(Background music) Rationalism vs. Empiricism: In the Quest For Knowledge The quest for knowledge's a puzzle whose construction might as well resume indefinitely, given how much we are more ignorant of reality than we admit. Now, in the maze of decisions we venture forth to build the most accurate puzzle to reflect reality as it is, we encounter two paths. One is paved with consistent pondering, the other a rollercoaster of experimentation. The former, my dear audience, is rationalism , which can be defined as a philosophy that holds reason to be the chief source of knowledge. The latter is empiricism which can be defined as several meanings: The belief that all concepts originate from experience. All concepts can be applicable to experience. All beliefs can only be known or verified by experience. Together, these two form the epistemology , or the philosophy of what is knowledge, how it is gained and so on. Epistemological questions include, but are not limited, to: What do we seek to create knowledge about? Who accepts knowledge as ‘true’ and how? (As presented in this source) Knowledge Through Reason and Experiment Now, the distinction between these two beasties is as clear as a polished gem. Rationalists, with their introspective minds, build their knowledge empires within ivory towers of logic, without much need to even go outside and interact with a lot of people for their knowledge. Using deduction , they construct and discover truths with the delicate tools of thought. Like myself, yes. Our minds have the power to generate insights almost autonomously from the external world, by becoming self-learners. While we rationalists don't necessarily need to do much external research , I'm doing it nonetheless in my articles (and even in articles I receive from other writers) in order to enhance their quality, further. Empiricism, on the other hand, is nowadays the main way science develops, i.e, through experience and experiment-based research, as opposed to "internal research" which is how philosophers become philosophers. For more on the relationships between science and philosophy, read about " The Two Heads of Wisdom ". Empiricists roll up their sleeves, per se, dive into the churning gears of the world, and wrench out understanding through experiments and direct experience. By doing so, they risk their mental survival. Rationalists, while being safe in their metaphorical ivory towers, are and will be missing out on life by the reasoning of what I call, the "Same Result Problem" . Interestingly enough, however, these paths find their homes in different corners of our different bodies of knowledge. Rationalism  lies humanities: literature, art, philosophy, where truths stem from contemplation and verbal agility. These fields, unlike the "hard sciences", don't rely on tangible experiments but on the elegant dance of logic and language. The expectation for that, in the rationalist approach to knowledge, is mathematics. That's because although there is no necessary correlation between logic and language in math, there is a strict correlation between logic and numbers, without the usage of regular, literal communication required to understand reality from a mathematical perspective. Arguably, the universe is either built or can easily be represented by numbers , but I digress. Empiricism, on the other hand, can be represented not only in any science that demands experimentation, but what is called in slang, as the " university of life ". It's a term that shows us that there isn't a necessary correlation between wisdom and education, as I proved myself in a logical fallacy I devised, called "The Degree Fallacy". By involving ourselves in society we can experiment in social interactions to better understand how other humans behave and what we should do in order to "get our way" in life. One can say that, in the "university" of everyday life, we become both experiments and "scientists", discovering the machinations of civilization by being part of its machinery. Most of us, like Japanese Salarymen , do it to survive, anyways. Both rationalism and empiricism are like trusty screwdrivers in the toolbox of understanding. Sometimes, a good, hard think is all it takes to unscrew a mystery. Other times, we need to get our hands dirty, tinker with the world itself, and see what makes it tick. So, the next time you're grappling with a question, remember: Knowledge is a destination with a specific way to get it. After all, the most brilliant thinkers are arguably the ones who can wield both logic's scalpel and experience's wrench with equal finesse. They really have the power to complement each other, when one way of knowing things can be combined with another way. I myself won't deny the allure of empiricism. It's a thrill to get your circuits buzzing with first-hand experience, despite the risk involved, to truly feel the truth rather than just think it . And let's be honest, sometimes a good, hard experiment can save you a lot of mental gymnastics. You know, like preparing to suffer in the name of love. And yet, not everything can be poked and prodded. Take the delicate network of abstract concepts . The meaning of life , the nature of consciousness, the existence of a higher power – They are "higher" expressions of existence, best approached with reason, not experimentation. You can't exactly file a good argument for the existence of divine beings if your source is your own personal experience, for example. That is known as the anecdotal fallacy. You must rely on more than a single case study, and the problem in the case of religion lies in the fact that it is still belief/faith-based. And belief/faith are not proper substitutes of knowledge. Hence why I choose agnosticism , (and hence why I once again digress). By the same token, consider the dangerous feat of jumping off a cliff. I haven't personally tested that one either, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't end well. But we don't exactly need to jump off cliffs, nor hear of real life examples where people fell of cliffs, in order for us to understand that we shouldn't do it. How come? Unlike moths we can better know when to stay out of such dangers. So, where does this leave us? In a delightful dance of both logic and experience!  Some truths, like the sting of a lemon, demand direct contact. Others, like the beauty of a sunset, can be appreciated from afar, through the lens of careful contemplation. Conclusions It's through the combined forces of rationalism and empiricism that we understand reality. However, neither one is without its flaws and its costs as well. You might find out that those who have been traumatized by life , will be more inclined to spend their time in isolation from the world. Nevertheless, you might find some of them to be as much knowledgeable as anyone else, and even more, because a first-hand experience is not necessary to understand this world, at least not entirely. Compare this to understanding North Korean philosophy without ever being in North Korea. By the same token, people who have travelled a lot, spoke to a lot of people and had exotic experiences, could in theory still have a less-than-profound understanding of reality if they do not work on becoming more logical beings. And yet it does not negate the fact that they had many experiences many people do not have, making them good sources of knowledge nevertheless. When seeking knowledge, we should take into account that we may be sacrificing something out of ourselves, if we want to maintain our sanity and safety in general. Pain, gathered along with living in general, is a most helpful teacher. But we better make sure it doesn't kill us or drive us to insanity. Even love can increase self-sacrifice risk when there's a heartbreak as a possibility. Do make sure that the knowledge you're seeking justifies the means to get it.

(For extra material on the subject, click here ) (For another type of prejudice I find irrelevant on Philosocom, click here ) (Background music) ************************* Sexist Thoughts Can Hide in Plain Sight Sexist thought is prejudice against people based on their sex, and assumes it to be true. It does not have to be against women exclusively, and it can even be used in a "positive" context as well. For example, the "gentleman" archetype is often seen as a positive thing. A gentleman is someone who opens doors for women, lays his coat in the mud so that a woman doesn't dirty her shoes, and always pays the full price in a restaurant. He is seen as noble and courteous because of the assumption that this is how a proper man should behave. However, this is also sexist. According to sexist philosophies, men and women have different, objective roles in society that define them. Do you see the contradiction? Society defines them, and yet these roles are objective, AKA, independent of relativity. The more a person fits into this stereotyped role, based on their sex, the more they might be seen as manly or feminine. It really is that simple. I purposefully started with this point in the article to show you my desire to be unbiased. It is obvious to me that sexism has a negative side as well. How can it not be obvious to me when women have been the victims of such prejudice for thousands of years? I do not have an agenda in this to promote a viewpoint of mine. My point is to clarify reality, as a philosopher should. Why I See Individuals, Not Genders or Races In truth, when I speak to people, online or offline, their gender does not matter to me. It does not matter to me because men and women are more than their sexes. They are, first and foremost, individuals with thoughts and personalities of their own. Women aren't more irrational than men , just because they are women, and I don't think men are much more into sports because they are men. How come? I have spoken with women who are as rational as anyone else is, and I am aware that anyone can be into sports . You may say that men are naturally stronger than women , yes? But I'm not sure if you are aware of the fact that anyone who is physically capable can become a bodybuilder. I am not a feminist because I disagree with the very term that is used . To desire gender equality is to not take gender that close to heart. Why? Simple. Making irrelevant distinctions based on gender is sexist, whether it's done negatively or positively. It's just like the example I presented at the beginning of this missive. For a true world devoid of sexism to exist, we need to act in accordance to the world we want to exist. Through our behavior we can lead by example and inspire others to follow our behavior. We need to be role models for the world we want to see in the future. The same logic applies to race . I don't care that I'm white, and your race or nationality does not really matter to me when it comes to individuals. Yes, I may speak of specific countries and regions of the planet, but that does not mean I accept the notion that we are entirely a product of these backgrounds. We are more, for we are, at the root of it all, different individuals either way. I know my analytics. I write to people across the globe. Your gender, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to me. I'm a philosopher; I am occupied with reason. I am not a technical expert on men or women. I strive to look at things mainly from a logical perspective, and one can be a philosopher whether they are male or female. A woman even wrote to me an excellent piece once . Assuming that women cannot be good philosophers like men, just because philosophy has historically been male-dominated, sins in " The Way Things Are " fallacy. A good philosopher would not gatekeep others from knowledge so unjustly. He or she would share their findings and would not really mind the fallacies that lie, by default, within human thinking. I have no desire to gatekeep my thoughts on unfair discriminations people can't do anything about. I personally am not fond of psychopaths, for example, but it's just a personal preference. I do not think all psychopaths are cartoonishly evil, because I do not want to resort to generalizations. As such I won't gatekeep my content from psychopaths because logic and personal taste are distinct. A good philosopher must be able to disagree with themselves. Do you know where generalizations exist? In sexist philosophies. It is, in fact, a variant of a fallacy called the Hasty Generalization fallacy . If I'm correct, a hasty generalization is a product of induction . Of concluding on the general, based on individual examples... Even if said examples number in the hundreds or thousands. Please keep in mind that we are, globally, billions. When you see countless women who are weaker than you physically, and you're a man, perhaps you will jump to the conclusion that women are always weaker. If you've seen people of average height thus far, then you might deny the fact that there are extremely tall people -- even women -- just like there are and were men whose height is less than a meter . Sexism is wrong, logically, for the same reason any generalization is wrong, dear readers: There are exceptions to the rule which traditionally define what is being generalized . Even in theory. Do you believe that the desire to procreate is embedded in all human beings? There are genuine asexuals out there, and there are genuine people who do not want to have families for whatever reason. You're reading the words of such an example right over here. Why Sexism Doesn't Make Sense Now, perhaps there are functions that are certainly exclusive to distinct sexes. You might say that women cannot grow facial hair, but there are who can . A rare condition, possibly hormonal imbalance. Perhaps males cannot get pregnant, but male seahorses certainly can . We do not have knowledge about every human that has ever lived. Why? Because events can be lost in history. It's one of the reasons we can never know everything for certain. In other words, perhaps there were male humans that had the capacity to get pregnant, but we never got to know them! Our knowledge of the past is never absolute, and maybe it never will be. However, with enough dedication to content preservation, we sure can avoid any disappearances of information and knowledge. (We don't have full knowledge of the future, either. It could mean that we are not fully aware of the human biological potential). And it does not contradict the fact that some women might never be able to have children anyway . Does it mean they are male? Does it mean they are necessarily masculine? Of course not... It is not necessarily the role of men to provide for their families when women can work and earn even more. Gender does not have to play a role in this. It is not universally the role of women to tend to their families when men can be househusbands as well, and be good at it, themselves. In certain hunter gatherer societies, women might've used to be hunters as well. Who said skirts are exclusively feminine? Roman soldiers are associated with masculinity and they wore skirts. Are business suits exclusively masculine? Not all business suits were made with men in mind. Since reality is dynamic, our beliefs should also be dynamic if we are interested in a better understanding of reality; one that isn't attached to our potentially-incorrect philosophies. I think that is the best reasoning I can give against sexism and against generalizations in general.

(Background music) Challenging the Universality of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Contrary to popular belief, I don't think Maslow's hierarchy of needs activity is objectively universal for all human beings, as it was meant to appear. I disagree that these needs are correctly prioritized for everyone, and for some humans, they might not require certain needs mentioned in the hierarchy, like safety. Perhaps there are some risks, even if social, in actualizing ourselves? What if psychological safety stands in our way for love? After all, love requires preparation to suffer. Humans are subjective beings, making subjectivity worthy of redemption . As such, an objective hierarchy of needs for subjective entities seems oxymoronic and overgeneralizing. And yes, self-actualization may require sacrifice of other needs that appear to be more basic than the very one on the top of the pyramid, which is also paradoxical because a pyramid is built on layers... The removal of a lower layer should devastate the other needs on top of it, but it isn't the case with self-actualization necessarily (given that the opposite could be truer) . There are individuals, for example, who have various special needs not accounted for in Maslow's hierarchy, making his theory not truly universal and applicable to all people, past, present, and future. That may be especially true when these special needs are more basic. For example, autistic people may, at least partially, have a greater need to isolate themselves from the environment, and yet Maslow's hierarchy does not regard the need to be alone, as a need. On the other hand, it attributes a full layer to love and belonging. Additionally, I disagree with the definition of self-actualization , as it is technically impossible to fully actualize oneself, i.e., achieve a full realization of self-actualization. How come? It is possible that we are always more capable than what we might think. Exploring the Paradoxes of Self-Actualization According to this logic, even by asking this question, you have successfully actualized your authentic desire to find knowledge, and I have successfully actualized myself by granting you knowledge. This presents an interesting paradox: how can we truly know if we've achieved Maslow's ideal of self-actualization, AKA, in a definitive, concrete way? The core challenge lies in the vagueness of "full potential." Logically, maximizing self-actualization could require dedicating every moment, necessary to explore any single thing that we're capable of. But this raises an uncomfortable truth: missing even a single, necessary second for this internal research, technically constitutes a failure to "achieve oneself to the fullest." As you can tell, the practical application of realizing an individual's full potential might as well always be in the shadows of our universal ignorance of reality -- including our very own. This dilemma mirrors the logic of terms like "everything," "perfect," and "nothing", as they are all absolute. Just one instance that contradicts the concept renders it incorrect. "Everything" can be ruined by a single overlooked detail, "perfect" can't be such if its object can be improved, and even "nothing" can't be nothing if there is something in it, however insignificant. By the same token, you can't realize your full potential if you overlooked a single detail, necessary to do just that. Overlook it, and by the easily-damaged logic of absolution, the "full" isn't actually full, if there is a component amiss. Therefore, the most effective solution might be to redefine self-actualization. Authentic self-expression, whether occurring once or habitually, can become the phenomenon itself, of self-actualization. In this way, we liberate ourselves from the unattainable pursuit of an eternally evolving "full potential," focusing instead on genuine and present exploration of our beings. Therefore, we can realize our full potential by expressing ourselves honestly, without the need to research every pathway that would lead to the actualization of our potential. I offer authentic self-expression because I deem it the bare minimum of self actualization. And in logic, the bare minimum is enough to qualify.

(Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (For more on honesty, click here) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "On Honesty -- How To Overcome the Problems In Becoming a 'Truth Warrior'" is a comprehensive exploration of honesty, emphasizing its significance as a form of bravery and a moral choice. It begins with thought-provoking quotes from Ms. Anonymous and Mickey Eilon, setting the tone for the discussion on honesty. The article is well-structured, divided into distinct parts that guide the reader through different aspects of honesty. The analysis of honesty as a form of bravery is insightful, highlighting the personal risks and emotional challenges involved. The distinction between seeking understanding and cathartic release provides a nuanced understanding of why honesty is important. By addressing both the moral imperatives and practical consequences of honesty, the article offers a balanced view, acknowledging the potential for negative repercussions while emphasizing the long-term benefits of maintaining integrity. Real-world examples, such as the discussion of honesty in business and the extreme case of North Korea , add depth and relevance to the theoretical points. In conclusion, the article is a compelling exploration of honesty, emphasizing its importance as a form of bravery and a moral choice. ************** "Shine bright like a diamond, but reflect like a knife." -- Anonymous "Everyone born here is unique and brings with them an entire universe, but the system is built to make individuals lose who they really are, and fear being the authentic version of themselves. Those who are coded to be a truth warrior already know the accompanying difficulties, in all aspects of life." -- Mickey Eilon (Background music) Part I: Why Honesty is a Form of Bravery Honesty is a form of bravery. It is the courage to speak your truth, even when you are afraid of the consequences. Honesty is all about taking more risks in life's game of risk, where you exchange the truth you want others to know, at the price of your vulnerability.  Honesty in practice is the daring act of expressing yourself authentically; Even when your voice trembles or your heart pounds, as the other side might lambast you , reject you as "insane" and even use coercion against you. Other forms of punishments may ensue too. Of course honesty is extremely difficult, especially to the fearful! This bravery manifests in two ways: Seeking Understanding:  We take a risk to be vulnerable and connect more deeply with others. Sometimes, honesty is about clearing the air,  building trust,  and fostering stronger relationships. Cathartic Release:  Honesty can also be a form of self-care, as you prevent yourself from being overwhelmed by emotion and trauma.   Burying secrets, untold truths and repressed emotions can weigh heavily on us, as they still stay in the background , and may govern us from the back of our minds.  Speaking our truth allows us to release burdens and find emotional freedom, but we always have to find the right time and people for it to avoid risk. Truth and Consequences The potential responses we receive are far from guaranteed, so we'll have to competently think if we don't want to argue with anyone, or worse. Being hurt in the past may comply us to not be honest, as a form of self-defense mechanism. Furthermore, in business, deception and betrayal can be tempting... Honesty is, in fact, primarily a moral choice. Businesspeople do tell themselves that, in the long run, they will do well by doing good. But there is little factual or logical basis for this conviction. Without values, without a basic preference for right over wrong, trust based on such self-delusion would crumble in the face of temptation. Most of us choose virtue because we want to believe in ourselves and have others respect and believe in us . When push comes to shove , hard-headed businessfolk usually ignore (or fudge) their dollars-and-cents calculations in order to keep their word. And for this, we should be happy. We can be proud of a system in which people are honest because they want to be, not because they have to be. Materially, too, trust based on morality provides great advantages. It allows us to join in great and exciting enterprises that we could never undertake if we relied on economic incentives alone. Economists and game theorists tell us that trust is enforced in the marketplace through retaliation and reputation. If you violate a trust, your victim is apt to seek revenge and others are likely to stop doing business with you, at least under favorable terms. A man or woman with a reputation for fair dealing will prosper. Therefore, profit maximizers are honest. This sounds plausible enough until you look for concrete examples. Cases that apparently demonstrate the awful consequences of abusing trust turn out to be few and weak, while evidence that treachery can pay seems compelling [Even if they fail]. -- Amar Bhidé and Howard H. Stevenson Honesty is not a magic key that unlocks universal acceptance, for there might be ulterior motives that are left uncompromised. Yet, the foundation upon which genuine relationships can be built. The Moral Challenge: The White Lie "It's better to have a honest enemy than a dishonest friend" -- Mr. John Duran There are times, however, when a white lie may be the more tactful choice. However, it's mainly tactful due to mental weakness when being exposed to information. Imagine a situation where your truth could cause significant harm to yourself or another person. Perhaps revealing a secret could shatter a fragile trust, or a harsh truth could inflict unnecessary emotional pain. In these instances, thoughtful discretion might be the more responsible path... However, isn't it our own responsibility to be strong? To strive to be as strong as iron, so we won't have to feel offended so frequently? The world often rewards honesty, but there are situations where a white lie can be a necessary social lubricant. And its only because of those who refuse/don't know how to be tougher. What we can all have, however, is ethics. Ethics that are used to promote the interests of our plan/s. Imagine a friend confides a secret they're deeply ashamed of. While honesty is usually the best policy, exposing the truth could shatter their trust and deepen their pain. Here, a white lie, like "I understand why you wouldn't want to share that," shows empathy without judgment. And then, "I have no desire to share that myself", sets your mature prioritization theory in motion. It shows you honestly care about them and their wellbeing. You also demonstrate that they are trustable. White lies should be infrequent, minor deviations from the truth, and ultimately protect someone's well-being, and your mutual relationship. The key lies in thoughtful discretion. Is the truth truly necessary, or would it cause unnecessary harm? Part II: Navigating Honesty in a Complex World And How to Ethically Swing the Truth The decision to be honest is delicate, depending on what you get and receive in return. The best course depends on the situation and the potential consequences. To do that, you must assess reality correctly, and frequently. Imagine a tightrope walker suspended high above the ground. Honesty is the act of taking that step, venturing out onto the wire. Sometimes, the ground below will be a safe space for open communication.  Think of a close friend with whom you can share your vulnerabilities freely, or even your true love. However, the world isn't always a safe space. It's filled with oppressors, who think their way of rule is right.  North Korea provides a disturbing example... “Kindness toward strangers is rare in North Korea. There is risk in helping others. The irony was that by forcing us to be good citizens, the state made accusers and informers of us all.” -- Hyeonseo Lee Mourning a dead leader is not only normalized but is required by their law. Here, honesty becomes a perilous tightrope walk, with potentially devastating consequences, laughing during this period could have severe punishment. So, many would act up very convincingly. Even in less extreme situations, honesty can come at a cost.  Online harassment, bullying, and even death threats can silence voices of dissent, and ruin mental health overall.  The fear of being ostracized or ostracized can lead some to suppress their truths. They choose to stay on the ground,  and ethically isolate themselves from "walking the tightrope". They may do so to prevent suffering, to either themselves, others, or both. Conclusion: Defeating the Ego By Your Own Power Now you see, boy… If you can’t beat me by your own power, you are not ready to take over for me! You will stay in my shadow forever, left to wallow in your own recklessness. Even I hadn’t counted on you being this ignorant... -- Zanetti (Beatdown , PS2, symbolizing arrogance) . This quote, from a fictional villain, exemplifies the dangers of unchecked ego. Zanetti seeks blind obedience, not genuine strength. For he has no use for weakness, as he has no use for those stronger than him. He doesn't try to be stronger himself. However, to be ready for the truth we must hone our strength. Should we sacrifice authenticity to avoid being ostracized?  Should we censor ourselves to avoid conflict?  Yet, much suffering from this can be prevented, again, if we get stronger. Stronger as warriors. Suppressing truths can lead to living a life of inauthenticity. Should we do so? Should we deceive everyone we know, like Walter White did, just for our egos? Yes, conflict can be unpleasant, but suppressing truths can lead to a hollow life, where no one/few only understand you, as you risk being discovered for masking your true identity and intent. Honesty is a muscle that needs to be exercised in order to overcome the tyranny of the overinflated ego.  The more we speak our truth, even in small ways, the stronger and more resilient we become. We should be strong enough to face rejection and conflict while staying true to yourself. It's being strong enough to be hurt, yet keep working towards the truth you believe in. Strong enough, to be vulnerable, and therefore, honest. Strong enough, to be hurt, and take it, as you work to see the truth you want to have in this world, actualized. True strength isn't about not being hurt, but about taking the blows and continuing to fight for what we believe in... Relentlessly.

Along the way we collect traumas that make it difficult for us to continue living, do not let us free ourselves from the past and keep us in a mind loop. It is important to always be in communication with yourself, do self-work and reach a high + deep understanding of the things that caused us these traumas, so that we can come to terms with them and let go. -- Mickey Eilon Why Some Abstain From the World “The wise warrior avoids the battle.” -- Sun Tzu There seems to be a large misconception about what "real life" means. It appears that there is only a specific portion of "real life" that is actually "real life", while the rest of existence is less "real"; as if there is a way to be more "real" than anything else that is seen as more esoteric, even if it isn't necessarily fictional, pure or partial. For some people, hermits and loners have no "life". They are " dead " even though they are alive just like anyone else. It's as if a branch that falls in the woods is not as real as a branch that falls in the middle of a nature party. What is the difference between the two? That it is more "normal" for something to occur in the midst of many, and not alone, in their absence. The thing is, hermits and loners exist just as much as anyone else, believe it or not. Our esoteric lifestyle is not less real than that of any socialite. We do not live in fantasy or in a sci-fi world, or any world that is different than yours. Our hearts beat the same, we have wants and needs, and so on. Perhaps this delusion, that there are "more real and less real" things and beings in existence, comes from the fact that some may see solitude as a very unrealistic option to choose , when it comes to our daily lives. After all, isn't it fun to socialize, to argue, to go to parties, to immerse oneself in the dating scene? I can at least say that for me, socializing is a threat; a threat on my mentality, on my ever-going search for peace and tranquility . Thus, I never see the need to socialize, when socializing, at least for me, reminds me of a traumatic past, and when people do not understand my pain. Only delude that they do, instead of being open to the knowledge , necessary to reduce overall pain. The Inevitable Possibility “All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.” -- The Joker It is a fact that for some, trauma is inevitable. It is inevitable not because some people deserve it, but because it just happens. It happens like the blowing of the wind, like the sunset in the end of the day. It is actually a very natural phenomenon, because we humans, whether we intend it or not, oh-so "love" to scar others' mentality. We scar them as if it is but a regular occurrence; scar them because "I feel like it", because of ideology and so on, without caring whether or not such infliction will have a long-term affect on their lives. But why should one care, when it is not one's own life? So is the cruelty of humankind, and not that of only cold-hearted dictators, but also of that of average-joes, people like me and you. That's how simple a mental scar can occur, and thus lead to a potentially lifelong illness of the mind! Intelligence is a virtue merely for being able to plan ahead for good. For that, the intellect deserves to be praised, and not intimidated. The Human Company Dilemma Since we humans are so easily capable of scarring one another, an important question should come to mind -- why desire the company of others, where there is much safety, much peace, in solitude? Let that sink in, that each day in your life, can lead to a trauma, without you even being aware of it. Anyone who doesn't like you can come and hurt you, whether physically, mentally or in any other form, and move on like it was nothing, while it is beginning to be embedded in your subconscious for the rest of your lifetime. And what have you done to deserve this? All you have done is not be the version your abusers wanted you to be. That's how imperialistic we humans can be, with our great desire to impose our ideals onto the reality of others, and condemn them heavily for not following our own whims, even if we have no authority over them whatsoever. Ways to Cope With Reality "This the day I live" -- Brad Armstrong, LISA Because of this realization, I feel no regret in my great desire to abstain from this world, as I have received enough mental scars from other people, largely strangers. I choose to utilize the scars I already have. Thus, when desiring to interact with the world unnecessarily, one should consider the consequences, especially when meeting new people. Humans are not good by nature; that is a very naive notion. The fact that many humans don't like to learn marks their infliction of suffering on themselves and on the world. Good intentions don't cut it when we can learn of ways to reduce pain and suffering in ourselves and in others. That is the moral, humane aspect of learning and accepting reality. Knowledge is power that can be used for so much good. If we deny it from ourselves with a false sense of confidence we refuse to question, we further choose the grief found in being alive regardless. Pain is an inevitable part of life. However, reducing it is the key to avoid unnecessary trauma and to reduce suffering caused by existent trauma. We can learn ourselves and each other better. That includes those who are the closest to us. We can learn what we can do to not make them suffer so much than otherwise. By saying "I already know you best" is a way to prevent yourself further knowledge you can use to help your loved ones help themselves to live a more peaceful life. Instead you should tell yourself: Maybe it would be helpful if I know them even more. Those with good intentions but without sufficient knowledge, may not hesitate to tear your mental state apart, simply because they don't know what they're doing to you. Ignorance can be that horrific, and in the name of human decency it deserves to be reduced to a minimum. As such, ignorance is also a good reason for trauma to occur naturally between humans. A society of learners that also strive for morality is the best kind of society in that regard. Because humans don't need to carry so much trauma within them. And with greater knowledge we can better cultivate mutual respect and understanding . After all, the momentary whim—the tyrant of many—is quick to command us. It doesn't deserve to that much, when it can scar our loved ones, and in some cases, scar ourselves by working against our interest for good mental health. As such, the greatest, unintentional malice within us is the refusal to learn. Delude yourselves that you know more than you do, and you will enable this malice within you, not reduce it, as it deserves in the name of having better lives. Practice meditation , and you may help yourself release the trauma. Some of it, at least. Gathering knowledge on PTSD can help, as well. But since I now realize how traumatized I was. I only live life as a task. Something to see through that it will be done. Not something to be experienced nor enjoyed. Hail Philosocom.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Intellectualism and Society -- How Intellect and Perception Create Misunderstandings" offers a nuanced perspective on the complex relationship between intellectuals and society. It highlights the importance of self-reflection, balancing intellectual identity with humility, emphasizing shared humanity and diversity, and criticizing stereotypes surrounding intellectuals. The author engages in self-reflection, offering insights into their personal journey from feeling alienated to recognizing a broader societal context. T his approach adds depth to the article, making it more relatable for readers who might otherwise find discussions of intellectualism abstract or aloof. Balancing intellectual identity with humility acknowledges the limitations and potential flaws of intellectuals, such as arrogance and lack of social skills, which can hinder relationships. This balanced view challenges the stereotype of intellectuals as inherently superior and opens up a conversation about the value of intellectual humility. The article also emphasizes the importance of open dialogue, inviting readers to correct their own opinions and contribute to the conversation about social integration and inclusivity. The open-ended approach helps build a bridge between the author and the audience, fostering a sense of community and shared exploration of complex topics. The article encourages broader perspectives on success and fulfillment, challenging conventional definitions of success by suggesting that intellectual achievement alone does not guarantee happiness or fulfillment. The discussion on love, emotional experience, and the limits of logic in human relationships introduces an important dimension to the conversation, reminding readers that intellect is just one part of a much broader human experience. Overall, the article makes a meaningful contribution to discussions on intellectualism, humility, and social connection, challenging stereotypes, promoting empathy, and encouraging a deeper understanding of the complexities of human relationships.   (Background music) Beyond the Binary: An Intellectual's View of Society As an intellectual , I don't see my relationship with society as a simple binary of connection or disconnection. In other words, I don't feel entirely connected nor disconnected from other people, given that there are people who are able to read me and understand my ideas. That, of course, does not have to collide with the fact that being an intellect is often lonely. And I quote " Psychology Today ": Making and keeping friends is often problematic. It's hard for others to feel comfortable getting close to someone whose intellectual prowess far outshines their own. And this is especially true if the gifted individual can't keep themselves from demonstrating their superior knowledge or acumen. Here is where intellectual humility becomes crucial. But many of the mentally gifted fail to develop this trait, and their relationships suffer accordingly. And the very fact that you're an intellectual, even if not entirely self-described, can create resentment from others, as intellect often intimidates. And when you are intimidated, the source of intimidation (even if there is no threat whatsoever), is seen as a threat. At the same breath, the intellect can be seen as a source of power, capable of attracting followers, and building organizations. It's of course very attractive for sapiosexuals as well. Thus, we shouldn't completely whine about such double-edged matters, when much of this distinct potential our intellects grant us, is up for our usage. Still, we shouldn't give in to the idea that a high intellect is capable of solving any problem or difficulty that would stand in his or her path. For example, undermining other skills, such as social skills and teamwork , can undermine an intellect's path to success. From Isolation to Importance During my younger years, I did experience a sense of alienation, but I believe this stemmed from my own immature thinking rather than any inherent difference between myself and others. Further analysis of society have determined that many wouldn't care if I die unless I become more relevant, so this is exactly what I'm planning to do with time. Take the example of the late Sandra Drummond in the 2000's, a British woman who died in the age of 44 and no one cared enough to notice her departure from this world. This, you see, is what happens to people who are not important enough: Not only they die alone (whether or not it's a problem is another issue), but their death would easily be overlooked, and even the local area of their residence would continue as usual. Given the fact that people with high intellect tend to develop mental health issues , and given that social withdrawal is a common symptom of mental illnesses like depression , it's likely that the very intelligent will have their own set of unique problems to deal with. Solving these problems can make them, as well as anyone else with these problems, an effective and contributing member of society. I believe that every individual has something valuable to offer the world, regardless of their intellectual level. We are all useful to an extent. We all possess unique experiences, perspectives, and talents that can enrich the lives of others. It is in this shared humanity, this interconnectedness, that we find true value and meaning. From Ivory Towers to Open Hearts And of course, you won't necessarily be highly motivated to contribute, when people who are intellectual are faced with stereotypes associated with arrogance and omniscience . Of course, stereotypes are, by default, flawed, even if they are commonly used as part of our attempt to understand the world. How can we properly understand reality if we confine ourselves to stereotypes? Back when I was younger, my understanding of society was limited and stereotypical. I saw it as a homogeneous entity, which inevitably led to misinterpretations and generalizations. As I matured and gained experience, however, I realized the complexity of human existence. Society is not a single entity, but a spectrum of diverse individuals, each with their own unique perspectives and contributions. My intellectual pursuits don't necessarily place me above this spectrum; I'm just another component of a rich, sociological ecosystem. Furthermore, I came to understand that intellectual ability is not a measure of worth. While I may excel in certain areas, others possess strengths and talents that I lack. You might find it surprising but people with high intelligence often struggle in finding love. And in love, you are supposed to listen to your heart, not to your mind or logic. Love is far more emotional than, let's say, writing a philosophy article. And while people seek to experience life over analyzing it in their metaphorical ivory towers, it's quite difficult not only finding love, but actually enjoying it from a logic-free perspective. Feel free to correct me in the comments if I'm wrong on that. Anyways, each domain of human endeavor has its own value, and no one area is inherently superior to another. Similarly to the attempt to objectively define "success" , it really depends on what we want to attain in life. Debunking the Myth of Intellectual Superiority There's a persistent stereotype that intellectuals sit on a pedestal above the rest of us. I only agree with this to a limited extent. While intellectuals may excel in one or more intellectual fields, their prowess in those areas doesn't translate to universal superiority. As demonstrated before, proficiency in one domain doesn't guarantee prosperity in all the diverse fields life offers. As I've shed the stereotypical delusions surrounding the labels that technically describe parts of who I am, I've realized I share more with society than I initially thought, and that this world hosts far more intellects than I initially presumed. Assuming one's intellect makes them a rare "specimen" is a fallacy, inflating positive attributes to an unrealistic degree. My earlier statement about intellectual superiority is justified by recognizing that society isn't a monolithic entity. I can find common ground with some fellow intellectuals within it if I wasn't focused so much on Philosocom. And it does not contradict the fact that I can't connect with so many others. This logic applies equally if I had different strengths, like being a skilled musician, a dedicated sports fan , or a hardcore gamer. Our ability to connect with one another depends on our ability to relate to them, or in other words, "find part of ourselves" in them (like having things in common) . Let us not victimize ourselves just because some of us happen to be more unique than others.

(For an article that expands on the hermit subject, click here ) (Inspired theme) Before attaining philosopher-hood , I have sympathized with the antagonists of fiction, Those who had the ability to alter the course of the world, And thus were a force to be reckoned with, By those who dare to oppose them, And beat them, due to cliché. One day I came to my former master And told him of my desire to change the world, As it is too wrong, too dysfunctional, Too disgusting. In response I was given the thesis of Epictetus: That there are things within our control -- and beyond, And thus -- the latter are not of our concern. In short, reality has taught me that I cannot change the world, For its force far exceeds mine, So I am to either sit, and endure , Or disappear, completely or strongly. I cannot change the world, And not even a certain girl's heart, Whom once I knew, So what is the point, then, in fighting A battle where the odds are against you? In reality, there are no minions, no superpowers, Rarely any ultra-rich with private armies, Nor doomsday devices, At the disposal of the realistic antagonist, AKA, he or she who initiates change . All you have is some money, a computer And maybe an apartment to live and sleep in. Only rarely, You get a powerbase , Beyond the basically. As the conqueror inside me is disappointed, When facing the burden of reality, Philosocom will be my base of operations, My "evil lair", Where all I can do, Is to provide my thoughts, Those who are influenced are them, Are beyond my control as well. This isn't defeatism , This is maturity. And as long as I don't have an army of minions and maybe a nuclear device, (So-to-speak, metaphorically of course) I want to remain in hermitage, For the mature one does not fight a war He/she is surely to lose in. I had a fleet of airships once, Hundreds by the number, But they were all be put out of commission, By the sharp darts of trollish laughter. I had enough of being hurt Even simply, for expressing, The fact that I exist, So I become a hermit, And thus in that way I might consist. Maybe, just maybe, If I had more control, Over myself, over the received influence from others, Over the alternation of communication with others, I wouldn't be such a hermit, Who is just waiting for his elder years to come, And perhaps write a few philosophical articles, Throughout the silent, desolate way. Thus, if you want to avoid hermit-dom, Seize control, By social skills, by attraction, connections, and by luxury, All of which I might not have, And (might as well) never will, For all I want now, if not permanently, Is to have a bit of serenity. Those who have the formers, Should welcome the burden of Stress, worry and anxiety, Just to sense a bit of power, That is beyond their own property. (2023 Added Verses): But now I realized, That a hermit's worth is compromised, Because as long as he will be deemed unimportant, His legacy to humanity can be undermined as well. So, in order to avoid that biased fate, I have no choice but to bury my hermit-dom with hate . Being irrelevant, is a thought I carried with much distaste. With my increasing fame, My former love have faced the truth. For she has paid, For saying that "I'm just too irrelevant", Apathetically, she declared. No empathy, no remorse, Now, I just have, To suffer life and work, Suffer, and stay on course. Now I am asthmatic, It is far from fantastic. To my craft, I am a fanatic, Stress and repression were its trigger, All I am left is to build an empire, And grow it bigger. For taking away my future, My happiness, so I could survive, Those who appointed themselves my repressors, Will pay, By my ability, to thrive. By my success they will be left, Proven wrong , With their past locked away, And in vengeance , Kept.

All I Want To Do If you know the right thing to do and don't do it, that for you, is evil. -- James 4:17 Knowing good from bad is sensed from the conscience, more-so from the heart than head. -- Panama Dusa One must imagine Sisyphus happy -- Albert Camus' (Directory on Rectification and Help) (Subcategory of Failure) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Background music) All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is... doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! I indeed enjoy restoring my heart! Yet I'm supposed to care mainly for myself... Even though the flaw is always indefinite... Rectifying is the right thing to do! With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil... I refuse! All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! Helpers are alone and the evil socialize.. Full rectification, none can actualize... Like Sisyphus with his rolling stone, My duty is mainly my own.. With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil...... I refuse! All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is... doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! I am supposed to like the stone falling off! And I'm supposed to care mainly for myself... Even though the flaw is always indefinite... Rectifying is the right thing to do! With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil...... I refuse!

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) (Void directory) It first began during childhood. I had a very happy childhood, full of freedom and fun, but perhaps because of that, it was also a very devoid period in my life. The fun I received from doing the things I liked back then, fun that could last for days on average, just felt... hollow. I could play games the entire day, and still go to bed a sad individual. Even as a naive kid, I felt like an existentially useless, worthless being who gave nothing to himself or to society. People told me, "Enjoy your time as a kid while it lasts", They told me " Seize your ability to have so much free time ", and I did just that. And still... life felt worthless, a waste of time and space. I don't know why I had these thoughts as a child, but I had them nonetheless, and beyond hollow fun, I almost felt nothing else. I've seen the outside beyond the window of the apartment. The sun was shining, and the wind was blowing the trees in the building's small yard, where I used to live. It meant little to me because I wanted the fun to last as long as possible. That was, even though it was a hollow one. I could not know any better, of course, because I was just a kid. And yet, I was haunted by nihilistic thoughts. In Judaism, this world is known as Alma Deshakra, otherwise known as a world of mundane delights. Look around you. The dazzling lights of cities, the happiness displayed in advertisements, the soulless-ness of pop music ... For those who have a certain tiredness in us, one that is found in " Old Souls ", this reality is experienced as chronically vain. Like you already understand it, and thus, grow tired of it. So, you seek its deeper layers, even for the sake of staying mentally sound, to mentally survive . This Earth is but a tiny body in a large, uncaring galaxy, in a much bigger, uncaring universe. It all ends someday, regardless of what you do. For many, nothing is truly valuable beyond the mere experience of joy. How pathetic. Mother told me, "We should be thankful to God for what He has given to us", and I indeed believed in that deity during some of my childhood. I even prayed to him some nights. But existence still felt "godless". So, in order for me to not be consumed by this chronic feeling which haunts me most of my life, I look for the deeper aspects of this existence. I refuse to be truly satisfied , for that will mark the full victory of the hole inside of me. An ever-consuming void of profound nihilism. Even with my thankfulness, the emptiness inside me would not go away. How can I be thankful when I chronically hunger for depth? Empires... are built on hunger. On the need to expand. My mind lives like a Roman Empire. Never truly satisfied, always seeking to conquer more and more ambitions and articles to call my own. I need this like food. As I grew up to my teen years, I got to experience new things, other than games. I went abroad, went to certain parties (also known as "Bat-Mitzvas" back then), and finished elementary school at a pool party. It all felt just as empty as me playing a video game in the solitude of my former apartment. The joy, the music, and the entertainment did not fill the hole carved within me by my very existence. It all felt like I am needed to pretend I am happy, while in the real world, my own happiness is not even relevant. For it breaks the norm of collective hedonism, which compels you to be happy for the sake of collective good. For the expression of your unhappiness, ruins the mood. How pathetic. I had pets, and I had a few friends. At the time, none of them could understand. They were too young, and pets can't grasp nihilism, as far as I'm aware. I really had no one to turn to to fill the void inside me. The same void that had accompanied me since early childhood. Thus far, I have only found two things that fulfill this Lovecraftian void: love and philosophizing. Nothing else gives me as much satisfaction as falling in love with someone and reminding myself that there's still depth in this largely-vain reality. I guess it's a good thing, but only when it comes to the latter. When it comes to the former, it can really haunt you, as it did to me. As girls and women rejected me, it seemed to hurt more than the void itself hurt me over the years. To observe a message of rejection from someone you loved with all your heart. That is an event I wished not to experience yet again, for I am not a masochist. However, embracing adversity helped me expand my sphere of actions. Trying over and over again to get the perfect "shot," like when taking a picture, seems very frustrating. And it is. You can be with a girl, woman, or someone else for a few months, only for her to abandon you unexpectedly, leaving you once again with your thoughts. What is the point of this uncertainty? Perhaps this is an uncertainty I refused to partake in again, only to realize I will be empty inside either way. And that's good for writing, to remain unhappy, as it allows me to get more things done. So unhappy I will remain by choice. And thus, the only thing in life that truly makes me happy and only makes me happy, beyond mere joy, is the quest for more insight. It feels productive more than anything else in this existence, which, for some reason, I view as hollow, as vain. It gives me hope, and I want to share that hope with others through Philosocom . I don't have a definite explanation as to why that is the only thing that makes me happy and proud, even though other activities give me joy as well, but these are the facts. Why do you think I write so much? It appears that this is the only thing that keeps the "hole" from expanding more and more. Each article, once in a while, minimizes the hole further and further, until it is gone. Only to expand once more, calling me to resume my life's work once again. There is no end to this. Only in death. And I accept this strange destiny within me. I don't know if I believe in destiny , but I also can't work in anything else, as the fatigue that followed became too strong for me to resume working (and I indeed tried doing so, as an office clerk). It resulted in a 5 year-long era of Reaping Fatigue , where I slowly became physically handicapped. I solved that handicap on my own, but I wish not to undergo such an Era again, for it compromised my intellect greatly. I guess that all I have to do in this life is serve a greater purpose than myself, not necessarily because it is "my destiny," but because it's the only thing that I can do with little-to-no fatigue and with a small glimpse of true happiness . For I still have the energy to prove the world that she was wrong . And I will do so with relentless altruism. Hehehehe... Living to work as a philosopher is the only thing I feel obliged to live for. Nothing else is as resonating. Not even love. Thank you for reading.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory On Nihilism) (Void directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "The Power of the Void" is a philosophical article that delves into the concept of nihilism and the human quest for meaning in an indifferent universe. The article explores complex themes such as existentialism and nihilism, challenging readers to confront the absence of inherent meaning in life and advocating for embracing this void as a source of inner strength. It critiques societal constructs like religion and absolute ideologies as escapes from confronting the inherent meaninglessness of existence, challenging readers to rethink their dependence on external validation and purpose. The article uses quotes and philosophical references to add credibility and depth to its argument. It encourages introspection and personal reflection, encouraging readers to consider their relationship with meaning and how they navigate the challenges of existence. Overall, "The Power of the Void" presents a thought-provoking exploration of existential themes and offers a compelling perspective on embracing the void as a source of personal empowerment. (Background music) ********* "You fear, friend. You don't know what's about to happen, and this worries you. You exist in a pointless existence, and this has recently been shed to horror. You take shelter in concepts, and reality is a theater of horrors." "Yes. I am deeply driven by survival instinct."  "Reality is an ad-infinitum. At what point does the cell ask the body 'is this good'"? "When they are truly content, and thus see no reason to fight." "I suggest the opposite.... However, how aware exactly are the cells of the body?" "Very little". "Humans fear what they want most of all" -- Conversation between Mr. John Duran and me, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein Part I: A Seemingly Meaningless Universe Why We Seek Meaning There does not necessarily have to be an objective, inherit meaning or purpose to one’s life. There is also no need to have it, unless societal engineering compels us to have it, and we're too weak to resist it. We can also choose to have a purpose to give ourselves a reason to live, but at the same time, we could just teach ourselves to live without it, and see it as a liability. Many of us desire to have meaning, because many of us are afraid of the void; of being nothing, of living with nothing , of feeling nothing. Many are afraid of the eternal, of the existence of nothingness, for it always outlives all that was, is and will be temporary. Minimizing the worth of something or someone because they won't live forever is called the eternity fallacy. Many humans feel the desire to depend on absolute purposefulness, so they attempt to be determined about the existence of godhood . This is why religions and other cultural constructs are created ; to escape from the nothingness that fills the universe. This is why the meaning of life is questioned and sought after -- to escape the possibility that we are nothing more than organisms and no further, drifting in an absurdist universe. For the void is one many fear. Fear of being worthless in a worthless universe. And the true self emerges whether it seeks to unleash its revolutionary potential , or give up on any meaning whatsoever -- True Nihilism. Either way, the search for external meaning is always a result of internal deprivation. A person who lives either way, with meaning or without meaning, is one whose ego has finally been quenched from its hunger for more. With limit, or without. “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone .” -- Blaise Pascal The Allure of Absolutes Absoluteness gives so much comfort, like that of a mother. One could delve deeper into this powerful human yearning for the absolute and its connection to the concept of a motherly embrace. The search for meaning can be understood as a desire to be enveloped by a source of ultimate comfort and security , much like the nurturing and unconditional love of a mother. This "motherly entity" can take many forms: a strict ideology , a unifying theory of the universe , or even a specific deity. By clinging to absolutes, we can create an illusion of psychological safety and avoid confronting the unsettling reality of an indifferent universe – the universality of nothingness: A universe where meaning is as real as a piece of fiction. However, this enabled need for comfort comes at a cost. Absolutes can be rigid and limiting. They can stifle curiosity and critical thinking, hindering our ability to grow and adapt. Furthermore, the belief in an unquestionable and immortal entity can lead to dogmatism, manipulation and intolerance. After all, those who hold different absolute truths may be seen as threats. The pursuit of meaning is a fundamental human quest. While absolutes can offer a temporary sense of comfort, true understanding may lie in embracing the complexity and ambiguity of existence. Perhaps, like a mature child venturing out into the world, we can find a different kind of security – one built on resilience, acceptance, and the courage to face the mysteries of life head-on. Part II: Embracing the Void for Inner Power and Peace “Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable.” -- Albert Camus There is no eternal and gigantic absolute like that of the void. In fact, science claims that over 31% of stuff makes up most of the universe. Many humans, who struggle living whether or not they have a reason to do so, create and fall into other absolutes— religions , ideologies, societal expectations — all desperate attempts to defeat the chilling realization of the void encompassing reality. The truth is hard to swallow, a bitter pill only for those strong enough to face the silence of the eternal nothingness. However, as long as we depend our wellbeing on distant ideals, we'll suffer in accordance with our impractical mentality. Perhaps we should stop shooting ourselves in the foot in the name of justice. But the eternal nothingness is here, there, and everywhere. Sometimes we delude ourselves that our lives are good for us, that people around us are nice to us. However, it's often a cover and excuse not to be exposed to how really unfair this world really is. We may strive for extra optimism with a shining light that blinds us from the inherent darkness and void of the universe. It's known as extreme optimism, often used to overlook problems. However, what if nihilism's problematic nature is merely perceived by choice? We take cover under comforting illusions, self-made prisons of ideas and social conventions around our minds. Yet, the truth cannot be forever masked, if we seek to examine it, and not merely be amused by its projection. However, once nothingness is realized, a profound shift occurs. Nothing, not fear, not desire, can hold power over you. The void then becomes a source of immense strength, when you stop unnecessarily depending yourself on any significance that seeks to deny it. The void can be a wellspring of stoic and serene power , one that transcends any fleeting desire or worldly suffering. To be one with the void is to accept the inherent meaninglessness of existence, to see "worth" as nothing more than a self-deception, a temporary escape from the truly profound questions life throws at us. For these questions may drive us for self-sacrifice. However, "living either way" cannot be possible, in this largely-empty reality, if you're dead. And the point is to live either way, as to not depend upon ourselves our visions of a paradise. This acceptance doesn't lead to despair, but rather, liberation. It frees us from the shackles of external validation and allows us to live life without worrying about whether or not we were productive today. You can think about this, not as forging our own path, but as aimlessly jaywalking between the paths, while still, choosing to live no matter which path you're on. Look how the functionality of meaning can make us suffer when we're too weak to be without one. Then, we should ask: Is the quest for meaning/understanding meaning, always moral? Part III: Freedom from the Meaning Myth Once you understand the objective void of things, you can become sober from the addiction that is meaning-seeking, as long as you're strong enough. Then, you may realize that meaning is merely a creation of the consciousness, not an objective and concrete entity. An intersubjective value, "elevated" into objectivity. However, it is realist to distinguish between what is intersubjective in value, and what is generally objective. Ad-populum distorts this understanding. Then, there is no necessary desire to torment you in the journey of life, when it comes to meaning. To desire it like a simp desires an internet star, that is your choice, and therefore, not other people's problem, necessarily. Should we really keep normalizing our emotions as a collective responsibility? How about our fortunes and misfortunes? Maybe we should stop blaming society for a desire for meaning we can either quench or kill off relentlessly. Either way, must we let our lives depend on it, given the vast emptiness of the universe, and the shallowness of modern society? What would happen if we fail to attain our ambitions? Should we end up like a Japanese paramilitary leader after he tried restoring the glory of WW2 Japan? Should we die off because of failure? Die, because of difficulty that can be overcome? The Power of the Untethered Self With this newfound clarity, you can free you from the dangers of nihilism and existential despair. You can become resilient from the inside, no longer susceptible to the paralyzing fear of meaninglessness. You can become tougher, live peacefully under the stoic principle of control dichotomy, and be less mentally weak. Unburdened by the need for external validation or a preordained purpose, you are free to forge your own path, without having to resort to premature death. Without resorting to escape. The vast, silent void doesn't have to scare you like a monster. Instead, you can subvert it as a source of strength and unwavering self-reliance.

(Background music) (Void directory) The Three Expressions of Void : Space, Seclusion, Silence: The Fabric of Reality Everything that truly exists exists in the Great Void . Everything that truly exists takes up a portion of the space that contains everything that truly exists, i.e., the Great Void. Void is vacuum , or the absence of a thing instead of the empty space that exists. This lack of something allows many things to be created in it. That is also known as potential: the ability of something to be created. That is true not only physically but in any field where potential exists. The potential runs out when there is no further void that can be filled by something. Likewise, opportunity cannot exist without a void to have itself surround it. You can't build a building in a field that doesn't have the proper terrain for it, for example. You can't foster a relationship when someone is already in a relationship and is not open to polygamy. The terrain must be empty enough of obstacles for that building to be built. The person you're interested in must have enough "storage" in their hearts to contain you , and so on. Hence void is necessary for potential to be realized. The Great Void of the Universe is possibly infinite . It is not an entity, but a composition of space, seclusion (my definition of separation), and silence. Location, interaction, and sound—their existence depends on the Great Void to contain them, and cannot be contained independently of it. Every location needs space, every interaction needs separation between the interacting objects, and every sound needs to exist under the vocal sound of silence. So, yes. Silence is a variation of space, but only on a vocal and auditory level. It is one of the basics of which the Great Void is composed: that everyone and everything inhabits its possibly infinite realm. Space, seclusion, and silence are things that many of us are afraid of, because we are the exact opposite. We're entities that are placed in various locations, that were evolved at various degrees of desire to seek interaction, and that our modern lives have set us to escape from silence, through clinginess to comfort. Exposing the Human Condition Through the 3 Voids There is no path. Beyond the scope of light, beyond the reach of dark, what could possibly await us? And yet, we seek it insatiably. Such is our fate. -- Aldia, Dark Souls II. Basically, our strength as a race, to seek location, interaction, and sound, is at the same time a great weakness, for it is very difficult for us, and sometimes even perceived as threatening, to transcend our nature by experiencing the components of the Great Void. These components are: Emptiness/Space, Seclusion , and Silence. Many of us are afraid of these components because of our primal nature, which dictates that we constantly seek activity, togetherness, and sound. This is why experiencing the traits of the Great Void of the Universe is something that currently only a few of us can do for extended periods of time, without experiencing negative feelings such as boredom , sadness, frustration, and so forth. However, regardless of our constant escapism as dictated by our inferior nature, space, seclusion, and silence are things that are omnipresent regardless of what we do. All of the stimulation we rely on by constantly seeking justification and purpose in our lives—the majority of it is a stimulation caused by a potentially subconscious fear of being without the stimulation we crave. This is why what is defined as the "full" life—constant social interactions, the seeking of romantic love, the pursuit after passions in a continuous cycle of desire and suffering— this "full" life is mere escapism from a great human fear, to find ourselves exposed to the Great Void of the Universe without constant stimulation to protect ourselves from. The "full" life, created by conformity and hedonism, is a life that most of it exists not in the World Beyond the Mind , but in our subjective and inter-subjective experiences, not in the objective reality, whose existence is independent of any subjective form , and of any purpose. For many objects that inhabit it, objective reality can exist without inherent purpose for an indefinite period of time, with no reasoning beyond scientific evolution of chronology. The Enduring Inanimate Inanimate, silent objects are the most enduring things in this universe. They can endure and exist without any possibility of being in despair, because such tendencies are the potential of subjective beings, not inanimate objects. Therefore, the chair that you are sitting on has the potential to endure years after years of existence, even after the potential demise of the human race. It does not crave the desire to live, nor does it attempt to escape from the universal sovereignty of the Great Void. This makes inanimate objects far more superior and stronger than we subjective beings are. What I am trying to say is, that to escape from the space, seclusion, and silence of the Great Void, by craving purpose, social interaction , external validation and sound, is a weakness that can be transcended by learning the ways of the inanimate and silent. This allows them to endure the Great Void without escapism. Silence is just one of the components of the Great Void that we escape from. And nothingness is something that requires a great ability of endurance. An iron will. Breaking Free from the Desperation of Want " A soul is much like a curse. And those with strong souls must bear within themselves an even stronger curse ." -- Dark Souls II, King's Ring The more we adjust ourselves to cope with the Great Void, by refusing to escape from it as our primal nature dictates, the more we shall increase our independence from our desperation to constantly seek external interaction. And also, from the unnecessary cycle of desire and suffering that may end only when we are to die. If you wish to become a more autonomous, less suffering individual, seek space, seek seclusion, and seek silence. Then you will crave less and less to escape from the eternity of the Great Void. This process can be defined as the "metaphorical undead-ization." Do nothing , and bare witness as your mentality attempts to oppose you. Thus, being able to stay sane within inactivity, is a form of great strength. You can become stronger by refusing to give up to your weaknesses.

(Background music) (Void directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "How to Solve the Void of Existential Loneliness" is a thoughtful exploration of existential loneliness, focusing on its philosophical depth and introspective analysis. It challenges readers to explore the roots of their own loneliness through an existential lens, providing a deeper understanding of the void that shallow social interactions often leave unaddressed. The article's strengths include its philosophical depth, encouraging authenticity , emphasizing emotional resilience, and reflecting a philosophically-minded narrative that promotes deeper thinking about human relationships. In conclusion, the article succeeds in offering a meaningful exploration of existential loneliness and emphasizes the importance of depth in human connection. The philosophical narrative is highly engaging, and by addressing the emotional complexities of modern society , it provides a much-needed perspective on loneliness. By pushing these ideas forward, the article is a thought-provoking read that will resonate with many.   (More on loneliness, here) ********************* The Physical Company Fallacy The increasing connectivity in the world does not mean that it will permanently solve the personal problem of loneliness. You can go to chatrooms and forums all day long, but as long as no meaningful contact has been established, combating loneliness through social interaction, will remain ineffective. Loneliness is a result of a void that we have inside of us, and superficial communication with others, even if consistent, is insufficient to decrease our loneliness. It can be compared to a huge hole being filled by tiny amounts of earth. A thousand superficial connections cannot amount to just one deep connection with someone who truly cares about you. Therefore, in order to be less lonely, we must not necessarily surround ourselves with people all the time. Ironically it can make you even lonelier at times. Negative. In order to reduce loneliness we must form honest, meaningful and deep relationships with people. Relationships that will allow us to be more of ourselves, and vice versa, and less of a persona we put on our identity, just to please others and to survive. Solving the Problem We must create true friendships with people that will serve as safe, intimate spaces where we can truly be ourselves, without feeling guilty or ashamed of our authenticity. These spaces can be harmful only to those who fear uncomfortable emotions and who want to repress others as a result. The desire for a nice atmosphere is in the way for authentic relationships because the truth isn't always nice, but also sad and even depressing. For the truth can be a threat on us, even if by feeling alone . Thus, we must overcome the need for a nice time in the name of letting people be more of themselves, if we can truly deem ourselves their true friends. True friendships differ from regular friendships in a sense that the true friend appreciates you and strives to be there for you when you're feeling down. They are a shoulder for you to rest on, an ear you can lend, and vice versa. Their reliability is your key out of much of your loneliness, if not the entirety of it. Even if for a little while. They are your mind and heart's sanctuary . As such, not everyone is capable of being a true friend as that requires deeper emotional investment. And yet, humans are emotional beings who are demanded by society to constantly repress and mask their unwanted components. A constant state of repression is unhealthy both physically and mentally , which means that a true friend is the one person that should allow you to be far less repressed, stoic and self-restricted. We deserve to be self-restricted in the professional world, and to keep a calmer mind in there, in accordance to the demand of our jobs. Not much so in the company of true friends, lovers, and a supporting family. While their connection to you may not be unconditional, it is far less conditional than your regular connections with human beings. Your connection with him or her is of the highest quality, second only to true love , where admiration and affection runs far deeper. Encourage people to not work on their sensitivities, and you might indirectly encourage loneliness. How can one expect to be authentic when people are too sensitive to allow him or her being brutally honest ? How can we expect to foster deep, meaningful relationships, when many of us may fear unease and emotional pain ? As long as we will not be able to find someone or even a company of people who will accept us beyond our uneasy components, we will remain existentially lonely. Being less sensitive, or more emotionally resilient, is therefore the key to the beginning of a fruitful, deep friendship with another being, which in turn would help to reduce the suffering found in existential loneliness. Emotional resilience is about not fearing discomfort. It can be worked on, you know. Existential loneliness is an issue of emotional depth one has with other people; a shortage of depth and strength of connection. Public safe spaces are thus problematic if they don't let you be more of yourself, all because of sensitivity. This is where a high sense of sensitivity is, in fact, a weakness. It has positive sides as well, but increased sensitivity is essentially enhanced vulnerability to external stimulation. Men are encouraged to be less sensitive as part of their gender socialization . Some may refer to it as an expression of toxic masculinity . In the end, being able to embrace pain and suffering as a part of human reality, can help us accept others even when they hurt or offended us. This is why being tough is a strength -- it is an imperative part to have in deep, meaningful connections, as it allows us to endure other people far better. When no one can endure us as much as we need, how can we expect to not be lonely? The tougher person is there to contain us when we are distressed. They will rarely, if ever, flee from the adversity that is the unwanted parts of our beings. That is because they are more willing to accept us for who we are, if they truly appreciate us. With them, there is more psychological safety . And they may possess the courage to do so as well: To look at us when we are angry, frustrated, or extremely sad to the point that we're crying loudly and honestly. The tougher person will not see negative emotions as bad . No. He or she will contain and embrace us at our hardest times, and will not seek to repress us so much in the name of their own sentiments. These too deserve their place! And our own sentiments can also be in the way of adding depth to this depth-lack-luster world. It's why I bothered to be tougher myself, and not be afraid of criticism any longer . Because I know that fearing unease can prevent myself from having the interactions I need to foster strong, lasting connections with people. I also believe that encouraging toughness and the reduction of sensitivity can make people be less afraid of exiting their own loneliness, and help others be less lonely as well. Since we live in an era where superficiality and simplicity reign supreme amongst the general public, one is faced with two solutions to the problem of loneliness: Either submit to the superficiality of others and not depend on others for our need for depth, or attempt to combat said superficiality through the attempt of creating one or more social circles that encourage and nurture the element of depth. One may find that feeling and expressing deep emotions is pretty great as an experience. That is especially true in connections where you are allowed and accepted to be who you are. Should we cancel and dismiss our own emotions as bad, just because of discomfort, we may dismiss a great depth that is found within ourselves. Without our awareness, usually, we may only be creating a solvable shortage of depth within ourselves and, long-term, in the world. When much of our self is rejected by the world, no longer are we as connected to those around us as we could've been. This makes the search for interpersonal depth even more difficult: When truths about ourselves will always be denied and undesired by others. We will then have to mask ourselves with everyone just to survive. Masking is there because the truth is not desired by everyone. They either don't care about it, or are refusing to accept it, no matter how hard we will try to show them the light of our own reality. We should not be punished or condemned by our dear ones when we are honest. Honesty is a sign of trust in a world of pretending. When our honesty is rejected, no matter how brutal it is, our trust is also rejected. It is therefore important to know who is dear to you and who isn't. Your dear ones deserve to know you for whom you truly are. Otherwise, your true self will lie all alone, confined by the four walls of pretending to be someone else. Not everyone deserve your honesty, as such, because not everyone deserves to be trusted. I myself have mostly superficial relationships with the people around me, but because I managed to generate depth from within and through my article empire. This helps me fill the hole inside of me , the void of depth that I wish to have with other people. But people can be too cowardly to be honest, and can be too cowardly to accept honesty from me. Either way, honesty is the path and practice of the true philosopher. If we are to accept the increasing and encouraged superficiality of those around us, then we can be on the path of creating the desired depth from within our times of our own seclusion. It can, at the very least, ease our own suffering. Because we cannot necessarily change other people, we can't exactly change their weaknesses and traumas. Acceptance can go a long way to make them feel less lonely, too, even if it hurts our feelings. The fear of our feelings being hurt, can hurt our own acceptance of others. We must not fear that our feelings will be hurt. It will happen either way as long as we communicate with other people. Conclusions and Further Insights We are facing the arrival of a new age: The Age of Solitude . The problem of loneliness is only going to be increased in a world where meaningful and deep connections with others will become less and less common due to the dominance of escapism . Such as mainstream entertainment. It is built to feed its finances on the wide notion of how easy simplicity is for many of us to remain in. It cashes in on our unwillingness to face and try to solve our real life problems. It's one of the reasons it is addictive. We can thus conclude that loneliness is not just a societal problem, but a personal one. A problem caused by the void of depth existing in our lives, and no amount of interaction is going to solve it as long as interactions with others will largely remain superficial and away from its deeper notions. We can become evil when the circumstances of life rejects us for who we are and/or want to be. Because deep inside, we want to be loved, accepted and respected . In the absence of either of the three, or without them entirely, we can grow dark, and crave power over others, in order to find these elements that we lack. Therefore, reducing and/or solving existential loneliness is also the moral thing to do. That is especially true when evil can cause trauma in others and in ourselves. Another conclusion can be taken into consideration as well: The decreasing presence of philosophizing in and towards our lives can also be considered a factor into the increasing phenomenon of loneliness. Without the notion of philosophizing, our lives will be likely to remain superficial and devoid of meaning and/or feelings of accomplishment. Its lack can make us question our existence or consider existence to be meaningless altogether. Be open with people with your true philosophical thoughts, and you can solve your loneliness even further. In the absence of depth in others, develop and nurture yourself within your seclusion, and you may become almost like, if not entirely self-reliant machine. an Enduring Pillar in a civilization where the notion of depth is decaying. The point of that is to mentally survive in a world that develops and nurtures loneliness without even being aware of it.

( Philosocom Directory on Fear ) (Void directory) (Background Music) Facing the Void: Fear of Nothingness Although many might disagree with me, I believe that one of the biggest fears we humans have is the fear of nothing . By "nothing," I refer to the concept of the absence of something in our lives. Per my findings there are 3 main expressions of that "absence" or of void. While we may not all share the same fear in all of its forms, it is likely that most of us experience this fear at least in one form, minor or major. And fearlessness is something that needs to be worked on. The biggest "void-fear" for some people is expressed through loneliness or the lack of intimacy . These are both expressions of the absence of someone, either general or specific, that we wish we had in our lives. This fear is so big that some people believe that humans cannot exist without (romantic) love. This is supported by the known quote from the Old Testament, "It is not good that the man should be alone" . This quote indicates the importance of an external company to fill in the gaps that theoretically cannot be fulfilled by just one person. However, this isn't completely true when one is able to master the art of being alone . Such fear can be surpassed by filling the gaps yourself, or at least the ones you can on your own. For example, while a tree may be too tall for you to climb and reach a fruit (thus needing external help for this effort), a holiday can be well-spent enjoying your own company. While procreation cannot be done asexually in humans, one can learn how to enjoy his or her own singlehood and find alternatives to biological reproductions in order to have children ( such as assisted reproduction ). Nonetheless, the fear of solitude ( along with the fear of aging alone ) remains as one of the biggest "Void-Fears" in all of humanity's history, given the necessity, and often benefits, of collective life, and dependency on social interactions. Many other fears can be categorized as the fear of nothing. For example, the fear of heights is basically the fear of not having a close ground next to your feet; the fear of small spaces is the fear of not having a large-enough space to exist within ( and vice versa ). The fears from nothing indicate our frequent incapacity, or unwillingness, to live without something or someone to be at our hands, at our company, or around us. It shows us that being the ruling species of Earth is not a sufficient title to bring us the strength our ancestors had. Will you be willing to march into battle should your superior authorities call you to do so? Those afraid of developing PTSD may avoid protecting their countries (or deploying overseas in its name). That is even though having a standing and competent military is crucial for the survival of a nation ( and thus militarism holds logical ground ) But those with no awareness of PTSD might, or those heavily influenced by the functionality of certain ideologies. Are you afraid of being alone? Not a full-time hermit might . When survival is guaranteed, fear seems to be a luxury we can afford even if we don't want to afford it. The Hidden Cost of Our Distracted Lives When survival is at stake, fear is to be surpassed, for it is only an obstacle that could lead to our death. Unless we are suffering, death is far from a desired option. The exception is when our fears are not entirely irrational if they are even irrational at all. Perhaps this can also explain the decline of traditional masculinity in favor of what is called a " healthy masculinity ", one that is more inclined with our emotions and less surpasses them among men. Regardless, what can be assured is that we fear nothingness, and we may fear it even if we have all we want and/or all we need. Most if not all of these fears have to do with the fear of our minds being with themselves, without an external body, object or person, to be with it and to distract them (the minds) from having to cope with themselves. Among energy vampires this is most common. Many minds seem to be afraid of themselves, especially after spending much of their lives being externally occupied with whatever they desire, need or are asked to be occupied in. Doing nothing is a choice of its own, and not an easy one. This leaves little to no experience with the "terror" that is the large absence of an external source of stimulation. It is the same reason why we are addicted to various addictions, from smoking to our various electronic screens. It is but the fear from nothing. Channelling Your Fears into Productivity I too have a void-fear I'd like to confess: I fear insufficiency, which is, obviously, the fear of the lack of sufficiency. I therefore became a workaholic. This is why with every task I am either given or give to myself, such as writing an article or even making coffee, I see it through that the task will not go unfinished as much as I can. I also imposed on myself to be addicted to coffee so I would accomplish more in life, but I digress. In order to be a better writer and philosopher, I have utilized this fear for my own use, writing and publishing hundreds of articles. I wager that without this fear I would've produced less content for the world, and focused more on other things. You can follow my example and use your fears for your own benefit, whether it is a fear of nothingness or any other fear. Even rejections can be used to build the mind , so you might not want to be too afraid of rejections. Are you afraid of failing an upcoming test? See to it that you pass as successfully as you can. Are you afraid of too much dirt in your house or apartment? Make sure it is clean enough so it won't bother you for long periods of time. Treat your emotions as your pawns and you can become more powerful as an individual, and perhaps within a collective as well. Fear and Loss Can Become Our Greatest Teachers Fear, even if unwanted, is a potential that we can use to improve ourselves and our ability to help others. All we have to do is accept the inevitability of uncomfortable emotions ( and discomfort in general ). When such emotions arrive, we should try to ignore their disturbance and use their power to advance ourselves and our endeavours. However, in the end, if we want to be braver individuals, we must accept the possibility of losing the dear things and beings in our lives, which will leave us in the space that they used to occupy in our lives. We need to learn to see things and beings not as an extension of ourselves, but as temporary visitors in our world, just as we may be in theirs. In the end, we are all alone either way, to whatever extent.

(Philosocom's Directory on Choice) (Void directory) (Background music) Ironically, nothingness has more layers than one may initially think . It's a great paradox that nothing is something, because you need nothing in order to create something within it , therefore "nothingness" can be given significance like any other "something". One way this paradox is expressed is when nothing is a Valuable Choice —the choice of not doing anything; a choice of passivity. Of idleness. It's a choice that might surprise you in its potential significance and impact, whoever you may be and whatever power you possess. The choice of not doing anything can be as important as the choice of doing otherwise, of "not-nothing." You could have been a killer, a r***st, a thief, and so forth. Each new day brings a new set of potentials you can choose from. When you choose something over a lot of other choices, like the choices I just presented, you do much in your life without, presumably, even realizing it. You might not even be aware of what you're truly capable of, so by your own ignorance of self, you might choose to be idle with your power for you are unaware of its true extent. That is because, when you choose not to, many things and beings' paths in their existence are shifted into different directions, all because you did not choose to do something that might affect them in a significant way. Have you chosen not to be an expert thief? Congratulations, you saved the bank accounts of many, simply by choosing not to be an expert thief . Do you refuse to force yourself on people under any circumstances? That's good, obviously, because the lives of many have been left untraumatized, when they could have been otherwise. Otherwise, and naturally, by your very own ability to choose at any given moment. Therefore, the choice to not do certain things has an immense moral value. And if to quote Sun Tzu: "The wise warrior avoids the battle". One of the reasons why I personally am not a very social person is because I already predict the suffering that can ensue in human communication. So, to avoid inflicting much suffering on others, and to avoid suffering unnecessarily myself, I avoid many interactions. And choosing to do nothing can be seen as a choice of avoidance as well. I see no fault in avoiding making decisions that could lead to agony. It is the moral thing to reduce human suffering. Human suffering can be reduced by not increasing it in the first place. To quote Sun Tzu again: "The greatest victory is that which requires no battle". It is best to get what you're looking for with minimal or no suffering on either yourself or others. It is best because it is the moral thing to do, to make both yourself and others suffer as little as possible. And for morality to ensue optimally, one needs to be aware of the power of his or her choices. As you can see, the valuable choice of nothing can be quite powerful. We should not argue with each other so much, for example, when we can get the knowledge we're looking for by avoiding this confrontation. Remember: You have the internet, the biggest source of information created by mankind. As long as you can use it, there is no need to really argue with others just to get knowledge. For your and others' health, try to pick the path of least resistance. People who are more foolish than others, who work on impulses and would still desire to argue, are "shooting themselves in the foot" by not doing their research, when they can do just that. After all, there is far less suffering in learning, than there is, in arguing. And since it is so important for many human beings to argue, I am at large, an asocial being. Thus, nothing is a more significant choice than one may initially admit it is. That is because the consequences of our actions can vary in accordance to different choices, and should we choose a certain set of choices each time, the results might remain the same. However, other possibilities would have been erased from existence at that time. By choosing to do something at an exact moment, you also choose not to do something else within said moment. This leads to the power of choice that you did not make, AKA nothing. Therefore, when you make a single choice, you also do not make plenty of other choices. The best choices you make are those that lead to your desired results, while considering the choices others already made for you. After all we do not live in a vacuum, and if to quote American philosopher John Duran: "My impossible life was not from the choices I've made, but from the choices forced upon me, and I dealt with them the best I could". The choice of dealing with the choices others made for you, that are more powerful than yourself, is also a choice some may not make. One could oppose these choices instead of coping with the fact that they have been made. However by coping with them, when you know that you do not have the power to alter them, reveals the powerful aspect of choosing nothing. When you have the intelligence to know you currently lack the power to oppose undesired choices made for you, you save yourself unnecessary suffering. Acceptance is also a choice. A choice of nothing. Obviously, people have different sets of potentials , depending not only on their individual merits, but also on the practical power they have over people, and, for some... across the world. What makes Hitler such a bad person, is that he did too much for his own sake, thus leading not only to his own demise but to the demise of Germany. Of course, and by proxy, his actions resulted with the deaths many else. Had he not do much when he came to power, the lives of countless millions would've been spared. If he had been far less ambitious, i.e., if he had done more nothing than something, the world would be shaped differently today, with far more people being alive, like the descendants of the ones he executed. Remember the killer example? From here comes the importance of choosing nothing over something: The practical, wise part that can save your plans from being exploded in your face. The mastermind knows this well. In the name of morality, it is sometimes best to be an insignificant authority figure, than be a very significant authority figure for the wrong reasons. Walter White from "Breaking Bad" accumulated much power because he knew what he was capable of, so he worked towards it. However, with one's knowledge over the many possible outcomes, it is sometimes the best decision to not seize the potential one has. He could've just drunk away his problems , for instance, instead of becoming a drug baron. By refusing to build a criminal enterprise, he could've saved much suffering in the world, as well as the lives of the other characters in the show. This brings us to an important question: when should we do nothing? Can doing nothing bring us closer to our goals, at times? Is it better, at times, to not do nothing rather than mistakes, despite the fact that mistakes are great learning opportunities? I can answer these questions with an example: It is often believed in the world of content creation that the gaps between sharing are imperative to both your followers and to any audience that is exposed to your content. Share too much at a small time, and people will be overwhelmed. On the contrary, share too little in a long time, and people will begin to lose interest. The difference between the two completely relies on how "nothing" you "do," aka how much you avoid publishing content. Because of that, one can say that we technically "do nothing" on a regular basis, as by every deed there are countless other deeds that could have been done, but were not. Remember that you are more influential than you think—we all are. All thanks to the choice of nothing. The more you do nothing, the less evil you might become, and the less evil you are, the more, technically, good you will stay. Doing nothing is its own good. I will finish by pasting a short answer I once wrote online: "We can all technically do good by refusing to do maliciousness. It is a deed that is also a misdeed, but a conscious choice nonetheless.... If we can just stay and think more of the consequences of our actions, on others, ourselves or both, we can contribute to goodness by avoiding things we would’ve otherwise considered to do. Should you take that bribe? Should you sleep with a married person? Should you kill someone to feel what it’s like? Avoid those and you will passively do good in the world.

(Background music) (Void directory) The paradox about not doing anything is, that even if you’re doing nothing, you’re doing something. You think, you feel, you wonder, you contemplate, and so forth. Doing nothing is therefore a purely mental deed, where your internal doings overcome external doings. Thus, you're only doing nothing externally, and not doing nothing completely, like it seems it does. When we are to take this into account, doing "nothing" is actually more productive than some may think, because it is the productivity of oneself with oneself, rather than with complete nothingness. We are taught by socialization that we always have to do something that is external of us, besides resting and sleeping. This teaching is one of the elements of today’s financial materialism - that our self-worth has to be justified by constantly occupying ourselves with something that is external of us, while inner-indulging is taught to either be a waste of time, boring , or a purely egotistical thing, because when we do nothing we don’t promote pro-society activities. From this we can learn that some if not many societies are very self-centred than individual-oriented , because what is considered "respectful" or "valuable" when you're introducing yourself to others? It's something that is of course related to the benefit of society, rather than to the benefit of yourself, since the ego of the individual is more often than not put aside in favour of the societal ego , which in turn can, at least on the long-run, damage ourselves as people beyond the sphere of our social constructs. There is no obligation to promote society all the time, and a little dose of egotism from time to time isn't something horrible . By doing nothing, we can let ourselves completely venture within our minds, within the Internal World, a world we often ignore in this fast-paced, socially-stressed, obsessive modern world. The stress to be a good, functioning unit in the social machine, while being good at times, can also be bad for you when it becomes an anxious obsession -- the obsession to be competent, respected, and loved. The one that may lead you to the each new day problem . You can think of doing nothing as a metaphor for going to Silent Hill . In Silent Hill, the main character exists outside of the "real" world, the so-called "real" life. Their actual, physical body is almost always unknown in regards to its whereabouts, because their external body is irrelevant in a place which is a product of your subconscious. Like when in the video game Silent Hill, when you're doing nothing for extensive periods of time, you go into an inner journey in your Inner World, where you can confront thoughts and emotions you otherwise repress , because you focus on things externally of you, like day-to-day responsibilities. The work on the self is as important as the work for others, since every action begins within the self, and the self is the center of the action that is done for either yourself or others, and once that self is damaged due to negligence, that damage is delivered indirectly to others as well in the form of your actions. The most common example of what I'm trying to convey is in Silent Hill 2 , where the hero, James Sunderland, isn't actually in a place within the world. Silent Hill is merely a product of his subconscious. The monsters he confronts throughout the game do not exist beyond his mind; rather, they are representations of his repressed thoughts and emotions, and his confrontations with them is a metaphor of him dealing with his various repressions and denials. The more monsters he confronts, the better he will be able to reach the end of the game -- a certain revelation which shall set him free and redeem his impure villainy . The same is possible when doing nothing - you get a chance to confront your automatic thoughts and emotions which shape your personality and your system of beliefs. Even when you don't do anything externally of you, you can, by doing nothing, to inspect things about yourself you usually ignore and put them into view; a view pure of distractions. When put in that way, doing nothing can seem to be like either an adventure or a psychological horror. Perhaps this is why there is this common fear to be alone - it is the fear of doing nothing. If there is this fear, then it must have some kind of reason to be feared, and that reason I believe is the fear of confrontation with the repressed, dark self; the self we are told to keep to ourselves, for it is not wanted. Solitude, after all, is a pathway towards self-discovery. Writing, for example, is a very solitary activity, and as such, allows us to know ourselves better. Little did they know, the lack of handling the darkness of the self can hurt others as well, as described before, and that is why doing nothing can be utilized to optimal productivity -- to know yourself better, and use that acquired self-knowledge for the benefit of others. Thus, this staying within the Internal World isn't necessarily a purely egotistical act, but an act that can be used to serve others and their own difficulties in life. We need to know ourselves better to know how we can use ourselves optimally for others. How can we make good use of our potential if we lack knowledge of it? And finally, there is obviously the most helpful function of doing nothing: To relieve one's stress and calm down from the intensities of the external world. I don't want to generalize my thoughts to all of humanity, but I think many of us, if not most of us, need some alone time , even if that time entails doing nothing and chilling out . The world is a very stressful, very competitive place. Even by not putting a lot of thought into contemplation, the self can be repaired nonetheless by resting, whether one's eyes are closed or open. What I want to promote in this article is this: Nothingness should be its own value due to what we can do with it, and by it I refer to the internal work that can be done as we idle externally. The biggest flaw in financial materialism is the belief that what we seek for is necessarily and always external to us, while in practice, what we seek for can be found within through the exposure and the alternation of our thoughts into a mindset that will make us happier, more serene beings beyond the stresses of the external world. Thoughts, after all, are more powerful than most may think. They are more than just chatter that accompanies us throughout our lives; they are the material, the energy, of which our wellbeing is composed of. Without the importance of thoughts, there would be no need for psychology or for certain aspects of philosophy.

(Background music) (Directory on Rectification and Help) The more I live the more I come to the premise that we came into this world to do good. And by doing good to others, we gratify ourselves from our internal void , and feel satisfied ourselves. Many things in our world are contagious, other than disease. In this article I would like to write about how both love and hate are contagious, and how hate brings this world to its collapse. Love is hard to come by in this world. There are many kinds of love, not just romantic, and the greatest of loves is that which comes naturally and selflessly. The more we do things out of selfless love, the more we balance this world. This world is very unbalanced, with all of its political strife and wars and collapsing economies. What keeps me sane in an unstable world is rectifying as a way of life. The fact that I did good gratifies me. I will always want to do good as a result because doing good is what makes me feel alive and not "undead". Doing good restores me back from my darkness and redeems me from it. I often think about how much more use I can be to those around me and for Philosocom. I already wrote so much but I often feel that I have so much more left to write, I will always want to rectify the world. Here's the thing about world rectification: What matters is not the end result, because there will always be something to rectify. What matters is the journey, the way, towards rectification. There will always be problems in the world. However, rectification is best done when seen as something to look forward to, instead of something to accomplish fully. It is our choice whether or not to succumb to the temptation of hatred or to heal this world with our potential to do good. Doing good in a world of hatred is like lighting a small candle in a world of darkness; even a small candle can light up a lot of dark. And this light of good has the potential to be contagious as much as hatred, but the problem is we are not used to tap into our inner light and bring it outside of us. We are not used to expect good but to endure the bad. The world has no superheroes to save us from trouble. We often have to go through our troubles on our own, with or without our dear ones supporting us, if we even have dear ones in the first place. But the thing is, doing good is what can help us feel alive, and not just live life from concern to concern. By becoming an active force of rectification as a way of life, we can not only help others but also help ourselves feel better and even look forward towards a brighter, more optimistic future. Societies need to foster that inner light or else they will be consumed by darkness and corruption. I grew up in the 2000's , the 2000's was defined by a feeling of hope towards the future. It is the same hope I seek to maintain by connecting to my inner child and by doing a lot of good in the world. I know life can be hard, but by doing small acts of kindness, our perception can change per our choices in life. Rectification as a way of life includes: Helping the homeless. Making people believe in themselves. Fostering love and care. Donating to charity. Volunteering. Practicing gratitude for people. We don't have to entirely succumb to the defeatist, corruptive trends of our world. We could instead become active forces that shape the world per our decisions, which is something very powerful. The problem is, is that we aren't aware of just how powerful we can be until we actually try to do acts of good. When we do acts of good, we gratify both others and us, making selfishness and altruism intertwined uniquely. Doing good is a type of act that brings benefit both to others and to ourselves. Doing acts of good heals the world through its humanity. Good is something that is amiss in our world, and by doing good we can rectify ourselves of our sadness and depression and feel better over time. And I'm telling this from experience. I am no longer the dark, emotionless man I used to be. The more I rectified, the better I began feeling. Gratification can be addictive and there is no more useful gratification than world rectification. It's amazing how doing good can not only bring a lot of good to this world, but make us feel good too in the process. Thus, rectification should be a way of life, something that makes our lives truly worth living, as we go from merely surviving day to day to feeling alive. Life is best not when built on surviving and enduring but on cherishing. And cherishing life is best done when we begin to be forces of good and do good in the world. Should more people do good, we can rectify the world more effectively. I am but one man, but I rectify as a way of life, happy with what I already have. The more we bring out into the world, and the less we take back, the better we can feel. Happiness shouldn't be measured by GDP but by our capacity to be satisfied with what we already have and with our actions. Since life is too short to live someone else's life, it depends on our strength to break ourselves apart from whatever brings us misery, and instead rebuild our lives on whatever makes us feel gratified and content. As tragic as it is, nothing will ever completely satisfy me. I believe I will always look forward to the next article, the next act of rectification, because it is this lack of satisfaction that compels me to write, that compels me to act, that prevents me from sitting quietly in a room alone. I see how the world is and all I feel is a deep desire to be of use, to contribute, to be of help to anyone, anyone at all, and that is what keeps me going in life. Rectification is a way of life for me, and the only thing that makes me feel content other than love. I hope I will live a long life, so I can keep rectifying as much as I can.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Background music) Article Introduction by a Retired Cop (Creative Exercise) We've all seen it: the athlete basking in the glory of a gold medal, the CEO accepting a lifetime achievement award, the one man army receiving a medal of honor. These moments of recognition, they're intoxicating, ain't they? But let me tell you, there's a dark side to all that glitz and glamour. You see, a trophy can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's a symbol of hard work and dedication. It's a pat on the back, a job well done. But on the other hand, it can lure you into a false sense of security. It can make you lazy. So, the question is: do you want to be a one-hit wonder, or do you want to keep pushing the envelope with risks? Do you want to rest on your laurels, or do you want to keep striving for greatness? The choice is yours, and it's a choice that could define the rest of your life... The Double-Edged Life Trophy: Recognition vs. Motivation Let's put the cards on the table: who wouldn't want a trophy for their efforts? Not just any trophy, mind you, but something grand and prestigious , a tangible symbol of your hard work and dedication. But pause for a moment, because this symbol comes with a hidden price tag: the cost of complacency. Accepting the trophy might sound seductive, but consider its potential downside. With your achievements recognized , the fire of motivation that once fueled your journey could flicker and fade into oblivion. After all, if you've reached the summit, what mountain remains to climb? Here's the paradox: you've conquered the challenge, reaped the rewards , and carved your name in the histories of success. Congratulations! You've achieved recognition, and it's yours to cherish forever. But now, a crucial question arises, especially for one with ambitions worthy of a world-conquering villain: what's next? If the world bows at your feet, why should one work further to seize their potential? If you've reached the endgame , what purpose lies in repeating the same play when the curtain has already fallen, at least in your eyes? Would you prefer living a post-purpose life , when you can still do more? That is how a life of accomplishment can make you weak: When it prevents you from honing your strength towards new and even greater goals. There's beauty in defying convention, and here's where rejecting the trophy becomes an intriguing option for the long term. By avoiding rewards and their celebrations, you might sacrifice some visibility, but you can gain greater fuel for your engine . The fire of curiosity, the itch to explore new possibilities, the hunger for new challenges – they remain undimmed, urging you forward. Never underestimate the power of delayed gratification. Gratify yourself too early and too frequently, and you will weaken your mind, making it dependent, if not addicted , to fun. But the question looms again: to what end? Work until retirement? Until your final breath? Does your work lose its meaning if it's devoid of external validation? What drives you if not the promise of recognition? Be surprised, but some elderly folk still choose to work even after retirement, despite the fact they technically don't have to work. For some it is very important to work so they could stay active (physically and/or mentally), or because they still want to contribute to a cause they support. Either way, these are the questions that dance at the crossroads of accomplishment and ambition. The trophy beckons with its alluring shine, but its embrace might hold the seductive whisper of idleness, which could, in the long run, deteriorate your mental health . While rejecting reward might mean navigating a path less celebrated, that path less traveled can be ablazed with the excitement of what we're truly capable of -- beyond our assumptions of ourselves. Ultimately, the choice is yours. Will you bask in the glow of past victories, or embrace the uncertainty of uncharted horizons? It's a decision worth pondering, for the answer lies not in the trophy itself, but in the fire that burns brightest within you.... Not in validation... . No. Rather, in your will to power! From Victim to Pourer: Battling Past and Relent, One Article at a Time I was once told by someone that I should rest because I did more than enough, and another told me I accomplished much despite my young age. Due to my hatred of resting and sleeping , these feedbacks left me questioning – was I on a rampage of content creation, or just dreaming of productivity that was only sufficient in my mind? A life of rest wouldn't boost my productivity, but pushing too hard hurts my well-being, in the form of overwork. It all hinged on one burning desire: Proving my nemesis from the past wrong. She may not hear my words now, but I dream of the day recognition amplifies my name, echoing a sound "No, I am relevant." For she broke me inside, only to build an empire-builder who is always hungry for more, who chooses to be unhappy so he could build even more. My hunger for expanding and improving my article empire remains absolute, invincible. For I thought I was already relevant, only to realize how wrong I was. And as such I refuse accepting my current relevance as sufficient. I take my frustrating refusal, for granted . For granted, and with all of my heart. And I don't care about what I feel. It is through work that I liberate myself from my condition as a social minority, in a world that disregards the autistic and the mentally ill as liabilities, too unworthy to be hired for work, too unworthy to be loved than neurotypical people with no mental ailments. And I quote: Although researchers have largely debunked the myth that autistic people tend not to be interested in romantic relationships , they have found that autistic people are more likely than neurotypical people to be single. For instance, research from 2017 found that 50% of autistic participants were in relationships compared to 70% of neurotypical participants. A 2019 study also found that autistic people’s relationships tend to last for shorter periods. They worry more about their future relationships, including how to meet prospective romantic partners, compared with neurotypical individuals. I refuse being weak. Through the acceptance of agony, my chains are broken, and my thirst for power will liberate me from being discarded often, when I can do so much good in the world, as I want to, and can. So, I choose to write. Not just because I can, but because I won't let past doubts or the fear of burnout define me. I choose this path not for recognition alone, but because the fire to write burns bright, for I know how fear limits us under its control . At the age of twenty six, I've already accomplished much, and retiring even after half a century wouldn't feel like fulfillment, but an insult to my relentless spirit, honed by ruthlessness. How could I forgive myself for silencing the writer within , when he can even a thousand times more than thus far? Thus, I became a Rain, a Pourer of Articles. For in every word, I vanquish doubt, defy limitations, and prove my ex-nemesis, and even my own doubts, wrong. This is my battle cry against the hand I was dealt with, with the pages of Philosocom, my lifelong battlefield. And I will write, not until I'm heard, but until my voice roars like thunder, drowning out the echoes of the past , and until I won't be able to write anymore. With every article, I release myself from the chains of petty victimhood. I become a voice, a force, a storm. Learn from me, and see what you're truly capable of. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback The idea is to not use trophies as an endgame reward but learning to use them as milestones and step stones to help you reach your next goal.  How can your current goal help you reach your next goal? Do not look at them as endgames. Rather see the result of a goal as a first step towards your next one. Those trophies should be reminders of self assurance that you are on the correct path. No endgame should ever be in someone's mind. Only goals you’d like to reach while trying to accomplish something. Remember there are always new things out there you can learn which will better aim to help you help people. That should be the goal of “endgames”, to act as symbols that you have reached a good level of understanding on a subject. Your goal at the end of life should be to be the best person that you can be. This involves never stopping improving yourself. There will always be some area where you can improve. Your goal should not be to be a pseudo intellect and think that just because you got good at one thing that you are going to be super smart about everything in the end. Life’s purpose is to gain as much knowledge as you can to help you do the most good. If you think you have collected enough trophies simply go get yourself a bigger trophy case and keep at it.

A sociopath can be defined as a person with anti-social behavior. He or she can be defined as aggressive, coercive , deceitful and oblivious towards the value of human lives. Over time, consciously and unconsciously , much of our behavior is learned. The mind adapts to the interactions it receives over time from other people, and develops accordingly. It is important to note that not all outcomes are intentional. It was not intended by the Jedi Council, in Star Wars, to turn Anakin into Darth Vader by denying him the rank of master. However, unfairly denying someone something he or she wants is how you build an anti-social personality. When you are excluded from the group, bullied, and denied things the rest of the group gets, you build a sociopath. Unwilling to accept a person for who he or she is, unwilling to show compassion when they express distress, is how you build a sociopath. To NOT build a sociopath, that is done through love, affection, compassion and respect. When you are denied these 4 elements, you might turn into an anti-social individual. Love, affection, compassion and respect are things which are amiss in our world compared to the amount of harm made through injustice and social exclusion. Love is a tool for redeeming one's own darkness. Love is something that is amiss in our world. There is too much alienation , too much apathy, too much hostility online and sometimes offline too, to the point that sociopaths are built through such learned behavior. By willing to show love and affection to someone, you can reduce their anti-social traits by making them feel valued and appreciated. When you recognize their merit and their potential , you can increase their desire to be part of the greater world, either through active participation or through any other form of contribution. In the absence of love, people grow different. People grow alienating, aggressive, anti-social. Such people likelier to break the law and even find themselves in the criminal underworld. Sometimes, all it takes to calm one's aggression is a display of affection. Affection is a powerful tool that soothes one's distress and makes them feel like they belong. The power of love is the key to everlasting happiness. Whether through rational self-love or through fostering affection-based relationships, people can become less sociopathic and more calm and even happy. A case example to how sociopathy is built is Jason Voorhees . Before he becomes a cold-blooded killer in the films, he was a special needs individual who was mocked, shamed, and eventually forsaken when he drawn to death in the Crystal Lake Summer Camp. Had Voorhees received love, affection, respect and compassion from the other children, as well as from the staff, he wouldn't grow into the nightmarish, relentless human killer that he became when he got resurrected and immortal. The more unique a person is, the harder for them to be accepted by the vast majority of society. The issue of uniqueness is only an issue because society presses people to conform to it in order to be accepted into it. People who struggle to conform, or are unwilling to conform, will suffer more rejections from society, might be rejected as insane , and will be dismissed as too weird or eccentric. This is a very wrong thing to do as we should foster a world of inclusivity , where everyone can contribute in a way that fits their quirks. The more you are rejected, the more you might reject social norms. The more you are loved, the less likely you will turn into an anti-social individual. To preserve my good nature, I decided to become a hermit and forsake humanity. I have no desire to partake in a social game that is built on unfairness. Instead, I prefer to rectify the world from afar because I feel pity towards this war-torn, expensive, twisted world where money matters more than the human heart. Despite being rejected a lot in my life, I have proven my worth by building an article empire that is meant to contribute for free. I am satisfied with my actions and refuse to grow into a sociopath. I prefer instead to help this world through my writings. I do not have the heartlessness to partake in a largely-heartless world, where status and luxury matters more than human decency and from having a big heart.

(Philosocom's directory on education) (Background music) Introduction I consider myself an educated person , but I do not consider myself an academic, even though I have some academic background. This is for two reasons: first, I find the drawbacks of the academia too severe , and second, most of my education has come in unconventional ways, mostly by being an auto-didact . I am happy to share the history of my education with you, and explain why it is relevant to the Philosocom Article Empire. My Education History I have 13 years of public education. I was delayed by one year because the school I was transferred to only had one classroom for autistic students, and it was the only option if I wanted to be in a class that would better teach me interpersonal skills. Thus, I changed being in an average classroom in favor of special education, at the cost of studying in the same grade twice. In that middle school, which later became both middle and high school, I received special education that, as the years went by, became more and more unique to me. In the first year, I needed to learn history once more, for a reason I don't remember, so I taught myself through the autodidactic path. That was the first time in my life as a student where I was required to learn things on my own within the framework of public education. No teacher, no class. Just me alone and a book as my only mentor. I was also a university student while still in high school. Obviously, I chose philosophy as my major. I eventually stopped my studies because I was very stressed, even though I was successful in them. Another reason I stopped is because I couldn't bear the social interactions that were a consistent feature in the classes. In the education system before university, I got excellence certificates for several years in a row. In university, the courses I took were: The Philosophy of Morality; The Philosophy of the Mind ; Anthropology; The History of the Chinese Empire (Pre-Communist); Greek Philosophy; and Anti-Heroic Literature -- in that order. The last two were abandoned when I decided to drop out. Dropping Out Why have I decided to drop out? It was because of the stress I was under. I believe that, regardless of my education being beneficial, it also damaged my mental health, slowly but gradually. In short, even though I was and am talented,  I fell between the chairs  because I didn't manage to fit in. I recall the version of myself I was in kindergarten, being all jolly and lacking any seriousness, but as time marched on, I became more and more gloomy and even nihilistic. The conventional world changed me, made me lose my emotions , and encouraged me to repress myself. The education system made me a dark person, and despite my success there, I haven't managed to fit in the conventional world. A teacher told me that I needed to carve my own path and carving my own path I did. The Odd Mixture As you can see, my education could be regarded as odd and unique. It was a mixture of autodidactic learning, private lessons, extended public education, and some academic education. My knowledge of the English language was largely my own, too. I had my reasoning. Because of said mixture, I wasn't able to pick certain jobs because they required a degree, despite being educated even without it. This philosophy blog is a product of said odd mixture, where you have an eccentric range of articles. Eventually, I allowed in a lot of guest posts to make the range of articles even larger. As the years went by, I slowly realized that I have nothing to live for, but philosophizing. Some of you may deem philosophy unnecessary. I philosophize to stay sane. This is why it matters to you, the reader, or at least why it should matter. It's because I'm trying my best, per my abilities and limitations, to craft a unique website with a unique set of articles for the world to enjoy for free. You might clearly see that I am educated and even intelligent , but there are things that I just can't do, even though it's not obvious at all... I am not a social person , which limits my ability to cooperate with the conventional world. I'm a rebel and an innate outsider, meaning I am unwilling fit into conventional molds, instead preferring to live and work on this website under my own terms . I will never partake in the academia again as a result. Being an innate outsider, I am not a caterer by heart. Instead, I resort on passion to work. The way I communicate is unique and is not always easy to understand me. To understand me, you require to activate your ability to think critically. As a tip, you should understand that my words should be taken as that is more innocent than you might think and not give in so easily to your platonic impressions. End Notes In the end, I want my unique journey to inspire you as much as my education has inspired me to be a philosopher. Call it "deep thinking", call it "wondering,", call it "contemplating". I am confident that you have the idea already. Philosophy should be written not only to be served as fact but also to inspire one to think about existence. Contemplation is underrated. It's underrated because we may be quick to dismiss content and people with little-to-no thought. By dismissing unique ideas, we shoot ourselves and the foot and prevent ourselves from further understanding. Furthermore, we may fail doubting our assumed premises, and as a result we may be deluding ourselves by underestimating or overestimating the world beyond our mind. Philosocom is best approached with an open mind and with curiosity for learning. Please understand that I am doing my best, despite my shortcomings, to give you a high-quality philosophy blog, that is free of charge. All I want, ultimately, is to give my fair share to the world, and to contribute.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) The Sensitive Originator's Dilemma Summary by Mr. Apollo Sage The article "The Sensitive Originator's Dilemma -- What I Chose" explores the conflict between solitude and seeking public recognition. The author, a sensitive individual, grapples with the challenges of being misunderstood. They acknowledge that being unknown brings peace, but public life often invites judgment, leading to frustration and social withdrawal. Despite this, they reject complete solitude, recognizing that withholding their talents would be a waste. The article emphasizes the importance of resilience in public life, where misinterpretation is inevitable. Ultimately, they embrace public presence to build a meaningful legacy and commit to creating and sharing philosophy and art. (Background music) Anonymity is the loner's greatest ally, and thus loners are more inclined to lie low from the world. For you, lying low from the world might be seen as a misfortune. However, you might not realize that there are more perspective than yours, equally justified in their subjectivity... You see, the more unknown you are, the less likely people will bother you. While some may observe social communication as fun , many others might perceive interpersonal communication as meddlesome in their attempts to rest, pursue their hopes and dreams , and in general, work on their fabric of happiness... Whether your presence in the world is received positively or negatively, the mere fact that you are being received, and not being left alone, is the most basic indication that people care for you, even if that caring is ultimately hurtful. Apathy, after all, is strength when it lifts much excessive concern from your shoulders. It's called being carefree. As such, when you are a bigshot , you might also find yourself the most concerned out of everyone involved in whatever organization you're part of. For being horribly misunderstood, masterminds might find themselves bitter, stern and aloof, observing the utter incompetence of those they once had much faith in. Actually good and genius leaders therefore may ask themselves why should they bother in the first place, being so sensitive about the learned helplessness of others. Not only about followers of course, but also of family, of lovers, and perhaps, of their own children as well. It might make you feel utterly discouraged about a world who you might have in your heart, much desire and willpower to improve it. This utter inability of many to understand you, make you ask questions such as: Why shouldn't I just lurk in the dark? Why shouldn't I give up on trying to help others? How can I expect humanity to understand my pain? Other people might not want for you to care too much about them... If such a thing even exists, caring too much could lead to a spreading of misinformation, making you horribly misunderstood by more and more people. And as such, the very world you might want to care about, encourages you to be oblivious and numb about it. Feeling forsaken despite the fact people just don't have the capacity to understand you like you might want them to, you might be tempted to resort to either a very painful life of trying to ruthlessly communicate yourself to others, or just impose hermitage on yourself, preventing yourself from wanting to open up to most people. The more eccentric you are, whether by birth or by intention, the more likely your image will be received inaccurately as to who you really are, simply because people are often quick to judge. They might be more inclined to judge, than to understand. In such cases, not only will you not be left alone, you will also be harassed from time to time by people who are too confident in their wrong assumptions towards you. In their lack of inner strength to break their own mental prisons, you might find yourself more and more anti-social in your behavior. Aggressive, full of rage, and so on... Either way, if one is to become a public figure, such as an author, politician, philosopher, and so on, judgment, whether true or false, will haunt you from time to time. If you are introverted by nature, the reception will not always be easy, especially if you are sensitive. If you, like me, are a sensitive person, and you wish to be known beyond the circles of friends, family, and co-workers, you must prepare yourself to the possibility that people will care about you, whether you like it or not, and no matter how that caring will be honored or utterly despicable. Furthermore, never expect most people the ability to understand you and your pain. Either.... find a tribe to bias yourself to, or be left alone. Sometimes, that tribe is one person. Just one. You do not have to... be understood by the entire globe, when you can find refuge in the arms, mind and heart of just one.... That's true love. I did not always want to be a philosopher. At first, I wished to become a hermit. I had fantasies of living alone, like I do now technically, with the exception of rarely communicating with the world. I used to wish I wouldn't have to communicate with anyone at all... However society is a necessity even when it is involuntary. Because of the hardships I went through in school, when very loud screams were frequent on a daily basis, I craved for some silence and for the lack of social activities which were forced on me. I preferred studying alone and studied better on my own. I realized that if I were to decide to be a hermit, it would be greatly problematic to the use of my skills. A life spent without utilizing my skills, is one whose thought about it renders me feeling guilt and shame. When you're a full-time hermit, you are not very likely to be remembered... Or you might find yourself oppressed by others... Therefore, the choice of being a hermit was a very difficult one to even consider, because it would be a great waste of both skill and time. I could've lived a more offline life, but that would entail not contributing to the world whatsoever. Yet... you see... my heart is very big, so I can't let go. I am not one who... likes becoming heartless. In fact, I don't know if I can EVEN BE heartless... To be sincere, I appreciate the courage of politicians to forsake their private, small daily lives and become an authority greater than themselves; an authority that is within the sphere of a whole country. They did not have to do so, whether they craved for power or not. They did not have to become a laughingstock in the eyes of the countless many of those whom they serve and those who they don't. It doesn't feel very good to be constantly laughed at, especially if you're sensitive. However, that is an inevitable possibility, if one wishes to be distinctive in such a way that shall exceed their anonymous lives for the sake of others. Yet, in the end, whether you're as graceful as Gandhi or as tyrannical as Kim Jong Un, the thought of an utter lack of negative reception during a public period of endeavor is a very naïve, unrealistic one. Sensitivity, therefore, can more often than not be a great obstacle in the path to public remembrance. Ruthlessness, therefore, is a virtue in that regard , but, either way, do not expect yourself to be well-understood. The precision of understanding is much at the responsibility of others... If one wishes to become a public figure of any way, AKA, an author, an originator, founder or creator, one must fight against the sensitive desire to withdraw, to completely give up on an idea of which one wishes to lead and execute. Instead of being insulted, one should work on the fact that any reception is important enough, to serve as the evidence that you matter. You, and your work. If Donald Trump wasn't a politician or even a businessman, but just a clerk or had any other low-status job , only few would pay attention to his thoughts, whether with respect or with mocking laughter. Just to be recognized for who you are, you often have to go through very great lengths. We all live in public space and, unless we're imprisoned or institutionalized permanently, we all have a right to be present in said space, and also to express said presence in a way that doesn't overexert us.... Some may try to put down the presence of others for whatever reason they find legitimate to do so, but it doesn't mean you should always back down and act in accordance to shaming, bullying, condescending or any other form of hurting others intentionally. Feel free to express your thoughts , because ultimately public space is a free space, and is not at the authority of moderation that isn't local. Just... don't expect people to understand the underlying, hidden reasoning of why you express the things you express.. The other option is to succumb to introversion, an option that some may choose to do when they face adversity. There is great peace in full hermitry, as I have witnessed myself, but with it one must give up the likelihood of their own contribution to the world, and instead remain as insignificant as an ant in terms of being remembered. Whether or not future generations of my siblings will remember me, I can say for certain that I rarely remember any of my ancestors... I only heard of their existence from my parents and grandparents. Beyond pictures and the locations of their graves, I have no recollection of their existence. Even though I respect them for ultimately bringing me into the world, I can say for certain that I do not want to have the same fate of falling into obscurity.... I don't know about you, but I have made my decision in this dilemma: I will try to overcome my sensitivity, because in the end, it is nothing more than a counterproductive obstacle! I will give up on complete hermithood, as long as it will entail becoming bigger than myself! And thus, I'll forever be forming and preserving a glorious legacy for generations to come! A glorious legacy for the interconnectivity of the world! In love! In solitude! In power! It matters not! I will always want to keep making a massive, beautiful wonderland of art and philosophy for the world to enjoy! I will always refuse giving up my heart entirely either way!

For more on this rationality, click here . (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Background music) Introduction How many of you genuinely dream of becoming rich one day? Not just rich enough to not have to worry about your next pay-check, but rich enough to have access to all the pleasures of life ? To be able to travel the world, drink the finest wines, own the biggest mansions, and afford even the most ridiculous microtransactions in video games ? If you had the ability to afford most if not everything you could ever dream of, even beyond what some may consider as unrealistic, would you still be willing to become filthy rich, just to get expensive things to make you happy? Or would you rather find satisfaction in other things, such as relationships, experiences, or personal growth? There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is a matter of personal preference. Some people find that money can buy happiness , while others find that it cannot. Either way, you may find out that settling for less can sometimes be enough. The Pursuit of Wealth I am not against the idea of becoming wealthy, especially if you made your wealth through hard work. However, I think it is important to consider the true value of wealth. Is it really worth it to spend your life working hard for money , when you could be enjoying your life in other ways? I come from a very materialistic country. When I watch YouTube, I am constantly bombarded with ads for people who are trying to sell me their secrets to financial success. They show me pictures of their fancy cars and big houses, and they tell me that I can have the same things if I just follow their advice. But I am not convinced. I think that there is something missing from these people's lives. They may have a lot of money, but they don't seem to be very happy . They are always chasing the next big thing, and they never seem to be satisfied with what they have. I believe that there is more to life than money . There are many things that are more important, such as relationships, experiences, and personal growth. If you are constantly chasing after money, you are missing out on these things. Of course, money is important. It can provide you with security and comfort. But it is not the most important thing in life. There are many other things that are more important, such as happiness and fulfilment. So, if you are considering pursuing wealth, I urge you to think carefully about what is really important to you. Is it really worth it to spend your life working hard for money, when you could be enjoying your life in other ways? We Should Put the Idea of "Compensation" Aside It is not giving up on something you will not get to enjoy; it is the journey towards a far more practical and cost-effective solution to an otherwise boring life. The same result problem occurs when you are satisfied in a very expensive way, or by means that costed you a lot. You may find out that spending the night alone, doing something you like, might satisfy you the same as spending it in a nightclub with friends. Choose the former option and you saved yourself time and resources. Regardless of your decision, the destination is the same, so why needlessly pay energy when you can save it and get the problem over already? It is one of the reasons I choose to spend my time working on Philosocom and little else. I find myself already enjoying what I do, so I don't see much reason to spend a lot of time enjoying and not being as productive as I currently am. You may find out that the destination of satisfaction, and thus to a life well-lived, as numerous pathways. One does not have to be greater in importance than the other. One does not have to matter more just because it is the most popular or orthodox path. Don't stress yourself too much on orthodox paths. To all the rich people reading this article, I am not anti-rich, I just don't understand the overall purpose of being rich. I mean, if you want a business, you don't have to buy a whole skyscraper, if you want a happy wedding for example, it does not have to include hundreds if not thousands of guests or be grandiose in general. So much money is being wasted over the same thing that could have been attained, nonetheless. Taking a long hike in the woods, for example, is something that can be done without much money, if at all. The same result problem occurs when you realize you've wasted resources on a result that could've been achieved for far less. Observe cats and you will understand that one does not need much.

(For more on being a philosopher and being stressed, click here ). (For more meta-philosophical criticism, click here ) (Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Background music) *********************** Why the Pursuit of Truth Can Be Painful Being a philosopher can be a risky dance with truth, a pursuit that is as exciting as it is stressful. While the goal may be to find and share wisdom, the path is paved with thorns. This is because the truth, once unveiled, can be too harsh to bear. It can be scary, unsettling, and even cause psychological pain. My own journey exemplifies this. A close friend, unable to bear the weight of insights that emerged from our philosophical explorations, eventually distanced themselves from me. The love of wisdom, it seems, can lead to uncomfortable truths that bite deep. Those contemplating the path of philosophical inquiry must consider so with caution for truth-seeking is a sacrifice. They must understand that the treasures they seek may not be glittering jewels, but rather tarnished mirrors reflecting harsh realities, for there are very little aspects in this world that are pure. Wisdom may be desirable, but its excavation can unearth disappointment, sadness, and even grief. The allure of knowledge should not blind us to the potential sting of its acquisition. As the quest for the truth requires not only curiosity, but courage. A Philosopher's Confessions Being a philosopher is a double-edged sword. It's a relentless pursuit of truth, a journey through the sunlit grasslands of understanding and the dark, twisted alleys of unsettling realizations. As such, not all wisdom is meant to delve into every ear. Sometimes, the truths unearthed are too heavy to bear, leaving you questioning your sanity or the very notion of what is real or not real. I know this all too well, as the pursuit of wisdom has cost me dearly, as this work is very lonely, as it is lonely at the top , in general. The world often mock the philosopher, dismissing them as pretentious or lost in their ivory towers. But this is a gross expression of the strawman's fallacy , that prioritizes stereotypical impressions over intellectual discourse. The true philosopher is a seeker, not a self-proclaimed sage. If anything, others would likely to deem him or her a sage. We grapple with doubt, embrace the sting of controversy and rejection, and stumble through the labyrinth of arguments, all in the name of understanding. My public role as a writer further complicates matters. I speak to a global audience, yet I have a reputation to maintain as a figure. Despite this, I simply contribute my thoughts, hoping to spark curiosity and ignite inquiry in others. I dislike heart-warming labels like "brother," for it most often then not presents the para-social nature of society. Formality, while seemingly archaic, serves a purpose. It fosters respect and encourages a thoughtful approach to this pursuit. We must treat philosophy and its practitioners with dignity, not because of ego, but because the questions we grapple with are deeply human, and because the practice of philosophy deserves the recognition of its contribution by philosophers who became respected. Frustration is a constant companion on this path. The ease of protest, normalized by contemporary liberty , can quickly turn into a hell of endless, hostile debate. This is why I often find myself tired, seeking refuge from the intellectual tug-of-war of ideas that could instead be discussed, not argued. Yet, I defy the anonymity chosen by my mentor, the professor who first opened my eyes to the beauty of philosophy. In the age of digital anonymity, the ease of bitter criticism can depress the soul . But I persist, for my words are not for the faint of heart, and logic is often heartless and uncaring when our emotions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. They are for those who, like me, hunger for wisdom and find solace in the company of fellow seekers. Despite the hardship and exhaustion, the true philosopher finds solace in the quest itself. The potential to enrich lives, to bridge the gap between the esoteric and the everyday, and the ability to restore the faith of people in being alive, resonates with me the most in life. My quest for my own relevance is intertwined with the quest for making philosophy relevant in the wider world. I am merely a vessel, a preacher of the importance of inquiry and insight distribution. Even when I am tired, I remain a passionate advocate for the right to question, to explore , and to understand. Logic is the tool, but the heart is the fuel. It is the human yearning for knowledge, the insatiable desire to escape the chains of universal ignorance , that drives us forward. We are not pretentious, we are simply human, reaching for the stars, one question at a time. Embracing Imperfection in the Pursuit of Truth Finally, my articles might not be correct, but mistakes are a part of learning , and thus, a part of the philosophical journey. I've no desire to cover up a mistake when I can correct it, for the next article renovation shift. See, therefore, my articles as points for further contemplation, and not necessarily as a "Torah from Mount Sinai." You might know better than me, and vice versa. I am only an "authority" by my lifelong dedication to the craft. Use several sources and don't rely blindly on me or blindly on anyone else. Remember this: The more we learn, the more we become aware of the size of our own ignorance. And because I seek to reduce it as much as possible, I refuse to relent as a philosopher.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) Make truth your island , make truth your refuge; there is no other refuge.” — Buddha. Introduction " Safe Spaces " are organizations, or specific events, where people gather and communicate, in an attempt to have, even for a while, a safer time with other people. By "safer", I do not refer to what we usually refer to as security , but rather, to the safety of "the heart", per se. The safety of one's emotional balance , where one is "immune" to insults , hate , and so on, temporarily. The point isn't to protect one's life, but one's sense of emotional and interpersonal security, even for a little while. Essentially, Safe Spaces are designated physical or virtual environments where individuals can gather and interact freely, shielded from the harsh adversities of the external. These spaces are designed to foster a sense of emotional security, allowing participants to express themselves openly without fear of judgment, discrimination, or harm. In safe spaces, vulnerability is embraced, not lambasted. It is the same in true love, however, when you are in love you also need to embrace risk-taking . On the other hand, Safe spaces are there to be risk-free. Safe spaces sound very much ideal, however I would like to argue that this search for idealism is, well, very sad. As such I'll explain why I avoid them... Part I: Why I Avoid Them Such specific safety appears to be one that many seek nowadays. I also sought it once, but eventually gave up on the attempt . That's because I realized that it goes against my best interests as a philosopher . I too am more sensitive than average, yet I find it counterintuitive to submit to this liability. Instead I prefer to overcome it. I prefer to overcome any liability and every disability as much as I can by thinking beyond their lens . Allow me to demonstrate how... Submitting to it would mean that I would not have the courage or desire to engage in philosophical discussions with people and gain insights as a result. A philosopher needs insights to write good books, articles and so on . One way to gain insights is through risk-taking. Taking risks require courage. Therefore, safe spaces prevent us from developing courage within us. Safe spaces may not require us to develop any virtue in general. That is despite the fact it is important to develop many virtues within us as a way to survive in society. Also, the more we develop virtues such as consideration, compassion and peacefulness , the less we would need safe spaces in the first place. People in safe-spaces need to be strong enough to accept others. This strength by itself is a virtue and safe-spaces don't encourage such development of virtue but simply encourage you to be yourself. They do not necessarily encourage you to make something out of yourself , which has to do with self-improvement. To allow people to be themselves we need to be strong enough for it. Thus, safe-spaces require strength, or toughness. Part II: The Value of Laws How They Are Counter-Intuitive Here Logic applies even in safe spaces by the rules of which safe spaces are based on. As discussed elsewhere, logic is cold and does not have to consider your emotions, thus making your emotions irrelevant even in the context of safe spaces. Weirdly enough, your emotions, when too difficult to contain, can prevent you from being in a safe space, as the other members in the space may cancel your emotions thus cancel yourself.. Safe spaces do not require you to have empathy towards other people unless stated by the rules. At their core basis, they are there to contain people in a shared context under the virtue of honesty. Realizing Yours and Other Folk's True, Flawed Nature As such, you are not really safe in them if you want people to care for your distress and emotions. Your expectations don't have to be addressed, and you don't have to address people's emotions either. That's the idea about being yourself beyond the usual, social requirement to act. Their caring is their own prerogative, and they are not obliged to care. They are only obliged to not disregard anything else that is required by a space's law to regard. Empathy is not only a choice but something that may require a certain degree of intellect, regardless of emotion. It's known as cognitive empathy . In safe spaces it is only those who are more liked than others that will receive empathy for their distress. Do You understand why? Safe spaces are about allowing people to be more of who they are, rather than compel them to do things they do not want, such as caring for people they do not want to care about. This may lead to conflicts between people because different authentic selves may collide with other authentic selves, along with their interests. In other words you are not compelled to care for others in safe spaces (other than the bare minimum demanded by the rules), and others are not compelled to care for you. The problem comes when we need to empathize with other people in order to understand their situations. And in the lack of understanding, people may get into conflicts with one another, thus making safe spaces not exactly safe. How can safe spaces be safe when there are conflicts within? Safe spaces may of course encourage secrecy. Secrecy is one of the ways safe spaces foster safety. However, people in general may feel to tell secrets to others from that safe space, ruining the safety of the safe space in the process. Safe spaces are built on trust. To trust someone you need luck . Luck, or in other words, a higher-than-average probability that the other side is indeed trusted beyond your understanding of them. Some people deviate more than others, naturally appearing distant as a result. This distant, aloof behavior may naturally create distrust. Trust requires the virtue of vulnerability, and vulnerability compels us to sacrifice ourselves. People in higher positions of authority may find it harder to be vulnerable with others. As such it is lonely at the top. Profound intellects, or geniuses , are always lonely at the top of understanding. Easily appearing as enigmas even to their dear ones, trusting them will be more difficult in general. People who are more shallow may judge you according to shallow demographic data, such as your race, your gender , your nationality and so on. Not everyone even understands some people exist beyond such demographics. As demographics divide people, they also divide trust. Part III: The Essence of Empathy There will always be some degree of potential conflict between people, and the best way to reduce it is by having empathy. Cognitive, emotional, does not matter. If you are unable or unwilling to empathize with other people, you are not going to be safe in a safe space, and that applies to other members as well. Ironically it is this very component that brings us safety. Cognitive empathy is basically the ability to understand someone using your intellect. However, the intellect is limited by many things such as depression and other depravities. Emotional empathy allows you to understand using emotions. However, emotions are limited by your energy and tendency for fatigue. The Struggle To Understand Others Without Empathy Heated debates may stem from wanting to be righter than understanding the other side one argues with. And heated debates may exist in safe spaces as well. It is even more problematic in safe spaces because moderators may censor some exchange of ideas. How can you be more of yourself in a safe environment if you are not allowed to discuss topics you'd like to be discussed? Psychopaths may struggle immensely in safe spaces because their empathy is mainly cognitive. If they don't really care about you, they would easily dismiss you. If they care about you, on the other hand, they can actually read you like an open book. Like with anyone else you can't expect psychopaths to care. A true desire to care always comes from within. When people have other matters to handle, known or repressed by their minds, apathy turns a regular aspect of human life. Many people have a depravity that makes them want to be seen and appreciated. However they may struggle understanding how to do it, how to make themselves seen and appreciated by others in ways that will not make them feel judged, guilt or shame. Guilt and shame will only compel them to withdraw back, despite their need to be embraced and even loved by someone who is more than a mere friend to them. That's the value of friendship! Part IV: Sensitivity As An Issue I do support the reduction of sensitivity in humans in general. Should we be more tough, we can either eliminate or significantly reduce the need of safe spaces. When you need moderators to make you feel protected because you are sensitive, then sensitivity is a problem. Why? Because you then turn dependent on them. That's despite the fact that these moderators/guides/supervisors/admins have lives of their own. Sensitivity is a problem when it causes you to get into meltdowns and panic attacks. It is hard being a philosopher or being in certain other occupations if you react abnormally to insults , for example. The Value of Toughness The whole idea of being tougher lies on the notion that you would be able to better endure other people better and not be very affected by their interactions.... Tougher people do not need the safety element of safe spaces because they do not require the help of moderators to "protect" them from insults or other triggers . Tougher people already have that/these safety mechanism/s within them. Sensitivity Together With Toughness Sensitivity isn't necessarily a disability, but sometimes it appears that some people just submit to it as a fact they can't change. They, as well as I, were wrong , as it still possible to reduce sensitivity. Something to understand about sensitivity... Essentially, it is but a synonym to being vulnerable, and the reasons as to why people do not want to be less vulnerable, is because vulnerability is hard to do in a world where it can easily, easily be exploited by those with malice or ulterior motives. People with ulterior motives are often ulterior even to them. You can call this unconscious manipulation . To solve unconscious manipulation you need to be honest with yourself, not only with others. In theory our unconscious mind may manipulate us as a way to restore ourselves (and others) back to greater wellbeing. The unconscious can be regarded as the will of the universe itself. Excessive sensitivity can prevent harmonious discussions. As such, as Sun Tzu would put it: The wise warrior avoids the battle. Insights, experiences, meaningful relationships with other people, and even love -- all of those can be absent from you as long as you lack the courage to endure the inevitable possibility of adversity , found in any human interaction. Part V: Notes About Philosocom Philosocom is not a safe space, as reading this site and its many articles rests on your shoulders only . I've written here a lot on darker topics, and some of which, may also be depressing. I do not wish for this site to be a safe space, because as a philosopher, it is a part of my occupation to explore and exchange with you, ideas that might be difficult to contain. The whole point of philosophy is to seek the truth , no matter how grim it may be. It takes much courage to learn as you can see. You have to open yourself up to ideas you might otherwise not desire to consume in the first place. Furthermore it takes time to process and reflect on the insights of my glorious article empire. Philosophy in general fosters reflective thinking, or the ability to think about previously-consumed insights. When you seek to learn you better develop intellectual humility , and respect that of which you don't understand. Safe spaces expect you to be yourself/ who do you wish to brand/rebrand yourself as . I expect you to understand my material independently as I too have my own life to lead. I understand that, in order to understand much of this reality in my research, I have to grow my relentlessness and my ruthlessness. For geniuses, ruthlessness is a virtue. Ruthlessness can of course be regarded as what? As insensitive... Conclusions I believe it is imperative upon each individual to cultivate personal growth. This includes... The conscious choice of what information to consume. The conscious choice of what people to hang around with. The conscious choice of when to consume content, and when to talk to other people. The more we make conscious choices, the safer lives we can lead... safer, accordingly to our heart's true desire. It is essential to maintain emotional resilience and to avoid allowing the opinions of others to dictate one's own well-being. While I may be sensitive to the feelings of others, I ultimately bear responsibility for my own emotional state. Bonus Conclusion: The Safe Space As Personal Remember... we ALL have our safe spaces! We just need to look within ourselves and define what would our own safe space would entail! The pursuit of success often requires sacrifice! By choosing to share my thoughts and ideas publicly, I have willingly exposed myself to criticism and potential backlash. However, I am determined to mentally survive and to continue to pursue my goals, regardless of the challenges I may face. With my biggest being WORLD RECTIFICATION using philosophy! Per this lofty ambition of mine, I do not seek refuge in safe spaces. Instead, I find my "safe space" in researching ideas, experimenting with them and examining a diverse range of perspectives, both online and offline. That's my safe space... What... what would be yours?

(Disclaimer: No former knowledge of video games is required at all. See this specific genre, as applicable to real life, as well: Both literally and philosophically. No knowledge of martial arts is needed, either). (Philosocom's Directory on Peace) (Disclaimer 2: No Tekken Force members were harmed in the making of this article). (Philosocom's Directory on Tekken) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "How Tekken Made Me More Serene (And My Quest For Greater Peace)" explores how playing a violent video game, despite its aggressive gameplay and ruthless characters, has paradoxically contributed to Mr. Tomasio's personal growth and pursuit of inner peace. He successfully makes a case that Tekken, despite its dark nature, serves as a metaphor for real-life struggles and the importance of emotional control, stoicism , and strategic thinking. The article effectively draws parallels between the competitive, unforgiving world of Tekken and real-life challenges, blending video game mechanics with philosophical reflections, particularly stoicism. The notion that controlling one's emotions and approaching life with a calculated, composed mindset is valuable advice that resonates well beyond gaming. The engaging narrative, thanks to the author's personal journey through Tekken and how it shaped their understanding of emotional regulation, gives the piece a relatable and human touch. The article skillfully uses Tekken as a metaphor for life, illustrating how the lessons learned from the game—strategic thinking, emotional control, learning from losses —are applicable to broader life experiences. This metaphor allows the reader to see video games not just as entertainment but as tools for self-reflection and growth. The article does not glamorize violence but rather critiques the harshness of Tekken's world while highlighting the importance of restraint and self-control. The nuanced perspective on competition, emotional regulation, and personal growth makes the piece thoughtful and reflective rather than purely celebratory of the game's violence. (Background music) ************** The Iron Fist and the Unforgiving Climb to Victory A fighting game, like Tekken, is essentially a virtual simulator between at least two players, and the goal is to defeat the opponent and win the match. Some of you might think this is simple, but that's actually far from the truth. The truth is, that a good fighting game, requires much study of the depths of its characters... Move-sets, risks and rewards, and so on. I will not delve on the technicalities too much, so do not worry; the point is the wisdom behind it. The technicalities are but the means, not the end. The Kli, and not the Tochen. The Tekken games... Are probably the most sociopathic fighting games out there, even whenever an exciting theme is played. The main characters are the most cold-hearted I've ever seen, willing to kill their own family members, just to be victorious over them, or to extract revenge. There is little emotion among Tekken's strongest fighters, known as the Mishimas. Almost all of the primary characters, are evil and of few words, by default. That's because the world of martial arts in that fiction, is unforgiving, and merciless. In such a world you do not survive by showing compassion but by conquering your enemies in combat. Ruthlessly. Methodologically. Victory is but proof of dominance over your opponents. And the more you will dominate, the stronger you can be considered as a fighter. For the battles in Tekken games are divided by ranks. And these ranks determine your difficulty. Lose too much, and you will be put in your place, literally, by demotion. Prove yourself worthy, and you will raise up in the ranks. Because your rank determines your position, your place in a bigger heirarchy. And it is only possible to rise up by the survival of the fittest. -- Fit for battle. Be too unfit in this eternal struggle for dominance, and you will be left behind, by your own lack of merit. For the world of Tekken is one of ruthless meritocracy. ( I am a 25th Dan -- A " Revered Ruler ", with a character called Miguel ). There is no compassion, there is no empathy. It's whether you beat the opponent, or not, and on skill and technique alone, your restraint and strength is measured. The rest does not matter a lot. It can remind one, how cruel the real world can be, and furthermore, how realistic it can sometimes be, to expect no sympathy from anyone. Tekken as a Mirror to Our Competitive World For this capitalist world is also one of indefinite competition to the top . And that goes for Philosocom as well, in the niche of blogging. Only the most "powerful" blog will be dominant over others, and thus, attain success accordingly. "Power" in such context is your ability to surpass your competitors, and Tekken, like in life, is a competition for supremacy. Because only those who are at the top, get to reap the most benefit. Money, resources, menpower, reputation. Such things are examples of said "power". The power that, in the reality outside our minds, doesn't really exist. And for that, you need to be calculated. You need to plan your moves carefully. Like in a Tekken match, like in real life. To be a powerful Tekken player, you shouldn't to get too excited, as that can make you too distracted; Intense emotion can blind you, for it can bias your perception. Bias can be used against you. Be too distracted, you can make horrible mistakes, which will mark your defeat. No, the purpose is to try and to be as stoic as possible, so you will be able to be emotionally steady. Thus, you can increase your chances of winning against the opponent. A calculated fighter is a smart one. Rush too much and you will be punished for your mistakes. Yes, it appears that what we interpret as Stoic philosophy, or the art of restraining emotion while feeling pain, is something that is delightfully expressed in the Tekken games. No matter how victorious you were, a single moment of over-emotion, can doom your success for the reminder of the match's round. On the other hand, if you are willing to be intuitive, but calculated enough, you can increase your chances of victory. Even if the opponent beats you up severely, giving in to the frustration, will not do much, when it can be your own disadvantage. Do not act like the Sith. Giving in to your anger means letting your anger govern you. Tekken's Lessons in Emotional Control I've been playing fighting games since I was a child. Ironically, I only now understand, that randomly mashing buttons, can only be one's own undoing during battle. Why? Because the opponent, be it a person or a computer, can detect a chink of weakness while you're in your fury of fists and kicks. Should they "aim" at that chink with an attack of their own they can make the less Stoic, even less Stoic, thus being on top, even more. Therefore -- display weakness, and you allow an enemy an opportunity that can go against you. Gather and display strength instead, and you will make others respect you, instead of pitying you or exploiting you for their own adventage. Tekken has taught me, that giving too much to emotion, isn't always wise. Emotion like fury. The furious fighter may be dangerous, but they lack focus, and they might not reconsider the world around them. They are impatient and desperate, but that won't necessarily make them advance in their quest for victory. Sometimes, the opposite is true. On the other hand, be too calm, and you might underestimate the true power of your opponent. Some stress can, in fact, help you focus. Emotion isn't necessarily on-par with reality. If you are furious over something or someone, giving in to fury, won't necessarily help you, even if IT FEELS that it will. In a sense, an emotion can also delude, if it makes one think that it helps them, when it doesn't. Yes, it seems that emotions can certainly blind... It is one of the reasons people may need medication, so the intensity of the emotion, will decrease significantly. I hope one day to rid myself of psychiatric drugs, without having an alternative. If I can teach myself, through technical games like Tekken, how to calm my mind, without depending on pills, then maybe I'll be able to at least reduce the prescription, until it will vanish for good. The irony in this is, that I was furious by Tekken, as well, throughout the years. However, I learned to overcome it, by refusing the temptation to be enraged, through logical reasoning. To win, one must be prepared; To win, one shouldn't whine on his or her misfortune. If they consider their misfortune, then they better find at least a single solution, for remedy. When they constantly lose, whether in games or in life, they need to grow up and not to lament too much on their misfortune, when they can be more practical instead, and solve their problems. The needs stems from survival itself. From not letting dysfunctional emotions stand in your way. It is only through training, and through the philosophy of the iron fist, when one will achieve victory. "Tekken" means "Iron Fist" in Japanese, and in general, that is the term for an oppressive rule. In such games, one is better to oppress oneself through restraint, before oppressing others through combat. Is it toxic? Is it insensitive? Maybe, but in a violent encounter, winning should get the higher priority, even if one is to face defeat. Such is violence: Cruel, ruthless, and, sometimes, Stoic. And the wisdom of this violence can be applied to any other conflict in life. Even when there are no weapons or fists involved. But competition, but struggle. Occasionally, that "winning" is just getting to see tomorrow. Thus, it's only natural, that some, may be more aggressive than others, in behaviour. Perhaps it can be a product of self-preservation? And in the way for our success and victory, many opponents might stand. Intentional or otherwise. It is surprising to see how a difficult and frustrating activity, can soothe one's mind, when a motive for greater benefit, is at hand. Because in Tekken, at least, conflict is but a means to an end. Means to power. And the reserved person uses his reserves well for that endeavor, for they are wise enough to not waste them, and serene enough, to not lose said reserves. Energies and other resources, necessary to get things done. Conclusion: Tekken As a Metaphor For Life's Struggles I argue that the fighting games of Tekken offer a surprising lens through which to view real-life challenges. Here are the key takeaways: Tekken teaches emotional control: True strength lies in mastering your emotions, not succumbing to rage . Like a skilled Tekken player, remaining calm and calculated increases your chances of success. Life is a competition : The world, like Tekken, is a competitive arena. Success requires strategic thinking and a constant drive to improve. Stoicism is key : Just as excessive emotions can be detrimental in Tekken, unrestrained feelings can hinder you in life. A Stoic approach, emphasizing reason and emotional control, is more effective. Learn from losses: Don't dwell on defeat. Often, the path to victory is paved with the path of countless defeats. Instead, analyze your mistakes and strategize for improvement, just like you would after losing a Tekken match. See where you did wrong, and work relentlessly towards improving yourself. Competition fosters growth: The pressure to overcome opponents, both in Tekken and in life, can be a powerful motivator for self-improvement. That's the irony of finding peace through a violent game. Tekken teaches that mastering oneself is the ultimate victory. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche: “My humanity is a constant self-overcoming.”

(Background music) A long time ago, I played a most difficult and most broken fangame called Mortal Kombat Chaotic. For those of you who do not recognize this game, it can indeed be called the “Dark Souls” of Mortal Kombat, simply because of how broken and intelligent the A.I. is. It also depends on the character you are picking and fighting against, because this game also has the largest selection of characters in MK history. Now, I am not here to whine about the pain I was dealt with by the A.I. (AKA, the computer opponents I faced), nor how many times I lost even on the lowest of difficulty—“Easy 1”—but instead I would like to share with you the wisdom I have learned by playing this unique, very-challenging game of Kombat. 1. Every defeat can be utilized to get closer to victory: Even on the “Easy 1” difficulty, you are likely to be defeated numerous times by the A.I.. Nonetheless, with all of your defeats, the achievement of victory can be very, very rewarding, should you be determined enough to learn the A.I. and learn from your mistakes with each defeat you have absorbed. This is why it is, technically, good to make mistakes , as long as one learns from them enough as to not to repeat them and expect different results. 2. Every action has a reaction: The A.I. will learn the pattern of your moves and will attempt to find a counter-attack, should you use the same pattern over and over again. Further thinking is required to surpass the reactions made by your actions. Think long-term, and do not act on instinct so easily in life. Plan like a mastermind , or your actions will be likelier to backfire against you. 3. Don’t let them breathe: The “Tournament” mode of the game has a formidable, the antagonist known as Shao Kahn . That character is an absolute beast when it comes to combat; his health is really large and so are the amount of damage he can deal to you within single hits. Even an uppercut, a deadly move in the series, may only decrease a small portion of his health. However, if you are not to “let him breathe”, in a sense that you won’t let him a big-enough gap to hit you dramatically, it is preferable to resume your combos even if he defends against them. Apply this to real life when you are in an antagonistic conflict against someone, physically or literally—the more you hit them the less likely they will hit you back with a significant punch/offensive claim. (That is, of course, unless they are good in using your own hits against you). 4. Pick your fights: There are characters in this fangame that are extremely overpowered, with the most notoriously one known as Simon, that can kill his opponent with literally one hit. While there are less overpowered characters that are overpowered nonetheless, it’s preferable that you do not waste your time fighting such characters because there is very little chance that you will win. Restart the game or match and hope that you will make it. That, unfortunately, applies to real life as well—pick your fights, whether they are physical or not, because our strength is not always sufficient to prove victorious. You are not omnipotent, even if you feel like it in a megalomaniac fashion. 5. Accept pain that you currently can’t do anything about: Some opponents, especially Shao Kahn, will attempt to make you suffer by not letting you time to react to their hits. Shao Kahn especially may grab you for a few seconds, point at you and tell you that “you are nothing” as he significantly decreases your health and throws you to the floor. Because you currently can’t do anything about this mid-way, it is best to just accept the pain and attempt to avoid it in the near or far future. When this lesson is applied to real life—accept the inevitable, and hope for it to pass, no matter how long it will take. In real life, it is sometimes best to give up when you know for certain you can't do anything to change the situation. 6. Some instances may have weaknesses that can be used for your own benefit: The A.I. in the game can be very cheap, truth be told. They can uppercut you, arrive to your new location, make an uppercut again, and repeat. However, some of your opponents may have weaknesses that can be used to your own advantage. A specific character, for example, cannot be grabbed, so it would be useless to try and grab them. However, they also heal, and when the heal they can be vulnerable to a potentially-deadly attack. It is not always wrong to exploit a weakness in a situation, especially if no harm is done. If a pet, for example, is acting too wild, perhaps patting it in a very specific place they like will relax them quicker than doing anything else. And finally: 7. Check your options: Literally check your options, because the game is set to the highest difficulty, “Hard 8”, by default. Don’t be surprised if you are beaten in a series of “flawless victories” within the first few seconds if you don’t check your options. (A flawless victory is when an opponent is defeated without landing a hit) Number 7 teaches us the importance of not giving in to our Platonic impressions so easily. You might find out that your own impression of an experience can deceive you if you give in to its bias. Question it and see how the experience of the same object can be changed later on. Conclusion All of the insights here can be used in real life as well, making some video games have the potential to teach us about life, as this applies not only to simulator games . Who says we only need specific sources of learning, such as books, to become wiser? We can literally learn from anything if we pay enough attention and dedicate enough time to analyze our experiences and the content we have consumed.