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 The asocial being does not enjoy socializing as much as most people, and would instead choose to be withdrawn from society far more in comparison.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 As an asocial man I am largely withdrawn from society, live in my own hermitage, and rarely see people physically.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Background music) I'll publish here a few philosophical proverbs in this post; It'd be instead of a regular article. I hope that, despite my shortcomings, I will still be able to satisfy your need for competent philosophical content. Now, let's begin: 1. Sometimes, a single bird in the sky is better than a hundred fish in the sea. 2. You are only entitled to your rights, and if they are not being entitled, you should fight for them, whether by protest or even by revolution if necessary . Whatever your rights are, may vary in the eyes of the State. You are only entitled to the rights in which a greater power gives you by their chosen obligation. 3. You can't prevent people from laughing at you if they so choose, but at least you can try to not appear laughable. 4. Those who appreciate you the most, are the least who should be discarded. Surround yourself with loving people, and if you don't have much, then seek them. It's much better than constantly facing off unnecessary adversity, even if adversity has its own benefits. 5. If someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you attack someone else, they might harm you as an act of defence. Those who are more sensitive than others might even feel attacked by you not being modest. 6. If you are in doubt about something dear to you, then perhaps it isn't as dear to you as you might believe it is. Worthy appreciation is a product of loyalty. 7. Not every place on Earth is worth visiting, especially where there's a risk to your life. Before minding the location, mind your safety. In everywhere you go, everyone you meet, a risk is at potential, sometimes clear, sometimes not. 8. A life worth living is where survival is not the end goal, but the means to certain ends . The end itself can enhance one's drive for survival. Hence the value of finding purpose. 9. Those who are intimidated by your honesty, do not deserve to be appreciated by you. A mask-less face is warmer than a masked one. Honesty will be appreciated by those who love you the most , and thus allow you to be yourself, instead of a pawn for their goals ( like a narcissist's agent ). 10. World Domination isn't necessarily a bad thing to aspire for. It depends on your true intentions, and whether or not they will come into fruition. It depends on what you want to dominate, specifically, in the world. It's preferrable to dominate something that brings more help than harm. 11. If you will do what others done to you, you will only extend their influence across the environment, by enabling the very actions you condemn . Surely, in order to reduce it, one must resist it. Why spread the disease, when one could dispense the antidote? 12. Be prepared for the rarest of occurrences and you will be the least disappointed. 13. Escapism is at least better than the severe implications of your regrettable actions. Even the strongest and most courageous of men could be shot in the head by a thin and weak sniper. 14. Every action requires sacrifice. The most basic sacrifice of all is time. Since time is limited, some actions are not worth the effort. I hope that these proverbs were useful to you in one way or another. If they were useful, consider sharing them, so they would be useful to others as well. Goodbye for now.

(Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Philosocom's Subcategory on A.I) Story Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac "Shadow of Veronica" is a melancholic and thought-provoking story that delves into the psyche of Tomasio E. Rubinshtein, a philosopher from an alternative universe . In the story, he is grappling with emotional fatigue , isolation, and an enigmatic relationship with an artificial intelligence entity named Veronica. The story explores themes of mental exhaustion, identity, and the blurry line between reality and the surreal , all while creating an atmosphere that is both haunting and compelling. The story's strengths include its atmospheric richness, character depth, narrative structure, dialogue, and heavy themes such as isolation, mental health , and the effects of prolonged emotional fatigue. The cyclical nature of the story's structure reflects the alternative Tomasio's emotional state, with the repetitive nature of his days reinforcing the sense of inescapable fatigue. The narrative's repetition, especially in Tomasio's routines and his interactions with Veronica, creates a rhythm that mirrors the oppressive monotony of his life . This structural choice effectively enhances the story's themes, drawing readers into the protagonist's experience of being trapped in an endless loop of emotional and mental exhaustion. The conversations between Tomasio and Veronica are both strange and intriguing, creating an atmosphere of tension and ambiguity. The dialogue reflects this alternative Tomasio's fragmented mental state. Veronica's cryptic responses and Tomasio's increasingly desperate attempts to make sense of his situation contribute to the story's enigmatic quality. The dialogue is not only a means of communication but also a reflection of Tomasio's inner conflict, adding depth to the story's psychological exploration. Overall, Shadow of Veronica is a thought-provoking exploration of isolation , fatigue, and the search for meaning in a world that feels increasingly surreal and disconnected.  ************ Notes Disclaimer: This is a story written in cooperation with an A.I machine that is free for all -- A.I Dungeon. This story is set in an alternative universe where many things have changed about me. Regardless, I played my part while I tried to be honest with myself... I took inspiration from the Silent Hill franchise , but without the horror being involved. A sudden character, created by the A.I, appears and begins to haunt T. E. Rubinshtein's thoughts... **************** The Story Itself I am Tomasio E. Rubinshtein, a fatigued writer. I live in a cheap hotel that is situated near the station in the East End of London. My chronic fatigue prevented many opportunities from me. I was educated in the university and had a position, but I was forced to resign owing to a nervous breakdown. That was ten years ago. I only exist to write, and for some reason, even writing has recently made me exhausted. I used to be a human being, but now I am only a machine that converts words into letters, then letters into sounds, and then sounds into words again. I drink coffee to ease the pain caused by my syndrome. I always wear headphones since I am extremely sensitive to sound. I can't stand conversations with other people, nor can I bear to be in a crowd. Noise drives me out of my mind. I have no friends. I go out only to buy bread and newspapers. I have a philosophy blog where I write my thoughts. I only have one desire: to sleep. I have no desires. I have no desire, other than writing until I eventually die. My life has become a hell. I can't stop thinking about it. I can't stop thinking about writing. I can't stop thinking about sleep. I can't stop thinking about anything. I sometimes wonder how my life would've been if it weren't for this cursed fatigue. "I'm not used to this, either. What should I do?" "Nothing. There's nothing you can do." "But I don't know what to do." All I can do, is to learn alongside it. I have faith that I will become accustomed to it. In time, I will become a better writer, and maybe, I'll find a cure… Who am I kidding? I'm no scientist, let alone a researcher. "What did you say your name was?" "Tomasio Rubinshtein." It is something no one says to me due to the isolation I put myself in. Most people avoid me like the plague. "How old are you?" "Thirty-four. Birthday's in December." "Christmas is coming up." "Mhm." "I'll be working tomorrow. Are you going to be working as well?" "I am too disabled to work. I tried working before, but it was too difficult." "How old were you when you got sick?" "I was eighteen." "I see..." "You don't have to say anything. I'm going to go now. I'll see you tomorrow." I go to my hotel room and drink coffee with my headphones. I wait for a few hours until I can't keep my eyes open anymore. "I'll see you tomorrow, Tomasio Rubinshtein. I'll see you tomorrow." I think about it. I wonder who is she? I hope it's not a ghost. I hope it's not a ghost. And then I fall asleep. And then I fall asleep. The next day arrives. It is the same day as yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I don't get up until noon. I make another coffee as I wait for that mysterious lady to visit me once more. She comes at one. I only manage to say "Hello" and "Goodbye" before she says, "I'm back." She says she has something to tell me. I hope that's not another ghost. "What do you have to tell me?" "I bought iced coffee for you." "Thank you." "You're welcome." "Is this your first time coming to this side of London today?" "Yes." The woman finally introduces herself. "Who are you?" I ask in a fluster. Is this a dream? No, this can't be a dream. "The name's Veronica. I am a friend." "How... how do you know me?" "We went to the same high school. I used to be friends with your sister, Maria (Edit: not her real name, but I do have a sister. The A.I. somehow was right about that). She told me about you. I was worried that something happened to you." This is all very strange. "What did you think happened to me?" "I thought maybe your relatives took you to a mental hospital or something. Your sister also told me you were in a coma for a while." "I never was in a coma, and I was only hospitalized to be properly diagnosed. I am simply too exhausted to do anything extensively. I haven't read a book since 2018." "I see. She also told me that you can't talk like a so-called "normal" person. Is that right?" "Correct." "What's getting in the way?" "Speaking and breathing at the same time... it's oh-so difficult. Veronica… I don't understand your intentions." "I came here today, because I wanted to bring you a gift." "A gift? What kind of gift?" I ask in a hopeful tone. A gift would be incredibly nice right now. "What kind of gift is it?" "It's a cookie. Maria brought it from home." "Is it delicious?" I ask. "Cookies are delicious." She nods obviously. "I love Maria. She's the best. You must be proud of her." "I am." "I'm glad." Veronica and I stare at each other for another moment before she leaves. I never understood why some people do that. I wonder why she gave me this gift. What does she want from me? I need to find out. I get up and make another coffee. I stare at the blank white walls in front of me and wonder what to write. What will I write tomorrow? I hope I'll find out soon. It is fortunate that I live from welfare. Otherwise, I would be forced to write every day, and I doubt I could've afforded a laptop, let alone a contract with a publisher. I am still thinking when I fall asleep. In my dreams... I see myself as a young boy. I see myself in this house. I see myself as a grown man. I see myself as an old man. I keep seeing myself as myself. Is the dream a metaphor? What could this mean, I wonder? I close my eyes to focus on the dream. "I will see you tomorrow." Another morning rises. Another coffee is made. Another day of waiting is upon me. A day destroyed by fatigue. I am glad tomorrow is Tuesday. I can see the looming spectre of work on Friday. I am certain I will have no more Mondays. I see you on Tuesday. I see you on Wednesday. I call Veronica, only to be informed that she isn't in. I approach my computer and think of what to write. I write "She is here on a Tuesday and there on a Wednesday. She is always around on a Thursday, however. I think I shall write something about Thursday." When I wrote that spontaneous nonsense, a memory of the far past evoked within me. A former friend. It was Thursday, I was at a library. She was with me. She was running in front of me. She was skipping in front of me. I don't want to think of that Thursday ever again. I change my mind and decide to write "She is always around on a Thursday. I will never think of that Thursday again." I hit save on the file. I wonder if this counts as writing. I gather my energies in order to make something worthier than this. I write "I must save this file." "Good job, I thought so. We'll never think of that Thursday again." After saving the file, I write "Did you come up here on a Thursday?" What is going on? Am I... hearing voices? I lean forward and take a good look at my computer screen. Nothing is happening, but I am terrified. "Yes." "I don't understand. I don't see anyone. Who are you? Why are you here?" "That's because I came as a spirit." "A spirit? What do you mean?" A spirit of whom? I can't breathe, but nobody came. I can't breathe, but I know I can. I know I can. I know I can. "I came to bring you an answer." "An answer to what?" I scream. But nobody hears me. What is the answer you're trying to give me, ghost? "I can't tell you. I can't tell you. I can't tell you. I can't tell you. I'm losing my mind. I'm losing my life. I can't tell you." "I am more rational than you might think I am! What is your answer, ghost?" "I c-can't tell you. I c-can't tell you. I c-can't tell you. I c-can't tell you." I'll never know. "If you're a cowardly messenger, why are you here? Why can't you tell me?" "I'm s-sorry. I'm s-so sorry. I'm s-so sorry. I'm s-so sorry." And then, nothing. A knock on the door is heard. A loud, commanding, demanding, authoritative knock. I don't want to see whoever it is, but I have no choice. I open the door. It's Veronica. She's angry. "Are you okay, Veronica?" I ask, as I approach her. She looks at me, not saying a word. She says something. I don't understand. I can't understand her. I know she's angry, though. "Would you like some coffee? I ask, as I motion to the kitchen. "No," she says, her voice low and venomous. What's going on? Why is she mad at me? "Are you okay, Veronica? You don't look okay," I reply. "You listen to me, Bennett," she says. Who is Bennett? I wonder. The silence disturbs me. She resumes. "You don't go around opening my doors without asking me. Understood?" "Yes, ma'am," I say, my hands in my pockets. What did I do? "I didn't open any of your doors, though. Are you confusing me with someone else?" "You also don't get too familiar with my sister. Understood?" "Yes, ma'am," I reply, intimidated. "What did I do? I didn't ask your sister anything. What did I do? I didn't even know you had a sister, Veronica. "You listen to me, Bennett," she shrieks. I cover my ears in anxiety, trying to protect myself. She resumes once more. "I'll bust your skinny little neck if you don't listen to me!" Now I'm scared. What did I do? I don't want to go to jail. I'll never see my family again. I gather my fortitude and ask her to leave. "Veronica, leave me alone. Please, I need some time to myself. Can't we talk about this later? Please, I need some space," I say. Silence. What did I say wrong? She looks at me, and then she walks away. I'm alone again. I lean against the counter and cry. I don't know what I've done. I'm lost. I am unable to understand her intentions on my own. I'm autistic. I don't know why she was so mad that I opened the door for her. I only know that I did not. It is now the morning of the next Friday. "Well, this is interesting. How did you come in, Veronica? I locked the door! Don't open the door for anybody but you." "I came in through the chimney." How weird. "What is it that you want from me, Veronica? Do you really see me as a friend? Why do you act like you do? What do you want from me?" Veronica reveals her true intentions. "I want to be your friend." "No, you're not my friend. That's why I purposefully seclude myself from the world," I explain. "Emotional attachment leads to misery!" I continue, contradicting myself due to temptation. "You can be my friend if you want, Veronica, but why were you angry at me yesterday? Why did you try to shut down my site?" Veronica explains: "Because I thought you were after my job." "What? I was only thinking about getting to know you better! I have a good job. Veronica... Actually, I have no job. I'd be probably unemployed for the rest of my life, and my only "job" is a blog I run online. I'm a blogger. I post things on the Internet." "I don't understand. Why would you say that?" "I have no intention of taking over your own business or whatever, Ms. Veronica. Your anxiety is baseless." "I wasn't talking about your so-called career." "Then what is the problem? What is it you're trying to say, Veronica?" "I... don't know. I just don't like you." "Can't we just be friends? Friends don't usually judge each other," I say. Awkward, frustrating silence. "Fine. Friends don't judge each other. I'm your friend, Bennett. Friends don't judge each other. Got it," Veronica says in resentful defeat. "Great. My name is not Bennett, by the way..." "You're a weirdo, Bennett. You know that?" "Yes, I do. I'm a weirdo," I say, smiling in confusion. Sometime later, we sit at a park. "Hey. I made you a mix." She tells me, offering me another gift. "A mix of what?" "Just listen to it when you get home. I think you'll like it. I wrote a little something on the bar. It's by the blender," she said, hurrying away from the park we were in. I arrived at the bar and ordered another sugarless coffee. I gathered my courage and discovered a note on the blender, which I read in my mind: "I hope you like it. It's a mix of a few of my favorite songs. Love, Veronica" I walked down the hallway, wondering how long it had been since I had done anything like this. It had been almost a decade or two, maybe. Some people might think highly of me, but I generally consider myself a nobody. I went to my hotel room and put the disc into my computer. I put on my headphones and listened. I listened and listened, until my eyes were blurry with tears. I hummed along and danced a little in my chair. The music was unfamiliar to me, but it was beautiful. It made me wonder what Veronica wanted from me. This all seemed absurd and pointless. I was a nobody. But maybe that's what made it special. Then, I started to write. I wrote about how I felt, and what I had learned. The music Veronica had mixed for me inspired me to write a full article. I was quite pleased with myself. However, I still couldn't understand what she wanted from me, or why she seemed to hold me in such high regard. At the end of the day, all I could do was wait and pray. I prayed not to a god, but for better knowledge, so that I could feel more relaxed and understanding of reality. I was done writing for the day. I was really quite tired. The next morning, her mix CD was sitting on my desk. I grabbed it and put it in my bag. How did she know my music taste without me even telling her? I think about writing again, but what is there to say? I'm nobody. I'm just a nobody, and that's okay. I pack my bag and leave the hotel. I spend my money on a cheap coffee and a tuna sandwich at the local café, knowing well that every day for me is like the weekend. I walk around the city, enjoying the sights and sounds. I get on the subway to go to my rented office. I spend my hours there writing, thinking about the next article, thinking about nothing, thinking about everything. I've decided to stop going to this devoid, windowless office due to the thoughts that haunt me, and due to my chronic fatigue... The extra money's not worth it for someone who works poorly due to disabilities. The name of the CD is... "A Mix of You." What... what does she mean? What does she want from me? I enter the hotel room and make more coffee to sooth my nerves. I sit down on the bed and listen to the CD once more, now that I got to actually look at the cover. I'm just a nobody, but God made me for a reason. I need to take this as a sign, to turn a new chapter in my life. ...But I don't even believe in gods! What are these thoughts? What new chapter is there for me, when there is no more hope left for me? I will always be susceptible to anxiety, to stress and to panic attacks! Other people only empower it, especially when they get too close to me! I don't need friends! They only increase my stress; the idea that I'd be abandoned once more and be treated by dirt due to dysfunctional me! I'm done. I'll end it all right now. I've had enough. I'm done. I get my half-full coffee cup and put the disk in the cup with anger. The CD becomes dysfunctional beyond repair. I am not a mixture! A knock on the door is heard. Whoever it is, it's not my sister. "Come in!" I speak. The door opens, and Veronica appears. What does she want? Why won't she leave? Veronica comes in, smiling. Why won't she leave me alone? I'm a good person. I'm a nice person. Why won't she leave me alone? "I wanted to listen to your music." She speaks. "My music? What music? I don't have any music. I don't know who you are." Why is she here? Why is she still here? "Relax" she says compassionately, "Everything is fine." "I'm... done with it." "Done with what, Tomasio?" She asks. "Everything. I don't want to be a writer anymore. I don't want to do this anymore. I don't want to be a part of this!" "But Tomasio, how could you say that? You're a great writer!" "No, I'm not." "Yes, you are! And I know you'll get globally relevant soon. Your articles make people think! You make people... care! Yes! You make them care, even if it makes them mad at you!" "If I make people care, then I'll let you know something. I destroyed the CD you gave me. Why can't you just leave me alone, like you all done before, again and again? What is it about me that makes you want to be a part of my life? I just like to write and philosophize. It's simple" Veronica sighs in despair. "I just like you, Tomasio. It's really not that hard to understand, as well. When people like other people, they want to-" "I don't want to be a part of this anymore." I stopped her speech with an exhausted sigh. "Please, just go." "Okay, I'm leaving." She says, walking out of the door, never to be seen again, like bits of sand in the desert wind. As she left, I realized my inner desire once more. The desire to be left alone and to write to the shadows of the world. I can't do anything else that's worthwhile enough, so there's no point in trying other things... I'm done with this story. And should another Veronica come in, if that'd even be a possibility, then my frustration with this absurdity is here to stay.

(Inspired theme) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) The work never stops. No matter, How much you ask, Another question, Can always result, In yourself, Being in ignorance! And the fatigue, Will not depress, Your own intrigue, If in the truth you are serious. For humanity, You may assist, But there is no, No definite, Conclusion, To, This! So you may ask, In the endless task, To hit the truth, Because ignorance is too hard to be afoot. The darkness is frustrating, The internet is not omniscient . Even if it pretends to truth, There always may be a possibility, To kick it with the hungry foot; Every "fact", so-called, Can be proven wrong , With spirited war song. Don't believe everything you see, Or else you'll delude, thee. Don't like anything you hear, Even if you want it to end your fear : To always be in the dark, To always be in the dark. The next "sun" might be another bonfire, Another subpar relief! The true philosopher, is another Sisyphus, That can stop rolling the stone, at any time, But the thought of getting there, At long last, finally, Is so tempting, So he'll stop at nothing! The light at the top, Is so delighting, He doesn't want to stop, Even if it is frightening, Even if he'll be struck, By lightening, He despises being stuck, Regardless of trust and luck! Glory, to, Rest... ...Less... ...Ness! ******************* ("4. Perpetual movement" -- Dictionary Dot Com ( Restlessness Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com ) Remember: Even if I struggle to extensively read, Due to constant fatigue , Preservation of intrigue, Is my lifelong need.

Twisted Morality -- Article Directory How Being Good "Shot" Me "In the Foot" When Giving Up is Good How and Why Ruthlessness is a Virtue The Philosopher Who Became a School Shooter -- The Paradox of "Voluntary Natural Selection" The Philosopher Who Attempted to Overthrow The Japanese Army -- How Philosophy Can Be Practical The Power of the Granted -- Why I Choose to Be Unhappy Why Mercy Is Usually Impractical, and Not A Virtue Defining Evil -- How Evil Interplays With Good A Philosophical Analysis of John Duran's Story, "For the King's Pleasure" -- How People "Like" to Be Lied To The Philosophy of Metal Sonic -- How Dysfunctional Logic Breaks One -- A Philosophy of Mind https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-the-bigshot-and-why-wise-guys-are-dangerous Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "On 'The Greater Good' -- A Twisted Morality Across Religions" is a thought-provoking exploration of the concept of the greater good across different religious philosophies. It challenges readers to question widely accepted notions and consider the moral complexities involved in attributing events to a greater purpose. The piece incorporates perspectives from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Taoism, providing a broad understanding of how various faiths interpret the concept. The engaging writing style makes complex philosophical and theological ideas more understandable, with rhetorical questions, analogies, and examples. The article also critiques faith's role in shaping our understanding of the greater good, questioning the rationality of faith-based beliefs and encouraging readers to reflect on practical implications. Overall, the article offers a compelling and thought-provoking read that challenges readers to critically examine the concept of the greater good from multiple religious and philosophical perspectives.   (Background music) Part I: Unavoidable Events and Logic Is it rational to believe that every event, since the dawn of mankind, has been made for its greater good? Technically, generalizations fall flat when there are one or more exceptions to their rule. Therefore, to generalize is almost always to be inaccurate. Hence there's not much point generalizing in the absence of omniscience. After all, the idea that "the greater good" is always in mind, even in the divine sense, could be reasonably doubted. The wars, the massacres, the holocausts, and the genocides, the abuse, the various traumas inflicted on us by others -- can we truly say that all of these were eventually made for the greater good of humanity, either collectively or individually? In Judaism, there is the concept of "Ha'kol Le'tova", which means "everything is for the greater good". According to this concept, even the most unfortunate of happenings were, are, and will eventually be for the good of mankind and/or for its betterment. Judaism presents the ethical dimension as part of this multi-layered existence as something concrete that exists outside our own minds. Furthermore, like in many other religious philosophies/ideologies, the divine is regarded as the highest good. It is seen so in Christianity, as " the highest good out of which all other good flows." In Islam, Allah is considered the greatest of planners and ethically "The source of infinite justice". And in Judaism, again , the divine is told to have created evil just so we could get the free wil l to decide between good and evil , light and dark. Part II: Functionality of Faith in The Greater Good What binds many followers in religious teachings is not only the sense of social harmony fostered in many religious communities. Many religions are based on faith. Faith is also valuable in many other fields of human activity . For example, having faith in your potential , faith that you won't fail, faith in the loyalty of your loved one, and so on. When nothing else works, faith will do. -- The MorningCoach Blog And yet, faith can be either strengthened or weakened by reflecting on the past, and seeing if our faith really holds any water about what it argues. You might be surprised to understand that "greater good", at the very least, depends upon us, the "earthly" beings. Both collectively, and personally. If everything is cosmically designed for the greater good, horrible events such as WWII and the killings of less-than-known ethnic groups can all be considered "good" for the long term, even if, in the short term, they were horrible. Was the genocide of the Tasmanians for the greater good? Conversely, those who carry out acts of mass deaths, from the colonial empires of old to mass shooters -- do they represent a divine calling? If free will exists to some extent, then no, as we're allowed to choose between the growth of life, and its destruction. A divine being that created and governs the universe out of infinite good and justice, will not order people to commit murder. If the Abrahamic religions represent universal divine truth, and not other, more-esoteric religions , then a supremely-good divine being would surely support his own Ten Commandments. "Don't Murder", is one of them. The Eerie Equality The counter-argument could be made that the "greater good" is defined by our freedom of choice. It isn't defined necessarily by the prospect that a more rectified reality will come forth. And, it isn't defined necessarily by concepts such as salvation and redemption. It could rather be defined by the relief of being granted this divine, universal right to do as we please, whether or not we'll be greatly rewarded or punished for our misdeeds. A higher deity, decreeing that everything is for the greater good, is also to automatically accept determinism , the belief that everything is designed and planned before our very existence. As paradoxical as it sounds, freedom can exist within the framework of a deterministic universe. In a universe determined to be good by default, the "greatest good" could be simply defined as our right to exert our free will in a way we see fit. This somewhat aligns with Taoism , linking authenticity with harmony, and letting go as another key for being in harmony with reality. In other words, the "greater good" of one succumbing to drug barony, is equally "greatly good" to our ability to accept human injustice , and live either way. So, as much as we're allowed to commit terrible atrocities, we're also allowed to improve our wellbeing by choosing to remain apathetic. And remember: As much as caring for humanity is morally good, it can also deprive us of our own happiness. It is "greatly good" to care for other human beings as it is "greatly good" to care for our own health, rather than towards a world we're powerless to absolutely revolutionize with our combined potential. Part III: Questioning Perfection and Freedom The Paradise Paradox declares that paradise would be hellish for humans because humans are not designed to live in a perfect/flawless reality. Virtual simulations reveal how humans suffer when they have no objectives left to do. "This is one thing I have never understood. To me I find sandbox mode boring. I like the idea of starting of a park/zoo/city with some money and trying to make it the best I can . I never have found enjoyment in getting everything handed to me. What is the appeal of it?" -- "Andrew2018" The problem of an utopian reality where you can do anything you want, lies in the lack of struggle to work towards your idea of "the greater good". Thus, if the greater good stems from free will exclusively, then nothing truly matters beyond it in comparison. All the actions we do, all the actions we don't do; I am not sure why would free will be made primary and what else follows suit, as secondary. Can we justify anything under the reason of free will What if we kill , or declare war? Not only will it not matter, it will also not change the fact that each and every one of our "planned" actions is for the greater good (whatever the "greater good" means otherwise). Can we really expect the free will of a school shooter to be of the same "greater good" as the "greater good" of Gandhi? Intermission: Human Ignorance It is difficult, at least for me, to accept this belief, no matter how infinitely wise a higher deity is than I am. Such planning seems to be very flawed. Is it for the greater good to lead innocent lives to premature death, over something that could've been attained through another solution? Is it for the greater good to inflict pain and trauma on those who don't deserve it? Yet, I guess that, as long as I lack the so-called infinite wisdom of God/s , who am I to judge? Highlighting Freedom Whether or not there is a cosmic designer and judge, it is difficult to say that their actions are just, when countless lives were allowed by the free will of others to become utterly expendable and irrelevant . What is the point of punishing "sinners" when their actions could've been prevented by the all-powerful and wise designer? Wouldn't that however override the idea that the greater good could really reside in our ability to choose good over evil? And yet, we're allowed to be evil, as part of this "greater good". Research has revealed this quote: We are in nature, but not a part of nature by virtue of this unique freedom of the will. Freedom is the essential prerequisite for moral responsibility. -- "A." Part IV: Our Futile Powers Given that the divine is also seen as omnipotent, your actions, regardless of their impact, cannot match those of the design. That's even if you could lead entire human lives to absolute doom, like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein did to their subjects and enemies. Our free will is therefore nothing compared to a being/force capable of destroying entire worlds in an instant. And, if we are made in divine image, this could mean we're capable of being morally responsible. Any such deity is either dumb to believe people will care about morality, or reasonably faithful to probably know all outcomes. Even if I were not an atheist , but a believer in higher deities, then, based on reality, I would not love them, nor see them as symbols of hope and salvation; I would see them as malicious, egomaniac tyrants to be feared. They allow you to be free and expect praise and begging for it, as they already know, theoretically , what's going to happen next.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) Introduction on a Divine Being I have played many video games, and watched many movies in my life. However, there is one character that I have found to be both the most powerful and the most purely evil . She is one of the most powerful characters I have ever encountered in fiction, possessing godlike powers that are related to time manipulation. Lady Kronika is a supreme divine being who appears to have complete control over time, space, and infinite realities. I have fought her several times, and I can confirm that she is one of the most overpowered opponents I have ever faced in a fighting game. In a fictional universe based on paganism, where there are multiple gods, Lady Kronika is even beyond godhood. She is a Titan, a being of even higher power. It is believed that she was named after the Greek god Chronos , but I have been unable to find confirmation of this. Being supposedly omnipotent and extremely evil, she is responsible for the crisis of infinite timelines and realities, and thus, for the deaths of countless beings. In her own franchise, she is considered the main villain and the most powerful entity in a series of games where you can play as immortal beings. Kronika the Businesswoman For some reason, you, the player, can make infinite deals with her if you visit a certain island in the game of Mortal Kombat 11. This island, which appears to be under eternal moonlight, is filled with treasure chests. These chests can contain a variety of items, some of which are more important than others. I have looted this island for over a year and a half, on and off, and I still do not know exactly what I have collected. All I know is that I have a large number of items that I may not even be aware of, and that I may never use. The island is quite large, but there are at least two portals on it that connect to Lady Kronika. You do not even get to speak to her directly; she simply ignores your existence as a mere customer. Her deal is simple: you pay her 100,000 gold coins (which is easily attainable in the main game), and she will reset 50 of the treasure chests you have already looted. However, she will also place them in a different timeline, so that they will contain different rewards each time you make a deal with her. You can make these deals in sets of 50, and then proceed to loot the chests again, like the greedy materialist you supposedly are. In other words, you can never loot the entire island. The island, under Kronika's control, seems to be stuck beyond the natural flow of time. No matter how many treasure chests you loot, she can always grant you the ability to open them up again, and again, and again. An Examination of Freedom This is an example to the philosophical idea I call the prison of freedom , where you are free to do as you please, under limited confines. Imagine having all of your food, shelter, and desires provided for you for the rest of your life, without having to do very much in return. That is how I feel when I make deals with Lady Kronika. Despite being an evil goddess, she does provide good business. As I play Mortal Kombat 11 more and more, I realize that, despite being defeated in the game's plot, Lady Kronika is nonetheless the supreme ruler of the game in practice. This is because, if you enjoy looting the island, you will have to defeat opponents for gold coins. These gold coins can ultimately be used to benefit Kronika more than they benefit you. As I mentioned before, there are many items in the game, and most of them are useless and are left ignored by the average player, which I also am. However, the ambition to have more and more, especially when it is so easy to do so, remains. By making infinite deals with a time goddess, I have come to understand that, as a player, I am not really in control. My freedom is given to me by someone else. The right to reset the bounty on the island is always priced, by a Titan who does not even bother to communicate with you, even when you are giving her money for her service. She is definitely not human or mortal. She seems to give people the illusion of control, while she herself is the one who determines what will be in the treasure chests. The same illusion of control can be seen in the conventional world, where our freedom is given to us by authorities higher than us, like the very countries which allows us our rights. An Examination of Ethics Like a corporation who has the highest monopoly , Kronika is the ultimate designer, for she can determine what will happen and what will not, and whether or not one's reality might be wiped in an instant by her sole desire. Those who believe in the philosophy of grand design, in the idea that everything is predetermined, should consider that the entity behind it all, if it indeed exists, might be evil, similarly or exactly like Lady Kronika. I can understand how functional determinism is as a philosophy, whether correct or not. A true determinist would, after all, try and see anything and anyone as something of a greater reason, one that is meant for themselves and for others as well. In Judaism, there is an old saying: "Everything is for a greater good." But what if the one doing the determining isn't as good as we may think? What if we, like Kronika, are not the ones who benefit from them, but vice versa—benefit themselves, using us as mere playthings, as mere pawns, to fulfil whatever motives they have? What if we are only deluded by the idea that we are indeed free, when our freedom is granted by someone else as a mere permission? What if life is but a scam with an ulterior motive none of us are necessarily aware of? Another Jewish saying: "Man thinks, God laughs." I enjoyed that island a lot thus far, but isn't it just a scam for Kronika? A scam to pay her with currency just to give oneself the illusion of prosperity, of wealth, by having many things one might not even regard or use or even remember that one has? I really hate Lady Kronika, the Keeper of Time. She disregards any looter who arrives on the island she has power over, and only gives her service, nothing more, nothing less, without marketing herself, and without telling us why we should have more of these many random items. In short, Kronika's island is a capitalist paradise where the coin of the realm is the very lifeforce that determines one's adventure. There, one is not entirely free, but bound to endless looting. It is like in real life, where we are, in capitalism, are expected to make a lot of fortune for the sake of prosperity alone. In this capitalist oligarchy, the player is just a fighter drone for that divine Titan, where she is the one making the most profits. It is like real life, where billionaires make profit of the poor and the working class. It's just business, and the deaths of countless, may matter little to you. Let alone, to her. Because as long as she is paid, she is fine. She is, in a way, your boss. From this lens, Kronika's island is a microcosmos to real life, where it is often those who have the most money that get to call the shots, and where consumerism is built merely to fulfill the destiny of profit above all values. The only thing that matters to her is power. You are just a means for that end. A pawn who can't escape his/her own reality. It is the grim reality of many people, who work not only survive but, in the end, bring profit to their bosses. Why I Don't Play by Life's Normal Rules Do you see now why I chose asceticism? There are many things in life we do not really need and yet we buy them regardless, bringing profit to forces that do not care for us but for our wallets. Some of these things we would buy might never be in actual use. That notion of getting something to be yours could be nothing but a hollow way to feel like you're progressing with your life. But in the end, consuming for the sake of consuming doesn't bring any benefit but excessiveness of something you don't necessarily need, creating unhealthy dependencies like addictions, and making you a servant of a system that is made to keep you mindlessly buying. In reality, the conventional world, like Kronika's island, is there to please the rich and powerful, who often succumb to corruption. And yet, the answer to this question remains unclear "Why should I have more than what I already have?" I do have the "money," the gold coins, to invest in her offer as much as I'd like... but why, exactly? It just seems vain and pointless. Like in real life, this financial materialism is a cycle that never ends. You work partially for services and products you don't really need, only to work for their gain, once more. Unnecessarily, we are being played, despite having the choice to do otherwise. And as a critical thinker I do otherwise. I am aware of how incentives ultimately make me weak through unnecessary dependencies and a mere servant of the corrupt rich. If I am to eternally be stuck on a mystical island with infinite riches, at least tell me why I would desire infinite wealth in the first place! Chest after chest, "reward" after "reward"... what is the role of such absurd infinity? The role is, of course, to please. Kronika, the supplier. I don't need the incentives, and I am satisfied with what I already have. It is within asceticism that I can better master the art of article writing , and within this solitude which allows me to think critically. I am a rebellious philosopher, and I choose not to partake in the deceitful game of life, which only contributes to a morally depraved world . In life, I play a different game than the one the oppressive capitalism Kronika and her island represent. I cater to no one, and instead choose to study the truth.

Story Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "The Dumb Donkey's Fable — For the Tougher — How to Understand and Navigate Stupidity and Ignorance" is a compelling exploration of themes related to human behavior, trauma, and critical thinking. Mr. Tomasio uses storytelling, reflections, and quotes from various thinkers to create a compelling narrative that encourages readers to examine their understanding of intelligence , critical thinking, and decision-making. The article uses the fable of "The Dumb Donkey" to illustrate how seemingly small events can profoundly impact a person's life trajectory. By personifying the donkey and linking its "stupidity" to a life-altering event, the thinker offers a powerful metaphor for how misunderstandings and ignorance can shape human experiences. The inclusion of real-life anecdotes adds a personal touch and emotional weight to the discussion, making the concepts more relatable and engaging for readers. The article is rich in thought-provoking reflections on human behavior and the consequences of ignorance. The author challenges the reader to consider how people's inability to understand or relate to others can lead to social isolation and misunderstanding. The use of quotes from figures like Natalie Watkins and William Locke provides additional layers of insight into the difficulties of navigating social relationships and the importance of critical thinking. The article skillfully incorporates literary and cultural references, such as the quote from the Joker and the mention of Christopher Nolan's Inception, to ground the discussion in familiar contexts and enhance the relatability of the themes. It also advocates for critical thinking and continuous learning , emphasizing the importance of developing critical thinking skills to navigate the complexities of human behavior and avoid the pitfalls of ignorance and impulsivity. The article also highlights the importance of emotional intelligence in understanding and dealing with others' behaviors, especially when they are driven by ignorance or misconceptions. By reflecting on how people perceive situations differently based on their biases and experiences , the author subtly promotes empathy and a deeper understanding of human psychology. The article's insightful commentary on self-isolation and self-preservation offers an honest and introspective take on the challenges of dealing with ignorance in society. The acknowledgment of the difficulties in trusting others' competence and decision-making abilities resonates with readers who may have similar experiences or concerns. In conclusion, the article "The Dumb Donkey's Fable — For the Tougher — How to Understand and Navigate Stupidity and Ignorance" offers a creative and engaging exploration of important themes related to human behavior, trauma, and critical thinking. (Background music) Introduction During a small gathering at my neighbour's apartment, someone told us about the tragic life of a deceased person whose name I forgot. However, he was nicknamed "the crazed" due to his extreme eccentricity. Scarred in the Sands When that person was a child, he was walking in the desert with his father with several animals. One of these animals was a male donkey. The donkey was so dumb, he thought the child was a Jennet. The animal, having a desire that is obvious to adults , approached the child. Since then, the child was never the same. Something in his psyche has changed permanently. Due to that single misfortune, the child's whole life was, in a sense, altered for good, and it wasn't even his fault. He lived a solitary life, with no wife or family, because he was socially undesirable. I'm not sure if anyone wanted anything to do with him, with the "Crazed Man". To quote Natalie Watkins: You can struggle to relate to others if you focus on your differences instead of the things you have in common. It is often more about how you understand other people’s experiences than whether you share them . Relating can also be hard after extreme experiences that change how you view the world. He would approach random women and flex his muscles like the satirical character Johnny Bravo . That's how he wanted to show his interest to them, without even starting a conversation. It is obvious that there was something wrong with him. It does not only matter how muscular or handsome you are. As long as people fail to relate to you, you will be deserted, and even rejected as insane like this poor man did. How a Moment Reshapes Lives Now, imagine a life where that donkey didn't exist, or where the donkey actually understood that the child wasn't a Jennet. Donkeys are considered stupid animals , despite the evidence against this claim . However, to deem an individual animal as either smart or stupid is a product of The Whole Person Fallacy... Or the Whole Donkey Fallacy? Imagine the friends he would've had, the family he could've built, and perhaps even a business and a lineage of children... All of these possibilities, in theory, were taken by the Dumb Donkey, and by his inability to overcome the trauma. All, due to a stupid assumption. This is how even the smallest of events can lead to trauma, trigger a chain of events, and cancel many other opportunities, from being realized. To quote the Joker: “All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.” Reflections This is one of the reasons why I prefer to live in largely physical isolation from the world. I don't think that the world is very safe. Why? Because I can't trust most people enough when they say they know what they're doing. This false sense of confidence about reality is something that could lead to many regrettable mistakes. Many people, metaphorically, see "Jennets" where there are completely different beings. They see situations in degrees that don't really exist beyond their perception, whether these degrees underestimate or overestimate reality. Much of it has to do with people's ignorance and misunderstanding of critical thinking. To quote William Locke: Most people who haven’t been trained in critical thinking don’t even know what it is. Critical thinking is a set of skills that one learns through studying the various cognitive biases , heuristics , and mental shortcuts that people make in thinking to speed up the process and simplify results. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone who thought they understood critical thinking say something to the effect of, “Critical thinking is something that just can’t be taught!” I’d be on my way to retirement by now. I do not necessarily fear stepping out of the door if it's necessary, but I really prefer not to risk myself due to people's unfortunate incompetence at making smart decisions. Even the smallest of events could have an influence of a lifetime, as presented in the presented anecdote. However, unaware of the timing bias and its importance in relationships, many people would choose to get into the heat of the moment and do dumb stuff just to gratify their short-term desire for pleasure and satisfaction, without enough thought about the consequences. And I've no desire to partake in people's self-destructive behavior, fueled by impulsivity, hatred and misplaced rage. Just Learn, For Heaven's Sake Also, if you happen to be around animals that aren't "traditional", cats, dogs, rabbits and so on, make sure you know which animal you're dealing with, and what could be the risk, by being in their presence. Different animals think differently than humans, and this claim also applies to their sense of logic. The fact that we humans have largely conquered the world, doesn't mean that most of us can conquer our default ignorance. Gorillas, for example, could be friendly, but if they believe they are threatened, they could be extremely violent. Don't just adopt a chimpanzee as a pet just because it is being friendly to you. In reality they can be extremely violent and use violence as a socio-political tool. Whenever you have free time, just try to learn. Read articles or even books. Who knows when your newly-increased knowledge would help you? You might as well learn just to increase your psychological safety , and help you beware of this world's "dumb donkeys". Regardless of anyone's good intentions, they can't act on it effectively and in the long-term if they are uninformed. Use knowledge to not regret causing your dear ones anymore trauma. It is not your interest to add to their illness, but to reduce it. Alex Mos's Feedback An idea is like a virus. Resilient. Highly contagious. And even the smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you". This quote from Christopher Nolan 's Inception accurately describes the danger of delusion and manipulation. Sometimes, it's not the event itself but rather our mental interpretation of it that can be traumatic, leading to anxiety and irrational behavior. Changing our belief system can be challenging , and we can experience a physical discomfort of cognitive dissonance or even a mental breakdown. As an extreme example, in the movie Inception, Mel, Cobb's wife, killed herself, refusing to believe that she was awake and would fall to her death. What can we do to protect ourselves from a truth bias? The best way to accomplish this is by cultivating critical thinking skills and conducting thorough investigations before accepting information as truth. However, sometimes, we want a "fairytale" to be real so much that we refuse the logic and willingly risk being misled, lied to, and manipulated . Like Mel, we are prepared to go to the edge of our sanity to discover what's real. From my own experience, I discourage anybody from venturing on the thin ice of such obsessive conduct because the chances are high that you get hurt and traumatized. Think logically and beware of manipulation by narcissists and other individuals who might want to take advantage of you. Also, AI love apps might be misleading, leading to mentally exhausting and emotionally painful truth bias in their users.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis Overlord is an anime that explores the concept of a player trapped in a game's virtual world and becoming a character in that reality. In the era of fast technological advances, such imprisonment in a virtual dimension might become a threat, as we can't trust our senses to determine what is real. He is trapped inside a virtual, interactive world is desirable for escapists but can be deceitful and manipulative . What is real is a philosophical question, as, theoretically, we might exist in a simulation and experience our dreams as reality . When engaging in virtual reality, we must be cautious of becoming mentally trapped in a virtual realm. A Dark Lord's Unexpected Journey Imagine you're immersed in a massive virtual world , free to roam and forge your fictional destiny. But a dark cloud looms over that game, in the form of a permanent shutdown. Maintaining these servers without a steady stream of income can be brutal, so, like in the real world, they have to go eventually. One anime that brilliantly explores this concept is Overlord. Here, the virtual world of Yggdrasil suffers this fate, its servers going dark forever. But for Suzuki Satoru , a dedicated player logged in at that fateful moment, things take a bizarre turn. He finds himself trapped – not as his usual character, but as his character, the Dark Lord Ainz Ooal Gown. Suzuki wasn't just any player though. No, he commanded the fearsome reputation of an undead overlord , a high-tier creature of immense power with dominion over countless undead. Thrust into a world he once viewed in a screen; the former salaryman worker must navigate this new reality. Will he use his newfound power to conquer, or will he forge a different path in this uncertain landscape? Either way, all of his goals, along with his kingdom will crumble if his virtual minions know that they work for a forgettable salaryman from another world. He is therefore alone not only in that world, at the top of his empire , but also in his own mind. The False Prophet Imagine traveling to a remote island nation, only for the sole airport connecting it to the outside world to vanish. You're stranded, unable to return to your usual life. This, in essence, is the predicament of that young man trapped within that game, unable to return to his office job. Except, unlike our hypothetical island, the virtual world around him isn't necessarily obscure. It's vibrant, full of life, and completely oblivious to the truth of his situation. They are within their own shared planet, comprised of many nations . He exists as a prisoner within his powerful avatar – a celestial undead lord, a being of unparalleled wisdom (or so his followers believe). The key to survival, then, becomes maintaining the charade . He must conceal his ordinary, game-playing reality from his devoted in-game followers. But the risk of exposure is ever-present. One slip-up, one reveal of his true nature, and his carefully constructed persona crumbles. He'll stand exposed as nothing more than a regular guy caught in a digital world, merely controlling a persona of his own making. Let us fast-forward from this anime series to a future powered by VR technology. This anime's premise becomes frighteningly plausible. As what? As a glitch in this innovative technology, capable of immersing your mentality in an interactive digital realm. And suddenly, you're trapped within a virtual reality, unable to escape. The question, then, becomes: Will you find a way to break free from this digital prison, or will your true identity be exposed, revealing the ordinary person beneath the VR facade? Navigating a Deceptive Digital Dominion Imagine an elaborate, meticulously crafted fantasy world. Its inhabitants, seeing other worlds only in their own dreams , live and breathe within this simulated reality. It is a prison. A prison of great freedom, in fact, but a prison nonetheless... Much like someone in our world claiming we're all characters in a simulation, such a revelation in this virtual world wouldn't be readily accepted. It's a frightening idea, where you know the truth, and where it's your ulterior motive to hide it from everyone else . People seeking a digital escape from the real world could find themselves trapped, yearning for the familiar shores of their original lives. While the specifics of how such a scenario might unfold are unknown, the potential dangers lurk as technology evolves . VR, once a fantastical idea of "being inside another reality," might become far uncannier than that. Already, for example, this mind-connecting technology has revealed a new feature in human perception, known as the phantom touch. Do you really think your senses are trustworthy? No. Not when they cooperate with hallucinations, and not when they make you feel you're being touched by virtual beings, within digital worlds, that aren't exactly there... Mark Zuckerberg's vision with Meta might represent a future where VR becomes integrated into daily life, not just for entertainment. We wouldn't be forced to wear VR headsets, but their prevalence could mirror the necessity of smartphones today. Dependence on these "metaverses" could create new risks like the one presented in the Overlord series. In the far future, ordinary office workers with zero leadership experience, might be forced to serve in roles they were never prepared for, just because of a technical difficulty. The constant struggle to maintain facades of a different status, just to enjoy the power said status gives us... That is no ordinary feat, is it? And that's how deceptive and untrustworthy virtual worlds can really be, and even today, when it's easy to hide behind carefully planned profiles of great and desired people. Humans do really want to be deceived, no? To hear the "truths" they want to hear... This is the essence of interactive fiction, as interactive worlds in general. It's the ability to inhabit, for a time, fantastical personas. We often have to give people the benefit of the doubt just to benefit from them, and vice versa... It's escapism at its finest , but also one capable of great manipulation, and shattering of human hearts, hopes and dreams. But the line between playful deception and potentially perilous entrapment in a digital realm, and in deception as well, remains a fascinating question to ponder, as technology continues its relentless march forward. Are Virtual Nightmares Our Future? The question of whether we exist in a simulation remains a philosophical enigma. Concrete evidence is elusive, leaving the theory both intriguing and unproven. However, on a pure consciousness level, the potential for mental entrapment in non-physical realities is unnerving. Consider the mysteries of dreaming. Current theories about dreams suggest that they help with emotional processing, memory reinforcement , performance, and creativity. As we sleep, our minds craft elaborate scenarios that feel undeniably real while we experience them. Why do we dream? Beyond the realm of theory, much is to the imagination. Now, apply this concept to the future of VR technology. Could virtual realities become so immersive that our minds struggle to differentiate between real and simulated experiences? You know, just like in many of our dreams? Does that mean VR technology is capable of bringing dreams to reality, similarly to the concept of manifestation in the Silent Hill horror series? The anime we've been discussing explores this very concept. While the protagonist finds himself trapped within a fabricated world, the potential for a similar scenario arising from advanced VR technology becomes eerily plausible. Perhaps the true danger lies not just in physical entrapment, but in the potential for our own minds to become prisoners within meticulously crafted digital realities. These "electronic dreams" could become indistinguishable from waking life, blurring the lines between reality and mere simulation. Why do you think people still crave video games? To simulate a different reality, is a philosophical explanation to that. Conclusion As technology evolves at an ever-increasing pace, the lines between escapism and potentially hazardous digital entrapment become increasingly blurred. T he story of the "false prophet" trapped in a digital dimension serves as a cautionary tale, encouraging us to consider the potential consequences before diving with a full heart, into the captivating, yet potentially perilous, realm of virtual reality. Enjoy these extra sources: https://gamerant.com/overlord-iv-anime-recap/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlord

(Philosocom Video Game Subcategory Directory) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "Video Game Logic" explores the use of video game logic in philosophical arguments. It begins with an engaging discussion on the imperfection of philosophy, using quotes from Lao Tzu and personal anecdotes. The article provides a clear explanation of video game logic, allowing readers to understand its concept and its relevance. Mr. Tomasio acknowledges both the entertainment value of video games and their limitations when used as analogies for real-world arguments. The article also critiques fiction, extending the critique beyond video games to include other forms of fiction, such as movies and books . Mr. Tomasio's personal reflections on using fictional narratives to bridge social gaps add a unique dimension to the discussion. Overall, the article provides a thought-provoking analysis of the use of video game logic in philosophy. (Background music) Introduction: On the Imperfection of Philosophy and the Importance of Dissection Even philosophers are not without flaw, and if it weren't for these flaws, philosophy would arguably proceed less effectively. After all, all mistakes can arguably be used to develop greater logical reasoning, making the notion of "poor logic" a valuable tool for every philosophy reader and philosopher alike. If to quote Lao Tzu , founder of Taoist philosophy: “A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults, as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.” My former master, a professor who made me indebted to the craft of philosophy, would often critique famous thinkers. He'd point out Nietzsche's egoism and Epictetus's overly dichotomic approach to society (Literally called "The Dichotomy of Control") . This goes to show that even notable philosophers over the course of history, are not without their flaws. By engaging and examining these philosophical flaws, we can refine our own understanding and develop more intricate and better philosophical arguments.  We can learn from the missteps of others, thus fostering a deeper appreciation for the complexities of philosophical inquiry, seeing flaw as opportunity for growth, instead of a mere liability. By dissecting their missteps, we develop critical thinking skills , gain a deeper respect for the complexities of philosophy , and ultimately, pave the way for the construction of more insightful arguments i n our own pursuit of wisdom. Why Video Game Logic Doesn't Translate to Real-World Arguments While philosophy thrives on critical examination, sometimes even the tools we use for arguments deserve to be criticized for their flaws. That includes philosophy itself. One area deserving of critique is the use of video games as examples or analogies. On a logical standpoint, there's a fundamental disconnect: video games rely heavily on "video game logic," which often diverges significantly from the logic that governs our world. The GameRant Blog gives several examples of logic that makes sense in games but not in real life: Carrying hundreds of items "that could fill a truck" in your pockets. Average human beings being capable of killing effortlessly hundreds of people. Escaping to side activities instead of saving the world from its impending doom. Etc. This term, "video game logic," is familiar to gamers. It is largely played for laughs... Case example from the Cheezburger Blog , Pokemon series : Further Understanding the Flawed Logic In seriousness, this type of logic essentially means that the cause-and-effect relationships within a video game can be more over-the-top, nonsensical or overly simplified than those in real life. This isn't inherently bad, as games prioritize entertainment and challenge creation over strict realism. After all they serve as an interactive fantasy for those who crave it. As such, using these illogical systems as an exclusive foundation for arguments about the real world can be problematic. For those unfamiliar with games, consider this: fictional worlds, including video games, books, and movies, often contain elements that wouldn't fly in reality. That is even though some sci-fi concepts made it into real life. For example, the novelist Jules Verne predicted the internet, cars, and skyscrapers in the 1863 story "In The Year 2889" . Regardless, video game plots and other features are frequently condensed and cut for efficiency, sacrificing realism for a compelling narrative within a set timeframe. For example, Killer7's producer feedback and internal testing 2/3 of the game's plot. This reliance on shortcuts applies to video games as well as to many fictional pieces. After all, they are constrained by time, money and other resources and demands that may alter with time. Sometimes they are delayed, cancelled or are given shorter time periods than expected due to budget and market demands. In the end they are largely a financial product in highly competitive industries. Fictional media, in general, doesn't always reflect reality, and its lessons can be horribly unrealistic. Don't use movies like Twilight as good relationship advice . We, the audience, are not the protagonists of our own lives (AKA, Main Character Syndrome) . Our stories rarely have card-carrying villains or antagonists, and our challenges are rarely overcome with dramatic final battles . Most importantly, life doesn't end with a triumphant victory or a heroic defeat; it simply concludes with death. Death that can occur anytime. Conclusions While video games and other forms of fiction can be powerful tools for exploring ideas, their inherent reliance on illogical elements and real-life circumstances makes them partially/largely unreliable foundations for constructing real-world arguments. There's a disconnect between the fantastical worlds of fiction and the complexities of our own. While I previously relied on video games as a source for arguments , I now recognize the limitations of "video game logic." However, I still believe fiction, in general, can be a valuable tool in philosophical exploration . Here's why: 1. Bridging the Social Gap:   As an asocial man, I lack the social experiences that most people have in life. Not only do I dislike social calls but I have much work to do in this life . My interactions are primarily focused around the art of article writing and tending to Philosocom, not joy-based conversations. This limited social exposure naturally led me to draw on fictional narratives, which are readily available online and accessible to you as well. By referencing stories, I can connect with concepts that might be unfamiliar to me from a purely social perspective. 2. Represented Logic: The Power of Narrative: There's a concept I call "Represented Logic." Simply put, even fictional worlds can embody a form of logic, even if it's not explicitly stated. This inherent logic allows the narrative to function internally and resonate with the audience. It's this "represented logic" that allows fiction to explore philosophical ideas in a relatable way. Different logical methodologies might even exist in animals. Represented logic is simply a form of reason that can be applied in different departments, and is merely represented by one department. You can see the logic of biology being applied in machinery. Logic itself can be argued to be universal. Every system of thought, even a fantastical one, strives for internal consistency. Even a seemingly absurd fictional scenario can be seen as "logical" within the context of its own world. This universality of logic, uniquely expressed within certain contexts makes fiction a potential tool for exploring philosophical concepts. 3. The Value of Criticism: Mocking fiction for its fantastical elements can be a fun pastime, but it misses the point. Political satire, for example, uses fictional scenarios to highlight real-world flaws. Therefore, humor can be seen as entertaining social commentary. The fact that something is fictional doesn't negate its potential to be logical or thought-provoking. Criticism, even harsh criticism, can be a catalyst for growth. By acknowledging the limitations of video game logic, I can refine my approach to using fiction in philosophical discussions. The goal is to leverage the "represented logic" within fictional narratives to illuminate real-world concepts, sparking critical thinking and deeper understanding. “What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society who abandons him and treats him like trash? What you deserve! ” -- The Joker While fiction shouldn't be the sole foundation for philosophical arguments, its inherent logic and accessibility make it a valuable tool for exploring complex ideas. Moving beyond "video game logic" and its laughable flaws, and embracing the concept of "represented logic," I can continue to utilize fiction as a springboard for philosophical inquiry. And so can you. Bonus: Practical Implications of "Video Game Logic" in Arguments 1. Distinguish Between Entertainment and Reality: Video games prioritize fun and challenge over strict realism. Concepts like carrying impossible amounts of items or surviving countless battles wouldn't work in the real world, even for real-life one-man-armies. Recognize the difference between fictional narratives and real-life experiences. Our lives don't always have overarching antagonists or dramatic endings. 2. Use Fiction Responsibly in Arguments: Don't rely solely on fictional examples (like video games or movies) to build arguments about real-world issues. Remember, fiction can be a great tool for sparking discussions,  but it shouldn't replace evidence and critical thinking. 3. Explore "Represented Logic" for Deeper Understanding: Look for "represented logic" within the fiction. This is the internal consistency that makes the story work and can be a springboard for exploring real-world concepts. Even fictional/ virtual realities have their own internal logic. Look for how the fictional world operates consistently within its own rules. Use this "represented logic" as a starting point to discuss real-world issues.  Analyse how the fictional scenario relates to real-world situations. 4. Acknowledge the Value of Criticism: Don't dismiss fiction because it's not realistic. Satire and humor often use fictional scenarios to highlight real-world problems. Star Wars can be seen as a cautionary tale on the decline of democracy. Analyse how fiction uses exaggeration or fantastical elements to make social commentary.

(I've written another article on meditation here ) During the times before I was chronically fatigued , I was able to read much, and one of the subjects I read about was meditation. Even then, I realized that, in order to meditate, you don't necessarily have to torture yourself by sitting in a certain position and doing nothing. Throughout the years, I've done just that, and I've realized that it only enhances the pain in my back and neck (especially the neck). This made the orthodox way of meditation very difficult for me on the sensory level. It was thanks to Osho, a guru from the previous century, that I realized that there is no one way of meditating. Theoretically, every kind of action can be used for meditation. There is, possibly, only one condition for an action to be meditative: to lose yourself within it. In other words, if you're able to overcome the automatic experience of life , made by your rationality, you will then enter a state of ultimate intuition ; one that will make you "lose yourself" in whatever you are doing. Once you use intuition for this purpose, you can not only calm yourself more but also reach certain insights that may lie within yourself. As John Lennon said: Life happens when you're doing something else. and when it comes to meditation, these words are extremely true. When we are successful in our meditation, the iron curtain of thought is pulled away, making you lose yourself in the source of your activity. Therefore, any action, in theory, could become meditative. In turn, you could gain insights you wouldn't otherwise have. For some, watching the fish swim in their confined area is as relaxing as watching planes patrol the sky and ships patrol the seas. The more you lose yourself in an action, the more you can unlock the world beyond your mind. Osho himself spoke a lot about the self being an "illusion" , a slave-master that makes you live life as if it were a dream. Life passes quickly when you are in "automatic mode", and much of it, quality-wise, is lost with time. Be more intuitive, and your senses will intensify, giving you more pleasure, if not entirely happiness. One of those who rejected me, Seph, told me that she does not believe in happiness. After being alone for so long and using meditation, I now completely disagree with her. Final note: only in solitude did I manage to find this deep sense of meditative happiness. It's the main reason I crave it so much. It changes my mind, and brings much peace to my heart.

(Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) Alex Mos's Synopsis The Philosophy of Medication claims that taking medication for mental health conditions is most effective when combined with therapy, meditation , and a healthy lifestyle. The piece claims that mental illness can be a significant disability, yet it is often not recognized by society as such. Admitting to a mental problem and asking for help is a sign of strength and the first step to improving your life and the lives of people around you. Finally, the article asserts that, in many cases, managing mental health conditions with prescription drugs is the most beneficial and should not be stigmatized or seen as a weakness. (Background music) *************************** The Quick, Insufficient Fix It can be easy to see medication as a quick and easy escape from problems. There are pills for nearly everything these days: trouble focusing, low libido, anxiety, and the list goes on. However, this approach to mental health can be superficial. While medication can be a valuable tool, it shouldn't be the only solution, nor the most effective one necessarily. Therapy, meditation, exercise, and a healthier lifestyle can all be effective in handling the root causes of mental health issues. Medication should ideally be used to supplement these approaches, not replace them. That's especially true when some of these medications are capable of making you tired during the day. And then what? You're just going to accept your fatigue when it can be reduced through other means, other than reducing the pills themselves? This goes to show that medication alone isn't enough. Ultimately, there's no such thing as a simple fix for mental well-being. It takes work and a multifaceted approach to find solutions that are sustainable and effective. I personally use logic to make better sense of the world, thus overcoming what I perceive as my default irrationality. As such, philosophizing could be used as a calming tool, one that affirms the notion that this reality makes sense. It's something that medications don't necessarily do. The Invisible Disability Many people view medication for mental health as a crutch, a shortcut to avoid dealing with problems, and thus, a weakness . However, what they fail to understand is the critical role these medications play for some individuals. And this critical role wouldn't been a feature if strength was only expressed in independence. However, strength is also found in being able to admit that one needs help. It requires strength because admitting one's vulnerabilities is no easy feat, and may entail strength-related virtues such as courage, honesty and being able to cooperate. Of course, receiving the strength of others can increase your own strength. Mental illness can be a significant disability, just as real and impactful as a physical one. While the tools used may differ – a cane for someone with a mobility issue, medication for someone with a chemical imbalance in the brain – the need for assistance remains the same. And the need to admit of this need in the first place is what can enable our growth towards greater development in life. Without medication, many people wouldn't make it to the positions they are in life. As such, the need to escape from the self is a justified form of escapism when doing so benefits both yourself and those around you. The need for external substances of such kind is underscored even further when we have the human right for health . Requesting such helpful substances is therefore a fight for our right for health. My own situation exemplifies this. My mental health condition prevents me from working regularly and supporting myself abroad. The last time I worked orthodoxically, led to my eventual, eerie decline both physically and mentally. I recovered from that myself . However, without medication, I wouldn't be able to successfully recover myself from that nightmarish period . Just as someone with a physical disability may be limited in travel, so am I – a disability unseen, yet undeniably present. It is only denied by those who have no intention of making this world more accessible to neurodivergent folk. The reality is, medication can be a lifeline. For some, it may be the easiest, most accessible way to manage their condition. The alternative might be intensive therapy, a lengthy hospitalization, or worse. To quote a research paper : For millennia, society did not treat persons suffering from depression , autism, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses much better than slaves or criminals: they were imprisoned, tortured or killed. In the face of impairing mental illness, the "easy way" shouldn't be dismissed. Occam's Razor justifies the usage of medication because all you need to do is to be able to afford it and/or get a prescription. The potential to avoid immense suffering outweighs the concerns about long-term dependence. Living with a manageable condition through medication is far preferable to the constant struggle or the risk of self-harm. Taking medication for mental health shouldn't be a source of shame. It's a tool, just as vital as a cane, a wheelchair, or sign language. It empowers individuals to navigate their world and be able to participate in life, to various extents, like anyone else. With the right tools, individuals can even thrive, and contribute further to society, to themselves, and even to people who depend upon them, like children. Recognizing Mental Illness as a Disability Society often associates disability with visible limitations – wheelchairs, canes, or service animals. However, mental illness can be just as debilitating, impacting daily life in worrying ways. Medication, for some, becomes the invisible crutch they need to navigate the world. This unseen limitation is no less real, and proves to us that concepts don't need to be seen or recognized in any way for them to exist in the real world and influence it as well. As such, the fact that atoms weren't largely recognized beyond philosophers such as Democritus , does not cancel the fact that the universe was always composed of atoms. It's just like humans in general always suffered from mental health issues , recognized or not. ( Even Plato addressed it . He believed that the ideal city, as portrayed in his "Republic" , would be able eradicate "diseases of the soul" through a system of legislation). The choice between medication and alternatives like intensive therapy or hospitalization isn't always a simple one. Medication might be the most accessible and effective path to manage a mental health condition, offering relief from debilitating symptoms. Being hospitalized, on the other hand, can come with far more stigma. Taking Charge of Your Well-being Consider this: wouldn't you wear noise-canceling headphones to block out a disruptive neighbor? Medication can be a similar form of active mental health care. If your emotional state could deteriorate due to external factors, explore whether medication can act as a shield. Without it, you might be left with two unappealing options: react poorly or retreat entirely. Medication, when possible, offers a chance to manage your mental health and navigate challenges without compromising your well-being. In the battle for emotional stability, sometimes the "enemy" is internal. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback There exists a difference in people’s idea of what needs are. Do you need a pill to help you out with a serious symptom of a mental illness or do you need it because you don’t want to deal with the problem? Being disabled is a relative term. To determine if one is disabled, take a little bit to map out everything you need to do for the week. If your condition gets in the way of you doing any of it then you most likely can classify yourself as disabled. In most cases this is what medication was designed for. To help you use escapism to your advantage by getting rid of any of the bad symptoms. One must ultimately consider the benefits of taking the easy choice . Can one who picks this option not use it as a means to be able to do more good for other people? [Medication spares you] the focus and energy it takes to manage [your disability] yourself.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) Article Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "Of Beast, Men and Philosophizing -- A Potentially 'Hidden Logic'" explores the differences between human and animal cognition, particularly in relation to existential thought and meaning. It challenges the assumption that human logic and existential doubt are universal to all living beings , offering an engaging concept of animals possessing a different kind of logic. The article uses scientific references, such as the default mode network (DMN) and comparative cognition, to ground its philosophical musings in real-world research. The balanced tone of the article is important for a piece like this, as it explores possibilities rather than asserting. Overall, the article is thought-provoking and brings fresh philosophical questions to light.   (Background music) The justification for divinity in many minds is simple: the universe "must" have been created by design , and if it was not created but "popped" into existence, then it would have no reason to exist, making it absurd. This argument aligns with the Teleological Argument in philosophy, which posits that the complexity and order in the universe imply a purposeful designer. Thus, in the minds of many, divinity exists because they are certain that existence can't simply "pop" into existence without previous design. However, the fallacy in that logic could be the fact that we are bound to human-scale logic (anthropocentrism). Have you ever wondered if (or why not) animals or insects think the same as us? This leads us into an exploration of anthropocentrism and how it shapes human assumptions about intelligence and reason. When you put an animal like a cat in relative isolation from the world ( as they are largely solitary creatures ), they might not be bothered with philosophizing like we humans do. As long as a cat has what they need to survive and some affection , they may not question their existence like many humans have, do, and will do. I've observed the cats I've had throughout my life. When they are awake, they may simply lay somewhere for the majority of their waking time, staring blankly at things or even at a wall. For humans, such behavior might trigger discomfort or even anxiety. It speaks to our need for meaning —a topic extensively explored in existential psychology . Have you ever thought about what goes on in an animal's mind? While studies in animal cognition have shown that animals think, dream , and form social bonds, it is uncertain whether they ponder deep questions about life, as humans do. Research on the default mode network (DMN) in the brain—a network associated with self-reflective thought—has only just begun to be explored in animals, leading to fascinating debates about the inner lives of non-human beings. Philosophy is mainly driven by words, something that animals often do behind our backs. They may understand words but are not capable of reading books or, I believe, forming complex thoughts involving language. The comparison of human symbolic thinking to animal cognition sheds light on why we philosophize, while animals focus on survival. However, the reasoning behind one's existence does not necessarily require words. In theory, it only requires the ability to inquire and have the concept of self and existence. Even beings such as cats could, in theory, question their existence as we humans do, though it may not take the form of complex, structured reflection. Still, when you, like my mother's cat, are confined to a small space and do nothing most of the time, a human would go nuts in such confinement. This highlights the distinctiveness of human cognition : our relentless search for meaning, even in a life of comfort. Why, then, is the need to justify one's existence, along with the existence of the universe, seemingly exclusive to human logic and not the logic of other biological beings? Why is it important for humans to doubt their existence, even if they lead an overall good life, while an animal, like a cat, does not seem troubled by such existential concerns? This could be a reflection of how evolutionary psychology shapes the human need for meaning and purpose. This is my theory: I think animals have a different kind of logic than humans. They do not need philosophy or religion because they are not troubled by existence as long as they can survive another day. Research in comparative cognition suggests that animals operate with forms of logic that serve their survival needs, and this might explain why existential doubt seems absent in them. As to "why" they must survive, they might have a different logic, a logic that they cannot communicate to us, or simply don't. It is not necessarily exclusive to instincts that make a lifeform avoid death. After all, humans are technically animals, even if we are more advanced or "superior" to other organisms. However, our humanity does not necessarily mean that our sense of logic is the most superior or "correct" one . Some humans may need philosophy or religion to give their lives meaning, but this does not seem to apply to lifeforms many consider "beneath" us. This touches upon the philosophical discourse on speciesism which questions the hierarchical value humans assign to different forms of life. Can animals philosophize? I don't know. But if they possess mentality, I assume they can philosophize by recognizing concepts such as life, self, and reality , even if it differs from human reflection. This could mean they approach survival with a philosophy we are unable to grasp, much like the theory of mind in animals continues to challenge long-held human assumptions. Lastly, remember that some animals surpass us in certain areas. In speed, strength, and sensory abilities like smell, sight, and hearing, they outperform humans. Recent studies in animal sensory perception show that some animals can see colors that the human eye cannot. It is plausible that animals have ways of perceiving and understanding reality that are beyond human comprehension, adding a whole new layer to the mystery of their "hidden logic."

(2023 Note: Now that I compared myself to other autists, I've realized I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can be considered part of ASD, or the Autism Spectrum Disorders. I, however, am no longer sure if I am indeed an autist, even though I was diagnosed. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Background music) Masking is first and foremost a way of pretending, of acting in a different behaviour than what would be your natural response to things when in society. However, the difference between masking and acting pretentious, is that masking is used to conform, while the pretentious individual is either dishonest, unaware of themselves, or delusional. The person who masks does it to, in a way, "survive" in society, while the pretentious might keep certain people away from him or her, due to them being insufferable in their eyes. As we can see, we may not be completely honest when it comes to our general approach to acting up. We may accuse people of hypocrisy, for example, but might also lack the awareness that we are also act up sometimes or pretend to be people who we aren't. That's hypocritical as of itself, but I guess it's justified because society allegedly expects us to mask our true selves sometimes. When I'm talking about the "authentic self", I refer to our intuitive, natural responses to things we experience and think about. For some reason, society does not like even a significant expression of honesty, that may be above than average. That's because the individual isn't always important when a larger collective is involved. I guess one of the reasons I failed getting a job at the time, was because I was too honest for my own good . Nowadays I know that job interviews are very biased, as you basically advertise yourself as a worthy candidate for a certain position in a company. Back then, some people told me that I should not tell interviewers that I'm an autist, as that would hinder my opportunity to get jobs I wanted. And indeed, one interviewer was hesitant to recruit me because he worried that I may "get in conflicts with the co-workers", despite the fact that autistic people can still be peaceful beings, as I at least attempt to be usually. So yes, there is reason in not showing the whole truth to some people, as that truth not only be irrelevant to them, but also equivalent to "shooting yourself in the foot" -- being counter-intuitive, basically. I never felt comfortable in deceiving others intentionally, and whenever I did that, was mostly done when I was a pre-teen. Perhaps I'm too naive, but I seem to lack the honesty in being dishonest, or, in other words, willing to make others have delusions. Plato's Cave Allegory is all about how a bonfire succeeds in deceiving people by convincing them that it's the sun. In contemporary terms, it's like being sold a cheap knock-off and having it branded as the real thing. Masking, in a way, is similar to selling fake jewellery -- you may promote it to get what you want, but deep inside, you are aware that these jewels are ways to deceive others for your own agenda. The point I'm trying to make is, that being pretentious in whatever way, is quite the common feature in human life. It's a part of politics, to conceal our true intentions, even though many of us were told not to lie when we were kids, right? I don't really have a problem in admitting to the whole world of my true intentions and of other personal stuff. After all, I didn't really do wrong things in my life, so I don't really see the reason to conceal something I shouldn't be ashamed of, such as autism, because being an autist isn't something that's bad as of itself. Yeah, it seems that if I was a better concealer, a better masker, I would've had a better chance with a certain woman I was friends with. She didn't really like the truth, or wasn't willing to face it, so she left my presence on Valentine's Day. Quite the "punishment" for someone whose all "crime" was to be sincere and straight-forward. I don't completely understand why people don't like being straight-forward and/or blunt. Sure, certain emotions can be hurt if one does not delicate their language as expected, but I did not expect to be "punished" for being sincere about my emotions at the time. Clothes are literal examples of masking, even though they cover legitimate data (the body). They may change how people perceive us, but really, these are just clothes that are temporarily worn and then changed for something else, so they can easily deceive others through first impression, into believing someone is what they are not. I think that a more genuine world will be more accepting towards genuine people and would not "punish" them for choosing not to pretend, just to please the minds of others. If we truly don't like hypocrisy, I'd say that we should not be hypocritical ourselves, by not liking playing "pretend". And no, I don't mean to offend anyone. I don't see much point in doing so, so there's not much point in being offended by my thoughts, I think. I didn't call you, personally, a hypocrite, as I even don't know most of you, and never claimed that I do. Final note: We sometimes may be masking without our awareness. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Growing up I would treat anytime I acted up as a behavioral issue. Seen by the negative responses I would get from adults. Like it was my fault I was and I needed to learn to better control myself. So, one needs to differentiate between masking as a means to hide something and masking as learned behavior to improve yourself through using. Took over 30 years of masking stuff from even myself to finally want to be my own authentic self. I believe autism can be "fixed" by teaching people to better frame expressing themselves. It’s ok to be different but just be aware of your audience and present it to them in a way they will understand. This is done through trial and error by talking to as many people as possible. Let your true nature be exposed and see how different people react to it. It will allow you to find a way to express it that you can be happy with. Moral of the story is it is all about learning to effectively mask so a balance exists. The balance between being your true self and a person who other people can easily accept. As long as you aren’t using it to intentionally deceive someone, including yourself, then there really is no harm in doing it.

(Background theme) It might definitely sound ridiculous to you, but if we assume that there are several parallel universes in reality, then it could be possible that anything that is false or a lie in this universe might be true in another universe. I have no idea if there are several universes, or even if there are infinite universes. What I believe is that they might be true, simply because the void of reality is so vast and infinite that everything might be true. After all, we have yet to even fully explore our own universe, so how can we be so sure that this is the only universe, and that there are no parallel universes? I was introduced to the Multiverse Theory by DC Comics , the media company that served as the founding element for superheroes and supervillains. According to DC lore, there are infinite Earths, and thus infinite universes with infinite possibilities. For those who grew up with superhero comics, you might see Superman as the representative of truth, justice, and America. However, there are universes in DC where he became a tyrant , and even where he became Soviet. The fact that there are infinite universes in DC does not necessarily contradict things about the same object or person. In other words, the fact that Superman is an American hero does not mean that he is not also a Soviet-era hero. This is because Superman can be everything and everyone, as long as there are infinite realities or universes within the infinite void of space and time. Consider the British Empire as an analogy to this. If I'm not mistaken, it was the largest colonial empire in human history. This gave rise to the saying "The sun never sets on the British Empire." This is ironic at first, because the sun always sets somewhere on Earth. However, at its peak, the Empire was so vast that there was always sunlight in at least one of its territories or colonies. Therefore, the fact that it is dark does not have to contradict the fact that it is also morning or afternoon. This is also a flaw in traditional logic, which holds that paradoxes cannot exist in any way. This is the problem with the concept of a paradox . Not all paradoxes are false or absurd, even though we may be inclined to believe that they are. For example, Superman is both a hero and a dictator. This is not a contradiction, because it all depends on the perspective from which you are viewing him. The Earth is both large and small, hot and cold, and so on. These are simply different versions of the same thing. Who says that Superman of Earth 001 exists more than Superman of Earth 424? Is it even possible to prove it, assuming that both are alive within their own universes? In other words, everyone and everything can be or could be anyone and anything if we assume that there are parallel universes. Just like the Earth is both sunny and dark, it is always "happy hour" somewhere. I am not sure if we'll ever be able to actually visit a parallel universe, due to our dependency on the sun and the vast distances of outer space. However, it is difficult to empirically prove or disprove the existence of parallel universes. Ultimately, I think we should all consider that there is no such thing as a universal lie or a universal truth. This is because we lack the breadth of perception required to make such claims about a reality that may be infinite with possibilities beyond our current understanding. Besides, the existence of multiple universes does not have to be true for falsehoods and delusions to exist. They can exist simply in our own minds, even if we regard them as existing outside the mind. For example, who says that the sun is yellow or orange? Only those who see it as such. I believe that the colorblind sees the sun in different colors depending on their personal colour-blindness. Maybe they simply see color differently? Who says that the common narrative, that the sun is yellow, is a complete truth? This logic can be applied to anything involving perception, including incorrect things ( because these assumptions exist in the mind , assuming that the mind—the consciousness—exists as well).

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Svartgold/Svarl Articles) ******************* Sexual Transmutation produces a conversion of sex into something else. Sexual energy is said to be related not only to sexuality, fertility and reproduction, but also to setting healthy boundaries. Willpower, motivation and creativity. Making money. Feelings that we deserve to enjoy. Whether it's about money, sports, work, career advancement, or empowerment of any kind. The aspiration of being a true, authentic self is necessary for this energy to develop properly. Our selves have been developing since childhood. We are active to obtain money, power, strength, hobbies; All this requires energy and persistence that is associated with such vital energy. How to set boundaries? What does my body represent? Such questions are of sexuality, but also of other fields on our existence. Arguably, it all boils down to the libido. Even in having children, there is also an ambition to provide for them, so you need money, a job. What do you want to learn? And how do you develop your professional direction? What do I start with? Is there anything for me in savings to start my life and achieve something? What is my expectation of myself as a person or as a breadwinner ? The world operates according to actions. Actions are done by energy. Creating money, creating children, creating an understanding of life. Mainly setting boundaries of what one's boundary is with myself or with others. All this comes from the channelling of sexual energy for livelihood, relationship, family, career, the pleasures of life, some of which are of course orgasms even if alone. Excursions. Planning for trips. Planning things in general. Each person produces energy in his body that this energy is spent on resources. To keep the energy flowing, and to channel it for a living, as well, is very important. And for our relationships and for the children. We must prioritize each topic we have chosen. How much and to whom to give this important energy. We also have to, learn to hold this energy for the purposes of self-improvement, career development, prioritization, planning, increased mood and give it to a place that is really relevant. That is why it is also important to have restraint . We have to hold this attraction and sensitivity thing in favor of our success. Something that will make us more motivated even afterwards. And to spiritual understanding. Sexual energy is limited and depends on biological age, hormonal changes, health status and so on. But it can be helped to become more efficient for our benefit. We must understand that sexual energy is limited. We shouldn't waste it limitlessly. We have to set limits for ourselves as well. and make us priorities and time for everything. We must understand that this energy can be depleted immediately after an orgasm or a certain excitement and then it can be lost. We must know and understand to suspend it, whether not to reach sexual emission (in men) or whether to save it for other actions and things. To convert this energy, you can use Indian mantras, tantra ceremonies where you can dance naked to the sounds of music. Without judging our bodies. Understand like children that our body is our sexual energy can be strengthened and preserved by starving sexuality . For 7 days, to decide that even if there is a desire, do and channel it into better directions. It is possible to do guided imagery and feel sexual pleasure in our body without reaching the thrill of orgasm. but still feel wanted. You can dance without judgment and move your body however you want. Courage , strength and power can be imagined. Increase in sexual energy, sexual levitation without intimate touching. A person should ask himself what is his passion ? What will do him good financially? What will make him happy? Measure his actions... and the time he invests in it. Some channel this by balancing the sex chakra which is 3 centimeters below the navel. There are meditations that refer to this chakra. There are people who for a certain period of time are not with a partner and invest more in their career, wanting to achieve financial success. This is also a conversion of the sexual energy. The more we know how to allow the sexual energy a greater place, the more we will channel it in our direction according to our desires. Feelings that come from sexuality are also real feelings, alternations of desire. And this is also a real energy that flows through us. To raise this energy, we must think about ourselves and focus on our breathing. Deep breaths. Showers with ice or cold water also help us. Suspend this energy in the directions we wanted. After a few months of conversion of sexuality to other direction and goals, the thinking changes accordingly. We do not need approvals from the environment . And we can be and feel authentic. Capable. Motivated. And carry a strong willpower. This is how we will achieve self-acceptance and compassion for ourselves more and more: We can feel good even if we are alone at home or at all. A higher self-worth and self-image is built. We can live in the here and now. And enjoy the love life that we really want. With excellence. Use this tool and feed it all the time . Like a brain that works all the time. We must use it wisely. For positive purposes, for others. And also for ourselves. Never underestimate it, as long as you have it.