreed systems of beliefs (AKA, intersubjectivity). We are confident that these worlds exist as the world beyond the mind, even though there is no scientific way to prove this claim. Should we accept the likely possibility of no inherent purpose to true existence, there will not be a need for dogmatism. We will be mentally free from the tyranny of collective ideologies on our lives, leading ourselves to existentialism and, thus, to decide our own fates and roles in the limited time we have among the living. Just like with my decision and dedication to be a philosopher and run a philosophy site. These were choices I made alone. And making choices independently of external desire to make them, is a testimony of free-will to exist, and thus, the free-will to create meaning in a meaning-free universe.

(Background music) Imagine yourself as a fighter, not just any fighter, but one who takes their art very seriously and even manages to win several fights successfully. At least in fighting games, beating up your opponent is much more gratifying than being on the receiving end. Violence in general can be gratifying when it is done in safety (unlike when getting punched in the face), or when you have nothing to lose (like your physical condition or even your life). However, in our pursuit of success, we often overestimate our own abilities. We rely on our past victories and experiences to fuel our confidence, but this can lead to a dangerous fallacy. Just because we have won before doesn't guarantee victory in every situation, or even our next "encounter" against adversity or a challenge. We must recognize the limitations of our strength and avoid underestimating the challenges ahead. Nothing ensures victory, and only our incompetence and ignorance ensure defeat. And I quote from "The Art of War" by Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu/Sunzi: "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat" Opponent after opponent, you may manage to create quite a name for yourself, even at times defeating opponents in a row. Your self-esteem gradually skyrockets, your head is held high in pride, in a sense of a well-deserved accomplishment for all the time spent training in combat or any other skill such as debating or any other talent which involved competition. Indeed, the path to mastery often requires much sacrifice of your time and energy, both of which are limited. Such is the nature of success. In interpersonal settings, we tend to believe that our attractiveness or charm alone will bring us success. However, true success with people requires more than just physical appearance, as that is not everything. It demands hard work, dedication, and the ability to adapt to different circumstances. Adaptation, by the way, is what determines higher possibilities of victory and success. Adaptation is how the human species manage to survive and reign supreme over the species of those who failed to adapt. But as your opponents are defeated quite easily and your ego grows, a regular-looking opponent may arrive, giving you the illusion that they will go down like the rest. However, things are not always like they seem and thus, it can be clear as to how the story ends: That regular person defeats you with ease, even after your hardest efforts to strike and to protect from their overwhelming, unexpected power. Life is a series of walls. Your hard effort invested into climbing one wall will in no way guarantee you that you will manage to overcome the many other walls that are in the way of your chosen journey in life. And indeed, when we put things into perspective, many of us are not as strong, attractive, and so, like we think we are. There may be a gap as to how we perceive ourselves and what we truly are. We are more than fixated titles and nouns. We are dynamic and developing, and thus, never absolute masters, regardless of the proficiency of our skills. Therefore, don't always have what it takes, despite our self-confidence and everything else that we got in our "toolbox" of abilities. Like the universe, we may be "expanding" because there is more room for growth, and therefore we are not only developing but far from unlimited in our powers and virtues. It is why we should never deem ourselves absolute in any way. We are always flawed, and it is not a bad thing necessarily, especially when it comes to love. We often rely on our delusion of being capable of great success, based on experience gained thus far, and use it to underestimate the challenges—and other people—who may be far more powerful in whatever field the issue is about. Should we be wiser, we may realize that there are always individuals who are more powerful and skilled than us in various fields, much to our surprise or otherwise. It's important to acknowledge their expertise and learn from them instead of underestimating their abilities. In other words, there may always be higher "walls" that we won't necessarily succeed in climbing. We might not overcome them, but even if they are our rivals, we can learn much from them. "You need to put yourself in the place of your enemy so you can predict his actions." That is the problem with the wrong usage of evidence when it comes to future endeavors. The facts may be misrepresented even by yourself, in front of yourself, leading to unintentional self-deception. This in turn could lead to an incorrect reading of the facts. The width of your biceps will not definitely give you victory in arm wrestling, your ability to snipe the enemy from a far distance will not guarantee you perfect aim at all times, being very proficient in English does not mean you know every single word in the English language, and so on and on. From this we can learn that logic is also required alongside the attribution of evidence. Truth is comprised of more than evidence alone. As such, evidence of victory is insufficient to certainly foretold future victories, and they won't always even come easily. A perfect example is the comic relief character from the Dragon Ball series, Mr. Satan. Despite being able to win several martial arts tournaments in the globe, he is but an insect compared to many other characters in the franchise, like a villain named Cell. No matter how many wins he will achieve during his career, he will never be as powerful as much of the franchise's cast are. The solution to overcoming this problem is this: Consider putting all the vanity aside and be prepared to be devastated by life just as you may prepare to succeed in it. When you consider the two options at once, you will realize that strength and weakness are not always opposite to each other. You can be a very decent fighter and be crushed over and over again at the same time. After all, we all have our weaknesses. The same logic provided in this fallacy can be applied in its inverted case as well. Sometimes, we face a series of defeats that can be demoralizing. However, it's crucial to remember that setbacks are opportunities for growth. And thus, victory can be achieved even after a demoralizing series of defeats. And finally, remember this: it's okay not to be number 1 when you can still rank high enough. Even if we're not always number one, we can still rank high enough and achieve success by learning from our failures and persevering. Winning and losing, success and failure, can by synergized. The Exception The only exception to this fallacy is when a victory is ensured, or in other words, when there is no chance for defeat. The exception occurs when one is sure to win, based on the power and skill of all parties involved. It isn't necessarily that past experience ensures victory, but on one's capability to overcome the enemy/opponent. If one's power is strong enough to the point that absolute victory is ensured, then the victory fallacy is untrue. Therefore, the victory fallacy is not true at all times. There are times where, after all, defeat is not even a possibility and thus shouldn't even be considered as such. The victory fallacy cannot apply when absolute victory will occur. A cockroach, for example, has no chance to defeat a human being, unlike a human who isn't afraid of cockroaches and can simply squash it. Can we truly say cockroaches have any chance against people who are not afraid of them at all? Fear is a tool that can be used against us in psychological warfare. However, some people are simply incapable of being afraid, although their condition is very rare. Should these types of people encounter a cockroach, they won't be hesitated to simply get rid of it without much effort or concern, thus ensuring an absolute victory.

We take the base word with eccentric meaning away from the normal. I see life way more differently than most people do. [Eccentricity] could also [be taken] as any perspective on reality that isn't the normal. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) Based on my personal experiences as someone on the spectrum, I have found out that there are two types of norms in existence: Norms that "everyone" recognizes and norms that only one or a few truly recognize. The first type is obvious. Because when you're in society or a community, there must be some guidelines to accept or at least be aware of, from the law to unwritten social codes. Although not "everyone" will be aware of them, the majority of people are well aware of them as if it's something that exists within them. The second type of norm, however, must exist under one condition. That the eccentric person or group be so embedded within them, they won't be aware that they are different. This is why I will call them, the hidden norms. Norms that the individual is aware of in his or her own life but others, due to lack of exposure, may not. Now, allow me to use myself as an example once more, not to glorify myself by any means, but to just present the point at hand and no further. For me, leading a solitary life is something I consider to be absolutely normal, as well as sacrificing my life for writing philosophy and little else. In other cases, like in the story "Insanity on America's Beach", the two protagonists are interrogated at a beach by two cops, merely for being dressed differently. For them, however, it is completely normal to walk in such a place in camouflage attire and boots. However, the rest of the visitors saw them as suspicious, the cops included. They, however, had no regard for the norms because they followed their own, eccentric norms. It may sound oxymoronic, but norms can simply be regarded as codes of conduct. In general, norms can be regarded as a part of ethics, and of course, ethics is a part of philosophy as the field asks how we should live and behave. Norms are, therefore, a field that not asks but tells us how we should behave in a society. The eccentric individual or people have their own norms, consistent or flawed as the norms of the majority of people. Obviously, if we are to take the "eagle's eye" and look at my life from afar, then surely, this is not normal orthodoxically. It is not normal to be almost without friends; it is not normal to live like a hermit, or own a massive philosophy blog in your mid 20's. However, because these habits are so embedded within myself, I find it completely normal to lead the life I'm currently leading, even though, from a general viewpoint, that is not the case at all. The point of this article is to show you the impact of "hidden norms". When you are so embedded within your own "autism" (not the condition, but within your own "bubble"), a distance will be created, between the eccentric and those who view this eccentric fellow or fellows. As I have witnessed, the distant eccentric man or woman can become unaware of how eccentric they are, to the point where they consider themselves to be, more or less, "normal". Like with others, the eccentric may also take things for granted, and that includes their own eccentricity. That's how people normalize things, including the flaws of human reality. What leads to the acceptance of norms is socialization, the lifelong process that adjusts the individual to their respective society or community. However, the thing that stays underrated is the fact that when one is in solitude, this process resumes in their own mind, based on the things they do for fun, for work, or for whatever. In other words, socialization is not only between the self and others but also between the self and themselves. That is because we do not live in a vacuum and the influence of human interaction remains in our minds, as it resumes to shape it even in solitude. That is especially true when your memory is good as mine, because we are very much influenced by memories as well, and in a way, define us. Hence why memory is "sacred". This is why, when my neighbours' guests are amused to find out about my solitude, they wonder whether or not I'm truly happy and content, living in my own hermitage. That is because a split has been created, between the socialization of the local culture, and the socialization one has between themselves! Because of that, the rarer case of "hidden norms" is created. Because the first embraces them naturally, while the rest are not even aware of said norms, as they are not within the eccentric's company, so they can't witness this "split" happening and unfolding. I've detached myself from my local society on purpose, so I could focus on my work on Philosocom. It reached to a point where I am not familiar with my own country's geographic locations within, as well as its local culture and politics. I have no use for such local details because I am writing for the international world, and not to my local countrymen and countrywomen. It isn't exactly normal to do it, correct? But I have no regard for a set of norms that are trying to bring down people like me and prevent one from becoming the best version of themselves. As a result of the "split effect", you see, a large gap has been created between my own perception and others' perception of me. In my own eyes, I'm just a philosophical writer who wants to serve the world and fulfil the void I feel within me. I've been called a "Master-Philosopher", a "Professor", and even a "Doctor" once, even though I have only a minor academic education. One of this site's readers, who is a numerologist, is using me for their mystical research. A shrink I once met told me I'm a "genius," and so on. But the thing is, I don't really know if I'm any of these things. I'm not as arrogant as some people may think. I'm just a solitary, neurodivergent fellow who is looking for purposefulness in this seemingly hollow existence. This is why I made this site, and this is why I'm writing so much. The "glory" is just something I carry along the way, not the goal. As a result of my own "autistic bubble", and my "hidden norms," I have distanced myself from fully understanding how I look in the eyes of others. That is the drawback of being so embedded within developing and refining your own work, to the point you're becoming less and less connected to others. I don't know how many of you can relate, because a life of solitude is not something people usually seek intentionally, let alone, love it. But, I at least hope I've revealed how the world looks in my eyes -- a hollow, noisy place where I don't necessarily have anything in common with. It isn't because I want to be special, but because I am an outsider due to disabilities and eccentricity. Perhaps you have a person like that in your life. A person so secluded within them that you don't know what's going on with them. I wager, at least, that they are having their own "socialization", due to the "split effect" between them and the rest of the world. That was the case with a late ancestor of mine. Unawareness is the root of this article's idea. It might not be as solvable as one might think.

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Horror of the Dimensional Merge Theory - The Product of a Deranged Mind (And Why Minds Matter In Idea-Creation)" explores the controversial topic of the mind's role in idea creation. It begins with an engaging introduction, introducing Chris Chan and his perspective on the theory. The article provides a clear explanation of the concept, making it accessible to those unfamiliar with it. The discussion on the mind's role in idea creation is thought-provoking, highlighting how a thinker's mental state can influence their work. The article also explores the potential real-world implications of the Dimensional Merge, providing a fascinating look at how fiction and reality could intersect. Balancing critiques is achieved, acknowledging the complexity of their situation without resorting to outright mockery. Introduction The Dimension Merge of C-197 and our 1218 is still in progress. There is more damn red tape to work through, but our goal is still set; it is only delayed. -- Chris Chan The "Dimensional Merge" theory is a most obscure, insane, and widely unacceptable theory. I've firstly heard from a certain insane man, now transgender woman, called Chris Chan. Given that a thinker's work stems from their mind, this means that their work cannot necessarily exist without a mind to allow such work to happen. In other words, a thinker's work necessarily depends on their mental state. Ultimately, it is impossible for a mind to be entirely free of concepts such as bias, trauma and even loneliness. This is the concept of a deranged mind, which, outside ad-hominem and whataboutism, reflects a person's inner workings. Part I: The Person Behind The Idea It wasn’t his autism that caused him to think he was a woman... And it wasn’t his autism that drove him to think he’s literally Jesus Christ reborn. It’s the fact that he’s so gullible and sheltered that people were able to put these thoughts into his head. -- "Notorious Raspberry" Perhaps some of you already have some familiarity with this person, and perhaps some of you do not. Chris Chan is an American transgender woman with low-functioning autism who also appears to be suffering from a declining, or should I say, rising, mental illness. They were even in prison for a crime so shameful I'd best not mention it in this article. If you are familiar with Chan (not to be confused with another person I mentioned on this site), then you might already know that almost no one takes them seriously. Their grip on reality is questionable, and so is their understanding of it. In internet slang, they are known as a lolcow, or a person who is "milked" for mockery. With their declining sanity, Chan seems to have eventually lost the ability to not only tell truth from ulterior motives, but also reality from fiction. As a result, they are easily manipulated, as they were in the past by online trolls, and they see themselves as married to the characters they created in their mind and in their comics. It's like they're living in a whole different world; a whole more, childish, and, at the same time, disturbing world. While many outsiders may be rejected as insane, Chan's lack of grip on reality is far more obvious. Again, I know this is technically an ad hominem fallacy, which says that concentrating on the person is irrelevant to the idea, however, Chan, as an idea-creator, relies on nothing but their own delusions and megalomania. Perhaps, then, we should understand that addressing humans requires more than just logic. It requires understanding their flaws, and not just lambasting them entirely. It requires understanding the rationale, poor or good as it is, of individual humans. The Rationality Behind Irrationality It is known that our world is very complicated to comprehend, thus many search for the easiest way of navigating it - by seeing "black and white", meaning simplify reality into dichotomous "good" and "bad" concepts. However, a person who is mature enough should know by now that reality isn’t that simple. -- Ms. Hali Bash March Therefore, in the absence of reliable logic and credible sources, the idea of the person being intertwined with it, may be required to understand the idea's true rationale. The brains behind the work may matter, but only in relation to the work itself. And the less it depends on anything else, the more important the brain is for the sake of understanding such baseless things. Perhaps this is why the ad-hominem fallacy came about in the first place; to allow certain voices, such as mine, to be heard. That is despite myself, and even philosophers such as Socrates, not being academic philosophers. I also believe in the degree fallacy, but I digress. In other words, its possible to become a credible source yourself with or without degrees and/or trophies to your name. You just have to think and research well if you want to be taken more seriously. Part II: Explaining Chan's Theory Life is a cartoon; we are all the characters of the larger; the cartoons we make are part of our own universe; we're all a reality cartoon. -- Chris Chan The "Dimensional Merge" is a multiverse-Esque theory that recognizes all fiction as truth; that characters such as Bugs Bunny and so on actually live in their own, separate universes and are as real as we are. This follows the rationale of the article, "How Everything Could be True". However, it gives all concepts the same physical properties. In other words, it sees everything as equally objective, while ignoring completely the multi-layered nature of reality. Furthermore, it says that eventually, these "dimensions" will begin to collide with one another, thus creating a bigger universe from the merged dimensions. To regard any credibility to this theory we must assume credibility to the multiverse theory, by the way. If such a thing is to ever happen, then things and characters we once recognized as fiction "will be" as real and accessible as any other thing or being. A Rubinshteinic Critique of the Dimensional Merge I don't really feel like eating and drinking stuff from an alternate reality, OK? -- Heather Mason, Silent Hill 3 I believe that this universe wouldn't be able to stand so many universes, colliding into it. I'm saying this not from a scientific standpoint, but from the idea that so many characters, with different powers and abilities, far greater than ours, breach this "dimension" and become living beings. Many, many of these fictional beings, such as Galactus from Marvel (wrote an article about him before), would terrorize whole planets and populations; If Sauron is unleashed on Earth, he'll be strong enough to become the next Hitler. If characters from the "Mortal Kombat" universe exist "for real", then they would be butchering us left and right. Although the dimensional shift might never happen at all, and although fiction is pretty much an illusion that we consume as a product, this theory does teach us the horror of fiction. I'm not referring only to video games. Imagine if the gods from Greek mythology actually existed, then we'd be in a constant state of turmoil; if golems existed, from Jewish mythology, then someone capable enough could've created a constantly generated army of them and unleashed them upon the world. And so on and so forth. Even pieces of fiction for children could be quite horrific if they existed in the real world and not in our imaginations. A plumber that is able to smash beings by jumping on them; a hedgehog that is essentially a living, spinning-saw, traveling at the speed of sound. Of course, in real life it would be very eerie, and the heroism of such characters could be subverted, just like in fiction... Magic, essentially, could be a great source of horror if applied in certain ways, like pyromancy, or fire magic, or cyromancy, -- ice magic, all within one's hands without necessarily needing any tools beyond knowledge of the fictitious arcane. Conclusions The Dimensional Merge theory reminds us of the importance of critical thinking, a skill that allows us to distinguish "donkeys from jennets", so to speak (Or cartoons from what we describe as the "real world"). By examining the absurdity of this concept, we are forced to question the foundations of our own beliefs and the sources of the information we consume. It is essential to cultivate a discerning mind that can differentiate between reality and fantasy, logic and delusion. After all, the power to shape our world lies not in the realm of fiction but in our ability to use fiction to better understand reality, and not the opposite. The Dimensional Merge theory is a chilling example of how unchecked imagination can spiral into dangerous territory, capable of manipulating the masses, especially under the leadership of cult leaders, and the social engineering of cults. While creativity is essential for human progress, it must be tempered with reason and reality. The blurring of lines between fiction and reality can have profound consequences for individuals and society as a whole, as knowing the truth allows us to act better according to the universe we are in. This is why philosophy is linked with problem solving. It is therefore imperative to maintain a healthy skepticism and to ground our ideas in evidence and logic -- the components of truth. Side Commentary Out of all the darker philosophical concepts I have written about, the Dimensional Merge's influence on the universe is a great understatement, if it ever had any likelihood whatsoever. Fiction is a label that, in a way, says to us: "You are safe, for you are in reality, and the things and beings in fiction can't physically hurt you". This is why horror as a genre isn't as scary to certain people as it is to others; whatever source of horror is out there, on the screen, in a book, and so on, it can't hurt you physically, just like people on the internet who can't come to you physically and do so themselves. Just be thankful that fiction is fiction and reality is reality, even if you let your child play violent video games or let your teenager watch a scary movie. It might hurt their minds, or at least disturb them. However, these types of media will never have any agency beyond the mental one, as long as they are educated to not become school shooters like a certain Finnish theorist. Also, if you have a gentle heart, please don't look at what Chris Chan did that got him/her to prison. I don't really like trigger warnings, but such things are not good even for some adults. I found it absurd when I've heard of it myself.

(Philosocom's Directory on Heroism) (Philosocom's Directory on Evil) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) Introduction: The Complexity of Choice In some games, you see, your actions as the player, have a huge effect on the world of which you are in. Even in my favourite childhood game which built up my moral compass, you can make certain actions which might seal away certain possibilities for the reminder of the game's plot. If I, for example, choose to execute someone I could've otherwise recruit to my side, then I will never get the happy ending to the game, until I start a new run in the game (or, otherwise, choose to make a separate save file and make a different choice). These kinds of games teach you a very important lesson, not everyone might be aware of: That your choices have consequences, not only in the game you're playing but in real life in general. If you choose to treat someone very badly, then they might never be your friend. Unlike games, you can't restart your life, which means that your choices can be even more impactful than in the virtual world of certain games. Life in general is a series of choices that either open up or closes opportunities. Some of these possibilities may appear again for you to choose, but others might be too late. If you're a female, and choose not to have kids, then there might come a day where you'd regret it, simply because females aren't always able to carry children, unlike males, who could always impregnate. Vain-ess In Video Games However, at least in some games and not in real life, the consequences of your actions don't really affect the game environment, which is a pity in my opinion. It's a pity, because it means that none of your actions actually matter in these cases, representing a simulated version of a vain reality where your actions don't really matter. Do you know what "respawning" is? It's when enemies are re-generated in a specific location, as if they were never killed beforehand. That feature is extremely imperative in multiplayer games, because there are other players as well, who also need to play the game. In such examples, which are many, your actions don't matter at all, because your actions as another player should not affect the gameplay of another player; Everyone in a public game should have the same chance to fight the same enemies you just fought. Should enemies be defeated permanently, and not come back, then the other players wouldn't have a way to progress like you did. This leads to many virtual worlds where, unlike in real life, your choices do not matter at all, even if they merely affect yourself or the progress of your own character. Such worlds, while entertaining, yield no permanent impact. The Sisyphus notion is with great despair, because no matter how much effort you'll put in this activity, the stone could always roll back by gravity, as if you've done nothing at all. So are some games, if not most games. Even games which aren't exclusively virtual, like chess, are always restarted whether you win or lose a match. These games, these simulated world, are only there to fulfil the satisfactions of player's worldwide, making them a good source for escapism from the non-virtual world, where your actions matter more. But in these video games, the cognitive effort put into defeating the enemy army, doesn't really matter, because the enemy army will always come back for another match in the future, should you desire to play chess again. Simulating Evil This existential absurdity, where your choices don't actually matter, can easily shake the stability of having a morality code. In one of the games I've played, you can be either a hero or a villain. Typical, as them hero's mission is to do good, and for the villain, to do bad. In one of the areas you can be in the game, there are two missions regarding the same issue. As the hero, you can save the ill from a horrible disease, while as the villain, you can simply take samples from the same ill people and give them to a certain scientist. That scientist claims that, they don't care at all about civilians dying, and that taking samples of their disease should be a far higher priority, putting scientific research above the sanctity of life. If you are a hero in that game, your choices won't matter at all, because even if you save civilians from that disease, more will respawn in lieu of them, after you've finished interacting with them for the quest you've been given. Problems, you see, are there to change the hero on their journey, in order to solve these problems. Sometimes these problems are antagonists such as villains or other misfortunes. But in such games, no matter how many problems you'll solve, how many bad guys you will defeat, they will always come back, as if you've done, absolutely nothing. This absurdity can easily create apathy towards the virtual world you're playing in, because ultimately, it's just there to entertain you, again and again, until you'll be done for the time being. In a world where no choice has any proper consequences on the environment, there really is no point to try to save, what you can't save, and defeat, what will always come back. If you choose to be a villain or just a bad guy in such games, you don't really face this absurdity, because unlike proper heroes, you do not submit to the morality of good. Therefore, it doesn't have to matter to you, how many enemies you've defeated, how many crimes you've committed, because there's no punishment in being a villain, while there is no true good making when you're the hero. The virtual worlds of video games present us an opportunity to do many things regardless of consequence, and as such I sometimes played the villain because it allowed me further insight on evil, while having no consequence whatsoever on the world. The Nature of the Real World There's a reason as to why you shouldn't be evil in real life -- your choices affect the world, and in turn, yourself. In the real world, you are a product of your choices. When I kill thousands of people in a video game, nothing necessarily happens to you or the character you're playing, unlike their impact in real life, which changes not only the world but also yourself. You can choose to be the good guy in these games, but your fight against evil will ALWAYS be a fruitless one. So, if there is no point for doing good, as a means to help and to combat evil, what functionality does be good hold, other than pretending that your character actually does something for the sake of the game's world, and not simply to entertain you, the player. There is therefore no point in being good in the video game world because your goodness will not have an impact. As a moral philosopher, I seek to leave an impact of good. I seek to influence the world in a way that will rectify it. In video games, playing the villain is always a favourite pick for me, because it allows me to look into both ways of morality without really causing any actual harm to a world I seek rectifying. Undertale, Where You Do Have a Lasting Impact There are exceptions, however, but they are not that common, especially not in multiplayer games. I know at least of one game, called Undertale, that remembers all of your previous runs of the game. However, it doesn't tell you that your choices have permanent implications, you discover that on your own. Basically, if you decide to kill absolutely everything that's in your way, you essentially ruined the possibility of a true happy ending to the game, even if you'll play it again and again. If not wrong, the only way to reset this possibility is by uninstalling the game. Undertale is a game that always remembers your actions, demonstrating probably one of the most realistic things out there in gaming: Having a conscience. Even if you may cancel yourself from an opportunity, you can always make a new game, as if nothing happened. But this, to never be able to escape from your decisions, in theory, is something that could make one think, that a game like Undertale is like a living, breathing creature, just like a human being or an animal. Ending: The Functionality of Morality But as long as I won't be punished for killing enemies who come back, to kill them again infinitely, there really isn't any moral imperative for being on the good side. That's because morality is there to improve and redeem both you and the world. A truly moral action is done with the intention of making a positive impact on the world. With this intention in mind, pretending that we are good heroes via a video game is a poor substitute when we can actually dedicate our time to be good in the real world. And not in a virtual application, where no actual impact is made neither on the world or on yourself.

Insights From Philosocom to Online Writers (Philosocom Writing Directory) (Background music) Introduction: In the Beginning... My initial experience with Philosocom was uneasy at first. While I made websites as a kid, they were not enough to prepare me for managing and designing a website such as this, especially in a non-native language. It can definitely be said that I had, and am learning, from my own experience, with only minor advices here and there from my family. Eventually, however, I managed doing this more independently, gaining much-needed experience whose insights I'd like to share with you. Here are a few insights from an experienced online writer for those wishing to become successful bloggers, in a world of immense competition from millions of content-creating websites: What to know before starting: Make sure you have a niche or subject you're either good at or are willing to have enough time and motivation to improve your knowledge about it. That will have a better chance at attracting a crowd of readers/followers. Anyone can start a blog at any time, but not everyone has the required knowledge. Blogging for most will not yield quick and desired results. It requires more than just writing articles, but writing them in a way that will leave a good impression on your audience, so they will be more likely to return for more content. Additionally, you won't always get the same amount of views every day, just like in any other private business. Prepare yourself for disappointment as well as for unexpected, fortunate news. Where to start a blog: I recommend starting a blog in a website of your own because that would mean you would have more control on the layout of your content and on how it would be monetized. Regardless, secondary, smaller blogs should be made on free websites such as Medium, Quora and so forth, to attract more people to your blog through backlinks. A strong social media presence can save you much money otherwise spent on advertising (the "necessary evil" of this world). Having a lot of followers is not necessarily something shallow to be proud of. They are, in fact, an asset, capable of being measured financially. As an online writer it can often give you the exposure you need to make money from your content. Tips on writing a blog: Make sure you are a good writer! one who can be understood, convey their message, have a wide array of vocabulary to use, and be able to keep your readers interested on the subject you write about. People today usually have a short attention span, so it is your duty to give a reason for your readers to sit and consume your content for at least 2 or 5 minutes on average. And if your content pieces are often long, have them summarized. A list of what to avoid as an online writer: Annoying, exaggerated clickbaits -- They can reflect poorly on your reputation as a content creator. Fake news -- They can hurt your credibility. Racism, incitement and sexism -- It can make your blog rejected by some advertisers, including those from Google AdSense. Articles or posts with only a few sentences. Condemn/shame ex-followers for unfollowing you -- this is a juvenile and insecure reaction towards of a legitimate action. Just carry on without worrying too much. For specific examples I recommend Rotten Websites Wiki Here are some ways to monetize your blog, by the way: Sell advertising space on your blog. Write sponsored posts. Create and sell digital products. Offer consulting services. Start a premium membership site. Thank you all for reading, and I hope I managed to successfully help other ambitious writers in their plans and endeavours.

(The Philosocom Socrates Directory) (Background music) Examining Socrates' Fate Socrates' execution remains a philosophical, troubled event. Did he deserve death? The answer hinges on perspective. Socrates himself, by the way, justified his own execution, due to several, theoretical reasons: "Socrates wanted to be sentenced to death, to justify his philosophic opposition to the Athenian democracy of that time" -- I. F. Stone. "Because of his loyalty to Athenian democracy, Socrates willingly accepted the guilty verdict voted by the jurors at his trial" -- Andrew Irvine. "Socrates, with his unconventional methods of intellectual inquiry, attempted to resolve the political confusion then occurring in the city-state of Athens, by willingly being the scapegoat, whose death would quiet old disputes, which then would allow the Athenian polis to progress towards political harmony and social peace.” -- Robin Waterfield. One viewpoint upholds the Athenian legal system. Socrates revered the law, prioritizing it even over his life. Following societal norms, his self-sacrifice for order seemed noble. According to Socratic ethics: If private individuals can disobey and nullify laws when they please, the Laws will no longer have any effect or any importance, and so the State will fall into chaos. The State is only held together by the Laws, and the Laws are only binding if they hold no matter what the circumstances. If Socrates should suggest that the State has committed an injustice against him by making a faulty judgment at his trial, he imagines the Laws would reply that he had agreed to abide by whatever judgments the State should make. After all, the Laws are not to be accepted piecemeal, but either entirely or not at all. We still revere those who die for their nation, including many real-life one-man-armies, who defeated many enemies on their own. We do not regard them as mass shooters but as war heroes. Yet, a disquieting question arises: Does society prioritize its own survival over its members' well-being? Socrates was a critic of Athenian Democracy as he criticized democracy in general. He believed that democracy would only work if the citizenry were skeptical and well-informed enough to elect the right candidates for the governing positions. Otherwise, they may elect those who are too unfit. As such, for his loyalty to the law and to its importance, he might as well accepted the same fate if he was a member of the fictional Galactic Empire, known for its total absence of democracy. Conversely, what was Socrates' crime? According to Xenophon, Socrates' apprentice, in "Memorabilia" "Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young." He fostered critical thinking and self-reflection among Athenian citizens. Can these be considered corrupt acts, as the charges claimed? Perhaps they were deemed threatening because they challenged established beliefs and encouraged independent thought over blind obedience. A Lesson in Duality Either way, this is an extreme example of the social risks involved in being a philosopher -- in certain time periods and nations this can mark your death. This is precisely why I hesitate to fully engage with society, preferring to largely quarantine myself from it. Societies are often self-centered, prioritizing their own interests. They glorify sacrifice for the collective good, while ostracizing those who deviate from established norms, rejecting them as either "klumniks" or straight-up insane. Socrates' punishment reveals society's two faces: It encourages participation for the greater good and for harmony. Simultaneously, it shames those who criticize it and those who are too different. If society is manipulative and is unwilling to be inclusive, why devote ourselves to a system that prioritizes its own ego and undermines our independence and individuality? Society's hypocrisy lies in condemning individual egoism while simultaneously glorifying its own ego. We're led to believe that serving society's ego (under the guise of altruism) is noble, even at the expense of our own lives. But should we really serve those who lack the empathy to not regard us as sacrificial pawns? Socrates wouldn't have died had he embraced conformity, despite his loyalty to the Athenian city-state. His contributions would have been lauded by those who sentenced his death. Those who glorify the social machine are themselves glorified in exchange, via the basic carrot and stick method. Socrates' death exposes the dark side of societal structures. They manipulate us to surrender independence for the sake of an order that deems individuality a threat on its rule. Socrates' death wasn't necessary. It was the societal consciousness that needed transformation, not the man who dared to question.