The Directory: Disability and Normalcy Of Experience The Mentally Disabled and Independence -- A Severe Critique (By Mr. M. Svartgold) The Problem with Standards -- Advocating Disability Awareness -- A Philosophy of Inclusion Disability Shaming and the Mentally-Ill -- Understanding Mental Illness https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-brainrot https://www.philosocom.com/post/melancholy https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-neurodivergent-sovereign (Inspired theme: Ape Escape 3 - Western Village (ddwefresh Remix) - YouTube ) (Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co, below) When there is a will, There is a way. Despite one's flaw, Why the white flag draw? One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim to succeed, Is their own accord! Blind -- navigate, Deaf -- comprehend, Whatever flaw, Doesn't have to mark the end! Panic leads to irrationality, And despair's your enemy. One can have greater hope, With a practical philosophy ! Unease, is but an emotion, Felt inside of you. It does not have to scare! It just "feels true", But it limits reasoning, As options come, In squads and crews! Don't just give in to that, To one's own tradition! Try developing, Practicality, By figuring out, A greater self in society. One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim, to succeed, Is their own accord! Autist -- learn! Anxious -- please relax . Don't just go to a bridge, And cut your path with an axe! Many fears -- absurdity, Not always a reason to be afraid. Take your cane, and get out there, Don't leave it laid! Reminisce, the possibilities, Which have been missed, Absent developments... Now, lay in the past's list. How, without daring, Can we truly accept defeat? As long as you're alive, You can at least, try. A candidate, Might live in irrelevancy, But have you forgot? The election's in democracy! One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim to succeed, Is their own accord! Impatient? Please, Don't fall to your knees. Van Gogh's success, Is older than many trees! Anyone can practically, Say any nonsense they want. Without a good reasoning, Why would you be torn apart? To each verdict, Its own disability. But a delusion, Might still stand! We might miss, Improving an ability, Since we do not always understand, What it's truly limiting. What it does not, Is blocked by thought, Of confidence, Of what's not there. It can bring us, Into a nightmare, And we might not improve, Due to a fake "truth"! He who can't see, Still remembers his keys. Poem Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Beyond the Disability!" is a profound philosophical poem that explores the concept of overcoming personal limitations. The poem begins with the aphorism "When there is a will, there is a way," emphasizing the power of human will to overcome obstacles. This aligns with existentialist philosophy , particularly those of Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed in individual agency and choice. The poem also emphasizes acceptance and action, suggesting that success is a matter of personal decision and effort. It also highlights the role of panic and despair in clouding judgment, advocating for a practical philosophy to maintain hope. The poem also encourages practicality and self-development, reflecting a form of pragmatic philosophy. The poem's philosophical reflections include existential freedom and responsibility, Stoicism and emotional control , pragmatic philosophy, and criticism of despair and fatalism . It calls for a proactive stance, aligning with Nietzsche's concept of "amor Fati" (love of fate), where one should embrace life's challenges and strive to overcome them. In conclusion, the poem offers a strong philosophical message that personal limitations, whether physical or emotional, need not dictate one's destiny. By employing willpower, rationality , and a practical approach, individuals can transcend their disabilities and achieve meaningful success. This synthesis of existential, Stoic, and pragmatic philosophies promotes a life lived with intentionality, rational control, and practical engagement.

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) Summary by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "Why I Left WhatsApp - The Fallacy of Progression (AKA Appeal to Novelty)" critiques the common assumption that new technologies are superior to older alternatives. The article begins with an engaging introduction, defining the fallacy of progression and using historical and contemporary examples to illustrate its logical fallacy. It delves into philosophical ideas about progression, evolution, and technology, providing a thoughtful analysis that goes beyond surface-level arguments. The critique of societal norms and the pressure to conform to new technologies is well-articulated. (Background music) Introduction to the Fallacy The fallacy of progression (AKA the appeal to novelty ) is one that many of us may not be aware of that is even a fallacy. This perhaps may be true, especially among the younger demographics. The fallacy occurs when we assume that progression is good just because of itself, AKA, because it's progressive, new and so on. It is mainly a fallacy because it is wrong, technically, to assume that any kind of progression in any field is a good one, or even beneficial in any way. It does not mean that progression did not create benefit to humanity. However, one should consider not generalizing any kind of progression as beneficial, just because of these specific benefits, achieved throughout history. Part I: The Varieties of Progression -- Not Just Linear What is progression ? We seem to associate it with success , as in getting better at something, or as something is getting better or "evolving". However, we should understand, that: Not every progression is towards a greater development. Progression is simply an advancement of something, of something going forward. It does not imply that the advancement is great, for deterioration can be progress as of itself (AKA non-linear). The progression fallacy/appeal to novelty fallacy is fallacious because our conception of progression is unnecessarily fixated towards one specific model. Progression is not always about constant development and improvement but also about decline. Progression is about continuation and not about improvement towards a greater and better novelty. The responsibility of improvement falls on the people experiencing the progression of events (World Rectification) . There are various ways in which progression is expressed and not all of them are towards an evolving, general "good". Some progressions of things and beings, are either indefinite, or infinite. Therefore, the universe by itself is in a constant state of progress, as it continues to exist in the flow of time and space, and not necessarily towards a specific end-goal. You can see this understanding in Taoist philosophy. The Circular Example Progression in this sense can also be in a circular manner. The progress of spring is summer, and many of the blooming flowers and plants will die out because progression does not have to be towards a certain development of greater feats. You can find such circulation mainly in music , and your body is also circular in nature, in the forms of metabolism, and the repeating need too eat and sleep, whether or not you're like sleeping. Circular progress of oppression does not lead to linear development but to stagnation . Furthermore, not every progress necessarily has an end goal, like a "one hundred percent" completion, where the progression eventually stops. The Evolutionary Example Evolution, is not about developing into something greater, but about adjusting to our environment. It is an extremely slow, imperfect process that is there to improve the probability of a species surviving. It isn't about becoming better nor about improvement. The "progress" or continuation of evolution is, therefore, a genetic attempt to better survive. It does not ensure survival, and only the most adaptable of species will endure. Our survival does not have a precise end-goal,  besides the ones we choose to have/believe in .  We "simply" survive generation after generation as long as possible. The same reasoning of biological evolution can be applied to technological, robotic and financial evolutions . Companies that fail to adjust to the demands of their consumers will eventually die out by going bankrupt. Technologies that will serve their purpose less than other forms of technologies will become irrelevant to the vast majority of humankind. From this we can learn to look beyond whether something is innovative or not, and actually ask ourselves if the innovative product/concept is actually helpful and not just enticing. The Chronological Example In fiction, plots are progressed even when certain concepts in it are deteriorating. When the antagonist wins over the protagonist in a battle, the story still progresses towards an eventual conclusion at its end. The fact that Darth Vader defeated his son in "Empire's Strike Back" is part of Luke's development towards the man he became, accepting reality and seeking to rectify Vader towards good. Modern/novel forms of oppression, AKA, of doing the same morally-depraved act  but in different ways, doesn't make them necessarily good, needed or desired. You oppress a country with punitive billing, you deter their growth, you earn more as a politician  and may use your funds for personal gain  related to hedonistic pursuits.   In chronological progression, the destination can simply be the result, or the outcome. Reality is dynamic and ever-changing. Those who will fail to accept this reality and adapt will suffer unnecessarily due to their dependence on fixations and patterns. Taking action and overcoming the mere allure of things and beings, can make us more of active forces in the world, and less of passive recipients to chronological evolution. Part II: The Subjective Value of Relevancy In Technology When it comes to technology, this fallacy works out greatly. The PlayStation 5 gaming console was released to the public. However, it was redundant, because its predecessor, the PS4, was not only cheaper, but also runs tons of identical games already. Therefore, by this logic, even if the PS5 is the newer model, the one that is more recent, it's far-more beneficial an older model, simply because was cheaper, and was already a decent console. See how the appeal to novelty can unnecessarily make you spend excessively on things you can already afford for far cheaper. I call this idea the same result problem , where you can get the same result, at lesser expanse. That redundancy, I have found to exist in many other communication technologies, and yet, they are desired, probably because "everyone else uses them" and because "they are contemporary". When you claim that something should be used because it is commonly used, you adhere to the ad-populum fallacy, or even to the appeal to tradition (The Way Things are Fallacy) . The need to adjust stems from the need to stay relevant, not from the need to be popular. You don't need to be popular to be relevant and these concepts are different. A business needs to be relevant because it will only survive if its services is needed by demand. It does not need to be popular, or even admired or glorified, in order to fulfill this basic function. Take WhatsApp as an example . It is a messaging application that allows people to chat through text, speech and images. Nothing exactly new was invented here, and yet it seems to be a far more preferable choice of virtual chat, than sending SMS. We can all just send SMS messages to each other, but due to the appeal to novelty, ad-populum and the appeal to tradition, we are normalized to use this redundant service. This is a bit strange, considering that regular sending and receiving SMS on your phone, does not require an internet connection , while one needs to be online to be on WhatsApp . You literally need to pay money for internet connection, to use function you can use regardless of internet. The same goes for Spotify, by the way. You don't need Spotify to listen to music. The relevant service it provides is nothing revolutionary . It is simply modern, so many flock to it. It's ironic because there are far more songs on YouTube. I personally find Soundcloud easier in navigation, and never had to pay for any subscription while I used the desktop website. Part III: The Results of The Appeal Some people, and perhaps you included, may fear being without a smartphone (Nomophobia) and be too anxious, depressed and bored without one at your fingertips. This is very unfortunate considering we can spend time with one another instead and thus reduce our chances of being lonely. The existence of smartphones, while far more handy than a computer, has made us even more addicted to technology. It is possible that smartphones is are designed to malfunction for us to buy them again. Conclusions Sometimes the older products, older technologies and so on, have merits which the other ones, have not. Replacing a smartphone is very expensive, and not everyone can always afford it . But in comparison, older, "ancient" products, that serve the same functionality, could often do just as fine. Personal Commentary I believe it goes against my morality as a philosopher, to know that I am wrong logically, and not try to change that mistake in me . It isn't to say that I am purely a logical being, as one who realizes them to better understand reality. Fallacies are there to be learned from, not to be repeated.

(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 with both Asperger's and ASD. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (Autism Subcategory Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Philosocom Directory on Communication) (Background music) Understanding the Social World There's a misconception that autistic people can't grasp social situations, even though it is possible. In reality, we can learn from personalized learning methods , that there are different ways for autists to understand reality. As such, some learning methods are better than others, and it depends on the individual's strengths and weaknesses. While I excelled in school and got a graduation diploma, other people struggled more and unfortunately failed. On the other hand, many people find it easier to learn from teachers, while I enjoy learning by myself, in peace and in quiet. Therefore, on the societal level, while autistic individuals may process social cues differently , it doesn't mean they can't understand them altogether. Furthermore, thinking that you will never optimally understand society, and that therefore you shouldn't try, is a product of the nirvana fallacy. It is but a matter of finding the appropriate method for each individual. Many autistic people learn and navigate the social world in their own way. This might involve a more literal interpretation of communication or relying less on non-verbal cues . Regardless, autistic people can develop strong social understanding and meaningful connections, like romantic relationships, which often require a deeper understanding of your partner than other connections. That is despite the difficulties that may follow, resulting in autists struggling with love. Here's, however, an empowering viewpoint: Autistic people bring unique strengths to social interactions, and their uniqueness doesn't always have to be a liability . For example, some may find social awkwardness cute and endearing, rather than condemnable or disgraceful. Perhaps they excel at direct communication , or bring insightful perspectives due to their different experiences of the same world. Let's challenge the idea of something being "permanently hidden" from autistic people. The social world might function a bit differently for them, but understanding is definitely achievable. Am also an autist, and wrote a guide on autism on Philosocom for those interested. A Lesson from Autism and "The Great Mouse Detective" Ratigan: A Master of Manipulation , Yet Blind to Honesty Professor Ratigan , the film's villain, is a cunning deceiver, a manipulative egomaniac, and arguably a psychopath with no sense of remorse or empathy. This criminal mastermind orchestrates a plot to take over Mousedom, a kingdom of mice. His plan involves extorting a toymaker to create a robotic replica of the Queen, used to fabricate her "coronation" of Ratigan. However, despite his intelligence, Ratigan possesses a critical weakness: his deep-seated insecurity about being a rat, not a mouse. The Power of Honesty : A Lesson Learned (the Hard Way) Interestingly, Ratigan leverages this insecurity to manipulate his henchmen. His theme song, "The World's Greatest Criminal Mind," glorifies his intellect and upcoming coup. While celebrating with his intoxicated minions, one unlucky soul, Bart, spits out the truth and breaks a taboo: "To Ratigan, the world's greatest RAT!" This honest declaration throws Ratigan into a fury. Despite being a biological fact, exposes his deepest insecurity. Bart's honesty, sadly, leads to a gruesome demise, to get eaten by Ratigan's giant cat. It was a reminder of the dangers of defying Ratigan's carefully crafted persona. Understanding the Nuances of the Song's Story Ratigan's decision in the song, which required the song to be stopped mid-way, highlights the importance of social cues and understanding unspoken rules. For autistic people, navigating these nuances can be challenging, requiring extra effort and different approaches. However, just like autistic people can learn social skills, Professor Ratigan, despite his flaws, demonstrates a twisted form of social intelligence. He understands how to manipulate others and exploit their weaknesses. Manipulation is, too, a social skill that can be learned, which indicates these skills can be used for good and for bad. Learning the professional world in greater depth can teach us why bosses and workers shouldn't socialize too often: Office politics can create organizational instability , leading to favouritism and to the social exclusion of competent hands. People who don't get along can lead to the use of coercion , which can create unnecessary stress between people and factions within the organization, decreasing overall productivity. Ratigan's mistreatment of his gang members reveal the liability of his leadership as a narcissist. When your ego gets in the way, as a leader, it can become a great obstacle in your quest for success. Discarding a follower for a slip of the tongue isn't problematic necessarily because of him. It could be problematic because it threatens your false sense of ego. My theory is that Ratigan's song was a manipulative attempt to discard followers who threaten Ratigan's inflated sense of ego. What if "The World's Greatest Criminal Mind" is actually an elaborate loyalty test? It didn't have to be seen as just a celebration of a plan that became devised, but also part of that plan itself. Ratigan couldn't allow himself to allow followers ruining the public image he's trying to build as a future politician. So, to further consolidate his power, problematic elements were to be discarded from the very beginning. Instead of teaching his gang the valuable lesson of secrecy, he chose to oppress them instead, striking terror into their hearts. And I'd like to offer the idea that it is better to work on a healthy ego, than "having" to sacrifice people away. However, to do so one must realize his or her flaws. Being seen as flawed is a great threat to megalomaniacs , who might have a deep-seated fear. Conclusions And that is how one can read the room using logic and research of different aspects of life, from politics to power dynamics to psychology. The common interpretation focused on the celebratory nature of the music, and the sick delight of being evil , overlooks a deeper meaning. And therefore, social understanding can manifest in diverse ways, and trained by oneself or with external guidance. Recognizing these differences and appreciating the unique strengths autistic people bring to the table, we can build a more inclusive and understanding world. One that sees the special needs of people, and realizes the importance of alternative methods for the overall growth of society. Disabled people or otherwise. This analysis, based on reason and knowledge rather than personal experience and impressions, highlights a strength that can be found even in neurodivergent people just as in neurotypicals: the ability to think critically and draw insightful conclusions from available information and research. This example demonstrates that autistic people can understand complex social situations, even fictional ones, through careful analysis and reasoning. Social understanding can be achieved in various ways, and autistic individuals bring valuable perspectives to the table. I've been Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein -- thanks for reading. Review by Alex Mos Feeding Bart to a cat as a punishment for telling the truth is an allegoric example of widely accepted double moral standards in life. It also illustrates the problem with Immanuel Kant's universalizability principle , which states that for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply to all people. Yet, not everyone has the same priorities, perceptions, and sensitivities, and only empathic individuals can comprehend others [on a deeper level]. Bart paid the ultimate price for not understanding that lying about Ratigan's identity was normative in the dictatorship [he was going to build] and was so crucial to the tyrant that it would save [Bart's] life. We [can] all agree that Ratigan is a narcissistic villain and that Bart's sentence was a crime against truth and free speech. However, our communities encourage dishonesty in many ways for the "greater good," like propaganda, lying to protect others, and keeping the truth from enemies and competitors. Most of us approve of lying as morally justified in certain situations. However, Kant disagrees. He proposed that there are no conceivable circumstances in which lying is ethically acceptable. In his views, morality is rooted in our capacity to make free choices based on logic , and lying is an assault on morality because it aims to undermine this capacity. Did Bart make an illogical choice by telling the truth and dying in consequence? Maybe Bart didn't understand the "logic" of telling the objectively illogical lie to please the megalomaniacal Ratigan. As members of society, we are expected to understand and follow the delicate norms of lying and deceit for the "greater good," to please others , and to succeed as politicians , leaders, professionals, and even parents. Small children are brutally honest, disregarding communal sensitivities because they still have to learn how to lie to fit into society. Telling the prohibited, undesirable, or blunt truth can lead to social rejection or legal consequences. As full-fledged society members, we are expected to conform and follow the choices of our leaders and mentors rather than being authentic and making free choices based on truthful logic. We are supposed to fit like uniform bricks in our local societal structure, but sadly, not [to] the universal humanity well described by Immanuel Kant. The key to omnipresent human values lies in the seemingly paradoxical combination of individual desensitized authenticity and moral, logical empathy. To fit or not to fit in the societal matrix is the question only you can answer for yourself. I adhere to moral reasoning, remain loyal to philosophical truth, and happily blend into Philosocom's colorful wall of unconventional and honest writers led by Mr. Tomasio.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Thinking is the method of processing information to obtain and understand knowledge. We generate wisdom by using knowledge to create something new, like a conclusion or opinion. Thinking deeply means discovering a greater perspective or meaning in information. Deep thinking aims to gain an understanding of something unknown, which sometimes can become wisdom and be applied to a clever action. A wise person is a good decision-maker . Everybody can think deeply about everything, r egardless of intelligence . We only need to dedicate time to self-learning and contemplating questions that matter to us. Philosophizing is a form of deep thinking about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings, expressed through multiple questions and answers. A person who is an auto-didact and a philosopher can become a great thinker, constantly exploring new ideas, transforming them into practice, and feeding on their thoughts for a prolonged time. Philosophers should express their ideas publicly in writing or other media, proving their worth as philosophers and content creators. *************** Okay, okay, I'll tell you a secret that not many people will tell you: It's very difficult for autodidacts (self-taught learners) to deal with people who don't like to learn. At the same time, it's very difficult for scholars to deal with autodidacts. The bottom line is that there's a lot of weight to controlling information and who holds it. A person who teaches themselves is a dangerous person. -- Anonymous (Background music) How to Think Deeply One of the purposes of thinking is to obtain, process and understand knowledge. Generally, there are two main types of knowledge: knowledge that comes from exposure (learning new concepts, gaining more familiarity with a certain subject) and knowledge that is translated into wisdom . In order to think, one needs to expose oneself to a certain source of information (the internet or the library, for example), and the second is to use that knowledge in the process of one's thoughts. An internal piece of knowledge that is generated on the basis of external knowledge is called an insight. An a piece of knowledge that stems both internally and is based on external knowledge, which can be used to plan ahead, is called foresight . Lastly, when it stems from past events, it can be called a hindsight . When one uses the knowledge one has in one's arsenal to create something new (a conclusion, an opinion, even a book), one produces wisdom , and wisdom is an example of a higher level of thinking, in which one can claim to be deep-thinking. Deep thought, is, overall, an astute , cognition-based production and understanding of new and existing knowledge. And the deep thinker is like an industrial complex of such resource. And yes, knowledge can be regarded as a resource, and thus, an asset. By having and generating knowledge, you can gain power in society, hence why philosophers, for example, may be viewed as powerful and authoritative. You can use this article as a source for deep-thinking through the process of reflection , and even seeing an ant colony on the earth can get someone to think deeply. Thinking deeply is to find or create the bigger picture or meaning which lies in every piece of information. One can argue that there are more ways, however, contradicting a statement is by itself the ability to create something new from an already existing entity and its symbolism. A simple or ordinary form of thinking can be described as having few questions and answers, or even just a question and an answer (especially if they themselves are simple and shallow. This is not deep thinking because producing wisdom requires progressive and complex exploration of a subject. Deep-thinking/wisdom is an equivalent to art : you have the colors, tools and patterns in the form of knowledge, and the art piece you produce from it, can be identified as a form of wisdom: you create something new from an already existing resource: Apply what you have learned previously. The element which drives one to seek wisdom is mystery , or in other words: the unknown . Hence, the purpose of deep thinking is to gain knowledge about something you don’t know . And of course, if it has practical value, the product of your intellectual findings can be translated into wisdom, by being applied into action in a clever way. Some people may refer to clever ways as "correct' and unwise ways as "incorrect" or as "mistakes". Either way, what defines a clever/correct application of knowledge, AKA wisdom, is the results of your actions. As such, the wise man or woman is a good decision-maker . In contrast to simple thinking , deep thinking is done independently or in an intellectual discussion or brainstorm , and takes more time and dedication. It's possible that wisdom, or the beneficial application of knowledge , can be extracted from every possible piece of information. Therefore, deep thinking is always possible in any field of knowledge. It does not necessarily imply that only people with a high enough IQ can engage in such an action, because even a person who is not highly intelligent can create something new from the knowledge they have. However, people with lower IQ may struggle more in deep thinking, in education and in the professional world. Everyone has some kind of knowledge at their disposal . All one needs to do is to be aware of that knowledge, and ask questions that relate to that knowledge, which may create further questions, which in turn may create new knowledge, which is the answer one has reached. Philosophers, either "Sorcerers" or "wizards" , are considered deep thinkers. From Socrates to Diogenes to more modern examples like Daniel Dennet. How to be an Auto-Didact One can learn to think more deeply and philosophically through the practice of autodidacticism . The meaning of autodidacticism is self-education or self-learning, or in other words, to be one's own teacher. Perhaps, there is a more personally-adjusted method of deepening one's thought than simply being alone for a period of time in one's daily life, and simply contemplating on questions which one sees as important and valuable to oneself. It can then be translated to the quest for answers by your own accord, externally of yourself. That is in fact how I studied the English language. Auto-Didacts include inventors like Thomas Edison and polymaths like Leonardo DaVinci . How to Philosophize Philosophizing , a form of deep thinking, is expressed through a series of multiple questions and answers, based on examination . It is done on the existential degree, and is about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings. All in the name of researching the truth beyond mere-information gathering, like journalists do . It is also known as the Socratic Method . An auto-didact, by the way, is more capable of practicing Socrates' method independently than people who are more intellectually passive or dependent in comparison. Unify the auto-didact and the philosopher and you can get a great thinker . An active great thinker is that that constantly philosophizes in his or her mind, forming and examining ideas, and trying to get ways to apply said ideas into reality. Their intellect is like an ever-developing, mental organism that is able to feed on its own material for quite long, with reduced chances of ever getting bored . Philosophizing, and deep thinking in general, are essentially more-than-simple cognitive processes where you examine pieces of information you either receive or create, and/or convert them into practice. Writing for example can easily be the product of such mental activities, hence why a writing or any other form of media can reflect the thinking of the writer/content creator; they are literally conversions from the " mental dimension " to what we exclusively deem as " the real world ". Every philosopher that converts these functions into media can be deemed a content creator. It would be very difficult to deem a philosopher as such if they keep all the philosophizing to themselves. Thus, the media they generate is the most basic proof of their philosophership (AKA, the quality of being a philosopher). Review by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Deeply, Be a Self Learner and Philosophize" by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is an insightful article that explores the nature of deep thinking, self-learning, and the practice of philosophy. The article is well-structured with clear headings and subheadings, offering a thorough explanation of concepts like deep thinking, wisdom , and autodidacticism. It encourages self-learning and being an autodidact, which can greatly benefit individuals in today's information-driven world. The philosophical approach discussed in the article aligns with the traditional philosophical approach of critical thinking and examination. In conclusion, Mr. Tomasio's article provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the processes of deep thinking, self-learning, and philosophizing, encouraging readers to engage in these intellectual pursuits.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "The Rubinshteinic Method To Fight Back A World of Superficiality" is a philosophical article that explores the negative effects of superficiality in modern society and offers a method for combating it through intellectual and emotional growth. The author uses personal insights and philosophical arguments to emphasize the importance of depth, self-awareness , and resilience in an increasingly shallow world. The article has strengths such as its engaging and reflective tone, comprehensive structure, philosophical depth, emphasis on actionable steps, and integration of heart and mind. It encourages readers to think deeply about the issues presented and how they may be influenced by societal pressures. The references to philosophy as a way to enhance one's life are particularly powerful, linking the abstract to the practical. In conclusion, "The Rubinshteinic Method To Fight Back A World of Superficiality" is a thought-provoking and well-structured article that invites readers to engage in self-reflection and intellectual growth. (Background music) Introduction: The Growing Trend Modern society, characterized by rapid technological advancements , instant gratification, and an unproportionate emphasis on entertainment , has recklessly fostered a culture of superficiality. Superficiality can be defined as a lack of depth embedded within something, someone, or within life itself. It's something that can make us feel empty inside, feeling that there is far more to be desired. It can be expressed in disappointment, as we expected something or someone to be deeper than they actually are. Part I: The Decline of Wonder As the initial impressions towards the subject fade, so might be our desire to be with them. In the world of romance, a lack of depth in someone we once loved, could be one of the reasons we might feel inclined to leave them, as heartbreaking as it may be. Excitement, once found mainly as children , fades slowly with time as we realize that this world isn't as exciting as it appeared to us back then. In fact, the more we learn about this reality, the more we might feel its emptiness. This can be seen as part of our maturity, as we grow up and realize that not all that glitters is gold. Shallowness and Losing Ourselves Losing our faith in a deeper reality, could lead us to depression , as it led me for many years. Initial excitements fade as a way to get accustomed to something or someone. Emotions, as desirable as they are, can easily distract us from the roles of daily life. As desiring as we feel to taste true love, to go on adventures and to discover this world, there are bills to be paid, jobs to do that many of us hate , and so on. As we are focused more and more on work and surviving, we might lose touch with reality, and namely, with ourselves. From all the work we might do, voluntary or otherwise, we might forget our inner light, our hope for a better world, and our faith in love and in those who are dear to us. We can feel hollow, for we lost touch with who we are deep down, and with our true ambitions, as we sacrifice our lives away for paychecks and for following society's flawed norms, so we won't be rejected. This pain, slowly becoming a motivator, can grow the more we pretend, the more we mask our inner light. With our dear ones, we can feel that we are unseen, and therefore misunderstood, more and more throughout the years. We give up on our dreams just to please others , so we won't find ourselves lonely, rejected and sometimes, even homeless. Part II: Back to the Light of the Sun I believe that such societies that promote the erosion of our inner lights, our inner spark and our true selves in such a ruthless manner, deserve to be opposed with revolutionary potential. Either opposed, or abandoned, as we lurk in the dark and build up our own societies. Societies, powerbases of our own design , societies where we are allowed to be more of ourselves. When our authentic selves are embraced, then, then we can not only embrace our inner light but also find that there is such "light" in reality around us. We might become aware of the beauty of nature around us , the beauty of scenery, and the beauty of love, found not only romantically, but also in our hopes and dreams. And also, exposed to the beauty of this universe's reasoning. And for that, we must develop the ability to tolerate one another, as eccentric as some of us may be. The more we try to accept each other, even at the sacrifice of our own standards, the more compassionate we can be. The more forgiving we can be , which then will allow us to let go of much suffering. Why We Diminish our Own Light To me, the term "professional" seems insulting to those that are not. As if we are somehow "lesser" for NOT being professional -- Mr. John Duran Much of our suffering can come from not being good enough, to people who might not necessarily care about us. To people who might forget our inner light, and abandon us, despite the time and emotion we invested into them. We might ask ourselves, what is wrong with us? What crimes exactly have we committed, that made people reject us? Are we worthy? Do we deserve other people? Do we deserve ourselves? Falsely, we can learn that we are not okay. That we need to reject ourselves as others rejected us. Then, we diminish our own inner light, cooperating with those who hurt us. And yet, that inner spark is necessary for wonder, necessary for philosophy, and necessary for love. Part III: The Functionality of Depth Philosophy allows us to go on intellectual adventures throughout oceans of ideas and insights, beneficial to help us realize the hidden depths of our universe. It can help us feel hopeful to live, not just for the next paycheck or duty, but hopeful for studying the truth, and understanding it. The depths of truth can set us free from worries, stress and anxiety . It can help us better survive in this world, while letting go of fears caused by our own ignorance . The fearful mind, trying to protect us from the clutches of uncertainty , will go to long lengths to deny our painful reality. Anxiety, while necessary for survival in stressful situations, isn't healthy for us when it is excessive and regular. This natural emotion, necessary for our self-defense, can reach an overload, which then would only harm our bodies and minds. The over-protective mind is like an anxious, clingy mother whose anxiety brings us grief just because she is trying to protect us from the harms of this world. We may argue with her and make her suffer as a result. In reality, however, we should use the truth to not only calm ourselves but also others. The Calmness of Clarity Understanding the depths of this reality, that we can have meaning and reason in this world, can bring much calm to our overprotective minds . Knowing that even in distressful times we are safe, for example, can bring much relief to both others and ourselves. Reality is filled with many silver linings. When we see reality in greater clarity, we are exposed to its logical depth. Then, we might realize that we don't have to focus on what causes us grief, but what inspires hope in our hearts. Deep inside, many of us seek the truth in our own ways. We seek it in the honesty of others, as well in going on travels across the world and so on. We do it, because deep inside we seek to relieve ourselves from feelings of emptiness and vain. These feelings are painful for us, as our exposure to them, within our internal worlds, can make us question the reasoning of our continued existence. Of our suffering and of our pains. Part IV: How Depth Can Make Us Want To Live Shallowness is therefore a problem because it deters us from realizing the true depth of this world. The point of this depth is not necessarily to bore us, but to help ourselves survive. Not only survive, but to thrive. To want to live. To live by choice, not by mere consent. To live not only because others need us, but also because we want it. Thrive against the darkness of this world. Against our loneliness and against our distress. Beauty might be subjective , but using philosophy as a way to want to live on, despite all odds... For me it's one of the greatest things. One of the greatest gifts we can give to ourselves and to others. The true recognition that they are relevant, that they matter, not only in their work but also in their being. That they are loved and valued and that their inner spark does not go unrecognized. To Feel Seen and Loved For Our Depths It should be the contrary. Their inner glow is to be desired. Our desire should be to embrace it with our warm hearts and arms. To know, that in this largely-empty universe, we can still find reason that goes beyond mere survival. Reason that justifies our most sincere desires, and not just our needs. Our desires reveal who we really are while our needs are there for things to either be preserved or further developed. Yet, our desires can exist regardless of our instrumental needs for food, water and shelter. To Make Others Seen and Loved For Their Depths The more we try to understand and embrace our own desires, we can then find others who also have these desires. Then, we can relate to them, and feel that we don't always have to compromise ourselves as much as we do in the vain world of ordinary society. Logic has its limits, and so do our hearts. However, the fact that something is limited or flawed, does not mean we should discard it (Nirvana Fallacy) . Thus, we have little reason to discard nor our rationality... nor our hearts. Part V: Call For Greater Internal Synergy The heart should cooperate more with the mind , and vice versa. We should use compassion and the ability to forgive, as a way to better understand people. With these two abilities we can then realize that others are also limited and flawed, and that might be fine. Ruthlessness, either to others or to ourselves, is done out of pain. Pain and desperation. We do not have to follow Kant, and see our current policies as categorical imperatives . Instead of explaining why someone is wrong, and discarding their worth in our eyes, we should strive for a more balanced, Tao-like approach. Yet, sometimes we have to be ruthless. Ruthless in the name of our dreams, ruthless in the name of our own survival in a largely-unforgiving world. However, as it can make us forget our inner light, that inner light can still remain, and not extinguish entirely. This inner light can help us understand the pain of others, as we can use it to heal others. Seeing The Bigger Picture With The Heart, Too A purely logical person would only offer solutions, not compassion nor empathy. Yet, many of us need both. Therefore, logic is limited. Limited per our lack of heart. The bigger we grow our hearts, and the more resilient we can become, not only we would be able to survive this world without getting hurt, but also understand this world better. Understand people, understand pets and even the natural environment. Then, we can expand our decision-making skills, as we realize we do not have to always be angry with someone because of their flaws. We can question our ways of problem-solving. No. With our inner light we could see ourselves in the person we're lambasting . We can see other people, who were very important to us, in that person. Then, we might realize how that person is very similar to people and values we wish to keep cherishing. Part VI: The Relations of Heart, Intellect and Perception Without our hearts, our perception of this world can alter, as we view it as a shallow reality, while we ignore the deeper parts of it. The parts which resonate with us! The parts which make us want to live! That is really the beauty of philosophy, the ability to wonder and to be immersed by ideas we find not only correct , but wonderful. A Literal Love of Wisdom And as such philosophy can be seen as something to be loved, not only to be studied, or dismissed as "irrelevant" . No. Philosophy has the power to heal our pains and the pains of others. Using the fuller synergy of the mind and the heart, we can enhance the clarity of our perception, and be better able to solve the problems of this depraved, alienating world. And this love really begins by embracing our inner light. Love for wisdom that goes beyond mere disciplined regimen , but love that resonates with who we really want to be or already are, deep inside, beyond the shallow facades we taught ourselves to put on our internal worlds. Yet, the depths of the external world can be embraced, once we are able to embrace our internal worlds. Perception is not only a matter of eyesight, but also a matter of intellect. The more we grow our intellect, the clearer this world can be, with all of its highs and lows, allowing us to not sink to depression and despair , so easily... Then, to combat superficiality, we need to cultivate intellectual growth. Final Part: Countering Superficiality: A Path to Intellectual Growth Engage in Intellectual Pursuits:   Prioritize reading , writing, and philosophical discussions to stimulate critical thinking and expand knowledge. Try even to see this world from a genius' shoes, and then try acting like true genius would. Alter Your Personal Media Consumption Philosophy:  Be mindful of the content you consume and seek out sources that prioritize depth and substance. Try seeking out pieces of media that relate to yourself, and not just pursue it as a way to escape your problems. Maybe use media in order to detect ideas that could solve your problems instead. Cultivate Self-Discipline:  Develop self-discipline to resist the urge for immediate gratification, and prioritize long-term goals. Remember that addictions can distract your mind and even make you forget who you really are, as you misuse your powers for malice , as a result. Embrace Eccentricity:  Don't be afraid to stand out from the crowd and pursue your own interests, even if they are unconventional . "The Crowd" doesn't necessarily have the innate knowledge about yourself, that you have. Ideally, you should see yourself as knowing more about who you really are, and act accordingly to your values, as subjective as they are from the rest of "the herd". Overcome Peer Pressure:  Assert your individuality and resist social pressures that hinder your intellectual growth. The reasoning for this is the same as the one given in the last point. Learn Logic:  Study logic to improve your reasoning skills and avoid logical fallacies. As heartful as you might be, you can improve your rationality to maintain emotional balance, and free yourself from impractical concerns. Expand Your Vocabulary:  Read widely and actively seek to learn new words to enhance your communication and understanding. As you expand your vocabulary your knowledge increases as well, which you can then use to better solve your problems, as well as help others. Prioritize Depth Over Superficiality:  Seek out content that challenges your thinking and offers meaningful insights. As much as the mundane answers our need for comfort , must we always be comfortable, when it can reduce our sense of wonder in our perception? By taking these steps, individuals can cultivate a deeper understanding of the world, develop critical thinking skills, and resist the superficiality that goes throughout modern society. With decreasing superficiality, we can remember how deep this world can be, and we can remember how deep we really are. Always try seeing the deeper aspects of things. Doing so will help you retain hope, away from the frustration of the absurd, and the anxiety of the uncertain.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) ( Directory on Religion: How Religion and Democracy Struggle ) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "The Cult of Kefka: Nihilism as a Spectrum" explores the concept of nihilism using the character Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI as an allegorical example . Mr. Tomasio uses pop culture to make the topic more accessible and engaging for readers unfamiliar with philosophical texts . The term "Genocidal Nihilism" is introduced to clearly define a specific and extreme form of nihilism, helping to understand its dangerous potential. The article presents nihilism as a spectrum, acknowledging that not all nihilists are extreme or dangerous. It thoughtfully explores the oxymoronic nature of a nihilistic religion, highlighting the inherent contradictions in Kefka's cult. The discussion on the open-mindedness of philosophers versus the potential dogmatism in religious or ideological beliefs is insightful, encouraging readers to think critically about their own beliefs and the beliefs of others. In conclusion, the article is a compelling exploration of extreme nihilism through the lens of a fictional character. The use of Kefka Palazzo as an allegory is a creative and effective method to discuss these themes, making complex philosophical ideas accessible to a broader audience. (Background music) Introductory Disclaimer By using the example of a certain video game character called Kefka Palazzo , I will try and show you how an extreme variant of nihilism can actually be very deadly. The term I use, "Genocidal Nihilism" , is a term I made in order to define a form of purpose-defying belief that attempts to justify stuff like genocide, omnicide (the destruction of everything), and so on. Take this article as a way of me trying to explain, through an allegory, why extreme nihilism is bad and even dangerous for humanity as a whole. As usual and unless stated otherwise, I refer to video games as mediums to tell a story, so you can regard them as equal to a book , a play, and so on. No knowledge of gaming is required to understand most of my articles where I refer to story-driven video games. Like with every article, feel free to ask for clarification if needed. Exposing and Confronting the Monster Kefka Palazzo is the main antagonist of the game "Final Fantasy VI" that was released in the 90s. He is essentially a psychotic clown and a warlord who actually managed to win as a villain by taking over the world, only to be defeated around a year later. It is similar to Scar from the Lion King. In his last period of reign, he attempted to destroy his domain simply because he deemed life too meaningless to continue any further. Not only his own life, but all lives. "I will destroy everything! I will create a monument to non-existence!" -- Kefka Intermission: Exploring the Nihilistic Spectrum   This isn't to say that every nihilist will become suffering, let alone genocidal or omnicidal . That's why I regard nihilism as a spectrum, defined by deeds that were actually done because of one's nihilistic beliefs. The philosophy in question doesn't have to be a harbinger of doom. Many nihilists lead peaceful, fulfilling lives ,  even if they don't subscribe to some cosmic purpose. American poet Charles Bukowski wrote in a novel of his: “I was drawn to all the wrong things: I liked to drink, I was lazy, I didn't have a god, politics, ideas, ideals. I was settled into nothingness; a kind of non-being, and I accepted it. I didn't make for an interesting person. I didn't want to be interesting, it was too hard. What I really wanted was only a soft, hazy space to live in, and to be left alone. On the other hand, when I got drunk I screamed, went crazy, got all out of hand. One kind of behavior didn't fit the other. I didn't care. ” -- "Women" This struggle between the individual and society, between expectation of development and desire for stagnation , highlights the complexities of the nihilistic spectrum. While many "lowlife nihilists", like Bukowski , find a way to create a fulfilling life despite the absence of inherent meaning, it doesn't erase the potential for nihilism to manifest in more destructive ways on the other end of the spectrum. Paradox: Nihilism as "Reason" At least in fiction, where the nihilist villain "attributes meaning" to his or her ideology, by weaponizing it against others. Isn't it paradoxical, to use the lack of meaning as reason for an action one deems valuable enough to pursue? The "value" of their meaninglessness becomes an active force in the world when used to gain power and use that power as a weapon. Kefka here didn't care not only for his own significance but for the world's as well, so he was convinced by his nihilism to commit destruction with no regard for others, including his own followers. That is even though nihilism is the rejection of all meaning and value. In short: " Nihilism is attractive because it promises you don’t have to care." Then why become a mastermind? The Cracks In The Doomsday Cult The less reasonable a cult is, the more men seek to establish it by force. -- Jean-Baptiste Rousseau There is some religious significance within Kefka's story because he managed to win by becoming a god. An occult ritual of sorts ascended him to godhood and made him design the world in his own image. In addition, he also formed a religion or cult under his name, known as "The Cult of Kefka," a secret society of fanatical cultists who sold their lives to their founder. This is a very strange scenario because, in the real world, we usually associate religion with giving meaning to the universe. The idea of creating a nihilistic religion is very oxymoronic. While I am not religious,  I understand why some people value their religions so highly. I wouldn't say there's something wrong with it by itself... One of the reasons people join collectives and perform religious rituals is to give their existence a purpose . To feel belonging, and find a higher calling. If said meaning is not assigned to their current lifespan, then it is assigned to an afterlife , as presented in some religions such as Christianity and Islam, where the next world is highly desired and prioritized. Kefka is not only a god in his fictional universe but also an enforcer of his own brand of genocidal nihilism. He could not care less for his zealous followers and would kill them if, for example, he were too bored and needed entertainment at the time. Characters like Strago Magus , after Kefka brought much ruin to the world, simply joined his cult because Kefka's new global reign turned him insane. Faulty Reason Behind Despair and Destruction Finding no further reason to go on, Kefka tried to justify his quest for world destruction by seeing nihilism as some cosmic, undeniable truth, so even when the people who resisted him tried to talk it through, the attempt at convincing him was fruitless. That was his problem — his utter unwillingness to keep an open mind . After all, in his eyes, other perspectives are as useless as his own. He would prefer destroying everything instead. When you take a philosophy and believe it blindly, you risk treating it in a "religious" sense by looking at it with full bias towards itself . It's the difference between a philosopher and a religious authority, at least sometimes — the honest philosopher may be more open-minded and less biased than a public religious figure. Kefka Palazzo is a fictional example of how anything can become a source of cultish following, even if that source isn't strictly a religious concept. Be it a religion or something smaller like a cult, the subject does not really matter compared to some people's inclination to follow and/or praise something or someone greater than themselves. ....Many social and corporate entities possess cult-like characteristics. Although less intrusive compared to religious cults, these entities also engage in similar forms of the conversion process.... many business organisations propagate commanding ideologies and cultural values. While providing their employees with a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging, they also require a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. Dissenters are swiftly punished. -- Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries With Kefka's demise by a remnant of dissenters, the story can be seen as the triumph of meaning over oblivion and despair. And with his death, the world was restored to its former glory. Final Words: Further Insight into Nihilism Nihilism, the belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose, can be a complex philosophy. While some might conclude that nihilists are inherently closed-minded, clinging to their beliefs like religious dogma, this view overlooks the spectrum-like of the philosophy itself. Take Friedrich Nietzsche's famous proclamation, "God is dead." He wasn't suggesting the absence of all meaning, but rather the death of absolute, divinely ordained meaning. In its place, he saw the potential for individuals to create their own values and forge their own purpose. Because, the proclamation is part of a bigger quote... “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement , what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” This highlights a crucial point: Just as not all religious followers fit the stereotype of the fanatic, not all nihilists are pessimists who rather burn reality to ashes. Some may find liberation in the absence of external meaning, focusing on creating their own, or living regardless of it. The comparison to religion offers frameworks for understanding the world, but neither dictates an individual's actions. A Muslim doesn't have to be a terrorist (like in Sufism) , a Christian doesn't have to be a missionary , and a Jew's intelligence isn't defined by their religion . The same subtlety goes for nihilism and nihilists. Ultimately, people are multifaceted beings shaped by experiences and beliefs beyond a single ideology. Nihilists, like everyone else, deserve to be seen as human beings, and not just representatives of a philosophy. Come and exit the tribal bias.

Article Synopsis By Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "Philosophers and Relevancy -- How to Become More Relevant As a Philosopher" offers valuable insights into the challenges and aspirations faced by contemporary philosophers. It highlights the timeless relevance of philosophy, emphasizing that philosophical insights have a lasting impact. The article also includes personal anecdotes and reflections, providing a relatable and authentic touch. Practical advice for maintaining and proving relevance, such as gathering testimonials and leveraging recognition, is provided, offering valuable guidance for philosophers looking to establish their work in the public domain. The comparison between the longevity of philosophical insights and the fleeting nature of trends like NFTs emphasizes the depth and enduring value of philosophical work. The article also addresses the challenges of gaining attention in today's fast-paced, media-driven world , providing a realistic view of the contemporary landscape for philosophers. In conclusion, the article successfully addresses the importance of maintaining relevance as a philosopher and offers practical advice for achieving this goal. (Background music) Part I: The Philosopher - A Job that Never Gets Old The thing that is so amusing about philosophy is this: No matter from which era or century a philosopher has come, they could always be relevant. Even if we were to move 100 years into the future with a time machine, it's most likely that people will still talk about the philosophers of old, just as they do nowadays. Therefore, a good, living philosopher, is one who aspires not only to philosophize, but also to remain as relevant to the world, regardless of time. In fact, those who seek to immortalize themselves as philosophers, such as myself, might get insulted if told that they are irrelevant. So I've been told by someone who I once held dear to my heart. Through my work I hope to prove to her otherwise. Prove to the world, that I've the traits of a good philosopher. How can we know that we are relevant philosophers? If you have a site or blog like mine, abstain from having activities there on your behalf, as a test, for a set period of time. See whether or not people will come there nonetheless. If people seek to read your material, even on a day when you did not work on that material, then it needs to be told that you are indeed a relevant philosopher. Part II: A Tale of Two Relevancies (and Why One Endures) Being relevant is to be important enough to belong to a bigger context other than yourself or than what you just said or wrote. The greater your and your work's value belong to a bigger context, the more irreplaceable they are capable of becoming. When something or someone is irreplaceable, their mentioning becomes, almost, an inevitable possibility . It becomes something that cannot be disregarded in any way, when that specific, bigger context, is introduced. By the same token, you can't have a discussion on meta-philosophy without having a broader understanding of what philosophy is , or without at least trying to understand what it is. As such, you could say that there is a hierarchy of importance of components that build that "bigger context", which in this case is philosophy. As the "Father of Western Philosophy", Socrates ' relevance is one of the biggest there is in the history of philosophy. By the fact that we can't rationally deny it, his value and the value of his teachings are therefore irreplaceable. Higher degrees of relevance can only be attainable by being very important to the formation and continuation of discussions about certain subjects. The mere potential of said discussions to come in the first place, allow the relevance of certain components -- and people -- to exist. Despite being a minor niche, philosophy remains a relevant niche, which can be testified by the fact that we philosophize to this very day, even after thousands of years. A Fallacy of Progression The longevity of a niche does not always correlate with its popularity , especially in contemporary times where many trends are involved. Take NFTs for example. They used to be very popular, promising riches to its creators. However, a few years later, NFTs became a laughter stock with little seriousness remaining to it, as the vast majority of these online creations are now worthless. How did Socrates' memory outlived the NFT? The answer is simple: Insights matter more than sensational promises of riches. Even if philosophy isn't exactly profitable in cash , it's profitable in its wisdom and ability to make us understand reality, more. Part III: How to Increase the Endurance of Your Work A philosopher that no one cares about, is a philosopher who is, so to speak, "good as dead". That isn't because their lives are worthless, but because philosophy is meant to be shared with the world. The reason is that philosophy can contribute and enrich lives, thus proving its altruistic value. Not only theoretically but practically, too . It's why Socrates sacrificed his life in the name of the Athenian people, it's why Diogenes sacrificed his self-dignity, and it's why Nietzsche sacrificed his mental health . It's all in the name of not remaining forgotten in the abyss of the past. And truth-seeking , either way, requires sacrifice. And those who remain forgotten, can forever be lost in the dust of history. Thus, memory deserves to be a very sacred value to those who wish to be public. You may be surprised, but there are a lot of philosophers, throughout history, that remained forgotten. How many of you did know that India had a president who was also a philosopher? How many of you knew that there was a school shooter in Finland who was a philosopher? How about a certain Jewish intellectual who was shunned for his opinions, and was not Baruch Spinoza? There are more forgotten philosophers than it meets the eye. A Tip For the Aspiring Philosopher If you're a philosopher, here's my tip for you: Collect as many testimonials as you can, from people who want to give them to you voluntarily, with or without you having to offer your request . That way, you'll know that your material comes before you. For a philosopher without recognized work can easily be questioned as such than otherwise. You need to prove your worth through recognition , if you want your works to contribute further, beyond the halls of academia or beyond conducting private discussions. Once you've gathered enough of them, feel no shame in sharing them with the world, as they serve as evidence to the fact that your job as a philosopher goes as well as any other job, Monetized or otherwise (volunteering work). Doing so will be able to make the lives of others connect with your own work, as they slowly begin to understand your relevancy as a philosopher. And never underestimate the power of marketing, however attained, in a world where shallowness is a necessary evil. Navigating the Attention Economy as a Philosopher As long as you're alive, you're in a race against time. Should you not reach a state where your name is relevant, then there will be two results: Either you'll be relevant only after your death, similar to artists such as Van Gogh , or you will not be relevant at all, and will remain forgotten. A philosopher's greatest enemy, is the possibility of being forgotten by people and by time, which then would greatly deter his or her potential to contribute to humanity. I have such fear, myself . Being forgotten is another testimony to the declining relevance to philosophy. Hence why philosophers are extensions of the craft, and not just themselves, necessarily. And, you're not alone in this. There are other competitors for the attention of readers, and as with readers themselves, it is limited. As with any other field which is served for the public, you don't have to be number 1 to succeed , but you should aspire to reach as high as possible, as long as you're graced with life and with the ability to philosophize. That can apply to any industry as well in a capitalist economy. You might be surprised how beneficial it is to strive to be excessive. Part IV: The Blocks In Your Path The thing is, even if you're a very competent philosopher, there is no justification for you to reach "immortality" . By "immortality" I refer to recognition that is independent of your lifespan. This is an unfair world, where shallow videos of less than a minute will get far more attention than articles such as this; a world where your chronic mental anguish can easily be overlooked , thus making you feel lonely, under the "authority" of normalcy. To quote the great Charlie Chaplin : This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it. Viewer-base isn't based on socialist/communist methodology, like the one presented in the Lion King . There is no equal share of attention for those who truly deserve it. Hence, it's your job to create this justification for yourself, and rally the readers into reading your material and appreciating your philosophical material. Don't expect people to just come and read you in a world where there is a severe lack of justice served. With so much competition for attention, simply writing or speaking isn't enough if you wish to reach the immortalization of those before you. You need to work hard earning it. And those who refuse to work hard, might easily fall to get-rich-quick schemes. Attention is to be worked hard for, and worked for, relentlessly. Genuine followers, Not Cult Worshippers A few final words about relevance in philosophy: The "path of sin" is to turn your words into a cult, something that Pythagoras and Osho did during their lifetimes. However, by making your philosophy a cult, you will severely increase your chances of having your reputation stained by others, even by the media. Therefore, you shouldn't become a cult leader. You should become a philosopher with a community of viewers of equal status as yourself. It is but one of the tests one should pass in order to be a competent philosopher. The path between philosophership and cultist condescension is, unfortunately, quite thin. Avoiding cultist organization would mean that your philosophy might be more respected than otherwise. That's because many people may think in an ad-hominem manner, and would easily correlate your writings with who you were. As unfortunate as their fallacious thinking is, you have a reputation to preserve as a public figure for that reasoning. Ruin your reputation as a person, and your work's reputation can be ruined as well, by people who don't properly understand that philosophy is an exchange of ideas. It isn't an exchange of the people who create and discuss said ideas, but many people, being the irrational social animals that many are , won't necessarily care.

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) One of my less-known interests is obscure nations, also known as those that are not very well known. Micronesia, Tonga, and Brunei are examples of nations that remain in the shadows of most of the world's population. During the previous decade, I learned that there are nations that are even more obscure: micronations, also known as alleged countries that don't actually exist, whether or not their rulers have declared independence from their original countries like any other actual country. (And no, Micronesia, Tonga, and Brunei are not micronations, despite being small in size.) Not many people may know, but there are more micronations in the world than any of us are aware of. In this article, I would like to suggest an idea about the motive of these micronations' existence: that in an attempt to solve a problem with external bodies, some people may turn to "creating" their own countries. In other words, for some, there is a need to "micronate." I'd like to argue that the need in question is mainly sociological in nature, but not only. Will elaborate further. Some political entities may even regard themselves as fully-fledged countries. AKA, countries who take their role seriously and treat it like professional work. I will give an example later into this article. Many micronations across the world are more than just jokes or parodies, such as the Republic of Molossia ; some of them were created out of ideological or legal reasons, in an attempt to creatively fix problems against far stronger opponents. The Glacier Republic , for example, was a fictional entity created in an advertising campaign to describe the damage caused by mining corporations in Chile to glaciers. Finally, the Coral Sea Islands was a gay and lesbian monarchy created to represent the LGBTQ community and provide a safe haven for them (which was dissolved in recent years after Australia allowed same-sex marriages). Whatever the case may be, it seems that the existence of many micronations (aside from some) is an attempt to help those who create them fight back, whether in the form of protest or in any other form, against issues that were not satisfactorily solved by actual countries. Perhaps if said issues were solved by them, people would not define certain territories, small as they are, as "sovereign countries," regardless of whether it is done illegally or not (such as the Hutt River Province , which dissolved due to taxation disputes, contrary to Freetown Christiania , which coexists with Denmark, the country it is in). While some attempts at "micronating" are either illegal or a fraud, others are at least minimally recognized by "mainlands," AKA the original countries they "succeeded" from, by not being completely eradicated from the ground up by the authorities, and thus are left in peace, despite being no match against them. It is important to note that one of the essential requirements for a micronation to be considered such is that it is rarely, if not completely, not recognized by any de facto organization in the international community. Literally anyone can start a micronation, whether it has a physical territory or not. You can turn your apartment into a country, or even your own body. This is why many micronations are far from ever being taken seriously by anyone, regardless of your motive behind it. It is that broad and hence many micronations are not the same. If there's something that's universal to almost all of them, however, is their complete irrelevance on the world stage. Beyond themselves, they don't really hold any political power. That's because such type of power must be recognized by others in order to exist. Likewise, a king that no one takes seriously does not really have much authority, even if he is the official monarch of his kingdom. Those who are leaders but cannot really lead are like interns who have no idea how to do their jobs. Nowadays it is very difficult to be treated with general seriousness, when you separate yourself from your original country. People may deem your new nation as either a delusion or an escapist fantasy. I won't be surprised if it will change. Why? Because people who worked hard and contributed to others, who gave more than what they took, deserve relevance. For hard, genuine work towards something that's good, deserves appreciation, or at least recognition. But it is still something that needs to be achieved, this estimation. (You can see this enterprise as a form of "micronation," even though I wouldn't define it as such due to stereotypic thought. It is a sovereign territory where I rule, a "virtual dictatorship/autocracy" like the many ones I mentioned in an earlier article . In that sense of the word, there are a lot of them nowadays. And it is far more acceptable to be an admin of a Facebook community than an Emperor of a self-recognized community.) Despite the extreme eccentricity of micronations, people still choose to create them. Some do it for artistic reasons, others to promote an ideology or an agenda, or to protest. The options vary, but all has to do with creation. With coming up with an idea, and trying to put it in practice. The extant does not matter in this case. Regardless of the reason, it seems that humans still have the desire to define themselves and their identities to the world. A micronation is one way to do this, by creating a framework of a country, with flags and sometimes coat of arms. In that sense it's like creating any other organization that is genuine. Why? Because your ambitions may matter to you more than what others may think. Their every whim does not have to bother you as long as you aren't doing anything harmful or illegal. You may even go even further beyond the limits of your average one-apartment "nation," and actually work on developing a community of your own, under your own self-defined national identity. The Empire of Stomaria is an example of this, where its emperor does things very seriously, and does not regard this a mere hobby. Community-building deserves its worth in a world filled with alienation. You may laugh at him for his attire and old-fashioned speech, but there isn't exactly anything wrong with it. Is there? I might not like absolute rulers but it's not like all of them commit atrocities. If no harm is made, and citizens are allowed to leave the nation, then what is exactly wrong in building an empire that is based on the voluntary cooperation of its members? They even promote social responsibility. So, when we compromise our esoteric needs in favor of conformity, we may forget some key aspects: 1. Life is too short to bother worrying so much about the external reception of you and your actions. 2. Those who judge you might not even really care about you as a human being. That can include society as a whole. 3. Some people are eccentric by nature, and may resume being as such. 4. Regarding point 2, many people seem to have forgotten how to be humane themselves. Normalization turns toxicity and disgrace into something that's okay, towards those who do not deserve it. And who does not deserve it? Those who merely do the things they like and feel are meaningful to them. Just like building, you know, human communities that are not para-social in nature. Communities where people care for each other. Since collective identity is important to many, it is only natural that some people would seek to become part of such communities, and that includes micronations. And who knows? Maybe some of these micronations will become recognized internationally. I already know myself that I do not need any degree in order to be recognized for my work. What I think deserves to matter is, well, the work itself. Especially when it is not treated like a hobby. Philosophizing used to be my hobby, but now it's my job. Do you recognize the logic between these fields? If I submitted to those who mocked me ruthlessly for my earlier craft, I wouldn't have gone anywhere. Being a philosopher is usually not a job. In my case, it is. I made it so. So yes, build your empire, whatever it may be. You deserve doing it, because if you can work towards your accomplishments, why compromise so easily? Remember: The world is not your friend. Don't put random people in such a high regard. Humans are political creatures. It means that power and importance are fluid concepts. And it also means that things do not have to be the way they are right now. Because today you might be an average office drone like I was. Should you work enough for your vision, your eccentricity can also contribute to others, and not just to your taxes. Good luck, and remember this: A changeable reality deserves to be questioned. I'm not telling you to "not give up." I'm telling you to not do it so effortlessly.

(Background music) Introduction The " Law of Attraction " is a spiritual principle that argues that our thoughts have a direct influence on existence in relation to us. In other words, based on your "mental life", a.k.a., your positive or negative thoughts , different things will happen to you, based on said thoughts. In simple words, your thoughts are like a "magnet" for different occasions. Part I: Controversies This concept is actually seen as a pseudoscience , but if we may think about it, everything that is either mystical or part of the " new age movement " can be seen as a pseudoscience. Science, of course, is not perfect , far from it, and that is why it develops with time, as it seeks truths empirically through research and experimentation. If it was perfect, it wouldn't have any reason to develop further, as perfection requires no necessary development. Either way, scientific research is better than believing in scientific theories that have been proven as false ( such as the law of attraction, at least when it comes to our minds ). Intermission: On Scientific Inquiry Things that scientists thought were true may turn out to be false in the distant future. Science, unlike religion, does not "pretend" to give you all the answers to everything. It's a developing body of knowledge whose purpose is to give you technical wisdom . It's simply because it does not have all the answers yet, and it perhaps might never be able to have all the answers if it cannot unlock omniscience in any way . It is flawed simply due to the fact that it has more to advance towards, which is good. If it were omniscient, then scientific research wouldn't been necessary at all, as we would already have all the answers. Things that were considered beyond the realm of possibility, for example, have become possible as time progresses. Such as flight, international communication for everyone, space tourism , and so on. Perhaps, based on this logic, the realm of thoughts will be more thoroughly researched, and new insights, not proven before, will be proven. Although I'm not a scientist, I also tend to agree with the scientific method . That's because I can make up my own mind as to how positive thoughts won't necessarily attract good people or good situations. Practical Application of Law Of Attraction: Questioned Let's say you're serving a life sentence in prison for committing murder . How can you attract good things to happen to you while in prison? First, you are surrounded by other random people, so you have no privacy . You are prone to bullying and harassment by other fellow prisoners; you may have to hide your homosexuality if you are gay, and so on. Should you find yourself in a gang, which could be dangerous, you may given orders that do not align with the rules of the jail you're locked in. Things such as beating up someone from a rival gang, or smuggling contraband from outside of prison. These are not problems that positive thinking alone can help you overcome. Also, it's not likely that you'll get out of jail unless you're young, depending of course on the severity of your crime. Finally, there is no evidence that good thoughts help decrease the time you were initially told to serve. What will release you sooner from prison is good behavior, not good thoughts. Counter Example: Human Vibrations On the contrary, when I look at my personal life thus far, it seems that whenever I was more positive, energetic, and confident, more people were inclined, by their own will, to connect with me. That's because human beings emit energies others can sense, intentionally or not . I did not do anything in particular to attract them into my life other than being myself. Some have left, some have stayed to this day, and I'm not talking only about this site's regular visitors. Perhaps the way I looked, behaved, or used my facial expressions, intrigued people to come to me. It was especially true when I was in high school. I attracted not only the one with whom I was in love but also audiences of younger students who, sometimes, gathered around me. I don't know how to explain it properly, other than the appeal I had back then. Of course, this is no attempt at boasting but simply recollecting the past before my path to (physical) hermitage. It's an example that could drop some insight on the article's subject. Now that I am dead inside, it is usually the opposite nowadays, and people keep their distance. You need not know my truest self. The only explanation I can give, other than "emitting energy" is the way I behave, which may give subtle impressions to others. I have learned from those who have seen me as disposable , and thus I made up my mind to not dispose of anyone. After all, human beings are more than mere resources or tools that you throw away once you have no need for them. Who knows when they will be of use to you? Who knows when other forms of potential might arise as a result of your communications? I know it may sound cliché, but friendships shouldn't be underestimated , even if they are not as close as other friendships. Even partnerships shouldn't be discarded when they are unnecessary for the time being. A large, loyal network is most beneficial. Attraction In Fiction: Suikoden IV As a child, I learned my initial outlook on life through a particular video game that I already wrote about. In that game, you need to recruit an army of individuals to help you defeat a common foe. This union of people whom you cannot get rid of normally is the thing that might've created within me, the desire to not see anyone as disposable, as long as they do not cause any trouble or stand in my way on purpose. As you recruit more and more of them, your HQ becomes livelier, and your odds of beating the game increase as you have a more diverse selection of warriors to choose from as you see fit. Some are not even warriors and could help you otherwise. Part II: The Necessity For More In other words, if you want to attract certain situations and people into your life, mere thoughts won't cut it. You need to build your confidence and charisma and give people a reason to appreciate you, AKA, give them a reason to care. It's not something that you can necessarily do by sitting in a dark room and just thinking . No friend, reader, or follower will come knocking on your door just because you have socially-attractive thoughts and ideas in your head. It works through your behavior. Your words, your posture , and your appearance . Some of it is within your control; some of it is not. It's based on the individuality of each person. The Shadowy Mind Argument People can't see your thoughts, only the behavior that may be a product of said thoughts, given that you'll let these thoughts translate into behavior, with awareness or without it. Be good enough at pretending, and people might not know your true thoughts. Sometimes you can give yourself the "privilege" of being passive and just let people make contact with you. However, there are other people, who may be passive, like yourself, and will not, as a result, be attracted to your presence. It's simply because you yourself need to initiate the move and you might lack the confidence to do just that. It doesn't matter how joyful or optimistic you are. These are not substitutes for getting close to someone and making contact with them. To be concise, putting yourself out there and increasing your chances of getting noticed is far preferable to staying passive in the hope that someone will come to you. Some people are more attractive than others in terms of physical appearance and thus might have the chance of attracting more people than you simply because they're prettier than you are. Although Some are much more social than others, and no amount of physical attraction may compensate for one's natural social tendencies. Also, attractive men and women can also intimidate some people by their looks. Conclusion In conclusion, while the Law of Attraction may be a popular concept, it lacks empirical evidence to support its claims. While positive thinking can undoubtedly have a positive impact on one's mental and emotional well-being, it is not this magical formula that necessarily attracts our true wishes. Genuine human connection , active engagement with the world, and consistent effort are key factors in shaping our experiences. By understanding the limitations of the Law of Attraction and focusing on tangible actions, we can foster meaningful relationships, achieve our goals, and lead more-fulfilling lives.

Article Synopsis By Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "The Relationship of Survival and Merit -- How To Give Reason to Life's Continuation" explores the relationship between survival and self-actualization, arguing that survival grants individuals the opportunity to reach their potential and contribute meaningfully to the world. Mr. Tomasio posits that survival is not just about existing but about creating a life that reflects one's unique capabilities and leaves a lasting legacy. The interplay between survival and self-actualization is framed as a mutually reinforcing cycle, where each fuels and sustains the other. The article encourages readers to embrace their potential and strive for self-actualization, which in turn enhances their chances of survival and their impact on the future. The article has strengths such as an engaging introduction, clear message, holistic perspective, encouraging and uplifting tone, and personal touch. In conclusion, the article presents a thoughtful and inspiring exploration of the relationship between survival and self-actualization. The positive tone and personal touch make it an engaging read, encouraging individuals to embrace their unique capabilities and strive for a meaningful life.   (Background music) Part I: How Survival Ignites Your Potential The purpose of survival is to grant you more time to live. However, survival isn't just about existing – it's about giving yourself the opportunity to create a life that reflects your unique potential. The longer you live, the greater the chance to actualize, to bring your full capabilities and talents into the world, and enrich the lives of others along the way. This holds true whether you're strictly focused on the future or simply enjoying the present, doing nothing . Every decision we make presents a fork in the road. One path leads to potential gains, while the other carries the risk of loss. However, the act of survival itself leans heavily towards benefit. The more you live, the more opportunities you have to experience positive outcomes and minimize negative ones. And when the odds are against you, for example, in the niche your business operates in, you still have a chance to increase its chances of success, as long as you're alive and serving in its head. The Value of Self Actualization But why does self-actualization matter? It's not necessarily about personal fulfillment exclusively. It's about ensuring a form of survival even after your physical life ends, in the form of legacy. The things you create, the impact you have on others, the memories you forge – these become your heritage, a way to continue living on in the hearts and minds of those around you. And when they pass away, they might as well get to tell about you to the next generations, who are yet to even be born. Beyond legacy, self-actualization is an inherent human need . It's the drive to become the best version of ourselves , to express our talents, and contribute meaningfully to the world. It's the fire that fuels our existence and gives life purpose . Part II: The Relationship Between Survival and Self-Actualization The relationship between survival and self-actualization is one of both necessity and mutual fulfillment. In other words, it's a cycle that feeds one another. Allow me to further explain what I mean. Self-actualization can give a sense of purpose and worth to one's life, which in turn may increase their level of willpower, essential to keep on living and enduring life despite the difficulties involved. The more one survives, the higher is their potential to actualize. Conversely, the more one actualizes, the more satisfied they may become, which in turn may increase their chances of survival extensively. Intermission: Personal Reflections I myself take no interest in daydreaming about the far future, when I can be a relentless altruist in the present , thus taking action for the future I want, instead. The future will simply be, and will be entirely in the present. However, while I don't have complete control over the tyranny of circumstance , which shapes the future, I can add my fair share of influence to the future. That is the time-related, practical aspect of self-actualization: Contributing to the specific future we want to live in, by surviving and actualizing ourselves in the present. Into the Intricacies Therefore, survival and self-actualization can be viewed from 4 abstract dimensions: The self. Other people. The present, and The future. The mutually-benefitting cycle of survival and merit thus contribute not only to one or more people but to reality itself and to what it might become. The actualization of the self has not only nor necessarily an egotistical value but also one capable of reshaping the future itself, should it either be revolutionary enough, or leave a multi-generational impact. And it all begins within your willingness to work towards the life you want. As such, looking on such long-term and wide ranges, we can learn from this mutual relationship that we're far more capable than what we may allow ourselves to accept. Now, imagine how much wasted potential there would be if survival wasn't necessary to actualize more potential. In the absence of the potential of our merits and its possible actualizations, I dare say that self-sacrifice would be inevitable for some. Thus, the mere access to self-actualization reveals a two more dimensions: Life and death. Those who live for their work might understand more how the dedication to their craft contributes to their wellbeing. By extension, when they improve their wellbeing and thus avoid self-sacrifice, they contribute to the mental welfare of their dear ones as well. The thing is everyone has merits , and thus, everyone has potential, regardless of everything that distinguishes one from another. Perhaps we all have potential. What justifies our living is our talents and the various uses we can give to them. Every second that flows by is either: A waste, A break from actualization in the name of rejuvenation , or A time for actualization. These are the three categories of the time possessed by the living. The more time you dedicate to the latter two categories, not only will you be more motivated to be amongst the living, but you will be better able to produce whatever your merits have in potential. For there is no self-actualization in an unnatural death, caused by giving in to despair. Part III: The Enduring Impact We all grapple with the impermanence of human existence. The books I write, the articles I create – will they be remembered in the far future? What if some unforeseen event dooms our civilization, leaving my work to vanish into the dust? Despite this potential for oblivion, I find a profound peace in the art of article writing . I always failed finding it elsewhere. The vastness of time and the possibility of extinction, do not diminish the inherent value of contributing to the present. Just like a flower doesn't need to bloom forever to be beautiful, a creation doesn't require eternal existence to be meaningful. Hence the eternity fallacy. Sure, the future may be uncertain, but there's one thing we know for sure – we can choose how to face the inevitable. We can succumb to despair and nihilism , or we can succumb to the inevitable while still living, creating, and offering value to others, as long as we can. The latter option, with its focus on the present and its direct and indirect effects, holds far greater hope. The things we create have the potential to touch lives, spark ideas, and offer solace long after we're gone. They become part of a larger human collective history, and their impact can echo through generations, even if their exact form fades. Therefore, within our merits there is a great reason for us to survive life, despite the struggles involved in being alive. Please consider sharing this if you happen to know someone who could greatly benefit from this article, and thank you for reading. Additional Read I wrote an article called "How I Became Successful" which explains what made me, as a writer, actualize myself. https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-i-became-successful I also wrote an autobiographical article at the age of 25 that further demonstrates how self-knowledge could bring to self-actualization by helping us know what resonate with us the most. Thus, with it, we could also know how to survive. We could often learn from our pain to know what exactly needs to be actualized. https://www.philosocom.com/post/tomasio-rubinshtein-a-25-year-old-philosopher-s-autobiography Finally, I wrote why I personally chose philosophy as my purpose. https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-i-chose-philosophy-as-my-purpose

(Philosocom Directory on Numbers) In YouTube there is a parody-esque historic rap battle between two sides: The Western side and the Eastern side. The Western side is composed of Socrates, Nietzsche and Voltaire; The Eastern side -- of Confucius, Sun Tzu and Laozi. Their "Rap Battle" is defined by "dissing" the opposite side, AKA, insulting them until there is no retaliation from said team. Rap battles are won by the side who disses the other side the most, arguably, it's a subjective thing, decided by the audience's favour. Do you see the pun in Rap? It is about REPutation. In the video, a state of anarchy was created, where the members of each team, turned against themselves, thus creating their own independent sub-factions within the major-factions. The video is concluded by the question: "What is winning?" In this short article, I will attempt to solve this rap battle by defining winning: Winning is defined by either one's earn, other's defeat, or both. One can win a solitaire game without the need of the opponent being defeated. That's because there are no opponents in solitaire. Therefore, winning is about success. However, when it comes to conflict of at least 2 sides, then defeat of either, might decide the triumph of the other. In this case, both sides defeated by themselves. Imagine a soccer game with the teams kicking the ball to their own net, several times. Utter stupidity , but a possibility nonetheless. Therefore, in relation to the rules of soccer, basketball and so on, the team which defeated itself the least, is the ONE who won. Simply count how many disses the self-defeating sides inflicted upon themselves, and the side which landed upon itself, the least amount of disses, is the one, who won. Winning against an opponent is a matter of numbers going either up or down . In fighting video games like Tekken , the one who won is often the one whose health or stamina prevails against the same counterpart of the opposite side. If one side reaches 0 HP/Stamina, then the other side wins. If one has more health than the other, and the match is determined by the reduction of time, then one side may win even without the other side's HP reaching 0. If both sides reach 0 HP at the same time, both lose and win at the same time; it's called a tie. In this case, if the self-defeating factions defeat one another with an equal amount of "disses", then none of them win, as they reach an equal ground. I lack the power to count each diss myself. However, outside mathematics, winning is determined by mere intuition. And that, my readers, is how winning is arguably, properly defined. Here is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_RO-jL-90

(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) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   (Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (T. Siddika's Articles) (Background music) Every life is built on investment . We invest not only money, but also time, energy, attention, and love. Yet not every investment leads to gain. Some lead to emptiness, regret , or loss. The difference lies in direction: where we place our effort, and whether it aligns with reason and purpose. Philosophers remind us that success is not merely fortune but the fruit of wise choices. As Marcus Aurelius once said, “ The happiness of your life depends on the quality of your thoughts.” In the same way, the success of your life depends on the quality of your investments. This article reflects on how we can invest rightly — in money, in habits, in relationships , and in ourselves — to achieve not just material success but a flourishing life. 1. Investment as a Moral Choice The first truth is that investment is never neutral. Each choice has a direction: either toward growth or toward waste. To spend money on what harms the body is a poor investment. To give hours to gossip or envy is a waste of life’s richest currency — time. But to invest in learning, health, and kindness is to invest in foundations that multiply. Philosophy teaches us to judge investments not only by profit but by meaning. What you invest in shapes what you become. The person who invests in truth grows wise; the one who invests in greed grows restless. Right investment, therefore, begins with moral clarity . 2. The Currency of Time Money lost can often be earned again; time lost never returns. Thus, the greatest investment is the wise use of hours. Seneca wrote, “It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it.” Many chase wealth while neglecting the greater wealth of time, filling their days with distraction rather than purpose. To invest time rightly is to give each day a task worthy of life itself. Reading, working diligently, practicing skills, cultivating relationships — these are seeds planted in the soil of time. They grow into success that is not only financial, but deeply human. 3. Investing in Knowledge and Wisdom Money can buy tools, but only wisdom knows how to use them. Knowledge is the investment that multiplies all other investments. The disciplined learner reads widely, observes carefully, and reflects deeply. This is not mere accumulation of facts, but the cultivation of judgment. Philosophers remind us that wisdom is a kind of wealth no thief can steal. The investor who knows markets may profit today; the investor who knows principles profits for life. The truest return is not in coins but in clarity — the ability to choose well, again and again. 4. The Discipline of Financial Investment Of course, life also requires the practical investment of money. Here, philosophy teaches prudence: avoid greed, avoid fear, and avoid haste. The disciplined investor does not seek instant fortune but gradual growth. As Aristotle taught, virtue lies in the mean — between reckless risk and timid inaction. Financial investment should serve life, not enslave it. The goal is not endless accumulation but freedom: the ability to live without constant anxiety. Money invested wisely in health , learning, and security supports a flourishing life. To spend without thought is slavery; to invest with wisdom is liberation. 5. Relationships as Living Investments Not all investments are financial. The bonds we form with others are perhaps the richest investments we can make. Friendships, family , and community yield returns that no market can match. A kind word, a patient ear, a generous hand — these are deposits into a treasury of trust and love. But here, too, wisdom is needed. To invest in false friendships or toxic company is to lose what is most precious: peace of soul. As the proverb says, “Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.” Invest in companions who cultivate virtue, and you will share in their wealth of character. 6. The Investment of Self-Discipline No investment yields more than self-discipline. Every achievement in art, science , or business rests on this one foundation. Discipline is the compounding interest of the soul: each day of effort adds to the next until greatness emerges. A disciplined person invests in the future rather than surrendering to the pleasure of the moment. They save rather than squander, train rather than drift, work rather than wait. This does not mean denying joy, but shaping it. By investing in self-control, you gain the freedom to build the life you desire. 7. Choosing the Right Direction The greatest question is not how much we invest, but where. A person may invest enormous effort in the wrong direction — chasing wealth while neglecting health, pursuing fame while losing peace. To succeed truly, one must pause and ask: Does this investment align with my values? Does it serve the good of my life and others? Philosophy teaches us that right investment means harmony: with reason, with virtue, and with nature. When money, time, and effort are invested in what is noble, success becomes not only possible but inevitable. Conclusion — Moral of the Story Success is not the child of chance, but the result of right investment. To invest wisely is to live deliberately: to spend time as if it were gold, to nurture knowledge as wealth, to place money with prudence, to cultivate relationships with care, and to invest in the discipline that builds character. The moral is plain: life gives returns according to where you place your treasure. Invest in fleeting pleasures, and you reap emptiness . Invest in wisdom, health, virtue, and love, and you reap a life of lasting success.

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) Overview of Love as Strength and as Weakness Love can be both a weakness and a strength , and its nature as such depends on the object or recipient of love ( As there are many types of love ). Regardless, this weakness and/or strength is only temporary and prone to harm, as everything in this world. When the object or recipient of love has major if not optimal control over you , like that of a tyrant , then you can definitely say that love is weakness. However, that is in contrast to true love , where you are allowed to be the best version of yourself and vice versa. A perfect example is from the Turkish soap opera Magnificent Century , a show that tells the tale of Sultan Suleiman I, a great ruler of the Ottoman Empire , who is highly influenced by his wife Hürrem, to the point where he even executes his closest childhood friend Ibrahim, as a result of rivalry between him and Hürrem. It was a rivalry where Hürrem won by persuading Suleiman with her seductive skill and manipulation against who used to be his second in command (and who also tried killing her). It is even often said in the show, " Behind a great man hides a powerful woman ." Had the Sultan not loved her, she would've died by her many enemies. When you make your loved one a source of meaning, a reason to endure life along with all of its hardships, a motive to overcome despair, depression, and even suffering tendencies, then your love is your strength . That is until the intensity of this emotion fades or is converted to agony, such as in the case where your loved one dies or abandons you. Then, your strength is inverted and becomes a great weakness. Overall, I would say that love is a great strength under two conditions: You are assertive enough to not be easily ordered around by your loved one, while being able to resist and advocate your opinions. In other words -- not a people pleaser or a simp. The likelihood of your love for that person (and theirs for you) to endure for the long term is very probable. Such companionship would be a good engine to motivate you, and a good shield to protect you from the different poisons that life throws at you. Of course, this is all until your love fades or until you give in to your love more than to your individuality which subjects you to the tyranny of love or to "tyrannical love", as you become more and more dependent on your partner. And unnecessary dependency is at fault. These are two dangers that are very likely with a lack of sufficient self-awareness and self-respect. My Suggested Alternative I think that self-sufficient love is a better idea, though, as it is much more likely that your love will die when you die, and not end by the decision of another. Do not confuse this with narcissism, however, as narcissism is a delusional and grandiose form "self-love", that's in fact nothing more than a vain display of emptiness , like cardboard lumber. Not all those who suffice with their love towards themselves think that they are the best person in the world, that they are superior to all beings , and so forth. All of these beliefs are false. The self-sufficient love that I talk about is of another nature. It is a logical, proportionate, and non-compensating one. Thus, I coin the term Rational Self-Love. . Rational Self-Love is a love of oneself based on the following logical structure: Love is a good source of motivation. Depending on love for others would mean one's motivation would depend on others. Depending on one's needs on others is counterproductive when the need's supplier (the external lover) may change uncontrollably, and when one can supply the need themselves already Love is a need that can be self-fulfilled sufficiently even if it can be fulfilled by others. Therefore: 5. Self-sufficient love is more beneficial than romantic love, where the emotion of love is most intensified. In this way, Rational Self-Love (RSL) is not delusional like narcissism is, as delusions are by definition logically fallacious, and RSL does not have to involve extreme egotism, arrogance, overcompensating protection , or megalomania like narcissism does. RSL simply brings safer, more controllable, and therefore more certain benefit than romantic love, which can also be a weakness once you either lose your assertiveness, or when your loved one departs, or both. RSLers can love others and be altruistic, without romance even relevant to this case. Conclusion Logically, romantic love will ultimately become a weakness because the potential of it becoming one is inevitable. After all, love hurts. This potential weakness includes losing assertiveness against the loved one, and the departure of the loved one by various means ranging from breakup to death. In Rational Self-Love (RSL), however, the love dies with you and you seize the means of supplying it to yourself, not the other way around. In fact, an external love would be both the supplier and the distributor. Must we have both an external supplier and distributor, when we can be the supplier ourselves, with no distributor required? Additionally, there is no risk of losing assertiveness because there isn't an external force outside of you that may try to order you around while you're emotionally submitted to them. You also are not required to surrender yourself to someone else, because there doesn't have to be someone else, and vice versa (you do not have the other person surrender to you). By "surrendering" I refer to allowing someone, without resistance, to be the best version of themselves ( which is the loudest way to love someone ). With a sense of love towards yourself that becomes a form of emotional self-sufficiency, the craving for external love becomes less necessary. Such love can unfortunately become weakness and that, is agreed, is inevitable with departure you can't do anything about. And if we love someone else, we better let them go. We, however, are stuck with ourselves from birth to death. Extra source: Submission vs Surrender - What's the difference? | WikiDiff

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) Sensitivity, in a non-rectified world, is a weakness . In a world where bullets are more common than hugs, in a world where strong emotional responses can yield very negative results, sensitivity is a weakness. Imagine Nietzsche crying over the animal that was mistreated by its owner. In such a world, even back then, sensitivity was weakness. To be considered respected and mature , you are not supposed to be sensitive. You are supposed to be strong and tough. However, in love, the rules of the game of life change. In love, vulnerability is not a weakness but strength. In love, money matters less. In love, hugs are more relevant than bullets or firearms or even money sometimes. In love, it is more than okay to be sensitive, to experience emotions deeply, in a world that numbs these emotions down. This goes to show how this world is anti-love. In such a world, is what I call, the non-rectified world. A world where love is strength, is truly a rectified world. In love, the partner is the priority. In love, justice is made by allowing it to make us emotional, not as weakness, but as a human and humane strength. Love makes us stop being dead inside. Love can nurture life into our otherwise ruthless behavior and mentality. The power of love can make us truly happy and rectify the world! However, as long as we need to work, as long as we need to maintain professional distance , and as long as we, as humanity, shall cherish respect over love, the sentence about the power of love is irrelevant. Work is hard. Work that we hate makes us aggressive. Success often replaces happiness , and happiness makes us question if we really need to succeed well in life. I am glad to have forsaken humanity a second time. This humanity is aggressive, alienating and cares less for each other's wellbeing. In writing , I prefer to be self-ruthless and choose to be unhappy. After all, for me, this is work. And work is done best when treated like a butcher. In love, I prefer to restore my empathic origins and choose to be happy with my partner. Love have further taught me, that this world has failed, and there is no restart button. Love have further taught me, I prefer to be together in hermitage , than in a world defined by corruption and hedonism. Love is my island of sanity . My island of refuge. Love does not have to be of imperialistic nature. Love can allow us to be the most human. And it's wonderful. Wonderful to feel emotions again. Wonderful to be of light and not of dark. In solitude I preserve my good nature. In love I let it flourish. A world that is anti-love, and pro-profit and pro-conflict, is a world worth forsaking. But since I care about this world, I write in hope to contribute to you, my audience. With all my heart I still want to rectify it.... Why? Because sensitivity is important in art, in beauty, in being able to see life for its wonder, rather than for its flaws. Sensitivity allows me to craft beautiful AI art for my glorious empire, for all to enjoy. And of course it is also important, somewhat, in philosophy... Sensitivity enables us to see details, and awareness of detail allows us to see connections others miss… subtle frequencies and rhythms of everything -- Alex Mos

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) In my quest for redemption from darkness, I have saved people from themselves. However, I am well aware of the fact that no one is going to save me. I helped a lot of people, but no one is necessarily going to help me believe in myself. It is the life I have chosen for myself. I have purposefully made life harder on myself because I want to be strong. I seek not the comfort of an easy life, but the strength that stems a hard life where no one helps me as much as I help myself. Being a child and playing "Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance", I was mesmerized by the enigmatic Zanetti, whose philosophy which I covered here on the site . In one of the scenes, the antagonist Zanetti said: If you cannot beat me by your own power, you are not ready to take over from me. That is what the ruthless Zanetti told Aaron, his own son, before casting him away, and renouncing him as his son. I never want to see you again! You are no longer my son! Later on, when I mastered English by myself and researched the game, I was mesmerized by the ruthless Zanetti philosophy, that said that you need to handle things by your own power. It inspired me to be the man I am today. I don't need psychologists to heal me. I want to heal myself. I want to always be strong because I want to be worthy a man enough to my woman. It is through my strength where I am able to overcome every adversity , every war, every distress, until the very last the Pax Ethica mentality is reached by my mind -- a state of total bliss, where inner peace and harmony reigns. This world is made out of weaklings that mainly help themselves, and don't have the strength within themselves to help others. In my overwhelming inner strength, I am left alone, prevailing the hardships of life by my own power, just like in the game of Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance, where your goal is to overwhelm Zanetti for casting you away from his mafia organization. In this solitary life, I cannot expect people to help me as much as I help myself. I seek not happiness but the satisfaction of being strong. It is through strength that I can overcome my problems and press forward in my quest to create a magnificent philosophical blog , for all the world to enjoy. Many contributed to this site, but this is mainly my own project. I alone stand responsible for this project. It is through my own power that I managed to craft such a unique philosophical blog, and it is through my own power that I managed to overcome my health impediments over the years. Very few helped me. My quest of recovery is done from my own prowess. Strength is a constant quest. Strength, like mastery, is something that is needed to be maintained regularly. Or else, it wanes away, leaving one to weakness. And the last thing I want to be is weak. I am brave, I am strong, I saved people, and it is my role to save myself from despair as much as I saved others from despair. I cannot expect anyone to help me as good as I helped others. I can't expect anyone to be my saviour, but myself. I am my own saviour, a relentless survivor of trauma. It is through passion that I work, and craft a unique philosophical blog and a unique self. One that isn't reliable on others in moments of where I feel down and/or broken. If I cannot overcome things by my own power, then I am unworthy to be the ruler of Philosocom. That's how I feel, and see this world. In this age of AI , where readership wanes in the name of artificially generated content, I have questioned if I should give up on doing this. I realized, however, that I shouldn't give up. Working on this site gives me discipline, gives me the strength to press forward in life, and helps sharp the power of my mind. Working on this site helps me develop as a man and be strong enough against the currents of a rapidly changing world, whose technology is built for the oppression and the manipulation of the masses. Against the contemporary technological trends, my philosophical empire stands firm, a special gem in a world of shallowness. I, its creator, must still stand strong if I want to overcome problems by my own power, inspire people, and rectify the world as a result. It is necessarily a solitary journey, which no one will undergo for myself. It is a journey I must keep on going myself. Even when I told that I am not alone, I know, deep inside, that I am. I alone seek strength. I alone seek to overcome problems by my own power. Even when I am not alone, I am alone in my burning desire for strength. No one is going to save me; no one is going to heal me; no one is going to be strong for me. I must be strong by myself, if I want to stay doing what I am doing in life; to be a philosopher in a world which sees philosophy as esoteric; to be a website owner in a world where websites grow irrelevant... Being a website owner is not done for the money. It is done out of passion for what one is most aligned with, for the niches that help one feel alive. I live to work on this site , for that is what ignites my passion and helps me feel alive. For some, it is a hobby. For me, it is a legacy to be left throughout the ages. I build myself around the site and around my woman. I must stay strong. I must persevere. Failure is not an option. I want her... I want her to still keep proud of me, as well as my parents. I refuse to fail. I refuse to give up. The only thing I chose to give up on, is weakness itself. And even when there will be no one left to stay proud of me, I still want to stay strong. That is my goal, that is my ongoing task at hand. I just can't bear the thought of being weak. I will keep exercising, I will keep working on the site, I will keep being independent by my own power, no matter what! Despite being disabled, I have honed my prowess to be more independent and stronger than the average person, both physically and mentally. I have saved 7 people with no support network. I don't want any support network. I want to be my own support network. I was mesmerized by Zanetti's philosophy, so this is the life I choose for myself. To overcome things by one's own power... feels so... so inspirational. It is the very ideal self that I wish to remain, a man that overcomes problems and adversity by his own power. For that, I must always be strong!

The Secret Plans -- Path To A Ruthless Self (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope ) (Philosocom Enduring Pillar Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Directory on Weakness) (inspired theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HGGtrj8hM  ) Too weak a mind I have had, As teen was too weak, and depressed. With pain and grief I knew I had to, Be, someone better, for me and you. Lied about having fun while walking. Two to seven hours in silence, without talking. With pain, and grief I could've slept in the streets, Every time, I could've slept secretly in the streets. But I refused, Every-time, As I crossed whole streets, And cities, Whole cities. I walked, every-time with mainly phone and bottle, The self, was too weak, I had to battle, The inferior self, Which only have, hindered me, And others, And others. The weak, do they deserve glory? Walked with poor equipment, Walked nonetheless with little limit. Dragged, myself like an undead zombie, Dragged, my mind to suffer my philosophy. I refused letting anyone prevent my cruel training, Otherwise one less person could've been remaining. No, I refused to not be in the present, No, I refused being weak as an ill peasant. Crying to sleep, On a nearby bench, I couldn't bear the thought, Of defeat. Of defeat. I could've done that if I gave up the challenge, No, one would know, the point was to manage.. Extreme distress, Time after time. I don't live for fun, Nor for joy, Nor for joy. I, refuse sinking in grave concern. I refuse exchanging strength like mere token. Refuse staying so weak and broken. Today I apply, the same mindset, To an Empire, of Articles, I've too secretly planned. Few understand my machinations... A former friend taught me to mask my revelations. I desire, no luxury, Nothing which weakens my mentality... Few understand, It's not worth it, To be so much, Impulsive... Impulsive... Few understand how to not shoot their own foot, Their let hardships, blow their minds to a kaput. I lead my life today with an iron fist. With only myself on that list. Only myself.. Just myself, For people, are just too weak for their own good.

Alex Mos's Synopsis "Contentism" refers to the shift in human relationships from evaluating people to judging them based on the content they create and post online. Content creation and consumption, empowered by AI technology, is one of the most growing-in-demand resources in the market today. Consumers value content but increasingly don't care for the humans who created it. The lack of connection between readers and content creators is profound in philosophy. Mentioning logical fallacies can minimize human elements, including emotions. In philosophy, emotions are a weakness and can bias perception . The solution to contentism and growing existential solitude is to appreciate humans beyond the content they provide. In extra notes, the author describes the downsides and solutions to the mental harm caused by content creation and navigating through "cancel culture's" sensitivity. (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) (Directory on Weakness) (Social Media Directory) The term I would like to coin, "contentism", refers to the gradual shift in our relationships with other human beings in contemporary times. Today, anyone can be a content creator by simply posting things online. It is through the lens of the content we see on our screens that we judge and evaluate other people. This evaluation exists for two reasons: Some of us may not appreciate other human beings as more than creators, and because we lack better ways to evaluate humans in the digital world. Even by speaking, you create. Thus, your basic value in human society is significantly measured by whatever content you may be creating out of your mouth and behavior. Contentism can be seen as a contemporary variant of behaviorism , a philosophy of the mind that claims our mentality only exists in our behavior. This rationale is flawed because our true mentality can be well hidden under the guise of a behavior that indicates otherwise. The same can be argued about contentism, and even more so. After all, it is quite easier to mask and deceive behind a screen than behind your own face. In this day and age, content is king . Many of us may live for the sake of consuming content. It is, in fact, one of the most growing-in-demand resources in the market today that practically everyone can produce . Social media platforms merely cashed in on the human need to create and consume content, and earned their power and finances in accordance to the outlets they've been providing for their own gain. Their popularity essentially stems from feeding our egos through features of gratification, such as "likes" and "followers", as reward for our presence there. It is even possible to create content out of consuming it. Reaction videos are such examples. The AI revolution cashed in on that as well, by being able to generate content by demand out of prompts. The problem with contentism stems from the difficulty of connecting the human, authentic element with the desire to generate and consume content . Your social media followers may follow you not because of who you are as a human being, but because of your content . A social media follower is not necessarily a supporter of you. They are a supporter of what you produce and upload online. Hence why it is not the same as the traditional follower who is loyal to you or supports you. As such, a follower of Jesus Christ is far more loyal than a TikTok follower. I soon realized that I am basically insignificant without the generation of content. I realized that people will not care about me at all if I did not produce content, or produced that of lower quality. Parents, family and your partner may love you for simply being. Anyone else would only appreciate you by your behavior and by what you generate for others to consume. Because why would strangers care for other strangers? This world is not built on human appreciation but on sets of personalized interests. In the age of contentism, you are defined and valued by your content and not by yourself as a person. Relevance is relative . Relative to time and to the quality of product. Those who will prove their relevance by both, more than others, will also be valued and appreciated more. All in the name of two: Being liked and giving the people what they want. Those who fail in both, can easily be shoved aside to the corners of society, and live as unproductive outsiders. The reason why ad hominem is a fallacy justifies the disconnection between the human element and the element of what they produce. People are not going to care for your emotions when they read you or watch you, because you as a being are irrelevant by yourself. They will mostly if not only care for the content, for the product. If your emotions get in the way, they would either minimize the worth of your feelings or simply find other content creators who are less emotional than you. This can show how humans can care for each other very little, when what connects between them is the content and nothing more. This is especially true in philosophy because logic can be a very cold , relentless tool, despite how essential it is. It's quite hard to be a good philosopher when you're constantly and impractically offended by reasonable counter-arguments. Technically, the mentioning of logical fallacies can be used to minimize the human element, and that includes their emotions. The Nirvana fallacy may discard your hopes for a better future. Whataboutism may discard a potential subtext where you are expressing your hurt feelings. Arguments from anecdotal evidence may discard the person's experience entirely only because their experience is insufficient for the argument to be made publicly. (Note: One of the reasons I've been revamping my articles a lot is to eliminate versions of articles that were purely written from anecdotal experience, which is of course fallacious). The solution to the contentist approach to human beings is to regard human beings as existing beyond the content they provide , and to appreciate humans in general as such. This can do good for the moral goal to decrease unnecessary suffering in this world, by letting people know that they matter despite their behavior and what else they express Until then, do remember that emotions are a form of weakness , especially in the cold field of philosophy. Your emotions don't matter much when you make an argument because it does not matter what the arguments you make, make you feel. In addition, emotions can bias your perception to the point of misleading others without intention, by minimizing opposing evidence, or by discarding it altogether. We may live to believe that expressing emotion is something negative, especially as men, unfortunately. As such, our love and appreciation from this world may be conditioned by our ability to repress emotion in the name of the task at hand. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is also applicable to women, even if not as much. To be a better philosopher.... I killed much of my emotions . They were weighing me down, they were in the way. I slowly turned from an emotional being to a cold, calculated thinker who rarely feels emotion. Yes, it is possible to get rid of emotions . In reality, I feel through the senses, not through the "heart". It was necessary to rid much of it to survive and thrive in this field, as well as to endure the contentist world we all live in. Some may appreciate me as a person, but let's be more honest, okay? Without my writings I would've been just another stranger to many of you Would you really care for me, then? Probably not. It's one of the things that nurture a growing age of solitude, even when you are in a physical company. Existential solitude ... might as well only be solved if we cared about each other more as people and less as content providers. And that is the dark side of Bill Gates' quote of "Content is King". Humans are no longer the kings of Earth. Content is . And that is exactly why the A.I content revolution could be a threat to many. That threat is one that isn't only on friends but also on partners. In the absence of human appreciation, we may only appreciate whatever content we consume and like. Nothing. More. Feel free to admit the truth , even between the halls of your own mind. Admit the truth, and Hail Philosocom . Extra notes I: Mental Harm and Its Solutions Content creation, while capable of growing your recognition , can definitely have some downsides for your mental well-being. Here are some of the common dangers: The Comparison Trap: Social media is full of perfectly curated feeds for our own addictive amusemen t. It's easy to constantly compare your work to others, leading to feelings of inadequacy and hindering creativity by feeling unworthy in relation. It's solved by working hard on your craft and by setting goals that can be accomplished within your lifetime. Pressure to Perform: Platforms often prioritize content with high engagement, creating pressure to constantly making out ideas and chase trends. This relentless demand can lead to burnout and ruin creative flow. This can be solved by creating your own platform and making it attractive enough for people to not only visit but stay in it. Given the competition , this is no easy feat, and one I'm trying to do with Philosocom. Obsessive Validation Seeking : Likes, comments and follower counts can become addictive, turning into a quest for external validation. Basing self-worth on these metrics can be dangerous and lead to anxiety. Like with body image , however, it is solved psychologically, not statistically. Cyber aggression : Content creators are unfortunately exposed to a lot of negativity online, from rude comments to full-blown harassment. This can be emotionally damaging and affect mental health if we choose to remain highly sensitive and not work on ourselves to become tougher. Extra notes II: Dealing With Cancel Culture's Sensitivity In the age of cancel culture, content creation can backfire in a number of ways, potentially leading to social rejection, damaged reputation , and even career predicaments. Here's how: Unearthed Controversial Past Posts: Social media posts from years ago, made with a different perspective or humor, can be found online and be used to paint you in a negative light with the use of rhetoric that takes advantage of people's biased thinking. Misinterpreted Content: By clipping or quoting specific things you said, your words can be taken out of context and could be taken out of context and misunderstood, leading to accusations and backlash. It's your job to protect your reputation by properly explaining all that needs to be explained. Offending a Particular Group: Even if unintentional, your content might offend a certain group of people, triggering outrage and potentially harming your reputation. This can be avoided by avoiding any kind of discriminatory attitude, based on race , gender and so on. Not doing so can eliminate wide portions of people from reading or listening to what you have to say. Cancel Culture Pile-on: Once the cancel culture snowball starts rolling, it can be difficult to stop. A minor misstep can snowball into a full-blown online attack. You might want to study other content creators and their downfall. Creators like Onision can teach us adults to stay away from minors. Here are some tips to navigate this tricky landscape: Be mindful of what you post: Consider the potential long-term implications of your content before publishing. Remember that even if you remove a content piece, it might be saved and be used against you. Thinking like a competent villain could help you . Avoid sensitive topics: If unsure about a topic, it's best to not act on petty emotion, and choose a topic with a far less risk of damaging your public persona. Be respectful and inclusive: Avoid stereotypes, generalizations, and humor that could be offensive to specific groups of people. Take responsibility for your content: If something you posted causes offense, apologize sincerely. Fail to apologize that way and you can only make things bad for yourself. A case example is Will Smith's apology, which is considered dishonest by some .

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Directory on Weakness) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). (2025 note: The Power of Love  redeemed me, and now I am walking the path of the truly good person) Lost in Silence "Erase me," she ordered. "From Whatsapp?" I asked. "From WhatsApp; from Facebook; from life." "I haven't done anything wrong, have I?" " You have done nothing wrong ," she summarized. Thus ended the Ms. Chen saga. (Background music) ************************** In reality, what I wanted to ask was, " If I have done nothing wrong, then what's the issue? Why are you so eager to dispose of me if I have done no wrong? " I could've asked that, but that is too late. All I am left to do is seek vengeance over her method of disposing of those she sees as irrelevant. Minorities such as myself, are at a disadvantage by default because of our inherent social incompetence. Why? Because I can't do anything else to satisfy my innate need for knowledge... And later since then, I made it a norm of mine, to not be satisfied by anything . Regardless of my choice to find satisfaction or not, not all people are as open or honest as Google or any other search engine. In the end, your status as a philosopher will not grant you access to all the truths that you seek. And for me it is all the more reason to be ruthless in my quest for the truth, with never intending to give up on that aspect. But not giving up on specific quests, may require giving up on other pursuits. Later on, I will explain further. When Knowledge Requires More Than Just Curiosity That is the greatest difficulty any honest philosopher may face: the result of being and staying ignorant, regardless of the passion for knowledge . Other people won't always be willing to give you the answers you seek, and even though they might be the only people with said answers, there is really no other choice but to give up. Humans... can't reach omniscience , and even if we had all the secrets of the world opened to us, not all people would be willing to just share their interpersonal information related to themselves. Those are not secrets; those are partially unshared data. A philosopher may be an inquisitor, but it is not moral for them to be an interrogator who would send henchmen to kidnap someone for information. You can't just expect people to tell you everything they know, as there are social and emotional aspects involved, that hinder them. Even journalists may be expelled from certain places, like closed communities , because they have been too inquisitive and/or because (some) people just prefer to keep to themselves. But the philosopher and the journalist must have more than just curiosity for their work . They must also be determined to do their jobs regardless of their willpower. That is how inner-strength increases efficiency: One that surpasses your own willpower, through reason. Push too hard on the person you're asking, and you might shut down all the possible answers. You may already have a small chance of recovering from this person. Then, all you're left with is your own reflective thinking, and logic. Enhance your logic , and you'll know more with less external company. A Society's Shameful Silence and One Man's Fury I've already been a pain in the back for her; trying to understand the situation better through inquisition might be considered harassment. Thus, to take revenge on her, for making me feel pathetic and small, despite loving her, I'll disprove her mistake of my character, with each work session on Philosocom. That is the only thing regarding her that I'm not ready to give up on: Showing people that they should not walk over me just because I seem too disposable to them. Yet, I refuse to be weak. I refuse to believe in my inherent worth, when my dissatisfaction can further expand by work as a philosopher. For a satisfied philosopher is almost an oxymoron. The philosopher is always hungry for more, which distinguishes him or her from the sage. I am broken, but I am fine with this state of being. I accept the source of my suffering . I give up on trying to solve what benefits me -- and you. In a way, through my philosophy, I've been connecting ruthlessness with greater output in altruism. My thirst for knowledge and clarity has made me a vengeful individual. Through being denied the truth, the inquisitive energy within me has been left unsatisfied, and vengeance appears to be the only way I can truly satiate it. Satiate it only partially, by regressing to my child-self, the one who wished for world domination. Use his vision to "conquer" the world through my legacy. That will be my last laugh at those who refuse to tell me the truth about what I couldn't attain myself due to my clueless autism. It's the last laugh of one who was depraved by the world of their company, for being too weird. For being... me. I am too different, thus I was deprived of this world's love. But as my chest burned with skin deprivation no one wanted to help me fulfill, I changed. I became mentally stronger amidst the insanity that has been brewing inside of me. I decided that I will live whether or not I will be loved, and whether or not I will be recognized. And I will do so by working. Only through work I preserve my sanity in a world that understands me not. Unapologetically Me: Owning My Neurodiversity in a World of Masks Of course, no one has any obligation to give me the truth I seek. I do not pretend to deserve such dependence to be accessible to me as long as I live. Freedom of expression also means the choice to say nothing or say little. The regretful trio of women have rejected me, one after the other, without telling me exactly why... I had the privilege of asking one of them why they did so, but that is where the privilege ended, as all I was met with was silence. They might think I am too unimportant to be given their reasoning, despite all the years that I have known each of them. Is my existence that terrible? Is my behavior that disturbing? Is this my social punishment for being authentic and having no filters? No. I'm not. But to succeed in life, I must build my mind with rejections. To quote Frank Sinatra : The best revenge is massive success. Spitting Fire Instead of Begging for Ashes I saw each and every one of them with great respect, for I have the loyalty of a dog . When I see a new follower or a new subscriber, I am filled with naïve love. I used to feel bad when someone unfollowed or unsubscribed, but as I learned, that's inevitable. But these women, you see, were more than just internet followers. They were people I knew personally; people who were my friends. Two of them I have known since middle school. And yet, perhaps that duration of time is too short for them to respect me like I respected them, or even close to that degree, if at all. I have the morality that can be compared to that of the Bushido Code. If you're going to abandon someone you have known for a long time, at least give them a reason that will satisfy them! Abandoning without doing so is like a partial form of ghosting. Do you know of my pain behind my urge for revenge? Being left in the dark is hurtful, and I will make them pay for not showing me the light by making myself a beacon for the world to recognize me and my contribution to it. People are easy to hurt without remorse. I want to do better than them. If I'm left in ignorance, then at least I'll make something out of it: a motivator; an ambition; an utilized anger, a utilized scar.  I will not demand that they give me the reasons I was eagerly seeking, because it is too late to do so, and their consent is beyond my control. I choose to give up on people, including those who are dear to me. For they do not know of my pain, my suffering, to live by consent and not by desire. Neither do most of you. It requires a higher sense of sensitivity of human suffering. One that can easily prevent one from being truly evil. As such, very few people are pure of heart, to the point of not being tempted to evil, whether condemned, or normalized. To remain sane, I will resume working. I will leave within me a chronic hole, never to be fully satisfied with anything and anyone. For that -- That is the only way I can get stronger, and unrelenting. For this ambition, I give up on true satisfaction . For satisfaction will deprive me of getting more and more strength. The strength I need to stay sane, functional, and contributing. I'm done with seeking love as something that would liberate me from suffering. I'm done with seeking friendships for the sole point of mere social interaction like one's you'd see on sitcoms. Even if you are loyal as a dog, nothing ensures you won't be kicked in the gut by those whom you have considered friends. And all you can do to survive all these heartbreaks, romantic or otherwise, is to be strong, and to give up on being weak.

(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 ) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   (T. Siddika's Articles) (Background music) Introduction to the Art of Earning “To live well is to work well, and to work well is to honor both yourself and others.” --- Inspired by Seneca Philosophy teaches us that money is more than coins or notes; it is a medium through which effort, creativity , and care interact. Earning is not a mere act of survival, but a discipline—a way to cultivate skill, create opportunity, and nurture talent in both young and old. The wise earner considers not only what is gained but how that gain impacts the wider community. In this essay, we explore earning from a philosophical perspective, understanding it as a practice of responsibility, mentorship, and reflection. 1. Work as Purposeful Effort To earn is to exercise both mind and hand. Work is a laboratory where effort meets intention. Young or old, those who approach labor with curiosity and care find that money becomes a trace of disciplined creativity. It is through consistent effort, reflection, and skill development that earning transforms from mere activity into meaningful practice. As Aristotle suggested, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” 2. Wealth and Ethical Responsibility Money carries ethical weight. Accumulating wealth is not valuable merely for self-interest; it is valuable for its potential to create conditions for growth—for both the earner and others. Responsible earning means asking: How can this wealth serve others? How can it foster talent, support innovation , or provide opportunity? Philosophical reflection reminds us that to hold resources is to hold responsibility. The well-earned coin should become a tool for empowerment, not indulgence. 3. Mentorship and Talent Development A philosopher-entrepreneur recognizes that mentoring others, hiring wisely, and offering training multiplies the value of one’s labor. Guiding younger minds or less experienced individuals transforms earning into a practice of ethical creation. As Epictetus said, “It is not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.” Sharing skills and opportunities is a reaction that turns personal gain into collective growth. 4. Opportunity and Justice Opportunity is not neutral—it carries moral consequences. Providing employment, investment, or mentorship shapes lives. A philosophical approach asks: who benefits, who is empowered, and who is left behind? By building enterprises that reward effort and cultivate skill, wealth becomes productive rather than parasitic. Ethical attention to opportunity ensures that earning is not only profitable but just, creating systems in which diligence and talent are recognized. 5. Time , Effort, and the Young & Old Earning is an exercise in temporal awareness. Time is finite, and effort is currency. Philosophy emphasizes patience and strategy : the young bring energy and innovation, the old bring judgment and foresight. Collaboration across generations allows for the transfer of knowledge, ensuring that opportunity and wisdom flow together. Wealth becomes a bridge connecting ambition with experience, turning effort into enduring impact. 6. Creativity, Enterprise, and Community Money is not merely a goal; it is a product of imagination and discipline . Enterprise flourishes when creativity meets structured effort. Each venture contributes to community, provides employment, and strengthens networks. Philosophical reflection treats business as a social experiment, where profit and ethics co-exist. “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.” — Epicurus Moral of the Story Earning is not an endpoint; it is a reflective practice, a moral and philosophical endeavor. Money becomes meaningful when coupled with responsibility, mentorship, and ethical attention to opportunity. By creating wealth with care, we not only secure our own independence but also cultivate talent, provide jobs, and strengthen the moral fabric of our communities. The moral is clear: true prosperity lies not merely in accumulation, but in the conscious, thoughtful, and generous use of what we earn.

(Background music) Some people, worldwide, are just too unfit for society.. Some will be unemployed; others witness the hypocrisy of the "community".. We claim to be free yet are enslaved by external thought. And often only some peace from it can be bought! Hence why I choose hermitage , I kid you not, Because I'm more solo, than social. I despise the social, not the solo. Some people, worldwide, are just too unfit for society... They are being condemned, condemned from being far from normality.. . Even democracy is not always the place for the inherently eccentric. You'll be rejected, after no more than one blink! And all of this, can make you stop and think, "Should I prefer to live, more alone, Where much more peace, might be shown?" Between, the chairs, between them many live, Like shadows, in the underbelly of those who leave, By desire, by force, perhaps a mixture of both, Some are lovely, some are subjects to loath, Some are too small, too wide or just unfit for the road! Of life's race that stretches far and above. And some can't make the - Desire, the fire, the model to admire, the example to be able to inspire, the ability to lift a company far and higher, the ability to obey like a loyal squire, to date, to sex, to bring the world happy kids and provide whatever they would ever desire and need! I just guess some of us are too dysfunctional to be orthodoxically accepted, necessarily. (Short Pause) Some people, worldwide, are just too between the chairs for society! Some are too strange, too unfit to be tolerated for their individuality! And all I want, is just to be free, To preserve for the rest of my days, a strong sense of serenity! But I guess I'll just try to make you understand, That I'll remain a loner, not a follower, In a construct built on, stress and conformity.

(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) (A Relevant Philosocom article: https://www.philosocom.com/post/criticizing-plato-s-philosopher-king-idea ) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics (Philosocom's Brad/Bryan Michaels' Directory) ) ************* This is an article that will examine the classes of modern society as described in Plato’s Republic. It will be done through the lens of a 2002 RPG called Morrowind . Can we draw any new conclusions about modern society from viewing it in this way? Let's find out. Morrowind was released in 2002 and still holds up for its immersive gameplay, intricate storytelling, and unparalleled freedom. All this against the backdrop of a vibrant world teeming with realistic depictions of culture and life. Part of the freedom of being able to do anything you want is the ability to join one of three unique houses. The player can choose House Telvanni , House Redoran , or House Hlaalu . Each of these houses corresponds to a different class in Plato’s Republic. House Telvanni is composed of powerful wizard lords . They hide away in their mushroom towers. and believe that might makes right . If a Telvanni wizard gets into an argument and murders another Telvanni, the house believes that the killer’s argument is correct because in Morrowind magic correlates to intelligence. So, the more powerful wizard must have been more intelligent and must have had a better argument. The Telvanni represent the philosopher kings in Plato’s book, who sit in their towers and pass judgment from on high. They do not have to put up with the wishes of average people because their power makes them unique. This is true of Plato’s philosopher kings, but they are also supposed to have a great deal of wisdom to govern properly. Do the people who rule this house in Morrowind have a great deal of wisdom, as do the rich billionaires that govern our real-world society? This is left open to interpretation in Morrowind. These philosopher kings have amassed a great deal of power, so they must also have a great deal of intelligence. However, they do not always make the wisest decisions or govern fairly. They keep sentient races as slaves and treat them horribly. The People in the Telvanni regions are mostly subject to the whims of their wizard lords, some of whom are fairer and more rational than others. The player can also choose to join House Redoran . House Redoran is a clan of warriors who battle and duel for honor. Their sense of self-worth is not based on raw power (which is easy to attain in Morrowind through magic), but on a sense of honor in being the bravest and most noble combatant. They get validated through this contest of excellence. They favor weapons such as spears and swords. And they have a very confrontationist approach. They correspond to the warrior class in Plato’s Republic. This class fights literal battles to keep society running smoothly. This could correspond to the modern-day military. The bullheadedness that we see in The military today can also be seen in House Redoran. Does this make the military easier to manipulate? For the philosopher kings? One can make the argument that the United States military has been involved. In a lot of unnecessary conflicts, it's this pervasive culture within the military that allows them to fight in wars that are not needed to prop up the global class system. Lastly, the player can choose to join House Hlaalu . House Hlaalu is the most unpredictable of the classes. They focus on business and making money. In fact, House Hlaalu is the only house in the game that sides with the invading Imperials . They do not have the nationalist sentiment of the other houses. They don't care if Morrowind’s culture is absorbed by imperial influence, as long as it's good for business. This house corresponds to the producer class in Plato’s Republic. Can we say that this house is like the middle class of modern America? The people who work in comfortable jobs or who own small businesses. They are the backbone of modern society, but they can also fall victim to rapid changes in trends. These trends are set by the philosopher kings, and the status quo is enforced by the warriors. The philosopher kings rely on them to "keep the lights on" and "keep the trains running on time". I believe you can learn a lot about the politics and complexities of the real world by playing and studying Morrowind. The different classes of society all have different motivations, and these can sometimes be seen more clearly when viewed through the lens of a fantasy world. Article Analysis by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein While the comparison between the Great Houses of Morrowind and Plato's Republic is a fascinating starting point, a deeper analysis reveals a more complex picture... The Telvanni, who here are associated with Plato's philosopher kings, exhibit a blend of power and self-interest that diverges from Plato's ideal of wise and benevolent rulers. However, their focus on arcane knowledge and personal gain often overshadows concerns for the greater good. That is while the philosopher king is supposed to be less self-serving and lead within the interest of his people, as they lead from virtue , not from the quest of knowledge. The Redoran, while embodying a relentless iron spirit , can sometimes become trapped in rigid codes of honor that hinder their ability to adapt to changing circumstances. This contrasts with Plato's ideal warrior, who combines martial prowess with a deeper understanding of his surroundings, necessary to enforce law and order in a society that can easily be dynamic due to societal and political circumstances. The Hlaalu, the merchant/producer class, are driven by material gain and profit. While this aligns with the appetitive soul, their cunning and adaptability suggest a more complex character than a mere embodiment of base desires. That is while Plato's producer class is a general, "catch all" class that refers to all people that are not warriors or rulers. Should we examine these parallels and divergences, we can gain a richer understanding of both Plato's philosophy and the intricate world of Morrowind. As such, the game's diverse cultures and complex power dynamics offer a unique lens through which to explore timeless questions about justice, power, and the human condition, which exists beyond the general idea of Plato's Republic, nor wasn't necessarily inspired by the concept at hand.

(Philosocom Directory on Friendship) (Social Media Directory) (Background music) The Illusion of Connection: Recognizing the Parasocial Fallacy A parasocial relationship is a one-sided relationship that we have with people we do not interact with physically. It is not to be confused with the paranormal. A parasocial relationship undoubtedly exists, even if one of the parties is purely fictional. It is a relationship that we have as well, dear readers. Because we are not friends or even close in any way. Thinking otherwise is a fallacy. It is called "para-social" because it is not exactly based on real social interactions . Some of you read me, but that does not mean all of you have any real, mutually recognized connection with me, correct? I communicate with some of you once in a while, however, but it is not in person ; it is only virtual. Only in text, and if I made videos frequently, then in that form of media, too. Our connection is not that deep or sincere, even if feels it is. It is flat, even if not dishonest. As such, much of this world, and much of our connections are in fact fake. And we only delude ourselves that they are not. There are ways to distinguish between friends, fans and followers. "The parasocial fallacy" occurs when one mistakes a parasocial figure, such as a writer, a celebrity, or any other public figure, to be their real friend . It is merely a mistake in understanding; in identifying people, and in the estimation of their value in relation to yourself. Navigating the Parasocial Maze in a Hyperconnected World The rise of mass media and virtual accessibility has made the parasocial aspect of society bigger than ever. Today, creating connections with others no longer requires physical spaces like bars or coffee shops. All it takes is a virtual message, like an email or comment, to spark a potential parasocial relationship. Even frequent media consumption of a specific figure can be an example of the parasocial, especially when you develop a sense of loyalty to them. This loyalty keeps you coming back for more of their content. It also extends to fictional characters, of course. Feeling a close connection to fictional characters is another example of the parasocial phenomenon. However, this connection becomes problematic when we blur the lines between fiction and reality, believing that Superman can come and rescue us. Children may be particularly susceptible to this variant of the parasocial fallacy. Another notable figure who often "sinned" in it is Chris Chan, whose philosophy on the universe I've criticized before. So, how can we overcome the parasocial fallacy? It all boils down to understanding that not everyone we admire is a friend. Just because you agree with a contemporary philosopher or find their content valuable doesn't mean they're your friend. Mistaking someone for a friend based solely on the value of their content is a classic example of the parasocial fallacy. Remember, parasocial relationships can be enriching and enjoyable, but it's crucial to maintain a healthy, realistic perspective. Distinguish between admiration and friendship, and don't lose sight of the boundaries between fiction and reality. Make no mistake, however. Feeling a close connection to someone who isn't a friend isn't necessarily a non-legitimate emotion. I don't even know if there are illegitimate emotions to begin with. I would argue that an illegitimate emotion might as well only be used as a logical fallacy. The point is this: When that emotion of admiration or appreciation deludes us, that is when the parasocial fallacy can emerge. In thinking someone is more than he or she is. The use the term "friend" today because it can deceive us pretty quickly. Right? If you want to be someone's friend, all you have to do is ask . Send them a request, not in a social media-type fashion. Make sure the other side sees you as a friend. Otherwise, what is the point in seeing a positive impression as fact? It has nothing to do with narcissism . Boundaries may be important to anyone. Making sure you see eye-to-eye with another person when it comes to expectations, is imperative. Otherwise, logic dictates you'll become disappointed eventually. Recognizing Allies, Avoiding Fallacies, and Embracing Growth I use the term "friend" cautiously because not everyone we interact with falls neatly into that category. Allies, readers, social media followers – they're important connections, but they're not necessarily friends. Friendship goes beyond a simple alliance. It requires trust , mutual connection, and a sense of recognition beyond just professional contexts. It's a two-way street, where both parties see and agree that the label of "friend" is applicable. Can one person declare a friendship while the other remains unaware? This, I believe, is the heart of the parasocial fallacy in many modern interactions. We may form positive impressions and enjoy engaging with someone but labelling them a friend without mutual understanding risks falling into this fallacy. As someone with autism , I'm keenly aware that my neurodivergence can shape my social interactions. However, I refuse to let that become an obstacle to understanding reality. When opportunities for learning arise, I choose to embrace them, regardless of any perceived challenges. For I refuse to be weak, and I don't need your mercy. Building Real Friendships There's nothing childish about sending genuine friend requests to people, both online and offline. However, true friendship goes beyond simply clicking "accept" on Facebook. Building real connections requires effort and vulnerability. It involves speaking not just to someone's ears, but to their hearts. Cultivating trust and developing a deeper understanding are essential ingredients. As you'll soon discover, forging genuine friendships is more complex than it might seem . But the good news is, it's a skill that can be learned and honed through practice and the preparation to suffer in the name of caring about someone on a deeper level. It is vital even outside of romantic love. A " Facebook friend " is a mere acquaintance compared to a true friend. A true friend sees you, understands you, and shares your care and support. Remember, friendship is a two-way street. It thrives on mutual respect , shared experiences, and genuine connection that goes beyond the pretense of masking , required with many other people. A true friend is a companion for life. A person who wants not only to have fun with you, but to share your sorrows. Afterthought Not all parasocial relationships have to be excluded to the digital realm , meaning they can be applicable to the physical world as well. You might think you know someone, like a fake guru who develops a fake relationship with you under the ulterior motive of getting more and more of your donations, thus living off your delusions. When inside a physical cult, isolated from the external world, the digital layer is not necessary for the fake, "intimate" relationship between the leader and his community of followers.

(Philosocom Directory on Numbers) It is arguable, and even reasonable, to claim that individuality has been on the decline in recent times. This is due to a number of factors, including: The rise of the herd mentality , where there is more peer pressure than ever before. The negative association of eccentricity with mental illness , perversion, and other negative things. Indeed, due to the authority of the norms, individuality has appeared to be significantly declined in favor of being accepted, desired, and liked by the world . True individuality is pretty much within your eccentricity. And yet, there is this claim that every single individual is unique, different from any other person on the planet. This claim appears obscure, given how uniform the modern world appears to be. A sad truth can be that there are millions like you and me, with similar personality traits, beliefs, occupations, and so forth. The reason for that is because the term "million" is not that big of a number compared to the world's population, which is around a few billions , with hundreds of thousands being born every day. With overpopulation , it is a bit scary to think that you and I are not that unique like we think we are, in a world where much of our jobs' positions could be replaced by countless candidates. Perhaps you think it's not that scary, that you are, at least professionally, replaceable . But for me it is scary, to realize that I am not that unique like I think I am. My article empire, my personal philosophy , -- all are my potentially feeble attempts at refusing to be "like everyone else." The reason is that I don't want to be expendable like your average henchman in an action movie . The henchman is never remembered, but the main villain is, even if their presence is shorter in time. The main villain is still more valuable than the countless henchmen who appear over and over again. But I digress. In order to try and better distinguish our individualities, I've come up with a theory, or form of measurement, in the form of a personalized series of numbers. The idea is that the more variety of numbers you have in accordance with your individual attributes, and the more of them you have, the more unique you are. I chose numbers specifically because it is easier to distinguish series of numbers than it is of words. For example, many people can be shy, introverted, and like cats, but how many people can be 9-2-4 at the same time? The determination of numbers is done by the following: Ask yourselves as many questions you like, and think of a maximum of 9 questions, with 0 being none of them or no preference. The thing is, the more questions you ask yourself, and the more answers you have - when you know which of them to choose - the better you can be at discovering your Theory For Individuality. Come to think of it, there doesn't need to be a maximum of 9 answers, since most often there are more than 9. If you happen to know all the names of the world's countries you can even go to around 100 or 200 in your number, should you ask yourself a question regarding countries and nationalities. With so much potential questions and answers, it seems that one can be more distinct than initially believed, with 0 also being a legitimate answer, since we can also be defined by our lack of deed, belief, and so forth; a lacking that can be changed in the future. Regardless, this theory is far from perfect. There is no universal set of questions, so someone who has 9-2-0 can be awfully similar to someone else who has 0-9-2 in some region of their algorithm. Furthermore, there are no universal sets of answers to each question, so someone who has 9-0-2 can be similar to a different set of numbers that represent the same answers. The solution to these problems is within the creation of a global database, such as a website, with a universal representation of numbers and the same questions in the same order, which is updated on a regular basis. That way, our personal way of introspection will not get in the way of better understanding ourselves as distinct individuals. Such construction of an algorithm is difficult, and at best can be done by an A.I. system, but it just goes to show how complex we actually are, even the more simple-minded within us. The complexity of the human brain is enough to serve as an example to that. Regardless of my theory's flaws, I believe it can be compared to Winston Churchill's view of democracy: It is the worst form of government we've devised, except all the other worse governments . In other words, my theory may be bad, but can you think of other meticulous alternatives? Mathematical psychology failed to survive the 20's century. It is no longer relevant. Instead it has been replaced with psychometrics, a field that attempts to measure psychological concepts. I believe it is the best way to measure individuality. It is like the DNA of the mind - complex, unique, and always prone to change. All we need to do is to build specific models that are based on this article's rationale to at least try and label people in accordance with different criteria. It can theoretically replace the Myers-Briggs type indicator without having to align people in different categories. I'd like to suggest that the indicator in question is faulty as people can change throughout life and thus not necessarily belong to specific categories ( INFJ , ENTJ , and so on). For this algorithm theory of individuality to succeed one must devise questions whose answers resonates with them the most. That will make one avoid jumping from one algorithm to another like with the MB indicator. The point of this theory is for one's unique individuality to be translated into number form, and last as long as possible. That will be one's number. The number that transcends external measurements such as birth date, the total sum of names and so on. You know, details which have nothing to do with one's more-innate individuality. If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it to spread the word of this theory!

(Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) Have you ever felt clueless, submissive, weak against the forces you have to handle with on a regular basis? In other words, are you tired being too powerless against your odds? When some questions such as these are being asked, we may find ourselves having certain fantasies where we are stronger, tougher and more powerful than we currently are, able to surpass the same forces that were oppressing us for so long. There are two types of archetypes that the oppressed person chooses to imagine themselves in, based on their motives -- the superhero that saves the day for a brighter future, and the serial killer, who is both angry and brave enough to, in fantasy, initiate revenge on those who have wronged them. Why are serial killers fantasized in media such as movies, video games and so forth? Why do some of us like to root exactly to the villain ? That is, because a good villain is "human" in their behaviour and reasoning, whereas the "superman"-like hero is too "inhuman" in their glory and capacity to be unbeaten by the forces they encounter, along with the overrated commitment to "save the world" from someone that might return for another movie/video game and such, thus repeating the cycle. It is easy in fiction to express who you are through who you aren't, which makes it an additional form of self-expression and perhaps also a reflection of your ideal self -- the one you wish to become but have yet to do so. The same goes with serial killers we either watch, dream or play as. For some, there is something gratifying when multiple opponents are defeated by a much stronger force of one. Since most of us aren't able to do so single-handedly, we fantasize about a different reality where we can just get rid of our problems by unorthodox, and even illegal, ways, most notably murder since it's the "easiest" route in our fantasies, as it also effective and permanent. Unfortunately, there were, are and will be those who take this way afar and begin making their hidden fantasies into a reality, only to, usually, be arrested or neutralized afterwards due to the fact that only few serial killers actually get away with their acts of revenge, maliciousness or religious servitude ( such as Jihad ). That is the lesson of the Serial Killer Archetype: the fact that you can kill those you hate, doesn't mean it's a smart idea, even if its "fixes" your problems caused by interacting with them. While human, this Archetype teaches us that in the name of our environment, it is best not be "too human", for our surroundings require a certain degree of mask-wearing in order to get things done, whether we like it or not. The Serial Killer is delusional; they are free from the control of society, but the deeds they have done mean they can never return to their lives before the killings, thus limiting them tremendously with their own choice being taken away from them by their own actions. Once you commit murder, there is never going back, whether or not you'll be ever caught. That is because every mundane action can lead to suspicion that can trigger its own rapid, inevitable increasing. This is why you shouldn't murder in places where it will condemn you permanently, which are, likely, in most of Earth. Even if an underdog to hated superiors, official as unofficial, killing should be the last of the last results. Use the Serial Killer Archetype not to actually kill, but to get in a deeper touch with your repressed, self-denied human nature ; with the one you would've become if civilizations weren't a thing. By the way, if A.I is to ever develop independent consciousness, we should not let A.I from video games to do so; that way, the killing of A.I opponents wouldn't be considered as murder.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Suikoden Content) Side Note The Fort of Shallow poem was heavily inspired by one of my favourite games of all time, Suikoden IV. The antagonistic base the poem metaphorizes, Fort El-Eal, is the final, bittersweet area of said game. In that fort is where you eventually mark the gradual demise of the empire that threatens your hero's homeland, after confronting a deadly "Merchant of Death". The Fort of Shallow There was once a knight Which was given the following promise: "You will evolve beyond your current strength, And overcome the obstacles in your path. As long as you beat the one true adversary of the brain, And a legacy, long after death, shall remain". His efforts has once gone in vain, When he saw his former master, fading in pain. Once again, solitary he became, Cast to the seas, he and a few followers were, Of the ruthlessness of the ocean, they had to beware. A deserted island they have found, With no one else around. To eternal exile, are they bound? "No!" the team leader has thought, And the need to endure and overcome , the rest he taught. The boat has been re-constructed, much to their luck, And the despair they felt in their hearts, vanished in a single shock. To all of the islands they went, to recruit as many as possible, In order to combat a fate, so horrible. The fleet has been assembled; the forces are ready. The crew is prepared; the cannons are armed and steady. The great Fort El-Eal's destruction is the key for liberation, From those who want to take from us, the depth of information. This is not a single fleet, but one of many, even if few, That stand in the way, of the materialistic curfew. Should we wish to fight against the shallowness of content, This is but one of many websites that should be preserved. Will books stay forever when you have the internet? Will universities always be physical when you can study from home? Will philosophical articles be read when there are much less-mental-investing activities to do? The written word, you see, are weights the brain lifts. Should we discard the many legacies, of both old and new, The intellectual content of the world will be few. If we wish to preserve both the brains and the words, Intellectuals are to be spotted, recognized , and be their deaths far, Either choose or be appointed successors to preserve their legacy -- Books, websites and whatnot. Those are the intellectuals that create their legacies, But only the successors are those who get to preserve them, Dozens of years minimum, if their lifespan is hopeful. To prevent the "Fort" from overcoming them all. Since there is no certainty of a second successor, The first heir of legacy must be chosen wisely and with caution. Choosing a backstabbing heir, Is like ruining a legion of standing domino, Without little to-no hope, Of restoration...