The Search Bar

(Background music) Kramer and Newman dabble in quantum physics technology that would allow them to summon pizzas from the multiverse for their new pizza enterprise. However, their incompetence summons different philosophers from the original timeline. Furthermore, Kramer and Newman are transported back to the past. But because no one really cares about them, they just stay there and are never heard from again during the episode. They return in the next episode because that's how sitcoms work. Because there is no demand for philosophers in the nearby philosophy factories, it is up for Seinfeld to help Kant , Hobbes and Nietzsche to hook up with New York's ladies so they could find a place to live and continue their respective legacies.... And maybe even true love? For being the spineless man he is, Seinfeld allows the 3 philosophers to stay in his apartment. However, their constant discourse prevents him from making the terrible jokes no one really likes. So, he devised a plan with Elieen to hook the 3 men with her seemingly infinite inventory of female friends. Meanwhile, for the idiot he is, George eavesdropped on their scheme and honestly believed the philosophers are lesbians. Simping for chromo XX kind, George plans in solitude how to use his irresistible Constanza charm, which definitely worked in the past , to convert the "lesbians" to his "home turf" like a catholic priest. The attempt to dispose of the existential good-for-nothings are set in a restaurant called " Cabaret Caboose". On their way to the event, Seinfeld argued with Elieen over how overly sensitive lactose-intolerant people are. "At this point, I can't even make jokes about cheese, Elieen!" Impractically offended by this , because she had a stray cat who hated cheese and escaped her basement, Elieen whines in normalized infantility and abandons the group. For the profound mastermind Seinfeld is, he is now left with the three stooges on his own with the ladies. At "Cabaret Caboose", the date goes horribly awkward . For the profound intellects Elieen's girlfriends are, none of them were ever introduced to actual philosophy . Because they are flat in mind, not necessarily elsewhere, they think the 3 geniuses are in fact executives from "Philosophy", a skincare company. When their Platonic Cave-Like conception is revealed, Seinfeld tries to subvert their ignorance to his own interests, promoting their collective deception. However, the philosophers get mad as they begin inquiring about the horrible pain of not being understood by society. Collectively, they intend to leave and look for a way back to their own respective historical periods. You know, like the geeky killjoys they are. Unfortunately, the women were triggered because now they think they were talking about their periods. For god's sake! Remembering the one time he read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" back in Florida, Seinfeld actually makes a smart decision and convinces the discouraged ladies to calm each other in the bathroom. Anyways, while the diversion tactic was in effect, Seinfeld asks the philosophers what's wrong with them. "What's wrong with you guys? I thought you were supposed to be smart!!" The philosophers then threaten Seinfeld that they will create an intellectualist syndicate solely for the degradation of his already-degraded material if he won't let them go. They told them that their combined wit will bring him much financial misfortune, so the categorical imperative is to let them set free. Degreeless, but not in a Rubinshteinic type of way , Seinfeld takes a deep zen breath and just tells them to be themselves with the ladies. That, the moral thing to do is to apologize for causing them grief and have a little bit of fun before both parties part ways. Further amused by his usually misused mind, the philosophers agree in unison. The ladies return from the bathroom, also trying to try and have a decent night out at the Cabaret. Their efforts are ruined by George, who enters the Caboose institution with over-the-top attire. He used all his savings just for that attire. He also bought a cane with a diamond and a top hat because he is "a philosopher". Ignoring the actual philosophers in front of his eyes, George introduces himself to the ladies and begins philosophizing with horrible logic in order to charm their brains. Kant, being a deontologist , begins fixing George every time he makes a fallacy in his arguments. Triggered by this, George begins to confront the little man and asks him what "he" does for a "living", that he "dares" challenge his rationale. Kant says that he's a deontologist. Having no idea what that means, George says he would break his teeth with his cane if he won't shut up. The philosophers laugh hysterically. Seinfeld left the scene thanks to Sun Tzu's wisdom, undetected. "Visiting my annoying parents does pay after all", he said to himself as he left. "Hmmm... Maybe I should return there as my personal conclusion to this episode... Seinfeld, you're the man with the plan!" "He is not a dentist you underutilized untermensch! " Nietzsche mocked George. "He is a deontologist!" "Yeah.... I knew that." He laughs awkwardly. "A teeth historian". Both the philosophers and the women laugh at the poor man. George begins to cry in distress. "I'm never going to get out of my parent's, aren't I?" Feeling sorry for his misfortune, one of the ladies offers to get to know him better.... personally. George gets excited and she commands him to wait outside, which he does without question. "I'm so glad I bought my shackles in my purse... Well, see you around!" the lady leaves with a joyous grin on her face after she turned around for the door.. "Well, Thomas, I guess we're just the four of us. I detect a plot hole in this flawed reality, because Kant is somehow gone too. And God is dead, so this is not even a cruel joke from a script writer from Olympus." Awkward silence. Hobbes finishes with a philosophical, punchline pickup. "Tonight, let us forge a social contract. Surrender your powers to me and my associate, and in return we will bear your company on our leviathans!" The ladies leave in disgust. Nietzsche leaves too. Hobbes lives the rest of his life as a New York homeless man.

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

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

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

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

The Search Engine VS Social Interaction -- Understanding Effective Information Gathering (Philosocom's Directory on Communication) (Social Media Directory) (Background music) The Screen vs. Reality There is this common argument against "screentime", or simply against being in front of a computer/phone/tablet screen for long periods of time. That is despite the fact you can't use a search engine without any degree of screentime. According to the argument against screentime, some people spend more time online than they should, and that online time isn't good because it harms our mental health. Other factors are included, like radiation exposure and real-life social isolation . Furthermore, there is also the claim in that argument, that people should spend more time outside instead, hanging out with others and socializing (which is only one part of human communication) . The point of this article will regard mainly the claims that can be relevant to looking up things online, instead of speaking with others, like in the days before the internet was so much more accessible. The Rise of the Autodidact : The Digital Revolution's Effect On Knowledge and Human Interaction While some may view my lack of interest in socializing as a deficiency, I argue that the internet has fundamentally altered information gathering, making reliance on social interaction for knowledge acquisition increasingly unnecessary. That's because today, the internet remains the world's largest archive of knowledge. In the past, our knowledge was primarily limited to physical sources like books, newspapers, and conversations. The internet, however, has become an unmatched, ever-expanding source of information, accessible to anyone with a basic understanding of a global language like English. This vast resource, constantly enriched by creators like myself, allows individuals to become self-taught in virtually any subject. That's as long as they are literate. As such, a way to further unleash the human potential in an optimal way, is to aspire to universal literacy , and not just to having internet access. This shift in knowledge access, has significantly impacted the role of social interaction in knowledge gathering. While engaging in conversation can offer valuable insights and perspectives, the immense diversity of information available online overcomes what any individual or group can provide. This convenience and efficiency explain the increased screen time observed today. I would argue that a lack of social inclination in such an information age is merely a flaw or an abnormality just because most of the world's internet users may be busy busy chatting with each other on social media platforms , rather than enriching their knowledge online (like reading Philosocom articles of course). Indeed, social interaction has lost some of its informational value compared to the pre-internet era. Previously, personal networks and traditional media were the primary sources of information. Today, the internet offers a far wider range of perspectives and data, from international websites to educational videos. This shift has undoubtedly diminished the necessity of social interaction for knowledge exchange. You no longer require friends just to gain insights you can find by looking up online. You no longer need certain human experiences that once were considered part of a successful person's life. Back in the 2000's, being constantly online was as equivalent to "having no life". But today, many teenagers already "have no life" as their social isolation grows and becomes normative. It seems like being face-to-face with other human beings will only go down with time. I attribute my own mastery of the English language to my extensive screen time. While traditional classes helped a bit, the internet provided me with an accessible platform for self-learning, and serving the development my philosophy of hermitage. I now own this site and an o rganized followership behind it. The internet has also challenged the need for traditional debate formats. Individuals can now rely on credible online sources to understand the complexities of a topic. So, you don't really need physical forums and debates other than recreational purposes. Competitive debates are such examples when you turn an information exchange into sports. This offers a more efficient and direct approach to knowledge acquisition. While formal education remains important for certification it's important to know that knowledge and merit do not have to depend upon degrees and certificates. It's known as the degree fallacy. With the internet, academic credentials are not the sole evidence of high intelligence. The claim that humans are inherently social creatures is a generalization . While extensive isolation can undoubtedly have negative consequences , one can embrace solitude without resorting to extreme measures, like living off-grid . Additionally, having an online presence doesn't equate to social interaction, as true social engagement requires consistent and meaningful interaction with others. Finally, the often-cited link between internet use and mental health issues is not necessarily a direct correlation. While some may struggle with internet addiction , it's important to recognize that not everyone who spends time online experiences mental health challenges, and not everyone who has mental health challenges, is addicted to the internet. As such we need to detect if there is a necessary connection between cause and effect , before establishing the notion that there is one. In conclusion, the internet has revolutionized the way we access and acquire information, making social interaction for knowledge gathering increasingly redundant. It's also known as the same--result problem. While human connection remains important for personal growth, emotional well-being and romantic relationships, the internet's vast resources and accessible learning opportunities no longer require social interaction to be the platform of information exchange. How the Internet Allowed Me to Become a Hermit Philosopher While some might label my internet usage as an addiction, I embrace it as the catalyst for my personal and growth, that allows me to work on Philosocom day and night, and maintain my followership organization behind this website. The internet, in its vastness and diversity, has shaped me into the individual I am today. A very solitary man but also a dedicated writer and thinker for humanity. I dare say that my life would be vastly different, potentially less fulfilling, if I prioritized face-to-face interactions to a greater extent. If I did so, perhaps my overall performance on Philosocom today would've been compromised. No further social circles are necessary for my empire. I am forging our own path and discover personal and collective fulfillment in solitude. It's time to acknowledge the value of solitude beyond the bias of loneliness, recognizing that introspection and self-exploration can be just as enriching as social interaction. And not only for ourselves or for our friends but also for humanity at large, for years to come.

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

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

(Background music) Criticism Towards Generalization It's true that many/most of us humans are social creatures. It's also true that many of our interactions involve socializing . However, the fact that many humans are social, and that many interactions are of a social nature, does not mean that all humans are social, and not all interactions with others are meant for socializing. Humans that are not social beings are called asocial beings. The asocial being does not enjoy socializing as much as most people, and would instead choose to be withdrawn from society far more in comparison. Thus, considering that asocial humans exist, it would be a generalization to claim that all humans are social by nature, even if many of us are. Personal Insights As a writer, my purpose is to communicate with others, and of that there is no denial. However, my reasoning for writing, is to neither make friends, nor receive them. As an asocial man I am largely withdrawn from society, live in my own hermitage, and rarely see people physically. By large, I am content with that, and prefer far more to dedicate my time, energy and intellect into work. My purpose as a writer has two sides. To contribute to the world and to justify my existence, as someone who is capable of contributing. I deem my philosophership a product of an personal moral obligation to contribute to this world. If I did not feel it, I would've chosen to be even more of a hermit than I am currently. I work on purpose even though I am well-off. I do not have a mercenary mindset , but rather, that of a salaryman . And as such, I am working to serve you. It does not mean that I enjoy socializing. Negative. I would enjoy socializing if I was a hedonist . But I prefer working than making social calls. Since socializing is purely for fun, and I dislike pure fun, I'm not a social being. I gain my fulfillment from accomplishment and productivity, and dislike wasting my time over fun. We need to take into consideration that not all people are social, and that not all people voluntarily interact with others for the sake of socializing. I do not require emotional validation , myself. I'm trying to do my job. Communicating with others helps increase my knowledge, engage my intellect, and give birth to new opportunities. Pure fun is too absurd due to a certain reasoning. Despite the fact that I interact with others, like some of my readers it does not mean I do so for socializing. I merely do so to survive ( to avoid existential dread ), and to contribute (when it comes to readers who want to initiate productive interactions with me). Actually, I experience "pure fun" differently than most people... I may become very depressed as a result. Seeking pure fun made me very nihilistic. As a philosopher, I find it immoral to deceive others. This is why I come clean with the fact that I am not interested in friends, and that I see no one as my friend... not any longer, at least. I will not lie to others that I'm their friend, when I'm not. The truth hurts, but as a philosopher it is my moral duty to be honest as far as I can. The philosopher is a blunt speaker, and not a people pleaser . By being a solitary "creature", it does mean that I am a narcissist, and not all solitary people are necessarily narcissists. I do not, in any way, view myself as "the center of the universe", and I do not see any reason to treat other people as if they were pawns in a chessboard. Despite being asocial, I enjoy and find it important to donate to charity sometimes. I want to be respected too, so I choose to respect others, by not deceiving them, that I am their friend. Would you find it respectful that your trust has been breached by someone you appreciate? What is even socializing? For me at least, it means to talk with others for the primary sake of hanging out with them, to enjoy their company and not necessarily anything beyond that. I never really liked hanging out with others, even though there were exceptions. If I am to hang out with others, I would not do so for that sake alone... I would seek additional reasons to do so. Intellectual stimulation and contribution to others, are good enough reasons for me, to interact with others, beyond just writing articles and poems. Asociality and Work as a Philosopher I don't like friendships because I do not want social fatigue to get in the way. If it weren't for it, then I would indeed consider be more a social person. However, since mental exhaustion hinders intellect , whether intended or not, I see little reason to interact with others just for the sake of socializing. Why would I want to hinder my brain? It's my work tool. This isn't to say that friendships are necessarily, nor entirely, bad. However, different people have different preferences, and the fact that I don't want friends, doesn't mean, by itself, that I am either a narcissist or a misanthrope . I do not hate other human beings, and I do care for them, if caring would entail contribution. That is, ultimately, my reasoning to interact with strangers across the world, like I do just now by writing this for you -- to contribute. If I was incapable of contributing, then my own justification for my own existence, would decrease significantly. And to live or to not live, will forever be my own choice. If death can liberate me from fatigue and from not being able to contribute (should it ever be a reality), then I would indeed contemplate it. I'm not encouraging do to it for yourselves, no. Why would a person who wants to contribute, advocate self-sacrifice? It is counter-intuitive, is it not? I had other plans in life before the the fatigue kicked in, from 2018 to mid-August 2023... I planned to be even more solitary than I am, and make a living from being a philosophy professor, just like the one I deem as my former master. However, since it lead me to create Philosocom, and because I want to help others with my own writings, then being less solitary, and more interactive with others, is a sacrifice I am willing to make. True strength comes from within. Final Words If you have any other queries about this subject, feel free to make an account on this site and provide your comment. I will end by this: The more-solitary people of the world are not necessarily depressed, shy, afraid, egotistical, anti-social and so on. We are just drained by social interactions, have other priorities in life, and do not exactly enjoy suffering from social fatigue. We wouldn't enjoy suffering as much as anyone else who is far more social than ourselves. Unless we're masochists, but being asocial does not make you a masochist. It's time that we are to look beyond such stereotypes.

(Background music) Recognizing Expendability in Fiction and Reality Ever felt like you were just another nameless stormtrooper in the grand scheme of things? Whether it's in a movie or your own life, the feeling of being expendable can sting. This article explores the concept of expendability in fiction and its uncomfortable parallels to reality. In the world of fiction, expendability is an established storytelling tool. Henchmen with generic names , nameless mooks , and countless background characters serve their purpose and then fade away. Their deaths hold little weight, their sacrifices merely footnotes in the hero's grand narrative, or an indication of a bigger threat, when that threat mows down a good guys' company of men. These faceless lots lack the vital ingredient – continuity . Their stories end where they begin, within the confines of their single scene, and as such their importance remains, with little to no further extension. The hero, on the other hand, carries the weight of the plot on their shoulders, their journey weaving through the entire the story as a savior, often. Expendability As a Feeling Now, here's the unsettling part: Expendability isn't entirely confined to fiction. In the harsh reality of the world, we too can feel replaceable. At work, the possibility of layoffs remains as certain skills become outdated, and younger, sharper competitors emerge. Your job, once seemingly secure, can feel as if it's on borrowed time you might lose at any moment. The company, driven by profit and efficiency, might see you as just another cog in the machine, easily swapped out for a smoother-running one, no matter how much a salaryman you are. But before we descend into existential despair, remember this: expendability is not inevitability . Just like a well-developed side character can steal the show, individuals in the real world can defy the label of "expendable". There are several ways to do this, which I will cover later on. However, should we not be aware of the potential within us to emerge beyond this sphere of irrelevancy that makes us feel so undermined by others -- this feeling of insignificance will resume. In some cases others, like narcissistic vampires , will actively make you feel undermined for their own gain. Thus, expendability is both a concept and feelings others can exploit, as in the case of many of our emotions. Some people who practice opportunistic philosophies won't hesitate to seize every opportunity they get. And if it means making others be expendable in both feeling and practice for their goal to be attained -- they might as well do it regardless of the morality involved. Those who may use this word may ignore the fact that morality can stand in its way. Recognizing expendability is about understanding the mechanisms at play and finding ways to rise above them in the name of our and others' worth. We may not be heroes with epic destinies , but each of us holds a unique story that to be heard, respected, and add value to people's lives. In our own ways, we are all protagonists in our own narratives, and our voices, however quiet, deserve to be heard. For we can all be immortalized in the vast fabric of the past , by being recorded in the present, for the future to know us as more than just another, expendable human beings. Building Your Stand in Life The feeling of being replaceable can sting, whether it's in the fiercely competitive world of dating , the competitive atmosphere of a soccer team or any competition for resource in general . In fiction, this sense of expendability manifests through characters who fail to prove their distinction, and thus, their relevancy, making their demise easily swallowed by the larger narrative, and outshined by the demise of more important characters. In a sense this is true in real life as well because the deaths of more-known people will far likelier to be reported on the news than the deaths of more-ordinary folk that might as well die everyday globally. It really seems that the logic of expendability works in real life in a similar way it works in fiction: If someone we are not taught to care about is discarded, we might as well overlook them even if we have the highest of empathy towards other human beings. The family/tribe bias also plays a role in this, as our close connections with others may matter to us more, than strangers whose death won't matter to us as much. How can we, then, in our own messy reality, avoid becoming just another casualty to death's inevitable clutches? Individuality , the antithesis of expendability, is our key to standing out. It's not about narcissism or attention-seeking. Instead, it's about establishing yourself as a distinct individual with distinct qualities. Since the Reverse Individuality Theory isn't likely to make you unique, here are ways to make you more distinctive, and thus, less replaceable: Master your craft: Whether it's writing, coding, or playing the guitar, dedicate time to developing your skills beyond the average. Excellence speaks volumes, setting you apart from the replaceable masses. The higher your mastery is, the more irreplecable your value can get, reflecting your usefulness. Leave your mark: Contributions, whether personal projects or professional, add texture to your life's narrative. They reveal your skills, and commitment, making you more than just another face in the crowd. Forge meaningful connections: Building strong relationships foster a sense of belonging and value. When you're not just another nameless cog, but a cherished friend, colleague, or leader, your presence carries weight. Characters we remember, many of them are villains , possess individuality. They have names, stories, and skills that set them apart from the nameless horde. The protagonist, with their defined purpose and unique talents, embodies this idea perfectly, for they are the driving force of the plot. By injecting our own lives with similar elements, we can become the protagonists of our own stories, as and such be our own driving force of our lives. Recognition and value extend beyond mere survival or securing the next pay check. It's about feeling seen, heard, and appreciated for who you truly are. It's about building a life where your contributions hold weight, your presence matters, and your story unfolds as something more than just a footnote in a long stream of such details. Your path to individuality is personal. Some discover it through artistic pursuits, while others find their voice through community engagement or professional excellence. The key is to invest time and effort in something that resonates with you, something that allows you to showcase your unique skills and passions, making your place in this world, irreplaceable in the eyes of others, and not just objectively. Individuality is not a one-time achievement, but a continuous journey towards self actualization. It's about constantly learning, growing, and contributing, adding new chapters to your story and reminding everyone around you that you are not just another face in the crowd. Remember, the hero doesn't fight against faceless hordes; they face adversaries with names , motivations, and complexities. Become the hero of your own story, not just for yourself, but for those who will appreciate your unique contributions to the world. Don't Be Just Another "Stormtrooper"! A Personal Example But what if we could rewrite our own narratives, transforming from expendable extras to protagonists in our own lives? What if we don't need to simply be passive for some external force to validate you? What if a recognition of an external force, whether or not is achieved, can also be a product of your own self-development, instead of a result of a "what-if" scenario coming into fruition? What if greater recognition is but a side-product of years of hard work on the very things we good at, and on the very qualities that define us in their dominance? Why must external validation matter as much, when it can logically be an outcome of a goal, not a goal itself? It is, after all, the very "henchmen" that strive to prove their worth to an external authority, but fail in it, proving their expendability. They fail in it because they failed in being competent enough as distinct individuals. And you can't be expendable when your competence outweighs your uselessness! Individuality is the key to claiming your place in the spotlight. It's not about outshining everyone else, but about cultivating skills, passions, and experiences that make you stand out. I learned English originally to understand video game stories. Later on, I improved my English even further to be helped by followers to accomplish my goals. This is just one example of how investing in your individuality can lead to unexpected and rewarding benefits. Don't waste your free time .  Use it to craft your unique story, one chapter at a time. As your individuality shines through, you'll move from the expendable ranks to the forefront of your own narrative, no "plot armor" needed. Remember, becoming valuable to others doesn't require narcissism; it simply requires showing the world the best version of yourself, and showing why it can help add value to people's lives. Take control of your narrative, cultivate your individuality, and become the protagonist of your own life. Take the reins off external forces who might as well won't care if you die. The world is waiting for your unique contributions, should you ever decide to grace it with them. But don't take the last sentence literally, as the recognition of your existence, like empires, isn't usually built within a day or two. You might find out that caring for others can, in the long run, help the self-care of your mental health , as the knowledge that you are cared about enough, can relieve you of much avoidable suffering.

"Without justice and love, peace will always be a great illusion" -- Helder Camara (Directory on Weakness) (Background music) How To Increase Love Using Justice Do you think there is justice in love? If so, how come? We humans need to be loved by a minimum extent to survive. However, in a world where liberty trumps morality we sure don't deserve to be loved, by anyone, just because we're humans. External love, whether we get it or not, is beyond our control, and thus depends on the people in our lives, and on how they view us. It also depends on their ability to fully accept us, for all our virtues and flaws. Those who need to protect themselves from our flaws, do not possess the strength for true love . The true lover is strong enough to refuse to escape their loved ones, through thick, through thin. As such, in a world that normalizes escapism, it normalizes, by proxy, the avoidance of love. For the strongest way to love someone is to allow them be themselves, and allow them work towards their ideal selves. You can't expect justice in the form of having people being loved, when people are too cowardly to love, and prefer escapism instead , as a self-defense mechanism. The true lover on the other hand accepts their loved ones with no actual need to protect themselves. If they truly love you back they won't abuse you intentionally, meaning that you further have no need to protect yourself from the same person who loves you back. But as long as we will feel compelled to protect ourselves from further trauma and agony, we won't efficiently provide love to those who need it. And as established, humans need to be loved to survive. Thus, there is no universal justice in love. Love require sacrifice. Such sacrifice includes your need to protect yourself with metaphorical walls. Give in to escapism, and you'll give in to not giving love to the person you want to truly love. To allow the expression of love, we must develop inner strength, one that can overcome many discomforts. For love is for those strong enough to express and receive it. Choose to be weak, and you'll choose loneliness, for either them, yourself, or both. And it's through understanding, found in love, where we can reduce the contemporary loneliness pandemic. Refuse to be weak, and you'll allow yourself to love, more. I also refuse to be weak so I would reduce people's loneliness. It's one of the reasons I am ruthless towards myself. Because love requires you to understand the pain of the other side as well as your own. Those who need the strength of others, need them not to be weak. I am therefore prepared. You can, too. You can't force someone to love you when such emotion is non-existent in their hearts, just like you can't necessarily change someone's sexual orientation . It is spontaneous, and thus, unequal, because only certain people will trigger that emotion in other people's hearts, and vice versa. Love hurts because this spontaneous triggering of unwanted emotions is unjust, but inevitable. In other words, only those who love you sincerely, will be there for you, regardless of what kind of emotions are being triggered. Those who will be there for you despite the pain, are those worthy to love you and vice versa. Justice is as cold as it is rational. When someone you love suffers, you don't run away if you're in for justice. No. You help them confront their suffering. Reduction of pain, especially to those you love, is the just thing to do. And you can't do that if you're too weak to not accept pain as part of life. Accept pain, and you'll accept reality , for pain is an inevitable part of it. Chen abandoned me not because she hated me, or because I did anything to her; it was because her emotion of love was never present, no matter how I tried to trigger it within her heart. Thus, when applied correctly, emotion is a powerful source for both love and justice. And it is easier to apply emotion than logic to morality because emotion is more accessible than logic, which is to be taught. However, when you have knowledge of morality, which is linked to logic, you need not much emotion when you already know what's the right thing to do. Especially when someone dear to you is in pain. Emotional, or otherwise. Depend too much on your emotions, and you might not relieve people of their pain. Succumb to your fears, instead of resisting them , and your loved one will suffer unnecessarily. Love does not work fantastically because not everyone gets that so-called "happy ending," whether they end up married or not. Ultimately, it is the decision of momentary emotion, unless you integrate more values into your relationship. Values such as: Loyalty . Altruism . Serenity . Discretion/ Secrecy . No matter how much suffering you've gone through, you won't necessarily get your love based on emotion alone. Love requires more. Without values, it won't work in accordance to justice, as emotion alone is not enough for moral decision making. After all, emotions are prone to change. You'll sense a threat, you'll feel intimidated. You'll be mindful of your accomplishments, you will feel proud. Justice is more strict. Through the application of justice we can be loved more, and we can love more, ourselves. And developing your own integrity, is attractive for a reason. It shows that you're honest with yourself. It shows that you deserve to be trusted. Combine morality with love, and you'll enhance it. Develop your own sense of justice, and you can make people want to love you more. You don't deserve to be loved by default. You deserve to try to be worthy of love. Incels are wrong when thinking they deserve s**. No. You need to work on yourself to be loved. Not only or necessarily physically, but morally as well. Be a man or woman of your word. Don't break promises, don't escape when you're too uneasy and so on. Nothing ensures anything for certain. However, you can work yourself to advance yourself in the world of love. Otherwise, feel free to delude yourself with other reasons, not necessarily linked with your loneliness. For love does not come to us by mere attraction. Love is more intricate than attraction . Love is to be worked on, and invested in, for it to endure. Doing so indicates of how faithful you are, of how committed you are, to that someone. Fail to commit, and your love won't last as long as it would otherwise been. You need to show that you care as well. People want to know that they are cared. Showing that you do, has many benefits. Justice is to be enforced. In law , and in other fields of human activity. Without enforcement, it won't be maintained. Fail to show your loved one your love, and they might feel like you don't love them. Love is not just because the world of love is largely a competition . The justice that exists in competition is the freedom of choice . That freedom of choice exceeds your individual need to love and be loved. The choice of mutuality is not your own exclusively. You are not entitled to be loved by anyone. They are entitled to choose who they want in their lives. And you don't even need to be despicable or truly evil to remain alone in life. Sometimes, all it takes is to be yourself, refuse to put on a social mask, and watch as the cowardly pick those who prefer to not be as honest as you are. And perhaps, you should be loved for being honest, not for deceiving. I refuse to simp just to gain the validation of another. If I'm going to be loved, I'll be loved for who I am, and for what I became. I will live, whether or not I am to be loved, whether or not I am loved as I'm renovating this article.

(Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Background music) (Note: Written in the 2020's) Even 20 years ago, life was vastly different than it is today. Nobody had smartphones; wide T.V.s were considered a luxury, and the computers , along with the internet, looked a bit funny. For more than a decade, I repressed my love for my childhood because of how nihilistic I felt back then , spending almost all of my free time playing video games alone. In fact, it was during childhood that I realized I had an affinity for the existential scale of life -- the one I now call philosophy. I wanted to do more than just play the same games on my PlayStation 2, but I didn't know what. I don't think you could've built a good website back then like you could nowadays. Regardless, even with all the joy I had as a retro gamer (I used the same console for over 10 years or so), something was amiss, and that something had a higher meaning . Something that could be useful to me beyond the casual joys of the first world back then. Now that I have hundreds of content pieces behind me, written in a matter of a few years, I do miss the times where I could just play my console and forget about everything. Do you have the same feelings, as an adult? I do have a console nowadays, but it does not retain the innocent immersion I had back in the nostalgic 2000s. Video games back then were different . Your console would not become an alternative to the arcade machines that drain your money, just to get things to improve your games. Back then, you often got the whole product and could play it all without spending an extra penny. The entertainment of today just feels different. It feels more "capitalistic", for lack of a better word. It feels... "mechanized". I don't know if it's the nostalgic bias within me that speaks instead of myself, but things indeed seem to have felt different than they do today. The games that I bought with my own money, do not seem to be as fun as the games I used to have; many of those are the same games I might never get to play again, unfortunately. And the same goes for movies, shows, or any other type of media. It feels industrialized, rather than having "spirit" within it; the same "spirit" that I at least felt back in childhood, as the feelings of nihilism stayed in the shadows, looking at me. It is thanks to these feelings, that I became a philosopher. My own family wanted me to go outside and play with others. Can you believe that? It's absurd nowadays, because even the social aspect of our lives has become very embedded in electronics, instead of face-to-face. Can you see children today who play with each other instead of being glued to their smartphones? That is how much the world has changed in a span of 10, 20 years. And that time of "spirit", and "immersion" in the media one is consuming, might as well never go back. I played some of the games they make today. They lack the "soul" I seek and can be quickly finished. Some pose no challenge, while others only bring suffering to the easily stressed, but regardless, they lack the "soul" of the old days. Everything has been done, and is thus recycled into "new content" as if it were a language-model (AKA, like "Sentient AI") , or it gives you the other solution of repeating the same "content" over and over again, like in many MMO's. It's if you are a worker and not someone who plays a video game or watches a movie. It feels all the same, and it feels like it's there just to waste time, without any immersion. Why do I like a bad game such as Suikoden IV so much? I'll give you an example of what I'm trying to convey. That game had many flaws, but it was the game that introduced me to the "true spirit" of digital media. It was bad, but at least you got to be someone in your own mind, and go to explore new places without knowing about them beforehand. However, with a quick reach of the hand to the smartphone' you could immerse yourself in the graphics without being distracted by your phone's notifications. Do you get what I mean? Beyond the many distractions we have today, we could use content as a means for " meditation ". Playing a game, back then, meant that you got to be in greater solitude, and, thus, in greater immersion. You didn't have two computers (the smartphone and the home computer/laptop) to both distract you all the time, and if you wanted to hang out with people, you could do so while having their full attention. That is the "spirit" I'm talking about. Of being so immersed in something, like a show or a video game, that it could be an alternative to the original known method of meditation -- the Buddhist Zen Meditation. You see, if I weren't a writer, I would really consider stepping out of all my social media accounts and speaking to whomever I wish, like in the old days, vocally, instead of by texting. Texting can happen anywhere and anytime, and thus it destroys your current immersion in whatever you're doing. I don't even see why a phone must have been a computer of its own. That idea was dumb because it became something many people found themselves doing in most, if not all, of their free time. It was a dumb idea because sitting in front of a computer, or receiving a phone call, was the last days of humanity without the FOMO many of us have. It was like a "ritual" you're having. A regular "ceremony" that organizes your life and allows you to better divide your time, your attention, and your energies, more effectively, instead of them being scattered all over the place. Everything had its time and thus, things could have their fair share of proper concentration and dedication. I miss the days where I received a special phone call from a parent every day, each evening, not because I want to speak with him less, but because back then, when you had this "ceremony", it felt different. Like it had more "spirit", more immersion, and more importance. Here, that parents wants to speak with me, right here, right now, after the end of the day! You could get "into the zone" or whatever, without the stress of multitasking over several devices. I miss when games didn't require you to have an internet connection just to play them, and I surely miss having no stranger have the ability to send me messages on my contemporary console, just because it is "online". And the music! Oh, the music sure was different. It wasn't as recycled as it is today, and it indeed felt more... "spiritual", especially the one from the game I told you I really liked. One of the many reasons I live in solitude, is to try and restore the times I had in the 2000s, when I was alone while my mother was sleeping, and I could do whatever I wanted after homework as done. You may call me childish, but at least I get to live the kind of life I want. I don't see what's wrong with that. I still work on Philosocom like you want to. And indeed, when you're a hermit who isn't filled with piles of meaningless text messages, videos, and photos, you get to do things you would've otherwise had a harder time doing. Do you see now why I get to write so much? It's the depth that was amiss from my life so much before my philosophership... It is because I get to be alone, just like when I was a child. No physical friends, no hangouts, or any other distraction, other than the occasional visit of a family member. That is how I solve the infamous writer's block -- by re-creating the environment of the period when distractions were less common. Anyhow, that is the ultimate flaw of having so many things within our immediate reach; we get overwhelmed, we get tired, exhausted, and the things we once liked, have their experience decrease in quality. That is at least what I can report from my own example as a human being in a world that has been vastly changed by newer technology. The only reason I am connected to the world as much as I am is to spread my content further across the world. I just have to be where all the potential audience is, you see, even though I have my own restrictions.

The Philosopher Who Became a School Shooter -- The Paradox of "Voluntary Natural Selection" (Background music) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) "Goodness may stumble, often led far astray by a well-meaning intent , while Evil boldly strides with cruel purpose, thriving not in the acts committed, but in the craft of its own dark intent" -- Mr. John Duran The Destructive Force of " Anti-Humanist Darwinism" While ideologies steeped in hate are rightfully condemned, a lesser-known philosophy lurks in the shadows - Anti-Humanist Darwinism . It's not merely about hating others, as in the case of misanthropy . It's about despising humans to the point of welcoming one's/their own annihilation. Nazism paints a horrifying picture of racial prejudice, but anti-humanist Darwinism surpasses it in its burning hatred for all of humanity. It's not fuelled by the warped notion of racial superiority, but by a nihilistic conviction that existence, in all its forms, is inherently meaningless and enslaving. This philosophy doesn't reside in dusty academic tomes; it can manifest in the most gruesome ways. Take Pekka-Eric Auvinen , a Finnish student who saw himself as a self-proclaimed "dictator of his own life" and a "natural selector" of life and death. Driven by his extreme distaste for humanity, he viewed society as a pointless, oppressive system. He took up arms and tragically ended the lives of eight innocent people, including his own. 13 survivors were injured. Auvinen's act serves as a grim reminder of the potential consequences when the theory of natural selection is wielded as a weapon. He saw himself as an enforcer of his own brand of Social Darwinism , empowered to judge and eliminate whomever he deemed unfit. But here's the crucial point: in his nihilistic worldview, even his own existence was expendable. He was merely a pawn in his self-designed game of destruction, which ironically lead to his own self-sacrifice by gunshot. Anti-humanist Darwinism transcends the realm of mere spite. It's a descent into the abyss of nihilism, where the importance of existence itself is deemed as false. To combat this toxic ideology, we must not only challenge its distorted logic but also reaffirm the inherent value of life, and not take natural selection into our own hands (as that would be, well, not exactly "natural"). By acknowledging the dangers of such philosophies and promoting understanding and compassion of people and ideas we've yet to fully understand, we can ensure that acts like Auvinen remains a rarity, a historic of the destructive potential disregard for human life and their potential. ( Yukio Mishima is also another example of a philosopher that turns a philosophy into practice ) The Tragedy of Pekka-Eric Auvinen: A Critical Reflection Pekka-Eric Auvinen , a Finnish student and self-made philosopher, tragically chose to unleash violence upon his school in 2007, driven by an extreme disdain for humanity. Identifying as the "dictator of his own life," Auvinen sought to disrupt collective functionality, hoping to inspire others to follow suit. This destructive act claimed eight lives, including that of the school principal, before Auvinen took his own life. In contemplating the disturbing incident, it raises questions about the misuse of the concept of "natural selection." The act of killing others in the name of evolutionary concepts becomes paradoxical, as it ultimately jeopardizes one's own survival, often leading to imprisonment or execution by authorities. Who's to say who is such a determinator between life and death? Such extreme selections are not new in human history, as gladiator games were defined by earning victory with the opponent's death. However, the justification of that was our need to be entertained. Can we say that the need to be entertained weighs less than the "need to select those who are fit to remain alive"? Probably not, as that voluntary need doesn't exactly exist as the need to be entertained. While philosophical pondering is generally considered harmless, Auvinen's case stands out as a rare instance where contemplation transforms into violence . This tragedy emphasizes the potential dangers of unchecked philosophical beliefs, pushing individuals towards radical actions under the guise of a perceived "reason." It's essential to recognize that acts of violence are not exclusive to any particular belief system, as demonstrated by religious terrorism ( as even Buddhism can lead to violence ). It is challenging and often burdensome to convince a philosopher with no sense of open-mindedness to deviate from their convictions, which indicates the role of philosophy in shaping one's determined mindset. Auvinen's motive, rooted in a profoundly distorted interpretation of natural selection, highlights the tragic consequences when philosophical reflections turn extremist ( and of extremism in general ). You can use this article to critically examine the complex relationship that can rise between philosophy, extremism, and the human mind, as society is confined to stay vigilant against the potential implications of unchecked ideologies, never to stem from a vacuum but from itself. Why "Voluntary Selection" is a Dangerous Misconception The thing about natural selection is, it doesn't have grand goals or objectives. It's a blind process, driven by competition and survival, not conscious intention. Animals don't get "beaten up" by stronger foes because the strong subscribe to some Darwinian philosophy; they fight for resources like food, water, and mates, driven by basic instincts and biological imperatives. This misunderstanding of natural selection was arguably Pekka-Eric Auvinen's greatest mistake, leading him to take his own life and eight innocent others. He mistakenly connected the survival of the fittest with some personal responsibility to eliminate the "weak," which resulted with the tragic Jokela school shooting . However, this "might makes right" fails when you yourself lack the power, and not just logic, to back up your morals. A school student isn't weak because he's a school student, and not having a bulletproof vest in a shooting doesn't make you any less worthy to live. You only happened to be a "natural selector" because you came to school with a gun. The idea of "voluntary natural selection" is not only nonsensical, but also incredibly dangerous. True strength lies in empathy, resilience, and authority, not solely in the ability to wield a firearm. Therefore, while I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to prioritize safety and learn basic self-defense, we've no reason to overestimate the dangerous myth of self-styled "natural selection" that can grow in the minds of extremists. An extremist can always be among us; it's only a question of whether or not we've the awareness to prevent their dark philosophy from coming into fruition. Questioning societal norms is crucial, but let's do it with critical thinking and empathy, not with guns and misguided Darwinian fantasies. People don't deserve to die just because you see things differently.

Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "Statements And Demonstrations -- Why Proof Deserves Priority" is a well-argued and relevant article that emphasizes the importance of actions over words in establishing credibility and respect. Mr. Tomasio highlights the pitfalls of self-proclaimed titles and emphasizes the need for consistent demonstration of one's abilities and virtues. The article is logically structured, with each paragraph building on the previous one, creating a cohesive narrative. The central thesis is clear and relevant: to be recognized for one's qualities or skills, one must prove them through actions rather than simply stating them. Contemporary examples, such as "woke," illustrate how self-assigned labels can backfire, providing a context that readers can easily relate to. The article is logically structured, guiding the reader through various examples and explanations that support the central argument. The emphasis on authenticity and leading by example is well-articulated, arguing that true confidence and mastery are demonstrated through consistent actions over time, rather than through self-promotion. This perspective aligns with the timeless wisdom that actions speak louder than words. The article encourages readers to focus on self-improvement and self-validation rather than seeking external approval . This positive message places responsibility for one's reputation and respect firmly in one's own hands. In conclusion, "Statements Versus Demonstrations -- Why Proof Deserves Priority" is a well-argued and relevant piece that underscores the importance of authenticity and action over mere words. (Background Music) Those who wish to convey to the mind of others that they are of a certain standing, simply stating that they are of said standing, can more often than not lead to disbelief in the listener. In other words, saying that you're "smart" or a "master" of something, will only bring you mockery and a perception of pretentiousness. That's long as you don't prove yourself sufficiently, that you are indeed of this standing of yours. A most-dominant example nowadays is the term "woke." While it's trying to convey that one is somehow enlightened , they are in fact shooting themselves in the foot since it creates the impression that they are delusional about themselves; that they are less than they intend to convey they are. Now that this term is widely used as an insult to those who highly support political correctness , it has become even harder to use that term about yourself and expect one to be taken seriously. Being "woke", in addition, creates this condescending impression that one is far more knowledgeable than the rest of us, who are not as "awake" as they are. Thus, titles such as "woke" or " sage " are very dangerous to one's reputation because simply stating that one is of said title/status, is not at all a worthy alternative to simply presenting that you are a "sage" or a "master" or whatever. It is indeed kind of lazy to just say something instead of using yourself as an example through your actions. This is why wise people do not just say out loud that they are "smart," as they would lead by example , rather than by mere words. Their actions would speak louder than their words. To be of a certain standing, one must therefore prove to both themselves and to others that they are indeed worthy of said position under whatever framework or scale. This is because it is far more effective to put the point across through practical evidence rather than through what would seem to be boasting or "blowing off one's own horn." Nowadays, constitutional monarchs are arguably disrespected because they don't lead by example as much. Their role is most often than not ceremonious, as with non-executive presidents in parliamentary democracies. In a world forged by merit, AKA by action, it's quite hard to be respected in high regard simply because of royal ancestry. The true impression of someone's character is best created from being a witness to said character. It is naive, in a world misled by fake news and questionable authority , to expect general respect without proper evidence. It's why I've been working since August 2023 in renovating this site with just that, but I digress. This is especially true for people who do not know you on a regular basis, if at all. Because of this lack of familiarity, it is far easier to judge that one is delusional about themselves, than judging the same thing after a long time of recognition or interaction. And do not expect them to research your credibility if you yourself fail to demonstrate it. Much of the reception dilemma can be solved through convincing -- and correct -- demonstration/s of your value. Do not say you are wise, and especially not a master or a sage, as these titles share similar impacts with terms such as "woke." Remember that people are far more convinced by deeds rather than mere statements, as those can easily be debunked. Do not expect compassion in a world dictated by liberty. That's in fact the dark side of liberty. A side so dark it leads to the Tragedy of Heisenberg : Why show empathy or compassion when we're free not to do so? Those who are confident enough about themselves, will not seek the approval of others by demand, nor validation . The truly confident, after all, do not need to depend their self-esteem on the feedback of others, whether or not said feedback arrives at their doorstep regularly. Attention-and-approval-seeking, all are examples of those who technically seek external recognition that does not necessarily exists within themselves. An inner void to be solved by self-love. But why should we expect love or empathy from people in general, when both qualities are generally limited in capacity? Don't appeal to emotion instead of proving what you stated. It's a fallacy after all. Titles are, in the end, things to be earned through sweat, unless you happen to be born under royalty or nobility. Other people can serve as a mirror to your advancement. Once they reach a conclusion about you, said conclusion could be true if it truly reflects the significance of your deeds. Nonetheless, skepticism requires mental effort. It is far easier for people to discard you by giving in to their confirmation bias : Remember: Having our beliefs confirmed and supported feels good. It's your job to demonstrate your self-directed statements; It isn't theirs to necessarily be curious and research you, when people prefer to consume than to actively seek new data. If you ever want to be considered a "master," a "sage," or whatever, then you should look to those who are not too biased, but honest, to provide an accurate reflection of your character. Of course, our identities can indeed exist beyond the realm of society . But as long as you communicate beyond the mere necessity, the value of society to your overall recognition in your role, shouldn't be disregarded. You deserve to be trusted, after all. Lastly, if you wish to have fans, they should become ones out of honest desire, and not just to please you . A wise person does not ask others to follow him or her; they come out of their own genuine decision. If they give you a certain title of respect, do not demand or request it to be used. Like in Taoism -- Wu Wei . Let the positive impression come naturally as you interact with the world in a laid-back manner.

The Solitary Egotist Dilemma -- To Contribute Or Not To Contribute to Others? (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background music) A Tale of Two Paths This story explores a former classmate, someone I'll call Saul, who remains an enigma to this day. During our school years, Saul was a master of solitude . Intensely private, he made a conscious effort to withdraw from the world around him. While details are scarce, Saul's intelligence was undeniable. Unlike most students, he lacked a phone or social media presence. His existence seemed confined to the school walls, where he spent his days pacing, both inside and outside the classroom. He actively avoided social interaction , refusing to participate in group projects or even any activity that was mandatory. He did what many of us really wanted to do -- not study by force, in a society that wasn't voluntary. The special needs class, primarily focused on students with autism ( including myself ), offered no clues about for Saul's behavior. His commitment to isolation extended even to exams, which he didn't bothered studying. He refused exams outright, and if forced to participate, his answers mocked the seriousness of the situation. In a question regarding the definition of a "cult" he wrote: "a word with four letters". Ironically, despite my success at school (often exceeding his demonstrated performance), a bothersome suspicion persists in my mind. Saul's withdrawn nature might have masked a deeper intelligence, one that simply refused to engage in the traditional school setting. That's because when he actually uttered things from his mouth, his contributions to discussions rivalled even my own. Saul's story is intriguing because it challenges expectations. Unlike most students in our class, even those initially hesitant, Saul actively disengaged. Assignments remained incomplete, culminating in a final grade that barely mattered. This goes to show that high grades don't necessarily correlate with high intelligence, if you choose to not partake in school studies. However, there is a positive correlation otherwise. Fast-forwarding to today, I imagine Saul remains at home with his family, likely unemployed and heavily reliant on technology. His world might be confined to his computer screen, with minimal social interaction. It's not like he needs it anyways, when he can research whatever he wants online. One time I even made a reference only he and I understood . It was one of the times I realized I at best interact with obscure, eccentric people, more than those who willingly conform. Reflecting on our contrasting paths, a realization arrived. While our outcomes differ, our shared solitary nature "connects" us. However, a crucial distinction remains. Unlike Saul's apparent disinterest in contributing to the world, I find purpose in creating this this article empire. I never saw him again after I graduated. Finding Purpose in a Vast Society The feeling of being insignificant within the vastness of society can be a powerful one . We see it in the image of a homeless person ignored on a busy street. Alienation is reminder that on a grand scale, any single individual is replaceable. Beyond immediate family and perhaps close friends, most people's impact on the world is likely to be minimal. How minimal? According to Dr. Tim Elmore : I teach that every student who is willing has the potential to lead and influence others—even if they are introverts. They may never be “Leaders” (possessing a gift for leadership) but they’re already “leaders” ( they have influence ). For years I’ve reminded people that sociologists tell us the most introverted of people will influence 10,000 others in an average lifetime. In others words, every one of us, even the shy ones, are influencing others. My question is: what breadth of influence could people have who become intentional about it? The vast majority won't achieve lasting fame, and after the initial grieving period, life carries on for everyone else. What we may regard as "influence" is but one in many influences leading to the countless ripple effects which dictate our present and future. Reality is that subtle, an endless series of events and agents clashing and interacting with one another, leading to the reality we have today. It is one of the reasons I devised the Time Lapse Fallacy in the first place. Nonetheless, most people are unaware of this rich web which we all partake in to an extent. You know, like in a massive soap opera with countless side characters . This raises a profound question: Why contribute to a society that's indifferent to your individual importance? The allure of a solitary life, free from societal pressures , becomes understandable. One might imagine many adults choosing to simply stay with their parents, content with a life outside the traditional rat race. What if moving out and struggling to reach end's meet is not worthwhile, and largely a trend? Here's where the true dilemma arises. While society as a whole may not require every single cog in its machine , it functions best when its members contribute in their own unique ways, and as long as automation makes many basic jobs obsolete . From janitors maintaining clean workplaces to bus drivers keeping our cities moving, every role plays a part, only in relation to the demand which needs to be supplied. And thus, when we can be unemployed without society or a company at least collapsing without us... Must we really venture outside our homes and partake in social affairs? This does highlight the importance of finding meaning beyond external validation . Nevertheless, the fulfillment derived from contributing to something larger than oneself, whether it's a well-run workplace, a beautiful garden, or even a philosophy blog , can be a powerful motivator. The key lies in choice . Saul chose a path of complete isolation . I chose to contribute mainly because I feel guilty the less I use my time to work, and the more I use time to be killed. One of the things that make me feel very lonely stems from the fact I have yet to meet anyone who feels the same as me. Guilty, for not contributing to society. So, I contribute remorselessly, as I escape the hole within me. The solitary life isn't inherently wrong , but it's important to recognize that it's a conscious decision, whether or not my metaphysical idea of universal lonerhood is true. For those who find purpose in connection and contribution, society offers a multitude of ways to engage and find meaning. And to quote American author Bernard Malamud : There comes a time in a man's life when to get where he has to go - if there are no doors or windows he walks through a wall. The Conqueror's Mentality Even within my chosen field, the notion of expendability looms large. Countless philosophers offer their perspectives, and this blog is just one voice among many. Additionally, the rise of A.I applies to philosophy as well. Understanding the vast competition I have, and that this world is competitive by nature , I'll do the best I can to be remembered across the ages like many of the "great fathers" throughout history . This simply how I would contribute best. Just like Saul, I could choose a life of quiet solitude. Saul, likely, embraces this guilt-free existence. But how can he do it? How can some of you do it? It is one of the questions that keep irking my mind. For I am driven by a different fire. I am a conqueror , with a soldier's mentality . My desire isn't narcissistic, as I'm doing what I can to avoid this stigma . Being able to contribute, and actually conquering that notion, one opportunity at a time , is where I suffer the least . I envision a future overflowing with engagement with my ideas. I want to see discussions sparked, theories dissected, and my articles read daily for centuries to come. I cannot bear the thought of not contributing to those who could use my articles to want to live and even to love being alive. Philosophy is most practical when it helps people believe in themselves and have faith in what they're truly capable of. I know I can make people believe in themselves and in life far more than they already do. Because of that I can't completely retire from society. My "tikkun" has yet to be fully completed. What purpose is there in an existence deemed replaceable? Your existence won't be deemed as replaceable when you'll be able to tackle problems like an oppressive regime -- with ambition, without relent, and of course, successfully. By sacrificing the tranquillity of solitude, I chase the potential for greatness, which is merely a means to a moral end, far worthier than empty statements. And I've no desire to settle for a lesser domain.

(Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) Truth is neither a possession or destination. -- Mark Bloom I am what I wanted and I want what I am. -- Meister Eckhart (Background music) Part I: The Intuitive Axiom A Wayless Truth is a fundamental principle or reality that is immediately grasped without requiring extensive explanation or investigation.  It is a self-evident truth that is often so apparent it is almost overlooked. While generally obvious, there are instances where its clarity is obscured, highlighting its distinctive nature amongst truths that require more components than it does. Essentially, it is a truth that exists independently of logical deduction or empirical verification.  It is a very basic, very "primitive" cornerstone of human understanding . Such subjects can provide a foundational basis for further thought and inquiry. Key characteristics of a Wayless Truth: Immediacy:  It is grasped spontaneously, without conscious effort. Self-evidence:  Its truth is apparent without requiring proof. Universality:  It can be found throughout reality's different fields of study. Foundation-ality:  It can serve as a starting point for other, additional knowledge. Occasional Misdiagnosis:  While generally clear, reality is more complex than it meets the eye. Part II: Examples of Intuition Beyond Reason This special type of truth, is that simply is . Excessively, it can often be dismissed as mere intuition or even madness when measured against the stringent standards of scientific inquiry or philosophical examination. Consider this ever-present knowledge that coffee can keep you awake.  This isn't a conclusion reached through complex chemical analysis or philosophical pondering. It is a truth intuitively grasped by countless individuals.  Oftentimes, although not always true, wayless truths have to do with how we feel. Similarly, when a fictional character inexplicably seems aware of their fictional existence, we accept this as a narrative device without demanding a logical explanation.  This is known as breaking the fourth wall. This character's knowledge mirrors the unspoken understanding, the subtext, shared between the audience and the storyteller within the fictional medium. Insights From Such Examples These examples highlight a crucial point:  the absence of a discernible "way" to a truth doesn't necessarily invalidate it.  Our insistence on logical pathways can obscure the value of intuition and innate understanding.   While the scientific method is indispensable, it's not the sole authority figure of truth. Taking something with greater seriousness just because of this, is known as the authority fallacy. Yet, there might be a realm of knowledge beyond the reach of reason, a space where intuition reigns supreme... A spiritual realm? Ironically, to embrace wayless truths is to acknowledge the complexity of human cognition, and to realize, with the help of Occam's Razor, that this complextiy often misses the mark.  Other than that, wayless truths may compel us to respect the power of the subconscious mind and the mysterious ways in which knowledge could be acquired.  In an era dominated by data and logic, recognizing the validity of intuition can be a refreshing counterbalance. Part III: A Potential Paradox In Truth-Seeking Our pursuit of truth can ironically obstruct its discovery.  We often impose rigid criteria on how truths should be unveiled, dismissing those that don't conform to our preconceived methods of validation. This skepticism, while essential, can become a barrier when it transforms into outright dismissal. Specifically, dismissal which keeps us farther from the truth, and not closer to it. A more practical skepticism would be more about questioning our assumptions and priorities, which lead us to truth-seeking. To expand our understanding, we must be willing to entertain truths that arrive through unexpected channels, including those the logical mind might dismiss the most. Just as we might consume a less palatable meal to avoid hunger, we should consider ideas that initially seem unappetizing. That is especially when the more conventional methods fail to prove their otherwise-dominant use for us. Cause of Paradox: Position-related Biases The position from which we view a claim significantly influences its acceptance.  A fictional character's story-based meta-awareness is plausible within the story's reality. That is, though it might be labeled insanity in our world. Similarly, the "weirdo" might be a truth-teller while the respected authority peddles falsehoods by manipulating the conventional methods many people choose to trust in. As such, should we view that person with the lens of a psychological evaluation , we could ignore his words and where he comes from. In this case, such complexity could be a waste of our time. This highlights the fallacy of ad hominem - judging the claim based on the claimant. That is, even though, that the exploration of truth has to do more with content, and less with the content-providers/content creators. As such, the mental state of the content creator/provider might not be as important in specific contexts. To truly seek truth, we should consider cultivating a palate for the unexpected, as sometimes the answer lies beneath our noses.  We should approach ideas with curiosity rather than condemnation, examining their content independently of their source, nor their path to their discovery. Only then can we hope to overcome the paradoxes inherent in our quest for knowledge. Conclusion Truth is an elusive, yet basic feature of existence. It is often obscured by the biases of its pursuers. So much so, that they manipulate themselves unconsciously, when their bias in a method grows too extreme. We are inclined to accept claims that align with our preconceptions and dismiss those that do not. This is the confirmation bias , which leads to intellectual arrogance. It serves as a formidable obstacle to genuine understanding. A more fruitful approach involves a suspension of disbelief , coupled with discretion We must cultivate a mental space where any proposition, no matter how absurd it may seem, is entertained as a potential truth. Otherwise, by using logic, we would only deter ourselves, paradoxically, from our very quest for the truth. That is because logic has its limits, as seen in the Grey Problem and in the Color Paradox. Simultaneously, we should question even the most well-supported claims, searching for underlying assumptions or alternative explanations. This process, a constant mediation attempt between acceptance and doubt, is the hallmark of the skillful skeptic, who understands how interplay is expressed in many aspects of reality. From love and hatred, to good and evil. Thus, rather than dismissing an eccentric man's behavior as delusional, the inquisitive mind might wonder: "What if this person has accessed a reality beyond our comprehension?" Conversely, when confronted with seemingly irrefutable evidence, we should ask: "Could there be an alternative explanation for these findings?". And, even, specifically, "Could there be a simpler, although less orthodox, explanation? Adopting this balanced perspective, allows ourselves to be more mentally independent from the tyranny of preconceived notions. We become explorers of the intellectual frontier, open to any possibility, regardless of its initial plausibility. And sometimes, specifically in the name of such plausibility!

(Subcategory Directory on Far Eastern Philosophies) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Failure) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Synopsis By Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "The Philosopher Who Attempted to Overthrow The Japanese Army - How Philosophy Can Be Practical" is an engaging exploration of Yukio Mishima's life and actions, emphasizing the practical application of philosophy through his extreme actions. The narrative is well-structured, guiding readers through Mishima's motivations, actions, and ultimate demise. The central thesis, that philosophy can be practical , is clearly articulated, and the article effectively supports this point by detailing Mishima's attempts to put his philosophical beliefs into action. The historical context of Mishima's life, creation of the Shield Society , and ultimate goal of restoring Japan to its imperial glory helps readers understand the complexity of his character and philosophical stance. The balanced perspective acknowledges Mishima's controversial nature, allowing readers to form their own opinions about him. The article uses sources such as the BBC and Wikiwand, with feedback from Alex Mos adding depth and a scholarly viewpoint. Overall, the article is a fascinating and well-researched piece that vividly illustrates how philosophical ideas can translate into real-world actions. (Background music) Part I: Standing Up From the Armchair In practice, most philosophers are armchair philosophers; thinkers who merely philosophize without doing anything else that is necessarily revolutionary or extreme. One of the few philosophers who was not an armchair philosopher was one of the greatest Japanese authors of the 20th century, Yukio Mishima. Mishima was an exceptional writer and traditionalist who was strong-willed enough to attempt an overthrow of the Japanese military, the Japan Self-Defense Force  (JSDF). (Not to be confused with any Mishimas of the Tekken video game series, which I covered ). The point of this article is to present to you an example of what happens when a philosopher no longer remains an armchair, or in other words -- puts his or her ideas into practice and not just creates and discusses them. It's an example as to how philosophy can indeed be practical, and not only theoretical. And thus, those who claim that philosophy is entirely impractical, may be unaware of examples such as this. This article  is also another example to this claim (although quite dark). The communist revolution in Russia  is another example which is classic in comparison. Part II: Author, Deep Thinker, Paramilitary Leader Anyways, Mishima was seriously convinced that Japan needed to "be great again." He established a small paramilitary force, known in English as the Shield Society, and infiltrated a major military base in Tokyo. His private army, which consisted of around 90 to100 uniform-wearing martial artists , was determined to fight against the threats of modernity to Japanese society after the Empire's defeat in World War II: democracy, leftist ideologies, and the influence of the West, mainly represented by the successful American occupation of Japan, which created its newer constitution. The Failed Speech Mishima was a controversial figure primarily because of his coup d'état attempt. Before then, he went to the masses who had gathered around the infiltrated base and delivered a speech that was met with great failure due to the difficulty of hearing a person without proper audio equipment. His speech was not understood by many, and was even interrupted by the audience and by the helicopters that flew above him. In his speech, he expressed his deep desire to restore Japan to its former glory, where it would be a thriving empire, led by a divine emperor, with a strong military, capable of both offense and defense, and finally, to bring back the values of the samurai warriors, otherwise known as the Bushido philosophy. Mishima's coup d'état attempt failed miserably,  and he and four of his followers sacrifice themselves. However, his actions have continued to be debated and analyzed by historians and scholars for decades. Mishima was a complex and contradictory figure, and his legacy is still being debated today. Part III: Critique of Mishima's Political Philosophy and Its Execution By today's standards, he was an extremist. It would only be natural to see him as such through the eyes of the 21st century, simply because nowadays the world is mostly run by democracies, and imperialism is seen as worthy of condemnation of any kind. However, like Socrates , Mishima was strong-willed enough to die for his imperialist ideology if it meant he would die an honorable death in the name of the spirit of Japan. That was even though, the days of the samurai were long gone and irrelevant. In a way, Mishima was very radical, a right-wing imperialist, and a fascist.  When some people claim that leftism is not a good ideology, what they fail to realize is that the contemporary world is largely leftist in essence, and that even includes contemporary conservative philosophies. Democracy, globalism, free speech , fair elections, and civil rights -- all, in essence, leftist values. A "traditional" right-winger would be one that would put tradition and personal sacrifice over anything else, as liberty is, ultimately, a leftist notion.     Mishima was and is a highly controversial figure not only because he was willing to sacrifice himself after failing to overthrow his country's military, but also because he was, so to speak, a true right-winger. He opposed democracy, supported imperialism , and wished for Japan to be ruled by a totalitarian regime, which would oppose both foreign influence and the notion of globalism.     His hatred towards the West, and love of tradition were the catalysts for one of Japan's most bizarre attempts at rebellion, which eventually led to his self-sacrifice. The Philosophy of his Personal Army of Followers He shaped his private army, the Shield Society , in his own image. He would train them to be as fit as possible, as he wanted to be himself, and he would not equip them with modern weaponry such as guns. Instead, he would teach them martial arts and sword fighting. The Shield Society soldier was a heavily fit, heavily disciplined volunteer who would seek to sacrifice his own life in order to protect the Emperor, if such an opportunity should ever arise. He is merely a protector of traditional values, which he would seek to restore by overthrowing the JDSF , a military entity compromised by foreign influence. Mishima was never really a military man . He was an intellectual who would write countless literary works and even work as an actor to make a living. He had a very strict training regime, since he wished to be as muscular as he could, and even managed to avoid the draft in World War II because a medical staff misdiagnosed him while he had a cold. Nevertheless, his lack of military expertise did not stop him from forming his own paramilitary force and invading a major military facility with a relative degree of success. Conclusions Ultimately, Mishima didn't want to die old, and perhaps he was afraid of it as well. He wanted to die young because he wished to be eliminated for a bigger purpose than himself, whether that death would be in battle or through seppuku. Is it worthy to use one's philosophy to practice? That depends on your goals, on the likelihood of you succeeding, and on whatever is at stake. That may sometimes include your and/or other people's lives. Given Mishima's example, we can learn that, perhaps, our vision doesn't always come into fruition. After all, even if that plan is for the greater good, both its execution and its aftermath could shoot us in the foot . In turn, this could cause unnecessary suffering, grief and trauma in our world. Handle your plans successfully and responsibly, and consider the idea of not implementing them at all. It is often good to choose nothing over something you and others will regret later on. Enjoy the sources: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20201124-yukio-mishima-the-strange-tale-of-japans-infamous-novelist   https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tatenokai Alex Mos's Feedback "We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."  These were the words of Yukio Mishima, an iconic and controversial Japanese writer, playwright, and poet, a three-time candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature he never won. He was also an actor, model, bodybuilder, martial artist, and the leader of an ultra-right militia of young men devoted to protecting the Emperor and the old ways of imperial Japan. On November 25, 1970, Mishima performed seppuku,  similar to a samurai, after his speech failed to motivate soldiers to join him in the coup d'etat. He idealized heroic death for a greater purpose,  which became his obsession and led to his self-sacrifice. Mishima left a rich literary legacy, including romantic, psychological, philosophical, and political explorations.  However, was he more of a philosopher or an ideologist? What's the difference between these two concepts?  Ideology shapes a person's or a group's worldview around political, social, or economic systems and can be influenced by cultural , religious, or historical factors. In contrast, philosophy is a broader, abstract discipline that seeks answers to fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality. Yukio Mishima sought forcefully to restore the traditional,  divine Emperor's power in Japan, which can be considered an ideology. Yet, he was also motivated by the personal need for a higher purpose and recognition.   In the philosophical book "Sun and Steel,"  Mishima describes his radical idea of physical beauty in balance with the mind, which is sculptured by the stoic pain of rigorous training. He regarded a strong physique not as a display of vanity or health  but as a necessity in preparation for a privileged, honorable death. For some, Yukio Mishima might be a nostalgic reminiscence  of the last samurai, a romantic idea of a warrior following the Bushido code of honor.   Yet, we shouldn't forget that he was also a dangerous, fascistic ideologist whose ideas were outdated, lacked a vision for progress, and a glorified death cult.

(Background music) (Philosocom Writing Directory) Introduction It should be taken into account that one does not simply open a philosophy blog for no reason. Writers who do not have a core philosophy behind their decision to write, might struggle greatly and unnecessarily to write good content and make others want to read it. A core reason to write philosophy specifically is to inspect and try solve problems from a logical perspective. The need for a reason becomes more urgent when it comes to this specific niche of philosophy, and it's not only because there's a lot of competition from "rival" blogs. It's also because philosophizing is done under a premise, under a reason, under logic. It isn't just idle chatter as it may stereotypically be presented by those who disapprove of it. No. It's all carefully planned in order to make sense. And to make competent philosophy articles , one must plan them in accordance to get the desired result. In this case, success is when your understanding or presentation of the truth has been demonstrated through your content. A work of philosophy done out of boredom and nothing else is a work that, in theory, could be easily disregarded by both the reader and the author. But to write competent philosophy content, be it articles or books, one must be serious about what they're doing, and make sure they plan their produced material in the most logical and bias-disposed way possible. Therefore, a motive needs to be put in place and remembered as far as the mind can do so. After all, philosophy is best produced when done seriously and meticulously. And for seriousness to be implemented and preserved, one or more purposes are needed . Otherwise, the quality would either degrade with time, or be subpar already. Call it a work philosophy or a "philosophy of a philosophy", regarding this niche. You may also call it meta-philosophy . In this article, I will attempt to present the three core values that underlie the reasoning behind my writing and, directly, the existence of this very site. Realization In Hebrew, the main aim of a content-based site is called "Erech Mussaf" (ערך מוסף) , or "additional value" in English. Specifically in content it's called value-driven content. According to Virgova LLC: "Value-driven content for marketing is content that is created with the intention of providing tangible value to the audience. This could be in the form of helpful advice, useful resources, or entertaining stories. It should be designed to engage and educate the audience, not just to promote a product or service." In philosophy, it's the most important core of all, particularly of a philosophy blog. People do not usually write philosophy to promote a product as most (if not all) advertising is to be biased in order to drive you to buy . And that goes against this niche as you are expected to aim for objectivity as a philosopher. In the end, my aim as a writer is to give you something of additional value, and one that I am to achieve myself: A greater realization of the truth. And this value, logically, needs to keep you wanting to read, in order for Philosocom to succeed. That's despite the general competition of both other blogs and other sources of stimulation that consume your time. Upon further introspection there's quite a lot. If a philosophy blog fail to provide you, personally, an "Erech Mussaf", then that blog does not worth your time. According to Author Luisa Zhou: 77. 80% of blogs will likely fail within 18 months There are over 600 million blogs online If you have not learned anything new, or were not given at least something to think about and to consider, then that blog you're reading is at a disadvantage, compared to rivalling blogs. Given that philosophy is all about value and not promotion of product, value deserves to be the "king" in philosophical content above all other "earthly" niches. The process of philosophizing is all about doing something for the sake of an "immaterial product", instead. Be it a solution, a new idea, a vision and so on. Karl Marx for instance sold because his product was immaterial: A societal utopia. You don't buy ideas like you buy an item at the store. One does not seek philosophy for the sake of erasing boredom, entertainment, or any such "regular" value whose functionality can be served by ice creams and popsicles. You, I and the rest of us, are all seekers of realization, by choosing to seek and contribute this niche. That's the unique trait in philosophy that doesn't necessarily exist in other niches, such as niches related to entertainment, for example. When one seeks entertainment, like when watching a movie or playing a video game, these activities are merely done to rest and to relax oneself from the daily activities of life -- work, school and other duties. That, you see, is not the case in philosophy. The entire purpose of philosophy is to get something that is additional to itself, and that is realization. To realize a deeper truth one must take active cognitive effort to see it through that they understood what they read or what they're writing about. To philosophize publicly, and be successful at it, is to gather people around you and prove to them that they have a good enough reason not to do anything else with their free time. You could just as easily give up on seeking philosophers or trying to philosophize yourself. Not only this field doesn't have a clear end ; There are many other alternatives out there to fill your time that do not require nearly as much energy or dedication as philosophy demands. Thus, reading philosophy comes with the realization that the other alternatives out there. While reading philosophy isn't necessarily as fun as playing a game or having intercourse, at the very least you're doing something useful with your time: Enhance your understanding of the world around you from a logical perspective. Science only covers up part of it. This is why I myself philosophize: Because the solutions out there, all the pleasures of modern-day technologies, are not enough for me to make me smile, to make me desire this existence. No. The best thing I can do for me to stay sane in this seemingly-absurd world is to try my best to make sense of it, and you're free to read my and others' findings on my journey, to create the best philosophy blog I can. The "earthly" pursuits of life may fail filling in our need for meaning. That's where I and my article empire come in. 2. Relevancy Allow me to tell you a little secret. My books did not achieve as much success as this site. The reasoning behind it is that books are less read than posts you can find on the internet: The internetization of content, as I call it. If people do not see a good enough reason to read a book, then one must compromise for the more desirable channels of content distribution. Books are not bad by default; They're less desirable when you have so much accessible data on your smartphone, to freely read. Because of that, I've decided to put my content in the form of a blog. Blogs are more likely to be consumed by the world than books, and I have my own statistics to prove it: In 2017, 77% of internet users read blogs ( Social Media Today ). There is a general decline of American book readership from 2002 to 2021 ( Gallup ). Before 2020, 30% of the book market share is consumed by Americans ( World Population Review ). Every 0.5 seconds, a new blog post is published ( UK Web Host Review ) On the contrary, "based upon a total annual number of 4 million books published each year, it can be estimated that almost 11,000 books are published daily". ( Wordsrated ) I might've managed to sell dozens of copies, at least in physical form. However, I can have "tinier" bits of similar content, then people are likelier to read it in the hundreds, if not thousands accessible far more, and easier to produce and also edit whenever I'd like to improve their quality. Why would I focus on books, then, when blog articles are easier to write, spread and renovate? Philosophy is already something that is lagging. The better-quality blogs out there, the better service they can make for this niche. It should not be the sole pursuit of highly educated academics ; Anyone with an internet connection should consume philosophical content as much as they would like. It should be in the possession of anyone across the world, with the only required payment being to your internet provider or to your local internet café. The masses deserve to be educated without resorting to crippling student debt! With the power of worthy blogs, I am confident that, eventually, philosophy in this day and age will be more desired, and available just like any other topic. What I'm giving you should not be denied; it is a largely a free service that you're getting from me. You can learn philosophy from bloggers for free, than risking heavy debt by learning them from academic professors. That is the relevancy of Philosocom being an ever-expanding, ever-improving blog, and not a university that sells you knowledge at the price of academic courses. Additionally, philosophy degrees do not hold much practical value beyond the knowledge itself, and their direct job options. 3. Finally, Revenge Have you ever found a philosophy blog that is driven by the quest for vengeance? Whether you did or didn't, this is the one . I'm a specific person, whom some of you may already know, as the third core motivator for this blog. And I'm using her specifically because I found revenge can be carried out altruistically. I did many good things for her: I made her a waltz on the piano I used to have; I gave her a copy of my first published book ; and in the end, all I eventually received was the simple sentence: "You are not relevant enough." To this day, I'm not sure why she treated me so badly over the years, despite my pure goodwill. Regardless, the past cannot be changed . She could've at least said "thank you", but no. I am most likely not to see or hear from her again. However, she represents, in my mind, not only herself, but other people as well, towards whom I also had good will. People who didn't care, for my good will. So, Philosocom is a way for me to find people who would want to be contributed from my hard work. I've no desire to please the ungrateful anymore. If they think I am not worthy enough in their eyes, then I will dedicate the rest of my life to making you, at least, to consider that they might be wrong. I will prove my worth more and more. And my success, my revenge, will be carried out with relentless work, one article at a time! I'm not looking for love, nor for an apology. I'm looking be of worth beyond where I was deemed disposable. As any honest altruist would! With this philosophy blog as my representative, I shall at least try to make the ungrateful, irrelevant themselves, through what I have to offer to those willing enough to be thankful. And since I don't want to die at all, as devaluing my own life is immoral despite the struggle, the alternative is to improve, to write, and to share. And I'll do so until my reasoning for my existence will be justified enough to be deemed worthy as to many people as I can! It's the only way Philosocom can be recognized -- for its head's hard work towards the benefit of the public. You will pay, Chen! I will never allow myself to be this egotistical as you were to me!

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

(Directory on Perception) All things exist with the duality of a subjective inside and an objective outside. -- Mr. Dan Echegoyen Reality is also a matter of perspective. You look down and see grass. What would happen if you were 2 inches tall. That grass would all of a sudden become a jungle. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher Many people love a good afternoon rest. For them, it is "the definition" of freedom, which is essentially the freedom to do nothing but lie down and close your eyes. Not everyone is able to rest as much as they would like, due to many reasons, such as work, family, and anxiety. For me, I have never actually managed to rest peacefully when I was healthier. Only in the rare times when I was sick was I able to easily succumb to rest. However, since I have been in good health for most of my life, I have seen little reason to rest, whether or not I was actually tired. As a kid, I forced myself to stay awake as much as possible during vacations so that I could seize the day (or night) by doing the things I liked. Have you ever wondered why time passes so quickly when we rest or are asleep? It is as if we are in a different "dimension" that boosts our own empirical conception of time. Seven or eight hours can pass so quickly simply by entering a state of being that we are not fully aware of. A state of being that somehow "makes" time travel faster, even though for the awake, it drags along normally. Time is not objective because it is a duration of experience that is manipulated by said experience to be "faster" or "slower" than it actually is. Are you familiar with the phrase " Time flies when you're having fun "? Why does it happen? How does fun make time go faster for us, but not for someone who is extremely bored? This just goes to show that time is not exclusively subjected to mere numbers on a digital clock; it is also subjected to our own experience, which changes individually. This proves my theory that subjectivity does not transcend reality . Simply because subjectivity does not necessarily exist only outside of real life or exclusively within fiction. Your conception of time when you are asleep is as credible as that of someone who is forced to stare at a wall in solitary confinement. It is what can be described as subjective reality. How can we determine, in practice, which subjective experience is the most "correct" one when it comes to relative things such as time? What makes your fast-paced experience of sleep more or less legitimate than that of someone who drives recklessly because of boredom ? It makes no sense to determine that one is truer or more false than the other because both are legitimate in their existance. I am not talking about moral legitimacy. I refer to the fact that both exist even if the sleeper and the reckless driver experience its duration of time differently due to their biases. Time sure goes quickly when you are in danger, right? It may "go quickly" the same as it can go "even quicker" to the one sleeping, at the same, objective duration of time. This is what I mean by subjective equality. The belief that subjectivity can exist within the framework of objective reality, while also being a part of that reality, like any other objective fact. Therefore, the question of "objective" and "subjective" becomes irrelevant because both are truths, whether perceived or independent of perception. In other words, the fact that it is currently 2 PM in my time zone does not mean that it is also 2 PM universally, not only on planet Earth or in a specific region, but also in the minds of others. What we fail to realize about illusions is that they exist in our minds, and since they have a certain way of existing, then they are real in one way or another. After all, everything that is real exists, and everything that is not real does not exist. Of course, if I watch an animated production, the "world" beyond the visuals does not exist, but what does exist is the representation of that world, in our minds and on the screens. Our imagination is "real" in a way because we perceive the world through its lens. Focusing on the reality beyond the mind means that we degrade our focus from the imagination within the mind, in favor of the external world. The same goes when it is the opposite; it is called daydreaming . Have you ever wondered to yourself, "Why do I tend to daydream? How come you suddenly see a reality that doesn't exist beyond your eyes, and yet you see it beyond your eyes? Reality is not a single layer; it is like an onion. Each reality has its own level of "real-ness," depending on how universal it is objectively. As such, the physical realm is more real than the illusion realm. However, all "reality" is real in its own way. Fiction is "real" in the sense that we can talk about it and imagine it, just like we would see something that exists beyond a movie or any other medium of fiction. In philosophy, it shouldn't matter whether something is a "subjective opinion" or not, because one's opinion is, in theory, as real as anything else that is perceivable. Society, armies, and countries do not exist beyond our consciousness. They are all abstract terms that we collectively agree to see as true, just like concrete things such as tables and stones. Fiction is something that we simply agree to see as less than reality. Whether or not it actually happened is independent of the perception from our minds. In a sense, subjectivity is a tool to assess reality, like when figuring out if the flower we look at exists, and if we're to advance, if that flower is beautiful or not. How can you know if a flower is real or not, when we are all confined to our senses, both outward and inward? What, exactly, makes the outward experience more real than the inward one? It is simply the collective agreement, the norm, that a pink flower is more real than a movie we watch on a screen. The movie was still broadcasted, as the flower still existed. Our conception of what makes them "more reaL" than otherwise is a product of an attempt to escape the reality of subjective equality. As such, the subjectivity of our perception lies in our ability to regard things as well, and give them different degrees of importance. This is the exact logic that technically justifies the dangerous philosophy of solipsism . It is the belief that we are the only ones alive, while the rest is merely a projection of the mind. It is like a movie, which is a projection of digital data or an actual, broadcasted film; a projection of a frame, and the illusion of movement of connected pictures. Of course, when you are hurt by something, like a knife stab, the pain is real within both the inward and outward experiences. However, some may experience physical pain when under stress . How can you tell me that my psychological pain is not as real as a physical wound just because others do not feel the same pain from stress that I do? Why does the truth have to be the exclusive property of the collective, and not of the individual, who is also a human being like others, with the ability to experience both within and without? The premise behind my theory is the fact that each experience is true in its own way, without necessarily leading itself into an oxymoron or a paradox. The pain that I feel when doing basic actions has its own "reality" as someone who does basic actions with no physical pain or exhaustion whatsoever. They do not contradict one another, because they happen to different people, and the fact that they do not happen to the majority of people does not necessarily mean that said experiences are not as real as those that are held by the majority. Despite subjective equality, I believe there is a world that exists beyond our senses . I call that world the "world beyond the mind." Both "worlds" are real, just like one's brain and one's consciousness, just like a film that generates the illusion of animation. Even documentaries are built on this illusion of animation, which technically makes them prone to our subjectivity, while still retaining their perception-independent facts. This is why, when someone accuses me of subjectivity, I would tell them that subjectivity can be true in its own way; it is simply true to the mind that perceives it, and to the body it is confined to. Do all truths have to be universal, and apply to every single thing and being in the universe? The fact that we are individuals shows that our consciousness is a projector of a reality that might appear different to someone else, based on the state of their own consciousness. The consciousness is not a delusion ! It is as real as any other thing we consider real. Thus, the things it creates are also real, because if they are created, they exist, and if they exist, they are real, for all existent things are real in their own way. Even if there is a "hierarchy" of realism, we cannot deny that existence leads to realism nonetheless, and that realism is true to all existent beings and things. It makes them all true in that regard -- the regard of basic truthfulness which all existence has, be it a pink flower, a fictional movie, or a dream you have. The fact that you can think about something is created by the thought, which makes it existent in a way, which makes it real.

Alex Mos's Synopsis: The purpose of philosophizing is to search for truth regardless of its arbitrary limitations, even subjectivity. Subjective opinions can be truthful or partly truthful, irrespective of their possible emotional bias . An expert's personal testimony is an example of a subjective yet possible true statement. Truth doesn't always need to be universal. It's also regarded as truth when a representative group considers it truth or applies only to cases within specific parameters. Philosophy aims to uncover all truth, the universal and the relative. Subjectivity doesn't need to oppose the truth and deserves to be questioned. (Directory on Perception) (Background music) Philosophy has always been concerned with uncovering the truths of existence through logical reasoning . This has been its enduring aim, and it may well remain so indefinitely. However, a problem arises when certain truths are excluded from philosophical inquiry due to arbitrary limitations. This leads to the creation of a hierarchy of truths, even though philosophy should strive to uncover all truth, regardless of its category. This hierarchy can be deemed as the multi-layers of existence. I find it surprising that this exclusionary practice persists even today, in a world where things can be essentially categorized as either true or false. Everything that exists, therefore, is true, and everything that doesn't exist is either true in fiction or simply false. There is no need to divide truth and ignore certain portions of it. The purpose of philosophizing is to discover truth, regardless of its type. The principle I just mentioned about existence also applies to subjectivity . Subjectivity does not exist on a higher plane than existence. Even when it comes to personal truths, there are still objective criteria by which something can be measured and thus determined. For instance, it is widely agreed upon that movies like " The Room " fall into the category of " Z-movies ," or movies so bad that they have their own distinct classification. Therefore, since Z-movies are a real phenomenon and "The Room" is objectively a bad movie, it is true to conclude that it is a Z-movie, regardless of whether you enjoyed the movie or found it unbearable. Subjective opinions hold significance , not because they are cherished by individuals, but because they are not entities or notions that are transcending reality. Philosophy is about uncovering and spreading the truth while steering clear of falsehood. If subjective opinions are not entirely false, then some of them must possess truth , regardless of any emotional bias that may be present. Consider, for instance, the situation where I perceive something as beautiful. Beauty, being an attribute that can be assessed through symmetry, size, color, and other factors , would likely make my opinion true as well, even though it stems from my subjective experience. The value of opinion extends beyond philosophy . Otherwise, it would trigger little interest. When you provide a testimonial for a business or an expert, your personal experience is regarded as evidence of their expertise. It leads you to presume that if the expert has received positive reviews, they may indeed be an expert, as some have testified. Now, ask yourself: Is such a testimonial rendered worthless simply because it is subjective to the reviewer? What if you utilized the expert's services and discovered that the review was indeed accurate? In that case, why disregard subjective information that has proven to be correct, i.e., true? Therefore, testimonials, which are mostly if not entirely subjective, are not to be underestimated just because they are objective. By discarding a portion of truth through subjective limitations , we not only do a disservice to philosophy but also hinder our own progress towards becoming less ignorant about existence. Even when opposing subjectivities are involved, reality dictates that there can only be truth or falsehood. It cannot be a hybrid, AKA, true and false at the same time. Such a determination depends on the subject at hand and its appropriate measures. Another point worth noting is that truths don't have to be universal to be valid. The fact that something is true for some and not for others does not diminish its status as a truth. For example, it is true that apples are tasty. However, this does not imply that they are universally tasty, as different individuals have varying preferences. Similarly, it is "objectively" true that democracy is a desirable form of government, but that does not mean everyone would agree with this "objective" truth. Some would prefer other forms of government. In addition, many "objective" truths are, in fact, subjective and are only perceived as objective because they are widely accepted or even plausible. Consider the perception of height. Do you think being 6'2" is tall? This judgment is only considered valid because it is a subjective impression to humans, but not to other beings, such as elephants, giraffes, and so on. If such animals could communicate, would they question our claim of objectivity when they are far taller than us? Would a 6'2 tall man indeed be tall next to a giraffe? Thus, truth has two sides: universal truth and relative truth. The purpose of philosophy is to uncover the truth, regardless of its nature, and it may do so even more honestly than journalism . Wouldn't it be somewhat hypocritical, then, to only seek one type of truth —one that might be more relative than one may think? Much of our experience is shaped by our subjective inclinations . I have been called a terrible writer on one occasion, yet Quora nominated me as a Top Writer in a certain year. As you can see, the truth exists independently of individual experiences. Why, then, should we view these experiences as obstacles to be avoided when they can simply be analyzed in search of the truth, which can be found in either experience? In other words, if an experience can indicate the truth, why disregard it? After all, logic dictates that A and B cannot be one and the same. A terrible writer cannot be a top writer at the same time. One, therefore, must regard information not based on objectivity or subjectivity, but on truth and falsehood. In summary, experiences are valuable because they can contain fragments of truth or even reflect reality as a whole. They deserve to be questioned, like anything else, but subjectivity is not the opposite of truth; falsehood is. The same as they deserve to be questioned, they deserve to be tolerated. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Subjectivity relates to cognitive realities interacting with all other objective matters, whether living or not. Due to every person having their own unique neuroanatomy , as determined by our genetics, it will result in every part of reality being experienced a bit differently by everyone who witnesses it. It becomes objectivity ( Note: or inter-subjectivity ) when enough individuals have had enough similar experiences. Without the existence of subjectivity we would possess no objectivity, or the experience of what actual reality is. Everything we experience is subjective. This is the result of every person seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching differently which all is the result of how our brains are structured. Why do you think we have musical geniuses ? [These are] individuals who possess larger-than-average amounts of intelligence and a brain structure, which lets them process sound differently. Them having this gift is subjective to the genetics they are born with. A question must certainly be true and false at the same time. Follow my logic, here. "A person enjoys being out in the sun". This can be both true and false. It is subjective to the person answering the question. A person born near the equator might say yes whereas pale skinned individuals from the north might not enjoy the sun as much due to sunburn. [It's an] utterly ridiculous example but my point is we might want to focus on subjectivity being subjective to the way we are using something.

(Philosocom Directory on Numbers) (Directory on Perception) (Background Music) The Paradox of Numbers: Inherent or Invented? Technically, numbers are everywhere, embedded into the fabric of reality both within and outside of human perception . We can assume that they exist independently of us, even though we were the ones who gave them their meaning and purpose. As such, however, there's a paradox: Numbers seem independent:  We can measure things that predate humanity, suggesting numbers exist irrespective of human existence. Even if no sentient beings existed, objects could be measured, valued, and have their characteristics calculated (meaning that the universe and its measurements exists independently of our choice to perceive it ). Numbers require meaning-makers:  Despite their seeming independence, numbers gain meaning through human invention. We created symbols and imbued them with specific values. This way of measurement is unique to humans and it's currently impossible to prove if other beings, like aliens , measure the universe the same way as we do. This paradox leads to the question: who came first, humans or numbers? Compare this to the common dilemma of, which came first, the chicken or the egg? While we can measure things with numbers that existed long before us (and independently as well), the act of measurement itself requires a conscious entity. The Distinction Between Potential and Reality Just because something can be measured doesn't mean there's currently the ability for that measurement to to be made. Consider a restaurant where your order isn't taken. While it's possible for your order to be taken, the action hasn't occurred. As presented by the bodybuilder argument , possibility doesn't necessitate the existence of someone to make that possibility a reality. This distinction between potential and actuality is key to understanding numbers further. They may possess an inherent potential, but their meaning and specific use arise from human invention. Through Objectivity and Perception There's a captivating paradox surrounding numbers. We can argue that some numbers exist independently of us, even though we created the term, "number", itself. A question than arises: Are numbers subjective to our perception and value, or exist objectively in the world beyond the mind? Imagine a vast universe full with objects, each with a specific size, distance, or quantity. These properties, measurable by numbers, existed long before humans assigned labels. Many of them are to exist regardless of what we think about them, and are unaffected by the doubted law of attraction. As such, An undiscovered planet with an unknown size still possesses a quantifiable dimension, even if we lack the awareness. This sparks the question: What is a number, truly? It's a fallacy to believe numbers are solely mathematical constructs, despite everything arguably capable of being measured. Maybe one can mathematically measure emotion through equations , but can the human experience truly be accurately reduced to mere numbers? Beyond Measurement: The Duality of Numbers Numbers exist in two distinct realms: The Objective Realm:  Numbers inherent to the universe, independent of human perception. The size of an undiscovered planet, the rhythm of a heartbeat, or the specific temperature for coffee all fall under this category. The Subjective Realm:  Numbers imbued with symbolic by human perception, both collective and personal. "Six million" became a symbol of immense grief after the Holocaust, and also racist mockery . Similarly, a child might dislike 3 p.m. as it means solitary time before a parent wakes from their afternoon nap. These meanings, though powerful, are not inherent to the numbers themselves, which further highlights subjective attribution to reality. Numbers: The Building Blocks of Existence Numbers are fundamental to the universe's composition . In addition, finances, which are the lifeline of any economy, cannot exist without them. Our very existence therefore hinges on their intricate dance of history and development. From heartbeats to cell division, which occur every single second , everything operates according to mathematical principles. Even the temperature of our morning coffee, though seemingly arbitrary, adheres to a specific numeric value for optimal enjoyment, which leads to numbers' effect on our ability to have fun, and thus on our mental state. Do schools actually teach us the fundamental importance of math on reality? Maybe if teachers more enthusiastic about it, I wouldn't be so bad at math! Words are powerful tools for communication, but their reach is limited. We use words to discuss art, and this transforms the art into a symbol within our communication system, as we have the ability to render them, in our minds, as highly valuable or as useless. Numbers, however, transcend these limitations, and present us the relationship between their subjective value, and how that value objectively impacts reality in return. Ever since I've been improving the art in Philosocom, the user experience has been improved, meaning that subjectivity deserves to be redeemed from both a logical and practical viewpoint. Furthermore, user experience can be mathematically measured. Numerology : Unveiling the Universe, or Just Ourselves? Numerology attempts to bridge the gap between numbers and human understanding through the arcane . It seeks to unlock the deeper meaning of the universe through assigned meanings to numbers. However, a crucial question arises: Who assigns these meanings? And are these truly objective? Subjectivity is inherent to meaning, but meaning can be objective through pragmatism . In other words, if we can be certain that something or someone are an asset for our goals, then their value is objective. As such, if writing on certain topics can help a writer in terms of SEO, these topics are objectively meaningful, for their blog to develop further. Objective meaning is therefore conditional, as much of the work being done in math. Outside of conditionality, how can a human definitively declare that a specific number has a singular, universally true meaning? Furthermore, numerology lacks the skepticism that drives philosophy, as much of it is based on intuition. Angel numbers, for example, require us to trust our gut, and not question ourselves , in order to better understand reality. And of course, intuition is highly subjective. To quote Indian Philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti : Intuition is the whisper of the soul. Philosophers, however thrive on questioning accepted truths, leading to diverse interpretations with the likelihood of depersonalization . Why then, should we expect universal agreement on the meaning of numbers, when philosophy compels us to criticize anything like our own findings? Symbolism: The Power of Represented Existence The very symbol "1" exists because we agreed upon it. In a parallel universe, "5" could represent the concept of one, rendering our "1" something entirely different. Similarly, my height of 190cm reflects our chosen measurement system, along with what it means to humans specifically . In another universe, the same height might be expressed as far shorter, along with completely different meanings to humans in our universe . Both numbers represent the same reality, yet their symbols differ and thus affect reality in accordance. Numbers, then, become a microcosm of a larger phenomenon. We assign meaning to navigate and understand the world, but this process isn't without its flaws. Just like assigning different meanings to the same word across languages, leading to bias , we can be entirely wrong in our interpretations. The Delusion of Fixed Meanings This becomes especially evident in the realm of the "arcane." Tarot cards, initially a game , were later embedded with deeper symbolic meaning. This highlights the arbitrary nature of such interpretations. Unlike a table's objective measurements, the "number of the hermit" in Tarot lacks the same certainty. Is "9" inherently linked to the concept of a hermit, or is it simply a meaning someone (or some group) decided to attach to it? Speaking of 9, it could also be 6 at the same time. The universality of truth means that the same object can have several meanings which are equally correct, similarly to the wisdom behind the 6 blind men Indian tale. Mystics, unlike scientists, operate on the foundation of belief rather than verifiable evidence. How can a mystic definitively claim "9" belongs to the Hermit card, while a scientist can demonstrate a principle through experimentation? Mysticism, while originates from the heart, deserves to be criticized like anything else. This lack of evidence-based reasoning forms the core critique of spirituality . It often relies heavily on personal experiences, dreams , visions – all subjective sources. Here lies the fundamental difference between faith and knowledge: If there's true knowledge, faith becomes unnecessary. Spirituality thrives on the abstract, where anything can be imbued with meaning without any necessary correlation . An ancient card game "becomes" a system of discovery; crystals "transform" into powerful healing emitters . Yet, the only supporting pillar is personal belief, not rigorous examination or logic. Emotional conviction thus reigns supreme more than we think. Conclusion: A Call For Skepticism and Openness Throughout this exploration, we've delved into the fascinating and often paradoxical nature of meaning. Numbers, symbols, and even spiritual concepts exist in interplays between objective reality and subjective interpretation. We've seen how the inherent size of a planet and the symbolic weight of "6 million" co-exist, reminding us that meaning is both inherent and subjectively-constructed. The importance of acknowledging the "other side" of things has become abundantly clear. Examining the potential falsehoods of established meanings allows us to refine our understanding and identify potential biases that can delude us. This skeptical approach has led me to a place of measured doubt regarding the "arcane." While the truths of the occult remain elusive, the journey itself has been enlightening. All things and beings deserve the benefit of the doubt in some degree, in order to allow a more balanced and realistic approach to reality. While skepticism guides the path, the possibility of deeper truths, hidden within the mysteries of the world, continues to keep me unsatisfied. I am more than okay with this. This exploration may have reached its conclusion for now, but the quest for understanding, both within and beyond the realm of the arcane, relentlessly continues.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) (Directory on Perception) Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "Death Freedom and Intersubjectivity: Shared Perception" is a thought-provoking exploration of human consciousness , societal constructs, and the quest for personal liberation. Mr. Tomasio delves into philosophical concepts, challenging readers to rethink their perceptions of reality, happiness, and the interplay between individual and collective experiences. The article's strengths include an engaging introduction, clarity in complex concepts, use of quotes from figures like Mr. Nathan Lasher and Mr. John Duran , a balanced perspective, personal reflection, and encouragement of critical thought. The article's emphasis on skepticism and constant questioning serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of independent thought , aligning with the overarching theme of seeking truth beyond societal narratives. The article's strength lies in its ability to weave complex philosophical ideas into an engaging narrative, enriched by personal reflections and authoritative quotes. Overall, it is a meaningful contribution to contemporary philosophical discourse, inspiring readers to seek deeper understanding and personal liberation. In conclusion, "Death Freedom and Intersubjectivity: Shared Perception" is a commendable piece that challenges readers to introspect and question the foundational aspects of their reality and happiness. If we were to take the phrase, "change the world" , one would assume that it involves a whole ordeal that would be difficult to do. Yet, what if I told you that changing the world was a global effort? You change the world by changing the cognitive realities of as many people as you can. The world as a whole is the collection of all human beings' cognitive realities. This is also along the lines of what it means when the term "collective consciousness" is used. "A + B = C. Your cognitive reality would be A and mine would be B which together would equal C. C is what reality is. All the physical and metaphysical substances that exist. C is the place where realities meet." -- Mr. Nathan Lasher (Background music) Shared Reality and Societal Chains Intersubjectivity , the space where our individual perspectives meet and co-create a shared understanding, forms the very bedrock of what we experience as "life" and "reality." The dynamic engagement of interactions, connections, and social participation defines our existence within one or more collectives. Conversely, a life devoid of these connections, often falls under the labels of "escapism", "defeatism" or even "death" (or a life not worth living). However, this very intersubjectivity can be a double-edged sword. While it fosters a sense of shared reality, it can also morph into a set of "mental chains," subtly pulling us towards established beliefs and paradigms. That is, whether or not these mental constructs actually align with the World Beyond the Mind. To quote Mr. John Duran , who applied what I just said to wage slavery in America: Wage slavery is not a solution to poverty, homelessness and the destitution of America. In fact it is the actual Source of the problem. Yet, modern humans are SO perfectly mass-conditioned , that its the ONLY path through life they can or will ever acknowledge and blindly follow, from birth to death, in chains of our own making. Society, through many interactions, shapes our perception of the world, while often discouraging exploration of alternative viewpoints . Paths that deviate from the mainstream narrative might be met with labels like "weird," "eccentric," or even harsher terms. Such social constructs are unfit for philosophical explorations since they seek to diminish them. The unwillingness to not diminish the exchange of new ideas creates a tension: Do we embrace the intersubjective reality for a sense of belonging, or forge our own unique paths that may risk societal acceptance? This dilemma involving intersubjectivity lies at the heart of many people, prompting them to constantly evaluate and question the interplay between shared experience and individual exploration. Those who are able to afford long-term seclusion, may question whether or not to be a part of society in the first place. It is only when society is going to be more open minded, when many problems within it could be solved, for one of the points of deep thinking is to be able to solve our problems. Reclusion and the Unseen Horizons of Reality While intersubjectivity builds the intricate industrial complex of our shared existence, it can also confine us within its familiar patterns, like in a cage, thus preventing us to expand our perception of reality. As such, being a recluse isn't merely about disconnecting. It's also about stepping outside the "mental chains" that this shared reality creates. It's a pursuit of a "life" and "reality" that extends far beyond the conventional definitions, and beyond its orthodox paths to living . Solitude offers a fertile ground for discovery. This is true not only in writing, a solitary activity that allows us to better know ourselves. Removed from the constant distractions of social interaction, we can encounter new possibilities, both of action and perspective, which allows us to broaden our horizons and question the philosophies we grew up on. Unfettered by societal expectations, we can explore paths unseen and unheard within the confines of intersubjectivity, that may more often than not work like an echo chamber, and may fail to accept criticism professionally. This exploration, however, comes with a "symbolic death" . A Solitary Journey to Unbounded Consciousness As we venture beyond the established borders of "life" and "reality," our old selves, shaped by the dominant paradigm/s, begin to fade. This metaphorical demise signifies an expansion of consciousness, a questioning gaze that pierces the veil of the conventional. Skepticism, a core component of philosophical inquiry, becomes our guide, in a world that may regard it as an "attack" on sensitive minds. Through skepticism's lens, our day-to-day experiences transform, appearing more intricate than they initially were. We begin to see "life" and "reality" as a network of neurological events playing out within individual brains – a phenomenon strikingly similar to the concept of intersubjectivity. Much of our perception of reality, after all, is but a choice , whether it's one we actively make or otherwise. This newfound skepticism challenges the very foundations of societal priorities. We start to question the weight society places on these seemingly top-tier experiences, ranging from romance to the notion that life is to be enjoyed from , to the existential value of work . The "reality," "life," and "importance" dictated by societal norms may simply be a shared narrative, a mental contract we've made to maintain a collective identity. It's merely a narrative we taught to regard as reality itself. Embracing doubt, allowing it to shape our every action, leads to a metaphorical death. We begin to examine life more, and experience it less. The "qualia" of our experiences, the subjective qualities of our perception, are forever altered by this pursuit of knowledge, thus separating us from the rest of humanity in profound mental isolation. This relentless philosophical questioning can lead, as it did for me, to a path of asceticism and a hermit-like existence . Through introspection and self-sufficiency, I've discovered that the emotional and intellectual rewards traditionally sought within society can be cultivated within. This realization has also led me to profoundly question the societal obsession with material wealth . Understanding that much of what we seek, mentally-wise, can already be found within ourselves, led me to understand the futility of much of this reality. The choice to step outside the familiar realm of intersubjectivity is not for everyone, for it can be followed by a great sense of loneliness and alienation . Yet, for those who yearn to explore life and reality beyond the conventional, solitude becomes a potent tool – a gateway to a universe unseen, a catalyst for a metaphorical death freedom and intersubjectivity that paves the way for a more expansive and liberated consciousness. Redefining Happiness Beyond Societal Constructs The pursuit of happiness often steers us towards external validation , societal expectations, career ambitions, and material possessions. However, my exploration of intersubjectivity and solitude has led me down a different path, a path of "inner alchemy", as I realized that much of my happiness depends not on these aspects of reality, but on my own mentality. The same could be true for you as well. Through introspection, I've come to a radical conclusion: external ambitions and achievements hold little sway over true happiness, which is defined by our ability to be satisfied with our subjective interests , not our intersubjective ones, necessarily. It's the conscious cultivation of thoughts that foster happiness and satisfaction that truly matters. The fulfillment of our personal and shared ambitions are nothing more than a supplement to help us with just that. They are the "kli", not the "tochen" . The trappings of societal success – high status, a well-paying job, romantic relationships, even family – while not inherently bad, become less relevant, when we are free from the chains of inter-subjectivity. These are chains that do not necessarily care for our own subjectivity, which are vital in the pursuit of happiness. We cannot know happiness if we fail in knowing ourselves enough. The key lies in harnessing the power of thought to cultivate the emotional states we desire. Doing so requires a deep commitment to introspection and a constant effort to manage our internal dialogue. It's a personal experiment, an expedition into uncharted territory, where our social circles could serve as an obstacle in our path. Thus, for those who fail to find happiness and joy in society, searching for it in solitude becomes the less-walked alternative. And it cannot happen properly if we don't bother questioning, exactly, why society and its limitations fail to provide us the happiness we want.

Article Synopsis by O. C. Isaac "Perception As Choice" is an insightful article that explores how personal perceptions shape our reality and influence our emotional responses and decisions. The central thesis is that perception is subjective, malleable, and greatly influenced by external factors such as socialization, personal experiences, and ideology. The article presents an important philosophical concept: the distinction between perception and objective reality, using relatable examples like dissatisfaction with a job to illustrate how perceptions, rather than reality itself, shape our experience. The article excels in linking philosophical concepts to practical advice, suggesting that by shifting our perspective, we can lead more fulfilling lives. It also successfully navigates between the abstract idea of controlling perception and the practical limitations of reality, reminding readers that perception alone cannot change reality. In conclusion, "Perception As Choice" is an engaging piece that raises important questions about the nature of reality and how much of it is shaped by individual perceptions.   ************* "How much easier it is to manipulate perceived reality when viewed only through the filter of our personal screens" -- John Duran (Directory on Perception) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) Some may be surprised to realize that much of what we consider to be "reality" is simply a perception that we accept into our lives. This perception can be shaped by a variety of factors, including socialization, negative bias, and our own personal experiences. That is, even though there is a world beyond the mind. For example, if you happen to hate your job, it may not be purely because of the job itself. It could also be because of the way you perceive the job (many people treat jobs like mercenaries and not like salarymen ). If you have been taught that monetary gain is an exalted pursuit, and you work in a minimum wage job, it is only natural that you would be discontent with it, and perhaps even feel jealousy as a result . This is because the job goes against the directive you might've learned through socialization, that correlates success with financial materialism . In other words, much of our perception of reality is exactly that: a perception, and not necessarily reality itself. Our perception is not necessarily a part of external reality itself, and for a perception to be true, it has to meet a certain criteria regardless of our emotional relation towards it. This means that our perceptions can be changed, and that we can choose to see the world in a different way. Whether or not we want to acknowledge the truth, or deny it with or without awareness , is our own prerogative. For example, if you were to change your perspective on your job, you might start to see it in a more positive light. You might realize that jobs are not just about monetary gain, but also about helping others or making a difference in the world. This change in perception could lead to a more positive experience overall. You therefore may also find out that perception not only has a value in relation to the truth, but also in relation to practicality, necessary for your mental survival in this world. As such, while we may be inclined to face reality, we may also be inclined to think practically, in order to maintain our sanity. We might find out that we deny reality using our perception because the truth is too hard for us to bear, so we avoid it . It is also one of the reasons philosophy is not for everyone, because not everyone is mentally prepared for certain truths about reality. When you have a philosopher friend , you might find them hard to bear for that reason alone. The point is that we have the power to choose how we perceive the world, and no perception is necessarily forced on us . We may utilize this insight for our own individual and collective benefit, as perception, built under ideology, is a very powerful tool . We can choose to focus on the negative aspects of our lives, and we can choose to focus on the positive. Should we be resilient enough, we won't necessarily need to depend so much on either. That's because, among other things, resilience helps us cope with our problems and adapt to adversity better. Our perception of reality is shaped by our experiences and interactions with others. so it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and beliefs. After all, they are tools that can be indirectly used to shape our emotions and mental state. Thus, controlling our thoughts can lead to a better regulation of our emotions Our perception of reality is shaped by our experiences and interactions with others. This perception is not necessarily "real" in the same way that a physical object is real, but it is real to us and to anyone who shares our perspective. Our perceptions can have a profound impact on our decisions and our overall well-being. For example, someone who grew up in a family that struggled with unemployment might be more content to have a job, even if it's minimum-wage. This is because their perception of what it means to have a job might be different from someone who grew up in a family where everyone had a good job. By the same token, what one may perceive as completely granted may be valued dearly by another. Similarly, someone who believes that monetary gain is not important may be content with a lower-paying job. This is because their perception of what is important in life is different from someone who believes that money is the most important thing. Altruists may be more inclined to give to others in general , because they may have the perspective that tells them that they already have enough for themselves. It is important to be aware of our own perceptions and to understand how they are affecting our lives. If we are unhappy with our current situation, we can challenge our perceptions and try to see things in a new light. This can be a difficult process, but it is possible to change our perceptions and improve our lives. By the way, one of the points of philosophy is to challenge our perceived reality. When Socrates said that he knows nothing , it can be apply to ourselves as well, by challenging our beliefs of something as "knowledge". One way to challenge our perceptions is to think about the experiences that have shaped them. What have we been taught about what is important in life? What have our experiences taught us about what is possible? Once we understand the roots of our perceptions, we can start to question them, because it is then that we understand that they are questionable. Much of perceived reality can be questioned. I actually managed to reduce my sensitivity by treating any content like a butcher, when I realized that we do not have to treat intensive content dramatically. Our choice of reaction to anything, remains ours. The more we can control it, the better. Another way to challenge our perceptions is to expose ourselves to new experiences, even if they risk us to a degree. This could mean talking to people who have different perspectives, traveling to new places, or trying new things. By expanding our horizons, we can start to see the world in ways we would otherwise not have thought of as possible. The point is to challenge our beliefs, and convince ourselves they can be changed, using these experiences as proof. Changing our perceptions is not always easy for we are, most often than not, attached to them. However, it's possible because hardship does not entail impossibility by itself. By being aware of our own biases and by challenging our assumptions, we can start to see the world in a new light. This can lead to a more fulfilling and satisfying life, and also make us better aware of the truth. In the show "Spongebob Squarepants," the main character, Spongebob, works as a fry cook at a fast food restaurant. Despite the fact that his job is low-paying and his boss is often mean to him, Spongebob remains optimistic and happy. This is because Spongebob has a different perception of what is important in life, which is having friends and having fun . He believes that it is more important to be happy and to enjoy your work than it is to make a lot of money. His unrealistic, optimistic perception towards work is what makes his experience as a low-paid worker, far, far more bearable. Spongebob's co-worker, Squidward, has a different perception of what is important in life. Squidward is more concerned with money and status than he is with having fun or having friends. This is why Squidward is often unhappy and dissatisfied with his job, as he is also paid poorly like his co-worker. The contrast between Spongebob and Squidward shows how our perceptions can have a profound impact on our lives and on our mentality. Spongebob is happy and fulfilled because he has a different perception of what is important in life. Squidward is unhappy and dissatisfied because he does not share Spongebob's values, despite living and working in the same environment as him. Squidward wants to change his reality, but is powerless to do so, while Spongebob likes it just the way it is. Thus, due to his lack of power to lead the life he wants, Squidward's perception is impractical, even if it's in line with reality, while Spongebob is almost delusional, but far more practical mentally. The next time you are feeling unhappy or dissatisfied with your life, take a step back and think about your perceptions. What are your assumptions about what is important in life? How have your experiences shaped your perceptions? And still remember this: Reality cannot be changed by perception alone . You can't make yourself a cup of coffee by visualizing it being made without any action on your end. Never underestimate the value of power, for power leads to action. Allocate your perception to what you're capable of, or what you want to be capable of, and can be capable of. P ower is everything.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (Philosocom's Directory on Uniqueness) (Directory on Perception) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "External Vision and Identity: How Perception and Identity Has To Do With Truth and Survival" is a philosophical exploration of perception, identity, and the impact of external feedback on one's sense of self and truth. It draws from classical philosophy, particularly Epictetus , to provide depth and historical perspective. The introspective nature of the article allows readers to engage with the author's personal experiences and philosophical journey, adding authenticity and relatability. The article critiques the reliance on external perspectives for understanding oneself, challenging the idea of objective truth and highlighting the pitfalls of seeking validation from others. The discussion on identity and survival is thought-provoking, with the notion that unconventional minds must navigate a conventional world adding an interesting layer to the discussion on identity. The article's philosophical purpose emphasizes the value of logical reasoning and philosophical inquiry in providing purpose and coherence amidst confusion. The language and philosophical jargon might be challenging for readers not well-versed in philosophy. However, it's possible to train oneself to understand philosophical texts. In conclusion, the article offers a rich and introspective examination of how external vision and identity intersect with truth and survival. Part I: The Constructed Acting Stage Sometimes I think of a certain quote from Epictetus , the same quote that led me and different people into our separate ways: Remember that you are an actor in a drama , of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. Perhaps throughout my life I have underestimated the confidence and certainty that might be embedded through external vision. After all, people are really biased per what they perceive , and looking beyond it is a critical thinking skill that must be developed, even during moments of hatred and rage. Perhaps this overlooking, of the difference between how I think and how others think, was the same thing that led me to a life of semi-solitude . As I got rejected by people around me I slowly realized the pain caused by the external vision's recklessness towards what it fails to understand. What it wants to understand, however, are roles. Functions within greater contexts. Within these roles are attributed different levels of truth, either fully associated with it or associated merely through stereotypes and stigma. Entry of the Misguided Gladiators The unconventional mind has to live an unconventional life in order to mentally survive in a conventional world. A reality of such a mind is experienced as uncanny, as much as society experiences him or her as uncanny. The roles designated in one's mind towards different functions are shattered when the uncanny people are recognized for their success. The drama play as described by Epictetus is mainly nothing more than a fabricated matrix we choose to wove around reality. The "Ill perception", the "social psychosis" happens when we actually think that our woven matrix is reality itself. This, then distorts much of our understanding, leading to horrible miscommunications, as well as the preventable suffering that ensues. Part II: How and Why I Dismiss External Vision On a logical level, external vision has always been a problem for me. It was and is difficult for me to know whose perspective is more reliable. Is it the outlook of those who love you the most or the outlook of a foreign critic? What if those who love you are biased by their affection? On the other hand, what if the foreign critic is ignorant of what they're criticizing, but they criticize it nonetheless? What if both sides tell different pieces of truth about the same subject? Since I never found a satisfactory answer, I began to dismiss external vision entirely. I realized that I am stuck between two extremes. On the one hand, I've written a lot in the first three decades of my life. On the other hand, I am too irrelevant to be worthy of the company of any people that are not as intelligently weird as I am. Positive as well as negative feedback has been given to me, and I philosophize anything that moves, as I am trying to make sense of what is objective and what is merely intersubjective. This is why I feel kind of lost, even though I believe this situation is not unique to me. I don't know if I'm a good enough philosopher, or just a sore loser who writes just to feel like his life has any meaning or influence on a socially-driven-world. Am I successful like I sometimes think I am , or am I just a weird hermit who fails keeping up friends, resorting instead to apprentices? You see, when you've fallen between the chairs of life's socially determined roles , of course you might find yourself confused and lost. Of course you'll think about whether you're this exceptional sage or an infantile man with poor social skills. The Streams of Confusion I feel as if I am swimming against a sea of intense waves, trying to put enough power into swimming, and making sure I have enough breathing space throughout. These waves do not move in unison but independently of each other, each pulling me to a different role at the same time. Whether these roles are accurately described or are poorly understood through their orthodox paths , only intensifies the constant anxiety I'm often having. My former master once told me that humans must be described by others or they will lose their grip on reality. This was more than a decade ago. However, he also told me, a while later, that no one in my situation should be alone. And yet, why would I need to be in a society with those who actively limit themselves by their external vision? The Pains of People Understand, misunderstanding or lack of understanding in general is painful as well as inducing loneliness. I might as well live together in hermitage and call it a day. No much need to communicate, no much need to socialize. Just making minimum contact with this world just so I would be able to spare myself the awful pain of being severely misunderstood over the years. As people lose their critical thinking skills in modern times, they lose their ability to see reality clearly. As much as you'd like to think you see reality clearly just because you have good sight, much of reality is processed in the brain. It's not the eyes that are the lenses of reality as much as the brain. Eyes might help you see the physical aspect of reality, but how can you understand people when your brain has not used the fuller extent of its intelligence? Therefore, if I had any friends that could truly understand me, how can I rely on them, so that this clarity of mind remains, when it is hindered by biases related to time itself? If fatigue compromises our thinking, and society breeds tiredness , of course there is going to be no security in this. And therefore, the compromised external vision would go on hurting us and making us question our identity. Part III: The Savior The only grasp that I have on anything is logical reasoning. If I choose to do something that isn't as practical, I might question that action's continuation; if I choose to do something that brings productivity and help for others , I will continue to do it with little hesitation. We just need to understand if whatever we're doing is actually productive and helpful, or not really. Can you really say that teaching people how to twerk is as helpful as philosophy? Should twerking teachers be proud of their work as much as philosophers should do whenever they devise a new concept or find a new logical fallacy? Looking back at life from your deathbed, would you feel accomplished by teaching generations of people how to twerk, or would you feel more important by helping people with their problems? Problem-solving, after all is one of philosophy's main purposes. With this relationship of importance one can deem objective, it shows that logic might exist beyond a mere construct in our mental dimensions. Philosophy as Purpose To Continue Living All of this time and energy spent on philosophizing is not something I am willing to give up and may never be. I don't care if people refer to me as irrelevant or immature or pretentious. I don't care. If I want to mentally survive I must find something I can stick to, something that would give me a concrete identity that can prevail over all contradictory and painful external visions of people. It is thus reasonable for a person to be biased toward themselves, for they cannot escape themselves until death. Bias, as distorting our perception, is also there to help us preserve ourselves and advocate our interests. If I'm biased towards myself, it is mainly because I am biased towards remaining sane in a reality I experience as horribly devoid. And the reality which I perceive by default is not necessarily the one you perceive. Most often than not, "reality" starts in the brain. The brain in turn acts accordingly. Conclusions Identity and external vision serve not only as assets to cross human knowledge. Negative. They are also ways for us to keep a grip on reality, and keep ourselves away from destructive chaos. Why not, in this competitive world, fight for oneself, for one's legitimacy? Perhaps if I were a different person by default, I would've been treated differently, and my shape of reality would've been similar to what most people might have in mind. It is hard however to see how different people communicate as if they are in the same "reality". In reality (pun intended) they are very much prisoners of their own mind. We are, ultimately, tribal beings , even when it comes to our own vision of things and beings. After all, similar people think alike. Understand this: Consistent human interaction with the same people leads to the syncing of people's brains. Brains are being synced and thus gain similar understanding in the name of social benefits. It is therefore the interest of many to think alike to many of their counterparts, merely as a means for survival. However, human interactions with people that fail to be steady in their continuation, will deter their brains from being structured in a similar way. And as much as we need to survive we should also appreciate the value of having unique brain anatomies . Human uniqueness doesn't have to be seen as an unfortunate matter when it can be used to extract revolutionary potential and be used to give hope to oneself and others.