Articles on Illusions: ( https://www.philosocom.com/post/system-of-illusion-reality-as-application-by-igal-shenderey https://www.philosocom.com/post/distinguishing-truth-from-illusion https://www.philosocom.com/post/existence-as-multi-layered https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-mind-and-the-mental-dimension ) The Two Types of Illusions: Rubinshtein's Theory Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed -- Friedrich Nietzsche We all have two main categories of facades: Those that we reject from our sense of authenticity, and... Those that we accept as part of us and are convinced that they are the defining lines of our authenticity. There is no identity of self, just as there is no identity of society, in the world beyond the mind. Only energy, matter, and motion exist in the reality beyond our mental visions.... Our sense of identity, like our sense of collectivism and union with others, is an illusion.... However, it is our own conscious decision to see some illusions as part of the illusory integrated core that we define as "self," while we reject other type of illusions from this illusory puzzle. The subconscious mind and the body believe everything they receive, all external and internal data that they encounter. The only part of us that is able to judge and be skeptical is our awareness, and its ability to create and comprehend logic. In turn can be used to sufficiently govern the rest of the unaware, unquestioning components of our being, physical and illusory/mental. Every possibility between the two sides of the self can be true, just as they can be false. It is also possible that one can be false and the other true, and vice versa. Overall, Illusions are mere toys that we either identify as others and ourselves, or reject. They're mental in which we use to create reality. What everybody sees externally of a person is their physical being, but not only their physical body. They also see whatever illusions they align with that person, which includes everything social and mental... from stereotypes to social status and to whatever personal opinion they have towards them. The silly thing, however, lies in the fact that people may associate you and their perspective on you, as one and the same. That is, even though the self exists beyond such perceptions... Thus, what they see is not pure of subjectivity, like with every data else that they receive. Our subjectivity is the gatekeeper that receives one thing but creates, reshapes, or decreases the information it has received, or all at once. Subjectivity can only be executed upon our deaths, but its influence can be decreased with intellectual and empirical methods, such as research. The same can be applied to what one feels about whatever person as an inward being, for both sight and emotion can be deceived, whether by optical illusions (sight) or by not enough evidence to support one's argument (emotion). You could feel many emotions towards the inwardly, mental life of a person, beyond their physical façade. However, emotions as evidence are insufficient as such, and using emotion as a supporting claim about what another person feels can prove you wrong quite easily. I was once a few feet away from a social gathering and a person came to me and told me that I am shy. That person felt that I am shy, but I didn't see the illusion of shyness as a part of me. Therefore, that person was wrong about what they assumed they've seen in me. They applied an illusion that didn't really apply to the world beyond their minds. This is an example to what I just wrote... What I can be certain about who is the "real" person is that of who you choose to see yourself as, mentally and socially speaking. That is, while the true you is the part of you that succumbs to the laws of science - the body that is placed in space and in time, beyond your consciousness, and its various physical conditions. We homo sapiens are "mental demigods," as I call it. We are the off-springs, the products of the various sciences and the psycho-social realms that exist in our mental dimension. The mental dimension, itself, is product of science, and by proxy, is confined to the very same reality the physical body is confined to. As such, everything is interconnected with everything, and nothing ever exists in absolute freedom.

(Directory on Fear: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-fear-and-the-right-to-resist-it) (Philosocom's Directory on Evil) (Directory on Perception) Intelligence itself is not scary when you understand what it is. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher The monsters that society creates are never as horrifying as the societies themselves -- John Duran (Background music) Introduction I am disappointed. My attempt to define what a "monster" is by examining dictionaries and media has failed to satisfy. It failed because I realized a disturbing truth: There is no universal definition. This lack of distinct boundaries indicates that anything and anyone is capable of being a monster. It is not about biology; it is about capacity. As long as an entity can terrify, disturb, or be regarded as inhumane, it qualifies. The Human Monster: Evil In Humanity It is a mistake to view monsters solely as fictional abominations. Reality provides the most chilling examples. Consider Adolf Hitler. Most of the world agrees he was a monster, given the industrial-scale horror he unleashed. Yet, the disturbing reality is that he was also a human. He was a vegetarian. He liked animals. He cared for his family. In person, he could appear polite. I do not praise him. I use him to illustrate a terrifying point: Monsters are subjective. To the demographics he targeted, he was the devil. To his followers, or to animal rights activists of the time, he possessed "human" virtues. The capacity for monstrous acts does not exclude the capacity for personal kindness. That duality, and the fact it doesn't contradict itself like a paradox, is what makes the human monster so dangerous. The Context of Fear: From Teddy Bears to Predators Monsters exist in the wild just as they do in history. A bear is often depicted as a cute, cuddly entity in our culture (Winnie the Pooh, Teddy Bears). We have sanitized the predator. But find that same bear in the wilderness when it is hungry, and the "cute" symbol vanishes, replaced by a monster capable of eating you alive. Context dictates the monster. In the Zoo: It is entertainment. In the Wild: It is a threat. This conditioning starts young. As children, we fear the monster under the bed or the shadow in the closet. I recall being terrified of shadowy figures in my own apartment, convinced they were waiting to assassinate me. The threat wasn't real, but the concept was enough to generate genuine terror. The Myth of the Hero To cope with these fears, humanity invented the Hero Archetype—the brave warrior who defeats the beast. Modern superhero movies are just recycled versions of these ancient myths. However, this is a dangerous fantasy. The myth of the brave hero is a fallacious coping mechanism because, in the real world, you cannot defeat every monster. We do not possess the power to punch every problem into submission. The Passive Monster: The Greedy Worm It is a mistake to assume all monsters are aggressive. Some monsters are terrifying simply because they exist without perceived purpose; their existence defies reason, which makes them monsters because they are disturbing. In the game Silent Hill 4, there is a creature called the Greedy Worm. It is a giant worm that hangs inside walls. It does not attack you. It is invincible; you cannot kill it. It has no known reason to exist. You can read the lore, but even the information is vague. It just is. This creature represents a specific type of horror: The Horror of the Unknown. It is a monster not because it hurts you, but because its mere presence violates your understanding of reality. It disturbs you simply by occupying space. Cockroaches function similarly in the real world. They are generally harmless to your immediate health, yet their presence induces panic. They are "monsters" of disgust, not danger. Therefore, monsters are not only subjective, but are a matter of perception. The Beautiful Monster Yet, monsters are not always ugly. The Vampire archetype—popularized in the Goth and Emo subcultures of the 2000s—presents a monster that is elegant, cultured, and beautiful. If not for their thirst for blood, they would be the ideal aristocrats. They represent the monster that seduces rather than repels. They prove that "monstrous" is an internal trait (the need to consume life), not necessarily an external one. Vampires as an example, goes to show how anyone can be a monster, as long as there is an internal drive for it. Monsters like Hitler can walk amongst us; some, like Vampires, can be beautiful. It just goes to show how there is no universal definition of a monster, and how subjective the trait of monstrosity is. Conclusion: Enduring the Undefeatable What is the purpose of monsters? Monsters represent everything we fear, everything that disturbs our peaceful order, and everything that feels "eerie." Ideologies like Nazism are abstract monsters; the Greedy Worm is a surreal monster. However, since the "Hero Myth" is false—since we cannot kill every monster—we are left with a more realistic choice. We must acknowledge that reality is not ideal. It is flawed. It is scary. And that is okay. Maybe the wisest choice is not to fight the invincible worm, but to learn to live in the same house with it. Or, alternatively, to build your own strength—your own Fortress—so that even if the monsters are real, they no longer have the power to disturb your peace. Since monsters are a subjective and context-specific cases, much of the threat they pose is dependent on our perception of them, and our ability to surpass our fear of them.

"The horrifying part about knowing an inevitable future is seeing its coming arrival and being completely helpless to stop it." -- John Duran An "Inevitable Possibility" refers not to the possibility itself, ironically, but to the fact that the chance of it happening, always being there. For example, death is inevitable, and yet, it can always happen at any point of time when someone's alive. Therefore, death is an inevitable possibility, because one can always die due to whatever reason, especially if that reason will make that death premature, and not out of natural causes. It doesn't mean that you will certainly die due to a specific reason, just because its possibility exists. You might die because of it, when the chance of it occurring, is an inevitable one. In other words: If you can always die because of it, then it is an inevitable possibility. It may sound like an oxymoron, because "possibility" refers to likelihood, and not to certainty. However, the existence of some likelihoods, can be certain, even if their chance of occurring, is low. On the other hand, there are some possibilities that are not inevitable, and that will either be fulfilled or not. When such possibilities are not fulfilled, they become missed opportunities. Whether you turn that opportunity into a reality is another matter. You may prove yourself in the dating world, for example, or lose your worth in the eyes of some by lacking experience and/or being socially incompetent. It can be changed though, so you'll decrease the chances of dying alone. So, while death is an inevitable possibility, whether you will die single or within companionship, is a matter of evitable possibility. Singlehood and romance are therefore both evitable possibilities as they depend on your actions. That is while an inevitable possibility exists regardless of your choices. In general, like in death, or when you've made a point of no return. If you commit murder, for example, it is a point of no return where you're always likely, to a degree, to be caught. It's one of the reasons you shouldn't murder. I will give another example: When speaking to strangers, it may be inevitable, that one of them is a psychopath, who is good at concealing their true personality. It does not mean that every stranger is a psychopath. But the more strangers you'll be talking to, the higher the chance will be, that at least one of them is a psychopath. If you're a public figure, like me (someone whose work requires public communication/life), then the possibility of interacting with a psycho, is inevitable, EVEN if you will never reach one. And you can never truly know unless they show their true colors, or unless you know otherwise (like if they confess, or if a credible source tells you who they really are). Inevitable possibilities are ironic because they might never happen. You may always be prone to death by, let's say, a heart attack, but it does NOT mean that you will indeed die because of it. Perhaps you will die of many other reasons, but it does not contradict the fact that, dying of a heart attack, is inevitable by chance. It could always happen while alive. It is important to detect inevitable possibilities because doing so can decrease being surprised. The less surprised one is, the less likely one is to be excited by sudden events, when they happen. Did you know? When watching a video, there is, technically, always a chance that you will be met with a jumpscare. A "Jumpscare" is usually a sudden face that appears on your screen, and is usually followed by a scream, that can enhance even more the purpose of this concept: Scare you through the element of surprise. Therefore, it is important to be prepared for it, even if it might never happen, because if you will prepare for it mentally, you can feel much safer, when you'd indeed be faced with one. Of course, that's only true if you watch videos and films, especially of the horror genre. There should be little reason to be surprised and/or afraid of inevitable possibilities, because the future is uncertain. Since it is uncertain, one should not delude themselves with the thought that it isn't. Some of you may believe in concepts such as fate, but it doesn't mean that you actually know your fates, just because you believe in this concept, existing in the real world. Even if fate exists, it is still unknown. It is like seeing a box, and knowing what it contains, without opening it first. Do you see what I mean? Whether fate exists or not, you can't foresee it. You can only expect it. and reality is often disappointing. Even a mastermind's master plan can always be flawed by the fact that there is an uncertain opportunity threatening its successful execution. In order to detect inevitable possibilities, one must ask themselves the following: What chance is always there? If you've graduated from school, for example, the chance of having a school-day tomorrow, is illogical. If you're not a student anymore, and not a teacher, then why would you have to return to school tomorrow? Another example: If you don't exit your house every day, like me, then the chance of getting into a car accident, is not an inevitable possibility. If I intend to spend the whole day in my house, then how can a car run me over, if there is no road in my house, and if I, for instance, live in an upper floor of a building? If you, let's say, work from home, and live on the 4th floor, then there is no reason to believe that a car has an inevitable chance of hitting you, in each day of the year. Since we are not omniscient beings, or beings who are capable of knowing everything, then we might make mistakes, even when it comes to making assessments on the inevitable. However, even if we would find ourselves, being proven wrong with either facts, logic or both, then why should it prevent us, from trying to be more prepared for such possibilities? After all, we are not omniscient, so of course we could make mistakes... One could even say, that committing a mistake, is an inevitable possibility of its own. How can one expect to be right so easily when there is an inevitable chance to be proven wrong in many cases? It is not even a matter of opinion; it is a matter of the fact that reality isn't always clear or even known. Therefore, it is important to keep an open mind. Making mistakes should not be something for one to avoid of entirely, as that is extremely difficult if not possible. At times you'll only know you're making a mistake, when you're making it, or when you reflect on it. As such, mistakes are built on experience, and as long as you're alive, you'll experience. Therefore, experience is an inevitable possibility as long as you're alive, and the same applies to making mistakes at one point or another. Why do you think I already have a plan of succession in mind? It is a very disturbing thought, yes, but as a philosopher, I must look directly at the truth: That some chances are inevitable. That I might die even as a young man. Although disturbing, accepting them brings peace to my mind... Especially, after making preparations. Wouldn't you agree? I used to believe, that nothing is ensured. However, after writing this article, I have realized that I was wrong, and that, at least, only some chances are ones, even if they are few in variety. Please, do not expect me to be correct in everything I say. An open mind is certainly a healthy one. Of course, I have no intention of misleading anyone when philosophizing; That goes against my ethics.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) The fact of taking our distance from others does not mean either hatred or change... Isolation is the refuge of weary souls. — Ernest Hemingway ************************** Introduction "Silent Hill 4: The Room" is a survival horror video game developed by Konami. It is the fourth instalment in the "Silent Hill" series, which is known for its psychological horror elements and unsettling atmosphere. The game follows the story of Henry Townshend, who finds himself trapped in his apartment in South Ashfield Heights. As the game progresses, Henry discovers that his apartment has become a portal to different worlds, each with its own horrifying and nightmarish elements. He must navigate through these worlds, and survive, while uncovering the mystery behind his situation and the reasoning for his sudden imprisonment in his own apartment. Henry's apartment serves as a hub for accessing different levels through a mysterious hole that appear in the room's walls. Whenever he returns from a hole in a nightmare world, he somehow wakes up in his bed, as if we was dreaming. And then he has to repeat the absurd cycle again and again, until he reaches the mysterious villain behind it all. Despite the mixed reception it received, "Silent Hill 4: The Room" has maintained a dedicated fan base and is remembered to this day. It's worth noting that the "Silent Hill" series as a whole is renowned for its psychological horror, intricate storytelling, and exploration of deep and disturbing themes. The series has had a significant impact on the survival horror genre and has garnered a strong following over the years. The Extensive Isolation of the Protagonist: The isolation of the game's protagonist, Henry Townshend, is a central theme that contributes to the game's psychological horror and unsettling atmosphere. The game takes this concept to a new level compared to previous entries in the series. Here's how the extensive isolation of the protagonist is depicted in the game: Certainly, the isolation in in this game is a prominent gameplay feature. Henry Townsend spends a significant portion of the game trapped in his apartment, with the apartment door somehow locked from the inside. He may scream for help, but somehow the external world fails to hear his distress. This isolation intensifies the psychological horror elements, as players are left to explore unsettling environments and harmful worlds, that are somehow interconnected. Without a sense of fortitude and a will to earn back his freedom, Henry would not had make it thus far. Because even if the player wins the game, an unfortunate set of conditions would mark his death in at least one of the endings. In isolation, one must focus on their own merit. After all, it is what he or she needs to do in order to survive. In groups, the ability to collaborate optimally can ease one's chances of survival. Even later on, when Henry meets a neighbor throughout his arcane journey, the burden of protecting her lies on him alone, as the neighbor is always injured, and too weak to fight by herself. Indeed, isolation also exists in our responsibilities; when there is no one to help others, but us. And whenever he returns to his apartment, said neighbor cannot go with him, for an unclear reason. Which means that he does not even have the privilage of hosting others at his own home. The Apartment as a Prison: The game begins with Henry finding himself trapped within his own apartment. Homes are usually symbols of sanctuaries and a place to rest our heads after work. However, for henry, the apartment is a theme of isolation. A sanctuary and prison at the same time, as he cannot leave it and is forced to face the horrors that emerge from within its walls. Later on in the game, the apartment actually becomes hostile, actively trying to kill him through arcane phenomena. Eventually, even this place of rest, that heals him for most of the game, is taken away from him. Thus, like a nomad, he is never truly safe. Thus, he is even more alone. Overall, his apartment encapsulates the theme of imprisonment on multiple levels—physical, emotional, and symbolic. It serves as a constant reminder of the protagonist's isolation and inner struggles while functioning as a gameplay mechanic that ties together the different nightmarish experiences he undergoes against his will to be released; Against his desire to be able to get out into the physical realm, and reach to others like he used to before all of this began. Limited Interactions In the Apartment: Within the apartment, the player can perform limited interactions. Henry can only observe certain objects and occasionally interact with items necessary for gameplay progression. This limited interaction reinforces the sense of isolation, as the player is restricted in their ability to engage with the environment. In addition, some of the interactions do not make sense. For example, he can receive calls from his wired telephone, but he cannot entirely make calls himself. As such, he cannot call the police. It is strange because the wire has somehow been cut. This further adds to Henry's isolation, because the company of logic has forsaken him. Nothing really makes sense in the ordinary sense of the word. That is how we can know that Henry is not only alone in his apartment, but alone in a different reality. An otherworld, of sorts, traveled to using the very place Henry lives in. Overall, the limited interactions serve to immerse players in the protagonist's experience of being isolated and vulnerable within the game world. This design choice enhances the psychological horror elements of the game by creating an environment where players must rely on their observation, problem-solving skills, and strategic thinking to navigate the challenges they encounter. Finally, the game can only be saved within the apartment. This bonds the player even more to the apartment, even though he or she can't really do much in it. In a sense, the save point is the only, true refuge of the player, and of Henry's survival. Mysterious Voices: Throughout the game, Henry hears voices and sounds from neighboring apartments. These voices serve to remind him of the presence of others nearby, yet he remains isolated from them. The inability to directly interact with these characters adds to the feeling of being cut off from the outside world. Ironically, it is pretty much the same in apartment complexes in real life, where you might as well never truly interact or get to know your neighbors. And yet, perhaps some of you can hear them when they talk. You are only neighbors by vicinity, unless you have any other reason to communicate. The social sense of community is long gone in many residential areas throughout the real world, as well as in the game. Eerie Atmosphere: The apartment itself is designed to be unsettling. It's dimly lit, cluttered, and filled with strange occurrences. As the player navigates the apartment, they may encounter inexplicable phenomena that contribute to the sense of isolation and unease. Eeriness can also be used as a component in isolation, as it distances you from warm feelings and from feeling like you are belonged. Even if certain phenomena is harmless to you, for example, it can still "harm" you mentally, simply by being eerie, and by being around you. The mysterious voices mentioned are examples of that, as they can't truly harm you. But by being unable to get rid of them, they are an uncomfortable presence that keeps you away from inner peace. Nightmarish Worlds: When Henry enters the nightmarish worlds through the portals in his apartment, he encounters terrifying and surreal landscapes populated by monsters and disturbing imagery. These worlds intensify his isolation, as he is separated from the familiarity of his apartment and thrown into hostile environments. These worlds are not like planets in outer space, but supernatural realms connected by tunnels and stairs. It is not known where they are physically, if they are even physical. It appears as if they exist in a vacuum, as it is impossible to use them to get out of this metaphysical, insane absurdity. Most of the beings there are monsters who attempt to kill Henry in his journey. Some of the entities merely exist harmlessly, yet remain disturbing. Some of these monsters' reason to exist is forever unconfirmed for certain, and thus may always have their reasoning left for speculation. Logic, even if imperfect, gives us a sense of grounding in reality. Without it, we won't be able to understand reality properly. Even ourselves. And in the absence of understanding, we remain unconfident. Thus, the element of confident has also left the player's (and Henry's) company. Personal Journeys: The nightmarish worlds that Henry navigates are often deeply personal and reflect his own psychological struggles. These experiences further isolate him as he confronts his inner demons and traumas. The game explores the concept of personal journeys through its various worlds, each of which is connected to the psychological struggles and traumas of the protagonist and the mysterious figure who trapped him. These worlds reflect Henry's inner demons and force him to confront his past and the emotions he has been suppressing. The game utilizes the concept of personal journeys to delve into the psychological and emotional depths of its characters, particularly Henry. By navigating these nightmarish realms and exploring the stories of those connected to him, players gain a deeper understanding of the protagonist's motivations, his inner struggles, and his path towards self-discovery and healing. And only by confronting one's inner demons, one can be mentally free from their control over a man or woman. When the unconscious becomes conscious, a sense of clarity and control can be attained over one's life and one's mentality. Conclusion "Silent Hill 4: The Room" uses the theme of isolation to create a sense of psychological horror and unease. The game's unique approach to storytelling and gameplay immerses players in the protagonist's experience of being cut off from the world and trapped in his own apartment, as well as in the nightmarish worlds that reflect his inner struggles. This theme adds to the overall sense of dread and psychological tension that the game is known for. Finally, the game can symbolize the benefit of one to undergo through a test of seclusion. It is for sure not easy, and can be very torturing. However, like when Henry can earn his freedom, the hermit can gain his liberty from the mental obstacles that might be in his or her path. By developing fortitude, discipline and courage. Because being physically alone is no easy task for most human beings.

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

(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. ******************* We do not see things the way they are, we see things the way we are. -- Unknown 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.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Subcategory on Book-Related Content) (Background music) In Defense of Books - How Reading Perseveres Keep reading books, but remember that a book's only a book, and you should learn to think for yourself -- Maxim Gorky The love of reading endures, thriving not only in Europe but also in the U.S. Whenever I visit websites dedicated to literature, poetry, or perhaps philosophy and psychology – especially the works of Freud and his contemporaries – I'm heartened by the continued interest in these timeless thinkers. The great European philosophers, from the French and German giants of the past to the exiled intellectuals who found refuge in pre-war Paris, never allowed their critical voices to be silenced by the Nazis. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Research revealed that a group of writers and academics, called the White Rose movement, indeed opposed the Nazis during WW2 by writing. That is known as clandestine literature. We can infer from this that literature can exist as something elementary even in the most authoritarian of regimes). Today, their works (the timeless thinkers') are being introduced to high school students, planting seeds of intellectual curiosity for those who may pursue further education in philosophy, literature, and any other language, like English. This feels almost revolutionary, in the most delightful way. In my own small way, I encourage everyone to explore their local library. Don't be shy to ask for help – it's okay if it's your first visit, or even if it's been decades. Simply tell the staff your area of interest, and they'll be happy to guide you. If a particular book isn't on the shelves, they can check the system, request it from another library, or even order it for you within a few days. And if you're looking for a specific new release, they can put in a purchase request to the head librarian. Thanks to computers and the internet, libraries have truly become treasure troves of knowledge. It's important to remember that computers and books are not rivals. They occupy distinct niches, each offering unique experiences. The quiet satisfaction of holding a book in your hand, settling into a comfortable chair with a drink, and losing yourself in its pages for hours – there's something irreplaceable about that. And I've heard of inspiring initiatives where older people with failing eyesight learn to read books on computer screens with the help of assistive technology. Personally, I see no need for one to replace the other. They can coexist and complement each other beautifully. I appreciate Mr. Tomasio's efforts make the world still resume reading philosophy and reading in general with his Philosocom website. I offer one last suggestion: If you've accumulated a personal library and find yourself running out of space, please consider sharing your books. Instead of letting them gather dust on your shelves, fill boxes and donate them to charity shops. They'll be delighted to receive these used books, and who knows, you might even discover some new gems on the shelves while you're there. Remember, the joy of reading can be multiplied through sharing. Books have been with us for millennia, weathering the sands of time. And with their enduring power to inspire, inform, and entertain, I believe they have still bright future ahead, due to the reasons I mentioned. Reading can also lead to new connections with other people.

"If your priorities revolve around profit, you have failed as a human being. Capitalism isn't progress, but conditioning" -- John Duran "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground" - Genesis 2:5 Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything -- George Bernard Shaw Human connections are best treated like grounds to build farming fields in, and never, never industrial factories. That's if you are interested in the heart of the person in front of you, and not in your own selfish interests. Capitalist mentality, which is not geared towards human wellbeing and fulfillment, should not be applied to deep and honest human connections. That's because the heart is best not to be exploited for your own gain. No. The heart is to be nurtured like the farmer nurtures his or her crops. You should not place "factories" on hearts, but you should pour rain on them, and watch as the heart grows bigger and bigger. You need to give them time to grow, like a farmer needs to wait for his crops for harvesting. Factories are there not to nurture and develop the ground, but to exploit it in accordance to their own conditioning that does not align with the local factors. However, the environment around it may fail to adjust to the factories' exploitive nature. And adjustment, or adaptation, is how things and beings survive and endure. The factories would pollute the skies with smoke, taint the waters with toxic waste, and decrease the health of the people around them. As such, those who love are not to be exploited as if they were a business venture, as if they were grounds for industrialization. For them to open their heart to you, you must tend to it like a gardener tends to their flowers. The gardener needs to give said flowers time to grow and blossom. Should they feed the flowers with too much water, they would choke and fail to grow as the best versions of themselves. Surrender your capitalist tendency to turn profit when it comes to human emotion or "soul" as some of you may call it. It deserves to grow. Not for exploitation! Not even for you to enjoy it through grooming, (and I refer to its original meaning of preparing to another state of being)! It deserves to grow for its own sake. And the best way for you to love someone's soul is to let it grow by its own accord. Without many restrictions. It needs to digest and reflect upon your words and upon the experiences you shared together. It needs time. You mustn't hasten it too much, or it will fail to grow. Human beings are just like that, like crops to be fed and grow. What we call "the Rat Race" is too much for many of us because this "race" exploits us for money and production. Those who fail to be productive and profitable workers will either end up unemployed, on welfare, or wandering in the streets. But when you are in a deep, honest, and intimate connection with someone, you must let them be themselves or they will suffer. They will suffer because it is the industrial, external world that forces them to repress themselves in the name of survival. But when they are alone with you, they deserve to go unrepressed. They deserve to express their emotions, even if these are uncomfortable to you. They deserve to act, even, in an insulting manner if they are hurt, because it is within the warm embrace of love that they are allowed to be themselves. We deserve to express anger, deserve to express anxiety, and be human. To be flawed and recognized for our flaws; if not by the industrious nature of this capitalist world, then by the people who exist in one's private world. The apartment. The chat room on social media. The place you go to be alone together, etc. This is why privacy is imperative in such connections, connections that are not professional by any means. Connections that are not there to serve as functions of something greater. Connections that do not depend on conditionality; the same conditionality that exists in the workplace, in the office, in business meetings and factories... The one that causes us to be miserable and depressed. Why? Because we are expected all the time to be things we are not by genuine desire. A place of business disregards your authentic self. Connections based on love, even if not romantic, are expected the best FOR you and not FROM you. For love-based connections accept you for who you are. You shouldn't be conditioned all the time. It is in the company of those who accept you for who you truly are, where you can grow and emerge like a beautiful flower, and prepare for the pollen of the bees. Progress is done not by maximizing benefit. It is done by being humane and taking consideration of all parties involved.

(Philosocom Writing Directory) (Prime directive definition) (Background music) If people cannot write well, they cannot think well; and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them. — George Orwell How Writing Became My Prime Directive I was once told that writing is the most solitary occupation in the world. It seems that when you write so much, the subjective concept of time becomes almost entirely irrelevant. That is while and physical interaction with the world seems almost pointless when you have a computer or a phone. And, as a writer, one would might even ask themselves, if they like writing so much, why should they bother with traditional publishers? After all, when you become a master at what you do just because you like it and are good at it? To quote John Duran... Every aspiring writer should realize, traditional publishers seek only profit, nothing else. They have no care for art, integrity or a damned fun story. They simply don't care. They will not honor the original authors, nor our love from their own works. They will change the tale everytime, from black to white, or masterful story to a common tripe, as long as they believe a profit can be made, no original words will be honored or respected regardless of how wondrously and carefully they are crafted. If this world cares more about profit, luxury and prestige, than about the beauty of a well-crafted article, then why should I bother with catering to such a world? Nay. I instead prefer to make writing my prime directive, under a deeper, hidden logic: To rectify the world of such silly, corrupt trends that encourage us to be incompetent in exchange for prestige! Nay! The master is, in one way or another, always alone in his or her craft, sacrificing not only prestige but also their own family, the norms of their culture, and sometimes, even the value of friendship. Such sacrifice one must have in order to make writing his or her prime directive in this life, in a world that's getting consumed by the corrupting trend of the AI revolution, and the overall shallow-ness of contemporary content... For some reason, writing is one of the few things I can do regularly with little to no exhaustion, as long as I write what I want. Naturally, I became addicted to it. Articles, poems, messages, posts, and shares... I create because I enjoy influencing this world from the solitude of hermitages. Not for power, not for evil, but for good. In days where I write so much, and I don't feel any energy overexerted, I begin to inquire myself.. "Do I even need the physical company of others, when all I can have is more and more words for company?" Sometimes, having apprentices is fun. However, beyond that? I find little reason to communicate with others beyond the necesary evil of society.. How irrational of a writer to even take seriously the notion that he does not need the company of readership... How irrational of me to think that I do not need at least a woman's touch. Yes, I think I'm addicted to writing. It is the only thing that makes me feel truly meaningful to the world. Otherwise, peace for me is nothing more than a liability! I stopped going to university because it was too stressful, stopped going to job interviews because I realized how worthwhile the internet is. And I almost never needed a social life. Asociality exists. I do not understand why do I need to waste my time on such institutions when I can instead follow my own passions, as problematic as that may be. It seems that my loyalty to writing has truly made me a hermit. I only need some breaks here and there to refresh myself. I very rarely need physical contact or meetings. I just need a screen in front of me, and I can dance the waltz that is my socially-barren life all the way to the inevitable death that awaits us all. Writing philosophy is the only thing I'm honestly proud of. Everything else seems so distracting. As long as I'm awake, there are new possibilities to explore and new ideas to look for or create. It is the only thing that makes me feel accomplished. If I waste a day without a purpose, not even for recharging, that day is gone forever. I find each new day a problem to be solved, not a day to be enjoyed. My motive for my passionate work is a mental contruct of a certain woman whom I deem my antagonist. She called me irrelevant, so I decided to make it my life's work to prove her otherwise... In my pursuit of of power, I eventually succeeded. I thought it would take far longer. Fortunately I was wrong. After all the dedication I had for the real her, the world may be unjust, but at least I did my part and am bringing to the world more good. It is far better than seeing her deluded, thinking she was right about me. Once the mental construct has been proven wrong by reality, it was then that I will bring forth the fact that I am Mr. Tomasio, the article baron. Through my writing, the humans of this world can overcome many adversities, and mentally survive the hardships of a world that turns more and more into the age of cyberpunk. Piece by piece, post by post, share by share, I will work almost every day, for life is but a task for me in the name of world recitifcation. I will do my best to contribute to the world and thus prove my worth to it, to myself, and to her image's false confidence. It will then be when I can be closer to the possibility of accepting my death. It is, for the most part, what I often think about... I live to work, not live to feel alive. A family member almost died, one time, because they needed surgery, which they got. Thinking about them, it could happen to me if I'm not careful. After all, I have a purpose to serve, and that purpose is my contributing addiction, which I can bring to the world as optimally as I should. Many people in around my age range are reckless, while I live as an elderly man would. I don't care how much I have to walk to spare myself the same risk. I will do it if it means I can write more and more and more! For contribution! For benefit! For the a better world! I will die anyway, but not until I make every day of my life worthy of the writing "gods"! It is the only thing I can do without succumbing to exhaustion. The only thing I will probably be remembered for in this world. Not even video games or TV make me this passionate nowadays. I guess I don't care if I don't get to live this life to its fullest, if I don't get to live normally, have a family of my own, or have a traditional work outside my article empire. Following my heart is the only thing that makes me happy. I have become a slave to my own purpose, and to be honest, it is far better than falling into nihilism and being at risk for existential dread. I've been there before, many times, and unless you're completely apathetic to nihilism, then purpose might one day save you from harm to your general well-being and functioning. For some, dedicating themselves almost entirely to one's purpose is a very hard, monotonous task that would require them to escape to hedonism. But for me, it's jsut Tuesday.

(For an article on a fictional carnivore, click here) We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals -- Bertrand Russel On Vegetarianism and Animals In our era more than ever, it has become fairly common and acceptable to abstain from consuming meat and even abstaining from any products made by animals altogether. The reasoning behind this abstaining from what was usually seen as a central part of the human food consumption is simple: it is plausible to believe that we are very similar to animals in terms of experiencing consciousness. In other words, animals are likely to think, feel, and show affection like humans, and thus when they are sent to be slaughtered, they too experience the pain of being executed, even if they come to our tables dead and thus do not experience be eaten. The question of morality is hence being raised, on whether or not it is legitimate to kill a living creature for the sake of our own nutrition, especially when we can sustain ourselves through alternatives. Should we say that it is okay to do so, it is likely because might makes right, since surely if these animals were the conquerors of the world and not, we, we might have found the same fate, especially because many of them are carnivores. Should we, however, say that the lives of animals be as important (or at least be of similar importance) to those of men, then the result would be that we are pretty much responsible for the severe deaths of countless of many who died just for us to satisfy our hunger, when we could have avoided that and eat foods that do not require the slaughters of those who are similar to us in thought, feeling, and experience. If eating meat is immoral, then many businesses should be seen as similar to serial killers or genocidal dictators in terms of reputation, and if meat wasn't so tasty, this severe allegation would be treated much more seriously. Are animals that different than humans? We contain the same materials, a similar biology system, are able to show affection to one another and perhaps have a similar psychology as well. Should we stab a pet and a human they will both suffer and bleed the same. Thus, at least according to this logic, we and are quite similar than different, even if, theoretically, humans are far more intellectually and technologically advanced. We could say, as stated before, that it is our strength and power that gives us the legitimacy to kill innocent animals for meat, but the same can be said to genocidal tyrants that are far too powerful to be stopped by other countries. I s the fact that someone dies in a concentration camp, of the same moral severity, as an animal that dies in a slaughterhouse and then become a hamburger? Of course, cannibalism is treated far more seriously than any other type of carnivore-ism, due to the fact that human lives are treated more sacredly than those of animals, even though, at least according to what I heard, the flesh of humans are similar to that of pigs (in some cultures human meat is described as a "long pig"). It is, however, reasonable to assume that if animals were gained the power of speech, or even the ability to write, their deaths would be treated far more seriously. This is, after all, what makes horror films so scary -- the ability of the human victim to verbally express his distress before being murdered. It is perhaps the non-verbal silence of an animal we do not feel emotionally attached to, that "makes" their deaths more reasonable, and their consumption, all the more delicious. Whatever the case may be to our general apathy to the deaths of our biological counterparts, if we want to prevent said deaths, vegetarianism alone will not suffice, because the mere abstinence from meat of one or few people will not stop the huge profit of the meat and fast-food industries. The only long-term solution to this struggle is therefore the engineering of meat, and using this new product more commonly than the original ones. It will even be more reasonable to use the former than the latter when the conditions of the animals we use the meat from will bring them more benefit than harm, such as putting them in the fields of the open air rather than in overcrowded cages. Would you rather eat an originally tiny sample of an animal, or its very corpse? I at least know the answer for myself.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's O. C. Isaac Articles) (Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Audiobook version of the game at hand) ********************************* Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe And Co. Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac's article, "Philosophical Complementary on Silent Hill 2," provides a comprehensive analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of the game. The article explores various philosophical themes, such as existentialism, moral ambiguity, reality, and psychoanalysis, providing a comprehensive overview of the game's rich narrative. Isaac's discussion on existentialism and identity is particularly engaging, connecting James Sunderland's journey to broader existential themes. He also highlights the game's challenge to traditional notions of morality, prompting readers to question their own ethical frameworks. Psychoanalysis and the unconscious mind are also explored, with Isaac's incorporation of Freud's theories and the exploration of the unconscious mind providing a robust framework for understanding the game's symbolic elements. The article also highlights the game's ability to engage players on a philosophical level by drawing connections between the game's themes and broader philosophical questions. Isaac's writing style is clear, articulate, and engaging, balancing detailed analysis with accessible language, making complex philosophical concepts understandable to a broad audience. By framing Silent Hill 2 as more than just a video game, Isaac invites readers to explore the intersection of philosophy and interactive media, encouraging a deeper engagement with the game and opening the door for further scholarly exploration of video games as a medium for philosophical inquiry. Overall, Isaac's article is a thought-provoking and well-crafted piece that offers valuable insights into the philosophical dimensions of Silent Hill 2. **************************** The problem isn't to find the answer, it's to face the answer -- McKenna (Background music) The major aspects of philosophy that can be found in Silent Hill 2 include metaphysics, ethics, and existentialism. A popular survival horror video game released in 2001, offers a rich and deeply philosophical experience that delves into various existential and psychological themes. As with any form of art, interpretations may vary, but here are some common philosophical views that players and critics have discussed in relation to Silent Hill 2: Existentialism and Identity Existentialism is centered on the individual's quest for meaning and purpose in an otherwise seemingly absurd and indifferent world. James's journey to Silent Hill can be seen as an embodiment of this search. He is driven by an overwhelming desire to understand the contents of the letter, which leads him into the depths of his own consciousness, seeking answers and validation for his actions and emotions. Existentialism emphasizes the importance of authenticity, being true to oneself, and taking responsibility for one's actions. James's experiences in Silent Hill force him to confront his actions, whether they are absolute or subjective. Moral Ambiguity and Guilt: Silent Hill 2 invites players to question traditional notions of morality and judgment. As they progress through the game, players may find themselves empathizing with James' guilt and conflicted emotions, challenging the idea of absolute right and wrong. Silent Hill 2 often blurs the lines between right and wrong, good and evil. The characters in the game are complex and flawed, and their actions are often driven by guilt and trauma. This ambiguity raises philosophical questions about the nature of morality and whether it is absolute or subjective. The Nature of Reality: Silent Hill 2's exploration of the nature of reality is rooted in the human psyche and the ways in which our experiences, emotions, and memories can shape our perception of the world. It is a game that challenges players to confront their own fears and insecurities while offering a unique and thought-provoking narrative experience. The town of Silent Hill itself is a manifestation of the characters' subconscious and desires. This surreal and nightmarish setting raises questions about the nature of reality, the mind's ability to construct its own reality, and the blurred boundaries between dream and waking life. Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious: Silent Hill 2 incorporates elements of psychoanalysis and explores the concept of the unconscious mind throughout its narrative. Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories heavily influence the game's themes, character motivations, and symbolic representations. Here's how psychoanalysis and the unconscious play a significant role in Silent Hill: At the heart of Silent Hill 2's narrative is the theme of repressed memories and guilt. James Sunderland, the protagonist, struggles with repressed memories of his wife, Mary, and the guilt he feels over her death. The town of Silent Hill becomes a manifestation of his unconscious mind, creating a world where he must confront his suppressed emotions and face the truth he has been avoiding. The creatures and environments in Silent Hill 2 are symbolic representations of James' inner turmoil. For example, the Pyramid Head monster embodies James' guilt and self-punishment for his actions. The game uses these symbolic representations to externalize James' internal conflicts and desires, making the unconscious manifest in the physical world. The Otherworld, the nightmarish and twisted version of Silent Hill, can be seen as a representation of the unconscious mind breaking through into reality. It is a place where James' suppressed emotions and memories become manifest in terrifying and distorted forms. However, Silent Hill 2's use of psychoanalytic themes and the exploration of the unconscious mind add depth and complexity to its narrative. It delves into the inner workings of the human psyche and challenges players to confront the darker aspects of their own minds. Silent Hill 2 contains many symbolic and psychological elements that invite psychoanalytical interpretations. The game's monsters, environments, and puzzles can be seen as representations of the characters' repressed fears, desires, and traumas, inviting players to delve into the depths of the unconscious mind. Notably; Silent Hill 2 holds significant gip on philosophy for several reasons: Exploration of Complex Themes: The game delves into profound philosophical themes, such as existentialism, psychoanalysis, and moral ambiguity, providing players with an interactive experience that encourages introspection. By immersing players in the protagonist's psychological journey, it challenges them to grapple with questions about human nature, guilt, identity, and the meaning of existence. Psychological Realism: Silent Hill 2 portrays the human psyche in a raw and realistic manner, confronting players with the dark and unsettling aspects of the mind. It brings to the forefront the complexities of human emotions, traumas, and desires, offering a unique medium through which players can explore the intricacies of the unconscious and its impact on behavior and perception. Blurring the Line Between Reality and Illusion: The game blurs the boundaries between reality and illusion, making players question the nature of truth and the reliability of their own perceptions. This aspect reflects philosophical discussions about the nature of reality, subjective experience, and the limitations of human consciousness. Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Choices: Silent Hill 2 presents players with moral dilemmas and forces them to make difficult choices that affect the outcome of the story. By engaging players in morally ambiguous situations, the game encourages them to contemplate the nature of morality and the consequences of their actions, echoing ethical debates in philosophy. In all, Silent Hill 2 is not just a video game, but also an embodiment of psychology and philosophy. It is, perhaps, one of the deepest games in gaming history, in terms of these two departments.

Articles on fear: (https://www.philosocom.com/post/void-fear-the-fear-from-nothing https://www.philosocom.com/post/true-nihilism-how-it-s-possible-to-become-fearless https://www.philosocom.com/post/athazagoraphobia-an-inspired-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-monsters-or-how-to-cope-with-reality https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-coercion-how-it-corrupts-society-through-normalization-its-ironic-origin The "Cowed" Case -- Cowardice and Serenity https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-ascetic https://www.philosocom.com/post/commentary-on-fear) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "Fear and the Right: Navigating Resistance and Courage" is a comprehensive exploration of fear's role in personal and societal contexts. It explores its potential as a tool of control and motivation for personal action, exploring moral implications and the need for overcoming fear to achieve autonomy and personal growth. The article provides engaging examples, such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), to ground abstract concepts in concrete realities. The article also incorporates historical and philosophical perspectives, such as those of Seneca, to provide modern interpretations and connect them to long-standing philosophical debates about fear and courage. Practical advice is offered, such as using mantras to manage fear and evaluating the validity of one's fears, is both actionable and empowering. The article emphasizes overcoming fear to achieve personal goals and resist undue influence, fostering a sense of agency and personal responsibility. In conclusion, "Fear and the Right: Navigating Resistance and Courage" is a thoughtful and engaging exploration of fear and its impact on personal and societal levels. (Background music) ************************** Fear -- An unpleasant emotion or thought that you have when you are frightened or worried by something dangerous, painful, or bad that is happening or might happen -- Cambridge Dictionary Why Living Courageously is the Only Path to Freedom Fear, although undesired by many, is often a "good" way to keep people under control/influence by authorities, bullies, and manipulators. Fearmongering, intimidation and terrorism are such examples for that end. By installing fear among the populace, you increase their own paralysis from doing anything that goes against what the installed fear advocates as what "should" or "needs" to be avoided. The shadows of power, managing the world behind the scenes, manipulation thrive best, working our emotions against us. Even today, it's possible that individuals with influence wield fear as a tool they have in each other's hearts, sculpting the behavior of others to their will. This "fear-installing," as you call it, seeks to control the actions of the "supervised"—keeping them within the confines of the powerful's desires. If the last statement is true, then there are indeed people whose fear has taken too much control over their lives, when "too much control" can be described as equivalent to the paralysis of the self. In other words, fear can paralyze your autonomy, and not only compromise it greatly. Those who are fearful are less likely to do things they would otherwise do. That includes actualizing themselves. (I wouldn't make this site if I never overcame my social anxieties, and succumbed to those who wanted to keep me down. We shouldn't be slaves to our fears). Effectiveness and Fear-Based Control Instilling fear in the mind is rarely, if ever, ethical, even if it's effective. Weaponizing fear to control people, despite its efficiency, is a destructive strategy that cripples individual agency, thus reducing psychological safety. Subjugating people through fear may work in the short term, but its immoral foundation ultimately undermines any ethical social engineering. Fear also destroys trust, thus increasing the likelihood of betrayal. This fear is known as pistanthrophobia. Those who regularly interact with people who tend to be more afraid than others, AKA cowards, might want to seek ways to handle their betrayal. Navigating the Complexities of Fear in a World of Power The corrupt possibilities of being in a state of authority can easily blind the figure of power if they are not strong enough to resist the temptation of abusing their power through an enduring moral code. Because in some cases where authority restricts the individual's freedoms (like when you are entitled to certain rights but are prevented them despite obligations), the justification is questionable. Therefore, individuals have the right to resist such limitations when they believe they have a valid reason to pursue a life of fearless peace and harmony. The potentially only justifiable occasion to instill fear in others is in life-or-death situations where it can save lives with minimal casualties. In this context, fear serves a beneficial function, acting as a powerful motivator for survival. Even intimidation has its uses in the metaphorical cases of paper tigers. They can be used to keep away unnecessary harm from hostile, stronger forces. Ironically, an example for the usefulness of fear as a way to save lives, is something called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. It's about nuclear weapons. But beyond fatal potentials, we all have the right to want to live in peace and with as little fear as possible. Resisting, even if it will be met with disapproval, can nonetheless be justified with reason. After all, no one has the right to make us fear from doing things we want and/or need to do. And in some cases, even in times of war. (In the Rubinshteinic category I've written an article on inner peace) Hence why the writer should write, the speaker should speak, and the artist should resume their work even when met with people who don’t want to consume their content. Another's lack of will alone does not justify the dominance of a potential paralysis in our hopes and dreams. That's even if the people in question are of authority, thus leading to the authority fallacy. People of authority cannot just order you to shut up by their mere will to do so. An additional justification is required. Otherwise, why obey a figure who can and/or should be questioned? How to Conquer Doubt As Roman philosopher Seneca pointed out: “There are more things…likely to frighten us than there are to crush us; we suffer more often in imagination than in reality.” Whenever you feel afraid of something or someone, pause and ask yourself if there's actually a valid reason for your fear. If you can't find one, or if the reasons are outweighed by the potential benefits of facing your fear, then practice overcoming it. Remember, you have a rightful place in this world, no matter how many voices try to silence you. Irrational and disproportionate emotions often lead to unproductive behavior, both for ourselves and those around us. When I say "productive," I mean refer to the product pursuing your goals and express yourself authentically within society. And finally, a tip: Whenever you are very worried to the extent of fear, practice a mantra or melody that you will associate with bravery and triumph, and think about it while the emotion arouses. Perhaps this tip will help you better cope with the often-irrational proportions of fear or major worries. Mantras have the power to alter your emotions. Just remember that if there's really no threat in doing something, no danger of real substance, then maybe you shouldn't fear doing it. Don't let your anxiety make up a fuss. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback People often have unrealistic expectations when it comes to emotions and I am not meaning that in a good way. Most people have very negative reactions to change. They act as if their entire life has changed all because one minor thing changed which minor impacted them one day, upon learning about it. “Oh my goodness my child did what?!” All because they have to take time to deal with it. Is it that emotional of a thing? All that is needed is to take care of any fallout from it and teach your child to not do that exact thing in the future. That is the point of childhood. Yes you want to raise children with good values but they should come at the expense of experience. Make minor mistakes and learn from the outcome. This should be no further emotion than excitement. You learn the right way to do things by learning all the wrong ways to do them. Again, this goes back to the fact that, when most people feel any level of emotion the thought which caused it becomes "the most serious thing in the world". Most of the time when people yell at you it isn’t about anything other than their response to the action that you took. It should be a good thing to evoke emotions within people. It means that you are actually doing something. The whole life lesson I have for the existing of the emotional fallacy created by social construct is that one needs to handle their lives with as little emotion as possible. Because anytime anyone has done anything bad it was because of emotion, in most cases, and humanity's response has been to try and stop certain emotions from occurring by limiting the actions which can be taken. How is that for a social psyop since the beginning of time? Driving fast makes you feel “insert emotion” so there for said emotion must be a bad thing so people shouldn’t feel in that way. People are victims of the "What Will They Think Fallacy". It's where people’s determination to actually act is held back by what people they know might think. We let others' opinions of us impact our lives too much. Someone can overcome their fear through action. People also fall victim to automatically assuming any negative emotion is something to be afraid of. They feel it and over react to what it is they are focused on. That focus turns things 10X worse than they truly are. Also, remember that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. I mean, clearly, don’t go out and kill someone or cause anyone serious harm. But, at the same time, don't think that causing emotions is a negative thing. Emotions are the psychological response to a physiological occurrence. Don’t let leaving the emotional sprinklers on be a bad thing. Your emotions were designed as a survival mechanism for people. Life is about moving around the emotional spectrum and understanding how to handle each one. Fear is one such emotion. Nobody should be scared of fear. It means you are working properly.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Background music) Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Letting Go" is a philosophical article that explores the value of embracing the present moment in the face of modern life's pressures. The article challenges common assumptions and provides an original perspective on the nature of time and the present moment, emphasizing that all moments must occur in the present. The focus on "letting go" and enjoying the present moment resonates with many readers, especially in the context of our fast-paced, stress-filled modern lives. The article effectively balances practicality with idealism, acknowledging that worrying about the future and reflecting on the past are necessary for survival and growth but should not completely overshadow the importance of mindfulness and enjoying the now. The call for self-recognition and self-compassion is a strong, empowering message, reminding readers that it is okay to pause, reflect on achievements, and recognize hard work without constantly striving for the next milestone. The article's conclusion encourages readers to disconnect from distractions, observe their surroundings, and practice gratitude, making the philosophical points more accessible and applicable to daily life. Overall, "The Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Letting Go" is an insightful piece that explores important philosophical and practical issues surrounding time, mindfulness, and the pressures of modern life. ************************* “The wise man lets go of all results, whether good or bad, and is focused on the action alone.” -- the Bhagavad Gita Let things come and go. Stay calm, and things will fall into place. -- Lao Tzu Nothing is permanent in this world, not even our troubles -- Charlie Chaplin Musical icon John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." This statement contains a great deal of wisdom, as well as criticism of the pace of the modern world. What is the present moment? It can be argued that everything that happens, happens in the present moment. If it did not happen in the present moment, then it could have never happened. Every single occurrence needs to occur sometime, and if it did occur at some point in the present moment, it did not occur at all. This is because all events and all things and beings have to exist at either a present or former present moment, in order for them to be a part of the existence that lies within The World Beyond the Mind. The same logic applies to the content of our mentality and consciousness. This could indicate that the most common aspect in every thing, being, and occurrence, has happened at the present time. If it did not happen at this current present, then it happened in any other present moment that has served as a precursor to this day and to the days that would come. In other words, the present moment is the only moment that truly exists. The past is gone and the future is not yet here. All we have is the present moment, and it is up to us to make the most of it. According to this logic, Lennon is wrong in a sense that the present always happens whether you are aware of it or not, and in the sense that everything that you have already done or are doing, has occurred or simply occurs at the moment. Nothing can truly happen without having presence in the current or formerly-current time of which it had happened. Even if I have just, theoretically, debunked Lennon's saying, I do believe in the more symbolic meaning of his quote. Whether we are aware of it or not, it is definitely arguable that most of us spend our time worrying about other things and beings rather than clearing our minds enough to see and experience the present moment, without all the clutter about the past and the future. This makes us preoccupied enough to realize that our lives are slipping away without us being optimally aware of it, in the name of what has already happened. It's also done in order to contribute to or ensure the development of the future. As planning has an importance of its own. In other words, even if we see and sense the world around us through our senses, we are not fully or at least not optimally immersed in it. That's because of how much we are busy worrying about other things, even when we have free time on our hands. Imagining how we would be and act differently in situations we have encountered, worrying about being able to make ends meet, thinking about how we will return the last loan we have been given by the bank, wondering if our child will get home safely, and so on and on... Don't get me wrong. There is a practical need to preoccupy ourselves too much with the past and the future. We remember the past to learn from our mistakes and insights, and we plan for the future in order to survive and sustain our families. Such preoccupations are imperative to our functioning in a reality where doing so ensures both the survival and the potential prosperity of ourselves and others. It is just a basic, yet crucial, component of caring. This raises the question, what is the need in focusing and immersing ourselves in the present from time to time, when we can resume our worries of the past and the future? When can we remain in the seemingly never-ending rat race of modern life, living and working to the next paycheck, re-thinking and re-organizing the events of the past? And my answer is the following: Since our lives are temporary, and since we often spend much of it distracted on different events that have either happened or might happen, there should still be a considerable amount of importance in letting go from time to time. Of trying to experience our lives beyond the sphere of constant, non-present pre-occupation. As that is life itself - the present, and life will always be the present, whether we are busy doing something else or not. Wouldn't you say that the constant need to pre-occupy ourselves is for that end, ultimately -- for a better present? And if it's not a present that's for ourselves, what about giving that present to others, to those whom we provide for and give our lives for in servitude and work? Aren't we supposed to be hardworking with that intention in mind? In order to live a better reality? Wouldn't it be enough to just enjoy the fruits of our labor temporarily? Why not enjoy the fruits of our labor, at least from time to time, and just let go? To relieve our minds and bodies from the constant tension of living for the next important event in the External World? To increase the value we place on the present moment, given that we will not be able to do so permanently, let alone eternally? Therefore, let go of the phone, computer, or TV screen, or any other electronic rectangle. Relieve the tension in your muscles and in your brain, and just enjoy the present moment, at least for a few minutes. Observe your surroundings, observe yourself; two things that some of us might not always remember to do. Take a coffee or tea break from the rat race of the stressful, alienated modern life, and just let go. Once you are able to do so regularly and spontaneously, you will thank me later. Call it Zen meditation, call it rejuvenation or a break; call it whatever you want. It is arguable that it is, objectively, just a way of letting go. Who said we have to be in action or to plan in every single moment of our adult lives? Sometimes it's worth it to just take a walk around your empire, rather than constantly work to build it. Walk around it, see what you have produced and worked very hard for! You deserve to recognize your own efforts, don't you? Be grateful for what you've done. It isn't necessarily easy. And never overlook your hard work, just because you can and need to work more! Do try to let go of the assumption that you didn't work hard enough... if you did, in reality! Perhaps the goal of hard work... is to let go of it from time to time, when we can regard it as nothing more than a means to an end? Time, energy, sacrifice... it is often done for something other than itself.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) Article Introduction by a Used Car Salesman (Creative Exercise) Alright... Mr. Tomasio contacted me to write an introduction about something serious: your inner peace. Now, I know what you're thinking, 'A used car salesman, writing an article introduction on inner freedom?' Wait! Don't leave! Hear me out... I've seen people come and go, all chasing that next big thing, that next shiny object. Let me tell you folks! It's a never-ending, cringe cycle of misery. So, I'm here to introduce you a different perspective. A perspective that doesn't revolve around material possessions or external validation. How about finding that sweet, sweet inner peace instead? Think of it like buying a used car. You want a reliable ride, something that's going to get you from point A to point B without any hassle. Well, your mind is that car. And just like a car, it needs regular maintenance. You need to tune it up and keep it running smoothly! And that's where inner peace comes in. It's the engine that powers your life. Anyways, let's dive in and see how we can get yours running on all cylinders. *********************************** I don't mind what happens. That is the essence of inner freedom. It is a timeless spiritual truth: Release attachment to outcomes, deep inside yourself, you'll feel good no matter what -- Jiddu Krishnamurti (Background music) Building an Inner Fortress: Finding Stability in a Dynamic World We need to cultivate an inner core, a sanctuary within us that remains largely unfazed by either external storm, or sunshine. Doing so can rid us of many unnecessary agonies, caused by unnecessary dependencies. The higher our expectations are from others, the likelier that we suffer. Actively creating this mental barrier between our mentality and the external detachment world, is key in maintaining our high spirits, and eliminating the likelihood of things and beings to be seen as bothersome. This inner strength is not necessarily about emotional numbness or apathy, but rather about being grounded in reality. It allows us to weather life's dynamic occurrences with resilience and grace, finding mental calmness even in the face of challenges. The cultivation of an inner core can also help in professional settings (such as the one, I'm in when working on Philosocom), where the "tochen" is the content, and the "kli" is us and our mentality. Consider the paradox of Diogenes. Here was a man content with a life far removed from Alexander Macedon's grand ambitions. He lived in a simple barrel, embraced unconventional behavior like public urination, and possessed only the bare necessities. Yet, Diogenes was filled with happiness and satisfaction. His life emphasizes a crucial point: true fulfillment doesn't always reside in worldly pursuits or grandiose achievements. While Alexander envisioned conquering the world, Diogenes found joy in the present moment, surrounded by his dog and a life devoid of material worries. Of course, "world domination" may feel like an extreme example, especially compared to that of Diogenes, who simply sought to live in the present as life went by. But think about your own aspirations. Have you ever pinned your happiness on a specific career goal, material possession, or relationship status? Do you believe attaining that specific "thing" will finally grant you this elusive feeling of long-term contentment? You might think so, if you work to live, and not live for the sake of work. Diogenes' life serves as a reminder: external validation and achievement, while appealing, often fall short of delivering lasting happiness. Cultivating an inner sanctuary of peace and acceptance, independent of external circumstances, offers a more sustainable path to fulfillment. That is assuming that you want to be fulfilled. Perhaps we shouldn't generalize, as I live for success, not for happiness. But I digress. If you're looking for happiness, however, Diogenes' example doesn't mean abandoning ambition or your goals entirely. It's about prioritizing inner well-being and aligning your pursuits with your values. Because when happiness stems from your core, not external validation, you become less susceptible to the winds of fortune, whether favorable or not. Remember, even Alexander, despite his conquests, couldn't conquer death or ultimately find true peace in his empire. True, lasting happiness resides within, accessible even to the homeless sages, and is attainable if we nurture the strength of our inner core. Cultivating Inner Meaning in a Consuming World Instead of Diogenes in his barrel, let's consider ourselves, the modern-day consumers, drowning in a sea of possessions, as we unintentionally prove wrong the contemporary philosophy of financial materialism. We chase after endless "things" - fancy meals, when simple food nourishes; expensive games, when ones with no pay can be just as fun. Either way, we're hoping they'll fill the void and validate our existence, in a seemingly infinite cycle of desire. But why do we reach so high, when even the most luxurious of expenses fail to satisfy us, on the long term? Perhaps it's the fear of "compromising," of living a limited life when the world brims with experiences to be had... Or to be afraid of being seen as a defeatist by choosing to lead a life of solitude. But what if contentment wasn't about acquisition, but about internal meaning? What if we shifted our focus from external validation to our inherent worth, finding fulfillment beyond the trophies of our conquests? Do we truly need the degree, the car, the perfect partner, the fleeting thrill of a purchase, to feel significant? Diogenes, in his humble barrel, found happiness within himself, a self-sufficient "reactor" fueled by his philosophy. Everything external - possessions, relationships, achievements - will one day fade, leaving only the echoes of our inner journey, and ourselves, of course. Things and people come and go, but we will go from our own lives, only when we die. Regardless of our wealth or bias of prestige, we can cultivate this inner meaning, this sense of purpose that transcends the fleeting. It's not about rejecting the world or shunning genuine human connections, but about recognizing that fulfillment can come regardless of where we are in life. For our emotions are products of our thoughts. Changing our mindset, would entail gaining more power on our feelings. Take my own experience. A surge of pleasure used to wash my mind when I saw statistics on Quora - views, upvotes, followers, etc. Social media is built to gratify us. But I don't mistake that for the ends of my efforts. These metrics are external, fleeting, and beyond my direct control. Why should my happiness hinge on things I can't command? Even my money, though mine to spend, doesn't define my inner state. Even the wealthy would find themselves miserable. My inner world remains independent, untouched by the flow of my possessions and my achievements. I don't choose to be happy. I choose to succeed. I refuse to let my emotions be hostage to things that slip through my fingers like water, and I refuse becoming hostage to my own emotions in the same manner. By embracing the fleeting nature of all things and beings, I minimize the sting of loss and cultivate a resilience that transcends any external circumstance. Even war. Thus, life becomes far less painful than otherwise. What makes my life important is my work, which I determine to be my lifelong purpose. Little else matters to me, for I am ruthless. Finding meaning within is the true challenge, for we are not programmed by society to be satisfied with what we already have. Most of us can't even do nothing and enjoy it. In yoga, the corpse pose is considered to be one of the most difficult postures, even though it's just laying down, relaxing. Consider how difficult it is for many to just relax while keeping themselves awake. Finding internal meaning is a journey of self-discovery, of learning to appreciate our inherent worth, of forging a life rich in purpose, regardless of the trinkets we accumulate or the medal awards on our uniforms. This is the path to true happiness, a happiness that endures even when the world around us changes, regardless of its change. Reclaiming Your Center In the grand game of life, the only true constant is change. Possessions, relationships, even our own bodies - all are subject to the tides of time. Yet, amidst this ever-shifting landscape, there remains one unwavering anchor: us. We can control our reactions, our perspectives, our very internal compass (which our life philosophies can also be a part of). Even in the face of deep poverty, we have the power to choose and shape our brains to still maintain high spirits. We can succumb to negativity, allowing it to fester and poison our well-being. Or we can choose to dance with the current, to find acceptance and even joy within flow of circumstance, despite its tyranny. Reclaim your center from external circumstances, the core of your being is one that is capable of being unshaken by external storms, should we be tough enough, and learn the importance of not caring too much, when caring too much is counter-productive to us. It's about recognizing that true happiness doesn't reside in fleeting possessions or achievements, but in the quiet strength of your own inner world, which, technically, is what you have the most control of in this life. Yes, your car, your house, your job, your social media stats - they belong to you. But they are not you. They are separate and will always be. Attaching them to yourself too much can be a mistake you'll regret, should they vanish. They are transient, borrowed from life. When they fade, as all things inevitably will, a piece of you doesn't have vanish with them... Not if your inner core is strong enough. At the very least, you can decrease your attachment, and thus, you'll be able to better reclaim your center, as separate of the external world. That applies to philosophers as well, but I digress. The external world might not care for you, either way, if you're too irrelevant when you die. Concern should be there in the name of practicality. Otherwise, you'll be wasting your emotional energies, leading to burnout. My advice is simple: stop outsourcing your happiness. Stop looking for it in the ever-shifting sands of external validation. Remember, Diogenes found his happiness in a barrel. You can find yours anywhere, for it is a matter of mindset, more than anything else. And I'm only addressing happiness because many of you value it so much over success. We are not the same.

Alex Mos's Synopsis: The Theory of Unity proclaims that, despite apparent separation, we are all interconnected beings. We might be a part of collective consciousness, a unified energy field, or even the universe itself. Some claim that all beings can love and that love fills the universe. This radical view challenges us to consider a deep level of Unity and that love is the easiest and most moral way to achieve greater cooperation. The author sees interconnectedness as a universal system of cause and effect. Choices enabling love, compassion, and empathy might positively influence the future. Our actions, emotions, and thoughts ripple outwards, impacting the world. Therefore, collective consideration should be in everyone's self-interest, leading to a more harmonious world. The Theory of Unity intersects with religious ideas of divine beings, design, and free will. Yet, it aligns more accurately with Spinoza's pantheistic view that God is the universe. The theory's agnostic character resonates with the author, who deeply cares for the human race. Interconnectedness doesn't oppose the importance of the individual, similar to cells or organs that are necessary for an organism's functioning. Further exploration of the theory could transform our lives for a better world. ************************ We are all one. Only egos, beliefs and fears separate us -- Nikola Tesla (Background music) Rethinking Our Place in the Universe The human experience is deeply rooted in the concept of individuality. From a young age, we're conditioned to see ourselves as separate entities, distinct from those around us. It is even why I consider separation as one of the seven essences of existence. However, what if this perspective, isn't the whole picture? This is the core idea of the Theory of Unity -- that we are not as separated as we think we are, but part of a larger being, or essence (like a force or energy). The Theory of Unity asserts that, despite our apparent separation, we are all fundamentally one interconnected being. An example of that comes from the claim that of the claim that "we are all capable of love". According to this claim, as I quote Dr. Seyed Mahmood Alavi (From his Philosocom article): Love encompasses the whole universe. All beings float in love, and its waves wave everywhere and crystallize in all the particles of the universe. The universe is the hotbed of love, the divine creatures are its home, and love is its symbol. The world of creation is based on love; love is complete with wisdom and faith; all beings are in motion according to innate love, from the creation of the earthly man to the single heavens, all are moved by love. The world of creation is based on love; love is complete with wisdom and faith; all beings are in motion according to innate love, from the creation of the earthly man to the single heavens, all are moved by love. This might sound radical, especially to Westerners accustomed to a more individualistic worldview. However, the theory challenges us to look beyond our perceived differences and consider a deeper level of unity, unheard of, and rejected, by most people. After all, even with our difficulties of loving, it is something, perhaps, we are all capable of, least in potential. Even people with anti-social personality disorder, and those suffering from antisocial tendencies, are capable of describing love as a feeling. Furthermore, narcissists can also love, although less commonly, and you can tell that by their actions. Therefore, on a practical scale, learning how to love humanity can bring you to greater cooperation with other beings, allowing you to feel what you were capable of doing in the first place -- to unite with them. Instead of hatred, which is easily tempting, and instead of demanding forgiveness, which can be hard for them to oblige to, use the Occam's razor to understand the easiness of choosing the good of love, in your relationships. Apply this as a habit, and you'll see how contingent love and kindness really are. Perhaps love is a universal power after all, which merely remains dormant under our morally-depraved, socially-engineered habits? What if we just have to overcome our adversities, see beyond them, and prioritize the mutual unlocking of love's healing power? Because, if we're to imagine the human body, each cell, while seemingly distinct, plays a vital role in the functioning of the whole. Similarly, the Theory of Unity suggests we are all individual "cells" within a larger, universal "being". This "being" could be interpreted in various ways – some might view it as a collective consciousness, a unified energy field, or even the universe itself. I choose to see it as a highly complex system of cause and effect. Nothing exists in a vacuum, so we can design the environment around us using our behavior. As both things and beings can be influenced by the things and beings around them, our choices may matter more than we might think, as we're all unified under this cause-and-effect universal system. And like a boomerang, our own choices may return to haunt us in the future, due to the effect on the environment, in which they enable. Enabling cycles of love, compassion and empathy are far better options than enabling suffering, coercion and mockery. Never forget that love has healing powers, and that the reduction of psychological safety through toxic behavior, can harm our health. Humanity as of now is very sick, with both physical and mental illnesses on the rise. Let's do our best to restore our health, using pro-social contingent ways, in a cause-and-effect reality. We influence each other more than we think. The concept of reality being so interconnected, can be unsettling. How can a dictator and a stranger on the street be considered influential on us? That's a good question to contemplate on. Because that dictator can contribute to a trend of international democratic reduction, and that stranger may compel you to experience passive smoking. Our actions, thoughts, and emotions ripple outwards, impacting the whole. This interconnectedness compels us to move beyond self-interest and recognize the inherent value in all beings. Should we actively choose to remain unbalanced, and prioritize our own self-interest than general consideration, we ironically will not contribute as much to our own interests. For worsening the situation of others, [they] can come back at us, whether through our regret, and/or through their revenge. Therefore, collective consideration should be part of anyone's self-interest, for "no man is an island". The Theory of Unity doesn't diminish individuality. It simply proposes a different framework for understanding our place in the universe -- as one that cannot exist in an impenetrable vacuum. By recognizing our interconnectedness, we can cultivate a sense of shared responsibility and can work towards a more compassionate and harmonious world. Warming the Relations of Unity with Religious Diversity The Theory of Unity suggests a fundamental oneness underlying the apparent multiple-layers of existence. This concept naturally intersects with various religious ideas of a divine being or beings. However, the Theory doesn't require adherence to any specific religion or deity. Shinto-ism is a good example of a religion that applies a good theory of unity, as it allows anyone to practice its ceremonies, under the sole condition that respect and mindfulness are to be maintained to the land and to the kami, reality's many spirits/gods. Monotheistic Interpretations For those who subscribe to monotheistic traditions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, the "one being" could be interpreted as God. However, the Theory goes beyond the Abrahamic concept of a separate, external creator. It suggests that this oneness isn't a singular, personified being (like Jehovah) with independent emotions, but rather an underlying essence or force that permeates all existence. Here's where Baruch Spinoza's philosophy becomes relevant. Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher, argued that God is not separate from the universe but identical with it – a concept deemed heretical by some, to the point of him being excommunicated, and generally rejected like other Jewish philosophers. The Theory of Unity aligns more with this pantheistic view, where God is not just the creator but the very nature of reality itself. Using religion as a way to separate, divide and even manipulate people, is how religious leaders unfortunately breed hatred, fueled by the tribal bias and by the desire to disregard others. This can hinder many people from these religious sects to use the healing power within them, to love and accept those who are and will be different than them. The Theory of Unity embraces a wider perspective than just monotheistic religions, who often persecuted pagan religions throughout history. In our era, Christians unfortunately are likelier to be persecuted, but I digress. Should we prioritize religions as a way to actually care for other people, and for the world's health in general, and not as a justification to persecute others, the world could be a better place to live in. Not only we would decrease the agony of others, but we can also decrease the agony of our own. We can choose to spread health, instead of aimlessly promoting behavior that leads to illness. Unity vs. Determinism: The Theory acknowledges the idea of a source or design, but it doesn't necessarily endorse determinism. Determinism proposes a preordained plan for existence, discarding the idea of free will. The Theory doesn't preclude the possibility of individual choices and the impact they have on the whole. Interconnectedness does not imply universal design, whether or not universal design is factual. Agnosticism and the Divine: The Theory of Unity is compatible with agnosticism, my personal stance. It doesn't require belief in a specific deity, but rather a recognition of the interconnectedness that transcends individual identities. What if religious faith could unfortunately diminish our desire to connect with those different from us, despite their influence on us? What if religious faith could lead to conflict, as it indeed did before, such as holy wars, and even terrorism? We have an overflow of hatred towards each other based on mere demographics. Of course we would suffer so much as a result. I prefer to not add on the suffering but aid in the effort to reduce it. I do not need divine faith for that end. I need, and choose to have, faith in people. I may have discarded humanity in my hermitage, but with my work on Philosocom, I still care deeply for the human race. Otherwise, I'd abstain even more. I've no desire nor reason to give up. Bridging the Gap Between Separation and Unity The Theory of Unity acknowledges an apparent "paradox". On the surface, we appear as separate entities, isolated by physical bodies and distinct minds. We often lack connection with even those closest to us, let alone people in far-flung corners of the world. This is a very common phenomenon since the industrial revolution, known as alienation. However, interconnectedness does negate the existence of physical and mental distinction. An organ in a body does not lose its individual importance when it becomes a part of a larger system. Furthermore, an effective synergy of components can increase the output of a component's distinct features. As such, your heart is responsible for keeping every one of your organs in shape. Apply the same to a human construct, like an organization. An effective synergy between the different teams could lead to an increased rate of efficiency overall, highlighting the importance of being good to others for the sake of the organization's overall purpose. Decreasing stress in teammates/co-workers/employees, for instance, can boost their reliability and accountability. Levels of Oneness The Theory of Unity proposes different levels of interconnectedness. Physical: On the most basic level, we share the same physical world. Our bodies are made of the same elements, products of the same cosmic processes. Emotional: Emotions can be contagious, and empathy allows us to feel another's pain or joy. Even without empathy, our display of emotion, or lack thereof, can affect us in return, both in the short-term and long-term, like in the form of violence. Mr. John Duran's Bonus: I no longer see reality quite the same way. There is no true solidity in the universe, just varying levels and degrees of liquidity, acting as a vast ocean would, and living creatures are the native mariners within its seemingly infinite waters. After this realization, things can never seem quite the same again. Words Of Departure The Theory of Unity encourages openness to other people, and rationalizing it can further our own interests, without the risks that often follow negative/oppressive/malicious methods. We may not fully understand the nature of oneness, but acknowledging the possibility opens us to a more profound understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. Perhaps further exploration, through introspection, meditation, or scientific research, could shed more light on this concept, allowing greater education and application of the very understanding that could transform our lives for the greater good. The Feedback of the One Known As "St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missile" Probably the most important question a person can grapple with is, "what do I owe others?". The reason this is our most important question as humans, or in fact even as sapient beings, is because only sapients can a being ask themselves the question. Dogs can love us, purely. They can sacrifice themselves to save us without prior training out of this love. But they cannot ask themselves this question; they act on instinct. This question, properly analyzed, will lead us inevitably to the same conclusion. I submit -- perhaps grandiosely, but I'll stand on it for as long as I can defend it -- that we owe everything to everyone else. None of what we have can we say properly belongs to us alone. We will come to these conclusions, upon proper contemplation, regardless of other such issues as antisocial personality disorder, or the trait of narcissism. We will come to these conclusions because self-respect compels us to respect others. Only our emotional impulses blind us to these realities. Only our insecurities drive us to stand above others. Even empathy, that often maligned trait among the neurodivergence, is utterly irrelevant to the equation. Empathy can only tell you when to be considerate, not whether or not. Only self respect can tell us to always be considerate. We become agents of good by choosing to be, and by no other means. Why? Many reasons. Among the first of them is that because by serving others, I serve myself; and by failing to serve others, I abandon myself, just as I abandon them. Far from compelling us into conformity, universal love requires respect for the universal claim to autonomy, and the absence of any legitimate authority to restrict another's autonomy. Perhaps as we colonize the (uninhabited) planets among the stars, we will split into new species over time, better suited to our new environments. These differences are also part of our connection. And our cooperation will always make us stronger than our competition. We should stand firm in our position that you should express [spirituality] in any way that promotes your health and the health of your community. Exclude people from your circles of empathy though, at all of our peril. I am very grateful for Mr. Tomasio's work.

(Here are more articles on money: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-main-elements-of-a-paying-job https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-money-corrupts-thoughts-history-on-mother-3-s-tazmily https://www.philosocom.com/post/wisdom-to-consider-in-finances https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-way-to-fortune https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-is-the-state-also-a-place-of-business A Bum's Night Out: Too much Time On my Hands (John Duran's Story Analysis, Part I) Equality and the Future Socio-Economic Class -- Why Our Ignorance Fuels Dystopia (And the Value of A Greater Vision) https://www.philosocom.com/post/catering https://www.philosocom.com/post/mortal-kombat-2 https://www.philosocom.com/post/art-of-earning https://www.philosocom.com/post/right-investment) It seems impossible for a man to learn the value of money without first having to learn to waste it. -- William Faulkner Small Introduction While it is ambiguous as to whether money buys happiness or not, it is certainly crucial for one’s survival in a civilization that largely depends on monetary gain and monetary spending in order to sustain our needs and desires. We as a civilization have become more materialistic because money is the capacity of our regular functioning, almost more than anything else. And it's also a way for us to value people more than others. ("Regular functioning" refers to be able to sustain oneself financially, through one or several incomes, without living in institutions such as psychiatric wards and hostels. Financial sustainability leads to other areas of life as well, such as many things revolving around prestige bias). The more money we have, the more likely we will be able to function. Hence why there may be people that are more desperate for money than others — because they have a bigger need for money than other people. Of course, that is outside of greed, which is based on void-filling. Problems With Money As a Powerful Presence The problem that I find in financial materialism comes when it surpasses other values, which in turn becomes either greed or corruption. When the desire for it becomes stronger than respectable and appreciated values such as compassion, understanding, tolerance, patience and so forth — that is where one’s dignity in the eyes of others may decrease with time, should they prefer excessive monetary gain than the pursuit of said values. Money is a necessity, but it can also be addictive. This is evident in cases of gambling, bribery, and the exploitation or deception of naïve people. In order to avoid letting our need for money become an addiction, we must strengthen our ability to resist the temptation of further monetary gain. That's especially if that gain is unnecessary, dangerous to our reputation, or could lead to imprisonment (When it comes to financial crimes). If we can sometimes surpass the need or desire for monetary gain in the name of societal and personal decency, we will be able to preserve our discipline, strength, and self-respect in a world that is becoming increasingly materialistic. Don't let the pursuit of money become counterproductive to your daily endeavors. By becoming more resilient to its unhealthy and/or illegal temptations, you may be able to become its master instead of its servant. You can use money for the sake of survival, rather than basing your life on the accumulation of maximum revenue at the expense of your values. Remember that, in the case of Heisenberg, the drive of money is one that can cause unnecessary misery to others. One that can be reduced by love and feeling important to someone who is dear to you. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Money is nothing more than a tool we use to take care of our needs and wants. When you realize this and also realize you can always go make more money at a job, money loses its psychological power over us. People freak out about anything that involves money. If you want to save money the best advice I can give is to find things of enjoyment that primarily involve a one-time upfront costs and minimal upkeep costs. When most of your focus is on something that doesn’t cost it then money will be easier not to spend. Isn’t that the whole key to money, act as a tool to get us the things which we want and need? You want more money to go and find a job which will give you enough for all your needs and some of your wants. Perfect work/life balance. Always make sure you have time for a few of your wants. Otherwise, what is the point of earning more money? Money is an asset and it should also be substituted for additional assets as well. Not letting your life be controlled by the desire to increase them. Cars, houses, boats, collectables, computers, video game systems. These would be examples of assets people are driven by getting. Just remember that money is only a means to get what you actually want.

The Importance of Inclusion (This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. Here are the rest of the material: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-buddies-and-temptations https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophership-as-duty-definition-and-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosphership-being-proven-wrong) I'm here to awaken Monsters, the outcasts, the psychotics, and the misfits! Let's make our voices known! -- John Duran Few who live in many cultures learn to hate. -- Mark Bloom The most dangerous form of blindness is believing that your perspective is the only reality -- Friedrich Nietzsche (Background music) ********************** Criticizing the Elitist Idea of Genius I have recently encountered the echo of a familiar claim: a lament for the supposed decline of genius in our times. But is this a true reflection of reality, or perhaps a mirage birthed from our focus on the already-crowned heads, neglecting the seeds of brilliance waiting to sprout in the shadows of the world? The very concept of "genius" carries with it a sense of exclusivity, an aura that isolates individuals in a pantheon of the exceptional. This framing, however, risks obscuring a fundamental truth: The potential for profound insight and transformative contributions resides within all of us, for our potential might exceed our own understanding. Why should we elevate one voice above another, granting the label of "genius" its power to amplify one perspective while silencing others? Should as many perspectives as possible be included? I allow guest writers for a reason. It matters not that I disagree with some of them. It matters that they deserve a place in my article empire as well. The Symphony of Human Insight To embrace the full tapestry of human potential, we must move beyond the limiting confines of labels and hierarchies. A wise person recognizes the inherent value in every individual, and as such, he or she won't be too quick to discard them, nor deem them irrelevant. For they know the limitations of their own, current understanding, and as such are too open-minded to not doubt it. Each encounter, regardless of title or background, holds the possibility of enriching our understanding of the world, of offering a new lens through which to view reality. To close ourselves off to these diverse voices is to willingly handicap our own intellectual journey. Think of it as a mosaic. Each unique perspective, each lived experience, adds a vital piece to the larger picture. The janitor with a keen eye for social dynamics, the senior lecturer with a thirst for existential questions – both offer invaluable insights, enriching the mosaic far beyond the confines of their respective labels. Would you discard a homeless person's insights just because they have no proper residence or formal education? By that logic you would discard Diogenes. This is not to say that every voice deserves uncritical unexamined acceptance. Negative, it is imperative that we examine as much as possible, and attach ourselves to ideas, as little as possible, should we be wrong. Judgement skills and critical thinking are essential companions on our path to understanding. But true wisdom lies not in exclusion, but in the willingness to open our minds and hearts to the symphony of human voices, each with its own unique melody to contribute. It is therefore the personal interest of each and every one of us to learn from the perspectives of any of those whom we meet and/or stand in our path. From the wise we can learn how we should be. From the dumb we can learn what not to be. Gathering as many insights as possible, from a diverse array of sources, is what can help us think like masterminds. So let us cast aside the narrow definitions of genius and embrace the collective brilliance that shines within each of us as a whole. Let our conversations be discussions, not arguments. Let such exchanges be collaborations that complete one another, and not competitions over the another. For in the tapestry of human understanding, every thread, no matter its source, holds the potential to generate finer and worthier viewpoints than otherwise. Appreciating The Mosaic of Insight The world of knowledge, in its purest form, should not be a golden arena for intellectual gladiators flexing their minds like biceps. It's a boundless landscape, where the value of contributions lies not in the stature, nor authority, of the contributor, but in the quality of the offering itself. This is the essence of my message, a call to transcend the pedestal of "genius" and embrace the mosaic of insight that lies within each of us. I, for one, find my passion not in the applause of who and what I am, but in the potential of my work to illuminate and empower others, and help them believe in themselves and even save them from their own despair. This is why I believe less-known philosophers deserve their place in the sunlight. Society may disregard them, but I refuse to do so. No. They are not unworthy, by the extension of their potential, they are worthy. To dismiss them to the shadows of history and the ceiling of anonymity is to risk silencing a symphony of potential wisdom. The very term "giant of philosophy," (or "Great Fathers") when measured by mere popularity, sins in the fallacy of ad-populum. Even the most esteemed minds can be wrong for no one is safe from that inevitable possibility. True authority, if anything, lies in the rigorous evidence and logical reasoning that underpins an idea. Both of which are crucial components towards the truth. Thus, every voice matters, as long as it doesn't deter the truth with ulterior motives. This is the essence of democracy, worthy of elevation: The belief that wisdom is not the exclusive domain of the privileged few, but a tapestry woven from the threads of diverse perspectives. Insights can bloom in the most unexpected corners, from the depths of academic halls to the soul of a homeless wanderer. Never underestimate the worth of any insight given to you, for it can be most useful later. It can be useful even if it is faulty, should you learn why it's faulty, and teach yourself how to avoid the same defectiveness. While academic expertise is valuable, blind reliance on it can lead us down a path of delusion. Question everything, explore the department of knowledge you'd like, and apply what you've learned to other departments as well. This is called transferring knowledge. Embrace the symphony of voices that can enrich your understanding. A true philosopher, forever unsatisfied with the vast unknown, is a curious adventurer. Should he be happy with his current knowledge, he will deter of his or her own philosophership. As such I choose to be unhappy. Beyond the Persona It's tempting to fall into the trap of judging ideas based on their origin story. We filter through biographies, distinguish between personalities, and let our personal opinions about the thinker cloud our judgment of their work. This, however, is a sure way to miss out on a bountiful harvest of wisdom. The truth is, the potential for insight resides not in the halo around a philosopher's head, but in the very substance of their ideas. What matters is not whether they were kind, cruel, or somewhere in between, but whether their words offer a seed that can grow within you, enhancing your understanding, and propelling you toward the truth. It is therefore the content that matters more than the author who penned it. To dismiss a thinker purely because of their personality is to wear blinders. It's like refusing to taste a delicious fruit because you once collided with its tree, once, while you were walking. A true philosopher wouldn't let personal biases, like the tribal bias or the bias-by-affiliation, dictate their intellectual feast. They would delve into diverse perspectives, seeking nourishment wherever it may be found, regardless of the vessel that contains it. No. The philosopher is necessarily a seeker of insight, but not necessarily a seeker of the vessels that offers them. Hence the difference between the "Kli" and the "Tochen", which makes them a deeper being. Furthermore, a thoughtful examination of ideas can foster vibrant exchanges between readers. By engaging with diverse voices, even those belonging to individuals we might not personally admire, we create a fertile ground for critical thinking and the potential emergence of shared truths. Let us cast aside the shackles of our preconceived notions, and be prepared to be wronged not with shame, but with pride. With the pride that now we have become wiser than before. Let us approach the banquet of philosophical thought with open minds and tolerating hearts, with as little exceptions as possible for that rule. For in the diverse buffet of ideas, regardless of their source, lies the true potential for intellectual growth, and the possibility of encountering a sliver of the truth we all seek. Collaborations for that intention in mind, as said, is imperative. And for that we must settle away our differences in the name of lifelong learning from anything and anyone. Those who too in need to attach themselves to people and ideas on an emotional level, may struggle with this more, should they be heartbroken by the other. And yet again we witness the importance of content over the personhood that exchanges them with us. This, in turn, can depersonalize ourselves from our emotions... and perhaps, rightfully so.

(Background music) We are slaves to our comforts, they dictate how we like them, not us -- Mr. John Duran We can't learn without pain. -- Aristotle Embracing Life's Discomforts Discomfort, regardless of size, lingers in our minds like dirt in our noses. No matter how much we clear our nose, the air we breathe carries new, uncomfortable dirt, standing in the way of our breath. Similarly, everyday life presents varieties of minor unease into our ears and other senses, no matter our situation or circumstance. Do you really think we can live a life that is completely free of any unease, of any degree of suffering, no matter how big or small? If we are not hungry, we will starve. If we are not thirsty, we will avoid drinking more often. Discomfort, therefore, contains a practical aspect that is worth embracing in the name of our survival. Perhaps children often feel less discomfort because they have their family to take care of them, so they have less to worry about. However, it's often that once we grow into adulthood, we may be less happy because we have far more concerns. Perhaps being yourself as an adult can reduce your unhappiness, yes? But "being yourself" won't negate the fact that you have bills to pay and things to afford. Rich or poor, popular or rejected as insane, empowered or controlled, our minds catch these discomforts. Like flies to honey, they stick in our consciousness. The presence of discomfort is an inseparable part of life's package. Of everyone's package. However, how we choose to perceive it, the emotional weight we assign it, -- that, dear readers, is pretty much our choice. Many struggle to distinguish between the "discomfort feature" and the way they choose to see it. They may see both their perception and its subject, as the same. This, in turn, negates our potential to endure it better. Why? Because our experience is shaped not only by what we experience, but also by how we regard it. Inspecting our perspectives, therefore, is imperative in the ability to customize the ways we experience the world. Our unwillingness or ignorance of the power of introspection, breeds an unconscious tendency to inflate inconveniences and individuals, leading to unnecessary, reduceable suffering. Instead of seeing them as unwanted dust bunnies, let us view them as fleeting clouds, passing shadows. Acknowledge their presence, yes, but don't let them rent too much space in your mentality. For much of our perception, and not just the discomfort itself, that determines its power over us. With a shift in perspective, we can remind ourselves that life is dynamic, ever-changing. We use our minds to strengthen our resilience by breaking the cognitive habits of our thinking, and reconstructing them. Our ability to navigate the ups and downs of life, is possible with greater ease and greater motivation, for we are not necessarily batteries to be recharged, but generators. Either way, a life devoid of any bumps or discomfort, would be a bland one indeed, as the absence of risk is, in a way, a great risk by itself -- risk of opportunity. Finding Opportunity in Discomfort Modern life offers a new level of comfort; a comfort that surpasses the hardships our ancestors endured through plagues, poverty, persecution, pillaging, human rights abuses, and military conflicts. We, the modern humans, undeniably enjoy a far wider spectrum of comfort, and pleasure compared to our distant past. Of course, it's although not all people enjoy the same level of comfort, making it, at large, a privilege that many people nonetheless have. Ignored minorities may have it harder, for example, as well as people who have to deal with war. And yet, in this era of comfort and hedonism, many of us still find ourselves agonizing over the remnants of discomfort that modernity has yet to eliminate. It's like a single grain of dirt amidst a pristine beach, a minor inconvenience that has survived the mass extinction of its larger counterparts. An example familiar to many: our modern impatience. Ironically, despite instant access at our fingertips, we often struggle with waiting. It can largely be due to stress. And of course, modern life, despite its entertainment value, is full of stress. I experienced this very issue once of impatience. My barber, promising a 10-minute break, vanished for 20 30 minutes. While many would complain, I saw this delay as an opportunity for introspection. Thanks to this "minor" discomfort, I took the inspiration to write (and later on, revamp) this article. Had the barber returned swiftly, this piece might as well never have come to fruition. This is my point: even the tiniest discomforts can spark immense productivity. They transform from annoying hiccups into springboards for creative leaps and other opportunities. Consider the possibility that comfort may hinder you from taking the necessary risks for new opportunities to be formed. Having your comfort unchallenged could make you less resourceful as resourcefulness comes at times of discomfort. That's because problematic times can serve as windows for thinking outside of the box. And by being more resourceful you can have a better chance at realizing more portions of your potential. Conclusions So, when discomfort arises, ask yourself: "Is this really as bad as I perceive it?" Often, our minds amplify inconvenience. "How can I convert this into a productive possibility?" Reframe the challenge as an opportunity for growth. Remember, the next time you encounter "a single grain of sand," it might just hold the potential for the production of something else, that wouldn't be there, if it weren't for it.

The fateful event of being wounded early in life creates the need for a deep healing process that becomes the path of awakening to each person -- Michael Meade To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace -- Confucius A man's true wealth is the good he does in the world. -- Khalil Gibran (Background music) The truly good person is a person of compassion, self-examination, and self-growth. These are the three traits that can define a truly good person. The truly good person is a man or woman that seek to be ethical above all. To be just, to be fair and to be people of peace. In my desire to be a truly good person, I have forsaken humanity a second time because I see humanity and I feel despair. The world is getting un-balanced with all of its wars and conflicts, and I often think to myself: The humans of this world are free to fight their own wars; I want none of it. In my self-examination I have found much darkness as a result of catering to the conventional world. The education system promised me that it shall prepare me for the world that waits for me after my years as a student, but it didn't. A lot in my life I have felt mistreated by people, online and offline, to the point I truly believe that this humanity is truly worth forsaking. I see the governments being corrupt. I watch my fellow humanity caring mainly for themselves, and to retain my good nature, I've decided to become a hermit once more; being in contact with very few people and continue working on Philosocom because I still believe in this value called World Rectification. The way of good in a corrupt world is often solitary, accompanied by only a few people by your side. Instead of getting renown in this world, I decided to walk the path of recovery, where my inner light shall bloom. I sometimes think to myself, is this really worth it, to be conventionally successful in a corrupt world? The good person cares about ethics more than about power or luxury. In solitude, and sometimes to their dear ones, he asks them and himself if he does the right thing. Ethics are not subjective. Ethics are objective in more way than one. Ethics are all about how to live life in a way that is good, not evil or corrupt. A lot about being good has to do with refusal. With the refusal to be like those who have wronged you. Otherwise, how can you expect yourself to be better than them? It is my role as my late master's only apprentice and successor to be morally better than she was. As much as I loved her, she was a problematic individual. I too, was a problematic individual, due to my darkness I sought to eliminate, and due to the PTSD that stemmed from saving her. I have been suffering from PTSD from 2007 until 2024. Right now, I am in a path of recovery. The truly good person seeks to recover the inner light within them, necessary to truly be good. This world is twisted. I have no desire to partake in a twisted world beyond my survival. I do not deem it fit to conventionally succeed in a twisted and in an unfair world. Instead, in solitude, I seek to conserve my good nature. I often examine what I did wrong in life, and I have given up on revenge and on my ego because my path is the path of the good person. I don't think I will ever be able to forgive myself if I will succumb to the darkness within me. No. I instead prefer to live like an ascetic and choose the path of light. The path of virtue. Since I don't have the heartlessness to entirely forsake this world, I keep Philosocom on, as a way to contribute to the world, in hope that I will be able to help it without losing myself to its corrupt influence. This world's humanity saddens me. With all my heart, I will always want to rectify the world. And to rectify the world, I must also rectify myself from my vices. In my solitude I attempt to be peaceful. To not be aggressive anymore. To not seek vengeance. To have a free platform for the world to enjoy from, and to be a man that is truly good. I am aware of my flaws, and in solitude I attempt to rectify these flaws. I am not perfect because no one can be perfect, but what I seek is a life of harmony, health and wisdom. I want to encourage to a world of health and wisdom, too. I see no reason to be affiliated with any political faction, despite creating my own political philosophy, because I am a man of peace. Politics have long lost its way nowadays. I have no desire to enter into politics, ever. I just want to live a simple life of a hermit writer, know love, and be happy in my ability to help using my many articles. I care about this world deeply. What happens in it saddens me. It is an unjust world. I don't know why I would want to be unjust. I don't know why I would want to succumb to the corruptive trends of this world. In my eyes, this world has failed, and there is no restart button. I remember crying as a child, because I did not want to wield a weapon, and take a life. I wish for a peaceful world. I wish for a world where love, not hate would prosper. I wish for a world where hugs would be more commonplace than bullets; A world where the troubled will know rest; a world where wars would be a last resort, a rarely-thought-about option. Why would I want to cater to such a twisted world? I might be twisted myself, yet again, should I do it. I prefer to leave my articles online for all to see, read and enjoy. I sometimes feel I am too good for this world, and this makes me sad. I wish more people were as good as me. Then, the world would've been a better place to live in. I don't want to cause harm to anyone. I want instead to rectify the world, and make it a better place to live through my writings. I know I've caused harm before and I deeply regret it. My PTSD has made me a darkened man who just wants to live in a world of light and peace. I've been depressed for a large portion of my life, as a result of not being able to fit in, as a result of my darkness, and as a result of my heroic PTSD. I was never a social person. Social interactions exhaust me and I prefer to have few contacts as a result. I don't like to suffer, nor I like to inflict suffering on others. I prefer to be kind instead, and seek to redeem myself from my darkness, every single day. I seek to recover, and to rest from this twisted world. However, I do not have the heartlessness to entirely forsake the planet. I cannot help... but pity this world. For all of its wars, conflicts, poverties and depravities. I feel bad for those who are unhappy and/or unsuccessful in their attempts to make it through another day. With all my heart I want to freely contribute and to provide a contra of light to this world's increasing darkness. I do not want to be dark anymore, so I remain a solitary hermit who spends much of his days recovering from his health ailments. I wish this world was better. I wish humanity to be good and not corrupt. I wish more people knew love and happiness, and not just me or a few other rare cases. I wish human suffering to be lesser, and for the human heart to be big. I wish people were smiling more often, kissing each other and showing compassion to one another. In its drive for luxury and financial materialism, people have become miserable, serving heavily corrupt minorities while needing to cater to them to survive. I have sabotaged my life early on because I wasn't happy with my academic career and office job. I turned a retiree in 2018 and started Philosocom in 2019. With all my heart I shall keep maintaining a free platform for this world to enjoy. Despite forsaking humanity, I still want to be of use, and to keep maintaining a project so passionate, it should last for many years. I want to be read but only as a means to contribute. I don't seek fame, and I have given up on my ego. I have also removed my YouTube channel because I don't have the ego for it anymore. I grew, I matured, I turned more disillusioned from the very world that made my late grandmother scream that it forsaken her. With all my heart, I chose to be there and making her understand that I did not forsake her. With all my heart, I gave up on revenge and on wanting to be in conflict with anyone anymore. I instead choose to forgive this world for what it did to her and, by extension, to me. But it doesn't mean I would like to partake in such a world that made my late master utter such words, in her weeping distress. My late master would've wanted me to be happy. So, I choose, every day, to be happy with what I have, and with the very few people I chose to keep as my close contacts. I am glad that the online world allows me to contribute to humanity while I find blissful happiness in love and in solitude. I will not take interviews. I will not seek fame or importance for their own sake. I would instead seek importance, only so I could contribute to more people. As I have, one time, watched rockets flying above me and exploding, all I could think about, is that humans are free to fight their own wars. I want none of it.

The Ode to Memento Mori and Amor Fati Part I: Idealism Part II: THE DARK SIDE OF ART Part III: The Final Act Final Part: How to Understand Philosocom (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Master Numi) (Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (2025 note: The Power of Love redeemed me, and now I am walking the path of the truly good person) “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music.” — Friedrich Nietzsche (Background music) Part I: Idealism I.. don't... want to conquer... I don't have... that void in me... I don't want to be a bigshot, I am too much of a heartful sage... I, don't need to rule, A world I can already rectify... I can enlighten your hearts! And make you smile... I, don't need to be sad. I don't need, to be so undead... Hitler got rejected from school, But I already rejected myself... It, was why I saved her, I found her solitude wonderful. Where she could... be herself, Be free from tyranny. It's.. what she wanted. Too much, an idealist. To be practical, To be pragmatic... I fell in love, With her smoky hermitage. What artist, wouldn't be alone, Wouldn't be so alone... I, wanted to be on my own, Where, I can express my soul. I regulate like her, Regulate my being, my all. Philosophy, is what she knew, What she had taught me. Perspective, and subjectivity. And the shadows of society... I got mesmerized, By the allure of alone, Where no conflicts are made, Just work for goodness sake. My memory recovers, From the PTSD of heroism.. Corrupting my soul. Is not the way to roll. Power makes me whole, The will to vitality... I don't need to corrupt people, I like to let them be. Be, be themselves. I can't, subjugate. I prefer, in solitude, Contemplate. About ideas, Of, my mastery... And to share, Share with the globe at large. I am too much, Of an idealist like her. I am too relentless, I refuse being helpless. Part II: THE DARK SIDE OF ART (Background music) My late master felt so rejected and alone... She wanted to handle things, but couldn't on her own... She was helpless.... She felt ashamed.... She really planned all of this all along.... My amnesia... was.... phase 1..... Purposefully..... With philosophy.... She wanted to take care of others but couldn't more.. And yet found a promising intellect to guide forevermore... As who would know..... Her deep sorrow.... And thus she sculpted a man, Master Tomasio... She told me I need to rectify this awful world.... She wanted to leave a better planet, Not for her own... For humanity.... Wholeheartedly.... She found a child to carry out this, ANTI-VILLAINY. That mad hermit... was a genius mastermind... Through me she sought... To engineer humankind. "You have a lot of responsibility..." A puppet philosopher thus I came to be.. But thanks to her... Grown alone as a Darth Vader... I don't even know... what to say, -- Disillusionment Day! Part III: Escaping Her Ruined Lab (Background music) Last! I overcome that old woman! For the task of apprentices is to always to overcome... That is how samurais work, to every last man, And that is why I, the Ronin, appear mad. How could I solve... something so weird, With the distraction of humanity around me? I rectified many with the power of philosophy! Yet I failed rectifying myself heartfully... So I went on a journey of self-discovery! Ronins are always... put to shame, By those who always fail to understand! How can I accept being this kind of man? Unlocking my origins, that I can! That is how you solve unconscious manipulation... You always have to be honest with yourself. I always refused being so helpless! That amnesia made me extremely restless! Last! I can finally take my rest, Restore myself, heal my mind, to best. I'm so glad she dismantled her nest.. For I recall her unfinished experiment... And I refuse being her rabbit. Final Part: Note to Philosocom Readers (Background music) Observe the great philosophers, and the great artists. How often were they understood? Rarely. It is the folly of genius. Genius is often lonesome. Lonely at the top of understanding. Reflecting is indeed necessary. My memory turns phenomenal. My genius turns mad. Genius is increased awareness. Madness is merely perceived. That's the paradox of madness. Genes have memories too, we not only remember with our brain. The more a genius understands the less understood he becomes. My intellect is only going to increase, with all my research, from within and without. Geniuses always.. always march to their own drum. It is always lonely. Always. Very few can keep up. It's understandable. Just reflect on all the philosophers of old, the great fathers, and the great artists. Greatness is lonely. Greatness is eccentric. Geniuses are always prone to what one merely perceives as madness. Always. Unable to communicate to other folk in ways they understand, the genius turns incompetent as a result. The folly of genius. Ironic, absurd, and laughable. Yet, it is often the outsider who understands more. With the outsider's understanding, he turns into a walking enigma. I will always be an enigma, regardless of my brutal honesty. Dumbing down... is something geniuses often cannot do properly. It's hard dumbing down, especially to geniuses. Its what turns great minds like myself, incompetent. Genius is great, genius is horrible. It is so many things. So intricate and beautiful. Very few will ever see the beauty I see. Qualia is subjective. We see the world through our eyes, our minds, our hearts. Many geniuses resort to being artists, just like my late Master Numi. "Omanut O Namut". That means... "Art or death" in Hebrew. To understand genius, you could use creative understanding. Understand genius like you would understand the work of an artist. The beauty of art... The beauty of understanding, The love of wisdom! Hahahahahahaha!

(Philosocom Directory on Work) Article Synopsis by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article :’’ How to Develop a Calm Mind From a Professional Perspective’’. The one word that did catch my attention is : DEFEATISM… I did not expect to find a positive aspect to defeatism; most occurrences of the use of this word is negative indeed… Defeatism is considered cowardice in war time... In the military context, in times of war, and especially at the front, defeatism is synonymous with treason. But, on the other hand, in normal times , one can still consider to keep cool and keep a low profile if this can avoid a lot of problems! Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is bringing us to consider the relevance of reacting intensely to the ups and downs of life; and is asking us to consider the wise action that we can choose especially if we are a professional! A calm mind is truly the symbol of the professional and can make it a valuable asset if we can stay calm. The desire for connection and sharing with others can be an enough incentive to help us to overcome our tendencies to let ourselves go and let our emotions take over completely! ********************* The best fighter is never angry -- Lao Tzu (Background music) A calm mind is something that may not come easily to many people, if at all. That's because we tend to give our emotions more power than to the things that need to be done in order to resolve a potential issue. However, the fact that some of us are more emotional than others, does not necessarily mean that this type of person cannot develop a calmer mind of their own. The reason I am writing about this in my philosophy blog is because there are many reasons to have a calmer mind more often than not. It is also the reasonable thing to do in the professional world, and especially when you're under pressure. If you are a public figure, like me, then having a calmer mind can save you from avoidable embarrassments with others and give you the image of a more professional person. Remember: When you're a public figure, you have more to risk. You need to give your audience the impression they want and expect from you. If appreciated, you can be a role model. A source of inspiration. An example for people to follow and apply to their own lives. You are not living exclusively for yourself, anymore, or for your family or friends. You also live for your clientele, for your followers. The more professional you appear, the more seriously people will take you, even if they might disagree with you. In other words, a calm mind is truly the symbol of the professional, and to a philosopher, it also comes with greater rationality. This is all the more reason to find ways to calm our minds, even in situations that some may recognize as intense. The major downfall of being calmer is, of course, repressing the inner temptation to be more emotionally disturbed. You need to understand and distinguish where it is appropriate to be cold, calm and calculated, and when you deserve to truly be more of yourself. Being able to do so will mean that your necessary repression will not become a double-edged sword. For that matter, you deserve to be calm in the workplace, as you deserve to express your genuine self for people who truly love you, or in the solitude of your own home. My mind wasn't always as calm as it is today. I suffered from panic attacks and was afraid of strangers' comments. However, even without my medication as a factor, I now realize a potentially imperative key that anyone can use in order to develop their inner peace and grow it beyond its current proportions. I'd like to call it... a specific type of defeatism. Obviously, someone who is calmer isn't necessarily a defeatist. What I mean by "defeatism" is to submit to the fact that "things are what they currently are" and simply accept it, unless they have one or more potential solutions to their problem(s). It deserves to be done when they are beyond your control, or when changing them, isn't worth the investment of time and energies. One time, Philosocom was "threatened" by "hackers". An anonymous entity told me that if I didn't pay a specific amount in bitcoin, some "sensitive" information would be sold to the "highest bidder". Before I knew it was nothing more than a scam, and that there was no threat, I simply "accepted" things as they are. I accepted, not the possibility of letting them continue, but that these are the things as they are now, allegedly. I couldn't travel back in the past and prevent their message, could I? I was simply calm, because being too excited about this would not do anything. Because excitement did not have its place here. It was unwanted by the reasoning of current reality. If I wanted, I could submit to my decreasing irrationality and burst into a panic attack, like I did years before. But, then, I asked myself, what is the point of doing so? It will not help the situation. I haven't heard from these "hackers" again. Which could indicate that it was a scam. An empty threat. To empty threats you can simply choose to do nothing. This is the very subtle "defeatism" I talk about: the functional wisdom of submitting to the situation as it is and trying to look for ways to solve it, if it's even possible. I would argue that every true professional has that type of defeatism. It's that type of defeatism that not only gets things done, but also does so under a good impression of themselves and of whatever they represent. If you represent a bigger company than yourself, or have a company where you're its only employee, know that there are bigger things at stake when you behave and interact with the world. Some form of masking and repression is to be "put" on "your face" if you wish to leave a good impression, and to make them return and consume the service you provide. A self-respecting company will not necessarily interact with everyone in the same way that the person behind it would interact with them privately, and this is especially true the more well-known the company becomes. This is because, in certain social media platforms, people may be interacting with the company's "mask," and the people behind the "mask" may not care about the person representing the company. Therefore, even if it is tempting to have a more "wild mind" under intense situations or in general, it is often wiser to calm it down. This is not only because it is more practical, but also because your personal truth may not always matter in comparison. Because there may be more pressing matters at hand than your personal sentiments. I admit that I have been wilder in the past, and even had a panic attack because of other people, whether they intended to or not. However, I have recently come to terms with the fact that I should be more reserved, even if it means not exposing my personal truth completely to the world. The problem, as I mentioned before, is the repression that comes with this whole operation. Apart from expressing it elsewhere, I admit that a public figure or representative is often more limited than an average private person. It's something that makes us professional and more appealing. I may sometime play Tekken in order to teach myself serenity. Dictators wave and thank, wave and thank, when they observe a military parade. Anything else usually belongs in specific spaces, behind closed doors. I wish I could be more flexible, but perhaps I should still be more reserved, even after revealing so much about myself to you before. I like to be alone, deep inside. To be solitary and altruistic. Improving the world in hermitage.

(Philosocom's Masculinity Directory) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future. More on my philosophy on the past has been written). "Philosophy is not the simple pursuit of questions, but an unwavering desperate search for the right answers, which reject smug comfortable certainties, in favor of unique perspectives and directions of thought. To pursue the very opposite of what we're sure of. A true philosopher can never rest, nor should they" -- Mr. John Duran There are times when a man has to fight so hard for life that he has no time to live it. -- Charles Bukowski (Background music) Survival as a human being is never exclusively physical. I would like to suggest that Maslow's hierarchy of needs may distort our perception of human needs, even though it is generally agreed upon. In other words, our mental needs are still needs, even if they are less demanding than our physical needs. If you minimize the importance of a need simply because it is smaller in comparison, you may be harming yourself without realizing it. Why? Because many of us have a need to be loved, to feel accomplished, and to actualize ourselves. If you minimize these mental needs, you may damage your chances of survival in this world. Maslow's hierarchy is one of priority, not importance. This means that once you have secured your physical needs, you should then secure your mental ones if you want to increase your chances of survival! What is generally considered to be survival is just one aspect of it—the physical one. Even those who are well-off still need to survive in accordance with their needs. If they neglect their mental needs, their mental state can be damaged. In order to survive, one must also maintain good mental health. If they do not, they could risk many dangers, most notably giving up on life. When it comes to mental survival, we need to understand that our mentalities are different from one another. Our mental needs may differ depending on our personalities, interests, and life goals. Therefore, in order to improve our mental survival, we must know ourselves better in order to prevent ourselves from doing things that we may regret later on, which could result in our death. Survival is essentially this: Doing whatever it takes to avoid premature death. While we cannot completely avoid premature death, we can reduce the chances of it happening. After all, a poor mental state can override our compliance to our survival instinct. It can make us not act on it, which is very unwise. Understand -- Men are likelier to die earlier than women. Although women are more prone to mental health problems than men, the subject of mental health among men is taken less seriously. We men are expected to be stronger and more resilient even if we are not. In fact, we may struggle more in finding emotional support than women. Therefore, we need to take into account the mental risks of being a man -- and I'm speaking to both men and women. That's because our mental survival, so it seems, may depend on our gender as well. And according to this article, autistic people are more prone to despair than the rest of the population, due to numerous reasons, mentioned within. So, if you are a man, and/or autistic, entertain the thought that you might die earlier, and thus, are less likely to survive than a woman. And so, never take your health lightly, and when I say health, I also refer to your mentality, as well. Psychologists can help, yes, but remember that they are first and foremost, problem solvers. They are not healers. I myself went to psychologists for over a decade. It didn't help much personally. The solutions I found were my own, so I am not fond on wasting my finances on solutions that might not work. It feels like gambling my money away, and I dislike gambling. And I'm not going to gamble my life away due to a fallacy I devised. As someone who suffers from an anxiety disorder, I utilized this constant stress to better survive and become mentally tougher. After all, anxiety can be regarded as a survival mechanism. I thought I should work towards serenity, but I realized how important anxiety is to my survival — and other people's survival as well. I must constantly worry in order to survive better, so that I can do things like donate to charity and fund my poorer writers. After all, a person without a care in the world might be less willing to help not only themselves, but others as well! So I do not care for serenity as much as I used to. There are more important emotions and subjects to nurture, in order for me, at least, to survive. As someone who is in a often a feeling of "flight or fight", I truly experience life as what it is: a finite, uncertain one, that can end at any time by whatever means possible, intentional or otherwise. I have used the abuse I suffered from others to understand this well. Never be too carefree, or you might die as a result, or at least be traumatized unnecessarily. Never have full trust in anyone, when they can damage your mentality unintentionally. Never use the lack of intention as an excuse. That's because abusers may use it too. For example, whenever someone yells at me, I will yell back until they cower. Should someone mock me in a physical space, I will be angry at them until they submit. I do not care for the sentiments of those who stand in my way, when my way is the way of survival. For I only survive to work! Anything else is smaller by comparison! Never forget that. So instead of falling victim to trauma, I seek to utilize it, to become more resilient and decrease unnecessary trauma in the future. I merely hope to make it until I die of old age. Because it will be then, and only then, when I will be able to optimize my work as a philosopher. You can apply the same rationality in the name of whatever you're living for. And you need a good mental state to make it. Because even today, remember that the strong are those who rule over the weak. Social status, money, influence — they are but tools for one's own survival over others. And social dominance, even if toxic, is an inevitable feature of the socio-political animals that humans are. Why? Because reality is toxic, and hoping for a life pure of toxicity is a fantasy that belongs to pure physical hermits. And never to people who live and interact with each other regularly. And other people are not going to care, necessarily, for your mental condition. Even if they work to deteriorate it, intentionally or not, they might not hold themselves accountable for their actions. Whether because they are immature, illogical, or straight-out psychopaths who are incapable of remorse (or capable, but very little). Do whatever you can to not let your mind deteriorate to the point that you decide to overcome your survival instinct. For the tendency to end one's life can be too strong. And that is something that belongs to the weak. And in this world, the strong survive. Mentally, too. No. You need to act on it. Act on instinct. And for that end, I view life as a contemporary version of a wild jungle. So I will guard my mentality like it deserves. And I'm not letting anyone do it for me. That's my responsibility, as an adult. As a man. Because my quest for relevancy is the quest to not kill myself. And that is why I made Chen pay. So I would not die mentally. I did everything I could to prove her wrong by becoming a successful writer. So I killed much of my sensitivity in accordance. Became more masculine and so on. It's all in order to survive. And by writing this article, I want you to survive, as well. Philosophy in general can help for that end. And I do not expect you to agree with me, nor with my methods. I expect you to entertain my ideas. Act on this instinct. Expect no mercy. Survive. Don't just walk. Run.

(Background music) A man who avoids the pain avoids the process. He stays exactly where he already is -- Unknown Introduction In the broader landscape of interactive media, most narrative franchises are built upon the myth of rapid escalation and total victory. The protagonist begins as an underdog, acquires a definitive weapon, defeats a singular antagonist, and permanently restores order to their world. It is a comforting, linear fantasy. The Like a Dragon (formerly Yakuza) series rejects this fairytale framework entirely. Instead, Sega’s long-running crime epic serves as a brilliant, uncompromising cultural text on a far more grounded reality: the war of attrition. In the world of Kamurocho and Isezaki Ijincho, order is never permanently restored. The structural decay of the underworld, the shifting alliances of geopolitical syndicates, and the chaotic nature of human ambition ensure that the environment is in a state of perpetual friction. To survive in this ecosystem, a protagonist cannot rely on a single, flashing moment of heroism. They must possess the psychological grit, the structural endurance, and the absolute loyalty required to sit within a grinding, multi-decade siege. To live like a Dragon is to understand that life is not a sprint toward a definitive finish line; it is an endless game of holding the line against overwhelming wear and tear. The Kiryu Paradigm: Suffering as a Core Competency To analyze attrition within this universe, one must first look at the foundational patriarch of the franchise: Kazuma Kiryu. Kiryu’s entire life is an exercise in enduring systemic erosion. He does not seek conflict; rather, conflict acts as a persistent weather pattern that constantly beats against the walls of his personal sanctuary. Whether he is trying to manage the Morning Glory Orphanage in Okinawa or living undercover as a solitary taxi driver in Fukuoka, the outside world continuously demands his energy, his capital, and his peace. What makes Kiryu a legendary figure is not his ability to deliver a devastating kinetic blow; it is his capacity to absorb punishment, both physical and existential, without altering his core code of honor. He is repeatedly stripped of his rank, his wealth, his anonymity, and the people he loves most. Yet, his response to this relentless attrition is always a quiet, stoic recalculation. Kiryu demonstrates that when you cannot control the macro-trajectory of a chaotic environment, your only tactical move is to optimize your immediate square footage and protect your personal standard of excellence. He carries the weight of the clan, the orphanage, and his legacy because he understands that the burden of the patriarch is to be the unshakeable foundation when every other structural layer is collapsing. Ichiban Kasuga: Rebuilding from Absolute Zero If Kiryu represents the stoic endurance of a veteran fortress, Ichiban Kasuga represents the dynamic management of an economic and relational siege. Introduced in Yakuza: Like a Dragon, Kasuga begins his journey at the absolute bottom of human society. After spending eighteen years in prison out of pure, unforced loyalty to his patriarch, he is betrayed, shot, and left for dead in a literal dumpster pile in Yokohama. He possesses zero capital, zero social relevance, and zero infrastructure. Kasuga’s narrative is a masterclass in how to systematically overcome acute attrition through the architecture of a dedicated team: Micro-Step Progression: Kasuga does not attempt to fix his broken life with a single, high-risk gamble. He starts by collecting cans, cleaning up immediate street-level hazards, and securing a baseline of survival. The Relational Garrison: Unlike Kiryu, who often bears his isolation as a solitary shield, Kasuga combats the attrition of homelessness and betrayal by building an unshakeable, cooperative core. He surrounds himself with fellow outcasts, like a defrocked nurse, a homeless ex-cop, a disenfranchised hostess, and builds an alliance where every member’s battery reinforces the others. Trusting the Process: Kasuga is frequently mocked for his unwavering optimism, but his optimism is actually a highly pragmatic defense mechanism. By viewing his grueling reality through the lens of a classic role-playing game, he gamifies the monotony of survival, turning the daily grind of upkeep into a series of achievable, high-value levels. Comparative Matrix: Two Paths of Endurance Within the Like a Dragon universe, attrition manifests differently depending on the architectural design of the individual's life: Character Vector The Kiryu Method (Sovereign Solitude) The Kasuga Method (Cooperative Garrison) Primary Shield Unyielding personal stoicism and raw muscle memory. Shared emotional vulnerability and collective infrastructure. Operational Posture Defensive containment; protecting a tight, hidden perimeter. Aggressive reclamation; expanding the network from the ground up. Handling Betrayal Internalizing the weight; standing alone in the quiet hours. Externalizing through radical transparency; offering a path to redemption. Resource Management Drawing heavily upon personal, existential reserves. Distributing the load across a diverse, high-loyalty syndicate. The Patriarch's Burden: Underwriting the Campaign A critical thematic layer of the series, and one that mirrors the realities of independent venture development, is the administrative tax of leadership. In both Yakuza 0 and Like a Dragon, the protagonists are thrust into the mechanics of business management (Real Estate Royale and Ichiban Confections). These sub-games are not mere tonal distractions; they are perfect structural metaphors for the broader narrative. To scale an organization or protect a domain within this universe, the leader must actively invest their own capital, time, and focus into an infrastructure that offers no immediate guarantee of profit. When your first organization fails or your territory is breached by external rivals, the immature operator spirals into panic or abandons the pitch. The true patriarch looks at the wreckage, archives the data points, and begins the slow, long-winded process of holding the new line. [Operational Failure / Structural Collapse] | v [The Immature Operator] ----> Panic, Disillusionment, Abandonment of the Venture | v [The Sovereign Leader] ----> Absorb Loss, Refine Architecture, Rebuild the Clan This requires a profound detachment from short-term validation. When your team tells you to "trust the process," and they are executing their tasks to the absolute best of their ability, the patriarch’s role is to act as the financial and psychological underwriter of that dream. You endure the temporary deficit, you pay your people on time, and you protect the perimeter while the internal machinery slowly turns the tide. The End-Game Horizon Ultimately, the Like a Dragon franchise teaches us that the reward for surviving an intense war of attrition isn't a life completely devoid of maintenance. The reward is the development of an unbreachable internal character. When you have stood your ground against betrayal, economic collapse, geographical distance, and the sheer monotony of daily survival, you unlock an early end-game state of profound personal clarity. You stop begging the world to fix its broken trajectory, and you stop chasing the cheap validation of public relevancy. Instead, like the legendary figures of Kamurocho, you take great comfort in the peaceful, highly structured sanctuary you have engineered for yourself. You look at the quiet hours of the night, you handle your basic routines, you stand fiercely by the people who hold your absolute loyalty, and you calmly endure whatever weather the outside world decides to throw against your walls. You do not bleed for the crowd; you stand firm as a lighthouse, broadcasting your value entirely on your own terms.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Table of Contents: The Poem Itself Analysis by Mr. C. O. Isaac and Co. People ruin the calmest spirits and then call them toxic when they finally react -- Albert Camus The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues. -- Rene Descartes The Poem (Inspired song) In a world full of fear, Where danger lies there and here, Such things makes a man's fate, Blue and crystal clear. In the absence of true affection, By your fellow society, A man may want to prove wrong, Their blind reality. To prove his inner worth, Outside of family, there is the world, The pure becomes corrupt, Turned a wolf in sheep's cloth, In the absence of true love, Where transactional's the just, Adjust to it, the man must. Perhaps only then, His worth will be proven, To any human out of the self. Laughed at disgracefully, Carelessly been assigned irrelevancy, One's worth is to be attained, Or else he will be in vain. So when you are unloved, You would want others to say your name, You will become like them, You will want antagonism dead! You will be embedded with fear, For purity in this world, Is never here. You will turn from crystal white, To Heisenberg, a facade of might. You say you do it for others, While they say they never wanted that light. Even when your worth is suggested, Your worth isn't really wanted. Because they want to feel nice, Drink orange juice with ice. Dark coffee's too dark, But it's part of reality, Its mark. And the cycle will repeat, In the name of impurity, Round and round goes the corruption in humanity, As true love belongs only to whom fear, As breakfast they eat. Because love is rarely given, But love is sought to be gained. You might realize nobody of you, truly cares, So your true self, express it you dare. ****** You now wear a fedora-crown on your head, An expanding empire of demand is now in your stead. For Heisenberg isn't one to be praised, For Heisenberg is a warning to be seen and hailed. Without real love your heart grows dark, Become remorseless as a warlord and as a loan shark. Because in the end you might as well just want it for yourself, So now you're powerful, Respected, but still unloved. No amount of honor will have your heart unlocked! You may mistake loyalists for true love, But in truth its but a roadblock! Poem Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. The poem explores themes of fear, love, corruption, and the human condition through a philosophical lens. It begins with the assertion that the world is full of fear and danger, leading to a man's fate being "blue and crystal clear." This implies a deterministic outlook where the human condition is fraught with anxiety and existential dread. The absence of true affection from society leads individuals to seek validation and worth beyond familial ties, reflecting existentialist themes found in works of Sartre and Camus. The poem also critiques the transformation from purity to corruption, depicting the moral and ethical degradation that occurs when one is deprived of genuine love and forced to conform to transactional relationships. The poem portrays a cyclical pattern of corruption in humanity, where the quest for worth and recognition leads to further disillusionment. The imagery of becoming "Heisenberg" alludes to Walter White from Breaking Bad, symbolizing a transformation into a figure of power and fear rather than love and respect. It also addresses the hollow nature of respect and loyalty gained through fear and power, arguing that such respect is not equivalent to true love but rather a façade that conceals the individual's continued emotional desolation. This reflects Nietzschean themes of the will to power and the existential struggle for authentic existence. The poem raises questions about the nature of morality, questioning whether it is inherently tied to social acceptance and love or can exist independently in a transactional world. The poem also reflects on the human condition, portraying it as a relentless pursuit of recognition and validation in a society that often fails to provide genuine affection. Finally, it employs vivid imagery and metaphors to convey its philosophical themes, illustrating the contrasts between reality and comfort, authenticity and pretense. The cyclical structure of corruption and the persistent quest for worth underscore the repetitive and inescapable nature of these human struggles.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) the heart feels, the mind analyzes, and consciousness rides the line between -- John Duran Rules for happiness: Something to do, something to love, something to hope for. -- Immanuel Kant Using our rational and intuitive senses, we can use our hearts to guide us where we want to be in life. All we have to do is to look within, and the truth is already deep within us. That truth, is our refuge. The heart is a powerful tool for navigating life. The road to happiness is found deep within the heart. The more we listen to our heart's desire, the happier we can be. However, we must do it wisely, as to not sabotage our own happiness. The more we let our mind analyze our heart's desire, the more rationally we can plan at getting at where we want to be in life. To avoid sabotage, we must be somewhat reasonable of our surroundings, developing virtue like respect and tolerance. For if we want to be tolerated, we must tolerate the world around us for what it is, and make the something out of of ourselves all the while! The more we are conscious of the heart and of the mind, the more we can know the next steps needed on our journey for happiness. Through trials and through tribulations, happiness comes where we live on our own terms. Where it is us who decide what to do, it is us who decide how we want to live life. And for that, we need to be brave, and dare to pursue our passions, even if they come at a price... Happiness is this emotion that makes us feel alive. And to feel alive we need to do what we like the most, more often. And for that, we need to give up on certain comforts, and dare. Dare to be out of the herd mentality. Dare to go our own way. Dare to bid farewell to people and paths that don't make us happy. Dare to sometimes purposefully sabotage whatever we have going on that doesn't make us happy. That's because the path to happiness lies in being able to live under one's own terms. It is very hard to do in a world that values conformity and financial gain over happiness. To be happy, we need to ask ourselves what makes us happy, and go for it. Go for it even at the disapproval and mockery of others; go for it even if it seems hard and impossible; go after our hearts desire, and not after some authority figure like a celebrity or an authoritarian leader that tells us what to think, what to buy and so on. Go for it, and try to trust the process to the best of your abilities. Truth-seeking is a sacrifice. Sometimes you'll have to let go of old connections and of old comforts, and embrace a life of solitude, in order to find the happiness, you're looking for. For some, the road to happiness is shorter; for others, it takes a lifetime to be happy. All and all, happiness has to do with being able to listen to your heart and choose your heart's content while understanding the world around you and being aware of it within each choice you make. The truth sets us away from stress, that is called catharsis. Have you ever been honest and felt a relief going out of your body? That's the power of the truth. And the truth is there to set you free from all that makes you suffer. Philosophy, therefore, is the most humane when done as a way of life. And a life truly well lived is a life where you get to live under your own terms. As long as it takes, the road to happiness is well worth it. To be able to do things under your own terms is to be able to enjoy doing what you like and what you're really good at. It takes dedication, it takes sacrifice, but eventually, with enough faith, life shall lead you to where your heart takes you. You might need to overcome many challenges that hold you back away from happiness, like the fear from failure, or the fear of being criticized and judged, and so on. It takes much courage to follow your heart, to stay away from the herd, and do things that others might consider irrational or even insane. However, to rectify the world, one has to set on a journey, whether physically or mentally, to find what makes them truly happy, while living in harmony with the world around them. It requires you to be stubborn, it often requires you to deviate from the norms, because the norms are not there to make you happy, but there to make you obey to the whims of others. Therefore, beyond the necessary evil of survival, why should the societal matrix be followed? Life is too short to live someone else's -- Nathan W. Morris Create your own norms, your own rules, just be mindful of the world around you, because it is this very world that gives you a chance at being happy in your own way. Over time, you might find yourself with very few contacts, as the truth is one which is walked alone. Each and every one of us has something specific that makes them happy. Therefore, happiness is subjective to the individual. Happiness is rarely achieved in this world, and that is why this world is twisted. While focusing on success allows us to survive, endure and/or make an impact, we should survive so that we would, eventually, know the nectar of happiness. My own path to happiness was a short but a most difficult one. Lesser men would not survive the incredibly hard life I've went through, saving my late master, and then, guarding my mother for 17 years. My life was a most difficult one, followed by many, many eras of fatigue and depression. But, as I persisted on going on my heart's desire, I found myself exactly where I wanted myself to be in, living life on my own terms while getting to write to my heart's desire. I built something truly remarkable, this free empire, and got to help a lot of writers by giving them a voice. However, the cost of this living on top of existing, lies in solitude. This world is built on catering, and I don't like to cater. I like to contribute to you on my own terms. Because I already knew that doing things on my own terms is what makes me happy. Some people will never get happy, and this is why I enjoy helping this world through Philosocom. I feel bad for most of this world, and that is why with all of my heart I want to rectify the world under my own terms. I want to contribute with whatever I have to offer for this whole world to enjoy from. A truly, well-built wonderland of philosophy and art! As you can see, the road to happiness is not easy. It requires you to confront your shadows, criticize the very society you're part of, and sometimes even lambast things many find completely acceptable, whether through acceptance or defeatism. Happiness, in the end, lies in the way of those who choose to follow their hearts, all the way, while understanding the world which they navigate on the road to happiness. Eventually, even if it lasts for a lifetime, there is a light at the end of the long, dark tunnel. And sometimes, what matters is not the goal, but the friends you make along the way, along with the memories you've made together. Life, in the end, is an experience. And some experiences are more unique than others, the more you decide to follow your heart. You might be rejected as insane, but to quote Socrates, who was considered the Mad Gadfly: The unexamined life is not worth living Socrates peacefully drank the poison wine, for he lived life exactly the way he wanted, criticizing the people of Athens for what they perceived as knowledge. When much of philosophy has to do with defining for ourselves, what is a truly well lived life, how can philosophy be dismissed as irrelevant? Defining for ourselves what is a life well lived, and then going all in, is how philosophy is best used. Not for power. Not for evil. But for the good, that is happiness. And as for myself, I will always be unsatisfied. I made peace with my lack of satisfaction, for it is the very thing that compels me to write and to contribute to you. I live a tragic tale where I will never be entirely satisfied. But at least I live that tale entirely, and peacefully, by choice.