The Search Bar

(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 (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.

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. (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.

(Background music) Thoughts On the Infinity Although I am a physicalist philosopher, which means I believe only the physical exists, I do dabble in the arcane from time to time, along with one of this site's readers, mainly to keep an open mind. After some time of contemplation and observation of reality, I have reached a conclusion that might be true: there are infinite worlds, and, if possible, infinite realities as well. The universe does not have limits simply because there is no force to limit its own expansion . The vacuum of space is not something that can be measured, because it is infinite, and only finite things can be measured. Therefore, the universe might have been expanding more and more thus far, and there is no way of stopping it. Therefore, there is no such thing as "the end of time", or even "the beginning of time", because reality is infinite, and eternity is a form of infinity -- the infinity of time . Combining both infinities, existence does not begin nor end. There is not necessarily a source that began it all , and even if there is, it only indicates that there was still something in existence before existence came to be. Whether you're a believer in one god or something else as an atheist, the inevitable conclusion is that reality is infinite. If a god created reality, and that god is eternal, then reality itself is reality, simply because god is a part of reality. I am also open to the idea that pantheism is true. They are not a being that exists outside of reality; they are a part of reality, and they merely brought anything else into actualization, in the form of creation. On the other hand, if you are an atheist, there is still no alternative to the infinity of existence, in both time and space, because things don't just start out of nothing, or so we may believe. Even absurdism , common in atheism, cannot deny this. To keep an open mind, I am an agnostic . Nothing itself is something because we are capable of referring to it as a thing like something more "existent" such as a chair or a table. AKA, a concept like any other. Therefore, even before there was anything at all, there was still nothingness, and nothingness can still be referred to as something. This infinity of space is in fact an infinity of something that contains us all and everything else in existence. There is no escape from this infinity, because you cannot exist outside of something that contains everything. You can do this only temporarily , like an ostrich does when it places its head in a hole. What is death? Death can be compared to a permanently defunct electronic device. Once a phone or a computer is destroyed, for example, they don't necessarily have spirits that carry them away to some higher plane. Living is merely a biological function, and so is death. Therefore, once a biological being dies, they simply lose the ability to perform any functionality a living being has, and thus "convert" their status from "alive" to "dead", similar to turning from single to married to divorced. Only permanently, unless we are to consider reincarnation or an afterlife. Either way, once we're dead, we still exist, but in a different form -- the form of a corpse. A living being and a dead being are the same being, only having different statuses. Is there a "phone heaven" or a "computer hell"? Why would there be? Once they go beyond repair, that's it. There is no necessity to continue the story on because they simply now enter a state of eternal dysfunctionality... which is death, in biological terms. I highly doubt that there is such a thing as a real resurrection , one that really happened, but as for now, once you are dead, you exist forever in a form of eternal rest. Eternal un-animation. You become eternally silent simply because the dead can't speak, breathe, eat, or perform any function a living being can. That's what makes them dead, after all -- the lack of the trait of "living" inside them; that living is not a spirit inside a machine, but the machine itself. Why would a phone need a soul? Why would a human need a spirit if they are prone to simply rest forever, and exist in that manner? The person is, in a way, indeed, no longer with us, but only as a living being. They are now with us as a corpse, to put it very bluntly. We are regardless far more complex "machines" than mechanical machines. That might include A.I or Language Models. Just like the universe is infinite, so is what it contains, at least as far as we humans know. As far as we can imagine, there might be an infinite number of worlds out there, in space, but we don't really know that, because we have yet to map the entire universe. Hence why it is important to always keep an open mind, because we do not really know for certain the vast mysteries of the universe. Maybe necromancy is possible in other parts of this infinite reality, but we just can't know it, due to the fact that we have yet to explore the entire universe? Can we even accomplish such a feat? If existence is infinite, just as the void that contains is, then it's possible that there was, is, and will be no end to the planets in this reality. No matter how advanced our knowledge in astronomy will be, there could possibly be more and more planets, being created by a divine being or by physical means as I am writing this article, and as you read it. Which means that the universe will always remain undiscoverable to at least a point. Life is not just about getting up in the morning for work and going home tired. There is more to life. What made me a philosopher was my dissatisfaction with the normalization of human life and of the human mind. We are so used to occupying ourselves with certain things that we forget that there may be other things -- or beings -- outside of our tiny mental worlds. This is why I do not wish to involve myself too much with general society, because I "fear" becoming what I am trying to run away from: thinking small; thinking ordinarily; thinking in a pattern-like way. I have seen this in everyone I have met throughout my life who does not philosophize regularly. I just have this inner voice within me that tells me that normalcy will not do, for normalcy means the silence of the pondering, philosophizing mind. This is what made me decide to become a philosopher and partially abstain from this world -- is to see and to think of the world beyond so-called "earthly" matters. Not only for the sake of myself, but for the sake of anyone who happens to find my material. I think we deserve to question normalcy, even in the name of expanding our understanding of the reality we were born into. I meddle with the arcane because it gives one a sense of higher importance, whether or not one is actually important despite self-regard. It tells a "story", a narrative that might make sense about how things work and how one evolves within its framework. Perhaps, if I continue meddling with the arcane, I shall reach even greater insights for the world to enjoy!

Portrait of John Duran. Credit: Unknown (Subcategory Directory: The King and the Bargainer - A Philosophical Analysis ( philosocom.com ) A Philosophical Analysis of John Duran's Story, "For the King's Pleasure" -- How People "Like" to Be Lied To ( philosocom.com ) A Bum's Night Out: Too much Time On my Hands (John Duran's Story Analysis, Part I) https://www.philosocom.com/post/john-duran https://www.philosocom.com/post/uncommon-perspective https://www.philosocom.com/post/weight-of-genius https://www.philosocom.com/post/prodigy ) Abstract This article is an interview with a sage, a writer ( John Duran ) a citizen of the USA out of his experiences of being a homeless person for much of his life. It explores the complex issue of homelessness, a hidden population facing the harsh realities of life without a permanent residence. It delves into its root causes, impact on individuals and communities, and ongoing efforts to address this societal challenge. The article challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about homelessness, highlighting the economic factors and daily struggles faced by those without stable housing. It also examines the role of governmental policies and their negligence, community initiatives, and public perception in shaping the landscape of homelessness. The aim is to foster understanding and empathy, sparking conversations towards effective solutions and a more compassionate society. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: It also covers the mentality of a man who is seasoned in being homeless, and the things we can learn from him. I also added a few words myself). Interview & Insights A first question to him was: What are the main causes of homelessness? He emphatically answered: “Poverty, ignorance, heartlessness, and ridiculous conditions for renters, along with absurd rental amounts". The following point was drawn: Poverty: Economic hardship, insufficient income, and limited access to resources can lead to homelessness. Individuals and families facing poverty may struggle to afford basic necessities, including housing. Ignorance : Lack of awareness or understanding about the root causes of homelessness can perpetuate societal misconceptions. Educating communities about the complex factors contributing to homelessness is essential for fostering empathy and informed solutions. Heartlessness: A lack of compassion or empathy toward individuals experiencing homelessness can hinder efforts to address the issue. Building a compassionate society involves recognizing the humanity of those facing homelessness and working towards supportive and inclusive communities. Ridiculous Conditions for Renters: Unaffordable and challenging rental conditions, such as high rents, lack of tenant protections, and substandard housing, can contribute significantly to homelessness. Addressing these issues requires a focus on affordable housing policies and tenant rights. Absurd Rental Amounts: Unreasonable rental costs relative to income levels can make it difficult for individuals and families to secure stable housing. Affordable housing initiatives and rent control measures can play a role in mitigating this challenge. However, addressing homelessness effectively often involves a comprehensive approach that tackles these root causes. This includes implementing policies to alleviate poverty, raising awareness to dispel misconceptions , promoting empathy and compassion, advocating for tenant rights, and working towards affordable housing solutions. By addressing these interconnected issues, communities can strive to create environments where homelessness is less likely to occur, and support systems are in place to help those in need. He concluded by saying: “I was homeless for 35 years across 46 states. I believe it's the future for millions more Americans” Here comes the second question: What initiatives or strategies are being implemented to address homelessness? "There are reasons many homeless avoid staying in shelters, and it's not what the media portrays". Certainly, there are various reasons why some homeless individuals may choose to avoid staying in shelters, and these reasons often go beyond what may be portrayed in the media. Here are some common factors: Safety Concerns: Shelters can be overcrowded, and conflicts may arise among residents. Concerns about personal safety, theft, or violence may lead individuals to avoid staying in shelters. Lack of Privacy: Shelters often provide limited privacy, with shared sleeping quarters and communal facilities. Some individuals may value their privacy more, and find the communal living conditions uncomfortable. Rules and Regulations: Shelters typically have rules and regulations governing behavior, curfews, and restrictions on personal belongings. Some individuals may prefer the autonomy of living on the streets rather than adhering to the rules of a shelter. Substance Use Policies: Shelters often have strict rules regarding substance use. Those struggling with addiction may avoid shelters due to the restrictions on alcohol or drug use. Traumatic Experiences: Some homeless individuals may have experienced trauma, including abuse or violence, which can make staying in a communal setting emotionally challenging. Shelters may be triggering for individuals with traumatic backgrounds. Mental Health Concerns: Individuals with mental health issues may find the chaotic and crowded environment of shelters overwhelming. The lack of mental health support in some shelters can also be a discouragement. Stigma and Discrimination: Homeless individuals may face stigma and discrimination in shelters, affecting their sense of dignity and well-being. This social aspect can influence their decision to avoid shelters. Limited Accommodations for Couples and Pets: Shelters may not always have suitable accommodations for couples or individuals with pets. For those with companions or service animals, the lack of options can be a barrier. Previous Negative Experiences: Some individuals may have had negative experiences in shelters, such as encountering theft, violence, or unsanitary conditions, which can lead them to avoid such facilities in the future. Understanding these reasons is crucial for developing more effective homeless support systems. Addressing safety concerns, providing mental health services, and offering more flexible and accommodating shelter options can contribute to making shelters more accessible and appealing to those in need. What are the current homelessness statistics in the USA? "All wrong, don't believe what they claim. According to the official record, the USA has just over half a million. But it's far close to a 5 million". What kind of support and resources are available for homeless individuals? "Very restricted ones, as well as indentured servitude . Shelters are mainly cesspools, and worthless. Homelessness is a deep black pit. Once fallen into, people rarely get out". The perspective shared by the individual highlights the challenges and frustrations often associated with homelessness. Here are some aspects to consider in response to these concerns: Limited Support and Resources: The observation about very restricted support suggests a need for increased and more comprehensive support systems for homeless individuals. This could include expanded access to healthcare, mental health services, employment assistance, and affordable housing programs. Indentured Servitude Concerns: If there are concerns about exploitation or unfair labor practices resembling indentured servitude, it is essential to investigate and address these issues. Ensuring fair treatment and dignity for homeless individuals is crucial in any support system. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Instead of being triggered by information we are presented, it is important to not be too quick to judge, and investigate rather than argue. After all, we don't always have knowledge like we think we do. It is far better to respect what we don't necessarily know, than to mock it and, as a result, abuse the mentality of the person who may have the knowledge you might not have. Not only it's arrogant but degrading and counter-intuitive for your quest of knowledge. Why would someone you laughed at, feel compelled to give you information?). Criticisms of Shelters: The characterization of shelters as "cesspools" and "worthless" underscores the need for improvements in shelter conditions. Enhancing the quality of shelters, addressing safety concerns, and creating more welcoming environments are essential steps in encouraging homeless individuals to seek shelter. Perception of Homelessness as a Deep Pit: The sentiment that "homelessness is a deep black pit" reflects the profound challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness. Addressing the root causes of homelessness, such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, and systemic issues, is critical for creating paths out of homelessness. Long-Term Impact: The statement that "once fallen into, people rarely get out" highlights the long-term and systemic nature of homelessness. It underscores the need for sustained efforts to provide ongoing support, including mental health services, job training, and affordable housing solutions. In response to these concerns, communities and policymakers can work towards developing comprehensive strategies that go beyond immediate shelter provision. This includes addressing the underlying issues that contribute to homelessness and providing supportive services to help individuals rebuild their lives. Collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the community can contribute to more effective and compassionate solutions for those experiencing homelessness. What role does the government play in addressing homelessness? "They treat them like trash, garbage to be "moved along" as they lock the homeless up, outta sight, outta mind, just for existing . What a life!" Does it mean they lack human conscience? "No, they care for themselves, and the ones in their circles , I think this is negligence of the highest order" How does the public perceive and respond to homelessness? "With disdain and unreasonable hate . They have a "Kick them when they're down" mentality". What then is a hope for the homeless child? " When I gave up all hope, I learned how to live, that which kills others ended up my strength. " What was it like? "Acceptance and setting down one's burdens of accomplishment ... It freed me to become what I am now". Then our discussion ended with: What's your advice to the homeless? "Be resilient, be strong, rely upon no one". Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's Bonus Never play the victim , even if you are one. Victimhood feeds on itself, and makes more people prey on you, thus exploiting your pain and your weakness for their own gain. Even the homeless can be stronger from within if they do not let themselves become prey due to victimhood. Strength, while not a complete requirement for survival, contributes greatly to it. Especially if we go on this life on our lonesome. And the interest of gaining and maintaining power in any situation is to survive, physically, mentally or both. Power is everything . It is money the same as it is a will of iron. While social beings depend on the strengths of others, the loner and the lonely, like the homeless, must be stronger than others, as individuals, in order to endure the unforgiving nature of this human-dominated world, where self-interest over altruism is prioritized. Do not expect others to help you if there is nothing necessarily beneficial to themselves. That is how any desire/interest-based organization works, from a social group to a syndicate. The same applies to politics and unfortunately helping the welfare of the homeless might not yield any interest to those who can invest in it. Thus, in their eyes, helping the weak and unfortunate might not be too beneficial even though that's not true (as helping the homeless can bring more productive members of society, for instance). But as long as the powerful will disregard the weaker in power, they will not see a reason to assist them without any interest on their side. Therefore, the lack of external support requires you to be strong in spirit, and attain what many attain safely: Getting the next meal, the next drink, and the next place to sleep in. As such, alone, we must be tougher. And even if we're lonely with the company of other people, we are alone. The interviewee said something interesting: That giving up hope helped him learn how to live. The hope to be accomplished and successful often restrains one to comply with society's social contract in order to be successful in the first place. However, when society forsakes you to live outside of it, you may feel less compelled to be a part of a collective that disregards you and leaves you to fend for yourself. This might make you think: Why care about the very same entity that put you in its outskirts, and rejected you for your so-called "insanity"? Why play a part of a contract that, by default, forsaken you for your homelessness and eccentricity? As such, it is often society that builds its outsiders, rejects and even those who actively oppose it in the form of being lawless (as in John Duran's very example) . Do not expect people to want to comply to the norms when the norms opposed them in the first place. And degradation will only make their hostility to society, even more severe. See how individuals and societies create and nurture their own enemies.

(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) (The Directory on John Duran) The Universe's Prodigy The Universe once said quite clearly to me, You've aligned with myself, and so I have aligned with thee, Let's put our sentience together, and understand all we can see. It's both vast and small that's the true mystery , Between your unique human mind , and my own personal infinity . We shall grow together, aspiring towards pure human divinity. We shall pry open every hidden corner of creation's own glory, Learning this together we'll expand our shared story. As far as intelligence they'll have to create a much higher category. No need for formal schooling , it's such a bad human joke, They only mold worker bees, not free thinking folk. So let's combine our energies, you the sailor and me your Sea. Human credentials cost money, but my knowledge eternally free.

On Free Will -- How To Better Exercise Our Ambitions "Whom we will obey is not as relevant as WHY we would choose to obey them all, being sentient beings thereby gifted with free will" -- John Duran Mr. Chris Kingsley's Synopsis The article explores the concept of free will, contrasting it with the ability to act independently. It highlights the interplay of internal and external forces shaping our decision-making autonomy . The article compares exercising free will to mental strength training, where overcoming internal struggles strengthens resolve. Nathan Lasher's feedback discusses the practical aspects of free will, such as marketing and financial limitations. He argues that while external factors can influence decisions, we ultimately control our responses and actions. Understanding and harnessing free will allows individuals to create their desired life despite external influences. (Background music) Free Will vs. Weakness in the Face of Choices When the topic of free will arises, we often face a crucial distinction: what influences our decisions versus the inherent ability to make them independently . This distinction separates the mere act of choosing from the true essence of free will, which lies in the ability to act independently of any external or internal force that dictates our choices. The harsh reality is that our free will is not as absolute as we might imagine. It hinges on our capacity to act upon our own volition, unyielding to internal weaknesses and external temptations, from addictive games to hatred , that can overthrow our decision-making process. With countless temptations that life throws our way, it's tempting to conclude that many of us are simply too susceptible to succumb to them, rendering our free will casually compromised. Every internal struggle, every urge that pulls us towards actions we know we shouldn't take, reveals the potential fragility of our free will. And having free will also means that we have the freedom to resist temptations and addictions, and not only to do whatever our desires tell us to do . Acting on reason is also a choice we have the freedom to make, which further expresses our free will. Acting on the sole tyranny of desire does not make us free. What makes us free is the ability to act without it as well, with enough tenacity and discipline. However, it would be ignorant to overlook the significant influence of external factors on our ability to make truly free-will decisions. Unlike internal demons like temptation, these external forces don't actively make the choices for us, necessarily. They exist and interact with us, shaping our landscape of options. For example, while a teacher praising the virtues of military service may influence our decision to join, the final choice remains ours. The teacher merely expressed their perspective, leaving the actual decision-making power in our hands. The concept of free will is not a binary, black-and-white assertion. It exists within a spectrum, where the interplay of internal and external forces determines the degree of our autonomy in choosing. Recognizing this spectrum, acknowledging the limitations of our free will, and striving to cultivate our internal strength to navigate these limitations, is perhaps the most genuine expression of our free will itself. Free Will as Strength Training for the Mind External influence differs vastly from internal conflict in its impact on our choice-making. To illustrate, imagine a wrestling match. The cheering crowd represents external influence, influencing your mood or motivation as a fighter, but not directly dictating your moves. In contrast, your opponent embodies the internal struggle, actively grappling with you to prevent your victory. While the crowd can sway your emotions, and therefore you, they don't decide the outcome. Similarly, external factors may shape our context but don't directly control our choices. Empowering free will, then, demands fortifying our mental endurance against internal adversaries. Ideally, we should cultivate such immense willpower that temptations lose their tempting grip. This journey, however, is paved with a unique form of suffering: the internal struggle between our higher selves and our undesired urges. This necessary suffering is the container in which our free will is forged, a struggle against the tyranny of undesired urges that might as well be endless . But this suffering needn't be endured passively. Just as physical fitness necessitates challenges, free will flourishes through controlled confrontation. Consider a mental "boot camp"... A set of attainable yet tempting challenges, like placing cookies on the table and resisting them for a designated period. By facing these inner adversaries head-on, we strengthen our resolve and expand our free will's dominion. Ultimately, the key to harnessing free will lies in embracing and deciding despite the external influence and external struggle. Embrace the temporary discomfort as a catalyst for growth like a businessman would embrace a good opportunity . That's a sign that you're actively flexing your mental muscles, making them more capable to assist you making the decisions you really want to make, and not the decisions you're pressured nor tempted to make. Remember, suffering, when channelled rightly, can become the fuel that propels you towards a free and empowered existence. In a way, that is how "the world can be yours". Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Free will is an interesting topic. Business via marketing might influence what you do but not entirely. They do their best to have them as the first thing you think of when you need a certain action, or service, done. Where free will exists is in you choosing to want a certain thing done. Free will does have its limitations though. People must keep their expectations of what they are able to do in line with their ability, financial or otherwise. You have every right to do what you want to, legality aside, as long as you are willing to live with the consequences of doing something. Those consequences can be good if the right intent exists. Why they only ever refer to consequences in reference to negative things is beyond me. Do good work and the consequence is your value as a human increase.  Let’s talk about good consequences for a minute. To younger individuals still in school the consequence of hard work is a good grade. Not all consequences are negative. They are simply the result of completing any action. I would say that money is the determining factor in our free will. Can’t quite go out and buy nice things without it. So, possessions are the consequence of hard work [and] finding better actions to earn you money is what work life is all about. Understanding yourself fully also aids in this. You might discover your gifted and are capable of more than you originally imagined.  There exists a reality of free will. You have no control over other people’s free wills. All you can do is decide how to let their free wills impact you. I personally understand free will as I discover everything, I am capable of. When the world has no limits for you, I have the free will to decide how I want the world to look. I get to build my dream life, that is the basis for what free will is. You have the innate ability to control your entire life. Don’t like something, figure out a way to deal with it. Either by increasing your knowledge so it is no longer a problem or figuring out a way to remove it from your life . Those are really the only two options people have when another’s free will impacts your life. Or the third less advisable option would be to simply ignore it.  You have a ton of free will compared to your limitations. Nobody is preventing you from going out and doing something. Just your own preventive constructs you build up in your own mind. Don’t want to do something, simply decide not to do it. Good things should be encouraged as people work on being the change they want to see in the world . The ultimate lesson in free will: You can literally create any world you want to. Damned be anyone who tells you differently.

Articles on Asceticism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/my-motives-for-asceticism-in-the-modern-age https://www.philosocom.com/post/7-tips-on-how-to-become-more-ascetic https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-industrial-revolution https://www.philosocom.com/post/asceticism-101-how-is-it-relevant-to-our-lives-by-mr-emmanuel-david Simplicity, Productivity and the 2 Giants (Short Essay) How Life Is a Task (Short Monologue) Into the Mind of the Dark Ascetic Master, Heihachi Mishima of Tekken (And Directory) https://www.philosocom.com/post/cyberpunk-age The Rubinshteinic Introduction to Asceticism (Background music) Asceticism, in its essence, represents a deliberate pursuit of freedom . Although biological imperatives necessitate a degree of dependence on external products for survival, an ascetic lifestyle fosters independence from seductions and addictions that can enslave the individual, and which weakens the power of his or her mind. This materialistic slavery manifests as a dependency on external stimuli, hindering one's capacity for autonomous action, and fostering internal conflict. Freedom, in ascetic contexts, signifies liberation from these dependencies. The ascetic mind, by comparison, is stronger, and can be seen as more competent when it comes to critical thinking, passionate work , and the ability to perform tasks usually done by several people (AKA, being a real-life "one man army" ) Concepts such as financial materialism , unchecked hedonism, obsessive behaviors, megalomania , greed , and sloth exemplify this form of enslavement. While a superficial, materially-focused perspective might perceive these as the TRUE avenues to freedom -- a deeper examination reveals a different reality. Consider the acts of addiction. Can addiction truly be classified as freedom? While the initial choice may be autonomous , the physiological and psychological dependence undermines true liberty. Freedom, therefore, isn't just a matter of choice, but also a matter of willpower. Asceticism is a format which allows you to make your willpower stronger. The pursuit of fleeting joy through such means often leads to addiction, a state characterized by an insatiable craving that dictates behavior. This pursuit masks an underlying servitude of a weaker mind, who deadlocks itself on the same activity without necessarily developing the habit of looking both ways when it comes to its actions. Modern society often encourages a similar deception, equating freedom with the acquisition of diverse experiences and material possessions. The idea of endless entertainment, culinary variety, and travel destinations can foster a relentless desire for novelty . However, this very passion for variety can become a form of enslaved bondage . The more we crave, the more susceptible we become to the tyranny of our desires – constantly seeking the next experience, the next acquisition. This perpetual cycle of wanting transforms into an addiction, and no addict can truly be the master of their own destiny. To attain greater freedom, we must consciously reduce our dependencies , not increase them. The idea that we are free just because we choose to increase our dependencies on so many things and people, is a deceptive notion. In reality, we just surrender ourselves to the tyranny of circumstance , instead of acting beyond it. While complete independence may be an unattainable ideal, minimizing our reliance on external sources, empowers us to look within ourselves, and use our potential in innovative and creative ways. Innovation and originality are the hallmarks of true freedom. Asceticism provides a framework for this reduction of external dependencies . It advocates for a life centered on the fundamental necessities for survival, both physical and menta l, stripping away superfluous desires that give away our power to other people. For instance, cutting your own hair instead of going to the hairdresser, is a product of such freedom. While the definition of "necessity" may be subject to individual interpretation , the pursuit of knowledge and personal development can be considered vital to one's true freedom. Knowledge enhances our capacity to navigate the world and secure our survival. Under asceticism, much knowledge can already be found by listening to our intuition and to our hearts. Similarly, self-actualization can be more possible under an ascetic mentality, and not necessarily under a collective one. When you surrender yourself to the desires of the collective framework, you may also surrender your creative freedoms, and most importantly: t he freedom to be yourself. Additionally, many behaviors such related to addiction, while potentially offering fleeting pleasure, ultimately undermine our well-being by harming our overall health. Additionally, addiction can serve as a from of escapism, from hidden source of profound suffering. Even workaholism , which is supposed to be good for society, can just be a way to conceal one's hidden suffering. The momentary gratification derived from such activities often comes at the cost of physical or mental health and erodes inner peace , leading us to a state of perpetual dissatisfaction. While power over others is a necessary evil of social structures, its unchecked pursuit can lead to delusion and a distorted sense of self-worth. As such, power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, cultivating a degree of intentional monotony /training can be a pathway to liberation from temptations that might lead to a corrupt view on reality. By reducing our dependence on external sources for satiation and satisfaction we free ourselves from their potentially-distorting influence on our views on who we really are (AKA, not only other people, but ourselves as well). The contrast between a monk finding contentment in simple sustenance and an addict perpetually seeking novel and stimulating experiences, can highlight your understanding of this article. The monk's path to contentment is far short, and simpler, than that of the addict. Similarly, the enduring happiness found in genuine human connection stands in deep contrast to the fleeting satisfaction sought by those trapped in a cycle of seeking new romantic adventures. Furthermore, the relentless pursuit of external validation can lead to unforeseen vulnerabilities and ultimately undermine well-being as well. In general, it seems that much of our pursuits in life, as endless as they may appear , are there to conceal deeper suffering that goes un-addressed. Asceticism, when not done under extremely-dangerous measures, can be a healthy and empowering practice that diminishes the temptation to sensation-driven loops. By actively reducing desire, not increasing it, asceticism becomes the embodiment of liberty resisting the tyranny of external stimuli. An ascetic lifestyle can therefore be seen "meta-loop", one that has the potential to break free from all other self-destructive cycles, that conceal our repressed suffering and prevent us from becoming the ideal versions of ourselves. As beings inherently driven to survive and find meaning in our existence, asceticism can also offer an interesting, solitary journey into the self, where we might become "self-professors" Finally, the anecdote of Mahatma Gandhi, finding profound freedom within the confines of a prison cell, illustrates the concept of true ascetic freedom. His liberation stemmed not from external indulgence but from an internal alignment with his beliefs and a detachment from worldly desires. This contrasts with the "freedom" of a perpetually restless individual, merely perceived as free for being outside prison, but being restless nonetheless, constantly chasing fleeting pleasures. This highlights the profound truth that true liberation often lies not in external acquisition but in internal mastery. Through asceticism, we can know that true freedom comes from within. Finally, to quote the Buddha, let the truth be your refuge. The truth rests inside of you.

(Subcategory directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/recognizing-a-i-s-revolutionary-legitimacy-guest-post-by-ori-sindel https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-a-i-philosopher-how-a-i-could-even-replace-human-philosophers https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-robot-lover-dilemma https://www.philosocom.com/post/functionality-of-biology-and-robotics https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-robot-army-hypothesis-a-i-and-ethics-in-the-military https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-a-i-philosopher-how-a-i-could-even-replace-human-philosophers "In Order to Conquer the World" -- A Story Written by Man and Machine Shadow of Veronica -- An A.I. Story of Eccentricity and Fatigue The Philosophy of Metal Sonic -- How Dysfunctional Logic Breaks One -- A Philosophy of Mind https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-brainrot https://www.philosocom.com/post/life-after-death-1 https://www.philosocom.com/post/chatgpt https://www.philosocom.com/post/traditionalist-path https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-last-craftsman https://www.philosocom.com/post/cyberpunk-age ) Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence: AI Directory Guide" provides a comprehensive overview of the benefits and potential pitfalls of AI in modern society. It presents AI as a double-edged sword, balancing its capacity for societal progress with significant risks such as job displacement and ethical concerns. The article acknowledges the human aspects of technological advancement, emphasizing how AI could impact creativity, emotional intelligence, and personal development. The article also discusses the industry-specific analysis of AI's impact on different industries, stressing the importance of industry-specific considerations. The article delves into the societal implications of AI, particularly the potential for increasing inequality between those who have access to AI and those who don't. Lifelong learning and adaptability are highlighted as AI reshapes the job market , encouraging readers to adopt a proactive mindset toward future-proofing their careers. Overall, the article provides a solid foundation for discussing the dangers and opportunities of AI.   (Background music) ********************************* Introduction One of humanity's greatest inventions is AI , which already surpasses us greatly and has the potential to outperform any professional team. However, like many technological achievements, AI can also be a double-edged sword, posing risks such as the dangers to be used as weaponry and the oversight of personal information by massive corporations ( As AI can be used for data analytics as well ). I once learned about a robot that can automatically produce pizzas . It made me ponder how far we have come. Just imagine if this particular robot were mass-produced like an average iPhone – we could have robot chefs replacing human chefs, leading to a decrease in the demand for human chefs and potentially impacting employment rates. The pizza-making machine serves as just one example of this trend. The development of AI is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has the potential to revolutionize many industries and make our lives easier. On the other hand, it could also lead to mass unemployment and other social problems. It is therefore important to be aware of both the potential benefits and the Dangers of Artificial Intelligence so that we can make informed decisions about its development and use. The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Humanity The development of artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most significant technological advancements of our time, earning itself a revolutionary status . AI has the potential to revolutionize many industries and make our lives easier. However, it also raises a number of important questions about the future of work and the role of humans in society. However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such advancements, including the impact on employment and the need for retraining and reskilling, thus necessitating us to adopt a mindset of lifelong learning . Another potential benefit of AI is that it can be used to enhance our lives in numerous ways. For instance, AI has the potential to advance medical treatments, ease and personalize learning experience s , and foster the creation of innovative products and services for years to come. However, it is crucial to bear in mind that AI is merely a tool, and like any tool, its impact depends on how it is utilized, whether for positive or negative purposes. The Impact of AI on Jobs One of the most significant potential impacts of AI on the job market is the automation of tasks currently performed by humans. As AI-powered machines become more capable, there is a high likelihood that they will replace humans in various industries, leading to mass unemployment. This displacement of millions of people from their jobs is a major concern, as it is in the interest of business owners to improve the overall efficiency of their companies. One of the reasons ruthlessness is a virtue is because the concept of social responsibility could be a hindrance. Therefore, business leaders with less empathy (or no empathy whatsoever) may be more inclined to replace many of their employees in the name of their ruthless business philosophies towards a greater output of success (AKA profit). It is important to consider the industry-specific impact of AI on jobs, as different sectors may experience varying levels of disruption. As such, one of the potential benefits of AI is that it can automate many tasks that are currently done by humans. The rise of automatic cars has the potential to greatly impact the job market for taxi drivers and drivers in general. With AI-powered vehicles becoming the new norm, the need for human drivers could diminish. This trend can also extend to other transportation sectors, such as pilots and other employees (as in the case of military drones, operated remotely). Entire departments could be replaced by AI systems that possess a level of competence surpassing that of the average human. With automatic cars, you won't need taxi drivers or drivers at all. If automatic cars become the new norm, humans won't need to learn how to drive. Given that AI is a substitute for human thinking, ( including in philosophy ), AI technology can have both the knowledge and ability to drive for you. The same can potentially apply to pilots and other employees in a transportation system - you can have entire departments replaced by AI whose potential competence exceeds that of the average driver, while reducing risk of traffic accidents (at least in the future). As AI continues to advance, it is expected that some industries, like manufacturing and transportation (as mentioned), will experience significant changes. AI-powered machines have the potential to automate many tasks currently performed by human workers in these industries, which could lead to job displacement. On the other hand, industries like healthcare and education are likely to be less affected by automation. In these fields, AI is more likely to be used as a tool to enhance and support human skills, rather than completely replace them. It's important to carefully consider the impact of AI on different industries and find ways to adapt and utilize this technology in a way that benefits everyone. For the increase of overall benefit, under the holistic approach , is the moral thing to aim for. I would say that the impact of AI on jobs can vary depending on the country. Countries with a strong manufacturing sector are more likely to be affected by AI, as AI-powered machines can automate many tasks currently done by human workers in that industry. On the other hand, countries with a strong service sector may be less affected by AI. Additionally, countries with a well-developed social safety net (AKA welfare) are better equipped to handle the effects of AI on jobs, as they can provide support and assistance to those who may be displaced. It's important for countries to consider these factors and adapt their strategies accordingly to ensure a smooth transition in the job market. The Impact of AI on Society As AI continues to develop, it is expected to have a significant impact on society. AI has the potential to bring about various changes in our daily lives and work. For instance, it could lead to a more automated society where machines take over tasks currently performed by humans. This shift could result in a society that prioritizes leisure activities, as individuals would have more free time to engage in activities they enjoy. As AI technology becomes more prevalent, there is a possibility that it could contribute to a more stratified society. Those who have access to AI technology and can leverage its benefits may experience greater advantages compared to those who do not have access. This could potentially lead to increased inequality and social unrest. It is important for policymakers and society as a whole to consider the potential consequences of AI adoption and work towards ensuring equitable access and distribution of its benefits. It is thus important to carefully consider the potential benefits and risks of AI before deciding how to develop and use it. We need to ensure that AI is used in a way that benefits all of humanity, rather than just a select few. AI Impact On Myself and AI As Competition Over Human Superiority There is a reason I don't buy a machine to clean my house for me. I do it myself every other weekend. I love feeling the positive pain of exercise , even if a machine can clean better than me. I know that this pain of exercise, like the pain of deep thought, is a sign from my body and mind that I am becoming stronger and smarter as a person. Endurance/stamina are necessary requirements for development and progression. That is the nature of human biology, physically and mentally . While AI may be capable of writing articles more efficiently (something which I try to compete against), there are still unique qualities and perspectives that humans bring to the table. In a future where AI takes over most tasks, humans would have the opportunity to focus on activities that require creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence, while AI would be focusing on much necessary basic work involving infrastructure . We could explore our passions, engage in meaningful relationships, pursue personal growth, and contribute to society in ways that go beyond the capabilities of AI. Our extended spare time could be dedicated to self-improvement , pursuing hobbies, volunteering, or even tackling grand challenges that require human resourcefulness . The possibilities are endless, and it's interesting to think about the new opportunities that could arise in a world where AI takes care of mundane tasks. But without regulation on AI technology and/or without focusing on human merit, by letting go of our intellectual superiority and their development, we gradually let go of our independence. Make sure you know what you are doing before you hand over a healthy task to someone—or something—else. It's important to consider the potential consequences of handing over tasks to AI without fully understanding the implications. AI has the potential to create a more divided society, where those with access and understanding AI prowess may benefit more than those without. And this would lead to new divisions not only between humans and AI, but also between humans and themselves. And as such, the whole advantage of AI can be described by its ability to produce merit while reducing human effort (and everything else associated with human effort).

(Philosocom's Directory on AI) (Philosocom Asceticism Directory) (Background music) Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable , and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable , solutions are not. -- Isaac Asimov Introduction For decades, science fiction authors have warned us about the "Cyberpunk" future. They painted pictures of neon-drenched streets, overpowering corporation s, and a desperate populace living in the shadows of high technology . We treated these stories as entertainment , failing to realize they were prophecies. That future is no longer fiction ; it is the economic reality arriving on our doorstep . We are entering a historical turning point, driven by the rapid ascent of Artificial Intelligence. The old social contract—the "rat race" where one trades labor for survival and status—is cracking. As machines become capable of performing not just physical labor but cognitive tasks better, faster, and cheaper than humans, the value of the average human worker is drop toward zero. This earth-shattering shift is triggering a Great Division of humanity . The familiar bell curve of the middle class is collapsing into a stark U-shape distribution of power and agency. In this emerging cyberpunk-esque age, the center cannot hold. As such, only two distinct archetypes will thrive: those who rig the game of life, and those wise enough to refuse to play it altogether. The Collapse of the Middle Ground For the majority of the population, this transition will be experienced as a slow-motion dystopia . These are the people who were raised to believe in the old rules: get an education , get a job, work hard, and retire. They are now finding that the game board has been flipped over. Instead, they are forced into a two-front war they cannot win. On one front, they compete against billions of other desperate humans for a shrinking pool of "human-necessary" jobs. On the other, they compete against an AI that doesn't sleep , doesn't unionize, and improves significantly every year. This is the "high tech, low life" reality for the masses. They will have access to incredible technology—instant entertainment, hyper-realistic dopamine delivery systems right in their pockets (AKA smartphones)—but their economic relevance will cease to exist. Historians, like Yuval Noah Harari, may call them the "Useless Class," not as an insult , but as an economic form. Their struggle to remain relevant in a system designed to obsolete them will be the defining tragedy of this cyberpunk era. Archetype One: The Game Riggers At one extreme of the new reality sit the Masters of the New Economy—the Riggers. In a world where labor holds no value, ownership  becomes the only source of traditional power . These are the technocrats, the owners of the algorithms , the architects of the platforms upon which the rest of the world operates. They do not work in  the system; they are  the system. The Riggers understand that when AI handles production, the only remaining human utility to exploit is consumption  and attention . Their dominance is maintained by keeping the masses pacified with cheap digital distractions while harvesting their data to refine the very machines that replaced them. They have rigged the game so that every interaction, every click, and every moment of a user's brainrot deposits value into their accounts. They will thrive insanely, insulated in ivory towers of wealth, far removed from the reality of the streets below. Archetype Two: The Ascetic Sovereigns At the other extreme sits the only other group capable of thriving: The Ascetics. These are the individuals who looked at the rigged game, saw the futility of the middle ground, and made the radical decision to step off the board. The Ascetic is the natural predator of the consumerist system because they cannot be baited. In an age of hyper-consumerism meant to pacify and exploit the displaced masses, not needing  is the ultimate superpower. The Ascetic practices the strategy of subtraction. By ruthlessly eliminating desires for "shallow things," status symbols, and external validation , they lower their cost of living to near-zero. If AI makes the basic necessities of survival cheaper (which it likely will) , the Ascetic needs vastly less money to maintain their "Pocket Dimension" within the bigger world. This grants them immunity to the coercive power of the Riggers. If you do not crave what they are selling, they have no power over you. The Ascetic uses the tools of the age—AI, the internet , decentralized information—not to become a better employee, but to become more self-sufficient. They are the "Sovereigns" of their own micro-worlds, disconnected from the adversary reality of the rat race, thriving in the quiet pockets they have constructed. The Paradox: A Fortunate Dystopia This future is a profound paradox. It is simultaneously a nightmare and a liberation, depending entirely on your relationship with the "game" of life. For the person whose identity is tied to their job, their social status, and their ability to consume, the AI age is a terrifying dystopia where they are rendered obsolete. But for the person willing to step out of the game, it is a fortunate reality. We are approaching a point where the necessity of labor could finally be abolished. We are returning to a structure similar to ancient Athens, where a class of people had the leisure to pursue philosophy, art , and passion —only this time, the slave labor supporting that leisure is digital, not human. The future of work is being redefined from "survival" to "meaning." When you no longer have  to work to eat, you are faced with the terrifying freedom of deciding what truly matters. The masses will try to fill that void with distraction, provided by the Riggers. The Ascetics will fill it with creation, philosophy, and the pursuit of their true passions in the vast amounts of free time suddenly available to them. The middle ground is gone. The freedom of choice is now crucial: remain a dependent player in a rigged casino , or become the sovereign ascetic of your own reality. The cyberpunk future is here; your survival depends on which archetype you choose to embody.

The Subcategory Directory When Trapped Inside a Virtual World -- The Metaphysical Philosophy of Overlord Computers - Isolation and Togetherness Thoughts and Questions On Virtual Philosophy -- Inspecting the Recent Layer of Reality Virtual Dictatorships and Plutocracies -- How Humanity is Being Shaped The Philosophy of the Matrix (By Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac) (And All of His Articles) The Problems with the Computer Simulation Theory and the Eternal Void Thoughts On Remote Work -- How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment Recognition of "Force" -- The Philosophy of Razor Reapkvar https://www.philosocom.com/post/life-tests-and-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-button https://www.philosocom.com/post/social-media https://www.philosocom.com/post/hidden-gem The Internet and How to Eradicate Boredom (Background music) The Metaverse 2023 Note: Even though Mark Zuckerberg's metaverse is now probably irrelevant, the general concept hasn't "died" yet. Lately, Facebook, one of the largest social media corporations in the world, changed its name to "Meta." This shift symbolized a broader ambition: to position itself as a key player in the so-called "Metaverse," a term for a future digital realm where virtual realities will supposedly blend seamlessly with our daily lives... This rebranding was marketed as though it heralded a new era , positioning Meta as the architect of a virtual, immersive universe. Now, what is Zuckerberg’s "metaverse," really, and how is it supposed to affect our lives? In short, Meta’s “Metaverse” is envisioned as a VR-based system where people can perform daily activities within a virtual space rather than a physical one. The concept may seem revolutionary on the surface... However, VR technology has been with us for years, accessible to people worldwide. It is told that the first virtual reality head-mounted display was created in 1968. Ironically, Zuckerberg’s vision seeks to distinguish itself by proposing a seamless, "physical-feel" digital world where you can interact with avatars, objects, and environments in a manner that mimics physical reality itself. Yet, it is hard to see such a concept as innovative, given it lacks originality. Understanding Meta’s Vision: The "Materialization" of the Digital Meta’s proposed Metaverse would transform platforms from "social networks" into "social environments.": Unlike a traditional social media app, where interactions are mostly limited to text, images, and videos, the Metaverse promises to create spaces you can walk through spaces, and interact with people and objects almost as if in physical space. This takes the idea of virtuality far more seriously, as virtuality literally means "near reality". This shift would reframe our relationship with the internet, turning it into something akin to an alternate, navigable world with a social, professional, and economic infrastructure. Imagine Philosocom, for instance, evolving from a digital library of ideas to an interactive, VR-enabled "world" of philosophical exploration. Rather than scrolling through articles, readers would "walk" through a virtual space filled with rooms, each representing different philosophical realms or thought experiments. The idea may evoke curiosity, but it raises questions, too, about the potential costs—culturally, psychologically, and financially —of turning information-based environments into fully immersive experiences. The Corporate Grip on Reality A fundamental issue with this "meta-reality" is that it would not be public or open-source. Rather, it would belong to a privately-held corporation. Corporations are basically non-state dictatorships that shape humanity. In same cases, a private corporation can be more powerful in resources than many nations in the world that remain ignored and obscured by the globe. This means that the structure, rules, and access to this "reality" would be controlled by a handful of companies, ruled by executive officers you cannot even elect. Corporations would dictate the limits, charge for entry, and perhaps even manipulate interactions within these environments to steer behaviors and, naturally, monetize every possible transaction. This would create a pseudo-theistic dynamic where the corporation, as the creator and controller of this "universe," has power over every action that takes place within it. Using the power of deductive reasoning , this means the VR universe will grow corrupt. If reality can be governed by a "God" in metaphysical or religious terms, in the realm of VR, this “God” would be the corporations that own and operate these virtual worlds. Unlike the attempt to determine the existence of gods , one can surely understand that these virtual dictators, are real. In Zuckerberg’s vision, Meta could place limitations on what avatars can do, where they can go, and which activities they can perform without incurring costs. These restrictions would drive monetization by embedding economic limitations and incentives directly within the virtual realm. These digital landscapes could quickly become authoritarian "worlds", where users must conform to the policies and regulations of their digital overlords. These policies, ultimately, are crafted not for the users’ benefit, but for the corporations' greedy profit. The Real Intent Behind a Virtual World Zuckerberg’s metaverse, along with any other corporate-driven VR world, is primarily profit-driven. By creating a space where physical and virtual realities merge, corporations would encourage users to spend more time—and therefore more money—in these controlled environments. Advertising potential alone is immense, with "billboards" in virtual streets and branded experiences within VR "real estate." The spaces within a VR world can be "owned," "rented," and "sold" just like physical properties, leading to a brand new economic dimension where every digital asset can be a revenue source. This was already seen in the virtual simulation game, Second Life, which was, yet ironically again, released in 2003. To this day there are literally virtual estate companies, based in "games" such as SL. Either way, this "vision" has major downsides.... It caters to corporate interests, often at the expense of meaningful human connection . If one desires to speak to someone, they could easily do so through existing technology without needing a digital avatar or virtual city to host the interaction. Meetings that could have taken place over a simple video call would now require VR headsets and subscriptions to enter a virtual boardroom. One could argue that these additional layers, while seemingly innovative, only add unnecessary complexity. The philosophy of Taoism showcases that there isn't not much need for great complications, and that these complications could go against our interest for better health. Redundancy and the Irony of Immersion The metaverse concept also reveals a redundancy— technology trying to recreate what we already have in the physical world. Why recreate cities, boardrooms, and cafes in VR when we have them in real life? The questions applies of course to people who like going outside, compared to people who, like me, are more a-social than social. While VR offers the novelty of inhabiting impossible spaces, such as walking on Mars or exploring the depths of an ocean trench, these are peripheral applications. The primary, everyday uses of the Metaverse—such as meeting colleagues or socializing—can already be achieved without the excessive application and funding of VR. Moreover, it is worth considering the psychological effects of spending time in artificial environments... Human beings evolved to navigate the real world, relying on physical senses and immediate interactions. Immersion in virtual spaces may disrupt natural rhythms, with potential consequences for mental health. Studies on VR use have revealed cases of disorientation, "cybersickness," and detachment from physical reality among long-term users. This detachment raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality itself: If we spend increasingly more time in artificial environments, do we risk blurring the line between what is "real" and what is simulated? The Ethical Quandary of a Meta-Reality The creation of "meta-realities" also introduces ethical dilemmas. With our lives and data constantly monitored by corporate entities , is it ethical for a company to have control over an individual's digital identity, property, and even interactions? The potential for abuse in such an environment is high. Data mining, surveillance, and psychological manipulation could become even more invasive in a metaverse context, with companies not only tracking what users see and do but also shaping their virtual "lives." In some ways, the Metaverse could mirror a dystopian universe where individual freedoms are curtailed under the guise of technological advancement. Instead of empowering individuals, a corporate-driven VR realm could enslave them, transforming users into digital "tenants" whose access to essential services is governed by terms of service agreements and payment plans. The “meta-reality” is thus not just a new layer of technology but a powerful, immersive extension of corporate influence into the most personal spaces of human experience. Unlike the internet of today, which still offers decentralized pockets of freedom and creativity , the metaverse could be a step towards a more uniform, controlled, and monopolized digital landscape. An Uncertain Future for Virtual Realities Zuckerberg’s "utopian" vision is, at best, a double-edged sword: It holds the potential for innovative collaboration, learning, and entertainment. However, its execution and ownership raise important questions about autonomy, ethical boundaries, and the future of human interactions. As we inch closer to this potential future, we must consider whether we want a world where digital identities are controlled and dictated by corporate monopolies. As much as we dream of exploring new realms, we must also ask ourselves what we are sacrificing in the process. Conclusions The metaverse might be a captivating concept, but it brings with it the potential for profound social, economic, and ethical implications. For all its promises of "connectedness," we should be wary of a virtual world that may, in fact, isolate us further from the realities that matter most... Genuine human connection, Freedom from tyranny and oppression , and, The irreplaceable experiences of the natural world, which humans are part of. The journey into VR may open new doors, but as always, we must tread carefully, recognizing that every door can also close off another path.

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Background music) Introduction We have reached a unique singularity in human history. For the first time, as long as you have regular access to the internet, you should theoretically never be bored again. The internet is the largest "sea" of content ever known to mankind.  It is the modern Library of Alexandria, but one that expands infinitely every second. It does not matter if you have money to spend or if you are penniless; beyond the cost of the connection itself, the vast majority of human knowledge , art, and entertainment is available for free. Countless articles, videos,  games , and courses are created and published every day, waiting to be discovered, consumed, and played. With this extreme level of accessibility, one has to ask a difficult question:  Why is boredom still an issue?  Why do people staring at screens that hold the sum of human creativity still feel empty? The answer lies not in the lack of content , but in the lack of the self . The Master Key: English Proficiency If you have a significant portion of free time and access to the internet, there is one tool that is non-negotiable for combating boredom:  Proficient English. While the internet is global, its "operating system" is English. The vast majority of high-quality, diverse content—from academic lectures to niche hobbies to global entertainment—is produced in or translated into English. If you limit yourself only to your native tongue, you are browsing a local bookshelf while the rest of the world is exploring a digital universe. English is not just a tool for business success . English is a tool for mental liberation. The better your English, the wider your net becomes. If your current fluency is insufficient to keep you occupied, then learning the language itself becomes the cure for your boredom. It was the first step I took as a child to ensure I would never run out of worlds to explore. The Discipline of the Search However, access is useless without Discipline . Unlike physical exercise , which requires high energy investment and sweat, the discipline required to cure boredom is mental. It is the Discipline of Curiosity. Modern algorithms (like TikTok or YouTube Shorts) try to remove this discipline.  They spoon-feed you "content", so you don't have to search. However, this leads to a "zombie" state, where you become unnecessarily dependent on algorithms to dictate what are you going to consume. It is not genuine interest. Genuine interest would require you to break the bias-breaker hill of the algorithm , and explore the internet like it was originally intended. To truly eradicate boredom, you must be willing to lift the "mental weights" of searching. You must be patient enough to dig through the noise to find the signal. You must be willing to expose yourself to new creators, strange ideas, and long-form content that might not pay off immediately. In other words, you must overcome the temptation for instant gratification in the name of long-term satisfaction. This is where most people fail. They want to be entertained passively . But the cure for boredom is active exploration. Boredom as a Symptom of Self-Ignorance Boredom is subjective.  What bores one man might fascinate another. Therefore, if you are chronically bored, it is not an indictment of the world; it is an indictment of your own self-knowledge. Boredom indicates that you do not know yourself well enough to occupy your own mind. To reach a state where you are rarely bored, you must invest in Self-Discovery . What truly interests you? What topics light a fire in your mind? What do you despise? Once you achieve a sufficient amount of self-knowledge, the "Search" becomes easy.  You stop typing "funny videos" into the search bar and start typing specific, niche queries that feed your soul.  You spend less time looking  and more time consuming  because you already know what you are hungry for. The internet is like a mirror. If you stare into it and see nothing, it is because you have not yet defined who is looking back. Once you decided what you want to see, you can overcome the algorithmic pull, know more about yourself, find content you wouldn't otherwise find, and eradicate boredom for good. The Solitude Filter This brings us to the difficult topic of Solitude . Solitude is terrifyingly boring to many people because it forces them to depend entirely on their own internal resources. When you are alone, there is no "social noise" to distract you. There is no one else to carry the burden of the conversation. Hence the existence of the art of being alone. This is the prime reason the majority of society seeks constant company. Socializing  is often just "outsourcing" your entertainment to others. It kills time without requiring you to do the heavy lifting. Solitude  requires you to be your own entertainer, your own philosopher, and your own friend. As an advocate of solitude, I am not surprised when people tell me they prefer hanging out with others. It is the "Easy Mode" of existence. To hang out with yourself requires a stronger constitution.  It requires the ability to sit, alone and quietly in a room and generate your own meaning in a self-sufficient manner. The Blueprint for a Boredom-Free Life However, once you bridge that gap—once you know what to put in that search bar—boredom ceases to be a valid excuse. You need a plan. You need a Curriculum of the Self . If you know precisely what you want to learn, watch, or play, the internet transforms from a chaotic sea into a precise toolbox. I eradicated boredom from my life as a child. I taught myself English, I defined my interests, and I built a mental fortress where there is always something to do, read,  or write. The formula is simple: Access:  The Internet. Key:  English Proficiency. Map:  Self-Knowledge. Fuel:  The Determination to Search. Your gender,  your professional occupation , and your age are irrelevant. These barriers do not exist in the digital realm.  The only barrier is your willingness to engage with the infinite.

(Background music) Introduction Consumerism is the belief that acquiring goods and services is beneficial to both the economy and one's personal well-being. Economically, this is true to a degree. There are countless jobs that require constant, repetitive consumption to exist. Entire industries finance themselves by selling things that are fundamentally unnecessary for a life of satisfaction and happiness. While the culture of consumerism is necessary for the sustainability of those who provide  these goods, it is not  necessary for the people to remain in a constant state of unnecessary shopping "crusades." The Economic Trap: Who Are We Saving? Consumerist culture is inherently more beneficial to sellers than to buyers. Without the continuous activity of unnecessary shopping across global trading centers, mass layoffs would be inevitable. Companies cannot sustain losses; when the buying stops, the firing begins. This leads to a difficult ethical question: Are we, the consumers, responsible for the livelihoods of those who provide us with unnecessary goods? The answer is, of course, no . We live in a world largely built on free-market economies, driven by competition . It is not the responsibility of the individual to ensure the sustainability of a business that sells useless products. We are not charities for failing business models. The False Blurring of "Want" vs. "Need" Consumerism itself hasn't blurred the distinction between wants and needs. Rather, conformity and herd mentality  have. There is a pervasive notion that we "ought" to be like everyone else—that we "need" to be accepted as normal within our social circles. This social anxiety leads to peer pressure, forcing us to buy unnecessary things simply to fit in. The Manipulation of Language The way we use language plays a massive role in this deception . We often use words like "must"  and "need"  to convince ourselves and others that a purchase is essential for a "well-lived life." However, what constitutes a well-lived life is up to interpretation. Managing an article empire is fulfilling to me, but it might not be to you. A specific car might matter to a collector, but not to a commuter. This is exactly how Clickbait  works. By telling us in a headline that we "must" watch a video or "need" a product, content creators manipulate our fear of missing out to generate traffic and revenue. Ultimately, it comes down to profit. Providers make money by convincing you that a desire is a necessity. Even if the reason is deceptive, it is effective. Brand Loyalty vs. Biological Necessity If you embed a brand deeply enough into society, you increase the chances of people consuming unnecessary products under the guise of necessity. The Reality Check: You do not need a McDonald's  just because you are hungry. You do not need a Coca-Cola  just because you are thirsty. You need to eat and to drink.  Those are the biological necessities. The specific brand is a choice, not a need, especially when you have plenty of healthier, cheaper options. Conclusion: The Ascetic Advantage The Ascetic knows this truth well. Consumerism is vital for the people whose job it is to sell you things you don't need. By convincing you that you "must" have them, you extend the duration of their employment and the lifespan of their company. Therefore, consumerist culture is necessary for one category of people (the sellers) , but it is often harmful to the other (the customers). Can you live a well-lived life with nutrition that is both tasty and healthy, without buying into the hype? If the answer is yes , then countless brands are rendered unnecessary, regardless of their marketing budget.

(Background music) Introduction Generalizations are easily proven wrong if we take them literally. When people use absolute words like "every" or "always," they usually miss the nuance of reality. One of the most common, yet incorrect, arguments in modern society is the phrase: "Everything costs money." Should we be more literal in our understanding , we realize this is simply not true. There are foundational human activities that require zero payment. In fact, the more you engage in them, the more money you save by avoiding the paid alternatives pushed by consumer culture. The Trinity of Free Essentials There are three main activities in life that, theoretically, anyone can do without investing a single cent: Resting/Relaxation Sleeping Exercising While the market tries to sell us "paid settings" for these activities—like gym memberships, yoga classes, or luxury mattresses—the acts themselves remain free. 1. Sleep and Rest: Money Cannot Buy Peace Money can buy a bed, but it cannot buy sleep. You can sleep on the ground, on a bench, or in a sleeping bag for free. Conversely, you can buy the most expensive mattress in the world and still suffer from insomnia. The product does not guarantee the result. Relaxation is similar. You do not need a spa day to relax. Deep breathing. Muscle relief techniques. Meditation. Simply doing nothing . These are commonly free methods that require nothing but your time and self-discipline. While people with specific medical conditions may need medication to cope, for the vast majority, idly sitting or lying down is sufficient to reduce stress. In a hyper-active world, doing nothing has its own profound perks. 2. Exercise: Fitness is Free, Gyms are Not As long as you are not completely paralyzed, you can maintain good physical shape without paying a dime to the massive fitness industry. Body Weight Exercises:  Push-ups, sit-ups, squats. Cardio:  Walking, jogging, running. Expression:  Dancing within the confines of your home. No one charges you for moving your body in a public park or your own living room. One does not need to be a bodybuilder to be healthy . Being "cheap" regarding fitness is wise when you can invest those resources elsewhere while still achieving your health goals. 3. The Ascetic Advantage: Prayer and Solitude For the more spiritually inclined, there is a powerful bonus: Prayer is free. In religions that practice monasticism or asceticism, prayer is often done in solitude , requiring no public institution, donation, or group participation. Religious hermits are a prime example of this self-reliance. Even if you are simply a theist without a specific religion, coming up with your own prayers or mantras costs nothing. It combines spirituality with the calming effects of meditation, all for free. Bonus: The Value of Free Advice Another often-overlooked free resource is advice . Whether it is asking a stranger for directions, consulting a family member , or seeking help on an online forum for a video game or relationship trouble— wisdom is often shared freely. Anonymity can make this even easier. Having friends or a community is a form of wealth that does not require a transaction. Conclusion: Financial Wisdom Through Simplicity The more solitary and ascetically you live, the more you realize you can provide services to yourself. Unless you are an infant or a wilderness hermit, you will inevitably spend some money to survive. However, by embracing these free essentials, you can pay as little as possible. Being "cheap" is not a flaw; it is a strategy. By rejecting the consumerist urge to monetize every aspect of your life—from your sleep to your workout—you can watch your bank account slowly grow. You grant yourself better financial security because you have learned the ultimate truth: Not everything comes with a monetary price.

(Subcategory on Flaws) (Philosocom video game subcategory directory) (Background music) Introduction Countless video games, both good and bad, are built upon the philosophy of the "Free to Play" (F2P) system. To put it simply, this business model offers free access to anyone with an internet connection. However, while the entry is free, the experience is designed to extract real money from the player at every turn. The term "Free to Play" is often a disguise for what these applications truly are: unregulated, virtual casinos. The Mechanics of the Trap: What is a Loot Box? Before the creation of the F2P model, video games were simple products: you paid a single price, and you owned the complete experience. Today, that model has been replaced by "Microtransactions." The most predatory form of this is the Loot Box . To understand why this is relevant, imagine a Loot Box as a digital mystery package. It contains in-game benefits—troops, equipment, costumes, or power-ups. However, what all loot boxes share is uncertainty . You do not know what you are buying. You might pay a ridiculous amount of money only to receive an item you did not want. The outcome depends entirely on chance (RNG). This is the exact definition of a casino: A gambling den where you put money down without knowing if you will win or lose. Even if you don't know how to play Poker or Blackjack, modern games allow you to "gamble" instantly via these boxes. The Accessibility of Addiction The tragic reality is that physical casinos are no longer necessary for one to ruin their financial life. With the omnipresence of smartphones, the casino is now in everyone's pocket. "Free to Play" games have massive flaws that society largely ignores: Universal Access:  Anyone with an internet connection, including small children and vulnerable adults, can access these gambling mechanics. Lack of Responsibility:  Companies are rarely held legally responsible for these predatory designs. They argue that purchases are "voluntary" and that they do not force anyone to gamble. I have played these games myself. I admit there is a thrill in the gamble. However, this thrill is a weapon. It turns ordinary people into gambling addicts, leading them to spend thousands of dollars they cannot afford—often chasing items that are practically useless compared to real-world necessities like food or rent. The "Pay-to-Win" Reality There is a specific frustration reserved for these games. You may spend a portion of your paycheck for a momentary gratification, only to realize it is futile. In the F2P ecosystem, there is always someone willing to pay far more than you. These "whales" (high spenders) render your own payments useless because, in many of these games, money buys power . You can be defeated simply because your opponent out-spent you. There is no skill involved, and those who spend more win more, leading to the creation of an unjust virtual dimension. The Vanishing Investment: You Own Nothing There is a final, critical warning that every player must heed: Digital permanence is a lie. Unlike physical goods or older video games, online F2P games can become defunct at any moment. The game might not be profitable enough for the company. The servers might be shut down. The app might be delisted. When the game is lifted off the air, your hard-earned money vanishes with it. You are renting a digital addiction, not buying a product. And, in many cases, you also surrender your privacy for it, as well. The Solution: Return to Tradition The philosophy of "Free to Play" is deceptive, both practically and ethically. It relies on tempting players into an indefinite loop of spending. If you wish to avoid this trap: Avoid F2P games altogether.  If you don't want to be tempted, do not enter the casino. Choose older games or "Premium" games.  Look for titles with a one-time purchase price. It may cost more upfront, but it will save you a fortune in the long term. We must recognize these games for what they are. They are not gifts; they are lures.

Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc One day or the other, reality is catching up on us; very few of us could use this reality as a mean to get ahead on our journey of evolving! Mr. Tomasio in this article is trying to get us to understand that bad things will happen despite our wish that it might be different ; why not take advantage of such experiences and gain some wisdom from the very annoying things that happen? In this article, he gets us to consider that his way of handling might also be a good way, (but not the only way), for any of us to go on our journey for getting to be the best version of who we are in reality! And by doing just this introspection act, we can gain in insights that can enable us to go ahead and get in a better situation handling the misfortunes that each of us do have to learn from! But, this does not mean that we cannot be more, t hat we cannot be a little more supportive and helpful (for each others)! (Background music) Have you ever woken up one morning, hoping for a good day, only to be confronted by forces beyond your control, who are allegedly eager to turn yor smile upside down? Have you ever looked up the news of today, hoping to be informed of one or two positive, encouraging messages, only to be bombarded by a series of depressing, pessimistic news one after the other, with no hope of anything different the next day, or the day after that? All you, can do at times, is either sit and endure the suffering , or "think positively" in a world that is arguably far from positive, at least in the eyes of this sensitive person. Or, of course, in many, many issues, from living expanse , political instability , and so on. Flaws and problems are usually not seen as opportunities for growth, let alone something to be proud of , but as concepts that could easily cripple one's spirits. All of this can be described as the "Not-Okay Paradigm" , AKA, the helpless belief that reality is, by definition, a pessimistic place of some sort—cold, alienating , repressing , faulty, and so forth—whereas positivity, on the other hand, is something that we ought to actively pursue, not something that already exists to the "naked" eye. P ositivity/happiness can be seen as fleeting. Many of you might know this much. A concept that isn't easy to both attain and recreate once more once its lost. Such is the reality of beings, such as myself, that either naturally or actively pursue focusing on what is not okay, rather on what's okay. To make philosophy more relevant, it is imperative that I focus specifically on what's not okay, in order to shed some of my insights on the subjects I cover. Hopefully I would be able to solve them as well, from a logical standpoint. However, please note that I do it on purpose, and do not mind being largely a pessimist. Emotions do not matter to me as much as they used to be, and I lost much of them regardless . I am not to be seen as similar to those who are involuntarily pessimist, and actively want to be happy. It's just agony to me. Nothing more. The reason I like to be alone so much and to write about it is that people don't seem to care about the personal aspect of a person ; about their feelings, about their honest opinions. It is always about the whatever task at hand, while the person is merely a representative of something else as in the case of salarymen , and not an entity by itself. The personal aspect at large seems either unwanted or even despised, as long as it deviates from the norms, as in the case of racism or people who are merely seen as arrogant. This in theory show how anti-social our civilization has become -- We don't care about your feelings, about whether you're okay or not -- as long as you do what WE want in the way and form WE wish you to do, you will be either praised or left alone unbothered by our harassment. This makes people stressed to conform and follow the orthodox ways of society. All of this brings me to the question I've been asking for many years: why should one love or at least want to be in the External World, while it can be so eager not only to tell them that they are not okay, but also rarely considers that the the individual is a human being with emotions, desires, a voice to be heard? I also have similar questions of that kind. Slowly I became dead inside just to survive in such a harsh world better. For many, we are but units that are labeled under different categories, and almost nothing beyond that. The personal aspect is cringe; the distress, annoying; the emotionality, uncalled for; and the sensitivity, laughable. Rare seem to be the people who look at the person as more than a unit of a certain functionality and a certain competence to fulfilling it. Not as a doer, but as a being that exists beyond the sum of their deeds. The people who are actually interested in the personal wellbeing of a person even if they are not their friends -- strangers, even; the commenters who consider the possibility that their comment can cause more harm than good, with the obvious potential to reduce it; and the list goes on. Contrary to popular belief, humanity does not appear to be an inherent trait within every person, even though its very name assumes it is. I don't mind anymore to live in the paradigm/world view that says that the world is by nature not okay. I used to want to live in an okay world, even if far from perfect, where I would feel serene if not happy; A world of color that has a sense of general positivity; a world where someone's self-sacrifice would actually matter and not be ignored as a common detail that regularly occurs like the weather. That was my desire until I realized that, as long as I want that, I will unnecessarily suffer. And I only need suffering that would teach me, make me stronger, and help me work. You know, practical agony. Agony for me to endure, and for you, my readers, to learn from. The world can be a happier place to live in, for most if not all of us, but it is just we that make it be less than colorful; less of what it could've become. However, we may be busy remaining in a state of submissive apathy. This desire isn't unrealistic, but on the grand scheme of things, as long as we will disregard others as we currently do, the possibility of making the world a better place to live in, shall remain too impractical. The alienation can be fought like it fights some of our mental condition. I don't know if this article will make a change, but until then, I prefer to partially abstain from this world, in hopes of a more productive life, and a less traumatized self. It seems that there has to always be an approved "way" to be, to exist, in order to get along with the world, even if the other "ways" deserve legitimacy too. My partial abstinence is one of those ways; a defying way -- one that defies the common belief that the world is okay as it is. But no, traumatizing each other so naturally is not okay.

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

(The Directory on Birthdays https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-problem-with-birthdays-and-other-events-from-an-autistic-standpoint https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-7th-of-december-wish https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-sad-dictator-storytime ) (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). Today I turned 23, but to be frank I don't really care, because for me birthdays are a regular occurrence, unlike holidays, which are not, since they usually occur only annually, thus giving them their rarity. However, birthdays occur every day, so technically I am correct that a regular day is always someone's birthday, and someone's birthday always happens on a regular day, unless one is born on a worldly-irregular day, such as the 4th of July, the 31st of December, or the 1st of January, or the day before it. Otherwise, a birthday is almost always a regular day. It is only that each day is special for a small minority of people who have happened to be born at that day, in different lengths of years ago. Nonetheless, I can't help but to think what is left for me to experience before I leave this world. By becoming a philosopher, I feel as if I've dug up half of my grave, because philosophizing made me realize that things are not as they seem, and that includes what we see as the "full life", the lifestyle that is considered normative and of which most people have, are, and will live. In other words, by becoming a philosopher, I've also become a metaphorical "undead", using the power of constant doubt to things we usually see as desired, such as money, academic degrees, a spouse, kids, traveling to other lands, and so forth. "The Undead Metaphor", one of my ideas, concludes that much of what life has to offer isn't worth it due to its unnecessity. And indeed, I've "undead-ified" my life, altering the usual course of it forever, becoming a semi-hermit who largely leads an ascetic life below minimum wage (even though I'm far from poor). With not much else to experience, I either create content or consume it, and that's what my life pretty much is in a nutshell: Creating content to be consumed, or searching content to consume. The better the content, the more benefit I and others, like you, gain. And still, although I am content, the frustrating thing is that life is largely much before me than after me. It does not matter that I've written hundreds of articles, dozens of poems, and videos, there still appears to be a reason as to why I still remain among the living even though I've done pretty much all I've ever wanted to do, and there's nothing much to be done, either. This brings me to two conclusions: either fate exists, or it doesn't, and everything is pretty much random; a fortunate order created by undetermined chaos. The principle of fate claims that everyone and everything has a reason, and therefore, nothing can exist without a reason that is not related to a higher cosmic plan. However, like all generalizations, it is sufficient to find at least one thing or being whose existence is not related to this plan whatsoever, in order to logically claim that fate either does not exist, or exists exclusively. In other words, there could be a cosmic reason as to why I have not died yet, even though I believe I have done pretty much all there is, or that my existence (or anyone's existence) was not determined by a higher force, and thus the legitimacy of our lives is not determined by anyone but ourselves. As written before, the positive thing about the concept of void is that it also creates opportunity, or freedom, to fill it with whatever we desire, hence why emptiness can logically also be seen as a positive thing. As an empty room can be filled with any furniture of our choice, so our lives can be filled with whatever and whoever we want to put in them. Therefore, the concept of determinism can be seen as negative since, if true, it limits us from having things and beings that a cosmic plan does not want us to have, and will not necessarily let us have should we desire so. Do determinism or infinite void exist? Are we allowed to technically do whatever we want without the limitation of a cosmic plan? I don't have an answer for you, but what I can say about life is this: much if not every of the moments in our limited life are an opportunity; a potential, and potential is not to be underestimated, for it can lead to great things. This is why I have decided to be against the idea of self-sacrifice, because as long as I live, something can be done, like the creation or consumption of new content, and this is why I would take this birthday to remind myself that I am happy to be alive. Do you about your own?

(For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here) (Philosocom Directory on Work) There are two main elements in having a paying job: income and the results of the role you have in that occupation, otherwise known as influence, power, or simply effect. The more of the latter you have, the likelier you are to reach a peak of satisfaction, provided that your income can sustain your living expenses. Therefore, work necessarily has a political role, whether one is a subordinate or a leader. While income is crucial for financial security, job satisfaction often stems from the impact one has on their work.   This influence, or "effect," can be more fulfilling than mere monetary gain. Many people prioritize money over finding purpose , leading to potential disappointment. Many of them simply worry about surviving, rather than asking themselves: "What to survive for?". While money is essential, it's not a guaranteed path to happiness . True satisfaction often lies in meaningful work that puts one away from the knife. I am not saying that gaining money is bad, nor that money is the root of all evil . Money can help you survive and even prosper in this world, but can it truly serve as a satisfying source of existential meaning, even if we have much (or, too much) money? I do not know. Perhaps some people just want to have a high and profitable income, not just an income that pays the bills, to compensate for their internal emptiness. We are often taught that there can be too little money, but not too much of it. In a world where excessive money is associated with a higher worth in the social and romantic hierarchy , this is not necessarily justified. Having a job just for an income may be motivating, but it ignores so much of the importance of one's occupation and role , both to oneself and to the bigger picture of the world. Every occupation, after all, has some sort of importance, productivity, usage, and contribution. Every job, regardless of income, has value. Janitors, for instance, contribute to hygiene and health, essential aspects of life. Thus, the importance of a job lies in its impact, not just its pay. Pay, often, can be auxiliary. Hence why many may volunteer. Regardless of income, every job can be considered important to some degree. It is important because it has some influence and assistance to the public, and, at times, even to oneself. If there weren't a necessity for a specific job, that job wouldn't exist in the first place. Thinking more thoroughly about it, every moment in life can be seen as important because life is a structure of moments, and each moment affects the following moment and the moments after that moment. Why else would every moment be important? Life's moments are valuable in themselves, regardless. Each moment, as seemingly minor, offers opportunities for learning and growth. For me, knowledge and intellectual pursuit are more fulfilling than wealth. Even more than power itself. So, at least for me, obtaining knowledge and creating wisdom out of it is much more important than income. One could use their income for two main things: living (buying supplies, surfing the internet, paying the bills, all the things in daily life which require payment to ensure existence) and anything else that surrounds leisure with their respective works. For me, funds is not a meaning by itself, but the servant of an individual's meaning. And I? I am ascetic. Whenever I see news stories about the largely unnecessary and expensive things in life (spa treatments, concerts, expensive alcohol, exotic travel, nightclubs, and so forth), and gossip on those who have these properties, I often feel angry. I don't want these and I am not jealous. It is frustrating to see the common delusion that there is no such thing as too much money, as it's not realized that satisfaction can be easily reached at much cheaper prices. Therefore you save much energy at work, earning the same pay for the same end, and saving money too. If I had less opportunities to indulge in intellectual issues and deeds, I would find myself having no “higher” meaning whatsoever, as no amount of riches can bring true satisfaction , as much as article-writing. Even financially rich and successful people may find a lack of meaning in their lives, just like the poor and the unfortunate. Lonely, too. Thus, when comparing these two roles of a job, if its pay sustains your living successfully, the contribution and satisfaction should exceed its income. For there is, truly, such a thing as too much money.

(Background music) The Directory https://www.philosocom.com/post/theory-of-corruption https://www.philosocom.com/post/mother-3 https://www.philosocom.com/post/4-notes-on-corruption https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-coercion-how-it-corrupts-society-through-normalization-its-ironic-origin https://www.philosocom.com/post/fortress The Philosophy of Law Enforcement: Ethics, Power, and the Burden of the Badge Introduction The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy -- Elon Musk Analytic philosophy, that is to say, can very occasionally produce practically conclusive results of a negative kind... -- Alasdair MacIntyre Analytic philosophy, at its basis, is a methodological approach in philosophy, which prioritizes the cold, stern and intellectual-based research of philosophical text . It is a pragmatic approach, aimed at delivering practical results in philosophical fields which are mainly text and literary-based. In other words, analytic philosophy is a methodological, specified approach in understanding. Conventionally, analytic philosophy is a popular demonstration of what I call the dark side of enlightenment. In other words, the analytic philosopher would reduce everything to mere data, and prioritize, in a very "robotic" way, what he deems more important, and might deem that "important" aspect, the "objective importance", irrespective of what you might think or feel. Analytic philosophy is often emotionless, computer-like, and might often make you and your massive accomplishments, feel unimportant by comparison. As such, although philosophy is a social risk overall, analytic philosophy is a social risk specifically. To Overcome Bias By developing, however, the habit of looking both ways , one can see the virtue in everything. That goes for this cold, ruthless philosophy.. Analytic philosophy can help much in mathematics. Analytic philosophy is oriented towards clarity and simplicity. A. P. is oriented towards making text short and concise and less repetitive. A. P. is a classic example of how, often, emotion can, indeed, be weakness, like when it comes to the reading of dark and difficult text (See: The Rubinshteinic Butcher) . Analysis is often easier than synthesis. Synthesis requires creativity and unconventionality, and both traits are virtues most people lose when they grow up. It is, indeed, often children who are better synthesizers of concepts (and even technology) than adults. A. P. goes against digressions demonstrated in point 5, due to point 2. A. P., excelling in mathematics, excels by extension also in the sciences. Specifically, the technical sciences. The natural sciences, like biology and even the abstract world of love and romance, is more foreign in analytical philosophy. A. P. encourages people to contemplate in solitude and be less involved in interactions which might trigger unnecessary, avoidable battles with people (Especially your dear ones!) . The Negative Implications of Analytic Philosophy on the World Today Analytic philosophy ignores the pain and suffering of people worldwide, leaving such people to fend off for themselves. Occam's Razor is often used in analytic philosophy with little awareness towards the appreciation of the human condition. In my opinion it is best used in ethics, however.. Most humans are hardwired towards negativity. As a result, analytical thinkers focus on negating humane opportunity (For instance: Giving charity to the homeless; seeing the world for its beauty, displaying empathy, and so on). Analytic thinking, as a result, is one of the reasons sociopathic tendencies are often developed in today's world, as a very normal trend. Sociopathic behavior includes manipulation and harming one's psychological safety as a means to an end. Analytic philosophy, as such, deems many avenues of intellectual exploration, irrelevant, and may attack intellectual exploration itself, again, as a means to a greater end. Immanuel Kant advocated rationalism. A rationalist approach to reality is often analytical, and focuses on negating empiric opportunity. Many people live trial and error as a regular way of life. As such, many people are not analytical thinkers, as they focus on seeing and feeling the world for its beauty and wonder. Most people, according to my own observations, are an undefined mixture of analytic and more-empiric thought. That is, even though this trend might change as a result of the AI revolution, and as a result of the realistic possibility of a real-life cyberpunk age... How Analytical Thinking Promotes A Cyberpunk World A cyberpunk world is a world where there are extreme divides between the rich and the poor. It is a morally-bankrupt age , which focuses not only on industrial and technological revolutions, but also on the remorseless exploitation of the financially poor. It is a world where the human element is discarded and reduced to a mere set of labels and titles. It is a world where humans are not seen beyond their titles, beyond their conventional status; It is a world where passionate work is not profitable. It is a world that encourages incompetence , and increases the unemployment of humans, as they get replaced, more and more, by AI applications. A cyberpunk world is not a utopia but a dystopia. It is a world where financial gain is the highest priority of all humans. A world where exploitation and manipulation is encouraged even on your own family, not just on your friends or even in the workplace. A cyberpunk world is a world that comes from democracies being heavily corrupt over time by the very leaders that often get elected legally. It is a world where people often find themselves giving up on being alive, and if not on life itself, then on enjoying the fruits and wonder of love. A cyberpunk world is an anti-love world. It is a world that encourages humans to give on their own humanity, because of technology's potential to artificially improve how they look (See: facial surgery) , and even to turn them into cyborgs. A cyberpunk world is a world where de-humanization is normal no matter if you are hermit or are an extrovert with a lot of friends. It is a world that will always condemn you because of negation. While humans are hardwired towards negativity, as it allows them to survive... it also comes at the cost of mental health. The harder it is to gain money, the more humans will suffer from mental health issues, biasing them towards despair , than hope. Analytical thinking promotes abandoning other people because "they are hard to deal with". Analytical thinking makes empathic cognition hard to express in communication. A. P. destroys the perceived wonder of life, and deems those with much emotion, as either insane , pitiful, weird and all other, pro-rejection labels. A. P. ironically sabotages philosophy itself by focusing on impressions, than the world beyond the analytical mind. Therefore, A. P. ironically leaves the analytical thinker in a Platonic Cave, even when said thinker is social. A. P. is anti-intuition and anti-passion. A. P. therefore is anti-nature. A. P. cannot compute the health benefits of Taoism, and may only prioritize conventional research (AKA, academic authorities over the originality of sheer creative genius ). A. P. as such leads, often unintentionally, to the discarding of the human element, despite the usefulness of human beings. Continental Philosophy (Or, Why is Nietzsche Still Relevant 200 Years Later) Continental philosophy is the rival school of analytical philosophy. C. P. prioritizes creative thinking and synthesis. Synthesis is all about the integration of different elements (Case Example: Article on African Philosophy) C. P. is often criticized for not making sense (AKA irrational), however, irrationality is, often merely perceived... C. P. focuses more on the human condition, and on human emotion , and even on the wonders and joys of love and romance. Continental philosophers would make connections between different points and subjects, in a way that is hard to conceive for most people . This is why C. P. is more difficult and challenging for most people to comprehend. As such, Nietzsche is extremely hard for people to understand to this very day, due to his emphasis on creativity. Example 1: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is a half-philosophy book, half-story. Such creativity is unconventional, making T. S. Z. very hard to comprehend. Example 2: "The Gay Science" is about the pursuit of joy. "Science" here is not to be taken literally, but emotionally. A. P. takes philosophy literally (Analytically), while C. P. takes philosophy creatively (Synthetically). C. P. discards Occam's Razor quite often, instead focusing on existentialism (Or, about making sense out of life itself). Another C.P/Existentialist example is Albert Camus, who compared life to the tale of Sisyphus (And I compared Sisyphus to Jason Voorhees). Such creation of unconventional parallels, highlight the value of being connected to one's inner child of light. Your inner child is the metaphorical version of yourself who is happy. Thus, C. P. is often about a life that is truly well-lived for each and every one of us. The unexamined life, according to Socrates , is not worth living. If you examine your own life creatively, rather than literally, as a way of habit, you might find yourself becoming happy over time, thanks to philosophy itself! Creativity is how people can find themselves happier over time, just like when they were children. Creative minds live life as if they are children, even when they are adults. By synthesizing/integrating virtue ethics , one can live life creatively and happily without being shamed and rejected for "acting like a child". Philosophy is best done as a way of life, rather than in the academy. All institutions are prone to corruption because all humans are prone to corruption. Thus, it is our choice to either cater to the academy or to reject it entirely. As a master in my own way I reject the academy and also all traditional forms of education. I believe that education is a fake need created by a fake world. I believe cold logic, as the name suggests, is inhumane, and I prefer warm logic instead. The term "warm logic", considers the human condition, and the heart, as legitimate aspects in logic. I believe conventional logic, which is often analytical, is highly limited because analytical philosophy is strictly limited. Analytical/conventional logic may falsely treat individuals as specific cases, instead of the very environment they grew up in. Cold logic remarks the discussion on humans as a fallacy, AKA "Ad-Hominem", as such, it may dismiss unique ideas, as controversial as they be (like these of the infamous Chris Chan, as the eccentric person uses ad-hominem often). C. P. may focus on bravery and on the ability to dare to visit and even study under eccentric, rejected geniuses. It is what I did as a child, as I voluntarily learned under Master Numi's leadership . She was a most difficult person, yet studying under her was my choice. Studying under her helped me appreciate creativity and the capacity of human emotion. Lastly, if I did not study under her, I wouldn't be able to compose the idealistic Pax Ethica article. When I was 10 (Or, in 2007) I decided to save her, in order to keep studying under her, and in order to prevent an unfortunate chain reaction of distressful events in my family. Had I not saved Numi, I wouldn't use philosophy to give hope to many other people, too, and to encourage them to believe in themselves. C. P. can help people believe in themselves often, and have people living philosophy as a way of life, becoming masters in their own way, as well. I relish in inspiring you and I relish in improving this world by surpassing my late master and by philosophizing for as long as I can! With all my heart, I wish to rectify this world using the power of philosophy! Hail Philosocom Article Empire!

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

"Morality and ethics, when enforced as a Society, how are they ethical as all?" -- Mr. John Duran (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) (Corruption Directory) (Philosocom's Directory on Competency) (Background music) Introduction Police officers are, in essence, the physical manifestation of the law. They are the enforcers of what their country defines as "Justice." As such, they hold a unique and dangerous position in society: their use of power must be perfectly balanced against the situation at hand and the moral authority they represent. Without this delicate balance, a police force devolves into one of two extremes: total incompetence or a gang of state-funded thugs defined by disproportionate brutality. The Thankless Dilemma of Policing Unless a country is a utopian paradise, police work is far from easy. It is a high-wire act of preserving conflicting values: Lowering corruption while remaining uncorrupted. Preventing avoidable deaths while facing lethal threats. Detecting criminals while enduring harsh criticism from the public. The police officer stands constantly within a painful dilemma: Why serve a nation, or a people, that constantly degrades and shames me, despite the hard work I put in to uphold the law? The answer lies in human nature. We humans do not praise those who stand in our way, regardless of whether our endeavors are legitimate. We praise those who make us feel good—even if that feeling is destructive, like the temporary high of an unhealthy addiction. Conversely, we condemn and belittle those who block our path, even if their opposition is for our own good. Humans seek "good," but not always the good that is in our best interests. Therefore, the enforcers who block our worst impulses will always be hurt by the public—verbally, and often physically. What Makes a Police Force "Good"? Determining the morality of a police force depends on two fundamental questions: Is the "Justice" they represent actually good?  (Based on widely accepted moral standards). Are the representatives doing their jobs competently? "Competence" here does not just mean making arrests; it refers to the avoidance of unnecessary brutality. Only when these conditions are met can a citizen determine if their arrest is justified for the common good, or if it is an act of tyranny. In the end, police officers are servants. Even if we dislike their methods, they exist for our safety and the authority of the State. Without enforcers, society dissolves into anarchy. Governments without the power to enforce laws are ineffective. Even the most peaceful nations, such as Liechtenstein, maintain a police force because the state is a necessary tool for survival in a civilized, financial world. Corruption: The Betrayal of Servitude The worst kind of police force is one that does not place servitude above self-interest. The payment an officer receives is the incentive for the job . If an officer accepts a bribe, that incentive loses its functional worth. Why should the State fund an officer who takes double payment—one from the tax, one from the criminal—while failing to do the job expected of them? Corruption must be dealt with ruthlessly in the name of competence. If an officer cannot survive on their pay without violating the law they are sworn to protect, they should find a different profession, not become a criminal with a badge. The Eichmann Defense: Morality Over Orders Because an officer is under constant scrutiny from both civilians and the state, personal morality must be prioritized higher than the paycheck. Why? Because even if you find yourself in a corrupt force, you have the individual agency to set an example of proper justice. You must never fall into the trap of Adolf Eichmann, the senior Nazi official who defended his atrocities by claiming, "I only did what I was told to do." To those considering a career in law enforcement: Do not just consider the pay, the pension, or the safety. Ask yourself: Am I prepared to follow this authority's view of Justice? And finally, should you choose to disobey an order in the name of your own superior morality—prepare yourself. You must be ready to either defend your actions in court or flee the country entirely. If you care for morality as well as your livelihood, consider becoming a police officer only for a force that is as transparent and ethical as possible. That is the only way to safeguard your own soul from the corruption of power.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Directory on Perception) (Immortality Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-danger-of-immortality ) (Background music) A fundamental miracle is the very appearance of the first living cell in conditions in which organic substances must have aligned extraordinarily favourably, for the emergence of life. So why hasn't another miracle of the same magnitude happened? It is a problem of belief to think about an afterlife based on Evolutionary Law. And some clues might come from the Neolithic. Let's say there are one in a thousand billion chances, but on what basis can you say with absolute certainty that some kind of afterlife based on the laws of evolution has not or will never appear? This essay aims to explore such a tiny possibility, but which can offer a shred of hope for those who are seeking a purpose in life.  Modern thinkers of the world have glimpsed a possibility of the individual soul's "imprinting" of a great universal consciousness , transcending time. Nikola Tesla said: "My brain is just a receptor, in the Universe there is a nucleus from which we obtain knowledge, power and inspiration. I have not penetrated the secrets of this nucleus, but I know that it exists". Aldous Huxley emphasized the "collective subconscious " in his book "The Gates of Perception. Heaven and Hell", which he concludes, by the way, with a plea for the survival of individual souls in a "congregation" of all souls. Rupert Sheldrake was a supporter of the idea of ​​a collective subconscious, as well as the famous Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, the parent of the current of analytical psychology based on the subconscious collective. The basic idea is that maintaining an imprint of the individual soul on the horizon of a collective subconscious independent of temporal boundaries would practically ensure a kind of "immortality" . A fundamental question would be how it is possible, strictly under the conditions of Darwin's evolutionism, for a "world beyond" to have emerged. Here is a possible answer, not necessarily the only or a certain one. Ancient man imagined, intensely desired, practiced multimillennial rituals and above all believed in various forms of heaven . And because of this neurological need, the brain, with its amazing possibilities , may have created at some point the "psychic dough" necessary for the baking of a surviving consciousness, just as the ancestral biological brain designed and made each new organ: eye, nose, ear.   Carl Jung’s synchronicity for ‘significant’ adaptations Such an idea seems particularly bold, so I appeal, in support of it, to the chapter " Science and the Unconscious" written by Dr. Marie-Louise von Franz for the book "Man and His Symbols ", coordinated by Carl Gustav Jung. Thus, we find at page 306: “Physicist Wolfgang Pauli has pointed out that, due to new discoveries , our idea of ​​ the evolution of life requires a revision that could take into account an area of ​​interrelation between the unconscious psyche and biological processes. Until recently, it was assumed that the mutation of species occurred randomly and that a selection took place by which the ‘significant’, well-adapted species survived and the others disappeared. But modern evolutionists have pointed out that the selection of such mutations by pure chance would have lasted much longer than the known age of our planet allows. Jung’s concept of ‘synchronicity’ could be helpful here, because it sheds light on some rarer, ‘limit’ phenomena, some exceptional events, in this way, it is therefore possible to explain how ‘significant’ adaptations and mutations occurred in a shorter time than would have been necessary in the case of random mutations (...) It seems, therefore, that such anomalous accidental phenomena occur when there is a need or a vital need, this fact could further explain why a certain species of animal, under great pressure or in urgent need, could produce significant (but acausal) changes in its external material structure". These would be the neurological premises of the emergence of a possible "afterlife", as a spiral survival of energetic consciousness .   Neolithic Spirals Symbolizing the Immortality Spirals are found in many Neolithic megaliths such as at Tarxien (Malta), Castelluccio (Sicily), Newgrange (Ireland), Piodao/Chaz D'Egua (Portugal), Pierowall (Scotland), Bardal (Norway), Göbekli Tepe (Turkey), La Zarza-La Zarcita (Canary Islands) etc. It is illogical to think that people moved and carved huge blocks of stone just for some random ornaments so that the spirals must have had a close connection with their consciousness. A provocative explanation was offered by researchers D. Lewis-Williams and David Pearce, in their book “Inside the Neolithic mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the realm of the Gods” . According to this book the spiral is associated with a stage of altered consciousness that leads to visionary experiences. There are also other authors who see spirals as a symbol of the passage of souls to immortality. Looking at the ancient megaliths scattered throughout the world, there is a general perception that the carved spirals would have reflected eternity. It is also remarkable that in regressive hypnosis experiences, when you come to stand in front of the essence of your own consciousness-soul, perceptions of spiral vortexes are frequent.

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

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on AI) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) Imagine a possible reality in the future where you could have your ideal lover, without any emotional risk whatsoever. No arguing, no cheating, nothing that could harm your relationship. That is, unless you wish for it to happen. You can already see the roots of it in modern-day Japan, where some people choose to literally marry an AI unit. One that cannot choose to divorce you, one that will love you forever, until its battery runs out or something, and you'll just have to recharge it. It's an "ideal" love only in theory, you know. That's because you're essentially creating a relationship with a slave. Did you know? The word "robot" comes from the Chezch word "Robota", which means "forced labor". Should you choose to love an A.I unit/robot, you essentially choose to love a mechanical slave, that is or not tailored to your desires. Can we deem such love morally legitimate when we already morally oppose s** slavery? Can the love of a mechanical being be moral if that being cannot act independently of your desires? After all, it is a product, and products are not like human beings; they are not made to be independent. They are made to please. And a good product is one that satisfies its consumers. Do you see the dilemma? Human love is a very uncertain and imperfect thing. Some may even argue that this imperfection, this vulnerability, this flaw, is one of the things that grant it its charm and appeal . Whether you're on good terms or not, married or not, the other person can always decide that they no longer want you and leave you. [Human] love hurts. Marriage cannot prevent such a thing because people have the right to divorce their significant others. Additionally, other problems may arise during a human relationship, such as disagreements on core things, from politics and religion to taking care of the household. These days of human imperfection, just to have kids, may be over in the future, as AI lovers could one day replace your girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, or wife. They might as well be superior to them in every way. No more dating for the ideal "soul mate" . You could just buy one in your local electronics store, where you also buy your computers, your phones, and other products. Imagine the following: A fully customizable AI lover, fully purchasable at half price during New Year's Eve and Valentine's Day! No more broken hearts, no more disappointments, no more conflicts. Just have the required funds, and you might as well never be a lonely man or woman! That's what happens when you see people as just carriers of function, instead of beings that have the right to exist and behave independently of these functions. That's what happens when you regard relationships as transactional and not as something more wholesome. You might as well reduce the person whom you love as a provider of your function to love and be loved. Why focus on the being, the person themselves, when you can act in a self-interested way, and prioritize what they're doing and/or suppose to be doing? I am being cynical. In a book I once read, the philosopher known as Osho criticized someone for having their computer welcome them whenever they turned it up. He argued that such a function is delusional because it is a robotic one, the output of a machine. It's not like that computer cared for its operator, right? Love is not like machinery, no matter how advanced, cognition-capable, feeling, and opinionated it is, like a biological being is, right? But what if all these "biologically exclusive" things are just that, nothing more than a function? A behavior? What if a robot lover could actually do their job by loving someone else? What if robots were able to cry, complain, and be depressed? All at the press of a button. A machine or a computer application to stimulate and please you. All of this is due to a human's desire, like a puppeteer or just a very lonely man or woman who doesn't have a partner to spend New Year's Eve or Valentine's Day with. The same goes for s** unless we are to regard s** as different than making love. Then, love-making indeed contains a human element that cannot be fulfilled by an A.I lover. That is, unless we are to create a very uncanny thing called a robot human , which I covered about before. A mechanical being made to imitate human beings so perfectly, it's almost impossible to distinguish between the two types of beings! Would then love-making remain exclusive to humans? Because if it won't, "robot humans" would be able to replace humans even on that department. Before we had such intelligent AI, we had puppets whom we assigned ourselves to. Playing with dolls was something that was as popular as playing video games, for children. And yet, as video games became as popular for children as they are for adults, one might ask themselves -- Can AI now breach another frontier of human life -- the romantic one? People have already begun developing emotions for fictional characters in the form of, for example, dating simulators , or any other game where you can have a companion as your romantic partner. Nowadays, it may be seen as childish, infantile, or even creepy, but when these teenagers grow up, so will their trends, which might now be seen as outlandish by others. Some of them may already "simp" for fictional characters. If you could have a robot who could love you and be ever-so loyal to you, would you choose them, in favor of a human partner? Remember, the only function missing is the ability to bring kids. You can therefore say that human love is a gamble, mainly for the sake of having kids (if that's your intention, of course). Once even that element is out of the picture, and once AI companions could be just as buyable as any common electronic device, you'd no longer have to "hit the market" and seek an actual human to fulfill the functions you seek to be fulfilled. When it comes to A.I, they don't have to be actual robots; they can be holograms, or perhaps a combination of the two. A computer application with the ability to appear/behave like a being, can be regarded as an A.I Unit. Nonetheless, there will be no more arguing and no risk of any form of abandonment. Only certain love for an entity best suited for your individuality, until the day you die (or until something might happen to the "device"). Would you take it? Remember: Humans might as well be just inferior machines -- biological machines, of course. Perhaps this biological, collective arrangement that we seek today, is nothing more than a liability for our romantic interests? An inferior liability, whose only advantage is to bring you and them children? After all, a lot of couples divorce nowadays, at least in the U.S. Automation isn't something that would only affect the employment sector; it might just as well affect every, single, area, of our lives, if we're able to afford it and supply the manufacturers making these machines and/or applications. They can be not only coworkers, but also friends, teachers, traveling companions, and even lovers; they could be designed in any way, shape, or form you want, if there is a customer demand for it, just like any commercial product. Should we treat beings as functions, like we may treat machinery? Wouldn't it ruin true love if we can buy a lover like we buy a computer or phone?

( Directory on Religion: How Religion and Democracy Struggle ) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Philosocom's directory on death: https://www.philosocom.com/post/defining-death )   The Rubinshteinic Meditations on Salvation (Background music) There is only one way and that is your way. There is only one salvation and that is your salvation...What is to come will be created in you and from you. Hence look into yourself. Do not compare. Do not measure. No other way is like yours...You must fulfill the way that is in you. -- Carl Jung Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe ; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do. -- St. Thomas Aquinas How Suffering is Intertwined With Salvation To simply define salvation, it is a hope for better days . It is a hope for a better state of affairs that hopefully will be permanent. A reality where much of our current suffering is reduced. For some, it is hope for redemption. For others, it is the desire to be forgiven for one's misdeeds. Either way, the common for all of these specific variants of salvation, stems from the desire to suffer no more. To be liberated from one's pains , and to grow instead into what can, subjectively, be defined by the self, as a life worth living. Whatever life is worth living, always has to fall on the beholder, on the individual, experiencing life. Salvation, therefore, is a personal journey, and it is a journey whose part of it is necessarily internal. For each person, there is his or her own "Tikkun" in life. That "Tikkun" can be seen as the reason for one's existence purpose. Once you are aligned with yourself, with no guilt or shame, it is only then when you can understand what you should do in order to attain your own salvation, against the odds of circumstance's tyranny. I find the concept of salvation to be sad, because for salvation to be desired by a man, the man has to suffer first. It's like it comes from the desire to leave this realm for good in favour of a worthier realm. Salvation in Existentialism This is why, in the religious sphere, salvation often has to do with the afterlife , AKA, with a world better than this one, external of it. Salvation also assumes that we are needed to be freed of something which confines us to something, like to a chain, or to a loop. It is something philosophers like Nietzsche would disapprove of, instead advocating to loving life so much, you would desire repeating the same life time ad-infinitum. Philosophers like Nietzsche and Albert Camus would seek salvation from the concept itself of salvation. Albert Camus would tell you to imagine Sisyphus happy , and to embrace not a world external to this world, but this very world we all live in. In other words, for the existential, continental philosophers, those who rival the cold analytic philosophical trends, true salvation lies in embracing this world. Salvation in Humanity's Religions “Real salvation begins when you realize that the real savior is yourself!” -- Mehmet Murat ildan Judaism and Christianity assume that there is a need for a particular person to, so to speak, "suck" the sin out of all humanity permanently by suffering great trials and tribulations. These two religions glorify one's sacrificial suffering for the greater good. In Christianity, you have Jesus Christ. The legendary Son of God, who is claimed, wholeheartedly, to carry the sins of humanity on his shoulders, and be crucified for it, too, by the brutal, oppressive Roman Empire. In Judaism, you have the lesser demon, who is a half demon, half angel, known as Azazel. Azazel would be personified in sacrifices, and would symbolize the sins of many. Upon the sacrifices of Azazel the scapegoat, many of humanity are then freed and forgiven for the very sins they may atone for, in the Day of Atonement. In religions, salvation is marketed as a reward in favour of loyalty to one's faith. You are expected to be loyal to your faith from all your heart, and in return you shall be rewarded, mainly in the afterlife. Salvation Subverted in Corruption It is still unclear to me, however, why would someone who "lives in sin" deserves to be burned in hell. That's a horrible thing to believe in, for otherwise relatively petty things. I see heaven and hell in that way, as a form of "carrot and stick". I also view such polar ideals as the grounds for coercive control of the masses. In Christianity there are the 7 deadly sins: Pride, Wrath, Greed, Gluttony, Slothfulness, Lust, and Envy. The Humane Aspect of the "Deadly Sins" It appears that, in some religious contexts, it is sufficient to be overly proud of oneself, to be greedy, to be lazy, and so on, to deserve eternal damnation in the deep fires of hell. However, regardless of the splendid solutions offered by religion, it is still difficult to prove that such "sins" are indeed horrible. Is it that bad to be proud of your success? Is it that bad to use rage/wrath to create passionate work? Is it that bad to seek much money in a world where capitalism reigns supreme, and where countries are also businesses? The answer in my opinion, is a a big "NO". I think true sins are expressed in being truly evil. As a philosopher, I see these "deadly sins" as entirely humane and thus worthy to be regarded as legitimate. I think that, as long as we are good and not evil in our conduct, we shouldn't be concerned of seeking salvation for these humane traits. Finally, on The Forbidden Fruit Eat the fruit and you can have the desires of your heart. It's not evil, it's noble and good. You'll be praised for it. -- Orson Scott Card What is known as the Original Sin, from the Genesis book of the Old Testament. The idea of wanting to try something despite being told not to, is apparently too severe a sin. A sin so severe it made Adam and Eve fall from grace. in Genesis, The Forbidden Fruit came from the tree of knowledge between good and evil. This is considered a forbidden fruit because it is this very same knowledge, granted from that tree, is what separated the humans, Adam and Eve, away from God. The eating of that fruit wasn't necessary. However, what that fruit granted these biblical humans was knowledge. And to quote Ecclesiastes 1:18. A lot of human wisdom leads to a lot of sorrow. More knowledge only brings more sadness. Knowledge is power. And the idea of power is simple... Power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely. Thus, it is the very pursuit of knowledge, and the very knowledge attained, that can make us feel so-ever bittersweet. For in great power, comes great responsibility. And the tragic tale of knowledge is that can change you forever, to the point that you will never be entirely satisfied. And philosophy is the epitome of frustration. Philosophy is the epitome of dissatisfaction. Philosophy is a social risk. You cannot philosophize if you are not depraved of the very same things that compel you to philosophize. And if you end up alone, as many philosophers did throughout history, your only salvation is in your own death. Otherwise? Otherwise you must keep on the path of wisdom. For once you get into it, and into it very well, there might be no way back for you. Beyond temporary respites, you have no saviors, besides a lover, perhaps? "To be a philosopher is to have already died and become immortal . Now you are the walking dead. A zombie. Everyone thinks you are alive, though a little strange. But the truth is that long ago you died and became immortal." -- J.S., 2017 I have ate many, many forbidden fruits in my life-time. There is no one to save me but my own acceptance of my chosen fate. I will always want to rectify this world through Philosocom Article Empire. I enjoy this despair. For this despair is my own savior. It gives me hope to always rectify the indefinite flaws of our world. My ultimate salvation is in death. I, however, have no desire to die. Instead, I prefer to use the concept of death, to live. After all, it is within my very own mortality, that I can keep on honing my mastery in philosophy, and use it not for power, not for evil, but for good.