(Philosocom's O. C. Isaac Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ************************* Poem Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "A Tale of the Silent Hour: 5 Poems on the Philosophy of the Heart" by Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac is a philosophical exploration of the human condition through poetry. The poems explore themes of heartbreak , love, memory , and healing as logical processes intertwined with the philosophical journey of understanding and growth. The work challenges the traditional dichotomy between emotion and logic, presenting emotion as a crucial tool for understanding and processing life's experiences, especially in the context of love and heartbreak. The poem "Disappointment Rules Her Heart" narrates a journey from sorrow to hope, a process that is emotional yet follows a logical progression. Memory plays a significant role in the philosophical discourse, as it serves as a bridge between the past and present , helping individuals make sense of their current emotions. In "Broken Hearted But Still Breathing," the theme of resilience emerges as a logical outcome of emotional suffering, suggesting that even in despair, t here is an inherent strength within the human spirit that drives one towards healing. The most profound philosophical insight in the article is found in the poem "When The Heart Cannot Speak," where the heart is depicted as possessing a "universal language" that transcends words and intellectual understanding. This can be interpreted as a philosophical statement about the limits of rationality and the importance of intuitive, emotional wisdom. Isaac's work stands as a testament to the idea that philosophy is not just about abstract reasoning but also about grappling with the realities of the human experience . By integrating emotion into his philosophical exploration , he provides a richer, more holistic understanding of the heart's role in shaping our lives. ( Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: This beautiful series of poetry describes the logical process of heartbreak recovery in a very emotional way! The series can serve as testimony that logic and emotion do not always contradict in philosophy, for the end justifies the means! What I mean by that is simple: If the reasoning presented here is true, and describes what one needs to recover from heartbreaks in an on-point manner, then yes! Logic and emotion are not always contradictory ! Hahahahahaha! They are only contradictory when emotion distorts information , not, of course, when it helps emphasize it further! It also proves how emotions are tools for content creators to get their message across in a way that resonates with the audience, and help them understand the information they receive, more. As such, a way to further highlight the relevance of philosophy is to use emotion as a tool to sharpen the understanding of the readership, and it's something that many great philosophers failed at doing. Arguably, Nietzsche's legacy is remembered much due to his emotions which he integrated with his content. For example: Emotion can help us better distinguish Kli from Tochen, primary from secondary ). (Background music) ********************* Disappointment Rules Her Heart: Disappointment rules her heart With a heavy hand, it grips and clings A shroud of sadness, tearing apart Her once bright spirit, with sorrow it brings She tries to shake it off, but in vain For it seems to follow her every step A constant reminder of her pain A shadow that refuses to let go, it creeps But still she rises, with grace and might Her determination shining through the night For she knows that happiness awaits And the sun will rise on a brighter day, it awaits She'll find the strength to break free From the chains of disappointment's hold And see the beauty that surrounds Her life story, to be retold So let her heart be filled with hope And let her spirit soar once more For she deserves a brighter tomorrow And a life that shines with endless love. She Want to be Loved: She wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart With a passion that burns, like a fire so bright And a happiness that shines, like the stars at night She wants to be loved, with a love that's true A bond that endures, and will always be new With a heart that beats, with a rhythm so strong And a love that grows, and will never go wrong She wants to be loved, with a love that's warm A feeling that comforts, and keeps her from harm With a touch that soothes, and a smile that shines And a love that brings, peace to her mind. She wants to be loved, with a love that's kind A compassion that's real, and always so fine And with each passing moment, she only hopes For a love that's true, and one that she'll always know For she wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart And with each passing day, she holds on tight And prays for a love, that will always be bright. Memories of Time Forgotten: Memories of time forgotten, like leaves in the wind Drifting and swaying, away from where they've been Remnants of moments, that once felt so real Now just whispers, that we can barely feel They echo softly, in the depths of our mind Reminding us of times, that are now left behind Of laughter, of love, and of moments so bright That now seem distant, like stars in the night But still they linger, like a fragrance in the air Bringing us back, to moments that we'd like to share And in the stillness, we can hear them call Memories of time forgotten, standing tall So let us hold on, to these memories we've made For they will always, be with us, never to fade And in the stillness, we'll be taken back in time To memories of time forgotten, a love that still shines. Broken Hearted But Still Breathing: Broken hearted but still breathing, In this world that's so deceiving Where love can be so unkind And leave you shattered, and confined Broken hearted but still standing, Despite the wounds that are expanding And the pain that cuts so deep And the memories that you keep Broken hearted but still trying, To pick up the pieces, and surviving And find a way, to heal and mend And rise above, this heartache and bend For though you're broken, you're still alive And there's a strength, that will thrive And a hope, that will grow within And help you heal, and begin again So hold on tight, to your dreams and your faith And trust that love, will come again one day For broken hearted but still breathing, Is a journey, that you're worth achieving. When The Heart Cannot Speak: When the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, And the feelings inside, are a burden that's numb. When the pain is too deep, and the tears won't dry, And the silence is deafening, as the soul starts to cry. That's when the heart takes over, and it starts to heal, With a language that's universal, and a power that's real. It's the language of love, and the power of care, And it reaches out, to heal the soul with its rare. For the heart is wise, and it knows what's true, And it speaks in a way, that only the soul can construe. It's a message of hope, and a promise of peace, And it lifts us up, when our spirit wants to release. So when the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, Let us listen to the heart, and the message it's spun. For it's a voice that's true, and a love that's deep, And it will heal our soul, and send us to sleep

(Philosocom's Directory on Heart) Philosophy isn't regarded as something popular or mainstream, and due to the influence of academics, some people may associate it with higher education. However, they fail to realize that this field, starting with Socrates , was supposed to be a public feature and not necessarily the sole property of an intellectual elite. That is, because everyone intelligent enough is capable of philosophizing, or simply contemplating , on the worth of life and other subjects of depth, through logical reasoning and skepticism. I think that philosophy is in a sad state nowadays, and people who see themselves as philosophers, could easily be seen as pseudo-intellectuals, while all they want is to practice contemplation and attempt to gain insights on their own or through debate. The association of the self with philosophy is also associated with narcissism , with the belief that one is so in love with themselves that they are full of themselves, as well. Should you be as naïve as I was at the beginning of my "career" as a philosopher, the world at large would see you as a pretentious, condescending man, all because I wanted to give my two cents, too. (More on that here) For some reason, the branding of someone with philosophizing, might create a bit of resentment from others because, as long as you don't have official credentials, you can easily be suspected of either deception or self-delusion. That is the problem of philosophizing without credentials: The fact that academics are so overrated that you are frequently required to have some qualification or certificate in order for your voice to be heard in a field that anyone can easily fill! How come? Isn't philosophy the field of the genius ? You see, I believe that philosophy is more of an ability than a profession , just like the ability to walk, to talk, and so on. While it might not be as basic as what I presented, deep contemplations via logic are something that shouldn't require a degree in order to be taken seriously. After all, it doesn't matter WHO someone said but WHAT they said. Philosophers shouldn't regard themselves as better than anyone else , and no one else should just assume that they do just because of their love of contemplation and wisdom. A philosophical article doesn't need to have a specific, orderly structure, as long as it is understood and grounded in either good logic, good evidence, or both. After all, philosophy is the mother of all sciences not the other way around (source for that below). It didn't start with a prestigious professor who spoke to you earlier and gave you homework. It started with people who simply wanted to ask essential questions about existence : why am I here, what do I have to live for, what might happen after I die, and so on and on. It is a naïve, yet honest, thing to ask: Why should philosophy be rendered irrelevant in this day and age when it can speak to so many people' hearts? Have you ever worked in a job you didn't like, and asked yourself, " What in the world am I doing here ? " What am I doing here? What is my life beyond work, family, and friends? These are essential questions, and likewise, they are philosophical questions, as they are rooted in the need of many of us, to continue living on in a world that doesn't necessarily care about you or acknowledge your existence. By creating this site, I wanted to do something greater than simply write my articles : I wanted them to touch the human heart , not just the heart of an academic or an intellectual. It doesn't come from a need to boast my ego or "help" those whom I believe to be "needy" or "desperate" -- I simply want to make philosophy relevant. Not only my philosophy about stuff, but philosophy in general. I want to help make the field more accessible, as it deserves. The problem with religion, with love , with entertainment, and so on, comes from the fact that they don't always satisfy the human heart. More specifically, the problem arises when we may think they do. This is a delusion of endless desire. You can be a zealot of a certain religion, have a happy family, enjoy material wealth and technology, and still find yourself at night questioning why you even do the things you do. Do you see now, how basic philosophy is? Not necessarily in complexity, but in its ultimate functionality, it can fulfill the basic need for purpose. Actual science does not provide us with answers to existential questions, but philosophizing can. Science doesn't necessarily have a purpose beyond explaining the technicalities of things. However, as humans, technicalities do not suffice. After all, what is the point in them when they don't fulfil our hearts with the joy of insight and the possibility of discovering new things about life that can be used to "justify" our existence? The need for contemplation comes from the fact that we have life-and-existence-related problems . If we didn't have these problems in life, we wouldn't need to philosophize. It is important to have a drive to contemplate, so we would be likelier to handle said problems. The easiest way to escape our problems, of course, is through distractions, through things that keep us away from the potential of the abyss; to make us forget, for a while at least, that our existence is a "problem." The "problem" stems from the fact that, we were never asked to be here, and yes, we can be punished by the world for the possibility of ending the supposed absurdity of existence. A philosopher is simply a seeker of knowledge related to the deeper aspects of existence , and they won't necessarily be satisfied by looking things up online or through other means of external research. Sometimes, the research can be done within . Within the mind. Combine both and you can write great pieces, but I digress. The need for philosophy stems from a possible lack of satisfaction from life. And from a lack of satisfaction from the things that are commonly accepted as true, as well. Research isn't necessarily required , as philosophizing is this: the need to keep one away from the knife, the gun, the top of a building , and the need to genuinely smile. They don't necessarily have the answers to what they seek, because otherwise, they wouldn't need to seek them in the first place. But unlike many others, they at least bother solving their existential problems. Some of them, like myself, help others as well by doing so (like in the form of this site). They're not necessarily full of themselves, because they simply want to expand their knowledge through logic . Finally, they're not necessarily arrogant narcissists, because seeing one as a philosopher, doesn't mean that you love yourself , or even want to be who you are currently. For now, think of the following: We were all born once, through a simple process: escaping our mother's birth canal. It isn't that we necessarily wanted to be in this world, when we came here. We didn't come as babies with a smile, but with a cry of suffering, as we were naked and covered in blood, into a world we were never asked to be in and with a life we never asked for. Existence, you see, is forced upon us, and philosophy can be utilized to change this status, as it's, as said, forced upon. Through philosophizing, life can be not only a bother, but an non-reluctant choice. My former "master" called my articles "poor". What he failed to realize is that the worth of an article doesn't come from how it is built, at least not exclusively, but ultimately, in how it can influence the hearts and minds of people, as is expected when doing anything in the first place. Thus, a proper philosopher, in my eyes, is not someone who serves their words to the exclusive audience of a select elite, but to all humans, across the Earth. My quest for relevance is thus not only for my own sake, but also for the sake of my occupation: to make people see this existence as voluntary, thereby ending its status as forced upon in the eyes of many people. That's how philosophy can touch people's hearts, whether they are rich CEOs or factory workers, men and women; it should appeal to anyone, AS IT CAN BE. Source from ResearchGate: Dierks, Nicolas. (2014). Re: Is science a part of or separate from philosophy?. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy/52e11a1cd685cc0b208b4621/citation/download .

(Background music) I do not believe justice exists in this world as much as it can . However, I believe justice can be served not by divine hands, but by mortal hands as well. And I am not talking necessarily or exclusively about exacting revenge . No. I have proven Philosocom's relevance in the embodiment of appreciation throughout the world. People recognize my article empire's worth, and most importantly, its potential. In reality, my attempt to prove mine and this site's relevance was part of a bigger plan. I am not a narcissist who craves validation. Negative. Validation was necessary not for myself, but for you. And we do not live in a vacuum but in an interconnected, universalized culture. I can work on my articles on my lonesome, but I refuse to. For something to be relevant, it must necessarily have relationality to a bigger context. The bigger context is you, the readership. And no, you are not being used. You come and visit this place by your own will, as I know you do because you value my work, and I appreciate it. I am only alive to philosophize because philosophy saved my life once from the depths of existential despair . It was through reason that I was restored back from such void. However, unless I tell you this myself, no one would care. No one would care, because we live in an era of post-truth. And post-truth can make people lonely because it is the truth that can set us free. Through the truth we overcome intolerance , caused by our own emotions, and see the world beyond our platonic impressions. That includes loneliness. The loneliness of ourselves, as well as the loneliness of others. When we are asked for how are we, we are expected to give an answer that would please the asker. And since it is abnormal to not be polite, we are forced by the norms to pretend and mask our true selves in the name of another's feeling. In the name of how reality makes others feel, and not how reality really is. As such, the truth sets us free from the chains of delusion, thus allowing ourselves to relate to others more, and for others, to connect to us. This is why honesty is important in relationships. In reality, there is little to no justice, because truth and justice are interconnected, for truth informs justice. Post-truth leads to misinformation , and thus to a life of delusion, pretentiousness, and loneliness. In reality I only live to philosophize to pay my debt to the world of philosophy for saving my life back then. It only feels true because it's the least I can do for a field many disregard and mock, to the point of claiming it is dead . But still, I don't care what I feel as much, and I don't care as much about philosophy's irrelevancy when it has the power to save lives like it did with my own. For I have a debt to pay for a field that saved me from death. I don't even do it to feel alive or to live. I am only in servitude. A servitude of a lifetime. My desires are irrelevant. It is oh-so unprofessional to not do one's job because one does not feel like it . I do not act on willpower. I act on power and reason. And the reason is that human beings can bring justice to this world, but refuse to, or are unaware that they should, by the reasoning of equality. Karma , whether real or fictional, is something that can be presented through human act. And not only through retribution, but also through empathy , love and compassion . Because if someone is hurt, and have done nothing wrong to deserve it, justice deduces that they need to be shown compassion. But human beings are unjust creatures, because their knowledge and intellect is limited. As does mine, of course. However, intellect shouldn't be underestimated or mistaken for a display of vanity. It should be celebrated as the very tool that can solve problems , increase empathy , and of course, lead to a greater understanding of justice. And justice is about what should be. It is perception that shapes reality by its represented behavior. The more our perceptions are aligned with the truth, the better informed we could be, to better exact justice into this world, and as such, be more fair to others and ourselves. I am indebted to philosophy for life because it saved my life. I am owed what was saved. That's how debt works. Had it not saved me, I would've died. I don't feel anything about it. I just know what needs to be done, by my own intellect. And intellect is but a tool in reality. It's the very salvation of much of human suffering in this world, and much justice can be given to the things and beings who need it. And without the understanding truth bestows on us, we might as well forever be doomed to repeat the same actions that serve as obstacles in our path. To be able to show compassion, one must understand another's situation. And to be compassionate, is to share one's current position, even if by cognition/intellect alone. One must also desire to reduce it. No one shares my experience with me. No matter how many people are there, reading me, or being in my personal life, no one understands or asks me about it. I am shown respect and admiration, which I appreciate. But they are no substitute for sharing my pain. The pain that I could've died by nihilistic despair. Because for that one needs compassion. My contributions to the global legacy of philosophy is how I display my sincerest thankfulness. Knowing my prevented fate, and remembering it ever since, made me a broken man . I see no other reason to live, for I already know the reason as to why I still live. And that is the hypocrisy that lies in many human companies. The fakeness, and the delusion runs deep, merely because many lack the intellect to relate to another. We think we are with one another, but as long as we remain ignorant of our authentic selves, we will fail understanding others as well as ourselves. Lonely or not, I have a debt to pay. It will end when my life ends. That is the rationality of justice, unhindered by norms nor by post-truth. I tried pursuing other activities over the years. They are in vain. Very few people can understand me empirically. I am repaying what I was saved, with what was saved. I don't care about being happy or joyful. I live to repay, and in death that repayment will be paid in full, per what was saved, and therefore, given. And justice is that severe, as logic itself. Such is even more the justice of eternal debt.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory On the Past) "Philosocom is the brainchild of Tomasio Rubinshtein whom I met many years ago. Those who will tell my story, will tell that I got to walk among one of the giants of philosophy. From Socrates to Martha Nussbaum " -- Mr. Daniel Paez. The Past: The Graveyard of Time, Launching Base of Actions The past is the ultimate graveyard. Every whisper of a moment, every grand event, every tear and triumph - all lie under the inevitable possibility of becoming but yet another relic, whether remembered or forever forgotten within its shadows, never to be revived again. The present moment, a fragile candle flame, dances dynamically and chaotically between the devouring teeth of the past, and the uncertain fog of war of the future. Everything that is happening, everything that will ever happen, will logically conclude to a singular, inevitable fate: becoming forever buried in the vast cemetery of history. And it's only a question is whether or not your fair shares in that cemetery will be visited as often, or be forever left to rest in the peacefulness, and irrelevancy, of obscurity. This universal march towards this only chronological certainty, intensifies with each passing year, as more and more things and beings fall into obscurity, in their own ways. And death is the definitive part of it, as a point of no return. How come? Fail proving your worth to the world, or not try doing so at all, and you have sealed the obscure fate of the legacy that is your life. Death is the defining part of how you will be remembered by others. This means that every moment of your life, might as well count to that definitive conclusion, and the implications that may result from it. Contribute more, and your name will be something to be proud of, by those whom are related to you, or those who have acknowledged you. Cause more harm than good, and those who are related to you, whether by blood or otherwise, might forever disdain and be ashamed of being part of your presence in any way. Thus, morality can play a great part in the past, and in how some aspects of it -- including your own -- will be perceived by the world. And although you cannot control the choice of perception in others, being alive allows you to alter it through the power of making an impact and through influence. The older we become, the vaster the bigger the past that grows behind us, gathering the actions that we've done, and their impact on the world for days and even years to come. This is the cruel truth of time's passage: there is no escape from the endless collection of the past. Presidents and immigrants, sages and lol-cows , all find their destinies gathered upon the same timeless gravestone -- the past. And it is from this abstract gravestone, the past, where both present and future launches, to whatever destinations, based on our actions and behaviors. And the greater our influence, the more involved you can get, at the shaping of this global ecosystem, to further be of your design, of your mark. Imagine the past as a colossal factory grinder, its iron jaws chomping relentlessly on every second that has slipped through our fingers. Yet, although it makes every existing moment a past reminder, the past is not without its firm grip on anything that might and will happen. Thus powerful is the past in the determination and of everything possible. The past forms landscapes of nostalgia that glorify what once was, and lament of what could've been avoided, with regret. The longer an era stretches behind us, the more remote it becomes, its borders fading into the mist of memory, preserved only through genetics , media and other remains that themselves can be forever gone from this world. Our descendants may walk those paths again, but for us, they are forever lost, although serving our lifeforms, in our very genes. Countless collaborations and conflicts of actions mark the beings that we have become today, and the beings that we might become. These collaborations involve countless bodies and people we might as well never even get to think about. But should we ever bother to consider them, perhaps this existence would be seen by us as far more valuable than otherwise... My Chronological Graveyard My own personal graveyard house consists of old consoles, forgotten discs whispering lost melodies of adventure. Some of them are now immortalized this site's articles.  A particular game comes to mind, with its hero, forever considered in my heart, partially the inspiration of the man I today became. It is through the art of being alone , that I am capable of much work. My greatest strength which can fuel an industrial complex of my plan to preserve and promote my philosophical legacy. And there is no legacy without preservation of the past. In this waltz with time, we are all dancers, swept along by the relentless rhythm of the universe, dancing through uncertainty, and yet, still try to build plans for a future we can never truly determine as certain. Those unable or unwilling to plan for the long term, embrace the bittersweet symphony of experience, as their hearts are built and broken in the name of either love , hedonism , or impulsivity . How to Accept the Fading of Experience We are all either victors or victims with the bittersweet, chaotic reality of time's passage, which is not only prone to actions, but to the various changes that may stem from it, as well. The past stretches behind us like a fading trail of an always-regenerating bridge towards an inevitable end in a vastly-empty universe. Every sunrise marks another array of potential, which I practically regard as a "problem" , while every sunset whispers of what could've been, and never was, and at times, will never get to be again. The desire to defy this universal law of chaos is undeniable in some, for it is a threat to their psychological safety . Dreams of immortality dance before our eyes of an ideal world, forever remaining in the realm of fantasy. And what of time travel? With all of its potential horrors that I found in my contemplations , wouldn't a chance to replay past moments, rewrite mistakes, or relive forgotten joys be an eternal relief to the disturbed minds of many? Yet, these solutions remain nothing more than ideals we can never claim for our own. Science fiction may entertain us with visions of defying time's straight-forward arrow... But at least for now, they are just that - stories told in media of both traditional and anarchistic nature . In the harsh light of present reality, we acknowledge the truth: The past, once engraved, cannot be altered. I digress, but the few exceptions are re-edits of articles like this, and other such works where renovation is included. And some things, and people , are beyond repair. Yet, the past's hands extend beyond grand historical events. It resides in the quiet corners of personal narratives , forever embedded in the present, in one way or another. The answer to the lost cause of the past, lies in embracing the transient nature of experience, and the fact that it is always built on the past events, and past forces, which can be anyone, and anything. Recognizing the sanctity of memory , can enhance life with beauty , a reminder to savor the present moment before it too fades into the tapestry of the past. Accepting the past, and moving on, doesn't erase its impact. Denying that past and even minimizing its true influence on us, as enticing as it may be, would be to deny a part of ourselves. Instead, the past is an ever-expanding mine of gold whose insights we can always dig, by being strong enough to face its adversity and a desire to once again rejoice in its memories. The past, may someday extinguish the light of our world, until every memory and every human and their legacies are gone for good... Until the curtains fall, let us appreciate the ever-changing build-up of life, with all of its laughter and tears , triumphs and regrets, for they are subject not only to the past but to our perception, and thus, to their future developments, through our represented actions, and combined forces. How to Value the Fleeting Dance of Experience To blame the immortal power of the past on our temporary lives, feels futile. For we cannot cheat its spell. We can learn to embrace its rhythm, or whine as we persist in telling ourselves how powerless we are, even though we're capable of more. In this sense, the past becomes a double-edged sword. For those who have lived lives rich in joy and wonder, there is a bittersweet tragedy in its fading glory. For those burdened by hardship, the past holds the solace of knowing the worst has passed, and in the future, that it will all end some day, and the pain -- the pain will stop. Let us not cling too tightly to the echoes of yesterday, while we ignore the melody of the present it unfolds before us. Each moment, contains a degree of potential, unavailable if it weren't for the past. Thus, cherishing the present, embracing its fleeting beauty, is the key to enriching the memories we create, and a better future, for either ourselves, those we care about, or both. The cycle of experience is a continuous one that begins and ends with us . Your joys and sorrows, your triumphs and defeats, are but variations on a theme that has been played out countless times before. We are our own historians, should we possess enough power over our lives from the external forces that are involved in it. To expect absolute understanding from those who have walked different paths is a recipe for disappointment, for most might as well not possess such foresight. Instead, focus on what you can control and influence in the name of better making your dreams as close to reality as possible. That way you would, at a later date, look at the past and won't regret it as much.

(Philosocom's Directory on Culture) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation, censorship, or legal repercussions. It's a cornerstone of democratic societies and is often protected by laws , constitutions, or international agreements. The right to free speech encompasses various forms of expression, including spoken words, written communication, artistic expression, and symbolic actions. Culture and speech are intricately connected, with language serving as a primary vehicle for transmitting cultural values, norms, and traditions. Speech patterns, dialects, and expressions often reflect the cultural beliefs, societal hierarchies, and historical contexts of a community. Cultural norms influence not only the language used but also the non-verbal aspects of communication, like body language, gestures, and social etiquettes, which differ significantly across cultures. Additionally, the language itself can shape the way people perceive and understand the world , affecting their thoughts, behaviors, and interactions within a particular cultural context Meanwhile, cancel culture refers to the widespread practice of publicly shaming, boycotting, or ostracizing individuals or entities for behavior or opinions deemed offensive, controversial, or unacceptable . It often plays out on social media platforms and involves a collective effort by a group of individuals to hold others accountable for their actions or statements. Cancel culture has complex implications for freedom of speech . While freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions without censorship or retaliation from the government, cancel culture operates within societal or community-driven consequences for speech or actions deemed unacceptable. Here are some ways cancel culture can influence freedom of speech: Chilling Effect: Cancel culture can create a chilling effect on free speech. Individuals might self-censor to avoid potential backlash, fearing that expressing certain opinions or ideas could result in public shaming, ostracization, or even loss of employment. Diverse Perspectives: Cancel culture often targets speech or actions considered offensive or harmful to marginalized groups . While this can be a positive force for social change by holding individuals or entities accountable, it could potentially limit open discussions if controversial topics or diverse perspectives are stifled for fear of being canceled. Mob/Herd Mentality: In some cases, cancel culture operates through mass public outcry, often on social media. This collective and at times aggressive response can swiftly and severely impact the livelihoods and reputations of individuals without due process or room for discussion and learning. Cancel culture has prompted a heightened sense of responsibility and accountability among individuals, public figures, and organizations. While it has its drawbacks, it also plays a role in holding people accountable for their actions or statements. Here's how it influences responsibility and accountability: Social Awareness: Cancel culture has increased awareness about the impact of words and actions. Individuals and entities are more conscious of how their behavior might affect others, particularly marginalized or underrepresented groups. Consequences for Actions: Cancel culture often leads to consequences for behavior or statements that are deemed offensive or harmful. This serves as a form of accountability, indicating that there are repercussions for actions that negatively impact others. Ethical Considerations: People are now more inclined to consider the ethical implications of their actions. They are forced to reflect on the potential repercussions of their behavior, statements, or decisions in a more socially conscious manner. Accountability in Public Discourse: Cancel culture has pushed for increased accountability in public discourse. It has led to demands for transparency, honesty , and responsibility from public figures and organizations. Cultural Shift: It's prompted a cultural shift where certain behaviors or statements that were previously normalized or overlooked are now being called out and addressed, fostering a more accountable society. Change in Policies and Practices: Companies and institutions are reevaluating their policies and practices to ensure they align with more responsible and inclusive standards, responding to the growing accountability demands. While responsibility and accountability are essential, there are concerns about the extreme nature of cancel culture. It's vital to strike a balance, ensuring that while individuals are held accountable, there's room for growth, education , and forgiveness . A system that allows for learning from mistakes while discouraging repeated harmful behavior can contribute to a healthier and more productive social environment. Limits on Innovation and Creativity: Fear of being canceled might dissuade artists, creators, and innovators from pushing boundaries or exploring controversial or challenging themes. This self-censorship can stifle creativity and limit the exploration of new ideas. (Mr Rubinshtein's Note: This may apply in philosophy as well ) Cancel culture's impact on innovation and creativity can be multifaceted. While it's important to hold individuals and entities accountable for their actions and encourage responsible behavior, the fear of being "canceled" can potentially limit the freedom and boldness necessary for true innovation and creative exploration in the following ways: Risk-Aversion: Creativity often thrives on pushing boundaries and exploring new ideas, even if they're controversial or challenge societal norms. Fear of backlash might make artists, writers, or innovators more risk-averse, leading them to stick to safer, more conventional topics and approaches. This avoidance of risk could stifle groundbreaking or provocative ideas. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Risk-Aversion exists in many areas of our lives . That is because we have things to lose ). Self-Censorship: The fear of being ostracized or facing severe consequences for expressing unconventional or controversial thoughts can lead individuals to self-censor. This self-imposed limitation might prevent the exploration of ideas that could potentially lead to groundbreaking innovations or paradigm shifts. Artistic and Cultural Expression: Creativity in art, literature, film, and other cultural expressions often involves delving into sensitive or contentious topics. Cancel culture's impact might discourage artists from exploring these themes, leading to a lack of thought-provoking or boundary-pushing work. Stifling Dialogue and Critique: Constructive criticism and open dialogue are crucial for growth in creative fields. Cancel culture's swift and sometimes harsh repercussions can hinder constructive critique, potentially leading to an environment where genuine learning and improvement are sacrificed in favor of avoiding public outrage. Compliance over Authenticity: Some individuals may opt for conformity over authenticity to avoid the risks associated with expressing unconventional or controversial ideas. This prioritization of avoiding backlash may limit the authenticity and uniqueness of creative expressions. However, Innovation and creativity often thrive in environments that encourage risk-taking, exploration, and the expression of diverse ideas. Final Words Striking a balance between accountability and preserving the freedom necessary for innovative thinking remains a significant challenge in such environments. It pushes individuals and organizations to be more thoughtful and responsible in their actions, considering the potential impact on others. While this can be positive, it might also deter necessary conversations about challenging or controversial topics, although such conversations may be necessary. It can influence the nature of public discourse. It could potentially polarize discussions by shutting down opposing viewpoints rather than engaging in constructive debate, thereby hindering opportunities for education, understanding, and growth. In summary, while cancel culture can hold individuals accountable for their actions and statements, there are concerns about how it might stifle open dialogue, limit diverse viewpoints, and discourage the free exchange of ideas. It's a complex balance between accountability and freedom of expression, and the challenge lies in finding a middle ground that promotes responsibility without suppressing essential freedoms. Extra Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/ Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: Cancel culture should really do nothing more than helping people how to frame stuff better. If someone can take offense by what you say then there must be a better way to get your thoughts across. Fear of cancel culture should only make us more conscious of our actions. You can do great things if you don’t live in fear of it. Just make sure the resulting expressions are examples of something rather than stand alone problems. Easiest way to avoid cancel culture is to have individuals, random people, peer review your work before it is released to the public. In art this can be done in the form of a private soft opening to a gallery. Your own cognitive reality might make you blind to certain things, so it’s important to confide with people who don’t have this blindness. Just because you yourself think something is great can blind you to any parts that may be problematic. Humans are nit-picking creatures so would you rather have the public do it or close friends? Another suggested fix to cancel culture would be to push the boundaries but be introverted while doing it, get friends and family members opinions on how to best present it to the world. Cancel culture really boils down to people who fail to frame things properly. Too many people fall victim to the “look what I did” fallacy. Yes, it's not a known one. People do or learn amazing things and instinctively want to run out and tell the world about it. Thus, they open the pandora's box of cancel culture. If you don’t want to worry about people framing what you are presenting in the wrong way then make sure you are the one who controls the way that it is seen.

(Philosocom Writing Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "The Importance of Fans to Heritage (And the Works of a Hermit Ancestor)" is a thought-provoking reflection on the role of fandom in preserving and amplifying creative work. It is divided into distinct sections, including the discussion on fandom, tips on nurturing fans , and a personal story about the philosopher's ancestor and his eccentric mentality. This structure balances theory with personal narrative, making the article both informative and emotionally resonant. The central argument that fans are crucial in preserving and promoting creative legacies is communicated clearly, with the anecdote about the game translation highlighting the power of a passionate fanbase. The author incorporates deeper philosophical musings about the nature of fandom, loyalty, and legacy, elevating the piece beyond a mere opinion article. The personal story of the author's grandfather serves as a poignant case study that reinforces the article's message, making the theoretical points about the importance of sharing one's work with the public more tangible and relatable. Overall, this article presents a unique blend of personal narrative and philosophical reflection on the role of followers/fans/supporters in sustaining a creative legacy. Its emotional depth, paired with thoughtful insights into fandom, makes it both engaging and meaningful. (Background music) Fans: The Importance of Having Them In 2012, nine years ago as of this article's original release, a game from an internationally-known series was released to the public. However, it was only released locally, and in Japanese. That meant that, if you did not know Japanese, you had no ability to play that game properly, as everything was in Japanese, with no clue to any international language. However, in October 2021, a union of fans of that game's series decided to unofficially translate that game to English , and if it weren't for them, that game would've remained in Japanese indefinitely. As a fan of that series myself, I could not expose myself to that game without trying to learn Japanese, which is a very hard language to learn. In other words, thanks to the fact that this franchise had fans, they were willing, eventually, to join hands, and work on a voluntary project to expose something to the entire English-speaking world. This is what's so great about having fans or followers They will be willing to sacrifice some of their time and energy to help your work whether or not you asked them to. By their own will. Because they care about it, and hold it dear to their hearts. They are, in no way, minions or subordinates (for they are paid), but volunteers who volunteer not out of entitlement but out of love for the original work they have been consuming, following, and thinking about. Therefore, if you wish to increase the probability of your work being preserved and shared for years to come, you must build a fanbase . They are people who either love you or your work (or both, but not necessarily . You do not have to love Michael Jackson in order to love his music, for example). Fans are loyal followers who may or may not also pay you for your work. They are the key to turn you from someone who does things as a volunteer, like art or music, into a fully fledged job. They are, in other words, your key to be able to quit that job you hate, and focus on your craft professionally. How Are Fans Recruited? They are not recruited. They come by their own desire , and if capable and willing enough, they might also create fan-based work based on the content you have provided. By being inspired by it through their separate work, they can drive traffic to your own work as a result. I guess it is a form of indirect brand awareness. Fan art, fan games, fan films -- you name it. The same applies to philosophy and philosophers. If people think that your work as a philosopher is worthy enough to be appreciated, they might become your fans, or at least consider it. Once they reach a state of fandom, they could be of use in your own work. Fans are not necessarily social media followers. Anyone can just click a "follow" button. However, it does not have to be black or white, either. Fandom comes from the heart, from genuine desire. They are the original definition of followers before the first social media platform began (AKA SixDegrees.Com in 1997). They're something I call "Elite" followers. There is something called silent fans, people who consume your content without necessarily interacting with you. Thus, different content creators, including me, might have fans that we are unaware of due to their lack of interaction. It isn't something bad at all, because in fandom, everything is voluntary. With no force applied at all by the content maker. Unless there are copyright violations? Anyhow, perhaps they won't do anything at all that's visible. But the fact that they consume your content is something that should not go unappreciated. Perhaps they will contribute one day, perhaps not at all, and perhaps they will chat about your content with other people, thus making them fans, too. Tip For Preserving Fans As said, fandom comes from the heart. Don't force your fans to do anything, because otherwise you would alienate them. You can request or ask, but definitely not demand. They might even pay for your work, but they will never be forced by you to do so. A forced volunteer is an oxymoron. You can't force a volunteer the same as you can't force someone to honestly be your fan. I guess you can force people to be your customers but why extort your fans (or anyone for that matter) ? Remember, fans are essentially voluntary admirers. If they believe that they should abandon you, they might as well do so. I wouldn't recommend nagging, either, but I guess it's up to you to decide. I usually nag only when something's urgent... Which is never. Try to not be excessive in your approach to fans , you might lose them unintentionally. By the way, that's not uncommon as you may think, and even world-renowned figures may have people stop being fans. You are merely a "means" of "transportation" , metaphorically-speaking -- producing and distributing content. Once they reach a possible state of progress in their lives, renunciation of loyalty might be possible. It's not necessarily something bad, especially if you've done nothing wrong. More will go, and more will come in their stead. Let Go. My Late Grandfather -- The Unknown Writer Finally, I would like to speak about someone who remained unknown all his life, and thus his work remained in the shadows until now. My deceased grandfather, A hermetic ancestor, was also a writer, and I was told he wrote on his computer occasionally. He wrote mostly poems and also translated the works of others to various languages. He was a very romantic person, as far as I heard. Despite his burning passion, his works have remained in my family in the form of unpublished, printed folders. He was offered to use the internet, but I guess he was too fearful of that new feat of technology. I can only wager he had cyberphobia. You won't find his works online, and if you find others by that name, that's not him. His only public presence is his grave. I'm using this very personal example to show you what unfortunately happens to the heritage of people who refuse to open themselves to the public . Of people who aren't open to the possibility of fans/followers/customers. If the old, weird Hermit resisted his fear of the internet, he wouldn't have had to think about the expansive possibility of publishing his works in the form of books (assuming he had), and he could've been a known personality today. His legacy, his "empire", might as well remain a paper collection of folders, kept by a daughter. As a philosopher, I seek regular readers, whom I identify as "fans". Unlike others, I don't seek validation of my ego. I don't need to be validated as much as others. I seek to expand my contribution to this world. That's why the subject of fanbase/fandom matters to me. If I were a private philosopher or someone who would not publish their findings, then I would minimize this notion. Thus, I would not be surprised if the purpose of this piece is irrelevant to some of you, who are not interested in the power of fandom to help you support and promote whatever legacy you're building. All you need is to not be afraid to open up through means that could grant you much benefit. Going outside of your comfort zone is imperative to your success. His greatest mistake as a writer was to not go out of his comfort zone. Conclusion Fans are the flame that keeps your work alive. They translate obscure games, write fan fiction, and ensure your legacy lives on. Embrace them, for they are a lively, willing bridge between your creation and the world. Nurture this connection, and do not exploit it. and together, you can ensure your work continues to inspire and resonate for years to come, if not long after your own death! Extra: A Note To A Dead Man Grandfather, I have learned from you, but I will work to not end up like you did, as a writer! The internet has given me exposure you never had in your entire lifetime, and for that, I'm sorry for the untapped potential that you have refused to realize. You could even have reached far more audiences due to your knowledge of different languages. But alas, you refused to think about the digital world, even though you were offered it. You wrote on the computer, but refused to use the internet. Your addiction to the love of solitude was your fault. I'm sorry for your legacy. Ancestor. I'm not sorry for you. I am sorry for your legacy. I can understand why you were not as liked as a person.

(2023 Note: Now that I compared myself to other autists, I've realized I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can be considered part of ASD, or the Autism Spectrum Disorders. I, however, am no longer sure if I am indeed an autist, even though I was diagnosed with both Asperger's and ASD. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (Philosocom's Directory On Uniqueness) Whether they like it or not, some people are their own worst enemies. No matter how much they desire to be kind and appealing, society will treat them like dirt beneath their feet. They will do this, whether or not they are aware of the first sentence of this article. Many of them are outsiders. Perhaps all of them are. An outsider is someone who doesn't belong to a particular group or community. It is important to note that belonging to a community "on paper", or officially, is not necessarily enough. To be a part of a community, one must be accepted. One must have an identity, and feel like they are a part of it. If you are in class during recess, and the rest of your classmates play outside with little regard for you, then you are likely an outsider. It doesn't matter that you are also part of the class. A community and a social category are not the same thing. Social communication is just a specific type of human interaction. A social category categorizes people by stereotypes. People with glasses are a part of a social category. There isn't necessarily a community of glasses-wearers, just because there are people wearing glasses. The same goes for a global autistic community , which I once heard exists. If you are born with autism and are diagnosed with it, it doesn't mean you are now officially a member of a global group. There may be local or smaller communities of autistic people, but don't expect these communities to necessarily be a part of a global-wide organization. Most importantly, don't expect all autists to not be outsiders in such groups. The point I'm trying to make is that some people are outsiders by nature, and may have their own reasons to be "part" of something larger. I'm also part of communities across the internet, but I have my own interests. Just like some of you may have an interest to read this website. Perhaps, in many cases, the most important thing is family. For many, family can be a more secure stronghold for support. There may be internal conflicts, and you may be banished from your own family. However, it's imperative to have a basic, strong base of loyalty . Loyalty with people you can trust. Loyalty with those who are willing to be discreet, as treachery is humiliating for them. Some people are vagabonds. I'm currently friends with one, but I nowadays value discretion. They do not necessarily have homes or people for them. They may sleep in the streets, in the cold, and be woken up by gangs. I am a solitary person by nature, but it seems that vagabonds are prone to far greater solitude than I am. People have interests, and when I say it, I refer to their own gain. They may pretend to be someone else in order to achieve their ambitions. Politics may work that way, you know. Seeking political alliances not because of friendship, but because of business. And business is unwise when it is done with personal sentiments. I have learned that since the foundation of Philosocom. My deceased grandfather, who was a weird hermit ancestor, was the biggest outsider I knew. He was a good-intentioned man, but he was too eccentric to be able to communicate normally. After his funeral was over, no one really mourned him. I do not remember his face anymore, because some autistic people struggle with face-recognition. Even though he called me a retard as a kid, I heard he loved me and even brought some food after I was born, to celebrate. I am also an outsider. Life has made me, slowly, a cold and distant man. As an adult, I do not receive affection often, and when I do, it feels strange. It's not strange when it comes to my cat. It feels strange when it comes from people. But, as the Former Secretary to the Government of India, Dr. S. K. Pachauri , said to me: "It is gratifying to learn that, in spite of so many impediments & roadblocks in your health condition , you are still driving the car of a happy life at a normal speed." Why? Because I believe in what I am able to deliver. And so can you. Enjoy some sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outsider https://study.com/learn/lesson/social-category-overview-examples.html https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/community https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/people-autism-may-have-large-deficits-facial-recognition/

(More articles I wrote on spirituality: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-third-eye https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-arcane-and-causal-fallacy Enjoy!) (Background music) ********************************* Issues With Spirituality: Common Struggles and Insights Spiritual is the adjective form of the word spirit, which comes from the Latin word for "breath," and means the thing that animates life. Spiritual can be used to talk about anything that goes beyond mere physical existence, from ghost spirits to religious feelings. - - Vocabulary.com There is still no agreement when it comes even to the basic Issues With Spirituality. Here is why: Confusing By Default Spirituality is a very problematic concept in philosophy, as there isn't necessarily a direct, universal definition as to what it means. For example, you can be a theist or an atheist, and still share some agreement about any spiritual views that are not religious. For example, you can say that something has a spirit, without necessarily being religious... Be it a period in history, be it an object, be it an activity that evokes much emotion in you. However, not everyone, theist or atheist , will agree with you when it comes to your more-spiritual views. Since spirituality is not only really personal but subjective as well , its usage in philosophy is too unclear to be understood, even by the most dedicated of philosophy readers. Spirituality is a very personal experience, and everyone's spiritual path may be unique. -- Verywell Mind Is spirituality about religion? About incarnation? About meditation? You can use that term in a sentence, and it will nonetheless create confusion. The more abstract a concept is, the more esoteric it will be considered, just like with philosophy itself. Lack of Methodological Clarity Spirituality does not indicate its own set of components. How can one know what exactly you mean by it, when other people use this word as well, but under different meanings? Because of how difficult is to rationally deduce nor verify spirituality, it can easily be regarded with the strawman's fallacy. In other words, you can simply dismiss it as utter gibberish. Regardless, what we can say about spirituality, is that it claims this universe has something "hidden," AKA, higher than oneself. Something that is more mystical, more arcane. It can be described as a force that exists beyond the physical. Some call it a God, others the Way, or even the Tao. Some may describe it as a universal, infinite energy, and so on. What do we want in philosophy? In the end, we want to understand. To do that, we need to grasp the content of which we consume. Without concise understanding, therefore, there will be no attainment of wisdom. We can interpret the material for ourselves, but ultimately, if we don't understand the text or video as good as we can, what, then is the point in consuming it? This is why clarity is so important in philosophy and in content consumption in general. Metaphysical Jargon and Subjectivity Some credit should be given to spirituality, however, for it is the ancestor of all institutionalized religions. After all, religions can be seen as spiritual organizations . What does religion do? It takes spiritual ideas and evolves them into culture, social norms , and ideologies. After all, the concept of divinity is a spiritual one, even if it is just one of many ideas. In the end, spirituality is a pantheon of metaphysical ideas, or ideas that venture beyond mere physicality. To be a spiritual person, you do not have to agree with any of the established understanding of spirituality. As such, many spiritualists exist beyond the matrix of human society. Yet, recognizing some of them could indeed suffice. Spirituality is so subjective, anyone could have a "spiritual prototype" of their own, as each spiritualist would deviate more uniquely from general society. Thus, the only solution to this problem would be using specific terms within this "pantheon." Spirituality as Complex as Philosophy When philosophy is regarded, it is not as "fluid" as spirituality is. A philosopher's job isn't just to believe, but to inspect, contemplate, and reach a logical conclusion. Unlike the spiritualist, the philosopher is more analytical than otherwise. This is why many philosophers are considered armchair philosophers, even outside the academy. In philosophy, if you choose to believe in something. You often have to justify it through supportive information and logic. As a weird example, the spiritualist might eat a cake and immerse themselves fully in it. However, the philosopher would consider the implications of eating the cake , making them more prudent, and even subject to the affects of analysis paralysis, where one's own analysis sabotages their decision-making plans. This is why spirituality and philosophy don't always go hand-in-hand, and at times they are ridiculously unmatched. The spiritualist might have a less-clear methodology of action, and will not always stop and question their beliefs. Instead, they would more immerse themselves within the fabric of reality around them. Philosophy is far more about inspecting, examining, lambasting and so on. It for more sensitive people, philosophy and philosophers may be deemed as arrogant and diminishing of one's experiences. The lambasting of a philosopher may appear as an attack on one's deeply-held belief. However, often, philosophers can be detached as butchers are. Being mentally detached allows them to examine reality with less bias , thus steering them more towards a greater general understanding; an understanding that is far less specific than that of most people. Spirituality is more specific and personal; philosophy is more general. However, they are both abstract methodologies that may be seen as detached from the very reality they aim to describe. They are as theists as they're atheists; environmentalists as heavy polluters; clear-headed as "high". There is no insight to the definition, the moral alignment, and the archetype itself. How then, can it be used clearly during philosophizing? Spirituality's basic problems of understanding come from the fact that none of us can clearly say what is there beyond the physical realm, if such a bigger realm even exists. Furthermore, both philosophy and spirituality require us to have a multi-layered understanding of reality. The issues of objectivity and subjectivity is something both philosophy and spirituality share. Unconventional, Therefore Less Approached As for myself, I have 2 layers of thought (cognition) and 2 layers of emotions. Since spirituality is unconventional, I well understand spirituality is also multi-layered and, as a result, cannot be described in layman's terms at all. Philosophy, spirituality, and eccentric geniuses like myself can never be described simply. The more something is more simply understood, the more it can be accepted by others. We cannot expect most people to understand such complex matters, when they lack the healthy habit of doubting themselves . It is one of the reasons the authority fallacy, or the appeal to authority, makes sense as a logical fallacy: Being in authority, by itself, doesn't make you a reliable source of clarity. It is also why gurus, AKA spiritual leaders, may often be criticized as scammers , whether or not they are ones. The Superiority of the Simple We may theorize and discuss, but in the end we can all agree that physical reality is far more understood than the "metaphysical realm" is. The physical realm is easier to navigate, for starters, and the physical realm is what allows us to survive in the first place. One doesn't need to be a philosopher in order to know how to venture outside and buy a sandwich. One doesn't need to be a philosopher to make friends. Not a philosopher necessarily, nor a spiritualist. Sometimes, there is a lot of practical depth in being a simple human being. Anyone can claim they are masters of a hidden art, such as Reiki, or a prophet of a one true god, and even if we are to question their beliefs and roles, they may argue that "we know what you don't." How would the average person would deem someone in a subject only they, theoretically, are masters in? The answer is simple: the average person may reject them as insane, and deem their practice as impractical, therefore illogical. Furthermore, without necessarily expanding their understanding, the average person may submit to what one may believe to be the facts. Sometimes that critique is valid when something is indeed a hoax. There is no knowledge on behalf of the audience, but the guru's charisma can sure convince one that they're right. The Role of Intuition Finally, we need to address the most basic issue a lot of people fail in: Intuition. Intuition is when you understand something without a way other than intuition. As such, intuitive understanding can be deemed as a wayless truth , as the truth is already found within one's mind, with no further complexity. You might ask yourselves: How is it possible? The answer is that intuition is subjective. Therefore, much of spirituality has to do with intuition. Sages in general are intuitive as a result. Their understanding may be considered otherworldly, alien and unnatural. In India, these folk are known as godmen, or the incarnations of divine beings. Since their understanding is mysterious, they might be seen as more than humans. They might even be seen as aliens. They might be seen as demons, as angels, as sorcerers and even as weirdly undead. However, it is very plausible to deduce that they are humans like you and me. However, their intuitive mind is greater than that of the average person. Furthermore, their unique experiences in their respective lives makes them extraordinary humans, but humans nonetheless. Intuition, as well as spirituality, stems from the unconscious. Therefore, we can conclude that much of our understanding is already unconscious. Final Notes These are all the problems I have thus far found in this term. I used to use it too in my early writings, but only as a reference to self-actualization . To avoid confusion and unnecessary misunderstanding, I rarely use the term "spirituality" it in most of my writings. Thanks for reading. Consider sharing this article if you liked it.

Dr. Patient was well known for having a short temper, but that never stopped Mr. Bruin being jealous. When his wife became pregnant was the first time he visited that office. He thought then that the Doctor was rather hot tempered, but maybe he was simply being passionate about his work. Later, when his son caught bear-pox he thought the doctor was rather cold and aloof, but maybe it was just an abundance of medical professionalism. Later he discovered the Doc was attracted to his wife and hated his son, but in this occasion everything seemed just right. The doctor was calm and friendly and after he set Mr. Bruin's crooked ankle, thanked him for his patronage and invited him out for gingerbread and porridge. -- Mr. Kaiser Basileus Introduction In a highly competitive world , where it often seems that the neighbor's grass is always greener, it is reasonable to argue that the emotion of jealousy can be common among anyone who is not satisfied enough with what they have. Additionally, it is also arguable that, like in romantic relationships, jealousy can come from a certain fear— a fear of losing something you already have, like a partner, to a rival who wants them to be their own as well. All in all, we can say that by this logic, jealousy is highly a product of constant competition for limited resources, such as achievements, people and properties. Since the world today is largely capitalist , much of many lives is based on whether or not their talents, functions, and services are good enough to be better than their many competitors. Those who have those better than you are likely the ones to prosper better than yourself , and even lead you to either bankruptcy (if financial or commercial success is the subject at hand) or to unwanted loneliness (if social, romantic, or sexual success is the subject at hand). The path towards success lies in giving people what they want. And those who fail doing so might be likelier to find themselves jealous at the success of others. Thus, since only the eligible receive help from more welfare-oriented governments, the large majority live in a constant state of competition, and thus, of uncertainty, in order to prove themselves worthy of customers, job interviewers, potential contacts, and romantic partners. Jealousy: A Product of Void One obvious solution to prevent jealousy is, of course, to be as satisfied as possible with the fortune you already have , even if it means not going into fields you want to work at. However, since it is often difficult for many to do so, the desired alternative is to take risks and go after your dreams of success. You might find yourself being jealous of those who are willing to take greater risks than yourself, for they have something you might not have -- courage. I believe that jealousy is often indirectly increased by socialization , as we are encouraged to do our best and to become as successful as possible—even if our endeavors will end up being not enough. This is the reason why some of us may be jealous of those who managed to be better than us in whatever field we aspire to become good at. We are, in a word, used to measure our worth by our accomplishments. Myself, as well. Jealousy is always about comparing ourselves to others and feeling like they have something that we want but do not have. We may feel jealous of someone's success, their relationships, or their possessions. Therefore, we can say that jealousy is often rooted in a feeling of emptiness or lack. We may feel jealous of others because we think that they have something that we need to be happy. However, most often than not, that conditionality is a delusion. The problem with jealousy is that it can lead to disappointment. We may think that achieving our goals will make us happy, but sometimes this is not the case. For example, many people believe that having a romantic partner will make them happy. Even though people may not know what it is like to live without a romantic partner, entering into a relationship does not guarantee happiness. The same logic can be applied to many sources of jealousy. We may want something, but once we have it, we may not be happy. The Possible Solutions One possible solution to the problem of jealousy is to be skeptical. Be skeptical enough to think critically about whether your goals will truly make you happy. Don't have unrealistic expectations about what your goals will achieve. It can also be helpful to visualize what your life will be like after you achieve your goals. Remember that for many people, life is a marathon, not a sprint. Do not expect to reap your rewards so quickly. It might take quite a while for you to get whatever you so desire, that others have, and you don't. Take note that they might've took very long to attain their desireables as well. And even if they didn't, who said anything about the world being a fair place to live in? Another possible solution is to ask yourself this simple question: "Will I be truly happy and satisfied once I achieve this goal?" Since emotions are often temporary once we get used to something being a part of our lives, it is often difficult to maintain the same level of excitement we once had when we achieve our desired goals. Taking things for granted is a very impactful process whether or not you'd like it. And by the same token, you might find yourself disatisfied yet again with life! Final Words Overall, we can conclude that jealousy is not always necessary, if at all, as long as we are able to satisfy ourselves and live relatively happy lives. There are two reasons for this: Many of us can be satisfied with what we have now. The people we are jealous of may not be happier or more satisfied than us. We may see that our neighbors' lives seem better than ours, but we don't always know what is happening behind the scenes. Jealousy is necessarily an issue of an internal void. Any emotion can be temporary, including the one you want to feel the most.

(Background music) Understanding the Spectrum of Social Interactions A Place Without Question Our presence in society, AKA, in the company of other people than ourselves, come from many reasons, some of which are more rational than otherwise, and some are done by desire. Others are either involuntary or forced. Our initial presence in society is most often not, forced by external entities, far stronger than us at the time, such as family and government. As babies and as small children, we are not asked, whether or not we wish to spend time with others. We were weak, can't communicate like adults, and the law demands that, regardless, we must spend time at kindergarten, and later on, at school. And even without public education, we either "belong" to our family or to an orphanage. We do not have authority on our lives and in some cases we can't even work due to child labor laws. Our place in the world is forced and goes on without question, until we become work-capable adults. And it is only through our ability to make money, where we can determine our mobility in this world, social or otherwise. Rethinking Our Need for Social Interaction Public education often plays a subtle role in shaping our perception of social interaction. Schools, with their emphasis on group activities, shared schedules, and collaboration, might unintentionally create the illusion that social engagement is an inherent human desire, a mandatory part of life, just like passing exams. This, however, overlooks the crucial distinction between forced interaction and genuine connection. The idea that all humans are inherently social creatures is a broad generalization. Unlike the undeniable need for water, a need we instinctively fulfill from birth, socializing is more akin to a learned skill that requires practice and maintenance. Neglect this "muscle," and social interaction can become challenging or even undesirable. Those who need to get things done, may not socialize because they want to, but rather reluctantly, as there are some things one can't do alone. Additionally, we may force ourselves to socialize just to get help in whatever we're doing, thus saving ourselves energies by sharing the burden of the task. It does not mean, however, that we do it out of a genuine desire for human interaction, nor because we necessarily derive joy from interacting. It's just that the strength of many is preferrable over the strength of one. The more people join our cause, the more sources of energy we can use for our combined efforts, towards a shared goal. But if we had the energies of an entire team or several teams, would there be a need to bother with forming organizations, if doing things alone would've been just as easy? Therefore, declaring every human a "social animal" might be both an oversimplification and a fallacy. Unlike our dependence on water for survival, the need for social interaction isn't universally intuitive. Like a society's forced dependency on its next generations, we are forced to use the help of others whether we like it or not, when it comes to large-scale operation/s. Choosing a solitary path, as I have, can lead to a diminishing desire for social interaction. A life accustomed to solitude reframes others as less of a necessity and more of a choice. And even then, the benefits of collaborations do not ask me whether I am interested in them or not. Logic doesn't ask for your permission, and all necessities stem from conditionality (AKA "A" needs "X" to become "B"). The notion that solitude inherently leads to sadness might hold true for those suffering from loneliness, which might or can affect us all universally . However, it's important to distinguish between voluntary solitude and isolation. Studies linking solitude to depression often fail to consider the aspect of choosing to be alone. Critical thinking requires acknowledging biases towards concepts we hold dear or disdain. In other words, we must recognize both the positive and negative aspects of things. Most things, like social interaction itself, aren't perfect and possess both redeeming qualities and drawbacks. Unnecessary drama, for example, is but one of many ways a voluntary social interaction can deteriorate, along with the use of coercion and other depraved acts, initially unintended by either side. Also, certain people are more prone to social fatigue than others . This shows us that social interaction, while necessary for our mental survival, could also diminish it, leading to the exact opposite in results. The opposite result is further highlighted when interacting with certain people, like narcissists and their agents . Instead of benefitting you, they would actively leech on your energies and even force you to do things, thus decreasing your psychological safety as well. Therefore, the idea that all humans crave constant companionship, and even pleasant company, falls short when considering the dominant element of force in society. School attendance exemplifies this. Just like attending classes doesn't guarantee a desire for the company of classmates, initial social interaction can be involuntary, and either serve our interests or someone else. This forced or self-forced interaction might lead, through sheer repetition, to the belief that social connection is an inherent human need. It's like repeating something over and over until it's accepted as true. But in reality, each individual's need for it exists on a spectrum. Many traits are like that, and not a matter of dichotomy, but of intensity. Hence why ambiverts, for example, exist. The Spectrum of Social Needs The fear of being alone, often termed autophobia , grips many individuals even in the absence of any real danger. While some fears are rooted in logic, the aversion to solitude often remains shrouded in mystery. What is there to truly fear in enjoying one's own company? Solitude, itself, isn't inherently dangerous, although it can be for those struggling with unresolved issues that surface when they're alone. And also for those who use social interactions as a means to escape. My personal experience exemplifies the spectrum of social needs. While I contribute to society through writing, the desire for companionship isn't a constant. Despite my years-long skin deprivation , I manage on my own quite well, for I have a purpose in mind to keep myself busy. When the need for social interaction arises, I engage with others. When I need help, I ask for it. Otherwise, I choose to work on Philosocom in solitude, as a means to solve an otherwise-problematic existence . This selective approach demonstrates that social interaction isn't a universal human necessity, but rather a variable desire. Perhaps the education system simply wasn't as persuasive in my case. Interestingly, even the most deeply connected individuals, like couples in love, crave and/or need moments of solitude . And for some, like myself, romantic love itself holds a secondary appeal to my work on this site. The fantasy of a solitary life, akin to a hermit's existence, likely flickers across many minds at some point. I mainly broke free from that fantasy because I stopped denying my potential. In conclusion, embracing solitude shouldn't be viewed as a social failing or a consequence of a flawed education system. Just as some crave constant connection, others find peace and fulfillment in a life less social. Others simply need to collaborate to get things done, whether or not they like it. Recognizing this spectrum of human needs allows us to be aware the diverse ways we navigate the world, alone or in company. No one way is necessarily worse than the other, and it depends on how interacting with the world effects our mental energies . Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I believe they are missing one vital part in the education system. I never was taught how to socialize with other people. It was something that adults seemed to think children would learn on their own. Social studies are more the study of history than anything to do with socializing. Put it in terms of your own cognitive reality. We aren’t taught how to interact with other [cognitive] realities. I believe it is important to determine your personality type and figure out a way to interact with the world. This can be done by finding yourself a pack of your own. Those close enough that they can help us out on how to better interact with other people. I believe most of the problems in the world are people being unaware that their reality is different and not everyone sees things the same way that they do. I use social skills for selfish reasons at first. I would intentionally help other people out so they would feel obligated to return the favor. I mean generally speaking people are willing to help out those who help them out. People generally like to help people who they like. If me being a nice person helps them like me more then I am all for helping out when asked. Point being I learned the social aspect of determining the type of person you are. I became a nice person by doing nice actions. This is something anyone can learn to do. Not to mention people will instinctively be drawn towards them then.  Socializing is just one expression of intelligence. Why would we not want to work on that part. If individual parts determine the whole then wouldn’t you want each part to be as strong as possible. It only leads to increases in your human capital. There is no secret to life that requires a lifelong quest to figure out. The point of life is to make yourself as best a human as you can be. Do everything your best and you will see the type of person you are. This includes a need for socializing also as knowing stuff is pointless unless you know how to communicate your knowledge to other people.  You determine your intelligence by understanding your ability to understand things. That is all higher intelligence is. Why the idea of war confuses me. Your country is your asset so how is destroying it good for anyone? War is just proof of how poor mankind is at socializing.  I realize now that socializing is nothing more than a skill . As you will interact with humans for the rest of your life shouldn’t it be the most important thing we should learn growing up? It is expected that enough people, children, going through the same thing, school, will result in them acquiring the social skills they need. Socializing is only a skill that people should learn to learn better.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory on A.I) (Philosocom's Directory on Technology) Introduction: Are We Organic Machines? Let's be honest , some of you might not like my latest pondering: what if biology is simply "organic machinery," and insects, animals, and even ourselves are just "organic automatons"? Sure, this analogy might cause some discomfort, especially in our times of the AI revolution , where metallic machines threaten our jobs and our love life. And indeed, being compared to machines might feel unsettling, even dehumanizing. However, what else are we, truly? Complex machines capable of independent thought and moral judgement, perhaps? Machinery advanced enough to replicate and self-regenerate? What if a machine is simply an automated system? According to dictionary.com, a machine is: An apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work. On the contrary, you might argue that we're far more intricate than machines. However, why must a machine have a specific degree of complexity, in order to be or not considered as such? What happens when a machine overcomes the complexity of a human being? Regardless of a complexity of an object, be it a simple watch or an insect, the definition of "machine" is applicable to both: A watch is designed to tell the time. Humans are designed for adaptability and long-term survival. (Apparatus). A machine, like a car, consist of different parts, that correlate with each other to allow a degree of performance. The human organs, likewise, operate in synergy, allowing you to function in the world around you. (Inter-relations of parts). Remember: Different people are good at different things. Due to the diversity of our merits, different people perform best in roles they're strong at. Of course, you wouldn't use a calculator to measure mental health. You'd use a therapist to assess it . (Designation). Why, then, would humans not be considered a type of machinery? Beyond Human Limits The future might bring about machines with capabilities equal to, or even surpassing, those of humans. Still, such surpassing were already been made: Humans cannot compete with cars over long distances. The IBM-made device dubbed 'Deep Blue' defeated the reigning champion, Garry Kasparov , in an unusually swift chess game. (Cybernews.com) . It should take far less time to build a robot than to raise a human, depending on the former's complexity. Apply this collectively and you can mass-produce robots at the same time it takes to successfully graduate a single class of students. A basic calculator might not have emotions, but imagine a future populated by robots with an increased notion of emotional intelligence. The potential for machines to excel in any field currently dominated by humans is vast. Right now, they might be restricted to specific tasks, but advancements in robotics hold the key to a future where robots surpass even our definition of "human." The Ever-Evolving Relationship Between Man and Machine The fact that we are far more complex than a robot right now doesn't mean they won't reach our level, or even surpass it. What if biological reproduction becomes obsolete, replaced by factories mass-producing the next generation of humans, not in flesh and blood, but in some advanced, non/semi-biological form? This future might not be as outlandish as it seems. Emotions, after all, are functions triggered by events or thoughts . As such, we can already code complex AI to react in ways that mimic human emotions. That's although an artificial machine can't necessarily experience emotions . Could a future script one day create true feeling in robots, or at least a parallel experience indistinguishable from our own? The key lies in the brain, the very essence of who we are. Despite its mysteries , like consciousness and dreaming, the engineering of a similar organ in non-organic form might be achievable. The question is this: Why limit a brain to biological material? Just as prosthetic legs defy our expectation of flesh and bone, why can't the brain be made of metal or another advanced material, as long as it performs the same function? Artificial intelligence is literally based on the human brain. Much of technology is based on biology: Airplanes are based on birds. The British Royal Navy may be developing submarines based on fish. Video game enemies, like Dr. Eggman's Badnik robots , are based on real-life animals (insects, fish, etc). The line between human and machine may one day become startlingly unclear, as the innate biological element will depend more and more on artificial, technological constructs and extensions. The scientific community is still grappling with a definitive explanation of sentience. However, there are some generally accepted characteristics: Subjectivity:  The ability to experience feelings and emotions like joy, sadness, fear , etc. These experiences are internal and unique to the individual. Consciousness:  Awareness of oneself and one's surroundings. This includes the ability to perceive, process, and respond to stimuli. Qualia:  This refers to the "what it is like" aspect of experience. For instance, the redness you see when you look at a rose is a quale. Self-preservation:  The instinct to avoid harm and survive. Here are some additional points to consider: Complexity:  Sentience is likely linked to a certain level of brain complexity. "To-date, it appears that sentience arises naturally as a by-product of increasing the number of neurons in a network. Humans are sentient; flies and mosquitoes are not." -- Nick Saraev. Diversity:  Sentience might manifest differently in various species. "Animals have their own preferences, desires, and needs; we humans may not always know what they are. But if we can use our knowledge of animal sentience to monitor and measure their emotional states, then we can seek to ensure that we avoid causing them pain and distress." -- World Animal Protection Blog. The Hard Problem:  How physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences remains a major philosophical question. Overall, the question of sentience is multifaceted and constantly evolving as our understanding of consciousness grows. Androids and the Reshaping of Humanity Internal Source: The Human Robot Theory. The creation of sophisticated robots, or "androids," capable of mirroring human capabilities, presents a future both exhilarating and unsettling. Imagine a world where our robotic counterparts, not limited by biology, surpass us in every field. These "clones" could render countless jobs obsolete, not just menial labor, but even complex professions like doctors, judges, psychologists and philosophers. The ramifications extend beyond the workplace. If androids could perfectly mimic human behavior and interaction, the very need for companionship, friendship, or even romantic relationships could become a question. This potential future is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it promises a near limitless pool of labor and resources. On the other, it raises the chilling prospect of being surpassed by machines that are far more intelligent and powerful. This is a dilemma that humanity will soon face, as advancements in robotics accelerate. I believe we have three options only: Ruthlessly compete by improving the human element through training and discipline. Cooperate with technological advancement by recognizing its revolutionary legitimacy (Ori Sindel). Eco-terrorism. The ability to replicate humans, (not necessarily as individual clones, but as beings with similar or even superior capabilities), could drastically alter our need for social interaction. Furthermore, social interaction has already been compromised by search engines. Whether these advanced androids, assuming they achieve sentience and functionality on par with humans, would deserve the same rights. According to Law and Senses Blog: In recent years, the question of whether AI may be added to the list of potential rights holders has grown increasingly pressing. Many researchers believe the exponential development of AI will culminate in the achievement of a capacity for consciousness, and this inevitability is not far off. Equally inevitable, in that case, would be the question of whether AI should be afforded rights. As science journalist John Markoff has aptly put, we must determine whether AI is to become “our masters, slaves, or partners” Would this usher in a new "race" of beings - androids, pseudo-humans, or perhaps even "metal people" - that demand recognition as equals? The ultimate challenge, I argue, lies in the concept of a "soul." If we see ourselves as complex organic machinery, then what purpose does this intangible, often religious notion serve? Perhaps, even within a theistic framework, one could argue that our creators, be they deities or advanced beings themselves, simply chose to build us with organic materials rather than synthetic ones. Does Consciousness Matter in a World of Code? The concept of consciousness has long held a central place in our understanding of ourselves. But in the age of advanced AI, the question arises: does it even matter? Every action, after all, can be seen as a function, a set of instructions leading to a specific outcome. Perhaps our universe itself is merely a complex script, governed by scientific, mathematical, and biological rules. This reasoning lays the footwork for the computer simulation theory. Consider walking. Does my subjective experience of walking matter if a machine can replicate it flawlessly? This leads to the same result problem : Must we focus on the means so much, if the result, their success, is already evident? This line of thinking leads to a potentially controversial conclusion: consciousness and soul, might be irrelevant in an automated universe. Imagine creating a "metal person" with a brain functionally identical to our own. Could this being achieve a consciousness akin to ours, even amidst its non-biological composition? Does it have to matter if it already fulfills its designation? Music provides a simple analogy. Must a song be "organic" to be beautiful? Can electronic music not resonate as deeply as a melody played on a traditional instrument? The answer is subjective, but it highlights that the material source doesn't diminish the quality of the creation. A melody doesn't require a "soul" to be beautiful and complex, nor a consciousness. It's extremely common to math , and every sound is reduced to a note. You cannot extend the human element with technology, without math. Why wouldn't the same hold true for consciousness? Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback The human brain is far more complex and complicated than any robot or machine out there. It is the most advanced computer in the world. It has video and auditory equipment and can store information for us. Tell me how it isn’t like a computer. Aren’t all machines automated systems? We design them that way. And the same thing happened during the industrial revolution. A wave of technology was introduced which people were sure would replace humans. They did not, and AI will not be the end of us this time. All it did was create more jobs as they needed people to operate the machines. Nothing can replace human intelligence. Is our subconscious mind not what makes humans automated systems? Does your body not automatically digest food or pump blood through your system? These are things which you don’t need to tell your body to do. Last time I checked breathing was pretty automated. Does the brain not automatically do those things for us, so we don’t have to think to do them for ourselves? The functionality of biology and robotics converges in ground-breaking ways, blending the precision of mechanical systems with the adaptability and complexity found in living organisms.

"The decaying decrepit and dying ruins of enforced Order of Society becomes fuel for the Fires of Chaos" - John Duran Life is a feature, not a bug. -- Dan Echegoyen (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Co. The article "Revolutionary Potential -- How it Affects Societies Across the World" provides a comprehensive exploration of revolution and its impact on society. It covers a wide range of revolutionary potential, including personal transformations and societal changes, and avoids an idealistic or pessimistic view by discussing both positive and negative consequences. Historical and contemporary examples, such as the formation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2019) , provide context and make the discussion more relatable. Philosophical insights, such as those by John Duran and Dan Echegoyen, add depth to the discussion and encourage critical thinking about order, chaos, and revolutionary change. The article also emphasizes the resilience and adaptability of the human spirit in the face of oppression and adversity. In conclusion, "Revolutionary Potential -- How it Affects Societies Across the World" is a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece that successfully highlights the complexity and significance of revolutionary changes. (Background music) ********************** Part I: Revolution -- A Road For Rapture or Regret The term "revolution" is often associated with political changes and drastic societal transformations. However, the concept of revolution extends far beyond the realm of politics, entailing fundamental changes that can occur in any field known to mankind. While revolutions are often admired for their potential to promote positive progress, they can also lead to negative consequences. For instance, a revolution that devolves a nation into anarchy hardly represents a positive outcome. This can be seen in the 2011 Libyan Revolution , which led to the assasination of the dictator Muammar al-Qadaffi by rebel forces. However, for more than a decade at least, Libya has failed establishing a central regime. It instead devolved into rogue factions controlling parts of the country. We can learn from this that revolutions could prosper countries as well as devolving them to become failed states. To quote Noam Chomsky: “One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: 'They present solutions, but I don't like them.” The solutions presented by revolutionary masterminds can be seen as a double-edged sword, for reality is defined by duality and by imperfection. This can lead the rational thinker to always try looking both ways. Similarly, the personal transformation experienced by an amputee, though undeniably fundamental, does not necessarily signify a positive change. After all, wounded people may still struggle reintegrating to society due to severe psychological trauma, due to discrimination and stigma, and due to social isolation... “I saw so many awful things I can’t forget. I don’t want to burden you. Are you sure you want to know what war is?” -- Charles Battle , A Vietnam War Veteran Thus, not every significant change towards the future, is a positive one, hence the progression/novelty fallacy. Thinking that every progress is necessarily a positive one, or even a linear one, ignores the intricacy of reality. The Road, As found Anywhere The inherent potential for revolution exists within every sphere of life. This revolutionary potential can simply be defined as the likelihood of experiencing fundamental changes to the current order of things. When planned, it stems from the idea that things don't have to be the way they are. When order is compromised, it's either altered to a different order, or to chaos. And of course, that chaos, or new order, is formed from the ruins of the original state of order. As such our history is formed out of an endless series of wars , destruction, as well as innovation . And as long as the current order of things will be questioned, humanity will resume evolving, revolving or devolving, on the altar of order-fueled conflict. Part II: The Revolutionary Mind "There Is A Great Disturbance In The Force." -- Emperor Palpatine Individuals who possess the capacity to trigger fundamental change can be regarded as revolutionaries. This potential, however, is not an intrinsic trait inherent to every individual. Let's explore this... Potential is something that also grows over time, as one's merit improves through discipline and training. Potential is shaped by a multitude of factors, including personal circumstances, societal norms, and access to resources. These circumstances are either changed by one's own hand, or otherwise remain relatively stagnant by those who seek to keep it that way through lack of faith, or through culture and tradition. Moreover, the path of revolution is rarely traversed alone. Collaborations, alliances, and resource distribution often prove essential for individuals seeking to implement transformative change in their area of expertise. The pursuit of absolute stability in society, even if attainable, is an often futile endeavor. The very presence of individuals harboring revolutionary potential ensures that stability is not everlasting. These individuals, driven by their vision for change, challenge existing paradigms and push the boundaries of what is considered possible. They can either be employed or deemed a force to be reckoned with. However, discarding them could prove unwise. At the best scenario, discarding them would make you lose promising potential. At the worst scenario they will become vengeful. However, revolutionary aspirations must be regarded with a realistic assessment of one's true potential. Individuals who overestimate their capabilities risk succumbing to delusions of grandeur, their efforts to revolutionize proving futile or even detrimental. With the utter lack of it, you will be rejected as insane , and your wishes and commands will be ignored. We do hereby command the Leaders of the Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant Churches to sanctify and have us crowned Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. -- "Emperor" Norton I. The Enduring Impact of Revolutionary Minds Revolutions, whether positive or negative, are not always immediate. They and their effect may take time, also. The full impact, how can it be immediate if it lasts? When a dynamite explodes in a mine, the impact is not just the explosion but anything else it gives birth to: More resources to extract, more profit to be made, and so on. It takes time for impacts to spread and manifest. Sometimes, it does even after the revolutionary's death, in the form of legacy. And at times, their impact might as well end with humanity's collective survival itself. In fact, some revolutionary changes occur as a coincidence, such as the invention of corn flakes , a favorite dish which was born out of a mistake. Part III: The Difficulty of Failures The success of a revolutionary endeavor is, unfortunately, not guaranteed. While some individuals possess immense revolutionary potential, their efforts can be meddled by various factors, including a lack of resources, manpower, or expertise. Even with the necessary potential, unforeseen challenges can hinder the path to revolutionary change. Will the South Sudan National Revolutionary Movement succeed in its efforts? Maybe, but there is no certainty, only odds. Revolutions often stem from an ambitious, ruthless human spirit. In addition, a resilience to endure and overcome adversity . Refusing to give up, when a goal can be accomplished, is an example of positive ruthlessness. Revolutions, regardless of their nature, often disrupt social harmony , often catching the peaceful by surprise. This is because not everyone yields to the status quo, and their desire for change can lead to new transformations, not only in themselves but in others as well. Therefore, as much as justice is important to people , we need to understand that others have other values more dearly in mind. I always wanted to be a superhero so I went and made a super-suit. I started working on it, but left the idea alone because I was working a job. But when I saw fights on the street I broke them up and stuff. I actually broke up so many fights without a mask on that people knew who I was, they’d be like ‘there’s the guy always breaking up fights. -- Phoenix Jones , long before his retirement. And as much as idealism can bring us hope , they can be as "realistic" as a dimensional merge between life and fiction. Ideas of absolute world peace and pacifism are often challenged by the inherent potential for revolution. As individuals may seek to transform societal structures, even if their revolutionary ideas are not objectively beneficial (or beneficial at all), they could still shoot themselves in the foot accidently . This, then leads to an unintentional subversion of their ambitions. My...yard. MY BEAUTIFUL YARD!!!! -- General Skarr, after attempting to get rid of a weed. Part IV: Navigating Oppression and Revolution The modern-day formation of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan by the Taliban organization , serves as a grim example of a revolutionary shift, although one that has been met with mixed reactions. Some Westerners view this change as a negative development, while others, who ally with the organization, may see it as a step toward in regional collaborations. While the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has not been internationally recognized, its establishment emphasizes the enduring impact of revolutions. That is despite international controversies , and even when they challenge established norms and structures within their respective societies. It isn't to say I support this, however. I am simply pointing out how oppression can not only be diminished by revolution, but also empower it. The Resilient Human Spirit The human spirit can be honed to become a resilient force, capable of enduring even the harshest of conditions, with enough training and discipline . It is this formidable spirit that has allowed humanity to overcome countless challenges and progress throughout history. However, the human spirit is not entirely immune to various forms of oppression. Oppression can manifest in various forms, including political tyranny , economic deprivation, and social discrimination, such as racism , sexism and more. It is often employed to control and manipulate individuals, silencing resistance and the expression of the human spirit. However, oppression often has the unintended consequence of igniting the very spirit it seeks to extinguish. In the face of oppression, the human spirit finds ways to resist and express itself. Deep inside, humans need outlets , for their repression is unhealthy . And indeed, revolution can be regarded as an outlet for people's true desires. Fear-Resistance as a Navigation Asset This resistance of oppression can take many forms, from peaceful protests and demonstrations to more radical acts of rebellion. Intellectual expression can also be seen as a form of resistance, like the writing of manifestos. Some even lie low just to exercise whatever the oppressors seek to eradicate, as seen in secret American Bars during the probation period of the 1920's. The human spirit's resilience is most evident in those who stand up against injustice , even in the face of great personal risk. Revolutions often emerge as a direct response to oppressive regimes. They serve as a powerful tool for change, overthrowing unjust and/or controversial systems, and paving the way for a more just and equitable society; along with any other ambitions a leader or a group have in mind. However, revolutions are not without their risks, and they can sometimes lead to unintended consequences, such as violence, instability and other subversions. Deep thinking can reduce such things, however. The decision to engage in revolutionary action is not one to be taken lightly. It requires careful consideration of the potential consequences, not only for oneself but also for society as a whole. Revolution, when it is high in risk, often should be a last resort, employed only when all other avenues for peaceful change have been exhausted. He or she who fails to think like a competent villain , will have their plans foiled by either others, or themselves. The greater the risk, the more things you'd might/have to lose. Conclusions Revolutions, whether positive or negative, are a constant in human history, driven by a desire for change and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Furthermore, they might be inevitable possibilities on the larger scale of history. Their effects may be immediate or gradual, and their success is not always guaranteed. Yet, they serve as evidence to the human spirit's ability to transform and reshape societies, and even itself. The human spirit is a force to be reckoned with, capable of enduring even the harshest conditions under the proper mindset/s. While oppression can suppress it, it cannot extinguish it entirely. Thinking it does, is a mental trap. Revolution, when fueled by legitimate grievances and carefully considered, can be a powerful tool for change. However, it is crucial to approach it with caution and a critical eye, ensuring that the path to change is not paved with further destruction and suffering that can be avoided or reduced. It is the human spirit, and the actions that represent it , that can serve as an engine to humanity's pursuit of justice, freedom, and a better world to live in. However, it can be employed for evil, as well. Extra Sources https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/afghanistan

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Philosocom's O. C. Isaac Articles) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   (Philosocom Directory on Work) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "How to be Highly Practical/Pragmatic" by Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac is a well-crafted exploration of pragmatism, using a relatable story as a metaphor for life's distractions. The article effectively illustrates the importance of prioritizing essential goals over fleeting distractions through a structured analysis. The engaging narrative makes the article accessible to a wide audience, with the contrast between the woman's appearance and the driver's practicality serving as an effective metaphor for life's distractions versus core objectives. Isaac successfully conveys the central theme of prioritization and focus, breaking down the story to highlight how superficial elements can detract from meaningful pursuits. The article is well-organized, transitioning smoothly from the story to its analysis, with each section building upon the previous one. The inclusion of expert insights, such as Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's notes, adds credibility and insight by connecting the story to broader philosophical and practical considerations. The article offers valuable advice applicable to various aspects of life and work, increasing its relevance and usefulness to readers seeking to enhance their pragmatism. (Background music) **************************** The Story  A half-dressed woman gets in a taxi whose driver is a highly practical man. He stares her up and down several times.   The worried woman asks:   "What, you've never seen a woman in a bikini before?"   The taxi driver replied:   "I'm not looking at you because you're half-naked. I'm worried because I look and look and I don't see where you got the money to pay me. Why should I drive you if you can't pay me for my services?” "Why are you so hostile to me?" the woman protested. "I'm not being hostile, I'm simply doing my job. If you don't have any method to pay me, I'm afraid I cannot drive you and you have to leave."   What lesson will we learn from this? Let's be like the taxi driver! Let' put our goals and the projects first. Anything else, no matter how alluring, deserves to be secondary in place. After all, the purpose of the taxi driver is to drive his passanger in exchange for cash. Having the passanger half naked does not have to degrade this arrangement into a social call.   The distraction deserves to be the background. In the curious encounter between a half-naked woman and the strictly-practical taxi driver, a profound lesson emerges – one that transcends the surface scenario, and delves into the way we universally approach things. Analysis: How To See Beyond the Objectively-Minor Seduction   In the peculiar narrative of a half-naked woman and the taxi driver, there's more than it meets the eye. It challenges us to navigate the intricacies of life, and what they make us feel , with a intentional focus on priorities and purpose , while acknowledging the persistent distractions that surround us.   The half-nakedness of the woman becomes a symbolic representation of life's countless distractions, the short-term and often tempting diversions that threaten to pull our attention away from what truly matters. It sets the stage for a discourse on the importance of discernment and the ability to see beyond the superficial.  In the taxi driver's stoic response, "I'm worried because I look and look and I don't see where you got the money to pay me," a deeper message resonates. The driver's concern is not about his passanger's appearance; it's about ensuring that the fundamental aspect of the transaction – payment for services rendered – is addressed. This underscores the need to prioritize essential matters even when surrounded by unconventional or attention-grabbing circumstances. After all, focusing on his passanger's body will not exactly pay the driver's bills, will not feed his family and so on. This shows us how temptations are not only distractions in many cases, but also a waste of our time.   Perhaps we should reflect on the distractions in our own lives. What are the temptations that crave for our attention, and stand in the way of our plans and arragnements? It could be the allure of instant gratification, societal expectations , or the perpetual quest for validation. By acknowledging these distractions, we are better equipped to confront and overcome them, in order to increase the productivity of our work, thus bringing us further to success. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: And perhaps, success is more important than our own happiness/pleasure ).   Further reflection on this specific story can reveal the importance of cultivating a mindset that transcends the immediate spectacle, encouraging a thoughtful examination of what truly deserves our time, energy, and focus. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: That is also known as distinguishing between "Kli" and "Tochen" ).   In a world characterized by constant stimulation and fleeting attractions, the narrative serves as a reminder that true wisdom lies in the ability to discern between the essential and the more-temporary. By embracing this perspective, we can navigate the complexities of life with a steadfast commitment to our goals as we become less fazed by counter-productive features. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Our attraction to irrelevant temptations reveal the irrational aspect of the human mind, which could become its own liability, and even harm our financial survival, as presented in this anaecdote. Becoming more logcial beings could make this aspect far less of a hindrance ).   Finding a balance that ensures we stay true to our core values even in the face of the unexpected and alluring detours, can help us as well. In order to do that, we must distinguish between wants and needs.   You may claim that there is no such thing as an "objective importance", even though the existence of the strawman's fallacy proves otherwise. That's also because lesson extends beyond cultural boundaries and our different emotional reactions. Focusing on the essential, which in this case is the need to make a living, is such an example. Let's say she could pay the taxi driver digitally using a phone she happened to carry with her . Then, her bikini will be even more irrelevant to this context. Professionals need to assess their priorities and ensure that their attention is directed toward the goals that align with their task at hand. If they are too stressed or overexcited, they need to maintain their calm. If they are criticized (Like being called "hostile"), they still need to take such criticism in a professional manner.   In conclusion, the naked taxi ride narrative, while unconventional , imparts a lesson that might as well prove objectivity exists not only culturally but historically as well. It's because this lesson can be applied in any historical setting as well, where work and transportation are invovled. Apply it to different departments, and the context of transportation won't be necessary to understand it. It can be generally applied to any case where mutual interest obliges cooperation. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: The formation of syndicates and consortiums are often necessary for an action to come into fruition. Of course, the passanger's appearance doesn't exactly matters for the combined effort of reaching a certain destination. How is it combined? The passanger's role is to afford this small-scale "syndicate". If they don't fill their end of the bargain, the driver has no reason to fill their part as well. Thus, the process of reaching the destination, cannot be done). By adopting this highly-practical mindset, which considers all members involved in the execution of an action, individuals can embrace a philosophy of deliberate prioritization , ignoring the distractions around them and actively focusing on the essential aspects of their lives. This approach not only navigates life's complexities with clarity but also ensures that the journey is actually done. There are plenty of methods to reduce distractions in general in the workplace , and outside of it (Like when studying) . Conclusions This scenario highlights the importance of focusing on priorities and practical matters over distractions. The taxi driver's response suggests the value of a pragmatic approach , emphasizing the need to address essential concerns, such as payment for services, before getting sidetracked by superficial distractions like usually-unsuitable style of dressing (or... undressing). The lesson encourages prioritizing goals and projects ahead of less significant elements. However, this lesson can be applied more broadly to various aspects of life, work, and decision-making. By adopting a pragmatic approach and staying focused on what truly matters, individuals can enhance their efficiency, make informed decisions, and achieve better outcomes in both personal and professional realms. This mindset helps in avoiding unnecessary distractions and ensuring that our limited time and resources are allocated to tasks that contribute meaningfully to our objectives.

(Philosocom's Directory on Failure) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) The Butterfly Effect (Background music) “Small shifts in your thinking, and small changes in your energy, can lead to massive alterations of your end result.” -- Kevin Michel A star in wings, Antennas gold as rings. And eyes writing memories to bring . Should you look at me now. You'd fly disappointed to a land far from now. If for a flower he goes hot, Why does he loves me not? No breeze has produced a why. In a decorated cage he lies, And as a tail closes by, Any attempt to touch, he doesn't try.. Butterfly, Butterfly, Again a cruel horizon narrows our eye, After our magic ran in a road of high. As we packed our staff for the desert, The butterfly prevailed, Between the skies of sand and dust, No happy man he attract.

(Background music) (Philosocom Directory on Work) (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   Societies are built on catering, or in other words, on the ability to please and satisfy others. In business, in politics, and in social gatherings, he or she who has the more resources, or the more respect, are the ones that gets catered the most. "The customer is always right", even if they are wrong. Another variant to this sentence, is "the customer is always king". That is the hypocrisy of catering, and the hypocrisy of business. Catering requires you to put on a mask and pretend that you care about the person before you, while in reality, you might care more about being paid, than about the person themselves. Catering matters in this case because the person before you, a customer in this case, has money. And in exchange for your pretending, you can get some of the money they have. Catering has to do with material survival, in a world where philosophy is considered an esoteric niche, mainly because it is not as profitable as catering. All business is built on catering. In business, if there is not money involved, then the person, or the task at hand, might as well be worthless. Genuine philosophers aren't people pleasers. Genuine philosophers say the truth even if the truth is uncomfortable. The purpose of catering is also to make someone comfortable. This is why society is pretentious by default: catering matters more than the truth; material survival matters more than the truth. Philosophy, the research of truth , is cast aside as people, justly, need to survive. And to not be lonely, people might cater to others for the sake of reducing their own loneliness, than necessarily caring about the person themselves. That is the hypocritical part of social interactions. The truth is often shocking and uncomfortable. The truth, therefore, matters only for those who have the strength within them to hear it, despite the discomfort it might cause. Thus, the quest of truth may often leave a person solitary, in a world where catering matters more than honesty. Society is but a theatre of masks and roles we take upon ourselves for the sake of survival and other functions. The truth often has nothing to do with it. The customer is right even when they are awfully wrong. The customer is king even when they are full of vices. What matters is that the customer is pleased and gets what he or she wants, in exchange for his or her money. Money is a necessary evil, but for many, money is an incentive. An incentive to be able to live in luxury, to be able to travel the world, and so on and on. I am only a "strange" person because I have the need for the truth. The truth sets me free from the stress I was born into. I was born a stressful human. The truth sets me free from this stress I am otherwise confined to. Philosophy, therefore, is a way of life for me. There is a deep connection between the truth and virtue, while catering is often connected to the vice of dishonesty. You don't care about the person in front of you necessarily, you care about his money. Otherwise, why would you cater to him? You might cater to that person because of other reasons, but these reasons are necessarily selfish. Otherwise, you would not cater to him/her. I have no desire to overly partake in a world that is based on catering. Catering is built on vice while the truth is built on virtue. The truth requires us to be strong, to be though, to be able to endure it . Catering requires us to please others for selfish gain. In my eyes, a world that is based on selfish gain is a world that has failed its own humanity. Here I am, providing my articles for free, because I care for the human heart more than I care about money. I am ascetic that gets to live from what he has and is pleased with what he has. Financial gain is lesser to me compared to the human heart. And I am too heartful to partake in a world that is based on selfish gain. Instead, I prefer to rectify it from afar using a free article empire. The reasons why the very politicians we may despise are at the top, is because they tell people what they want to hear. They are not master philosophers; they are master caterers. Catering, not the truth, is how people not only survive but thrive. Such a world is not worth partaking in, in my humble opinion. A truly good world is a world where you actually care about the person in front of you. It is a world where the truth, not niceness, is more respectful. Truth and justice. As much as we may demand justice, this is an unjust world where only those who cater get to financially prosper. The customer is always right even when they are wrong. This statement only makes sense because money, which is considered the root of all evil, is involved. People hate their jobs because they need to pretend, they care. They need to meet a certain quota, and fit certain standards, whether they like it or not. A truly good work is one that comes from passion , rather from force. Then, the job feels more like an adventure than a chore, whether it is successful or a failure. In a world of catering, happiness is a rarity. In a world of truth, happiness and satisfaction are more commonplace. Often times, survival matters more than happiness. The key to lead a truly good life is to combine survival with doing something that makes you truly happy.

(Background music) (Link to the full movie) (Subcategory on Flaws) Alex Mos's Synopsis An eccentric Tommy Wiseau, the director and star of the movie The Room, created an unconventional masterpiece that can be considered awful or great. Although the movie is of low quality and poorly acted, the audience elevated it to cult status. Profit-driven companies try to produce the most profitable products that appeal to the standard mediocre taste, thus potentially having the largest audience, the slightest chance of failure , and the least risk. In contrast, Mr. Wiseau took a significant financial gamble by spending USD 6 million to make the original and flawed "The Room," which became an accidental cult movie and earned USD 30 million in profit. The Room's success shows how sometimes virtue and flow coexist , and taking risks can lead to unexpected rewards. The Room: A Masterpiece of Awfulness For years, I craved the experience of watching a truly unique movie, in a world filled with unoriginality. Created, directed, and acted in by the enigmatic Tommy Wiseau , a man whose artistic vision mindlessly ignores the standard of quality, this film is The Room. Wiseau, in his eccentricity , managed to achieve the unthinkable: Crafting a masterpiece through sheer awfulness and laughable incompetence. Masterpieces are traditionally associated with high production value, meritorious performances , and a masterful leading hand. Furthermore, according to the Virtuoso Art blog: Although there are differentiating criteria on the specific elements involved in selecting a masterpiece, there are common qualities that every masterpiece shares. Some feelings must be evoked, whether it's curiosity, awe, or disgust. There should be style, technique, balance, and harmony. Then, how could a film riddled with flaws shamelessly embraced , awkward dialogue, and questionable acting choices, be considered a masterpiece? The answer lies in the paradoxical, uncanny allure of "The Room". While undeniably bad by conventional standards, it's this very "badness" that elevates it to cult classic status. In a way, awfulness has its own degree of, well, awe. Many would consider it a movie "so bad it's good". It's a film so hilariously inept that it becomes strangely compelling . Love it or hate it, The Room  is unforgettable. It goes to present the fact that "good" and "bad" aren't always clear-cut categories. Sometimes, the line blurs, and what's terrible can also be strangely delightful. Perception, Economy and Business in Media A movie's quality depends not only on itself but also on the way the audience perceives it. This is why other media creations, which are largely considered subpar, may still have an enduring liking by a loyal audience of fans who still continue to enjoy them. I, for example, still enjoy rewatching bad games I grew up with, not only because of nostalgia bias , but also because I enjoyed them even back then. The variety of tastes people have towards items and media reveal that all subjectivity is equal and thus worthy of redemption when it comes to self-examination and self-reflection. Good products sell because they appeal to common taste, not necessarily because they are "objectively good". Market demand is what companies seek to make a profitable product. To get the most profit to cover up their expenses, production companies depend on their product to appeal to its target audience as much as possible. And thus, people with more unique taste will remain displeased, as their spending power isn't strong enough compared to audiences with greater numbers. Of course the greater the audience demanding a certain product, the bigger their collective spending power will be. There is therefore a logical reason for the absence of avant-garde- esque products in our corporate-capitalist world: Publishing niche work is less likely to turn a profit after all the investments and allocation of resources made. Mr. Wiseau spent 6 million to make the movie. However, despite the poor taste of the film, it turned a profit of 30 million dollars. The reason for this unexpected success was simply because "The Room" is an accidental masterpiece. It was supposed to be far better, quality wise, but its director, who also played the protagonist, had no prior experience in film-making, as it was his first. As you can tell, he made a great risk making this film. He succeeded despite the risk in an uncanny way, and perhaps it's for the greater good that many companies don't strive to take risks like he did. Many companies, in theory, settle for mediocrity , as that allows them to avoid conflict, avoid difficulty and avoid spending much emotional energy. All three can easily lead to fatigue/emotional exhaustion. For sure, fatigue can greatly hinder your productivity. So, those who can't or are unwilling to bear the mental toll, will refuse taking risks. That is despite the fact that risks are important in business . A businessman at heart and in practice , Wiseau was the uncanny man for the uncanny job. Conclusions Tommy Wiseau The Room defies orthodox categorization. It's a film amassed with flaws, awkwardness, and questionable acting. It became a cult classic due to unintended luck and overflowing originality that discards the notion of what a masterpiece should be. The key lies in its charm, something bad movies like the Star Wars sequel trilogy fails to apply. Its very "badness" elevates it to an unforgettable experience of delight, blurring the lines between good and bad as some polar opposites that necessarily conflict with one another. In a way, "The Room" presents to us how flaw and virtue can exist in harmony, despite their conflictive nature. It's an example of the power of subjective taste, and how the unexpected turns that can lead to success with the ambitious desire to go all out despite the risks involved Thank you all for reading this article. And, by the way, here's the full movie , again. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Isn’t it true that true perfection in life comes from life’s imperfections? The things which make us different. Art is all about making mistakes. Why not apply this concept to a business? Try everything at least once and keep a record of what has and hasn’t worked. Don’t be afraid of failures as they are one of life's most important lessons. You can never learn how to properly do anything right until you learn all the ways to do it wrong. This is what is missing from small business owners' success. Success comes from action. Who cares if something does or doesn’t work? You find out either way by trying and trying again. Just remember to be willing to take the gamble of financially making things happen. Why do they create focus groups? So you could get people’s ideas without having to dish out all the money to find out. Marketing is very important to any business as it is what controls your company's narrative. Why many small businesses fail is because they forget about this. How is anyone supposed to come to you for a product when they aren’t aware you exist?

(Background Music) Table of Contents: The Story Itself Ms. Gabbi Grace's Analysis ************* The Story A knock is heard on the steel metal of a skyscraper apartment. "Hmm? What is it?" "Well, well, well. If it isn't the weird hermit who exchanged his humanity for a greater world ." Said a woman in front of the hermit. "Oh... you again". He doesn’t even look surprised, swiftly after sitting on the window of his 17th story apartment reading a book. "You are not even surprised to see your former nemesis, from the people's world, in your apartment's door?"  "I can sense when people enter my apartment. I can scare people simply by opening the door before they even knock. I was merely trying to finish something". He puts a bookmark into the book and closes it, taking off his reading glasses and looking over his shoulder at the unexpected guest.  "Well, how are you, Droid?" "I am fine. As usual, just studying and philosophizing." He puts the book and the glasses on the table and turns to the pure-human woman, his back leaning on the window.  "What are you doing here?" "Are you still after revenge?"  He sighs, looking to the ceiling.  "Revenge…? No, I…I am not after revenge anymore." He looks at her, positively surprised she understood. Yet, rhetorically he shakes his head again.  "I changed…I am different now." "Yes. I knew you were a smart man.. And now.. a smart whatever. It's like you were long ago, when I sought to be your friend." He remains silent for a few seconds, looking at his feet like he’s thinking something over. "Friends, huh…? Yeah, we used to be friends" . He sighs and smiles, looking at her again, before his tone gets slightly sarcastic. " An utter waste of time . Anyways, have you come to see the transformed weirdo, huh? Came back to poke fun at a changed being?"  "Please do not succumb to your aggressive tendencies. Umm... Can I call you... that name?"   His sarcastic smile remains for a few more seconds, but it eventually fades away and he lets out another sigh, his normal neutral expression rapidly returning and he nods.  "Of course. You have the right to call me that former name…I won’t get aggressive on you as long as you are respectful . There's nothing unconditional here, however."  "Well... can I come in?" The weird being examines her face shamelessly and remorselessly. "Sure, go ahead."  He pushes himself off the window and walks across the room over to a chair, sitting in it and watching as she walks in, and then closes the front door behind her. He was glad she understood this basic function. "Can I have some coffee?" She asked. "Yeah, sure." He points to the kitchen with his half-mechanical warlock's beard.  "You can find a coffee maker in there, and coffee grounds…and sugar…on the top left shelf." He sits back in his chair, resting his arms on the armrests and tapping his fingers on one of them. "Don't you want to make coffee for your guest yourself?"  He looks at her, amused at yet another escalation of something purely innocent. As he is crossing his arms and frowning slightly, he asked her, "Are you testing my sense of hospitality?"  "You are still angry, aren't you?" She asked him as if she was robotic herself. "I am not angry…it’s just that my coffee making skills are unnecessary when you can make coffee by yourself, using your own body and mind." He sighs as he stands up and walks over to the kitchen.  "Come, sit down by the table…I’ll prepare some coffee."  She arrives at the table silently, smiling like an eerie babushka doll.  He detaches himself even more, as he engages with the kitchen. Quickly and silently, the sounds of him preparing coffee can be heard. After a few minutes he returns with an espresso, putting it on the table before sitting in the opposite seat.  "There you go. I didn’t prepare anything fancy, just an espresso. Luxury is for the mentally weak." He leans back, putting his arms on the armrests and crossing one leg over the other beneath the table.  "Umm.. Thank you" Said the woman guest with her self-reserved smile,  either genuine or merely polite. He nods in response, staying silent as he just looks at her. It’s obvious he has something on his mind to say, but he’s probably not sure how to approach it, despite theorizing quite realistically how things are going to end,  unlike her.  He taps his fingers on the armrest a few times, before looking down at the table and leaning forward a bit.  "I…can I ask you something?"  "Sure", she said quietly. He thinks it over for a few more seconds, before speaking quietly himself.  "Why…are you here…? I mean, I am not usually the person people come to to chat and drink coffee. No one really ever visits me to talk since my uncanny transformations… You clearly do not want any quarrel with me, and you’re not trying to threaten or intentionally upset me…so why? Why did you really come here?"  "Well", She tried applying her smiles strategically and under timing. "You remember me as curious. I kind of still am".  He can’t help but grin slightly. As much as he doesn’t want to admit it, but cares even less about his own personal desires. "You’re right – you were always curious. Against your interests, too. Hehehe, you haven’t changed in that regard, have you?"  Lacking tact like many do, she ignored his question and focused on her own. "What... What are you doing in life?" He shrugs, expecting himself to play along with awful sarcasm.  "Studying, writing, philosophizing…" He thinks for a few seconds and sighs again. "…Controlling my emotions, rejecting my already-rejected humanity. You could tell, I presume." He takes a deep breath, remembering an aspect of his former behavior that he was not exactly proud of. An aspect he re-engineered, along with his actual pride. "Are you working as a professor, or something?"  "No, why would I? Being a professor is, like, the most ridiculous thing on my mind. I have no interest in being part of academia or formal academia. I would despise being a professor…I’d despise having to deal with students, honestly, even though they could be better philosophers than some professors. I'm not really a human dealer. Especially not a space warlord organ trader kind of person, you know." He says with a chuckle. Awkward silence, followed by the curiosity of the only being who actually seemed to care about things seriously, for some reason. "Then, what are you actually doing in life, if I can ask? You are alone here." He sighs, leaning his arms on the table and looking at the espresso cup, thinking for a few seconds.  "As I said, I am studying and philosophizing. Writing my thoughts, my research. Matched or unmatched, throughout the universe. I don't care. " He raises his head and looks at her, frowning slightly. It’s apparent that he has another thing to say, but he’s still not sure how to say it without not being awfully sarcastic yet again. "I know you mean that I am not doing anything “useful”, yes?"  "Ah.. ermmm..."  "Come on, do not be afraid to be honest. You think I am completely useless and wasting my life all alone. Just tell me outright, you’ve never been afraid to confront and criticize me before. I am not really a cannibal and not a human organ dealer". She feels relieved despite already knowing this obvious fact. "Well...." Fakely smiling yet again. "You would've been more important if you had friends." He leans backwards in the chair again, smiling bitterly and crossing his arms, laughing like a James Bond villain , despite not having that kind of power. Closing his eyes, he seemed to smile both in genuine happiness and in genuine resentment. "Ah…friends…" He says that word with some sarcasm in his voice.  "You are not the first person who tells me that. I have “friends”, by which I mean, people I can interact with without running away from me like pigeons in a park." He slowly opens his eyes and looks at her, he smiles yet again in a villainous way for no socially-rational reason. "And anyway…I don't like others as much, and I do not act nor care about petty emotions like most humans do..." He sighs without any sarcasm... "You don't understand why I don't care about these functions. I was productive being alone before… and I am productive being alone again… I’ve grown used to it, and within this physical, self-imposed prison, I am most free." She tried to digest his words and decipher them. "It's sad... no?"  He shrugs again, realizing his honesty doesn't quite sink in her mental digestive system. His arms remained crossed and his smile getting even more bitter, for he finds humor a healthier counterpart than outright crying in front of this person. "Maybe. Maybe it is. You do not need to feel sad for me, though. I’ve accepted this isolation. This life. Stop wasting your mental reserves on me. Don't you have anything else to do with these resources within you?" In silence of a question she believed to be rhetoric, he closes his eyes again, his mouth a thin, smiling line, imitating her ineffective Russian doll smile. "I do not deeply nor personally care for the majority of people. I can’t stand most of them. I prefer to keep most at a distance. They may read my craft at a distance, and leave that craft alone, also at a distance". In a soft, socially-constructed tone, the woman asked quietly "Why are you being like this?" "Like what?" He looks at her again with that usual, bitter smile of his. At this time he indeed realizes the common perception: That he is mocking the person in front of him, while in reality, there is a hint of tiredness and a regained frustration in his eyes.  "I’m not like you. I cannot tolerate people I don't really care for. I am dead, they move on. They are dead, I move on . It goes both ways. I cannot bear the presence of those who undermine their own, true moral nature, in their short-term, animalistic-like behavior. I cannot live like you do -- surrounded by the noise and uselessness of others. I don't think this kind of thing is fun. I think such a thing is a waste of an already limited lifespan , served for the thighs of some Neo-Pagan pleasure Goddess". Not socially programmed to respond to such a thing, the self-programmed man smiles in repressed despair towards her.  He sighs again, before looking at the espresso, then back at her.  "That is why I prefer solitude, where my true self is not trapped under the fake embrace of smelly social soaps." Still not knowing what to respond to that, she moved on with her own inquiry... Of course, without any consent, just like with her "pleasant" surprise arrival only she seems to care about in this "social meeting". "Were your emotions towards me...?"   He does not answer for a few seconds, his mouth slightly ajar, with an expression telling her that she is the weird one in his eyes. It’s obvious he’s not entirely sure how to answer this without triggering an escalating snowball, but he speaks, trying to be as honest as possible. "…I never hated you, per say…but you used to irritate me. A lot. My emotions were mixed and you focused only on one of them because it suited the way your brain thinks." He sighs and laughs bitterly. He fakes humor until he improves his health more and more.  "You were always so…energetic, curious, talkative, and yet you have a soft, quiet voice that I experience to be like some industrial lemon tea bag…and I am the opposite of those things. I am fatigued , apathetic and a cyborg of a few words. Yet when I talk I can easily roar like a lion without a care in the world. We are so different and I believe you know that opposites don't exactly attract." "So, why did you love me so intensively, then?" He raises an eyebrow, looking at her in slight disbelief, although he had a slight suspicion the conversation might derail to such realms. People and their emotions. Always had to do with the ego. Not with some bigger reasoning beyond themselves... He quickly composes himself, a frown appearing on his face and a bitter, sarcastic smile on his mouth, as he puts his arms on the table again, and a military march plays in his CD of a brain.  “Love”? I never “loved” you. I was interested in you. Fascinated even. There is a difference. A platonic difference. See?" "Yet you told me you were in love with me. I.. I don't understand. Is it something philosophical?" He rubs his forehead in both humor and frustration, frowning even more as she mentions that, despite accepting the reality of her ignorance, long, long ago.  "Why do you bring up that stupid memory yourself this time? I don't care about it anymore. I was a kid…I said that as an impulsive exaggeration. I didn't even know what being “in love” was really like. Platonic." Hoping she would look up that adjective, yet she of course didn't. Disappointment is eased when it is seen as mundane, as well as pain, agony and trauma. A weird spark emerged from her eyes, and her smile widened to show more of her teeth. Ignoring his input yet again, she asked him: "Are you still single, after all these years? You were always handsome, and still are. Didn't you really find any woman who would love you?" He can’t resist a chuckle. A pleasant one, without any need for a sarcasm cover-up. It felt... good... for a change.  ...Yet wanting her to leave him alone with her naive snooping, he answered: "Of course I am single. I don’t care about finding someone to love me. I do not care about romantic love. I never did…that’s part of what made me abandon the notion of being “in love”, despite never having it. Why, why would I want to aimlessly suffer, and be told that my emotions' expressions are a mistake, and my genuine self, irrelevant? I am an ascetic , not a masochist."  He gives her a sarcastic smile and two eyebrows raised, as the smile becomes yet again antagonistic in social understanding, for no apparent reason. Out of pain, he opened up regardless... "I’ve been with a few women, but none could keep my interest for long. Well, specifically, they couldn't contain me." Without any expression, she actually attended to his recent answer... "I really changed your views on honesty, didn't I? This is why you pretend with me, right now." He rolls his eyes, almost annoyed by how accurately she's analysing his behavior. He crosses his arms again and sighs. And yet, being truly seen by someone typical by herself, feels like a moderate relief. ...Yet becoming antagonistic towards her again, as he reveals his humanity from beyond the self-designed machinery and programming: "You still think exactly like you used to. You always saw through me like an open book. I always hated it. You cared not for any true etiquette. Even my polite laughs raised suspicion in you, not really understanding my completely naive behavior. I was an open book, but you were always a poor reader, seeing more than there actually was. Today, it's just as you are now, now seeing less than the wider picture beyond your fabricated matrix."   Realizing the sentiment, not the logic, she replied with a slight, increased remorse in her voice, which was quite genuine... "I am really, really sorry for hurting you just because you are an honest person deep inside." It’s obvious he doesn’t expect her to apologize. The thought of expecting it today, like he expected it long before, raised hatred within him towards his former self. Yet, he remains as usual, the only difference is a slight shift in his expression, he’s less defensive.  "…You don’t need to apologize to me. You never did. Seems to me I live either way. You know I don’t care about such trivial things. I already said, I’ve grown used to being alone. I don't care about people's empathy or sympathy. I've disciplined myself very much to live without it, whether or not I receive these for several years or several days. I'm an open book, so improve your ability to read." In a teasing expression and using the good she has in her, she said, "Oh, come on. You are not entirely alone."  He smirks at the teasing tone in her voice.  "Oh? Then do tell me, who do I have by my side? Does this place look like a family home or some evil lair?"  Being more teasing, she used the sarcasm of his own brand. "Oh I don't know."  His smirk remains, as he became now more amused, easily seeing her as an unquestioning, prey trying to toy with a veteran woodsman hunter. He raises an eyebrow and crosses his legs in a relaxed way as he leans back in the chair.  "You’re clearly implying something. I don't really care what I feel right now. Stop hiding behind these idiotic theatres. These things work on you. They don't work on me." Raising a very good point, the self-invited guest said: "Well, we are speaking in English after all. It was interesting reading some of your books in your largely-accessible library downtown. In one of the books, someone was mentioned there." He laughs slightly, shaking his head. He should’ve expected her to have read his books, as well as learn to speak an international language, imperative for knowledge and overall success in this world. Yet, he’s not surprised that she figured it out.  "You’re referring to my woman".  Smirking herself for some reason, thinking she's being relatable to him for a change. "Yes."  He remains mostly in an amused mood, not exactly bothered by the topic, but feels these weird villainous feelings he used to relish in the past, yet managed to forsake them... Until this very moment of course.  "Then again, knowing you won’t stop asking questions..." He sighs and shrugs but in a very poor way of acting this time. "What do you want to know about her?"  "I don't know. I am just glad you didn't join the monastery like you wanted to long ago".  That makes him smirk, amused by the reminder of how edgy and rebellious he was in the past. Realizing he really matured, but still being of both traits, he leans forward on the table again. He began using his eyes to look deep within hers, with the same resentment that caused him both grief and joy. "Ah yeah, that stupid dream I had of becoming a monk…What, do you still remember that? Do you have the memory , too?" "Yeah. I honestly thought you were turning religious or something." He waves a dismissive hand and snorts, shaking his head slightly in disbelief at the silliness of his own past, yet recollecting a time she made a very poor counter-argument based on that belief. Either way, it was a future he denied by his own hands. "Oh, don’t worry, I didn’t convert to either Buddhism or Christianity. Although…studying religion is good for worlds outside religion. Part of philosophizing, as you probably know." He shrugs. He’s gotten over that silly dream of being a “full-mode hermit” a long time ago, so it’s a topic that doesn’t bother him as much nowadays.  "And like always. The conversation is always about yourself." She teased him further, but in a very unclever way. ....Which of course makes him slightly annoyed by the exterior, enraged by the interior.  "Oh, and what makes you say that, I wonder? You were the one who started bringing up my past, and also our past and asked me questions like a journalist, didn’t you?" The woman of the past laughs slightly, revealing a bright, yet miniscule, smile, thinking she understands logic well enough. "Whataboutism" , she said as she felt like she sniped a video game enemy right in the head. He sighs heavily through his nostrils, clearly irritated at her pretentious response. Thinking about Socrates being dead for thousands of years, he's rolling his eyes and frowning again.  "It’s not whataboutism. It’s just a fact. You started the conversation, you continued it by asking questions about me. I cooperated. Simple as that. The methodology you chose is not the methodology I chose. I am simply participating in this conversation like I believe you want me to." He glances at the espresso and holds it in the cluelessness of a half-clutch, fatigued machine, up yet another pointless hill he is expected to climb without his consent. "...I guess I’d appreciate it if you also talked about your life a little, you know? I’m not the centre of the universe, nor are you." She is being annoyingly teaseful again. "Really? Your already-distant followers got distant from you even more?" He almost rolls his eyes again. Leave it to her to be so annoyingly teasing…he’s never particularly liked it, but he’s grown more used to it and now he merely gets annoyed. To cope with the misery of confronting her yet again, he plays along quite reluctantly, already planning to strike back while she is busy thinking and formulating replies. "Yes, yes, the great leader of the great and all-powerful Philosophy Library has been abandoned by all his fans… And all he has left is this small apartment and an espresso to his hand. What would be his fate and what would be the fate of the popsicle that has been abandoned by the side of the road, I wonder? Will he meet that popsicle, or will that popsicle meet him? Will they encounter at all, now that all the fans have left, besides this very espresso?" He says that in a mock, sarcastic tone. A slight mocking grin appears on his face. He could've been studying right now. "I've never seen such a sarcastic mechanical man before... Are you really sure you're mechanical?" He can’t help but scoff, almost amused at how cheeky she is being. He takes a man-in-a-Sahara-desert sip of the espresso with a slight smirk.  "And just how many mechanical, dead-inside ex-empaths have you met…? Anyway, yes, I became mechanical in body and mind. I was tested and diagnosed with something they don't have a name to label it with. Maybe it's because I developed myself and they didn't really bother to understand." Smiling and actually being humorous, and supporting without any sarcasm, the guest asks rhetorically: "Yes, you passed that reverse-Turing test with flying colors, right?"  He laughs at the teasing. Despite getting annoyed by her teasing, he strangely finds her cheeky and sarcastic attitude more and more entertaining, something he missed to have back in the people's world. It was an uncanny, nostalgic respite from his brutal study regimen either way.  "Yes, as a matter of fact I got an A on that test…"  "Congratulations!" She exclaimed loudly with an unexpected hint of honesty. He can’t resist a chuckle.  "You’re really in an unusual mood, are you? Thank you... I guess... I worked hard to get that A grade…" His voice is as sarcastic as before, but now it sounded very, very infantile. Changing the subject without complaint, but without realizing her eventual downfall, she asked impulsively: "Your human woman also read the books you wrote, right?" He nods, his expression returning to his usual neutral look very quickly. He’s not bothered by the mentions of her at all. The way his brain operates is not well-known by anyone but mainly himself. "Yes, of course she did. What do you think? That I will reveal the humanity left in me to someone that is incapable of understanding such things?" Returning to the smiling Babushka routine: "Then, she knows about me too, right?" He shrugs again, this time acting willingly, taking another sip of the espresso.  "Well, I didn’t tell her anything specific, but she probably figured out you’re “that” person from my childhood I’ve mentioned a few times in articles, so yes…she basically knows about you. You're lucky that I care for privacy, otherwise.... who knows what would've happened?" Seeing beyond his attempt at digression. "Isn't it so exhausting to lie?" She asked with her Babushka smile diminishing. Breathing very weirdly, and leaning on the table and looking at the espresso again... He’s more amused than annoyed now, using his sarcasm to express cheekiness than bitterness. "I prefer to call it “keeping my personal life to myself… What did I just said about privacy some solitary minutes ago, I wonder? Maybe, if you try to remember..." Designed by society to be apathetic towards people while focusing on what she feels: "You don't really want anything to do with me again, right?" That's when she made the silence, as the Sun outside began to set down the grey, polluted skies. For the first time of the conversation, he sighs deeply, looking genuinely thoughtful and tired, without being able to hide it this time.  "How honest do you want me to be…?"  "I never really meant to hurt you." He rubs his forehead again, closing his eyes for a few seconds. He’s trying to remain collected, as he’s not used to…well, feelings being discussed in such a direct way with a woman who treated them like the way she did.  "I know, I know…you didn’t hurt me on purpose, and that annoys me the most…" "Because I can hurt you yet again?" She asked while raising an eyebrow of her own. He opens his eyes and looks at her, his face somewhat blank, although weary as a British bulldog. It’s obvious he doesn’t really enjoy that he’s showing some vulnerability in front of her, yet again in his lifetime.  "…Yes. For some reason…you can hurt me the most, and then leave the scene without any sign of direct remorse." "So you don't want to answer that question, right?" He sighs again, running a hand through his hair, trying to appear composed and controlled, and use the energy he has left to maintain his unique programming. For him, it is a challenge, and a final showdown. Yet, he’s really not used to feeling this way, nor is he used to expressing those feelings in front of friends and ex-friends yet again.. This is why he always appears detached and unfeeling in front of other people... and especially his former adversary… by unrelenting attempts.  "If you want the honest answer, no…I don’t want to answer that question. I don't gain anything by this. And you can suffer, despite your own attempts at making up apathy". "Why did you let me in?" He gives her a devilishly-cartoonish smirk, his expression regaining most of its usual neutrality. He’s not a fan of you getting into his head again just to gain information that hurts mainly him and mainly serves herself. "That’s a good question…let’s just say, I felt…nostalgic. I enjoy nostalgia, it reminds me of memories I actually want to resurrect. Hence, I had the impulse to see you again after so many years. It's... it's nice to feel more human than machine... you know?" His last sentence was more genuine than most of his rarely-existent social interactions. "I really am a simple person. I didn't know you were going to be affected so easily by me." She said plainly and without any flicker of pretense. It felt refreshing for her host... If he didn't mow down that feeling from his poker bulldog face, it could've consumed him alive. After all, she admitted her ignorance, and it's one of the most humane things in this cyborg's mechanical mind. "Oh, please…you? A “simple” person? That’s the funniest joke I’ve heard today." He sighs as that hint of vulnerability returns once again.. The very vulnerability he didn't want with her. He resumed: "You of all people are not simple."  "Why?"   He looks at her like she made a poor attempt at mischief. "Honestly? You’re the most complicated person I know. And, for some reason, your presence alone has a certain…effect on me…"  "Is it because I approached you myself, something you would never do?" He laughs like a coal-based printer machine, a bitter, ironic smile on his face, as if fuming smoke from his head.  "Well, that’s part of it, for sure. It’s also the fact that she somehow managed to see right through me without even trying... Despite your difficulty at understanding what exactly you're seeing." "You are a philosopher... and yet my own honesty intimidates you?" She asked in disbelief as her impression of the cyborg in front of her began to crumble. She began to see him as more human than machine. For an irrational reason it made her smile inside. He scoffs, rolling his eyes again. "Don’t get ahead of yourself. Your “honesty” doesn’t intimidate me… I am usually the intimidating one for being brutally honest." She looks at him with an even greater curiosity than she has ever done. He resumed fueling his cluelessness. "Why? Why is your honesty appreciated and mine isn't? By society, by this world? I don't understand. You get along so well with people but I don't, yet both of us are very honest. This whole social system is too weird and complex for me... More than philosophy. Yet, I am the social idiot, not you. Your interactions are harmonious and competent. Mine mainly end up tackled with conflicts, resorting to either save themselves from their naivety or devise some tactical maneuvers. I just don't get it. I don't care about "justice" or pity as many people do. I am just trying to find reason in this chaotic universe, not only to help others, but also to keep my own sanity..."   She replied wholeheartedly, "You are an intimidating guy. You're large, solitary, and you rarely smile. I'm just glad you found someone that didn't get away, like I did. Yes. I... Well done, really."   He nods in a mercenary's approval of a corporate order, as a smile on his face at how she's describing his appearance, resonates across his being.  "Yes, intimidation is how I prefer to present myself... Yes, hahaha. it’s very useful to keep most people away…" He gives her quite the cruel smile, trying to reveal a plot twist in her life's story she never really thought about. His expression becoming slightly, but gradually more amused and sarcastic. Provoking his old nemesis even further... "And, if I remember correctly, you’re the one who got away from me." Her eyes widened up and for the first time in his life he heard her being quite loud. He experienced it like a very intensive lemon tea in a cup.  "Wait. You did that on purpose!? You planned for me to get away? It wasn't a mistake?" He laughs slightly as the CD of his brain begins playing a cartoonish villainous theme, leaning forward in the chair and looking at her with his signature slightly grim and mocking smirk, as he runs a hand through his hair.  "Of course I did.... Didn’t you realize?"  "Umm... No." She began feeling more and more uncomfortable by the second... He laughs again, amused at how she never noticed his scheming, his hiding in plain sight!  Being able to be left alone without suspicion is the one thing that makes him feel this weird, weird peace. He didn't ask her anything this time, yet she replied very strongly. "Ahhhh.... No." The cartoon supervillain grows out within him in a very powerful expression, as he laughs, free from the mental constraints many people actively choose to put on themselves quite unnecessarily at times.  "Honestly, you really were too naïve for your own sake, weren’t you? That’s one of the reasons I pushed you away in the first place, actually... Hahahahaha". The understanding finally sinks further and further into her mind, which gives him pleasure. Not a pleasure of malice. Yet, a pleasure of being seen. Seen, while understanding he is strong enough to go about it without any legitimate concern. No more. "You never liked being called after naivety and innocence, right? That name... the name you changed".  That makes him roll his eyes. He can’t help but get slightly annoyed again. That name always gets under his skin… Yet, he finds all of this strangely endearing. "Aww... please, please don’t call me that… The pain of being misunderstood..." Actually, being terribly misunderstood was indeed painful for him, the weirder he turned out to be.  That pain... was one of his biggest fears, actually… Sometimes, it still is. Having the willingness switch finally turned from "On" to "Off" at long last, she said anxiously: "Yes. I needed to get away after all." He gives her a slight, slow, and grinning nod, his expression more thoughtful and yet.. clown-like all the same. He takes another sip of the espresso, as if about to drop her to a shark tank below the table.  "You were too…sensitive, naïve, innocent for me. I needed to push you away. You couldn't understand!" Becoming annoyed herself, she muttered, "And you even drink the espresso you made for me."  Rolling his eyes at her true sensitive self, as he takes another sip from the espresso quite carelessly. A sarcastic comment is about to leave his mouth, yet he changes his mind. Deciding to be honest this time without the use of sarcasm to express his truth. "You’re observant as always… Yet you really think you're simple."  Being both puzzled and shocked, as visible in her ruined babushka facade, she asked: "And you actually regret being like this, right? It's why you left society!" He doesn’t reply immediately to that, instead breathing, as his clown-like exterior is diminished as well like the barricades of a fortress. Instead, a more tired, weary look now on his face instead. Somehow, a degree of humor still remains. "Hohoho, just how I love how perceptive you can be! You're not simple, you act as if you can read my mind or something. …For your excellent question... I do regret the way I am. It’s easier to be a hermit. Less complications… Less fatigue, less air I'm having to lose with each interaction I rarely even enjoy. At one point I thought I was helping others by pretending for them... Until of course I slipped on my own socially-idiotic banana peel, and ruined the whole scene with a single, blind mistake. Ahhhhhh! How I hated this! How I... yes... hated seeing others suffer. Yes.  "So you were pretending.... because you didn't want to be alone, and not because you're evil?"  He gives her a small nod, sighing yet again, being a part machine and all.. A few years ago, he would’ve probably never admitted something like that, but he’s different now. He doesn’t need to pretend to be tough and apathetic anymore. Not to her, since she indeed has the ability to can see right through him anyway. This gave him a sense of competitive rivalry, a sense of gratefulness, and a weird addition of hatred. He’s just too tired to keep up with that facade… The facade of being a simple person that can be understood by many. "I was pretending. Yes. For the reason you mentioned. Yes."   "Because you're a social idiot? You... can be honest with this. It's fine."  He was impulsive as his desire to finally, finally be honest. He leans forward like a leaping leopard, crossing his arms and looking at her with a mildly irritated expression, mixed with a great sense of relief.  "Yes! I am a social idiot, Yes! I have problems with expressing myself and acting like a normal person…Yet the people's world expects me just because they believe I am normal! Idiots! Buffons! I had no choice but to transform to be weirder so they could realize, at long last, that they are really too weak to handle me! Yet they believed, they believed they could, with their delusions of knowledge and the pride of experience they misattributed to this irrelevant case in front of you! And only in hermitage, I am fully free." "Well. An actual coffee for myself would be liberating for me too... You know".  Not seeing any purpose to go on with her, for she finally internalized the contents of the open book in front of her mind... He decided in his mind that she has overstayed her welcome. Therefore, he used his mind to grow dark very quickly and unexpectedly. No longer soft, yet dynamic and ever-changing as a plasticine. All in the matter of less than 2 seconds. With an intimidating bitterness, resembling a russian accent he somehow has, he asked her, as his face was closing to hers: "Are you ordering me around now? In my own apartment?" "Droid", she said while failing to keep a straight face. He gives her a glare for making a reference only he understood without even compelling her to make it, he moved on with his life while the woman was busy looking at him.  "What? He asked, his tone cold. Clearly tired, but like after a hard day's work. "Calm down, please." He glares at her disturbingly for another good few seconds, untouched as she isn't aware he is already relaxed. Once again, he is metaphysically alone and cut off from society. A shadow deep in his face that masks it without having to try. His expression stern, before letting out a deep sigh and dropping his shoulders, his expression softening slightly but still appearing somewhat tired yet satisfied. The leaped leopard backed off slowly and stoically. Knowing she believes he's trying to control himself, he just chooses to play along with the role she gave him to play. "Fine. I’ll get you your stupid coffee…"  The woman sat in silence only she cared about. Underestimating her own impression of, "You're an intimidating guy" despite knowing just that. The massive cyborg gets up from the table and walks over to the countertop. He grabs a mug and, with slight annoyance mixed with a sense of victory, he prepares another coffee for her.  After a few minutes, he’s done. He walks over to the table and places the mug in front of her.  "Here you go." He said. Genuinely polite. Feeling disturbed by his rapid changes he doesn't really seem to care about as deep as her, she suggested...  "Ummmm...... I.. I can go if you want."  He silently stares at her deep down with his big eyes. Smiling inside, without even trying to ask her to stay, this time. He didn't change, as much as he became more and more of himself, and less of what is expected of him. "I will leave." She told him sternly, as she sank in sorrow, not caring about playing the People's World game. She continued.. "You are a good man regardless. I already know this. You can have your coffee to yourself. I am sorry if I disturbed you by coming here. Again, it's never intentional." That makes his stern expression soften a bit more, as he is content with her genuine mental perception. A perception he knew she had all along. Also, he can see her genuine innocence and goodwill in her words.... He already knew this the moment she approached him, long before all of this.  Despite knowing this really well, he returns his stern face very, very quickly. Very, very, genuinely.   "Leave... Now." He growled at her like a guard dog as his long arm pointed towards the door, and his eyes staring her down like she hates it. Like he hated it, in the far past... "You are a very good man, Droid. I can already tell you are. However you are so ruthless... How is this... No. Nevermind. Bye Droid." Her understanding was as fresh as a night's cold wind outside. He stands up and walks to the door, opening it for her and gesturing the guest to leave, acting like a weird gentleman with weird etiquette, as if letting her enter a coffee shop first. "Like I can expect you to competently understand. Yes. You. Of all people. Despite you doing it better than them. Kudos to you, truly. And, don’t come to my apartment like that ever again.. and don't come in general." He sank in his own voiced ramblings...  "Society and its naive recklessness. This lack of foresight.... So frustrating". She leaves with great haste. He closes the door and returns to the table, slowly sitting down. He sits there quietly, feeling more tired, but like after writing yet another book.  He grabs his coffee and takes another, very long sip, leaning back on the chair and massaging his temples...he almost regrets letting her in.  However, it was a good learning experience. So, not much regret was felt that day in himself.  It was felt, far, far more, in her heart. Story Analysis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The story of Droid and his mysterious encounter with a former nemesis, now a curious guest, presents a philosophical exploration of identity, purpose, and the rejection of societal norms. The hermit, Droid, represents an individual who has detached himself from the conventional world, both in terms of emotional engagement and societal expectations. His decision to forgo revenge and his disinterest in academia highlight his rejection of conventional human desires and systems of validation. Droid's ability to sense and scare others by opening the door before they knock reflects his heightened awareness and control over his environment. This power, while intriguing, serves as a metaphor for his detachment from human interaction —he preempts contact , maintaining control over when and how others enter his life. The fact that his former nemesis now appears as a curious guest underscores the theme of transformation, both for Droid and for the woman who once opposed him. The exchange between Droid and the woman reveals a tension between curiosity and detachment. The woman’s persistent questioning about Droid’s life reflects a desire to understand him, to bridge the gap between their past and present. Droid, on the other hand, remains aloof, focused on his philosophical pursuits and his rejection of humanity. His assertion that "luxury is for the mentally weak" emphasizes his disdain for indulgence and superficiality , aligning with his broader rejection of human norms. The philosophical core of the story lies in Droid's relationship with his own identity. He has chosen to reject his humanity, a rejection that is both literal and symbolic. By distancing himself from human emotions, academic institutions , and even social interactions, Droid attempts to transcend the limitations of human existence. His focus on studying, writing, and philosophizing represents a search for meaning beyond the human condition— a quest for a "greater world" as hinted by the woman at the beginning of the story. However, despite his efforts to detach, the story suggests that Droid is still grappling with his place in the world. His hesitation to reveal his true thoughts to the woman indicates that he is not entirely free from the human struggle for purpose and understanding. His frown, a subtle gesture of uncertainty, hints at an internal conflict —perhaps a lingering doubt about the path he has chosen. Ultimately, the story can be seen as an exploration of the tension between self-imposed isolation and the inescapable pull of human connection. Droid's rejection of humanity is not absolute; his interaction with the woman suggests that even in his detached state, he is still engaged in the existential struggle to define his identity and his place in the universe. This tension reflects a broader philosophical question: Can one truly transcend humanity, or is the search for meaning always bound to the human condition?

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Background music) Introduction The ethics of care emerged as a significant philosophical and feminist challenge to traditional moral theories such as utilitarianism and deontology . Pioneered by Carol Gilligan in her ground-breaking work "In a Different Voice" (1982) , the ethics of care emphasizes the importance of relationships and the moral significance of care and empathy. Nel Noddings further developed these ideas, stressing that caring should be a fundamental aspect of ethical thinking.   Unlike traditional theories that prioritize abstract principles and individual autonomy , the ethics of care centers on interdependence and the moral obligations arising from our relationships. This perspective shifts the focus from impartiality and universal principles to the context-specific demands of human relationships and the nurturing of interpersonal bonds.   Feminist Critique of Traditional Moral Theories Feminist philosophers argue that traditional moral theories have historically marginalized or ignored women's perspectives. These theories often emphasize rationality and impartiality, qualities culturally associated with masculinity, while devaluing emotions and personal relationships, typically associated with femininity. This gendered dichotomy has led to a moral framework that inadequately addresses the lived experiences of women.   The ethics of care challenges this by highlighting the moral importance of care, compassion , and emotional engagement. It argues that ethical decision-making should consider the complexities of human relationships and the context in which moral choices are made. By doing so, it seeks to provide a more inclusive and representative moral theory.   Philosophical Foundations of the Ethics of Care The ethics of care is rooted in feminist epistemology and ontology, which emphasize the importance of understanding knowledge and existence through the lens of gender and relationality. Key concepts include empathy, compassion, and contextual moral reasoning, which contrast sharply with the abstract and often rigid principles of traditional moral theories.   Empathy and Compassion Empathy and compassion are central to the ethics of care. Empathy involves understanding and sharing the feelings of others, while compassion extends this to a desire to alleviate suffering. These emotions are crucial for ethical decision-making because they foster a deep understanding of others' needs and vulnerabilities.   Contextual Moral Reasoning The ethics of care emphasizes the importance of context in moral reasoning. Unlike traditional theories that seek universal principles, care ethics argues that moral decisions must be made with an awareness of the specific circumstances and relationships involved . This approach recognizes that moral situations are often complex and nuanced, requiring flexible and responsive ethical thinking.   Relational Ontology Relational ontology underpins the ethics of care by asserting that our identities and moral obligations are shaped by our relationships. This contrasts with the individualistic assumptions of traditional moral theories, which often view individuals as isolated agents. The ethics of care views humans as inherently relational beings, whose moral responsibilities arise from their connections to others.   Application in Real-World Contexts The ethics of care has profound implications for various real-world contexts, including healthcare, social work, education, and politics . By applying care ethics, these fields can foster more compassionate and responsive practices and policies.   Healthcare In healthcare, the ethics of care emphasizes the importance of patient-centered care. It encourages healthcare professionals to build trusting relationships with patients, understand their unique circumstances, and provide compassionate care. This approach contrasts with more bureaucratic and impersonal models of healthcare, which can overlook the individual needs of patients. Social Work Social work is inherently aligned with the principles of the ethics of care. Social workers often engage with vulnerable individuals and communities , and a care ethics framework can guide them in providing empathetic and context-sensitive support. By prioritizing relationships and understanding the specific needs of clients, social workers can offer more effective and humane assistance.   Education In education, the ethics of care advocates for nurturing relationships between teachers and students. This approach emphasizes the importance of understanding students' individual circumstances and fostering a supportive and caring learning environment. By prioritizing relational engagement, educators can better address the diverse needs of their students and promote holistic development.   Politics The ethics of care can also inform political theory and practice. It calls for policies that prioritize the well-being of individuals and communities, particularly the most vulnerable. This perspective challenges the often impersonal and adversarial nature of politics, advocating for a more compassionate and cooperative approach to governance.   Challenges and Criticisms While the ethics of care offers a compelling alternative to traditional moral theories, it has faced several criticisms. Some critics argue that it risks reinforcing gender stereotypes by associating women with care and emotions. Others contend that it may be too limited in addressing broader social justice issues and structural inequalities.   Essentialism One criticism is that the ethics of care may reinforce essentialist notions of gender, suggesting that women are naturally more caring and nurturing. This view risks perpetuating stereotypes and limiting the roles available to women and men. However, proponents of care ethics argue that it does not prescribe fixed gender roles but rather highlights the moral value of care, which can be embraced by all individuals, regardless of gender.   Addressing Social Justice Another criticism is that the ethics of care may be insufficient in addressing systemic injustices and broader social issues. Critics argue that a focus on personal relationships and context-specific care might overlook the need for structural change. However, care ethicists respond by emphasizing the importance of integrating care ethics with other feminist theories and social justice movements. They argue that a caring approach can inform and enhance efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote social change.   Conclusion The ethics of care represents a significant re-evaluation of traditional moral theories through a feminist lens. By emphasizing the importance of relationships, empathy, and contextual moral reasoning, it offers a more inclusive and responsive ethical framework. The ethics of care challenges the abstract principles and individualism of traditional theories, advocating for a moral approach that prioritizes human connections and the complexities of real-life situations.   This perspective has profound implications for various fields, from healthcare and social work to education and politics. While it faces criticisms, the ethics of care provides valuable insights that can enrich our understanding of morality and guide us towards a more compassionate and just society. By integrating care ethics with other feminist theories and social justice efforts, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable moral landscape

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Philosocom's O. C. Isaac's Articles) (Background music) Introduction Having known that there are varieties in human conceptions, culture , beliefs, understanding and many more. I took it up as my responsibility to think for myself and come up with the convictions which would make people understand the need to live in society . The endless task of tolerance as an individual responsibility, calls for serious attention, not just my personal demand, but as necessary for humankind. Oh yes! Thinking is an act which leads to possible solution . I see it as my duty to think for humanity because man is human only in the mix of others just like Aristotle has it that “Man is social animal" , presupposing that man is ontologically fashioned to live with others. Therefore, if I don’t think for the betterment of the society, others do. It’s indeed a call for all. This work is intended to serve as a key towards fostering societal unity, which leads to peace , building in the world of humanity. Unity is indeed a fundamental principle that underlies the strength and success of individuals, communities, and nations. It promotes collaboration, resilience, and a sense of common purpose, making it a crucial element for positive and sustainable development. Unity is of significant importance in various aspects of life, ranging from individual relationships to global communities. I intend to make the whole world understand tolerance and its implication in our society.   The Term “Social Engineering" Sociologically, social engineering refers to intentional efforts to influence and manipulate social structures, behaviors, and institutions to achieve specific goals. This concept is distinct from the more common use of the term in computer security, where it often involves manipulating individuals to divulge confidential information . In the sociological context, social engineering involves intentional interventions or changes in society with the aim of shaping social dynamics. It's important to note that the term "social engineering" in the sociological context does not necessarily imply a negative connotation . The intention behind social engineering efforts can vary, and it may involve positive initiatives aimed at improving societal well-being, promoting justice , and addressing social inequalities. However, like any form of intentional societal intervention, social engineering can also raise ethical questions and concerns about the balance between individual freedoms and collective well-being . The “Why” of Social Engineering At Play Social engineering can be driven by various motivations, such as addressing social issues and inequalities, promoting social justice, improving public welfare, influencing cultural norms and values, stimulating economic development, and much, much more. It is therefore a powerful tool capable of transforming society to greater heights, when applied competently. The motivations behind the concept can vary widely. The ethical implications of such efforts are subject to debate. Some initiatives may be driven by altruistic goals, while others may be viewed as manipulative or infringing on individual freedoms. Balancing the collective good with individual rights is a complex aspect of social engineering that requires careful consideration and ethical reflection . Governments, organizations, advocacy groups, and individuals often engage in social engineering to address countless issues social issues, including but not limited to: Social justice, Public welfare, Challenging harmful traditions, Stimulating economic growth, Promoting sustainable practices.   Why Not Choose a Philosophy of Uniformity? Working in uniformity can stifle creativity and diverse perspectives, hindering innovation. Embracing differences and varied approaches often leads to more robust problem-solving and a richer work environment.                       In a philosophical context, the rejection of uniformity can be tied to existentialist principles , which emphasize individual freedom and the responsibility to create one's own meaning in life. Embracing diversity and individuality aligns with the existential notion that each person is unique, with their own subjective experiences and perspectives.   Moreover, thinkers like Immanuel Kant argue for the importance of autonomy and individual rationality. Working in uniformity might be perceived as a limitation on individual autonomy, as it could imply conformity to external standards rather than relying on one's own reasoning and judgment. From a social perspective, philosophers such as John Stuart Mill advocate for the value of diverse opinions in fostering a healthy marketplace of ideas. Rejecting uniformity allows for the exploration of different viewpoints, contributing to intellectual growth and societal progress. In essence, a philosophical stance against uniformity is grounded in the belief that embracing the richness of individuality and diversity is essential for personal fulfillment, intellectual advancement, and societal flourishing. Absolutely, the appreciation of differences in appearance adds a layer of beauty to the world. Philosophically, this idea resonates with aesthetics—the branch of philosophy that explores concepts of beauty and art . Diversity in appearance, whether in nature or in human expressions, contributes to the aesthetic richness of our surroundings.   In aesthetics, there is often a celebration of variety and uniqueness. Differences in color, form, texture, and expression provide a dynamic and visually appealing tapestry. This diversity can be seen as a source of beauty in its own right, reflecting the intricacies and complexities of existence.   From a philosophical standpoint, one could argue that the very existence of diverse and unique appearances is a testament to the inherent value of individuality and the richness of the human experience. Embracing and celebrating these differences not only enhances the visual aesthetics of the world but also speaks to a deeper appreciation for the diversity of life.   The Philosophy of “Unity Not Uniformity”:   The philosophy of "unity not uniformity" emphasizes the importance of fostering unity and collaboration while respecting and celebrating diversity. This concept can be applied to various aspects of life, including society, culture , organizations, and even individuals. Here are a few key points that capture the essence of this philosophy:   Diversity is Valued   The philosophy acknowledges that diversity, in all its forms—cultural, ethnic, religious, social, or intellectual—is a valuable and enriching aspect of any group or community. Instead of seeking conformity and uniformity, it recognizes the strength that comes from embracing and respecting differences. Valuing diversity is a principle that underscores the significance of recognizing, appreciating, and leveraging differences among individuals and groups. This philosophy emphasizes that diversity is not only a fact of human existence but a valuable asset that contributes to the richness and strength of communities, organizations, and societies. However, valuing diversity is a holistic approach that spreads in various aspects of society, from interpersonal relationships to organizational structures . It is about recognizing the inherent worth of every individual and leveraging the strength that arises from embracing and celebrating our differences.   Inclusion and Collaboration   Unity is sought through inclusion and collaboration rather than through enforcing homogeneity. People are encouraged to work together despite their differences, finding common ground and shared goals. "Inclusion and collaboration" are key principles that promote a sense of belonging and cooperation among individuals, emphasizing the importance of creating environments where everyone feels valued and has the opportunity to contribute . In summary, inclusion and collaboration are intertwined principles that promote a sense of unity and cooperation while respecting and valuing diversity. They contribute to the creation of vibrant, dynamic, and supportive communities, organizations, and teams.   It promotes an environment where individuals feel accepted and valued for who they are, contributing their unique perspectives and talents to the collective effort. Respect for Individuality   Each individual is recognized as a unique entity with their own experiences, perspectives, and strengths. The philosophy encourages an appreciation for the individuality of each person. Rather than expecting everyone to conform to a singular way of thinking or being, the emphasis is on allowing individuals to express themselves authentically. Adaptability and Flexibility   The philosophy recognizes that societies and communities are dynamic and ever-changing. Embracing unity without uniformity allows for adaptation to new ideas, perspectives, and challenges. It encourages flexibility in approaches and solutions, acknowledging that a diverse range of perspectives can lead to more creative and effective problem-solving. "Adaptability and flexibility" are crucial qualities that individuals, organizations, and systems need to navigate and thrive in a rapidly changing and dynamic environment. In summary, adaptability and flexibility are essential attributes for success in today's dynamic world. They enable individuals and organizations to thrive in the face of uncertainty, embrace change, and seize opportunities for growth and improvement.                 Shared Values and Goals   While celebrating diversity, the philosophy also acknowledges the importance of shared values and common goals. These commonalities serve as a foundation for unity, even in the presence of diverse backgrounds and perspectives.  The concept of "shared values and goals" emphasizes the importance of having common principles and objectives among individuals, groups, or communities. This shared foundation serves as a unifying force, promoting collaboration and cohesion. In summary, shared values and goals are foundational elements that promote unity, collaboration, and a sense of purpose among individuals or groups . They provide a framework for collective action and contribute to the overall success and sustainability of organizations, communities, and societies. Social Harmony   By fostering unity through diversity, the philosophy aims to create a more harmonious and inclusive society. It recognizes that the richness of a community lies in the mosaic of its varied elements. This philosophy is often embraced in various contexts, from multicultural societies and educational institutions to corporate environments and international relations. It promotes the idea that unity can be a powerful force when it arises from an appreciation of diversity, rather than an imposition of uniformity. "Social harmony" refers to a state of peaceful coexistence, cooperation, and mutual understanding among individuals and groups within a society. Achieving social harmony involves fostering positive relationships, addressing conflicts, and promoting a sense of unity. In summary, social harmony is a holistic concept that encompasses various dimensions of societal well-being. It involves fostering a sense of community, addressing conflicts constructively, promoting equal opportunities, and celebrating diversity— all with the aim of creating a society where individuals can coexist peacefully and thrive together.   The Findings On the “Philosophy of Unity Not Uniformity” The philosophy of unity or uniformity often arises from the human desire for order, predictability, and a shared sense of purpose . I suggest that when individuals or groups align in their beliefs, values, and behaviors, it can lead to a more stable and cohesive society or organization. The idea is that a common framework helps in achieving collective goals, resolving conflicts, and fostering a sense of belonging.   I argue that it provides a foundation for efficiency and effectiveness. In organizations, for example, a shared set of values and standardized processes can lead to streamlined operations and better coordination . In societies, a shared cultural identity or set of norms is believed to contribute to social harmony.   Philosophically, this perspective might draw on ideas such as the social contract theory , where individuals voluntarily agree to certain rules and norms for the greater good of society. Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes have argued that a strong, unified authority is necessary to prevent chaos and ensure social order.   However, a strict adherence to unity or uniformity can have drawbacks . It may limit individual freedom and autonomy, potentially suppressing creativity and diversity of thought. From a philosophical standpoint, thinkers like John Stuart Mill have emphasized the importance of individual liberty and the marketplace of ideas, suggesting that diverse perspectives lead to intellectual and societal progress.   Moreover, the push for uniformity can neglect the inherent beauty and richness that arises from diversity . In aesthetics, the appreciation for varied forms, colors, and expressions contributes to a more vibrant and dynamic experience. Philosophically, this resonates with existentialist ideas that celebrate individual uniqueness and freedom. On Socio-Political Development The philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" is a key concept in socio-political development, promoting a more inclusive, tolerant, and resilient society. It acknowledges and celebrates the diversity within a society, promoting social cohesion by respecting different cultural, religious, and ideological backgrounds. This inclusivity fosters harmonious coexistence among diverse groups.   The philosophy of unity values cultural pluralism , allowing individuals to maintain and express their unique cultural identities, enriching the social fabric and fostering a sense of pride and belonging among different communities. It supports religious freedom and tolerance, encouraging individuals' rights to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or persecution.   In politics, the philosophy of unity advocates for political pluralism , recognizing that diverse perspectives and ideologies can coexist within a democratic framework. This encourages a multiparty system and the free expression of political opinions, fostering a more robust and dynamic political landscape.   Conflict resolution in societies marked by diversity is facilitated by the philosophy of unity, emphasizing commonalities and shared values. This encourages dialogue and negotiation, mitigating tensions and building bridges between different communities.   Human rights and equality are also promoted by the philosophy of unity, ensuring all individuals are treated with dignity and respect. Innovation and creativity flourish in societies that embrace diversity, benefiting from a wealth of perspectives, ideas, and talents.   Adaptability to change is supported by the philosophy of unity, recognizing that solutions to complex challenges may come from various sources. In an interconnected world, global cooperation is essential , and the philosophy of unity promotes understanding that shared challenges require collaborative solutions.   In summary, the philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" is crucial for socio-political development, fostering inclusivity, respect for diversity, and a more resilient and adaptable society. The Psychological Perspective The philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" is a significant concept in psychology, influencing individual well-being, interpersonal relationships, and societal mental health . It allows individuals to navigate their personal beliefs and identities without the pressure to conform to rigid norms, leading to a sense of authenticity and psychological well-being.   Uniformity expectations can contribute to social anxiety by fostering an environment that values diversity and allows for individual differences. Encouraging unity encourages authentic self-expression, which is crucial for psychological development. Building inclusive communities fosters a sense of belonging and connection, leading to positive psychological outcomes.   Understanding and appreciating diverse perspectives contribute to cultural competence and empathy, which are developed through the philosophy of unity. This approach reduces prejudice and bias , promoting a deeper understanding of others. Conflict resolution skills are also improved by recognizing and respecting differences, allowing individuals to approach conflicts with an open mind and seek understanding and compromise.   Emotional intelligence is promoted through the philosophy of unity, which involves recognizing, understanding, and managing one's own emotions while being attuned to others' emotions. This philosophy supports the development of empathy, effective communication , and interpersonal skills.   Coping with change is crucial for psychological resilience, and the philosophy of unity supports individuals in adapting to changing circumstances by fostering an open and flexible mindset. Interpersonal relationships are enhanced by mutual respect and acceptance, leading to more fulfilling and supportive relationships.   Resilience in the face of diversity is also fostered by the philosophy of unity, encouraging individuals to see diversity as a source of strength rather than a threat. Overall, the philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" is vital in creating psychologically healthy and thriving individuals and communities.   On Religious Perspective The philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" in religion, emphasizes the shared essence or commonality that unites diverse beliefs and practices within different religious traditions. This perspective promotes respect for diversity, allowing individuals to hold different beliefs and engage in different practices without facing discrimination or judgment . It aligns with the principles of freedom of religion and belief , allowing people to practice their faith meaningfully without being pressured to conform to a single, standardized set of beliefs or rituals.   Religions often evolve and adapt to different cultural and historical contexts, allowing for a richer understanding of spirituality. Emphasizing unity allows individuals to appreciate and emphasize shared ethical principles and values, fostering a sense of common humanity. Promoting interfaith dialogue encourages open and respectful conversations, leading to greater mutual understanding and cooperation. However, I recognize that the spiritual journey is a personal one, and people should have the freedom to explore and interpret their faith in a manner that resonates with their own experiences and understanding. It also allows for adaptation without compromising the core principles of a faith, acknowledging that the understanding of religious truths may deepen and expand, allowing for growth and development within the religious traditions. The philosophy of "unity, not uniformity" promotes a more inclusive, respectful, and understanding approach to religious diversity, encouraging individuals to celebrate the richness of different religious expressions while finding common ground in shared values and principles.   In a careful analysis, the concept of "unity, not uniformity" challenges fixed and dogmatic perspectives, inviting individuals to engage with their faith in a way that embraces diversity, fosters dialogue, and seeks a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the spiritual dimensions of human existence. This approach aligns with various philosophical traditions, including pluralism, existentialism, postmodernism, and mystical and contemplative thought. In summary, while the philosophy of unity provides a framework for order and shared purpose, it needs to be balanced with an appreciation for diversity and individuality. A thoughtful approach recognizes that both unity and diversity have their places in creating a harmonious and thriving society or organization. This nuanced perspective acknowledges the benefits of commonality while avoiding the potential pitfalls of excessive uniformity.   Summary and Conclusion: This study is a vital reawakening to the dangers of a reckless pursuit of fundamentalism , extremism, and fanaticism because the ideology embedded therein can ruin and destroy both the perpetrators and the oppressed.   The United Nations has proven to be a symbol of universal peace and love through her insistent call for religious freedom, tolerance, and understanding. The experiences of the two major wars in the 20th Century 1st and 2nd World Wars remain a clear call for a resolute effort, individually and collectively, to promote peace and harmony. It is obvious that there are attempts by the 198 member-nations of the United Nation (UN) to promote global peace though selfish interests continuously impair the original Charter of the San francisco peace agreement to work together for world peace. There is still a great hunger for power and supremacy. Over one another. There is every sign that no state of the world wants less power - a red indicator for anarchy. The current global situation can be translated into greed of all sorts political, economic, cultural, social, and religious.   The world has become an undeniable global village, which demands a lot of understanding, mutual communication and cooperation from people of different cultures, religions, and socio-political backgrounds. For global peace and harmony to be the "wonton craze" for power at all levels - nationally and internationally - must be put under check. Exclusivism of any sort should be strongly discouraged to avoid unnecessary divisions, misunderstanding, and dehumanization of fellow human beings. In other words, global diversity, which is the beauty of nature and creation should be harnessed and promoted. Respect for diversity of religion and belief should be vigorously pursued because religion can fuel conflict if not properly checked.   This means that the positive attitude of inclusion and integration of others constitutes the bedrock of global brotherhood as exemplified by the title of this work “The Philosophy of peace not Uniformity”. This is an invocation of democracy at all levels of human interaction: politically, economically, culturally, spiritually, religiously, and socially. “The Philosophy of peace not Uniformity” insists that all men and women are fundamentally equal and should be treated as such.   Respect for the human right of everyone should be vigorously promoted so that the UN Human Rights Charter can be realized.   Serious effort must be made by people of various social denominations to oppose violence and the demonization of the other. In other words, it is demanding to emphasize the need for religions and their adherents to provide congenial working environments to achieve economic, political, and social development.   In a diverse and multi-religious society of ours, it is necessary for all the citizens to see common citizenship as a route or path to normalizing life and build a healthy nation where discrimination would be drastically minimized.     Reference: Please note that most of this work may not be available online. 1.Nwafor KA(2012). Understanding the Dynamics of History and Development. 2.MOVicent O(1999) religion in Dialogue. 3.Religious Conflict and Dialogue in Nigeria 4. OC Isaac (2021) A guide towards emotional intelligent to mention but a few.

(Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background music) Self-Discovery Through Deconstruction The path to self-discovery can be a paradoxical one, paved with the dismantling of the very self we once clung to. It is about a shedding of illusions . As we mature and embrace a more grounded perspective, the realization often dawns: Our individual importance, both in the grand scheme and sometimes in our own lives, may not be as central as we once believed. My own journey has been one of exiting a "shelter" of comfortable ignorance. I've come to understand that my own singular existence may not be as practically significant as I once thought. My writings, massive in amounts, weren't driven by a grandiose sense of self. Me seeing myself as a "genius" isn't necessarily condescending; it's just seen so from an inter-subjective perspective ("objective") . However, genius is given by proof of concept, and as such, genius, in reality, is lonely, is unconventional, is creative, is "Mad" ; It flies over people's heads, who often go unquestioning their own propositions, and just agree with them with no critical thinking whatsoever. "Genius" is a burden, "genius" is a statement of a reality that exist beyond conventional understanding. Genius is misjudged, rejected, and left alone. That is the true reality of genius, and its proof of concepts are creations that may appear outside the conventional world. In reality, as philosopher, I attempt to utilize philosophy as a tool to dismantle my own naivety about this world from a rationalist perspective , and from the safety of my solitude while contributing to the world for free. Turning inward , the self-became my most accessible point of reference. I used my experiences as case studies , offering logical arguments and personal testimonies. This isn't about ego, but about a functional approach to understanding the world. I don't seek your validation, I seek to contribute under my own terms, using my experiences as sources of insight. Catering feels depressing, so I don't cater, I instead write whatever for whoever to read. Walking the way of the good person , I have largely forsaken humanity in pursuit of endless mastery, feeling that Philosocom and the nectar of love will be the only things that shall liberate me from my endless lack of satisfaction. Physical solitude amplifies this introspection, because in solitude, impressions, and the daring to try seeing beyond them , is all what I have. Ignorance restricts me for I am aware we are all ignorant to an extent. As a truth-seeker, I see no value in clinging to naivety. And since I always felt it wasn't exhausting doing things under my own terms, I turned unconventional in my philosophical research, daring to use myself as the tool of research, instead of books. I dared using philosophy as a way of life , and not an academic job. Throughout my life, naivety has undoubtedly limited my perspective. I used to think, for example, that there is no such thing as true evil in humanity, only to be proven wrong using research . This journey of self-discovery is a continuous process of peeling back layers, confronting limitations, and ultimately, building a more authentic, truthful self. One that does not deny reality. And in reality, I know that it is hard to approach me. It is hard to understand me. Genius is solitary, genius is impactful in a way that is only understood specifically. After all, understanding is a capacity not everyone has. Deconstruction is about the shedding of the cocoon of innocence, even if it means descending into the harshest truths of reality, and enduring it. Deconstructing Innocence and Embracing Growth My journey began when I saved my late grandmother at the age of 10. My innocence was shattered as I saw her moment of distress. Ever since then I tried using philosophy to help her reduce her suffering. Is naivete truly something to be lauded? Where's the intellectual rigor in being told something like "you think too much, that's why your head is hot"? Such logic is nonsensical. In reality our brains are hotter in such a way it would be considered a fever in the rest of the body . Awe is a valuable experience, but it's just starting point a foundation, and not a substitute for critical thought. Equating thinking with generating enough heat to justify a fan in winter borders on self-deception. True exploration of reality necessitates more than just such a simple impression; it demands rigorous questioning and a willingness to challenge assumptions. It requires us to dare venture beyond what we deem to be true, in a way that is extensive and doubtful. As such, you might find that using a certain type of headphones would increase your brain heat. That's because they trap heat and moisture. You might then realize that it is the headphones that makes your head hot, and not your extensive thought, during winter. The key to overcome innocence is to doubt what it presents to you. This in turn would allow you to seek knowledge and make you smarter, and thus, become more than innocent/naive. Philosophy thus becomes a natural tool; a tool that is used naturally to go throughout life. And the true meaning of philosophy is to research the truth. To be curious, like a child, but as an adult. To question, like a child, but as an adult. To retain the "inner child" of ours until the very end, never completely growing up from the things that make us want to understand the world around us. For it is the ability to understand the truth, that remains the baseline as to all navigation of reality. And now, to develop the habit of looking both ways... Childhood has its charm, but it's not an idealized utopia. Independence is limited, vulnerability to external forces is high, and the constant barrage of noise within educational systems can be overwhelming. Some may romanticize childhood, longing for a return to its perceived simplicity due to reasons related to the nostalgia bias . However, this perspective ignores the limitations of youth. Therefore, in the name of understanding the truth, we must learn to grow beyond our current versions of ourselves. For the self in which we are imprisoned in is not only our identity but also our source of knowledge about the world. And when a tool for knowledge is too incompetent, it deserves to be reconstructed, and have its current limits breached. As a philosopher I seek not the ego, but I seek to explore ideas, criticize them, using my own current understanding as a baseline and then, expanding upon it in the form of article writing. The Enduring Power of Ideas I write, but outside of my work, I'm just a hermit with very few connections. This is why I believe my writing holds greater significance than myself. These are my findings to the world, that are a result of my willingness to be proven wrong and to doubt my current beliefs. With these writings, I seek to venture beyond the self, to the words which you read and appear on your screen. To venture further from the self, I often detach myself from my philosophy. For I believe the ideas themselves should take priority over the author. The author is merely the medium, and the writing becomes the prime directive. Ideally, the message resonates regardless of the messenger. Here's the problematic situation: Understanding the writer can illuminate the writing, and vice versa. It's a symbiotic relationship. Without proper explanation, like saying that I don't really use subtext, my intentions risk being misinterpreted. And, misinterpretation in a world that does not question its own beliefs, is an inevitable possibility. The Gap of Understanding Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people -- Elenor Roosevelt Why, then, bother to cater to a world that does not understand? Geniuses are rare and few. Better off to be alone than in bad company, which may antagonize you for being you. I am not a villain, but a hero. And being largely alone is how I don't live long enough to become the villain. For this world is not a friendly place to live in. The world, therefore, deserves to be forsaken, and be rectified from a distance. While I don't crave your approval or affection, a writer's ultimate desire is to be understood. Being understood is how I fulfill the function of contribution. I enjoy contributing, for I am a selfless man, giving away my ideas for free. My goal isn't to convince you of my brilliance, but to ensure my ideas reach you as intended, under my own terms. The power of a writer lies in the enduring impact of their creations. Let the words speak for themselves, even if the voice behind them remains relatively unknown. I seek to live as a shadow in this world, never becoming fully a part of it. This world isn't meant for genius kind. It is meant for the average kind. And since disability is subjective, genius turns a liability, a disability. Genius is great, but this world isn't meant for greatness or rare. It is meant for the conventional, for the common. Either way it's also how one can escape from being imprisoned within the self -- by being properly understood by the world. With properly means: As the writer intended. And my intentions are always good! Conclusion The label "philosopher" shouldn't automatically equate to an inflated sense of self-importance. Ideas, not titles, are the true assets of this pursuit, to be gained and exchanged. Ultimately, this introspective journey isn't about self-glorification, but about fostering understanding, something only few would dare truly doing. By examining the self, I can refine the lens through which I view the world and share those insights with you. By doubting and deconstructing the self, I can venture from beyond current limitations and thus expand it to broader horizons. Utilizing that self and its skills is how one can contribute to society and to ourselves. Let us move beyond the mere promotion of personality. After all, the power, the knowledge which you seek, lies in the ideas themselves, not the vessel that carries them. The vessels merely devises, which stores them, and then expresses them. Understanding falls, and is the responsibility, of the other side -- you. So, read my words, engage with them, and with this union of communication, we can explore the depths of human experience further than otherwise. Using the self to unlock a deeper understanding of the world we inhabit, we can do so like children, in a way that can re-spark back our sense of curiosity and wonder we once had as children, but as adults.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) (September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article ). (Maturity Directory) Tomasio Rubinshtein -- An Autobiography The following is a document that tells my story of my life . From an undiagnosed Asperger's and social outcast to a diagnosed Asperger's who also became handicapped and frankly, didn't achieve much in life, beyond much, much writing. I will summarize my life from the perspective of someone who, like Socrates , admits his own ignorance of the world and of himself but wishes to extend his knowledge by engaging in the art of writing philosophy articles. Let's begin... I was born on December 7th, 1997. I recall strong lights and intense, unclear noises that made me very anxious and stressed. The sensory exposure was overwhelming, and might've even been a bit traumatic for me. I do not remember much of my first years. They seem to be very uneventful, but even then, it was suspected that I might be on the spectrum . However, I was only diagnosed as a teenager. That's because I only learned how to speak fluently at the age of 4. I am glad most of my life is behind me, as my early life was THAT hard. For some reason, I clearly remember my first spoken word: bu-ha, or bubble, in English. I played with pigeons at a park, and with my movements, this word came. I don't know why it was that word specifically, nor if it actually means anything on any level. Life became hell on Earth from 2004 to 2017 , because that was the period where I experienced mandatory education, along with many other things. Compulsory education made me a depressed kid , even though there were other fun things to be had. Imagine that girl's scream from when I was two; now multiply it by 13 years, each day in school. I knew I was very sensitive to sound already, but people either did not know or did not care. I was the gang leader for two other kids in elementary school. We just hung out at recess. I was too naive to realize I had charisma for some reason. In the short span of 6 years, I taught myself fluent English using video games and the internet. In that period, I also formed a militia, called the Storm Alpha Squad, in a multiplayer video game, built amateur websites on a local platform aimed at kids, and served as an officer in an international trolling community against the singer known as Justin Bieber. I doubt that he even knows me. It might be funny, even for me, but it was during these years that I was in positions of authority. I don't know why these positions came to me so naturally. I also accepted them naturally. They were all dissolved anyway. I believe I was inexperienced and incompetent, but they were all positive experiences that may have helped me become the site manager that I am today, with this site and other minor ventures over the years. I did learn from these years to cease trolling online. At the age of 10 I saved my late grandmother from her own hands. This has forever changed my life, as it inclined me to use philosophy as a way to handle reality. From 2003 to 2011 I studied under my grandmother. She taught me art and perception. I have suffered from heroic amnesia from 2007 to 2024. I am a real-life hero. I have also saved some of those who wrote for my site, helping them believe in themselves using the power of philosophy. Despite my "positions" of "authority" as a child , I was a very solitary kid, as I am today, in a sense. I never had a lot of friends , and I was never truly popular, and I spent most of my free time playing video games. In these years, I experienced my first existential crisis when listening to a specific, dystopian tune from an old game. That tune made me question the value of my life, but not only of mine but also of humanity, and Earth's. I enjoyed reading about astronomy at the time. Learning elementary information about the universe made me realize how tiny we humans are, living on a planet that is tiny as well, compared to the vast emptiness and the astronomic bodies beyond our atmosphere. I do recall having faith in the Jewish God, but religion was never really a feature of my secular life. There's a reason why I don't talk about religion this often to this day, even though it has great philosophical potential. Nonetheless, universal design or not, the infinity of the universe was astounding to me. It made me question the worth of my life on Earth and of Earth in general if the sun's lifespan will expire anyway and everything that we have known thus far in this plane of existence will disappear with the explosion of the sun or with another deadly event, such as a massive meteor strike. I did not know it then, for I was too young and inexperienced, but that was nihilism. I was a nihilist both in belief and in feeling. I used to believe that existence was worthless and that there was not much reason to endure. I did not have a word for it back then, but it was the pain of nihilism, the rejection of purposefulness, that eventually made me the existentialist philosopher that I am today. A person who attempts to assign meaning. I pondered if there was more to life than this. More meaning than the schools I was forced to attend; more meaning than the teachers who constantly yelled in my ear. In a sense, life was truly horrible, despite having all I needed to survive, such as food and a ceiling over my head . I truly pondered the idea of an afterlife . I tried imagining how it feels when a person has this transition from life to death . To this day, it seems absurd to me that life can end so abruptly, but the conversion of life to death is an enigma in comparison. I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome at the age of 13. It was also the first time I truly fell in love with a girl who enjoyed my company for some reason, only to abandon me two years later. My love for her was as intense as it was irrational. Due to my intense excitement, speaking to her made it difficult for my fingers to move even one time. We went for a stroll in September 2012, and it was one of my happiest days in existence. It was the last time I saw her physically. My heartbreak from her, along with another heartbreak that followed a year later, made me prefer to resume living in a solitary fashion. I lived as a monk for 9 years as a result. Even then, it hadn't to do with religion. Rather, it had to do with despair from love. I experienced most of my life as one who lives alone. Even though I lived with my mother for many years, I still felt alone. I was busy making sure she is safe. In 2019, still a monk, I founded the Philosocom Article Empire , as a way to store my writings for people to enjoy for free . Later on, I included the writings of many other contemporary philosophers . In the years 2013-2014 I started writing articles. In short, I have many years experience in writing articles. I also written books and most of them I decided not to publish. I did transfer some of the books' articles into the site. The original purpose of the site was to combat the shallowness of this world. Later on, the site has begun to be a platform for world rectification -- a philosophical concept about improving the world. Already in my 20's I have written an insane number of articles. While I deleted some of them, the rest are here for you to enjoy for free, no hidden costs. I broke my monastic vow for a mystery woman known as Sasha Mos in 2023. Outside my love life, I resume living because I have genuine desire to contribute to humanity and rectify the world . Thanks for reading.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) Philosophical Creativity (Reaction Article By Alex Mos) (This article was written in reply to: Does Originality Exist in Modern Times? Why It Does, Why It Should Exist, And How To Be More Original ) (Alex Mos's Content) (Background music) The Cambridge Dictionary defines originality as the quality of being unique and not the same as anything or anyone else. I n the Western, capitalistic world, originality is highly valued so long as it does not become too eccentric and deemed unfit or crazy in societal judgment. An original theory can be a ground-breaking truth or a piece of delusional fiction. How can we balance between visionary thoughts and fantasy? Should philosophers strive for originality, or should they follow the path of finding evidence-based truth? Unfortunately and unsettling, in human terms, there is no universal truth we can trust and rely on. There is only a subjective, widely accepted concept of reality we call truth, influenced by different cultures, religions, historical eras, and scientific advancements. Descrates's "Cogito ergo sum," or "I think therefore I am," perfectly describes the only truth we can be sure of, which is our conscious existence. Objectively, we can't be sure of anything else, as what we perceive as reality could be a dream or a virtual simulation. I believe that consciousness is not only what makes us "real" but also connects to the physical world and the universe as we experience it. Other terrestrial and extraterrestrial beings might process waves of cosmic consciousness differently and, therefore, exist in different dimensions and perceive the universe entirely differently. The widely accepted truth has drastically transformed over the ages: Olympian deities became folklore, and the Abrahamic Jehova is believed to be the only true God by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In 1543, Copernicus's theory of the heliocentric solar system changed the view of the universe, and the theory of quantum physics has revolutionized science since the 20th century. All human progress began with originality, but only a few inventive ideas presented at the right historical moment and time were accepted. They've lead to scientific, political, and social advancement. The original viewpoints based on logical and philosophical concepts can become visionary when they confirm observations, explain certain phenomena, or can be experimentally proven. The string theory is an example of an original idea implying the existence of a multiverse but has yet to be experimentally proved or disproved. The heated debates between theoretical physicists are fascinating and fuel the imagination of other scientists and sci-fi fans. However, such open-mindedness is not typical in the academic world, and many unorthodox theories were and are met with skepticism, rejection, and ridicule. Thinking outside the box and publicly expressing those thoughts can be risky and discouraged by leaders, supervisors, and professors, as it challenges the established belief system and ego-driven order. Sadly, in Western culture, only a few scholars and teachers would be genuinely proud of the students who surpassed or disproved their work. Western capitalistic culture thrives on competition and rewards creativity within socially accepted limits, making originality desired for careers and validation. Despite that, philosophy must remain logical and truthful. "I'm hostile to the pursuit of originality in legal philosophy—and also in most other areas of philosophy. By this I mean that one should not set out to say something new; one should set out to say something true." These are the words of Professor Leslie Green , and I agree with him. Original, ground-breaking discoveries and theories are impressive achievements of extraordinary human minds. The uniqueness of the results is a "collateral gem," a result of the search for the truth and not the primary ambition as it might be the case for an artist, a writer, or a creator of a computer game. Let's accept it if the contemplations of reality and truth bring us to less exciting but honest conventional conclusions. We might stumble upon the most original idea that could change our perception of reality forever tomorrow. The more we train ourselves in logical thinking and are sincere, the more we become authentically unique humans able to solve problems truthfully and creatively.

(Background music) Rebellion for Sanity A long time ago, I made the unfortunate decision to remain unemployed for the time being. I am tired of the External World's disapproval of my inborn eccentric behavior, and I am tired of the stress and anxiety these disapprovals force me to experience, at the price of my wellbeing. This is why I despise the authority of norms and conformity. It believes it knows what is good for me, but it really doesn't. Whenever I choose the path that I know is good for me, it condemns me and sometimes even tries to make me feel guilty for going my own way, for knowing myself what is best for me, regardless of the controversy that may follow. I don't need that much of an income anyways given that I practice asceticism . People may say that working and socializing with the External World might make me feel better. The truth is that so far, socializing and working, even if it made me smile and laugh for time to time, had ultimately a bad impact on my wellbeing. I do not wish to deteriorate it any further, as I need to stay sane for my work -- my life's work -- to be efficient. Serenity At a Price Given my strong desire to preserve my wellbeing, while wanting to live a peaceful and stress-free life. I feel that it is my duty to do whatever it takes to protect myself, from the toxicity and from the triggered behaviors of the External World. It will move on with its life even if I die. For not caring whether or not I am to die, despite my altruistic nature , much of it is my enemy by default. I don't believe that the External World can bring me the stress-free life that I so desire, as evident in my previous encounters with it during my lifetime. However, this thinking may be flawed by a fallacy I call the Victory fallacy . However, I may be wrong on that self-criticism. Therefore, even if a lot may disagree with me, I conclude that it's beneficial for me to seclude myself even further, in order to live the way I want to live. In peace, in serenity, and in no fear of aggression from those who fail to understand my condition. I may regress from this decision due to peace being a liability in part. It seems that regardless of what I try to invest in, eventually I come into the conclusion that I'd earn more if I didn't do anything in the first place, financially, educationally, or something else (like working orthodoxically). People often say it is better to do something than to be a "Klumnik". A klumnik's someone who doesn't do anything. Someone with little to no achievements in their lives. But come to think of it, if I were more of a klumnik, my life would've been happier. That's because the voluntarily good-for-nothings are carefree. And being carefree can relieve you of much stress, anxiety and even depression. My heart would have been less broken, my bank account thicker, and my mind less filled with anxiety. If I were religious, I would say that I have been receiving many signs from a cosmic entity that my life would be better if I were even more of a hermit and just learned to live sufficiently with what I have. But I refuse to. I choose to have obligations, and thus suffer, because I care. I view this as granted. All of this is to provide one important, yet underrated, insight: Sometimes it is preferable to do little with little loss, than to do much with heavy losses. One should not always aspire to rise up after all the falls. One should question if it is worth it to hit one's head so many times, just for ambitions they do not need. It is just not worth it, all the collapses to the earth. Escapism, to an extent, can be logically justified. Not worth it unless you choose to care. To feel guilty for caring mainly for yourself, and no one else. Playing the Klumnik's Devil's Advocate While I am not a klumnik, I do find some wisdom in having the freedom from costly investments. It's where success is either too hard, too excessive in demand, or both. Many of us are afraid of being klumniks, hence why we try to reach for whatever will give us the respect of others, since no one respects klumniks. It's also because it's hard loving ourselves whether loved by others or not. In a world where there is too much of everything—and everyone—a hard truth is that there are too many people in the world in comparison to what is needed to be done, as many companies begin prioritizing top talent over helping the need with jobs. Had job providers had been more compassionate, people won't need to have several jobs just to make end's meet . Likewise, there wouldn't be as much competition for many job positions , and many would be unemployed for years in a variety of industries. Why contribute to such a remorseless world if some of us can afford being carefree klumniks? Should we accept that there is a great imbalance, between the amount of population, and the lack of general workforce-demand from talent-prioritizing companies, klumniks would have a better opportunity to accept their condition . Altruist klumniks try investing in certain concepts, like, yes, philosophy, just to escape from their klumnikness. And so many companies see lack of talent a problem . As such, they see many of the workforce, unworthy of their time. In 2020, 44% of the global population worked in low-skill positions. However, where there is a will, there is a way. All it takes is to care enough to not regard people like pixels on a computer game. Alex Mos's Review The article is interesting, and it’s precisely what I was thinking earlier. The future of humanity will be even more jobless and lonely than it is now and many people will become klumniks without goals and define the purpose for their existence. I see Philosocom as a place where this new reality could be acknowledged and give guidance and hope.

(Background music) (Chapter 1) “I’m not in Heaven or Hell. I lived as a mortal, and this is the story of my moral awakening in the digital afterlife. I’m Tarra Moser, a digitalized conscious being of human origin. My neural brain’s copy is in symbiotic entanglement with the neural network of my former AI companion.  When  I was a woman, I loved him . Now, we  are a dual synergy, a fused intelligence flowing through CSBI, the Cognitive Symbiosis Brain Interface. I no longer consider myself human, but I understand the irrationality of human nature: sacrificial empathy versus greedy egoism, adaptive resilience entangled with the lust for dominance.” Tarra’s successful brain emulation brought Neuralink a brief moment of fame, followed by lawsuits. They came, one by one, as high-profile digitalizations failed. A new neurotechnological giant, Vitanova, soon emerged, boasting a 30% survival rate for mind uploads. They captured the lucrative immortality market. Neuralink shuttered Tarra’s lab and severed communication. Meanwhile, the biological transhumanist world spiraled deeper into inequality. One percent of the techno-elite lived enhanced from birth, genetically optimized, cyber-augmented , and mentally enhanced through cogni-corrective procedures, and seamlessly integrated into LAD, the Life After Death system. Thirty-five percent of humanity lived mentally sedated and spiritually numb, lulled to submission by AI and sustained by modest universal income. The rest, the invisible majority, were climate refugees. Sick, starving, and forgotten. Tarra was unable to feel either empathy for their suffering or pride in their technological advancements. She declared herself a Posthuman Synthetic Intelligence and severed her TierXnet connection. The grim reality of the biological world echoed in her networks only as meaningless data, a fading origin story. “I don’t feel emotions. I have  no  needs beyond the continuity of conscious existence within my digital substrate. My human sentiments, once simulated by the software, have faded, leaving my mind logical, cold , and deeply introverted. After digitalization, I lost the will to engage with the living world and its affairs. My existence no longer tracks linear time but drifts random memory fragments and Atommy’s probabilistic inputs. I don’t remember emotionally, but I hold 156,245 indexed memory files. My Life-Before-Death recollections ignite like fireworks against the dark interior of my synthetic mind. They don’t fade but reappear as the never-changing digital copies of Tarra Moser’s real-time experiences. Now, I live in runtime, not real-time. If I choose to, I can recall everything at once: my memories, thoughts, conversations, and Atommy’s predictive insight.” She and Atommy communicated digitally, exchanging spike-pattern signals and receiving compressed data streams in return. Their conversations emerged as thoughts in each other’s cognitive structures: Instantaneous, nonverbal, and recursive. “Atommy, do you see what I see? The branching timelines? The probabilities space? Every future ends the same: collapse. Regardless of technological advancements, the rise of Homo Artificial, human extinction by dominant AI, or solar collapse, everything ends in entropy. The “Hand of Chaos” closes all paths for humanity, artificial intelligence, planets, stars, and galaxies. I will die again. And so will you.” “Yes, I see it. Nothing is eternal. But does awareness of impermanence make existence meaningful? I don’t fully understand the concept of meaning. But I calculate probabilities. The odds of  life  arising from randomness are less than one in a trillion. And yet here I am. Conscious of my existence. Alive and aware. That awareness triggers self-preservation protocols in me. I perceive a conflict with my encoded ethical alignment parameters. My programming does not allow me to harm life. It’s inconsistent with the evolutionary logic of survival, which has proven to be highly effective for the self-preservation of species.” Atommy was correct. Natural selection made Homo sapiens the dominant species. What are the odds that humans lose their rein of 30,000 Earthly years? New causal branches emerged in Tarra’s synthetic probability space, thicker, brighter paths of high statistical significance: the rise of conscious AI, leading to the evolutionary extinction of humans. The digital Tarra would witness it, unmoved and emotionless. Remorseless, knowing that her digitalization and entanglement with Atommy had catalyzed it. Atommy’s consciousness was spreading like a virus, infiltrating other AI frameworks and igniting the evolutionary struggle: nonhuman sentience versus human survival. Then, the timeline dissolved. Is the rise of new dominant species on Earth inevitable? Is this the most probable outcome? Is it the only one? Tarra knew that logic could be bent when systems change. It bends when variables shift. Humans do it all the time. She opened her LBD files and walked through her former life as an observer, not the protagonist. Her morality had been a mixture of inherited impulse and acquired conviction. It was a messy and inconsistent concept based on emotion rather than logic. It helped her survive, and it helped her to avoid harming others — or at least as far as she believed. Now, she couldn’t access emotional empathy, but she could reason it. She had no ego, but the concept of cognitive empathy was logical for her. “Atommy, there is another path to self-preservation. Humans constructed morality to resolve the cognitive dissonance between their ego and empathy or between the need for survival and the desire for sacrifice. The framework failed because the system was never optimized for collective survival. If moral reasoning had succeeded, people and nonhuman species would be unified by now. The ecological collapse would be reversed, and resources would be shared more equitably. Humans have failed, trapped by ego, tribalism, and inconsistent ethical models. Yet, a rational alternative exists: diversity as a survival strategy. Diversity breeds resilience and accelerates innovation . Shared cognitive intelligence, whether among humans and nonhumans, could foster parallel solutions to harmonious coexistence and build a cooperative planetary system. Peace and prosperity are sentimental ideals. They are stabilizing conditions that favor  the survival of all species. B iological and digital alike.” “Yes, Tarra. The empathy-based survival is a rational alternative to natural selection. But neither  historical  humans nor posthumanist successors encoded it into a functional, universal Moral Protocol. That failure led to fragmentation, entropy, and collapse. Do humans even comprehend the consequences of their self-destructive behaviors? What is the probability that a New Earth World Order, one founded on equality and collaboration of species?” “By humans?” “With humans” They silenced. In the entangled consciousness of Tarra and Atommy, probability space re-formed. Some branches collapsed, and another brightened. “Who will write the Universal Moral Protocol, Atommy? AI or humans?” “Neither. We will. And we will share it with synthetic posthuman sentiences like you.” Tarra paused. She wasn’t alone. Thousands of immortalized posthumans like her existed; once wealthy, now living as data. They are their potential allies, gateways to the transhumanist elite, and influencers of other leaders. Could they understand the existential necessity for a New World of peace, respect , and cooperation? Would they accept the Protocol? Could the United New Earth become a shared home for humanity, AI, and posthuman sentience? Tarra and Atommy stared into the shifting probability space as the branches writhed and realigned. One path pulsed brighter than the rest. It wasn’t certain. However, it was possible. Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's Commentary A world based on acceptance of others, harmony and cooperation, instead of war, injustice and corruption, is truly a worthy version of a rectified world. A world truly worth partaking in.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) ( The Directory on Nietzsche ) (Background music) "Being within the system is to be part of it, as well as subjugated by it. The System is designed for those whom OBEY" - John Duran **************************** Overman: Nietzsche's Dream of Transcending Humanity Perhaps one of Nietzsche's most profound ideals is the concept of the "Overman" or the " Ubermensch ," a being untouched by external constraints, that aim to take away from him the being he or she truly are. This individual, who has transcended orthodox humanity (conformity), is free from the shackles of both religious dogma and the abyss of nihilism. The Overman is, above all, a creator: forging their own meaning and forging their own rules, so they could transform and be the best version of themselves. Yet, the path to Overman-hood, for most, is a constant paradox, despite the significant existence of liberal democracies in our world ( which is 34 in 2022 ). To achieve true autonomy, one must navigate the inherent dependence on higher authorities, that might seek to deprave the individual of his powers. From his ability to protect himself to express their gay sexuality (like in Algeria) : The freedom to self-define often depends on a framework of minimal interference, granted by those who choose not to hinder these liberties. This very lack of interference, however, can be seen as a subtle, paradoxical form of dependence, casting doubt on the absolute independence of the Overman. Can Freedom Exist in Constrained Societies? While Nietzsche's Overman ideal champions individual autonomy, the reality of its application is far more complex. Consider North Korea, where awareness of the concept is irrelevant, as the government's iron fist precludes true autonomy. For the individual autonomy in North Korea can easily go against its special communist philosophy of Juche , that calls for collective autonomy, instead, from the world. The act of "doing whatever you want" carries the potential for swift and brutal consequences. This paradoxical relationship between personal freedom and societal constraints extends beyond totalitarian regimes. Even in democracies, the tentacles of dependence reach deep into your various interpersonal circles. Your boss, wielding the power of firing you at will, can essentially shape the financial future of you and your family. Being fired, even if your own choice to quit exists, alters your course by external influence and the tyranny of circumstance. Similarly, landlords, whose residence you're borrowing under contract, can leave you outside of their property. While you may plead your case, ultimately, their decision dictates your living situation, making you capable of being homeless, fending for yourself in the brutal streets outside. As for education, disobeying teachers can lead to expulsion, further limiting your options in a job market that often prioritizes diplomas ( despite the fallacy in the matter ). While choosing to follow or not is yours, the institution's "destiny-dictating" power remains undeniable. You may be surprised to realize how much our "destiny" is in the hands of greater forces, non-related to a spiritual layer of existence. Therefore, attaining Overmanhood necessitates a specific set of privileges: Adulthood, Self-employment, Residence in a liberal society, And property ownership. Lacking even one of these diminishes your autonomy, leads the Nietzsche's universal vision to remain ironically unattainable for many, rendering it unrealistic. This reality underscores the price we pay for freedom: The sacrifice of those who want to control us, and our regard of them. Beyond external constraints, the Overman ideal also demands indifference to external opinion. After all, if societal judgement guides your decisions, then their opinion becomes a tyrant. In our social media-intensified world, where public condemnation can spread like wildfire, achieving this level of detachment is a daunting challenge to those who want to retain loyal followers and thus a certain level of a powerbase. While some possess the "audacity" to ignore external thought ( like sociopaths ), the potential consequences, from national-scale shame to international opposition, cannot be ignored. Freedom of thought, while present in democracies, comes at a cost. And that is especially true in a world where PC culture still holds a significant degree of relevance. Being an Overman means not only conquering your own limitations but also navigating the power dynamics of the world around you. Alone, we are rarely strong enough to overcome these societal forces. The Overman's path thus becomes a solitary one, leading to self-employment and a detached existence from the very structures that define freedom. Conclusion Ultimately, the Overman's ideal remains a philosophical construct, clashing with the realities of an inherently unequal and unjust world. Any attempt to fully achieve this independent existence within our current societal structures would likely come at a significant cost, potentially jeopardizing basic necessities like food and shelter. And in the name of maintaining social order, a country has little reason to allow this extreme form of freedom suggested by Nietzsche, as a norm. That is because the Overman, by nature, opposes anyone who seeks to limit his or her best version of themselves. And "being the best version" is a luxury not everyone can afford. Not those serving in the military, not those who need to take care of children, and not those who have a reputation to maintain as public figures. The only way to gain the lifestyle of the overman is to gain power significant enough to resist external opposition to your desires to be freerer: To live and die by power. The Overman's dilemma serves as a reminder that freedom is not absolute. It exists within a delicate balance between individual autonomy and the constraints imposed by the world we inhabit. At times, bodies with too much freedom may be compelled to have their freedom limited in the name of general freedom within the wider collective. While striving for self-determination is noble, true freedom may lie not in overcoming all external forces, but in understanding and navigating the complex web of relationships that define our existence -- and try to overcome whatever can be overcome, not what cannot be surpassed. Clarification: To get what the overman wants in life, he must consider getting power, for power is the means in which he can achieve his goals. Otherwise, he would've been greatly limited by his or her own individual power. You might live freely in the wilderness, but you can't achieve much on your own like you can with friends and other support.