The Search Bar

(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 John Igwe and Co. Articles) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe The article "How We Can Discover Ourselves Using Psychotechnics" provides a comprehensive overview of self-discovery through practical techniques, making it accessible to those interested in self-growth. It introduces readers to the concept of psychotechnics, guiding them through techniques like self-reflection, journaling, and mindfulness, as well as creative approaches like dream journaling and artistic exploration. The article's clear, straightforward language makes complex psychological concepts accessible to a general audience, while its balanced approach includes both conventional techniques like personality assessments and therapy and creative, less-common methods like dream journaling and Hebrew calligraphy. The encouraging tone emphasizes self-compassion and gradual progress, encouraging readers to embark on self-discovery without feeling pressured. By adding specific, actionable exercises, historical context, and personal examples, the article effectively motivates readers to explore psychotechnics with a diverse toolkit and supportive tone. (Background music) Psychotechnics is a field of psychology that studies the application of psychological techniques and methods to achieve positive outcomes in different areas of life. Examples of psychotechnics include cognitive training exercises to improve memory or problem-solving skills, relaxation techniques to manage stress and anxiety, behavior modification strategies to change unwanted habits, and various forms of therapy to address psychological issues. Discovering yourself using psychotechnics involves using psychological techniques and tools to explore your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Here are some specific techniques you can use: Self-reflection: Self-reflection is the process of looking inward to examine and gain insights into your thoughts, feelings, beliefs, behaviors, and experiences. It involves taking the time to contemplate and analyze various aspects of yourself in order to better understand who you are and how you relate to the world around you. Self-reflection can be a valuable tool for personal growth, self-awareness, and making informed decisions. Spend time thinking about your values, interests, strengths, weaknesses, and past experiences. Consider what makes you happy, what motivates you, and what you aspire to achieve. Journaling: Journaling is the practice of writing down your thoughts, feelings, experiences, and observations in a personal journal or diary. It's a powerful tool for self-expression, self-discovery, and self-reflection. By putting your thoughts onto paper, you can gain insights into your emotions, track your progress, and record meaningful moments in your life. Maintain a journal to record your thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Regularly review your entries to identify patterns and insights about yourself. Personality assessments: Personality assessments are tools designed to help individuals gain insights into their own personality traits, preferences, and tendencies. These assessments are based on psychological theories and research and can provide a better understanding of how you typically think, feel, and behave in various situations. Take personality tests such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Big Five personality traits test. These assessments can provide insights into your personality traits and tendencies. Strengths and weaknesses analysis: Identify your strengths and weaknesses. Leverage your strengths to excel and work on your weaknesses for personal growth. Mindfulness and meditation: Practice mindfulness and meditation to enhance self-awareness and manage stress. These techniques can help you understand your thought patterns and emotional responses. Set goals: Define short-term and long-term goals that align with your values and aspirations. This can give you a sense of purpose and direction. Feedback: Seek feedback from friends, family, and colleagues about your strengths and areas for improvement. Their perspectives can provide valuable insights. Explore new activities: Try new hobbies, activities, or experiences to discover hidden interests and passions. Therapy or counseling: Consider seeking professional help from therapists or counselors who can guide you through self-exploration and provide insights into your thoughts and behaviors. Group workshops or retreats: Attend workshops, retreats, or group sessions focused on personal development and self-discovery. In conclusion, self-discovery is an ongoing journey. Be patient with yourself and embrace the process of learning more about who you are and what you want from life. It is little by little. Self-discovery is a continuous journey that requires patience and self-compassion. Article Feedback by Mr. Roland Leblanc Embracing the process of learning about yourself, bit by bit, can lead to valuable insights and personal growth. Remember, each step you take contributes to a deeper understanding of who you are and what you desire in life. We've lost the natural balance between our rational and intuitive parts, hence the need for various techniques and tools. While many of these tools are expensive, they're not guaranteed to achieve our goals. I prefer a more personal and cost-effective approach to self-discovery. Consider these additional tools: Dream journaling: Use dreams as guides for future decisions. Artistic exploration: Discover hidden intuitive talents through art. Language learning: Expand your mind and perspectives. Before embarking on this journey, ask yourself: Why is self-discovery important? Our existence in this world of duality, time, and space requires us to forget our true selves. Our souls yearn to understand their purpose here. This longing motivates people to seek answers through self-inquiry. Often, illness or discomfort prompts people to question their existence's purpose. For me, it was a state of "mal être" that ignited my truth-seeking journey. Calligraphy of Hebrew letters has been instrumental in my spiritual growth and self-discovery. It helps me answer the fundamental questions: Who am I? And what am I here for?

(Philosocom's Directory on Evil) (Background music) The Elusive Truth of Evil: Motive, Justification, and the Blurred Lines of Morality As some of you may have already noticed based on my earlier work, Polarity of Evil is a fascinating concept when applied to non-fiction. The more realistically complex an issue gets, the more one realizes that people very rarely use plain evil as the justification for their actions. The most opposite figure in this regard is the Joker from the DC Universe franchise. He serves as an example of pure, motiveless evil, which is in contrast to the real world where everyone operates with some underlying reason, however warped it may appear. This blurring of lines is crucial. Because it is so easy for us humans to disagree with one another, any controversial act, even a crime, could be seen as logically justified by a few, while the attempt to condemn or stop it could be seen as the true evil (like drinking alcohol at a 1920's speakeasy during the prohibition era). This leaves us with a paradox: The only act that cannot be judged as evil is one that is without any motive whatsoever. Without motive, it would be impossible to logically conclude the true intention of one's deeds. This is because evil without an intention that cannot be seen as wrong, cannot technically be evil, even in an existence where everything has a reason. Thus, you can't really be evil if you don't intend to be (hence the existence of accidents and misfortune caused by innocence). This complexity brings to light the power dynamics inherent in our interpretations of good and evil. The cliché expression, "might makes right," reflects this truth. The entity or ideology with the most physical power is the one more likely to receive the most agreements, and thus, be seen as justified. Likewise, the notion of democracy as the most preferred regime of any nation was not always regarded as such. In fact, Socrates disagreed with its competency, believing that the people are not always capable of deciding the best leadership for their country. Challenging Perspectives: The Evolving Notions of Good and Evil Across Time and Cultures Mind you, most of humanity's history has been filled with absolute monarchies and other forms of totalitarian governments (due to fear from external, "barbarian threats", for example), where it was "okay" to execute someone for treason or any reason the ruler believed to be justified. Unless the population was happy with what they got, your average pre-modern regime remained under the same ruler for as long as they survived before either getting killed, dying of old age, being sent to exile, and so on. What if Socrates wrote about his disbelief in democracy on Twitter? Surely, he would get a lot of hate from the world, but if your average Athenian or any other native to the time Socrates lived in heard his words, chances are they would logically agree with him. They would not shame him in the town square like some contemporary people might do nowadays on such media. What if we lived in an alternative universe where communism reigned supreme as most of the world's countries' political ideology? For example, what if the Soviet Union won the Cold War, and many countries fell to the influence of communism? Surely in such a universe, the notion of democracy would be seen as less desirable, or even as evil, if the propaganda did its job. In such a world, assuming there would be social media, expressing your thoughts in deep favor of democracy would get you shamed as well by that network's users, if not get you killed for treason, and few would protest on your behalf due to fear from being executed themselves. It is why courage is capable of oppressing tyranny itself, and reshaping the moral, subjective reality of countless citizens. Reflection on Norms, Perspectives, and Globalization What I'm saying is that, in some way, the dictating norms of what we should think and believe, could be evil to others as they are seen as good to us. Even in a world that is mostly ruled by liberal democracies, if someone from the far past would hear about such a regime, which we see as good and ideal, they may comment very negatively about our world's state of affairs, due to it being so democratic. To put it even simpler, those who do or think for the sake of evil are extremely few; the vast majority of us do and think what we believe to be good, even if someone may believe it to be evil. This is how mind-blocking our norms can be, because should someone criticize our thoughts and/or endeavors to be evil, what are the odds that we will genuinely agree with them and confess we're evil, while liking it? Perhaps some will do it out of mockery towards that critic, but in the end, extremely few are the people who believe in evil or genuinely want to be evil, whether or not evil has an objective definition that most, if not all, would agree with. Even Hitler would not tell you that he's the personification of evil, even though he appears that way very much in the eyes of many; he would claim, after all, that he was a vegetarian. Surely an evil person won't eat innocent animals? As many of us do on a regular basis? You may use moral vegetarianism as a front for your other moral depravities. That is known as a red herring fallcy. Perhaps it is only when the world becomes fully globalized, AKA, if a single or a coalition of cultures will "conquer" the world's population, under a universal culture, that we will be able to optimally determine, at least during that "conquest," what is actually good and what is actually evil. Such "conquering" has been partially implemented already—murder and other crimes have become almost entirely illegal over our world's history, as it's logical that we shouldn't murder. And yet, medieval regent who mistreated his wife would not receive the same negative reception as a contemporary one who would do just that. Imagine what would happen if your country's leader were accused of a criminal act today, compared to yourself. That politician can affect the laws while you cannot, giving him or her advantage over how justice is enforced (if at all). Your far-away ancestor, however, might not even really care and return to their work in defeatist apathy. They might even justify it the case of the previous paragraph, claiming that a woman should not resist her husband's command or something in that now-disgusting way (but objectively sexist). Conclusion In summary, norms can be as noble as they can be dastardly and wicked, and they have a role in subjecting our perception to morality. What we were taught to believe as good and appropriate is not an undeniable truth, even if many would scold you for believing otherwise. From an education such as mine I learned the importance of fearing disrespecting nuclear family. How many of you have the dignity to not disrespect those who raised you, provided for you, and gave you education? Cooperation between individuals on moral grounds is only possible once there is some kind of shared recognition of morality, as long as that moral viewpoints do not contradict one another, and thus, polarize themselves and those who hold them. In fact, one may even claim that there is no such thing as an undeniable truth when it comes to the very gray area that is the philosophical field of ethics. In many ways, unless we're brave enough to disagree and express that disagreement, much of who we are is indeed a product of our environment. However, without a vocal opposition to the norms, they will rarely change. And yet, we must recognize somehow that in someone's eyes, we might be evil in one way or another. And instead of getting into pointless arguments with them, a more intelligent approach is to actually understand why. Perhaps instead of giving in to the feelings of being accused, we can keep an open mind and explore new ideas. And because of too much emotion, we might as well be attacking the philosophical exploration of ideas in the name of our feelings. Is it worth it? John Duran's Testimonial Quote I am forced to admit, I was born different. As a boy I didn't admire the heroes, but the villains. They seem to enjoy life the most, by squeezing the world they got the most they could get out of living. It seems like such a fun craft and you get to cackle evilly on a daily basis, what's not to admire and love?

(Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Background music) Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. Mr. T. Rubinshtein's article, How To Reduce Misanthropy, explores the concept of fatigue and tiredness, highlighting how societal misunderstandings can lead to misanthropy. By combining personal experiences with philosophical insights, Mr. Tomasio presents a compelling narrative that not only highlights the challenges of chronic exhaustion but also provides actionable strategies to mitigate feelings of hostility towards humanity. The article's strengths include clarity in distinguishing between fatigue and tiredness, which is often overlooked in everyday conversations. The inclusion of personal anecdotes enhances relatability by bridging the gap between abstract concepts and real-life implications. The philosopher delves into the root causes of misanthropy, attributing it to chronic miscommunication and societal ignorance. This exploration underscores the importance of empathy and understanding in fostering healthier interpersonal relationships. The article offers constructive solutions, such as setting boundaries and finding supportive communities, to alleviate feelings of exhaustion and reduce misanthropic tendencies. It also incorporates external perspectives, such as Brad Hambrick and Pawel Brodzinski, adding depth and credibility to his analysis. Rubinshtein's advocacy for a moral, pro-health education system as a means to challenge misconceptions is timely and visionary. In conclusion, T. A. Rubinshtein's article is a thoughtful and empathetic exploration of the challenges faced by individuals grappling with chronic fatigue and misanthropy. Case Example: Understanding the Depths of Exhaustion This article delves into the difference between fatigue and tiredness, drawing from my personal experiences, and showing how lack of societal understanding can lead to avoidable frustration and hostility towards humanity (misanthropy). I also try to explore ways of reducing it. Many people mistakenly see fatigue and tiredness as interchangeable. However, for people like myself, who are never fully awake, the distinction is painfully clear. People being blind to it is how much anguish ensues, both to them and others. After all, irritability stems from fatigue. Have you ever drained no matter how much you slept? This seemingly paradoxical, uncanny state, where exhaustion coexists with alertness, is my current reality as I write. The misconception between fatigue and tiredness often goes: "It's night, you must be tired, go to bed." But night time doesn't guarantee sleepiness, and it doesn't guarantee at all times that we won't wake up tired. Here's where understanding becomes crucial, and can save your relationships from unnecessary irritability: Tiredness: This is a specific form of exhaustion remedied by sleep. Feeling tired at night and seeking rest is a natural, healthy human feature. Exhaustion: Unlike tiredness, exhaustion isn't always solved by sleep, though it can be in some cases. Underlying health conditions also cause exhaustion independently of sleep. Have you ever tried forcing yourself to sleep when you're not tired? It amplifies the underlying feeling, as I've experienced countless times. My anxious and depressed nature causes me to be fatigued no matter what I do. People who don't understand this, and think stressing me out is wise, got paid back by my irritable behavior. Resting, reducing physical activity, or watching TV – none of these alleviate the exhaustion. Sometimes all it takes is to let go of others and leave them alone. But letting go is something people struggle with unnecessarily. They care too much for their own good, in a way that their good intention backfires against them, causing only unnecessary suffering. The Invisible Wall Living with a chronic illness like asthma often means battling misunderstanding. The root of all misunderstanding is the idea that we are knowledgeable enough to make wise decisions. That is even though, by force of habit, we make the same unwise decisions, and suffer the consequences again and again. Unlike readily apparent disabilities like blindness or deafness, fatigue can be fueled by constant miscommunication, as feeling unable to connect with others can be a symptom of social fatigue. This can be incredibly isolating, affecting interactions with everyone from strangers online to loved ones. Explaining my condition repeatedly can be draining, leading to a strong desire to withdraw from social interaction altogether. Only if the other side will be open enough to learn, is when this "invisible wall" can be cracked until it's destroyed. But since most, people, arguably, don't like to learn, and prefer to complain more, they only increase suffering, incompetency and deter themselves from solving their problems. To quote Pawel Brodzinski: I believe barely one tenth people care to learn even when they can do it effortlessly. This is by the way rejecting to become a better professional. But at least one third, if not a half, will complain how limited their learning options are. How they can’t meet with authorities in workplace or how they weren’t allowed to attend an overpriced course. But there’s a good news too. It’s pretty easy to stand out the crowd – we just need to use opportunities to learn we have. The cycle of miscommunication can be tempting to escape through isolation. Witnessing others receive understanding for their disabilities can be disheartening, as not all disabilities are equally visible, leading to accidental ableism. Furthermore, the constant need to explain my condition, even to those who should already understand, is frustrating and can be avoided by fostering a culture of empathy and with a learning mindset. Social isolation can appear as the easiest solution, even though it risks depression, and depression risks our independent functioning. Furthermore, exhaustion associated with continuous feelings of fatigue can make socializing difficult. To prevent our suffering from getting worse, we must not fall into the temptation of hatred, and mustn't generalize people under hatred's influence. Generalizing under this emotional bias would only empower your loneliness and prevent you from interacting with people who can actually be good for you, especially in the world of romantic love. Love can be beneficial for both your and your loved one's health. Hence why for your health and for your faith in humanity, you should keep a balanced mindset and look both ways. Finding Your Balance The point of a balanced mindset is to help you not disregard people who do want and can understand your distress. Such people, for example, are those who talk to you and not at you. Brad Hambrick defines the differences as follows in his blog: “Talking At” is the act of engaging with another person in a virtual monologue for the purpose of releasing an unpleasant emotion. Two key components of this definition should be defined further. First, a “virtual monologue” is a conversation in which any dissent, alternative perspective, or even interruption is viewed as arguing or being on the other team. Second, the word “releasing” should be understood in contrast with sharing a burden. When “talking at” the goal is not to invite another person into your struggle, but to unload the struggle on the other person. “Talking To” is the act of engaging with another person in a dialogue for the purpose of inviting them into your struggle and seeking perspective, correction, or encouragement to persevere in the difficult circumstance. The key element here is that the other person is viewed as more than an audience and the purpose of speaking is more than an emotional release. We are requesting a companion in hard/frustrating times; not seeking to speak against something to a mute set of living ears. Here are some things to consider: Setting Boundaries: It's okay to limit interactions or explain your limitations to avoid further fatigue. Keep your balance with people who are good for you so you won't lose them. You need them for your health. Finding "Your Tribe": Seek out communities that are there to learn from you, either online or in-person. Willing to learn from others can too keep them staying in your life. Mutual benefit is how connections blossom. "Adam Smith observed that people in a civilized society always require the cooperation and assistance of others. We obtain what we need by providing others with what they want." -- (Principle Based Management Blog) Focusing on Quality Connections: Prioritize interactions that uplift and energize you. Remember: Healthy connections are important for everyone to their individual extent. By finding ways to manage your limitations while seeking understanding, you can build a fulfilling life that will bring you energy and not deplete it. Returning to the core issue of exhaustion, while I haven't discovered a magic solution, understanding the difference between tiredness and exhaustion is a crucial first step. I cannot sleep my way out of this, but instead must make healthy choices and focus on healthy connections. Do the same and you can avoid my own fatigue. So, the next time you wonder why someone prefers solitude, consider the possibility of hidden, underlying illnesses and the challenges of constant miscommunication. A little understanding can go a long way, and sometimes the ill person is actively working towards their own health, independently of you. Bonus: Challenging Misconceptions For A Better Humanity The education system often fails to prepare us for the complexities of human interaction. It can foster a fear of speaking up about "disturbing things," even when doing so is important. However, a moral, pro-health education methodology can empower us to: Challenge Misconceptions: Education should teach us to be active learners. Active learning as a habit can help us identify problems before they get worse and work towards their solution. Embrace Complexity: People are multifaceted, and first impressions can be deceiving. By teaching how to overcome the first impression bias we can save beneficial relationships before their avoidable collapse. Promote Empathy: Consider that mental illness can have genetic and environmental causes. A good education network will deter students from shaming those whom they can instead help. Remember, you are not alone, and you don't have to feel so lonely. By fostering open communication and understanding, we can break down the walls of invisibility and build a more inclusive, less interpersonally-hostile world. Alex Mos's Feedback Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and poet known for his misanthropy, wrote, "People understand me so poorly that they don't understand my complaint about them not understanding me." Misanthropy is a mindset, not a disorder, and can be prevented by empathy and tolerance at a societal or individual level. Introverts, neurodiverse, and other atypical people wish to be understood and accepted by their families and communities. Yet, they are often unfairly viewed as "defective" due to their differences and deemed to require a psychological "fix." Instead, they need acceptance, equal opportunity, and to be left alone if they are introverts. Tolerance is the key to a peaceful and happier society when guided by ethical logic. Open your mind to the possibility that there are people who think differently and that your lifestyle ideas might not appeal to or benefit them. Hear them, accept them as they are, and value them for their contributions, or leave them alone in dignity. In inter-human interactions, tolerance and understanding should go both ways. Discrimination and oversensitivity toward others, atypical or typical, are fundamental biases. I call on society to be open-minded and understanding towards eccentric people. Yet, I also address the atypical and misanthropes to rethink their failed human interactions, face their sensitivities, and forgive others for causing their alienation. Those who dare to give humanity a second chance get a second chance in life themselves to find love and empathy and to experience a spark of existential happiness.

(Philosocom Writing Directory) (Prime directive definition) (Background music) How Writing Became My Prime Directive I was once told that writing is the most solitary occupation in the world. It seems that when you write so much, the subjective concept of time becomes almost entirely irrelevant. That is while and physical interaction with the world seems almost pointless when you have a computer or a phone. And, as a writer, one would might even ask themselves, if they like writing so much, why should they bother with traditional publishers? After all, when you become a master at what you do just because you like it and are good at it? To quote John Duran... Every aspiring writer should realize, traditional publishers seek only profit, nothing else. They have no care for art, integrity or a damned fun story. They simply don't care. They will not honor the original authors, nor our love from their own works. They will change the tale everytime, from black to white, or masterful story to a common tripe, as long as they believe a profit can be made, no original words will be honored or respected regardless of how wondrously and carefully they are crafted. If this world cares more about profit, luxury and prestige, than about the beauty of a well-crafted article, then why should I bother with catering to such a world? Nay. I instead prefer to make writing my prime directive, under a deeper, hidden logic: To rectify the world of such silly, corrupt trends that encourage us to be incompetent in exchange for prestige! Nay! The master is, in one way or another, always alone in his or her craft, sacrificing not only prestige but also their own family, the norms of their culture, and sometimes, even the value of friendship. Such sacrifice one must have in order to make writing his or her prime directive in this life, in a world that's getting consumed by the corrupting trend of the AI revolution, and the overall shallow-ness of contemporary content... For some reason, writing is one of the few things I can do regularly with little to no exhaustion, as long as I write what I want. Naturally, I became addicted to it. Articles, poems, messages, posts, and shares... I create because I enjoy influencing this world from the solitude of hermitages. Not for power, not for evil, but for good. In days where I write so much, and I don't feel any energy overexerted, I begin to inquire myself.. "Do I even need the physical company of others, when all I can have is more and more words for company?" Sometimes, having apprentices is fun. However, beyond that? I find little reason to communicate with others beyond the necesary evil of society.. How irrational of a writer to even take seriously the notion that he does not need the company of readership... How irrational of me to think that I do not need at least a woman's touch. Yes, I think I'm addicted to writing. It is the only thing that makes me feel truly meaningful to the world. Otherwise, peace for me is nothing more than a liability! I stopped going to university because it was too stressful, stopped going to job interviews because I realized how worthwhile the internet is. And I almost never needed a social life. Asociality exists. I do not understand why do I need to waste my time on such institutions when I can instead follow my own passions, as problematic as that may be. It seems that my loyalty to writing has truly made me a hermit. I only need some breaks here and there to refresh myself. I very rarely need physical contact or meetings. I just need a screen in front of me, and I can dance the waltz that is my socially-barren life all the way to the inevitable death that awaits us all. Writing philosophy is the only thing I'm honestly proud of. Everything else seems so distracting. As long as I'm awake, there are new possibilities to explore and new ideas to look for or create. It is the only thing that makes me feel accomplished. If I waste a day without a purpose, not even for recharging, that day is gone forever. I find each new day a problem to be solved, not a day to be enjoyed. My motive for my passionate work is a mental contruct of a certain woman whom I deem my antagonist. She called me irrelevant, so I decided to make it my life's work to prove her otherwise... In my pursuit of of power, I eventually succeeded. I thought it would take far longer. Fortunately I was wrong. After all the dedication I had for the real her, the world may be unjust, but at least I did my part and am bringing to the world more good. It is far better than seeing her deluded, thinking she was right about me. Once the mental construct has been proven wrong by reality, it was then that I will bring forth the fact that I am Mr. Tomasio, the article baron. Through my writing, the humans of this world can overcome many adversities, and mentally survive the hardships of a world that turns more and more into the age of cyberpunk. Piece by piece, post by post, share by share, I will work almost every day, for life is but a task for me in the name of world recitifcation. I will do my best to contribute to the world and thus prove my worth to it, to myself, and to her image's false confidence. It will then be when I can be closer to the possibility of accepting my death. It is, for the most part, what I often think about... I live to work, not live to feel alive. A family member almost died, one time, because they needed surgery, which they got. Thinking about them, it could happen to me if I'm not careful. After all, I have a purpose to serve, and that purpose is my contributing addiction, which I can bring to the world as optimally as I should. Many people in around my age range are reckless, while I live as an elderly man would. I don't care how much I have to walk to spare myself the same risk. I will do it if it means I can write more and more and more! For contribution! For benefit! For the a better world! I will die anyway, but not until I make every day of my life worthy of the writing "gods"! It is the only thing I can do without succumbing to exhaustion. The only thing I will probably be remembered for in this world. Not even video games or TV make me this passionate nowadays. I guess I don't care if I don't get to live this life to its fullest, if I don't get to live normally, have a family of my own, or have a traditional work outside my article empire. Following my heart is the only thing that makes me happy. I have become a slave to my own purpose, and to be honest, it is far better than falling into nihilism and being at risk for existential dread. I've been there before, many times, and unless you're completely apathetic to nihilism, then purpose might one day save you from harm to your general well-being and functioning. For some, dedicating themselves almost entirely to one's purpose is a very hard, monotonous task that would require them to escape to hedonism. But for me, it's jsut Tuesday.

(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) (Mr. Griffin's website: https://gisaidit.com/) (Background music) ************************* Introduction I’m not a fan of holding your tongue to spare someone’s feelings. Sometimes, things need to be said so that it helps the person do better rather than feel better. Too many people hold back what should be said in an attempt to protect someone’s feelings, when in reality, they are preventing them from the opportunity to grow. The old timers know this better than anyone, as most of them have no problem saying exactly what needs to be said. I think it’s about time that someone said that quiet part out loud for everybody to hear. We've Lost Our Way We’ve lost our way when it comes to open communication and being able to have a mature conversation. Too many people are scared of offending someone that they hold back things that very much need to be said for the benefit of that person or the group as a whole. You can see this most with our leaders and politicians. They will say what ever it takes to maintain their position, and this usually includes saying what ever you want to hear. They will promise you wealth, blame the current villain at the moment, and outright do a 180 on their position if it keeps them in power. This is not leadership, it is weakness. Only a weak person would do an about face on their very values just for power, money, and an ego stroke. Leaders and politicians aren’t the only one’s I see exhibiting this sheepish behavior. Regular people do it on a day to day basis. Couples lying to each other to save face and blame, friends hyping you up knowing damn well that action is a terrible idea, and parents not telling their children the reality about life and their future. Everyone is trying to spare everyone’s feelings, and that is exactly why we are in the situation we are in. Everyone wants to feel better rather than do better. Do Better To do better takes courage. It takes an ability to look at a situation for what it is and the marbles to face it standing tall. To acknowledge the reality and still push through to make the best of it. I see this a lot in my consulting where the person is more concerned with not feeling insecure, that they will self destruct their business or life to avoid it, instead of facing the problem with maturity and dignity. I’ve never once seen those people succeed, ever. Doing better means being able to look at your strengths and your faults and being honest about your abilities. Handing a kid a trophy for showing up does them a disservice for they no longer have an accurate perception of reality. You’re setting them up to fail and struggle in life. Sometimes, you need to be told you suck at something. This at least gives you the opportunity and choice to either: A) Focus on getting better at it or, B) Move on to something that you are good at. Everyone isn’t going to be great at everything; more importantly, NO, everyone shouldn’t be able to do everything. We function as a community, with each person being good at what they are good at. Everyone needs to play their role, and no everyone is not a good leader. Our current societal situation should make that glaringly apparent. Too many people trying to lead when it is not their skill to do it effectively. Fear = Misery We are missing useful perspectives on how to deal with or solve problems because people are too scared to say what they really think. You can see that with our climate scientists today who are often too scared to state the reality of our global situation for fear of being labeled a “doomer”. Too many times I have seen a problem that was apparent to a group of people, but they all rode along for the train wreck because no one had the courage to say something about it. Think about that, we have people willing to wreck themselves and others, just to save face. Being silent about a problem or reality helps no one, including yourself, because you’re still going to have to deal with the consequences. This behavior is a function of human nature: To want to be liked and part of the group. No one wants to be ostracized and excluded. Natural herd mentality, as being separated from the group biologically equates to a lack of your ability to survive. So instead, people stay quiet, try to keep it as PC as possible, and hope that they don’t stand out as the black sheep. Instead of speaking up, they cower to stay safe and maintain the status quo. It’s a selfish move derived from selfish motivations with a purely selfish outcome. Real strength is being able to stand up for truth and say what is needed so everyone can do better and grow. Real strength is not being afraid to do what no one else is doing, because you know it needs to be done. We’re talking about adulting here. The Good Ol’ Days I miss the days where you could just be real with people and they wouldn’t be offended. When you could say the truth and they knew it was coming from a place of love and wanting to help, rather than a place of malice and jealousy. Gone are those days. It amazes me how sensitive we have gotten. But I say it’s time to get back to being real, if not for the sake of helping other’s come to terms with their reality, then for ourselves for not having a silent heart attack watching the world lose it from disillusion. It’s time to be honest with each other so we can all grow and do better. We need to let that quiet part out.

(Background music) Introduction Russian roulette is a risky game of chance in which you risk your life in exchange for something. Sometimes, there may be more than one reward. It can range from money to the respect of your thrill-seeking peers. Nonetheless, in its original form, you are shooting yourself while worrying about death or serious injury. Basically, you put a single bullet into a revolver (a repeating handgun), spin its cylinder, and begin the game. The game ends when one of the players eventually shoots themselves. (There is a cutscene I found about Russian roulette. I will link to it at the end of this article). Analysis Instead of lambasting this practice, I will try to understand it from a logical perspective. In philosophy, we do not only preach what we think is true. We also try to understand the other side, to better understand reality. I find thrill-seeking to be unreasonable when it can greatly risk lives. However, I believe I can decipher the motivations. Firstly, people do extreme stuff for its own sake, AKA, to be excited. It's reasonable to assume that some people may have this urge more than others. Perhaps it's one of the reasons we're so unusual to each other, especially when it comes to me. Extreme sports? Tourism in dangerous places? Please keep in mind that people have their own reasons. Reasons that you might not be aware of. Maybe you won't even try to understand deeper; I don't know. Secondly, thrill-seeking activities may be done professionally. In other words, it could be because it provides employment. Every job respects its holder, as the saying goes in Hebrew. I do not entirely agree with it, but my point is, people are making a living out of people's urge to do such things. As for Russian Roulette, some people might survive by gambling, or seek to earn even more. Thirdly, there is a contemporary philosophy called FOMO, which stands for the fear of missing out. Its reasoning is that "we only live once," and thus we should experience as much as possible before we die. Some people might desire to play Russian Roulette because they want to experience a life-threatening risk such as this. Finally, you might want to prove your worth to your friends in order to impress them and avoid being labeled a coward. Therefore, you may conform, or otherwise you would be rejected from their social circle. As said in a previous article, the fear of rejection is perhaps one of the biggest fears in our minds. Even if that fear may be very irrational, yes. It depends on the situation and what will happen if we get rejected. To play Russian Roulette by choice is obviously irrational. Your life is more important than any of the reasons I just explained. How come? We are all useful in our own ways. Excitement, money, FOMO, or rejection. None of these are good reasons to put a partially-loaded gun to your head. Even if you complete the game, it is not worthwhile. Even the reward. Do consider the temptation to do it again, just for the adrenaline rush. Do remember, that it can be addictive. It's addictive nature is implied in our brains' reward system. A successful series of rewarding experiences could lead to the victory fallacy, but I digress. People may claim that we have dangers in our lives anyway. That we can get into a car accident just by walking. That's just one example. When we realize that we don't have to increase our risks any further, the fallacy of this argument becomes clear. We can even fall in our homes, for example, and suffer an injury. It does not mean we should put a revolver to our heads. The Fallacy in Question By ruminating on this subject, I came up with a fallacy I'd like to call the Russian Roulette Fallacy. It means that desperation and possible lethal chances, do not justify the execution of lethal activities. I'm specifically stating desperation because it is hard for me to believe that all players in that game are completely serene. Maybe some are too light-headed to understand or care. It does not mean the rest are not as well. The mentioning of lethal chances, as justification to commit lethal activities, as reason, is but an example of the common Whataboutism fallacy. What causes people to be that desperate? Perhaps they live in poverty and struggle to make ends meet. Therefore, they might gamble to get the money they might never get otherwise. However, the problem with this logic is that they can already try to make money through other means of gambling, which is not as dangerous. A weird but possible third reason can be this: They must do it. What if you are kidnapped by a group of terrorists and are required to play a game of Russian roulette for freedom? It could be several games as well. Of course in such scenarios, the only thing you have to lose is your chance of freedom from captivity. Some people might have nothing to lose. So, they may do just that to meet their demise. They are broken, they have nothing left to live for. Even with all what life has to offer to them, they reject such opportunities, for their mentality remains broken. My mentality is broken as well, hence why I found hope in despair. The irony in the preceding point is that we may find this gamble irrational, but keep in mind that people may have to do it in order to earn something, such as living another day. getting freed from their own status in life. After all, there are not equal opportunities in the real world. Conclusion In conclusion our emotions can blind us from seeing the bigger picture. As a result, we may have regrets, but only after the deed is done. We may fall in love with a woman who isn't interested in us. Maybe she just plays along and will stand in your way whenever she sees fit. I'm not projecting. The fallacy I devised teaches us this: That we should never be too desperate, or we may die as a result. If we can afford safer routes, and not waste time and resources on more-dangerous routes, perhaps we should pick the former routes, in the name of survival. Physical or otherwise. And saving money, by finding solutions for yourself, can help you both survive and work towards financial wealth. Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed it, please click the heart icon below this article. It shows other readers that the article was good. The promised link.

(Background music) Breaking the Fallacious Circle Circular logic, a common logical fallacy in everyday conversations, hinders clear and effective arguments. It occurs when someone attempts to justify a claim by simply restating it in different words. Imagine a circle – the argument starts and ends at the same point, offering no real progression or additional evidence. Circular logic, despite its flaws, remains a common stumbling block in communication. This essay delves into the reasons behind its prevalence and explores strategies to overcome it. Here's how it works: The Premise is the Conclusion: The argument begins with an assumption presented as a fact. Going in Circles: The "evidence" provided to support this assumption simply rephrases the initial claim. Essentially, it's like saying "A is true because B is true," and then defining B as "A, but rephrased." This repetitive loop creates a false sense of justification without offering any new information. Let's visit "the coffee example": Premise: Coffee is tasty. Circular "Reasoning": Because coffee is fun to drink, it's tasty. Here, "fun to drink" simply rephrases the idea of "tasty." While some might find coffee enjoyable, this argument doesn't explain why it's considered tasty. Of course, a tasty drink is necessarily one that's fun to drink. It's not the product of another. A stronger argument might explore the unique flavors, aromas, or stimulating effects of coffee that contribute to its tastiness. An arguement that builds and strengthens the original premise. I don't really know why people may not think I know what I know when I present what I know in a question. If I ask why coffee is tasty, the question implies that I know, or think I know, that coffee is tasty. I don't see much point in telling me what I know once more when I've already looked for a reason. I asssume people do it because we are programmed to socialize, not necessarily to make sound arguements. I'll explain further later on in the article. By recognizing circular logic, we can improve the quality of our arguments, better understand cause and effect, and ensure clarity in our communication. Why Circular Logic Persists One key factor is the confusion between reasons and premises. A premise sets the stage for an argument, while reasons provide justification for the claim being made. Circular logic, however, blurs this distinction. Think of it like building a house. The premise is the foundation, and the reasons are the bricks that build upon it. Circular logic attempts to construct the house using only the foundation stones, offering no structural support or additional explanation. Even philosophers, constantly grappling with complex ideas, can fall prey to circular reasoning. The sheer number of logical fallacies, and the ever-evolving nature of philosophical discourse, can make it challenging to maintain perfect clarity. However, recognizing this vulnerability, and even accepting it as an inevitable possibility, can be a part of the philosophical journey towards greater clarity than currently. Another solution lies in cultivating a critical eye for reasoning. Here are some strategies to combat circular logic: Challenge yourself: When presenting a reason, ask if it truly explains the premise or simply restates it in different words. Have you learned anything new, that doesn't already exists in the premise either you or others have presented? Seek outside perspectives: Discussing your arguments with others can expose potential circularity. Further critical thinking can reveal that you may be in an echo chamber, repeating not only the same thoughts, but the same reasoning, as if that reasoning adds into the existing one in a debate/chat/etc. Circular logic can be used to reinforce one's insecurities by appealing to emotion, rather than giving additional value. Examine the underlying assumptions: Sometimes, circular logic stems from unexamined beliefs, that only reinforces your confidence in them, rather than explaining them in greater detail. Analyze the base of your arguments to ensure they are not simply repeating assumptions. By actively identifying and avoiding circular reasoning, we can elevate our communication and arguments, fostering a deeper understanding of the world around us, and deter ourselves from using further fallacies as a result. While the established fallacies cover a wide range of errors, exploring new ways arguments can be dysfunctional can contribute to our understanding of logic. As such I devised a variant of circular logic,appealing to the state of the greater picture. The Way Things Are Fallacy Circular reasoning often manifests in a specific, frustrating way. This fallacy occurs when someone attempts to shut down discussion by claiming something is simply "how life is" or "the facts of the matter." While these statements might seem harmless, they offer no real explanation and hinder genuine understanding. They simply state what we already know. If you didn't know how something is, why would you acknowledge it as existing? Imagine asking, "Why are some people evil?" Responding with "That's just how the world works"s, or "that's just how some people are". This fails to address the complexities of human behavior. It simply restates the initial observation without providing any insight into the root causes of evil. The Way Things Are Fallacy is problematic for a few reasons: False Closure: It creates a false sense of closure by presenting an existing state of affairs as an unchangeable truth. This hinders curiosity and discourages further investigation. Submissiveness to the Status Quo: By accepting things "as they are" without question, we surrender the power to analyze and potentially improve upon them. This can lead to a sense of learned helplessness, practically enabling oppression in organizations and society. Disagreements Disappear: This type of circular reasoning shuts down dialogue and prevents productive disagreement, by stating the obvious and the established. It assumes the initial statement can't be altered, ignoring potential counter-arguments or even solutions, if the premise indicates a problematic reality. Acknowledging reality is a crucial first step, but there is no logical need for redundancy. It might be a rhetoric or emotional need, but rarely if never, a logical one. In philosophy, the key lies in moving beyond mere acknowledgment. We must delve deeper by: Seek Underlying Causes: Instead of accepting "that's how it is," ask "why is it this way?". Explore the historical, social, or psychological factors that contribute to the situation. Consider Alternatives: Is the current state of affairs inevitable? Could there be different ways of thinking or acting that could lead to a more positive/different outcome? Why We Settle for Circular Reasoning Circular reasoning, despite its flaws, often becomes a tempting shortcut in our fast-paced lives. This section explores the social pressures that contribute to its occurance. Society often prioritizes efficiency and productivity. We're expected to fulfill our roles – get a job, complete our education, meet our commitments, etc. Philosophy, with its inherent questioning and potential for social disruption, can be seen as a hindrance to this efficiency. This pressure can lead many to adopt circular reasoning as a means of maintaining the status quo and avoiding the potential complexities of deep thought. Furthermore, philosophical exploration can be unsettling. Unconventional conclusions like nihilism or anarchism can challenge our established belief systems and force us to confront uncomfortable truths. This potential for disruption can discourage, leading us to settle for a comfortable, even if superficial, acceptance of the way things are. However, not tackling the depths of reality in our minds can be regarded as a form of escapism, alongside many activities that hinder us from such thoughts. Reason's essence lies in providing new information and evidence to support a claim. Circular reasoning fails to add any new insights, therefore compromising its own value. As to why people resume using circular reasoning in conversations, is not entirely within my understanding. I presume it also has to do with masking information from others. We might not be always interested in knowing or telling the truth, so we use circular reasoning to give the illusion of additional value, which "enriches" the conversation. Some people might not be even interested in the conversation's functionality. Some of them might want to discuss for discussion's sake. It's one of the reasons I often stay clear from social communication. I prefer learning, not socializing. Our inherent human tendency towards illogicality further strengthens the case for conscious effort. We are not naturally logical creatures, and falling prey to fallacies is a common human experience, for it's both innate and normalized, as I found with whatabouism. The pursuit of philosophical inquiry should not be motivated by a desire for attention. The usage of circular logic can rhetorically be used to assert people's confidence in your authority, thus leading to a synergy between it and the authority fallacy. A professional who redundantly explains the same things, but in different rephrasing can be mistakenly seen as giving additional value to a captivated audience. True philosophical exploration thrives on a genuine curiosity about the world and a desire for deeper understanding. While external validation can be the positive reinforcement insightful work, it should never be the driving force, when at its basic, philosophy is the seeking of truth. And the truth, no matter how agreeable or controversial, does not need external affirmation in order to exist. And you cannot fulfill this basic purpose if you use circular logic. You cannot seek your way out of a cardboard box if all you're doing is spinning around,like a record. Conclusions The possibility that some may find fallacies appealing further emphasizes the need for clear communication and critical thinking skills. Just because someone finds an argument persuasive doesn't mean it's logically sound or even non-redundant. The burden of understanding lies on both the speaker and the listener to identify and dismantle fallacies to ensure more-meaningful exchange of ideas. For those reading philosophy and/or being philosophers themselves, try to avoid circular logic as much as possible, even if answers like "That's how life is" or "It is what it is" may be regarded by many as a reasonable insight. All it takes to avoid circular logic is to distinguish between reason and premise. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I think global education has failed at preparing us better for one factual truth: We are all humans with our own cognitive realities we live in. I believe something that needs to be part of education is how to best interact with another reality and the main kinds of realities there are. I think education is missing talking about reality with students. That and English classes should prepare students on presenting better structured premises. Debating and arguing should be a class for children at younger ages. Teach students how to better express themselves, not simply punishing students for trying to do it on their own. Circular logic exists because of qualia. People can’t understand why people have attached so much emotional value to something. They feel something and want other people to feel the same thing. Half the time it isn’t about the thing itself but the emotion it brings. Emotion is a strong thing.

(More articles I wrote on spirituality: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-third-eye https://www.philosocom.com/post/issues-with-spirituality) (Background music) *************************** How Randomness Meets Reality in Tarot Readings As I explored in a previous article, the arcane holds a curious allure. It is one I even used for the production of a miniseries on true love. It could indicate hidden connections (hence, arcane), embedding everyday anecdotes with a sense of cosmic significance, possibly suggesting a deterministic hand weaving the tapestry of our lives. This fascination led me to delve deeper, enrolling in various courses online, most notably one on Tarot reading. I managed to get a Tarot Master certificate earned through studying a recorded course of a spiritual polymath. Eventually I tried practicing tarot reading myself based on what I studied. I shuffled and reshuffled the cards, drawing them at random, both individually and in specific spreads. With each card revealed, regardless of its suit or orientation, an uncanny resonance echoed within me. Each image seemed to hold a mirror to my current circumstances, or perhaps even hinted at veiled possibilities in the future. This recurring pattern sparked a realization: humans, in our inherent complexity, are intricate complexes, built from diverse materials of genetics, personality, inclinations, and experiences. This very complexity allows us to find connections, however weak, between ourselves and anything seemingly random, as long as we're willing to weave the narrative for our own favor. And whether or not that narrative even exists is not quite logical as tarot is based on intuition, not on logic. The problem with intuition comes when we rely on it exclusively, without a shred of doubt, leading us to commit confirmation bias. And I quote from Situational Awareness Matters: "It is the facts and data that prove if the gut feeling is right or wrong. ...High consequence environments, when you have that euphoric feeling that everything is going well in a time compressed, high consequence environment, you need to make sure your intuition is right." The power of the tarot, then, lies not in predicting the future or revealing some absolute truth, but in its ability to act as a catalyst for introspection. It nudges us to contemplate the tapestry and identify recurring patterns and themes, and to perhaps even envision potential paths forward. The cards themselves are mere symbols, devoid of objective meaning (whose existence is proven by the strawman's fallacy). It is our own minds, with their inherent capacity for association and narrative construction, that breathe life into them, transforming them into mirrors reflecting our inner landscapes, reflecting more on ourselves rather than external reality, which depends on our individual emotions, far, far less. In this way, the tarot becomes a tool for self-discovery, and a potent reminder that the most profound truths often lie not in external validation, but within the depths of our own being. So, while the conformity to arcane pronouncements may remain prone to attack by evidence, the value of their invitation to self-exploration is undeniable. Which of course could indicate what I wrote several times, which is the fact that human beings are not logical by default and may need to learn how to become more logical beings. That is while the external world, even though we're a part of it, is composed of logic, or more specifically, the representation of mathematics and their interactions with one another. Unveiling the Illusion of Arcane Causality In the realm of the arcane a bizarre (or even "arcane") phenomenon unfolds. We draw connections between the seemingly random and the deeply personal, as if they are necessarily related. We embed symbols with meaning, forging a sense of "destiny" from the shuffled deck or toasts with a certain shapes. But beneath this alluring mystique lies a subtle illusion: the causal fallacy, also known as the questionable cause. The core of this fallacy lies in our tendency to perceive correlation as causation. If, upon uncovering a tarot card that resonates with our current state, we declare it a "sign,", without any questioning whatsoever, we've succumbed to this illusion. The card, no matter how evocative, is not the cause of our circumstances, but merely a reflection of what we feel and/or think. This isn't limited to the arcane. Practices like gematria, assigning numerical values to words and letters, can lead us down the same path. We begin to see significance in seemingly mundane details, our names and occupations transformed into symbols of universal mechanisms. This "divine," as some call it, can be God, Jesus, or Allah, depending on our cultural lens (even logos, which is the origin of logic, can also mean, "universal divine reason"). But here's the critical point: Attributing meaning doesn't erase nor "changes" the truth by itself. Cause and effect, though often intertwined, are not always linear. Not every action has a singular, predetermined outcome. Truth and significance, while intertwined in philosophical discourse, are not synonymous. Take the example of this article. Written (originally at least) at 4:02 AM, the time might seem significant, linked to the card "The Lovers" by the sum of its digits. But could I not have written it at any other hour, achieving the same response? In a parallel universe, does the time of publication truly alter the article's impact? Why this specific set of time necessitates insights I can give at any time of the day? The answer is that there is no universal necessity between symbolism and what they aim to represent, meaning they do not always have exclusive representation. Of course the Swatzika symbolizes nazism, but the fact that we associate the swatizka with nazism does not mean it does not represent other things as well, such as the Jain symbol from Jainism. Conversly, other symbols also represent nazism, such as the iron cross or the SS bolts. You don't need to use the swatzika to indicate nazism like you don't need to be awake at 4 AM to write a specific insight. This in general can disprove the idea of determinism that aims to necessitate every single point of time with a certain chain of events. It is not inevitable to write the same insight at 4 PM instead of 4 AM like it is not inevitable to use the SS bolts instead of the swatzika to indicate nazism. Therefore there is no necessary cause-and-effect between symbols and events. Just because two events occur in sequence (a tarot reading before a certain event), one doesn't necessarily cause the other (an event trigerred by the tarot reading). Dogs barking at sunrise don't make the sun rise. Black cats are not these energy sources for bad luck if you happened to lose a gamble when the odds of a gamble was against your favor. Conclusion We need to understand that we are the authors of our own narratives, capable of shaping our destinies without relying on cosmic puppet strings. While the arcane may offer a temporary escape, or a way to further understand our intuition, it is through examination of cause and effect that explains how the world works chronologically. It isn't through feeling whether event "A" really led to event "B" occuring. It is through understanding why one event led to the other, if it led to it in the first place (and thus: Skepticism).

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) I think this world is very weird, especially when you look at it through the eyes of an autistic philosopher. That is because of how absurd existence is, theoretically, along with the fact that we are expected to accept life and reality as intrinsically meaningful. Philosophically, the fact that we just come into the world, without our consent, is weird. No one asked us whether or not we want to come into the world, and we are neither asked where or to which family to be born, what education to receive, or which genes to possess. We just do, without making sure we permit it, even if we could. We are all forced to initially live until we may carry the courage, or despair, to do otherwise: Venture into the complete and yet inevitable unknown of this reality. What is even stranger about this world is that we are demanded to meet specific expectations, again, without caring about our consent. We are expected to behave appropriately, do our homework, and later in life, have a job and raise our own family. We are expected to repeat the same involuntary sequence we experienced ourselves, all to either be left alone or to try our luck at finding some happiness and/or meaning within existence, because we do not necessarily know better. The thing is, no one is necessarily compelled to tell us why all of these things are important. Maybe beyond the ad-populum fallacy that we "must" be successful because many others are and/or to please others. Our personal whims, wants and needs are not as important as those of general society is (which can also be regarded as "the world"). We are supposed to contribute to "the world" in exchange of our physical and mental survival. But should we rebel against it, even if by existing alone in a certain way, we will likely be rejected, and begin to view ourselves as different than "the world". When we begin to form this understanding that we are outsiders, for our authentic selves, we would be prone to feel a great deal of feelings related to loneliness. We may begin to feel that "the world" has forsaken us. It is then when we may also suspect that others see us as insane. "Insane", for our inner core is too different to be accepted by "the world". And that is the double-edged sword of being too unique for many people's liking, even if you can't do much about it. And that may apply regardless of your contribution to "the world". To this reality, to the planet, to society and so on. Even if there is much virtue in being unique, uniqueness can be seen as a threat on "the world's" order. See how society creates its own enemies by rejecting from it those who can contribute much to it, just because they fail conforming to the norms, no matter how hard they try. Many of us need to be normal in order to survive in a world that largely refuses to accept the different. That is even though we are not told exactly why surviving is important, let alone being born. So, many of us just have to accept that we exist and focus on the things we are required to focus on by different spheres of influence (family, friends, country and so on). Whether that's work, higher education, or any recommendation of any authority we find valuable to us. In exchange for conforming to a world that cares little for our consent of being alive, we are rewarded with validation of our work, thus creating this unhealthy dependency between us and between bodies that merely use us for their own benefit. We become not humans but human resources. Assets. Pawns. Under capitalist philosophies even this very world is an asset to be purchased, owned and sold. To quote Mr. John Duran: The horrifyingly despised and ignored truth is the earth was given to us as a gift, to be shared, not sold or owned. No one should own land, or the resources thereof that were bequeathed to every living species, not just mankind. Humans take, they don't ask, they seize their resources, and resell them calling it capitalism and somehow 'good' which is the worst evil in the history of this planet. Nature is crying, everyday, at the thievery and selfishness of mankind. The question is, beyond the mere necessity of survival, why should we cooperate with a society that treats us and the world itself as assets that are either high or lower quality? In a way, this reality forsaken us the moment the people around us confidently believe they know us enough. By deluding themselves, they blind their own eyes from our pain... the pain of being alive in an existence many of us find empty and absurd. There are also many ceremonies and traditions "the world", or society, maintains to preserve itself. These are minor or even grand events that we are required to follow and repeat day after day, again, without telling us why exactly, and without expecting us to care for "why". This is because philosophical inquisition is largely tiring, as I have witnessed myself in my own work. These traditions are just being done, usually every year, in an automatic-like attitude, mostly to mention something that happened sometime in the past, without necessarily asking ourselves why such rituals are necessary. We can just remember them and carry on, like we carry on with everything else in life. But, the supposed necessity of social cohesion stand strong in the hearts of those who are afraid to be alone. I dislike birthday parties because I don't see a need to celebrate knowledge that I already know. When you think about it, this world is very weird, very mechanical, ritualistic and tradition-based. It's a world that always advocates us to do things, to experience and to achieve things, without necessarily telling us why these things are important to be done, to be experienced and to be achieved. Many of us may conform for our own interests and not out of genuine care for others. In the absence of genuine care for others, we become mercenaries by mindset. Not only professionally but also socially. We may leave without hesitation the moment we don't like being with them, regardless of their feelings and/or distress. We normalize ourselves to see others the same as the world may see us: An asset that may or may not be of good quality, and may or may not be relevant for our efforts. Just like the planet itself. Hence why we do what others say, so we won't be outcasted. As being outcasts goes against our psychological needs for respect, appreciation and empathy. I don’t know why I should live a social life; I don’t know why I should “open doors” to new opportunities; I don’t know why being in my 20's is important for my success. I don’t know why I should continue to study academically after I finished school. I am merely getting more and more success and influence to escape the void inside of me. To remain sane in a world I wasn't asked to be in; a world that will live on regardless of my thoughts and feelings; A world that expects me to care about it, even though it has little to no intention to care about the true me. The one behind the mask. I don't know why romantic love is such an important feature in human life. I don't know what it means to "be a man" when I'm already a man. I don't even know why it's important to be happy. I don't even know why I should care about the personal and intimate happenings of famous people, let alone gossip about it to friends I don't know why I should be having. This gap in explanation is one that deserves to be burned alive if we want people to desire life, and not live it out of necessity or out of pleasing others. I also find the world to be scary, because it seems that no matter how smart I will be regarded as, the world by large would still remain an absurd, illogical mystery to my autistic mind. I am partially forced to study it, like a puppet on a string, who is governed by the fear of void. What I am certain about, however, is that naivety is more of an obstacle in the quest of understanding the world, than it is of usefulness. Thus, innocence is, to a large degree, an enemy of the philosopher, even if it appears friendly. Alex Mos's Comment I believe the reasons [for the article's inquiry] are social norms needed to keep people connected and behaving in a recognizable way for others; the herd mentality, which therefore makes people easier to control. Predictable behavior is more convenient than surprise. It is easier to characterize and to identify the different ones.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Svartgold/Svarl Articles) (Philosocom's subcategory on religion) (Background music) ******************** Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, whom no one knew. He has many believers around the world. Many of you already know. But some of you do not know him. I want to give you a presentation about his pure heart and morality, which give freedom and peace to the world of today. Jesus the Son of God, had plenty of enemies. And this is because his way was moral and peaceful for all people and the world. And his psychophysical ability to save people with limitations by putting his hand on their heads and healing them inspires an understanding that goodness also has pluses and high abilities. His choice is to support the poor. Help the disabled. Basically, help everyone he can. This caused other nations to hate him. All this stemmed from jealousy towards his brilliant mind and compassionate heart. And the infinite power of giving that he had. and in his spirit. In the fact that he didn't need people to be happy. Within him were happiness and loyalty to the world. It is said that he loved children very much. Taught them how to pray. To have humility with one another because all together is the power of holiness. Jesus wanted everyone to be equal and therefore advocated that the rich take care of the poor by giving tithes and by treating them equally. Throughout his time in Mark 10:18–31, we see that Jesus advocated helping the weak. By providing welfare, assistance, and respectful treatment to every person, regardless of who they are. Any person who speaks ill of his friend, will pay for it in the Sanhedrin trial. All the gossip is on his face, as if he has shed his blood and will make a judgment for it. Every murderer will be judged above. Anyone who manipulates and manipulates to gain control over people will be accused of betraying their friend. Jesus was very much in favor of a person praying quietly in the room, not in a way of modesty to show everyone that he was praying only to gain recognition and out of hypocrisy. He advocated giving to the poor quietly and not in the way of people who give to gain recognition and control over others. A lie is a situation in which a person lies to another and hides information from him, even if this information is critical to him as a human being. Sometimes, evil is so embedded in the enemies' heart, that he will try to gain information and use it later against you. Jesus hated such liars. Every person he saw looked at him as a king. And by the light, he receives his power and then good judgment. Jesus loved Jews very much and wanted their welfare. He knew that for more than thousands of years, the Jews were the chosen people, and he knew that they should be helped in any way. He was born into Judaism, and his desire was also to make things easier for the Jews. Therefore, he corrected the sermon to observe Shabbat in such a different way. After all, with time, there are already measures. And the Sabbath came to make a man king for one day. The purpose of the Sabbath is to enjoy this day and do things for yourself and others. The kindness and desire for good that he saw in Adam made him lower his expectations of others to give them the gift of a holy day in which they are the masters of their lives and live freely and enjoy themselves on this day. He noticed that there are also sick and poor people on Shabbat, regardless, and therefore the Holy Spirit in him made it possible through compassion for man to change the Shabbat to a day where he can enjoy himself and help others. And to do things for the community and the family. As a man born of God's seed, he was empathetic throughout. He had abilities that only God and the Holy Spirit have. One of his tasks was to defeat the Satanic spirit. The demons are different. The devil is a demonic spirit that originates in people. This is a spirit whose purpose is to harshly criticize and categorize people who are better than her. Within these people, there is a constant desire to hurt the weak and to feel strong. And do they do it by lying or gossiping? Arrogance. Endless manipulation and criticism. When such people are in their homes, their home is filled with hatred. Which creates an unclean spirit. (Luke 11:24-26) The same spirit of this type of person, when he leaves his house, carries with him seven more evil spirits than the one that was in his house. Together, many are evil and have devilish souls. An evil devil will be created. Their look is one of a violent nature that manifests itself in evil energy and evil eyes. They move their heads in the light of condemnation and in the light of humiliating that person who is weaker than them or different from them. And this look of hatred creates more such ghosts. This is the devil's mission. This is what creates the wicked, the wars, the hatred, and the restlessness of those impure souls who descend into the lives of the pure souls who want to see the light and be the kings of the earth. Weeds are the work of the enemy. When he does your work. When a person takes care of plants, takes care of children, or takes care of his animals. If he gives with love, the plant will develop. Also, the sons and daughters. And if he gives with hatred of man, the grass dries up and withers. It can be concluded that giving affects the behavior of the person, even the plants. And through this, you can see if there is a bad seed in it. That is, a human seed created by Satan. The situation in the world, especially in this period, is that the seed of evil has grown so much. Innocent people are attacked and sometimes even killed just because of their religion. As is happening in Israel. More specifically, people are murdered just because they are Jews. By people who have evil in them. There is evil in every religion, every race, and every nationality. But such acts. They are racism for its own sake. Jesus says that in the last days, he will save Israel. And it will come when he is seen and felt to be the Son of God. He will take the Christians to him to harm all those who threaten the Jews just because they are Jews. Jerusalem was given to the Jews. And so Jesus ruled. In the New Testament, there is a vision of the end times. Jesus will come to protect Israel. and the Jews. Because the state was expressly given to them according to the Torah. The words of God must be respected. The emphasis is that the whole world has morality from the root of the divine seed, and together they complete God incarnate. And that divine seed is the antithesis in the battle against Satan. It's the same entity that wants to kill innocents or show "concern" towards their misery, while in reality, she only cared/cares about herself (AKA Satan). People who follow her example can be regarded as the devil's people. People who are in favor of justice and goodness will never start a war. Neither physical nor mental takeover, whether at work, in a closed house, or in general. For war is immoral and unjust. When a person has no morally-greater purpose in his life and he cunningly gets his money, he thinks about how he can use his time and understand others to control people mentally. He does not look at them as people but as objects and demands that they waste their time in an unnecessary war/conflict, for his own amusement/benefit/profit. He has no desire to be good and respect man as a part of God. Instead, he will cause pain, disrupt people's plans, and steal time from them, and deal destruction he brought with his own resources. Anyone who belongs to the devil will seek to harm out of pleasure or boredom. Women sexually, or anyone too weak to be efficiently terrorized. Increase in their hearts, a frequency of fear and not a frequency of love. The frequency of love is one that is healing. A frequency of love builds God. People who have a demonic spirit are too antagonistic to want to nurture and spread that frequency. They have no care for it, and as such, they lack the compassion to reduce the suffering of others, using love, empathy and grace. A man who marries to get a divorce from his wife (or vice versa), not because a woman cheated sexually or otherwise -- he is a man who belongs to Satan because he causes suffering for their own gain (or vice versa). Such is the case when one divorces for the money. Therefore, he/she will find his judgment above, AKA karma. A person who does not forgive others. And I don't mean love. But forgive if he is asked for forgiveness, is sinning in the sin of pride, otherwise known as the sin of vanity. A person who does not ask for forgiveness, nor apologizes from his heart to the man or woman he loves. In his own time, every day that passes will be counted by God as a sin. You can learn from Jesus that his moral way is saving the disabled, the weak, and the poor, giving education with love, by giving yourself. Give love like the love between a man and his wife. Love is the way of truth, way of God. When people hurt others only out of a desire to reduce their value, shame them, or hurt them because of their skin color or religion, etc. These are little people, "children". Their world is black. And when they start to hurt, they have a great right to hurt them back with tricks that they started doing without considering the time or the pure status that each person has as far as he is concerned. Anyone who denies Jesus denies goodness. And I learned from Jesus. His teachings have many good insights. There are miracles like when Moses saw the bush, like when Jesus came from a virgin and pure woman. Jesus was full of compassion and forgave everyone, but he emphasized that his forgiveness was his own. The Holy Spirit is the one who will judge the evildoer. We must learn from the story of Jesus and his sacrifices for others. He gave a lot to others, and received the power and mind of God, in exchange. His moral path has existed for thousands of years. And protecting others who are weaker than you is his moral way. Isn't it better to be human? To be more humane? To nurture the humanity within you, and have a heart? Invest in yourself, the human part of yourself, and you can be as moral as Jesus Christ himself. Honesty, bravery, courage, energy healing, and the divine power that stood by him all the time still exist. People any religion. Some choose good. And some choose evil. What do you choose? I am adding here an exciting lecture on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ArMFKx35AE

(Subcategory Directory on Darkness) Article Synopsis Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "Explicit Content, Sensitivity and Eminem (Clean Article) -- How To Build Your Mind With the Darkness of Reality" explores Tomasio Rubinshtein's dichotomy, describing a high level of sensitivity in social interactions and an emotional detachment towards explicit and mature themes. Mr. Tomasio attributes his emotional resilience to exposure to dark content, particularly the music of Eminem, and discusses how this exposure helped him build mental strength. The article delves into Eminem's lyrics, highlighting themes of societal dysfunction and personal struggle, and reflects on the transformative power of facing harsh realities. The article's engaging introduction captures the reader's attention by presenting the author's personal dichotomy, while the use of personal anecdotes adds a relatable and authentic touch. The analysis of Eminem's music is thorough and insightful, discussing both disturbing and deeply-human elements. The article tackles thought-provoking themes such as the necessity of confronting uncomfortable truths and the role of mental training in personal development. Furthermore, the mention of neuroplasticity and the ability to rewire the mind adds a scientific dimension to the discussion. In conclusion, the article is an engaging and thought-provoking piece that effectively combines personal narrative with cultural analysis. (Background music) Introduction: Understanding Selective Sensitivity My personality appears to be very dichotomic. On the one hand, I possess a high degree of sensitivity, to the point where I sometimes feel a need to withdraw from social interaction to recover from its "ordeals". On the other hand, I seem relatively unaffected by explicit subjects such as self-sacrifice, gore, and other mature themes. That is even though many highly sensitive people do, as seen by their triggered behavior from horror movies. I am by the way apathetic even to the horror genre. This apparent contradiction is how stereotypes are broken and "The Whole Person Fallacy" is compromised as it should be. In other words, it may seem strange that I used to be deeply affected by insults while remaining unfazed by things that trouble others in their mental worlds. However, humans can be that unique, and some traits that they have wouldn't necessarily come in effect depending on the situation at hand. Because it may appear to you very odd how I used to feel terrorized by the yells of others in real life, but completely emotionless when I explore and discuss the philosophy of a Finnish school shooter who was a philosopher as well. However, it is easily explained by the fact I have misophonia, and thus am necessarily highly sensitive to sounds which people find plausible. Of course, I even find a man becoming an acquired savant plausible. I didn't blink an eye when he told me of his injuries when I wrote with him an article on the matter. The idea therefore that all highly sensitive people are these fragile beings who always need trigger warnings and treat them as if you're stepping on eggshells is nothing more than a generalization. Knowing that I had to reduce this heightened sensitivity in order to attain my desired success in life, I began strengthening my weak spirit from the very early years of my life... Path to Becoming a "Rubinshteinic Butcher" Interestingly, I learned English largely through video games and music, particularly the music of Eminem, a rapper known for his controversial and often disturbing content. A synopsis of a book researching his many rap songs (Over 1400), comments: In terms of lyrical content, no area has been off-limits to Eminem, and he has written about domestic violence, murder, r***, child abuse, incest, drug addiction, and torture during his career. But whilst he will always be associated with these dark subjects, Mathers [Eminem's real name] has also explored fatherhood, bereavement, mental illness, poverty, friendship, and love within his lyrics, and the juxtaposition between these very different themes (sometimes within the same song), make his lyrics complex, deep, and deserving of proper critical discussion. Looking back at those songs from my early teenage years, I'm surprised I wasn't more repulsed by their lyrical themes. No. I listened to them daily, trying to memorize some of them. Listened to them at night when I went to bed. I immersed my mind with such dark content in order to slowly build myself into the largely emotionless man I am today. You can see that, based on my example, the mind can be trained. When it is trained, it can develop and change in accordance to the simulation it receives. The Calm blog reports: You can train your mind to be more focused, clear, and efficient, just like you can train your body to run the 3,000m or master taekwondo. Thanks to mental strength training and “neuroplasticity” (the ability of the brain’s neural networks to change through growth and reorganization), anyone can rewire their mind to become stronger, healthier, and fitter than ever before. All it takes is time, practice, and consistency. Understanding Eminem's Musical Darkness See -- Without Me Let's just say the content was quite explicit, and I'm surprised very few questioned my exposure to it, especially considering I understood most of the lyrics after translating them online. Eminem's music is undeniably dark. It delves into the many themes of societal, domestic and personal dysfunction. Dysfunctions he used both to entertain, provoke audiences and used to develop himself as a man. But this darkness isn't there for shock value alone. Let's dissect it further.... A Reality of Living Despite the Struggle: See -- "Rock Bottom" Eminem's lyrics often paint a grim picture of his upbringing and the struggles faced by many in the ever-increasing lower-class populace of the U.S. By using graphic language, he forces listeners to confront uncomfortable truths, otherwise ignored or denied. This isn't a glorification of life in the brutal streets of Detroit, Michigan, but a raw portrayal meant to spark awareness to "the corner people" of America. The Slim Shady Persona: Slim is usually depicted as a violent, sociopathic criminal. He has a very large ego. He also seems to not have any sense of right-or-wrong. -- Villains Wiki Much of Eminem's darkness stems from his alter ego, Slim Shady. This character is a personification of rage, frustration, hatred, and the darker aspects of human nature. By embodying Slim, Eminem allows himself to explore these emotions without apology or remorse. Carl Jung describes our dark side as essential for our greater awareness and for the success of our good plans in life... “Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.” Evolution of Darkness: "The bridge of the song features a dialogue between Eminem and Dr. Dre, where Dr. Dre questions Slim Shady's behavior and calls him a "base-head." This dialogue adds another layer to the song, highlighting the internal conflict and struggle Eminem faces with his alter ego" -- "My Name Is" Analysis (SongMeaning Blog) While early Eminem was known for shock rap, his darkness has evolved. Songs like "Darkness" from his 2020 album tackle gun violence and addiction with a chilling honesty. His darkness now reflects a deeper social commentary, referencing the growing occurrence of mass shootings that emerge across America. From Retreat to Resilience As you can tell I was done with being treated with disrespect and mistreatment due to my former sensitivity, a very long time ago... Ever since the 2000's, in fact. I saw no reason to embrace it, when it left me lonely, depressed and suffering. Being misunderstood is its own mental pain, followed by the feeling of being unseen. Pain I can further extinguish with my ruthlessness quest for greater communication. Growing up, I learned to navigate social challenges by retreating: escapism, seeking external intervention, or hoping problems would fade. These coping mechanisms, while seemingly "psychologically safe", left me feeling powerless and yearning for a more assertive self. The endless cycle of distractions, professional help, and avoidance coping, offer only temporary relief. They fail to address the core issue: the need to establish one's own worth in a merciless, unfair modern world. The idea that one's life lacks inherent value because they're poor, because they're degreeless, because they work/ed in low-prestige jobs, is something I refuse to accept undoubtedly. My mental training is and will resume to be done in altruistic solitude. And I expect no trophy, and for good reason. Short Conclusions While facing the darker aspects of life at a young age was painful, it served a purpose. It forced me to develop resilience and a thicker skin. I learned that sheltering myself from life's harsh realities only weakens one's spirit. Facing challenges head-on builds strength and character. I choose the way of the Enduring Pillar. How am I supposed to research a reality I'm too fearful to explore? Hahaha... Some emotions deserve resistance. And some socio-economic ways of oppression, too. To quote Mr. John Duran: Is the American capitalistic system ethical or rational or even logical considering the ravaging of the natural resources and decimation of billions of lives required for the wealthy to acquire more wealth while the poor fight for their scraps? Is any of this right?

(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) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The interview with Andy Oppenheimer, conducted by Ori Sindel and published on Philosocom, offers a fascinating insight into the artistic and thematic elements of Oppenheimer Analysis' music. The conversation reveals the deep thought and historical context behind the lyrics, shedding light on the creative process and the messages embedded within their songs. The interview provides a platform for Oppenheimer to share in-depth stories and reflections, such as the 1930s science magazine's role in the song "Modern Wonder." It enriches the reader's understanding of the music by connecting it to historical events and figures, such as the connection between "Cold War" and the historical Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb. Personal anecdotes add a personal touch to the interview, making the music and its creation process more relatable and engaging. In conclusion, the interview succeeds in providing a meaningful look into Oppenheimer Analysis' music, capturing the essence of their creative process and thematic concerns. (Philosocom's Ori Sindel Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Background music) The Interview in Question This is a short interview of mine, discussing the lyrics of OPPENHEIMER ANALYSIS, one of my all time favourite musical projects. S: Good afternoon Andy Orion Oppenheimer. I have always been curious about the general meaning of the song "Modern Wonder". Additionally, I am wondering what the modern wonder mentioned in the song is. O: "‘Modern Wonder’ was a 1930s ‘boy’s’ popular science magazine (paper not glossy). I had a collection of the magazines given to me by my boss when I worked at Omni Magazine, around the time Martin Lloyd and I formed Oppenheimer Analysis in 1981. The song is about a time traveller and his lover who get separated and propelled into the future, the ‘late atomic age turning into chronic rage’ – and its devastation all round… “here we lie in disarray surrounded by the present day”. “Should we tell them what we know” – means that we are living in the future of atomic destruction, so do we tell the people of the past what we know about the terrible future?" O: I love that song. Martin played a favourite instrument of mine – a twelve string guitar – on the track. I think it was in the first ‘New Mexico’ collection on cassette tape." S: In your opinion, did the song "Cold War" happen to be some kind of a precise guess for our present events? After most of us “thought it was over”? O: "It was in part a warning for the time we were living in then – 1982, the height of the early 1980s Cold War – but from the point of view of as the Oppenheimer of history (now immortalised in THAT film) during the 1950s Cold War. He was ousted from government circles during the Cold War McCarthy witch hunt phase, in 1954 - having built the atomic bomb – partly because he warned of the dangers of a nuclear arms race - and opposed the development of the H-bomb. “We thought it was over” refers to the end of World War II, we thought it was over… (I am singing as the historical Oppenheimer) - “warn you of the danger I’ve got to get a hold” “Your blood runs cold” “'When you think you only did what you were told'” – guilt from building the bomb but under military oversight" S: Who are the devil's dancers, and what does the devil symbolise in the song? O: "I took the phrase from one of the atomic scientists who said building the bomb was dancing with the Devil. "I didn’t refer to the bomb specifically, just ‘the future’s here said the pioneer’ – and turned it into a catchy bunch of lyrics vaguely about scientists being “The Devil’s Dancers”. Martin’s arrangement and our composition of the tune turned it into a dance track. "Never in my/our wildest dreams did we expect this song to get so much exposure later in the Internet era. Had we got a recording contract back in 1982 this song would probably have charted… it’s been covered and even featured in a Miss World contest and Lord knows what else… "Yet it isn’t my personal best, by a long way – I’ve done some great songs since after Martin died (in 2013). Mostly with Mahk Rumbae (Oppenheimer MkII – The Presence of the Abnormal, Out in the Field) and I am still composing songs – there’s a stunning album coming out this autumn (Songs From A Constellation) with Crystalline Structure on TONN Recordings. "But The Devil’s Dancers are so catchy that I guess it just caught on among electro club DJs and the ‘collectors’ of early synth pop music." S: Who is the “HE” referred to in “Behind the Shades”? O: "I had to really think hard about this one! It was the first song Martin and I did. I based it on The Man Who Fell to Earth. I had that total Bowie look when we first got together. "So - [in the song] I am Thomas Jerome Newton, sitting in the big black car, wearing the sunglasses - Behind The Shades – and I’m now a multi-millionaire after falling to Earth and making a fortune. "I think that the ‘he’ and ‘him’ is some American corporate giant who doesn’t core about me or anyone else… he’s the one with the real power, not me. He will bring me down. “I don’t care whose empire it is, I know that I can’t see him behind the shades… And he’ll never see me…Or bother to care who I am”" Key Takeaways The interview explores the stories behind some of Oppenheimer Analysis' most popular songs. "Modern Wonder" is inspired by a 1930s science magazine and explores the concept of time travel and a dystopian future. "Cold War" is a song written from the perspective of historical figure J. Robert Oppenheimer, reflecting on the dangers of the nuclear arms race. "The Devil's Dancers" references the quote from an atomic scientist about building the bomb being a dance with the devil. The song doesn't explicitly mention the bomb but uses the phrase metaphorically for scientists. "Behind the Shades" is based on the movie "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and explores themes of wealth, power, and alienation.

See -- "The Circle of Life" song, Elton John, Martin Cook (Background music) The Pridelands -- A Communist Monarchy The Lion King is not just a movie, but a franchise of several forms of media, including the first movie, several games, and to my knowledge, a single show. The franchise tells the story of a fictional country, led and inhabited by animals, called the Pride Lands, and about the power struggles between at least two factions: those who wish to preserve a concept called "The Circle of Life" and those who are against it. The main theme of the franchise is food. Food is not just a way to survive, but also a source of authority. This authority can be used to justify one's kingship in the Pride Lands, and also to overthrow a current ruler. "The Circle of Life" is both a philosophy and a fundamental principle in the Pride Lands. It states that food must be rationed. In other words, if you are hungry for fish, you need to make sure that you not only eat enough, but also leave enough for others to eat too. "The Circle of Life" is an interesting concept because it teaches us the importance of sharing limited resources in order to make sure that everyone has their fair share of the food they need to survive. However, it is also a socialist concept, as it holds that natural resources should be under the authority of the law and the government, and not be privately owned. It's also known as central planning. Therefore, Mufasa's rule, and later on, Simba's rule, is a socialist one, because their leadership intervenes with the food supply of their own citizens. In the Pride Lands, you cannot eat as much as you want. You need to eat as much as you need, and have enough left over for others too. The whole kingdom is essentially one big commune of various species who need to eat each other in a way that does not discard other animals. It is not exactly a vegetarian or vegan nation, but for carnivores, it is not as easy to live there due to the "Lion King" theme of sharing and not hoarding or looting. The Opposing Antagonistic Force The main "evil" animals in the franchise are the hyenas. They are often portrayed as foolish, malicious, and incompetent, but I would not call them evil just because they are very hungry carnivores. The reason for them to be the antagonists is not only because they followed Scar, a main villain himself, but also because they defy the "Circle of Life." In other words, they are "the bad guys" because they do not care about the socialist idea of sharing your resources with others by government decree. It is because "A hyena's belly is never full". The Hyena Clan throughout the franchise were marginalized social groups who were forced to keep to themselves, but under Mufasa's and Simba's rule, they became a disenfranchised minority who were denied access to the food they needed to survive. As a result of this forced isolation, the hyenas were often very hungry, having to chew bones in places that were portrayed as dark and distant from the main regions of the Pride Lands. The hyenas might have been foolish, but it was Scar, Mufasa's brother, who manipulated them into believing that they would "never go hungry again" by serving under him as the new king of the Pride Lands. Scar: Master Manipulator Scar, unlike the other monarchs throughout the franchise, did not care for his people when he overthrew his brother and tried to kill his nephew, Simba. As a result, the Pride Lands turned from a socialist monarchy into an anarchy ruled by an apathetic, power-hungry king. Since Scar did not care for the Circle of Life and saw himself as the most important being than any other, the Pride Lands became chaotic and dystopian. The reason being that Scar wanted to be king for the sake of the title and for the food that follows. In that sense, he was indeed more villainous than his hyena henchmen, because he basically manipulated them in exchange for his dream: To take what was taken away from him. Scar was the heir to the throne, until Simba was born, and thus became the new heir. Mufasa did not care enough, not for his brother's dream, and not for the hyenas whom he oppressed and isolated from the prey they needed to survive. So, it is obvious that both of these entities would retaliate and overthrow the original king. Mufasa underestimated his own brother. The Circle of Life: A Flawed Philosophy to Live By "The Circle of Life" is a flawed philosophy because we are individuals who don't really like to share our own resources with others by law. That is because some of us are hungrier than others, make more money than others, and so on. In a socialist state, the collective is at a higher priority than the individualist, as individualism is about personal liberty, and as a result, your own property is not entirely of your own but in the hands of everyone else. It is faulty because you are, as a result, depraved of your basic liberties. Communism can be seen as an extreme form of socialism, even though there are several sects of communism, and even though socialism can be applied to democracy as well. Therefore, they are not necessarily the same thing, even though they could be regarded as parts in a bigger spectrum; a spectrum that is based on sharing private property, such as income taxes, with others. Welfare, for example, is a democratic socialist/social democratic concept because those who live on welfare receive their money from the taxpayer and thus the income is distributed in the name of equality. However, you don't need to be an authoritarian state, like in the case of communism in some cases, in order for welfare to be served to those who need it. The problem with "The Circle of Life" concept is the fact that it breeds antagonism from those who are hungrier than others, in The Lion King at least. It also forces you to be considerate of others whether you like it or not. If it was a perfect notion, any animal in the Pride Lands would have gotten the food they required in order to sustain themselves, and that need would be enough to surpass their selfish desires. And indeed, the circle of life prioritizes needs over desires, and only does not mind desire as long as it does not clashes with needs. However, both are important. This problem comes from another problem, too: The fact that resources are limited, and therefore, get smaller and smaller with every share. As more and more animals get what they need to be fed, some might not get enough, like the hyenas, who were marginalized and excluded from the rest of the country. Imagine you have a thousand apples and need to divide them between 50 people each month. If you did the math right, every individual would get 20 apples. See how quickly a thousand apples became 20 apples, shared between a population of people who could at best form a small community. However, how are you supposed to sustain yourselves with 20 apples a month if there are at least 30 days in a month, if not 31? And the thing is, some people have a greater appetite. Why? Because some are bigger physically, and thus need to eat more; some are children, whose food is necessary for their development; some work in physical labor so they need food for more energy. You get the idea, right? The Circle of Life is lacking because it disregards people as individuals with their own distinctions and needs. A rhino is not a crocodile, a bird is not a lion, and so on and so forth. This is why, the Pride Lands, as a country who was mostly socialist and/or communist throughout the franchise, was vulnerable to succession wars by those who valued individualism over collectivism. It makes sense, because resources are often limited, and are even more limited when shared with others. As much as I remember, there are only 5 countries nowadays that are socialist: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea (or the DPRK). It's reasonable that socialism and/or communist did not really work in the world as a government method, not only because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also because having to share your resources makes you poorer than you could have been otherwise. Thus, it is difficult for a socialist state to prosper if the benefit earned from work is constantly divided and distributed. End Note I will end by reminding you that there are different forms of socialism since Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, but remember a quote which I believe is his: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Should you not strive for more in life, if you are capable of doing so, you will be left with apples, and not apple pies; pies are usually more satisfying than mere fruits and require more than apples to make. And to survive better, one must prosper.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) Abstract The article of existence, necessity and potential, argues against the "Bodybuilder Argument," which suggests that because you have the potential to do something, you must do it. I use the example of bodybuilding to show that just because you can build muscle, doesn't mean you should. They argue that potential is a possibility, not a necessity. The article expands this concept beyond physical fitness to other areas of life, such as having children, getting a higher education, or getting married. These are all things people can choose to do, but there's no obligation to do any of them. I conclude by arguing that people should focus on their own desires and not be pressured by societal expectations. They should develop their courage and critical thinking skills to make their own choices about how to live their lives. This can provide a sense of liberation from societal constraints, by seeking alternative solutions which can actually solve our problems. (Background music) Introduction: Why Are You Not a Bodybuilder? Let me begin this article with a thought experiment: Are you a bodybuilder? If not, why not? Your physique possesses immense potential, waiting to be sculpted through merciless training. Ignoring this potential retains you to average strength, at best, and lowers it, at worst. See how is this a fallacy? This concept, which I call the Bodybuilder Argument, extends beyond the gym. It applies to anything with inherent potential, often mistakenly seen as a mandatory path. It also extends: Beyond the bedroom. (The Issues of Sex) Beyond the academics. (The Degree Fallacy) Beyond reading lengthy books. (On Reading and Writing In Philosophy) Let's dig into this further like an unexplored ruby deposit. Imagine being born with the capacity to create life. Does this then necessitate procreation? Just because you can build a bodybuilder's physique doesn't mean you must. Likewise, having a reproductive organ does not mean you must use it to reproduce. Understanding The Argument's Fallacy The Bodybuilder Argument confuses opportunity as destiny. While potential exists, it's not a higher calling by its own. You are either forced or influenced to see it as such, or you genuinely see it as such by your own free[r] will. The idea of potential-as-destiny is that of perception. And perception is a choice. The state of being in a metaphorical matrix, is a product of choice. Expanding the potential of our intelligence can better allow us to understand of the unconscious choices we make. You know, they can do you harm. The Bodybuilder Argument a product of "The Way Things Are" Fallacy. You cannot effectively accept other ways of life if you undoubtedly think your ways are the best. Observe this flawed reality. Do you think looking fit like Johnny Bravo will get you true love? Muscles and other attractive physical features, are not always enough, and for good reason. To quote Swani Jena of Medium: If you are born a human being, whether man or woman, pretty or ugly — and you don’t have a purpose in life, you are as good as doomed. No one needs a crown, evening gown and sash to have a purpose in life. What difference is there, in things such as reproduction, higher education, getting a driver's license, marrying, enlisting in the military, and so on? You can do these things, but even if you should do them, there is, ultimately, no existential motive or being that forces you to do them. The only force is a perceived one. A paper tiger is, as such, most frightening when it creates the idea that you should be intimidated. But should we be really intimidated from the world's largest cannon, when the Schwerer Gustav Gun isn't a practical weapon? Why We Should Also Develop Virtue Conversely, what quality is a body-building boyfriend that would abandon you the moment he finds someone other than you he suddenly likes? This isn't a shallow matter. It's in fact quite ethical... It concerns relationship ethics, specifically. Reality is often far more complex than mere orthodoxy, and requires a unity/synergy of several values. In the case of "If I'll to be a bodybuilder, I'll be more attractive", let us quote Confucius: The way of the superior person is threefold; virtuous, they are free from anxieties; wise, they are free from perplexities; and bold they are free from fear Let us not, in any way, confuse potential and recommendations, using our many convincing biases. The fact they tell us to act in a certain way, does not make it a Kantian-like Categorical Imperative, correct?. Orders, including one's from our intuition's authority fallacy... Without the well-critical mind, tell us we must or mustn't do things without our rationality's ability to resist. How can the herd mentality be surpassed if there is not a strong-enough cognitive force to oppose it? How Conformity Breeds Stagnation Why do we succumb to conformity at all times? We often fall into conformity because we fear what others will think of us. Metaphorically, we might want to be bodybuilders because our peers are also ones. But we cannot be virtuous, and therefore more attractive, if we choose to remain cowards. Virtue can be seen as a dimension of love, designated to further the welfare of another. But while conformity may highlight one methodology, it might compel you from seeing the bigger picture. As such, being "a bodybuilder" is insufficient, when reality calls for the application of several methodologies, to solve the same concern. Thus, physical attraction alone could use attraction of other kinds, as well. Must we solely use training to develop our muscles, due to our influence by popular culture's idealized body standard? Should we be bodybuilders so we won't feel left behind, and feel like outsiders? Solving the Bodybuilder Argument: The Value of Courage Observe how such reasons, to develop oneself, are based on fear. You might improve your body. But can you really hone it until you'll finally feel content? How can you feel content if you prioritize perfectionism over contentment? Ironically, perfectionism can draw you further into depression. And you cannot love yourself, if your self-image causes you great sadness. Furthermore, the opposite of love is not hatred, but fear. To quote Liam Blume: The rejection of a set of features that we do not accept in ourselves causes many problems. When we do not accept ourselves out of fear, we do not love ourselves. Fear is the opposite of love. If we want to be loved more, why hide our insecurity behind a temple of muscle? Why not consider working on your courage, instead? For courage is not the absence of fear. It's rather the ability to act despite it. You can't love effectively if you refuse to be courageous. And you can't love effectively, if you choose criticism over appreciation. It is something that can in fact destroy relationships. A person you love is mentally distressed. What use would your V-shaped body be if your heart isn't strong enough to embrace him/her, and assist them in their recovery? Can you really help a distressed person by focusing on criticism, more so than believing in them? To believe in a person and display it directly, after all, you must develop the muscle that is your heart. You might claim she would need a certified psychologist. However, we require courage to see the truth, and realize we can elevate more things than mere weights. We can also lift spirits of those who are dear to us. We should understand how strong we can really be, for raw muscle may lift weights, but cannot lift a depressed heart from the pit of despair. You cannot flex your way to help others. What you can do, is to focus less on your ego, and direct your attention at the problem at hand. It is the mature thing to do. Whether I be rejected as insane for my unconventional methodologies, I care not. To quote Mr. John Duran: The closer you get to understanding reality, the more insane you are considered. Conclusions Look around you but look deeply, too. There is more to life than society, religion, funds, and transactional benefits. The concern of "What will others think about me?" might not deserve such importance, when you have the power within you to act despite it. There is, first and foremost, yourself and your true desires. Reinforcing them with logic can yield greater results than exclusively reinforcing your body with muscle growth. The only "necessary" thing in the world is survival. Once we fail at it, we cease to exist, and then, we cannot do anything, because, we'll be dead! Therefore, survival is the basis of all potential. In the end, the fear of many is the fear of being a "klumnik", a being that hasn't done anything significant to be respected by their society. And yet, you can realize your freedom, not only from the law, but from the norms as well. You can realize, then, that contribution and problem-solving can be done without trophies and without a bias of prestige. In other words, it is pointless to focus on methodologies that do not, yield, or even hinder, the results you're looking for. Why would society force upon you its so-called "unwritten laws" and "unwritten ideals", when you have both the logic, the discipline and the faith in your actions, to create the success you want to have? For their refusal to deeply understand your struggles, your ambitions and your pains, some people deserve to be discarded.

(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) Abstract The principle of self-sufficiency is a cornerstone of Cynic philosophy, offering a powerful antidote to the dependence on external circumstances that characterizes much of modern life. By embracing self-sufficiency, individuals can cultivate inner strength and resilience, leading to a more fulfilling and virtuous life. The examples of Diogenes, Crates, and other Cynics provide practical insights into how this principle can be lived out, challenging us to rethink our values and find true happiness within ourselves. Cynic philosophy, with its emphasis on self-sufficiency, virtue, and simplicity, offers profound lessons for modern society. In a world dominated by materialism and consumerism, the Cynic ideal provides a blueprint for a more fulfilling and sustainable way of life. By adopting principles of self-sufficiency and virtue, individuals can find true contentment and contribute to a more equitable and resilient society. The enduring relevance of Cynic philosophy lies in its challenge to conventional values and its advocacy for a life grounded in nature and virtue. As we navigate the complexities of modern life, the wisdom of the Cynics can guide us towards a more meaningful and ethical existence. (Philosocom's O. C. Isaac's Articles) (Background music) Introduction to Cynic Philosophy Cynicism, a school of thought founded in ancient Greece, offers profound insights into living a life of virtue and self-sufficiency. Emerging in the 4th century BCE, Cynic philosophy was founded by Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates, and later popularized by Diogenes of Sinope. The Cynics advocated for a life in harmony with nature, free from the superficial values of society. They rejected materialism, social conventions, and advocated for self-sufficiency (autarkeia), which they considered the cornerstone of a virtuous and fulfilling life. Origins and Key Figures Cynicism, rooted in Socrates' teachings, is a philosophy that emphasizes virtue and self-knowledge. Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates, is considered the founder of Cynicism, advocating for an ascetic lifestyle and independence from external circumstances. He believed that wealth, power, and social status were irrelevant to a virtuous life, and instead promoted self-control, resilience, and a disdain for luxury. Diogenes of Sinope, the most famous Cynic, epitomized the Cynic ideal through extreme asceticism and public disdain for social conventions. His life and actions were not mere eccentricities but practical demonstrations of Cynic principles. Other notable Cynics include Crates of Thebes, who gave away his fortune to live a life of poverty and virtue, and Hipparchia of Maroneia, who married Crates and lived according to Cynic principles. The teachings of Antisthenes, Diogenes, and other Cynics had a significant impact on later philosophical traditions, including Stoicism. Cynicism's radical critique of social norms and materialism continues to resonate today, offering a powerful reminder of the importance of virtue and living a fulfilling life independent of societal expectations. Fundamental Principles of Cynicism The core principles of Cynicism revolve around living in accordance with nature, practicing self-sufficiency, and valuing virtue above all else. Cynics believed that true happiness could be attained by freeing oneself from societal expectations and material desires. Their philosophy was radical, often involving deliberate acts of shamelessness (anaideia) to challenge social conventions and reveal the absurdity of societal values. Living in Accordance with Nature Living in accordance with nature was a fundamental principle for the Cynics. They believed that human beings should live in a way that is consistent with their natural state, free from the artificial constructs of society. This meant rejecting the pursuit of wealth, power, and luxury, which they saw as corrupting influences. Instead, they advocated for a simple life, focused on fulfilling basic needs and developing inner virtues. Practicing Self-Sufficiency Self-sufficiency, or autarkeia, is central to Cynic philosophy. It signifies an independence from external circumstances and a reliance on one's inner resources and virtue. For the Cynics, self-sufficiency was not about isolation but about developing a resilience that allows one to live virtuously regardless of external conditions. Valuing Virtue Above All Else For Cynics, virtue was the highest good and the only true source of happiness. They believed that virtue was sufficient for a fulfilling life and that it could be achieved through rigorous self-discipline and living in accordance with nature. This emphasis on virtue led them to reject societal norms and material desires, which they saw as distractions from the pursuit of a virtuous life. Challenging Societal Conventions Cynics often engaged in deliberate acts of shamelessness (anaideia) to challenge social conventions and reveal the absurdity of societal values. By acting in ways that defied social norms, they sought to expose the superficiality and hypocrisy of society. These acts were not meant to be rebellious for the sake of rebellion but were strategic demonstrations designed to provoke thought and encourage others to question their values and behaviors. Understanding Self-Sufficiency (Autarkeia) Self-sufficiency, or autarkeia, is a central tenet of Cynic philosophy. It signifies an independence from external circumstances and a reliance on one's inner resources and virtue. For the Cynics, self-sufficiency was not about isolation but about developing a resilience that allows one to live virtuously regardless of external conditions. Definition and Importance In Cynicism, self-sufficiency means being content with little and finding happiness within oneself rather than through external acquisitions. This idea contrasts sharply with contemporary views of success, which often equate happiness with material wealth and social status. Cynics argue that dependence on external factors for happiness leads to a fragile and vulnerable state of being. True contentment, they claim, arises from within and is anchored in virtue. Self-sufficiency is about cultivating an inner strength that makes one impervious to the ups and downs of life. It involves developing a mindset that values personal integrity and ethical living over external validation and material success. By focusing on what is within one's control—namely, one's own thoughts, actions, and attitudes—Cynics believed that individuals could achieve a state of enduring happiness and tranquillity. Examples from Notable Cynics Diogenes of Sinope Diogenes exemplified self-sufficiency through his ascetic lifestyle. He owned nothing but a cloak, a staff, and a bowl—until he discarded the bowl, realizing he could drink with his hands. This anecdote underscores the Cynic commitment to minimalism and the belief that less is more. Diogenes' rejection of material possessions was not just about renunciation but about demonstrating the possibility of living a fulfilled life with the bare minimum. His life was a testament to the idea that true freedom comes from needing little and being satisfied with what one has. Diogenes' interactions with Alexander the Great further illustrate his self-sufficiency. When Alexander offered him any favor, Diogenes famously replied, "Stand out of my sunlight." This response highlights his independence from external sources of power and wealth, showing that his happiness was rooted entirely within himself. Crates of Thebes Crates of Thebes, another prominent Cynic, gave away his wealth to live a life of poverty and virtue, teaching that material possessions are unnecessary for a fulfilling life. Born into a wealthy family, Crates chose to abandon his fortune to pursue philosophy and live according to Cynic principles. His voluntary poverty was a powerful statement against the values of his time, emphasizing that true wealth lies in virtue and wisdom, not in material possessions. Crates' relationship with Hipparchia, who also adopted Cynic principles, further exemplified self-sufficiency. Together, they lived a life of simplicity and virtue, rejecting societal expectations and finding happiness in their shared commitment to Cynic ideals. Their partnership was based on mutual respect and a shared dedication to living a virtuous life, challenging conventional views on marriage and gender roles. The Broader Implications of Self-Sufficiency The concept of self-sufficiency in Cynicism extends beyond individual practices to a broader critique of societal values. Cynics argued that society's emphasis on wealth, status, and external success distracts individuals from the true source of happiness, which lies in living virtuously and in accordance with nature. By advocating for self-sufficiency, Cynics sought to empower individuals to reclaim their autonomy and focus on what truly matters. In a modern context, the Cynic emphasis on self-sufficiency offers a powerful counter-narrative to consumerism and the relentless pursuit of material success. It encourages a re-evaluation of what it means to live a good life, suggesting that happiness is not found in external acquisitions but in the cultivation of inner virtues and resilience. Practical Steps Toward Self-Sufficiency 1. Simplify Your Life: Reduce your reliance on material possessions and focus on what is truly necessary. This might involve decluttering your home, reducing your consumption, and prioritizing experiences over things. 2. Develop Inner Resources: Cultivate virtues such as wisdom, courage, and self-control. Engage in practices that strengthen your mental and emotional resilience, such as meditation, journaling, and self-reflection. 3. Embrace Minimalism: Adopt a minimalist lifestyle that prioritizes quality over quantity. Learn to appreciate the simple pleasures in life and find contentment in what you have rather than constantly seeking more. 4. Foster Independence: Work on becoming more self-reliant by developing skills that allow you to meet your own needs. This might include learning to cook, grow your own food, or repair items rather than relying on external sources. 5. Practice Mindfulness: Be present and mindful in your daily life. Focus on the here and now rather than worrying about the future or dwelling on the past. Mindfulness helps cultivate a sense of contentment and appreciation for the present moment. Benefits of Minimalism Minimalism leads to reduced stress, more financial freedom, and a greater sense of control over one’s life. By focusing on essentials, individuals can enjoy a higher quality of life with less. Case Studies Modern Minimalists: Stories of individuals who have embraced minimalism and found greater happiness and freedom. Tiny House Movement: An example of living simply and sustainably, reducing one's ecological footprint while increasing personal freedom. Ethical Implications The ethical dimension of Cynicism is integral to its philosophy. Living a virtuous life is central to achieving true happiness and self-sufficiency. Role of Virtue in Achieving Contentment Cynics believe that virtue is the only true good and the foundation of a fulfilling life. Virtue involves living in accordance with nature, practicing honesty, and being self-sufficient. For Cynics, external circumstances are irrelevant to one's happiness; what matters is the state of the soul. Comparisons with Other Philosophical and Religious Teachings Cynic ethics share similarities with other traditions: Stoicism: Emphasizes inner tranquility and virtue. Buddhism: Advocates detachment from material desires and living a virtuous life. Christianity: Early Christian ascetics were influenced by Cynic practices, valuing poverty and virtue over wealth. Challenges and Criticisms While Cynicism offers valuable insights, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Potential Criticisms Extreme Asceticism: Some critics argue that Cynicism’s extreme asceticism is impractical and harsh. Social Isolation: The Cynic disdain for societal norms can lead to social isolation. Addressing Criticisms Balance: Modern interpretations of Cynicism can adopt a balanced approach, emphasizing simplicity and virtue without extreme asceticism. Community Engagement: Encouraging community involvement while maintaining independence can mitigate the risk of isolation.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) A Skeptical Look at the Simulated Universe Theory I do not understand how uncertainty about the origin of life can lead to the conclusion that we are living in a computer simulation. The existence of a simulation presupposes a creator, and that creator's origins would be equally as puzzling. Who would simulate an entire universe of planets and species? Why would they do so? These answers remain unanswered beyond our attempt to determine the existence of gods. And even then, the existence of one or more gods does not mean that we live in a virtual simulation. Moreover, Computer Simulation Theory are not solely created out of nothing; they often involve significant investment of time, resources, and expertise. And yet, even if we are to have the "how", the technicalities, we still lack the "why". Even if we'll have the science, we may lack the philosophy. If our universe is a simulation, who stands to profit from it? The financial motivations behind most simulations raise further questions. If entities external to our universe are profiting from this simulation, who are their customers? What form do these customers take within the simulation, and what is their role? After all, a product is there not only for its producers, but also for its audience of consumers. If we are a virtual product, we must have been created for the sake of these two parties. But we don't even have any ways to know who are the members of these two parties. Can we truly be sure of something we can't both reason its purpose and infrastructure? It seems unlikely that they would be humans or animals, as we possess self-awareness that is not characteristic of non-player characters. They may be code-driven objects without self-awareness, similar to contemporary artificial intelligence. And yes, AI does not have it yet. Regarding the "customer" party whose simulation is here for -- Why would anyone choose to inhabit a rock within a reality of endless possibilities? Why would they enjoy contemporary life if contemporary life can easily be boring? And if the customers are not really players, why does this reality exist at all? Surely an unprofitable simulation would have been shut down long ago. It's important to remember that the simulation hypothesis remains unproven. There is no scientific evidence to support it, and its validity is ultimately a matter of individual belief. Like any hypothesis, it could be right or wrong. The financial aspect of simulations casts doubt on the simulation hypothesis. Perhaps the answers lie beyond the realm of profit and entertainment, in motivations we cannot yet comprehend. But the very irony in all of this is that we ourselves may create or participate in stimulations just to refresh our own experience and escape from reality. It's one of the main points of many games -- doing things we are incapable of doing in real life. Either way, if we, the "virtual agents"/"NPCs" of this universe, create simulations within this simulations, perhaps there is something faulty within this simulation. It isn't exactly profitable when your own virtual agents dislike the simulation they are in, and seek to escape from it so much. Trapped in the Game: Debunking the Player Hypothesis in the Simulation Theory If we reject the notion that we're just NPCs stuck in a grand cosmic videogame, does that automatically make us the players ourselves? While the allure of being the masters of our own digital destiny is tempting, closer examination reveals a dissonance between this hypothesis and the reality we experience. Unlike true players, we lack any evidence of an external life beyond the boundaries of this simulated world. Because if you're trapped inside a virtual reality, you might as well know you are, by having recollections of a reality beyond this "virtual prison" called "real life". While even the most dedicated gamer can step away for a sandwich and social interaction, our existence here seems absolute, with death the only potential escape hatch. And even then, the escape that's death is one that goes through a metaphorical sphere of unknown darkness. Moreover, our needs, desires, and motivations seem to arise solely from within this reality. A passionate gamer playing for days still yearns for food and social interaction outside the virtual world. Conversely, we find no such hunger for an existence beyond our own. The lack of a clear separation between player and their character further weakens the hypothesis. Unlike the controlled avatars in "The Sims," we face no divine puppet-master dictating our every move (unless we cancel out the idea of having free will). Our choices, fueled by internal or external influences, shape our paths. An external entity pulling the strings could simply eject or "ban" us from the simulation without needing an in-game reason – but people don't just vanish into the void. Furthermore, our reality presents several differences from a typical game/simulation: No lag: Time marches on relentlessly, free from frustrating network delays and server crashes. In games where there are several computers, the lag also depends on the computer's processing power. But we don't have that issue in real life, do we? Jet lag, fortunately, fails to be the time-manipulating force a virtual lag is. No save/load: Reloading from an earlier point or quitting simply isn't an option (unless you subscribe to the debatable concept of reincarnation). No password required: We don't need a login to access our own lives. No character creation: Our physical forms are shaped by biological processes beyond our control – no selecting pre-made avatars or tweaking stats here. Self-development and character creation is not the same even in video games (which can be translated to a "level up") No fourth-wall breaking: No amount of meta-commentary will alter the game's rules or influence other players to the point of making them aware of a "fourth wall", when there isn't exactly one visible to our eyes. No hacking: Infiltrating another person's mind with godlike control remains science fiction. Although you might be able to, in the future, using brain-machine interface, you wouldn't be able to turn the whole planet to cheese by hacking into a metaphysical code. No cheat codes: Instant wealth or bending time to your will exist only in fantasy (or, you know, in games). While we may speak of "killing time," it's merely a subjective term within our perceived pace of life. We lack the ability to pause or rewind. Ultimately, the "player hypothesis" crumbles under closer scrutiny. Our lack of external lives, the absence of game mechanics like saving and loading, and the inherent autonomy of our choices paint a picture far removed from the controlled environment of a typical video game. While the simulation hypothesis itself remains a matter of open debate, the idea that we, the seemingly trapped pawns, are somehow also the puppeteers pulling the strings simply doesn't hold water. Beyond the Game: Rethinking Reality Even if we entertain the notion of a simulated reality, a more fundamental question arises: Why do we need to be in a simulation at all? Could our own reality be the simulating entity, the one that generates other simulated, "subjective realities" within it? In the face of such existential questions, the void emerges as a constant presence. It doesn't go away, but stays permanently whether or not it had an origin like anything else non-void. It remains with its three expressions of space, seclusion and silence, the ultimate backdrop that exists for certainty, whether or not anything exists or ceases to exist. Perhaps the answer lies beyond the confines of our simulated understanding. Perhaps the only constant is the void, the ever-present emptiness that both birthed and will outlast all metaphysical theories, and all being and things. The void doesn't disappear, making it, technically, a "something". And in virtual simulations, as in real life, everything is data. That includes void as well, given that it is also a "something". In a stimulation, every possible interaction is stored. And voids are the ones that allow these interactions in the first place (like the ability to move in an empty room, the fact that being alone is occasionally an inevitable possibility, and so on). To quote Paul Richmond from Quora, as a summary: "Multiple bits would be required to track any single bit used to describe our universe. As our universe may be infinite, only an infinite computer would be up to the job in that case. If our universe is finite, clearly the tracking computer would have to be so great as to appear infinite to our minds" Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Wouldn’t life in a simulation make everything more understandable? There is just one major reason why we aren’t: All simulators have restart options. So we are living in one with no reset which only gives us one life to live. Your right to ponder why this doesn’t make any sense. Point in case if this were a simulator there would be no organic material in it. Either that or they make 3d printing very realistic in the future. I also don’t see why individuals in a simulator would be required to have lungs and need oxygen to breathe. So I’m not going to go with a simulator. I’m going to go with a creator giving us a very nice cage to play in. Don’t know how else you would describe earth. I also have one fundamental problem with a simulator theory. It would imply life is a game. You want to know who the customers are if this is a simulator? Look into betting if you want a financial motive. Who says we aren’t in a simulator but were still given free will and other species are betting on what will happen. Imagine watching all of humanity on a tv you could flip through. Individuals will be on anything. What if humanity was just someone’s joke? Lets give these apes intelligence and free will and see what happens! If this is a simulator I want to know who supplies the gear for it. Some ungodly level of processing power and video graphics. What if we are in a giant game of risk? Can governments not make us move when they want us to? The sim theory is definitely nonsensical as what would the purpose of law and order be? Think I could use the simulator defense to try and get away with murder? Have you ever seen the movie Inception? Simulator in a simulator would kind of be like that. Maybe the matrix was right about people needing to wake up. What if the simulation is nothing more than the cognitive reality which is created by our overlords? Those people who are trying to keep civilization together, so they do so by putting as many people as possible into one frame of mind. Who says a simulator can’t be created which allows free will? It would just be a setting option. It would be like putting pets into a cage and expecting them to do what you want them to. No, the most you can do is put the toys in there in hopes they will play with them (aka the Earth). Could the purpose of life be to settle as much of the universe as possible? Just need to evolve to the point of being able to do so...

(Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Background music) (The Subcategory on Despair and Surrender: Hope In Despair -- How It Could Be Found (Poem) Giving Up Your Privacy For Products -- The Ethical Philosophy of Contemporary Privacy Giving Up When Giving Is Due -- Why I Gave Up On Weakness Bind Yourself! A Way to Not Give Up (Poem) On the Solitary Lifestyle and the Idea of Defeatism -- Why Solitude Isn't Necessarily About Giving Up How and Why I (Formerly) Gave Up On Love Accepting Reality I: Accepting the Pain https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-secret-plans-path-to-a-ruthless-self https://www.philosocom.com/post/woman-s-tale https://www.philosocom.com/post/butterfly-effect https://www.philosocom.com/post/anonymity https://www.philosocom.com/post/salvation https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-rectifier-s-despair) Part I: A Personal Case Example Being a man with a massive physique who ruthlessly worked to be his master's competent solitary executor, I have suffered from over-body-fat for many years, no matter how physically active I was. Despite being an ascetic hermit, I invested a lot on working on myself, physically and mentally, and became regularly hungry and fatigued as a result to this very day. I have purposefully neglected society and I purposefully neglected other people's love and empathy towards me, so I could focus on becoming a ruthless communicator, as to better and better deliver my grandmother's wishes unto an awful world that made her despair. I actively searched for ways to lose belly fat, and, in some periods, I've been the most active person I have ever been. Yet, despite all the hours of walking, the gym, ground exercise, and healthy eating, I have failed to reduce my annoying, unnecessary fat. All the time I spent working out and eating healthy appeared futile, as I got even more fat, regardless of the activity I attempt to maintain on a regular basis. The only way for me to not give up, which proved successful, was to intensify my asceticism even further, to the point I become near-oblivious to my hunger, as I work on Philosocom and function nonetheless. I am a very hungry man, as I am driven by pain to improve my philosophy skills further and further. I need more food than the average-sized human being, and even more than people who are as tall as me. I am driven by the intensity of my emotions. Also, I am hard-wired to be more depressed than happy, and hard-wired to work very hard. On Specified Hopelessness My ambitions, ironically to my asceticism, are wide and only end when I die. I refuse to retire. Nothing satisfies me fully. Eating jungles of vegetables and meat, I would often remain unsatisfied as if I didn't eat much. Even on an average day, when I get to eat, food used to be one of my top subjects when thinking. That is, until my transformations. On an average day, whereas an average person eats 3 meals a day, I used to eat 9, I believe. It didn't change my hunger. Nowadays, eating 2 or 3 meals hasn't changed it either. I have accepted my suffering as for granted. I only talk about suffering-reduction because most people are not ascetic, but rather, hedonistic. All of the wasted time on physical health, which was quickly deteriorated by exhaustion, made me realize how futile my attempts to reduce my body fat were. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to become healthier, without compromising my ambitions, is to hone my asceticism even further. To accept my hunger, physical as well as mental, as unseparated from my own existence, for the rest of my life. I don't care whether I am liked or not. I don't need my ambitions and my pains sympathized nor empathized nor validated. If I am not about to die from starvation, I can wait several hours until I get to eat. I am unrelenting for my work and I am more and more independent of the external world when it comes to my inner peace. Part II: Analysis of My Demonstration Based on my personal example, giving up should only be made when there are absolutely no other options left, or when the options (and people) are far too incompetent to deal with the problem. Those who give up early are not aware of their potential, and those who give up late are unaware of their own futility. Therefore, the middle ground is to stop trying when there is no other alternative, or when the alternative is too costly (Not necessarily in money). Based on this, there's a difference between giving up on a core activity, and giving up on total hope; pure despair, versus specified despair. Thus, some activities, when given up, can help us amplify the efficiency of our other/main activities. Thus, some giving up is good, for some activities, based on our respective philosophies, aren't worth it. A hopeless liability, when given up could boost the fruition of new possibility, subverting said liability. If you are in a reality where you do not tolerate it enough, at least make the best of it, while you're in it. Conclusive Musings On The Expression It is strange to use the word "up" in "giving up" because "up" is supposed to be something better-spirited, like a stand-up routine. Yet, when you give something "up", you give it to something or someone that is above yourself. Therefore, giving up can be seen as an expression of modesty, where the self is not the goal but the means that gives itself up for the goal. Helping others, is when you literally give up your resources, time especially, for their aid. Therefore, not all forms of giving up are forms of defeat, but sometimes strength too. It's just that we are biased to see the term in a pessimistic manner. The expression can also give us the following insight: When you give up, it is our choice afterwards, whether to look down in despair, or look up in hope and/or resourcefulness. The usage of my personal situation has led me to create something new, AKA, look "up" for something else that is and will resume being far greater than myself exclusively, as a result of giving up. "Giving up" could simply mean "stop what you're doing and look forward to something else thereafter". When we give up on caring about something, it can be a strength for us, as it can increase our focus on doing something that might be more important currently. Conversely, when others are dependable on us, it can become a weakness more than a strength. It really is a more natural term than it appears for most of us.

(Background music) Introduction Justice can be simply defined as the state or condition where at least one person or entity receives what they deserve, whether that be punishment, condemnation, reward, or appropriate treatment. For the bare minimum of justice to be applied, at least one person must receive what they deserve for their actions or being. Because our world is imperfect and unjust, the implementation of justice is not something that can be found everywhere. Depending on one's luck, you may be rewarded for your actions or the opposite, even if you have done good overall in whatever role you fulfill in society. Additionally, it is not always in our hands. Therefore, the reception of justice depends on one's luck and the competence of the one serving justice. Even if we do not always have the power to serve justice, there are times when we do, to others. There is no need to be a judge in a court of law in order to be thankful for something good someone has done, punish a student for not doing their homework, and so on. Justice is slippery, as well as heavily demanded, whether rightfully or with a delusional sense of entitlement. Living in an Unjust World How does one live in an unjust world? In a world where people live and die by things that are not their fault, such as hunger, disease, and violence? Where people can easily be bullied by their peers or trolls, to the point of having suffering tendencies, while all their "sin" has been being slightly different from the norms? We should still remember, however, that even in a world where justice is far from being served, it does not mean we should despair and be miserable for our inferiority against those who are more fortunate than ourselves. As Epictetus said, there are things within and outside our control. Having vengeance or resentment for an event that is not likely to ever repeat itself again, will only damage you and your mentality.... Unless there are other benefits? I know, for sure, that I have benefits, of my own. A positive person must first of all learn how to live with things they can't do anything about, and not let said things lead them to sorrow too much, as nothing other than living in the past will come when resenting about loss or any other kind of disservice. (Cope In an Unjust World) We learn to believe that there are certain things that we deserve to have. However, beyond human and civil rights in countries and people that actually care about them, we don't really deserve things, even if they are basic. We are not entitled to food, water, a stable income, health, praise, and so on. Even for the most basic of things, we usually have to prove to others and to ourselves that we should have what we either want or need. This world, for most, is a meritocracy! Justice as a Professional Philosopher This is why I, as a philosopher, am not entitled to be praised by anyone who reads my content. I do not deserve to be praised. For me, being a philosopher is like doing any other kind of job, even if the main priority is not monetary gain. If I did a poor job, I'll seek to rectify it. Simple as that. I live to work, and thus serve, and when you read my articles, you deserve to find what you're looking for, if not more. That is what I learned from the wisdom of the salaryman philosophy which I covered. Not only is the world unjust, but praise is not as imperative as air or a right. What is imperative, is philosophy itself. For saving my life from despair before, I am forever indebted to it. Not everyone will like the fruits of my work, some might even be angry, but all-in-all, praise should come from honesty, whether you are a philosopher, a clerk at a small company, or a cashier at a fast food chain. You cannot, ultimately, force something beyond your control to happen, even if you believe that you deserve it to happen to you. You don't even deserve likes or followers on social media. You deserve to try to earn them if that is what you want, along with followers. More Insights on Justice Thus, if you wish for justice to occur, the sad reality is that it won't always happen to you, those you love, or those you hate. That depends on powers beyond your control and you might not have that power yourself. Money for example is power that can also be used for justice, as in the case of charity. As charity is based on funds and is towards a cause that is just. However, people might not have the funds to donate, and those who donate might not care at all, so they won't donate. We can do whatever we can, however, to make justice happen, but there is still no guarantee. Is the world getting more just/fair/equal over the years? Whatever the answer will be, total submission to the facts will not get you anywhere, even if there are still things beyond your control that you can't do anything about them. Because people won't necessarily care. Because apathy is deadly. Before we wrap this up, there is also another problem about justice: Not everyone would agree about the exact execution of it when it is served. What I mean is this: there is this belief that people who are atheist don't deserve to enter paradise, but instead are destined to be in Hell. Regardless of whether these places exist or not, not everyone would agree that thinking differently from a lot of people would mean that they deserve eternal suffocation and torture. After all, perception on the same values we recognize, is subjective. This further complicates the execution of justice, because you can't always please everyone as the one who casts it. Justice, therefore, is more than receiving what you deserve, but dealing with the reception of those who are aware of said justice. You might think that forgiving a criminal is okay for being good at prison, but perhaps the victims of their crimes won't. Either way, if you want justice, you need power. And "power is everything". Without it, you will be cast aside to the shadows of society, lonely and forgotten. It is only through relevance where your unfair treatment by others can be rectified. It's only then when I can overcome my nemesis, which I did. The John Duran Bonus "How is it that I can understand EVERY aspect of humanity, but they/you won't/refuse to understand me?" -- John Duran Justice is about mutuality, about giving and receiving in a way that is fair and appropriate. Empathy, for example, is about understanding other people, and compassion is about participating in their suffering. However, mutuality cannot be created if there is unfairness, and thus mutuality is connected to justice. When you understand others, you are expected to be understood yourself. However, that might not be possible because others may lack the cognition necessary to understand you. Therefore, mutual understanding can be seen as justice, and justice also has an intellectual aspect. And yet, not all are intellects. Many few are, in fact, for we might have a decline in intellect. Intellect isn't necessarily a source for boasting exclusively. It's also about understanding the world around you, and if you lack the ability to do so, you won't be able to get much justice for those whose situation requires more understanding than otherwise. And those who are more misunderstood, are likelier to be lonely. Some people do not deserve to be lonely, as with the example of Eleanor Rigby in the Beatles song. But we do not always get what we deserve in life, do we? We deserve to be understood, but we won't always. Some of us might not be understood at all. And yet, we need to understand our surroundings in order to survive.

Alex Mos's Synopsis The trolley problem explores the moral choice of diverting the runaway trolley to a side track, resulting in killing one person and saving five. The other choice, inaction, means letting five people die. The experiment has a few practical limitations when applied to reality. It allows only these two choices; however, more options are possible, such as finding a way to halt the trolley. Real-life ethical dilemmas often involve causing "lesser" suffering to prevent a greater one. However, can we distinguish between "justified" and unnecessary harm? An interesting aspect is the higher value placed on a leader's life than others, which is morally incorrect. Also, the trolley experiment ignores the legal implications and societal factors like a duty to act or punishment. There is a third alternative to the trolley problem: don't intervene and don't sacrifice people for a greater cause. Instead, try to save them, get others to assist you, and become a courageous hero. Otherwise, if you are not strong enough, run away. The author lives life in a way that, for all costs, refuses to cause unnecessary suffering. (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (2025 Note: For the sake of my sanity, I will not save more people than I already did. 7 is enough for me). (Background music) A Flawed Framework for Real-World Dilemmas? The trolley problem is a cornerstone of ethical thought experiments. It presents a grim scenario: a runaway trolley unintentionally towards a group of people, capable of running them over. You a mere bystander, have the chance to intervene and divert the trolley to a side track, killing only one person instead of five. Do you pull the lever, and why? The problem's purpose is to explore the boundaries of morality, in situations where sacrifice is not to be assumed, but necessarily recognized. It forces us to consider the value of a single life versus multiple lives, and whether inaction is morally equivalent to causing harm. However, the trolley problem presents a limited framework for real-world ethical dilemmas. Here's why: False Dichotomy of Action vs. Inaction: The scenario assumes you either act (pull the lever) and become a "murderer" or do nothing and be complicit in multiple deaths. In reality, ethical dilemmas often involve exploring options to reduce harm altogether. Perhaps alerting authorities, applying the emergency brake, or finding another way to stop the trolley exists. Why must we resort to the intentional murder of people? Must we choose the path of suffering in all cases? Can't a path with no unnecessary suffering, be found? And not only in such extreme cases... but in relationships, too. Must flowers bloom at the inevitable decline of others? Focus On Killing Vs. Saving: On the other hand... real-world dilemmas may involve causing harm to prevent a greater one. Think of self-defense or administering a painful medical procedure to save a life. Some adversity is, indeed, necessary, for a stronger mentality... As sad as it sounds. But can we really distinguish, between this "altruistic" suffering, and between one which is unnecessary from the start? Must we always start wars for a more peaceful future? Legal and Social Consequences: The thought experiment ignores the legal implications of the action. In most societies, the act of diverting the trolley wouldn't be considered murder, but rather an attempt to save lives. Social factors like duty to act or potential for punishment are also absent from the scenario. In a morally-depraved society, diverting the trolley will less likely to bring you the justice you may deserve. The "Leader Position: The argument that a single life, especially that of a leader, outweighs the lives of many is an interesting take. However, it simplifies leadership and societal structures. A leader's death wouldn't necessarily equate to societal collapse. Furthermore, the moral point of leadership is to help others, and not be above them in priority. The Moral Maze This reminds me of a joke I once heard: "Why did you kill him?" the judge asked. "I didn't do it, the gun did!" If a large-scale cannon is being recharged, why take the handle when you can't even abort its fire? The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment that forces us to confront a terrible choice. And you will kill, if there are only two options. You will cause grief. And, you can even cause people, such as your victims' friends and family, be vengeful towards you, and plan your downfall. You cannot have a clear conscience, by partaking in this dilemma in its traditional form. There is a third option. Must you intervene and cause death? Do nothing, and someone will perish. Someone however will perish even if you intervene. Avoid causing harm, and you can have a clearer conscience. Learn to let go of what will cause suffering either way, and you won't cause suffering in any direct way. Do not take responsibility on a noble cause that is done on the exploitation of others. Do not make people victims for a greater cause. It's not worth the world you'll be creating in your actions... A world where wars, and the traumas that follow, deserve to be justified in the eyes of society. A world where people become but pawns for greater schemes, worthy to be discarded when they outlive their use in your plans. Can you really look in the eyes of people, whose dear ones you've killed? Can you take responsibility when you cause grief to others? Why should we accept such a world where sacrificial suffering and trauma are justified? Where one is killed, so another would live? Change the trajectory of the trolley, and you will kill. Run as fast as you can to the railways and scream in distress, and you might save them. If they are tied, and you are not physically alone, then rally up the people around you quickly, and engulf the flame of life in their hearts, so as many of the trolley's victims will be saved! Must we act alone? Why can't we employ others to assist us, in saving the lives of the distressed? Why must sacrifice of life be the only choice? Why shouldn't we work towards their rescue, even if it will risk us? You need to get risks to get what you want! You want to save as many of them, then muster the strength within you, the courage, and do what it takes to increase the chance of people not dying overall! Do not work for death! Work for overall life! Otherwise, stay out of this! If you are not strong enough to help others, run away! Heroism requires strength. I prefer keep on saving people from the trolley that self-sacrifice. I will NOT make another fall victim to self-sacrifice, just so others would not. I prefer risking my own mentality, over causing pain, and even death, to another. I prefer to distress myself than choosing who is to be distressed. I don't want to cause unnecessary suffering.... I refuse. Bonus Comment From "St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missle" As a young person, I heard a variant of the trolly car problem. A trolly car engineer had a child. The child liked to play upon the tracks. One morning, the engineer advised his child, "do not play on the tracks today. I will need to change the lanes, and the gears will crush you." Tragically, his child did not listen. The trolly car approached, and the child was playing carelessly amid the gears. The engineer faced a dilemma... let a train full of people derail and die, or kill his child. As it was one of those paternalist sorts of messages, the engineer killed his child and the moral of the story was that children should listen to their parents (it wasn't a very good story). Noticeably, this problem is nearly identical to the standard trolly car problem, and the act of taking his child's life is not justifiable. The confusion added to the problem of this child being the engineer's changes nothing about the moral impact of the dilemma. When we see and bond with people, our instincts make us protective, accepting, and more ready to defend these people than others. This is a very natural survival instinct. Our same instinct causes us to dismiss outgroup positions within a fraction of a second. This too is a survival instinct; to trust those who have built trust, and distrust those who have not built it (and such is also a morally defensible. Nobody is entitled to trust upon demand. Respect is owed. Trust is earned). It becomes problematic when twisted by propaganda, that some people are "our people" and "other people" aren't. Indeed this is how all blood libel begins. I think the truth is we are all each other's children. Imagine a modified version of the dilemma... Instead of careless play, what if the person's child comes under extreme stress of some kind, perhaps even duress, and the child intends to destroy the track and intentionally kill those on board? Is it justifiable then to take action to defend people against your own? Might it even be obligatory, as the original dilemma attempted to assert? Perhaps.... Every war is brother and sister against brother and sister. All conflict is friendly fire. George Orwell said: "War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil." I disagree with him only to the extent that defending against a war is not a lesser evil. Defense becomes justifiable, perhaps even obligatory, by the circumstance of the unjust harm presented by the aggressor. It is the nature of the aggression, however, that justifies defense, never whether we are close to one side or another. We are all family.

(For the directory on success, click here) (Background music) Living in the Shadow of the Peak Many people, throughout their lives, experience a period of peak performance and success as they conquer their goals in succession. This phase, whether long or short, becomes the pinnacle of their existence. They reach the top of their metaphorical mountain and enjoy the glory of their accomplishments. Phrases like "This is the best moment of my life," "I will never have this much fun again," and "things can't get better than this" echo through their minds, as they feel to be glad to be alive. However, this seemingly positive perspective holds a dark irony. The belief that a particular peak represents the absolute best of their lives implies that it won't get better, if this phase is indeed the pinnacle of their lives. Once the excitement fades, the mountain climber is left only with the memory of reaching the top, unable to find a new peak of equal or greater than itself. This mindset can be limiting. It confines individuals to the shadows of their past achievements, hindering their growth and preventing them from experiencing new joys and triumphs. Life becomes a constant comparison to a singular moment, instead of a journey filled with its own unique peaks and valleys. It can be compared to life of the fictional protagonist Bojack Horseman, which I wrote about before. And indeed, the irony of this peak is, no pun intended, peak irony. The very thing that we aspire to, can depress us, once we attain it. Instead of clinging to the past, individuals should embrace the possibility of new peaks, in an endless stream of goal-conquering that might as well only end with death. That's because every stage of life offers its own opportunities for growth and accomplishment, making it unwise to underestimate our own potential. By focusing on the present, as a platform for potential conquests in the future, individuals can avoid the trap of living in the shadow of their past successes. As such I personally choose to be unsatisfied, and see it as granted, because satisfaction would greatly deter my life's work that is Philosocom. Here are some points to consider: Life is a journey of several destinations, not a destination by itself. There will always be new peaks to conquer and new experiences to be had, as long as we choose life over death. Don't compare your life to others impractically. Life is, at large, a series of competitions over limited resources. Make sure you are not consumed by jealousy, as you attempt to improve the value of your craft over that of your competitors. Embrace the unknown. Be open to new opportunities and experiences, for they can be useful for your goals, as well as people you believe you can trust. Never stop learning and growing. There is always something new to discover. Do not fall to the delusion that omniscience is possible. Beyond the Limitations of Current Success Success is a highly individual experience. While some find fulfillment in marriage, parenthood, or achieving rockstar fame, for others, it may lie elsewhere. It all depends on your goals. Ultimately, whether an event constitutes a "peak" depends on individual values and aspirations. And for these values and ambitions to be understood by oneself, one must be honest with themselves and discover what they truly want to do in life. For many women, motherhood represents the pinnacle of their lives. Similarly, musicians often define their prime success as achieving widespread recognition. The same can arguably be partially applied to philosophy as well, if you're philosophizing publicly. The joy of music extends far beyond mere entertainment; it serves as a powerful tool for expression that can be philosophized about as well. Many artists, for sure, pursue the dream of reaching a vast audience, and may define that as their success. Yet, for me, music production, though a passion, doesn't occupy that peak. My motivations lie elsewhere. How can you reach a peak you haven't designated for yourself to go towards? Either way, whether or not the peak you've reached was of your own design, it's quite hard to resume being satisfied, when you still crave for more. This means that even the highest of peaks might as well fail to satiate our hunger for more, some of us might have. Interestingly, a video game survey posed a thought-provoking question: "Does life begin or end with marriage?" While for some, it's the dawn of a beautiful journey, for others, it marks the beginning of a decline. This illustrates the subjective duality of "peak": A moment of immense joy and achievement that, at the same time, points at the possibility of an ending. Since both answers, of yes and no, are true, this indicates that the subjective equality of existence is true. But I digress. This "Peak's Irony" is one-way ticket to a desired destination, a celebration combined with the bittersweet awareness of potential limitations. It reminds us that life is finite, our chances limited in both energy and time. Just like scoring a basketball with a finite number of tries, our attempts at achieving our peaks will eventually run out, making way for the inevitable demise of the human body and mind regardless of success or failure. This realization, however, shouldn't discourage us. Instead, it serves as a powerful motivator to embrace the present moment and strive for excellence while we can. For in the face of limitation, each success, big or small, becomes a precious treasure to be conquered as ours and as our successors. I have no desire to lead a life of fun and adventure, when I can focus on building my empire in the confines of my physical hermitage from the world. I don't care that I'm missing out on the experiences earned in the orthodox ways of life. I care for my ambitions. And my ambitions I will attempt to realize into a reality. Purposefulness can be a great liability when it is finally earned. However, I am settled with the fact that I don't intend to ever be fully satisfied again. That will make me far more successful in the field of philosophy, promoting Philosocom to be, hopefully, one of the best philosophy blogs online. Resisting the Inevitability of Decline The concept of "Peak's Irony" is a sharp reminder of the fleeting nature of success and the inevitability of decline. It urges us to carefully consider our choices and pursue our visions with determination, or we'll be left with regret and a sense of unfulfilled potential. While achieving a peak can be a source of immense satisfaction, it also carries the risk of frustration and idleness, once achieved. The fear of never replicating past achievements can hinder growth and prevent us from exploring new avenues for fulfilment and self-discovery. Would we want that, or should we resume being on the move as long as we're alive? Either way, life is a dynamic journey, not a static destination. Decline is an inherent part of life's cycle, and our ultimate peak may not be a single moment, but rather the collection of all our experiences, both positive and negative. Should we choose to see life like that, we can basically live life in the best way we can, AKA, according to our own ideals. Instead of dwelling on the fear of inevitable decline (or any fear for that matter), we should focus on how to make the most of our present moment. This involves: Actively pursuing our visions: Having a clear vision of what we want to achieve in life provides a sense of purpose and direction. It's how we can create a meaningful and fulfilling existence. Embracing continuous learning: The world is constantly changing, and to keep pace, we must commit to lifelong learning. This allows us to acquire new skills, broaden our perspectives, and adapt to new situations. That way we can at least try and even overcome peak's irony indefinitely. Ultimately, understanding "Peak's Irony" can serve as a powerful trigger for positive change, despite the bitter meaning behind it (or even, because of its bitter value). By embracing the lifelong ambition constant success we can create a life that is both meaningful and resilient in the face of the inevitable decline of the human body and mind. And as you might find for yourselves, constantly being occupied, either physically, mentally or both, can help your general situation from declining as you age. And that's why you should always be looking for the next challenge. Not necessarily for others exclusively, but for yourself as well, in order to avoid or decrease personal decline.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Caligula Effect" explores the concept of irrational subordination to authority, using historical examples like Emperor Caligula's reign as a metaphor. Mr. Tomasio uses Caligula's reign as a backdrop for discussing arbitrary and irrational authority, making the concept relatable to everyday situations. The article also engages in philosophical inquiry, asking readers to question the legitimacy of power structures and the role of collective resistance in dismantling unjust power structures. Additionally, the article presents fictional and historical examples of "The Caligula Effect" in order to ground the concept in a greater framework. In conclusion, the article presents an interesting and creative exploration of power dynamics through the lens of "The Caligula Effect". (Background music) ********* Living for yourself often requires the destruction of others for us to continue, in every respect. Both financially and socially. But living existence often requires the detriment of others. We must ultimately destroy them, or recruit them to our cause in order to live and often indeed profit finally, though the very thought is abhorrent to me. This is the lot of all living beings. To be alive requires the sacrifice of others, one way or another -- Mr. John Duran The Main Body "The Caligula Effect", not to be confused with a game with the same name, is a term I made in an attempt to describe the reasoning behind being subordinate under someone, who does not have much reasoning, to deserve loyal subordinates. In other words, I made this term in order to explain the phenomenon, where a figure of power and authority, have those, even if they are being incompetent, mad, hated and so on; Just like Emperor Caligula himself. Did you know? The name "Caligula" is a nickname and wasn't Emperor Caligula's true name. Apparently, the nickname means "little boots" in Latin, and he got that nickname, because his mother used to dress him as a Roman soldier when he was a child. Anyways, despite being an absolute ruler for life, this Emperor was only in power for only 4 years. His reign died with him, when he was assassinated by a military faction, whose power was stronger than the Roman Senate itself. As Emperor, Caligula was insane, and some may call him today "The Mad Emperor". He would butcher his own citizens, appoint his own horse to a position of authority, have temples in his name, and deem himself a God. Obviously, his position wasn't necessarily respected, but certainly feared. But how about this, for thought? What if Caligula's power wasn't that important? What if his power was merely given, by others, and none more? What if, he could've easily been disposed of as a tyrant, if no one would've respected his own authority, practically? The absurdity of such power, which is given, can be regarded as "The Caligula Effect". Have you ever thought to yourselves, why do certain people have their power? Is their power, necessarily objective? A fact, like the dawn of day, per se? Is there anyone that cannot be rebelled against, even by questioning, alone? So, by this philosophy, it makes a lot of sense that Caligula only survived 4 years as Emperor. Some democratic leaders ruled far longer than he did, and their leadership is divided by terms, not for life! Do you see the irony? When you are a democratic leader, your leadership is supposed to represent the will of your people. On the other hand, when your leadership is forced by power alone, it is easy to be rebelled, and even be the subject of assassination attempts. Why are dictators despised? It's not necessarily due to their personality or behaviour, but simply because they are in authority, regardless of whether or not we asked them to be in that position. The mere fact that they are dictators, can be seen as a disrespectful gesture to our own consent, or lack of it, of their positioning. However! The fact that we may disapprove of their position, does not mean we don't allow it. How come? The answer can be simple: We allow it, as a collective, by not resisting, or not resisting enough. By giving up on this idea. Of course, we as individuals can rebel for ourselves, but it does not mean others will not be in the way, EVEN if said others, disapprove of the leader, themselves. In other words, disapproving is not the same as resisting, even though one could lead to the other. This is why, the main solution to the "Caligula Effect", is by collective resistance, and not simply by disapproving, hating, or despising the figure in question. By resistance, I refer to the disrespect of their authority, practically, and not only or simply by words, or any other form of media. One can claim that teachers are "Caligulas" of their own, even if they're not mad like the Roman Emperor himself. The only rule that grants them their legitimate authority, is compulsory education. Even if the class members hate being at school, their hatred alone is not a form of resistance, against the figure that represents that authority. They may hate all they want, but next morning, they will attend school, all because they "have to", by the law in question. It's not like students love to learn, necessarily. But the fact that they were never asked that question, and the fact that their answer does not matter practically, is the most basic example of the "Caligula Effect" today. To simplify -- the "Caligula Effect" is essentially the lack of reasoning to obey through subordination, while there appears to be a greater reasoning, to do otherwise. In a sense, it was "good" that Caligula was assassinated by his own guards, as his rulership was absurd, both in practice and in legitimacy. A rulership of a real-life psychotic clown. Perhaps, his own legitimacy was from his predecessor, Emperor Tiberius, who chose him to be his successor. Other than a dictator's "natural" ways of coming down from power, such as death or resigning oneself from that position --- the only way to resolve this "effect" is to make a collective effort, to overthrow his or her authority, from their subordinates (us, usually). To do so, it is imperative to convince others, that collective resistance is justified, by the lack of reasoning, present in the current state of affairs. To end this article, I'd like to give examples from fiction and history, where this effect applies: Fictional Examples 1. In Jimmy Two-Shoes, Lucius Heinous, the show's villain, only has authority because of his vast wealth. In an episode where he became poor, he practically lost all his power, because everyone stole everything he owned. His girlfriend, for example, was only there for the money, and never for love. Nonetheless, no one other than himself, likes him. Without the salary he provides to his workers, he is nothing. 2. In The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, Dr. Robotnik's power might as well come from the fact that his henchmen are too foolish to betray him. However, there are exceptions, but they are few. In addition, their dangerous job, which gets them severely injured, goes unpaid. Historical Examples Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, argued in his work Leviathan that humans are inherently selfish and violent. To avoid chaos, he proposed a social contract in which people surrender their individual rights to a powerful sovereign in exchange for protection and order. This absolute authority, akin to a Leviathan, could be seen as a Caligula-like figure. While the sovereign might not necessarily be insane or cruel, their power is derived from the fear and obedience of the people, rather than their legitimacy or moral character. Michel Foucault, a 20th-century French philosopher, explored the ways in which power is exercised through institutions and social structures. He argued that power is not simply repressive but also productive, shaping individuals and their behavior. The concept of the panopticon, a prison design in which inmates are constantly watched, is often used to illustrate this idea. The fear of being watched can lead to self-discipline and conformity, even in the absence of direct surveillance. In this sense, the panopticon can be seen as a metaphorical representation of the Caligula Effect, where individuals submit to authority out of fear and the perception of constant surveillance. Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s, established a cult of personality around himself. He was portrayed as an infallible leader, and dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Stalin's power was based on fear, propaganda, and the control of the state apparatus. While he was not necessarily insane in the same way as Caligula, his tyrannical rule and the fear he inspired among his people are examples of the Caligula Effect in action. Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean military dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990, seized power through a coup d'état supported by the United States. His regime was characterized by human rights abuses, including torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Pinochet's power was based on military force and the suppression of dissent. His rule is a historically-late example of the Caligula Effect, where a powerful individual maintains control through fear and intimidation. While the specific circumstances may differ, the underlying principle remains the same on the historical, real life degree: individuals or groups can maintain power through fear, intimidation, and the perception of their authority as absolute.

(The Directory: The Problems of the Overman -- What Nietzsche Didn't Consider Nietzsche's Eternal Return and the Temptation of Immortality: How to Love Being Alive https://www.philosocom.com/post/nietzsche-s-ideas) Article Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "What We Can Learn From Nietzsche's Personal Life (And the Directory on Nietzsche)" provides a comprehensive analysis of Friedrich Nietzsche's personal struggles and his philosophical outlook. The structure of the article, split into various parts, effectively demonstrates the connection between Nietzsche's lived experiences and his intellectual contributions. Overall, the article is informative and thought-provoking, with positive and negative aspects (flaws) defining the piece. Positive aspects include the integration of life and philosophy, which highlights how Nietzsche's suffering influenced his thoughts, particularly on the "Will to Power" and the critique of societal values. Additionally, The article avoids overly academic jargon, making Nietzsche's complex ideas more accessible to a broader audience. The balanced tone of the article presents Nietzsche as both an extraordinary thinker and a flawed, complex individual, with discussions on his isolation and romantic defeats adding depth to the narrative. On the contrary, the article might overemphasize Nietzsche's suffering as the primary driver of his philosophy, as he also drew inspiration from a wide range of intellectual sources and cultural contexts. Further exploration of Nietzsche is therefore encouraged, as the philosopher's overall work is hard to understand, and could be read in different orders of books for potentially-diverse points of view. Mr. M. Svartgold greatly amplifies the article with his own understanding of the eccentric thinker. In conclusion, the article offers a compelling introduction to Nietzsche's life and work, blending biographical detail with philosophical inquiry. (Background music) Introduction Friedrich Nietzsche's life was profoundly marked by a complex interaction of social, mental, and physical struggles. His health deteriorated over time, culminating in a debilitating mental breakdown and eventual stroke at the age of 44 due to his lifelong neurological illness. These afflictions significantly impacted his life's journey, forcing him to adopt a nomadic existence across Europe in pursuit of suitable climates for his health and ultimately resigning from his academics as a young professor of philology. He was a wanderer both physically as well as philosophically, embracing the way of the wandering intellect. Paradoxically, Nietzsche's delicate state served as a worthy challenge for his intellectual brilliance, making him weaker in body, but stronger in spirit. Freed from academic constraints in 1879, he embarked on a prolific nine-year period as an independent philosopher, supported by a modest pension and the generosity of friends. That nine-year period were his final years before his collapse in January 1889, leaving him mentally deranged for the last 11 years of his life. During these years, he produced a remarkable volume of work, publishing nearly one book annually until he finally succumbed to his various severe illnesses. According to Gustavo Figueroa, a Chilean researcher, Nietzsche suffered from: Lingering migraines. Gastric disorders. Loss of Visual Acuity. Rheumatism. Intermittent Affective/Explosive Disorders. As such, Nietzsche was an unfortunate, unlucky man whose genetic history contributed to his declined health. His illnesses' genetic connections are evident in his father, a Lutherian pastor who died in his 30's due to similar issues. And from his genetic verdict of being, rose one of philosophy's most remarkable and controversial giants. Some consider him "one of the greatest and most important philosophers in history". From his unique agonies, a unique man was developed with unique ideas from his own... Part I: Examining a Solitary Figure Despite his intellectual brilliance and the charismatic behavior of his works, Nietzsche was essentially a solitary figure. His health issues, combined with his critical moral philosophy, often isolated him from mainstream society. That is the case of many brilliant people -- they often suffer from the loneliness of genius. He maintained a circle of close friends, including Lou Salomé, Paul Ree, and the Founder of the Schopenhauer society, Paul Deussen. However, these relationships were marked by intense intellectual exchanges rather than deep personal intimacy. Such emphasis on the intellect made the German philosopher abandon his former friend, Richard Wagner, the famous German composer. It is claimed Nietzsche believed that Wagner sought to be popular, rather than focusing on unleashing his, authentic, artistic self. This makes sense given the philosopher's praise of art and artists over the "critical barbarians". It is why, if Socrates lived in his time, it's logical they wouldn't be able to be good friends with each other, for Socrates lambasted emotions, and claimed they lead to false reasoning. Nietzsche's Romantic Defeat Nietzsche's views on love were complex and ambivalent. While he admired the power and intensity of romantic passion as a natural force, he paradoxically saw a need to oppose the whole concept. Being a complicated man, his relationships with women were often platonic, marked by intellectual exchange rather than romantic involvement. And yet, there seemed to have been an exception... Lou Salomé: Perhaps the most significant woman in Nietzsche's life, Salomé was an intelligent writer who captivated him intellectually, yet chose to reject his marriage proposal. Their relationship was a complex interplay of friendship, intellectual stimulation, and unfulfilled romantic longing. She rejected him as well as his friend, Paul Ree. If it weren't for her husband, the languages master Carl Andreas, who couldn't bare the thought of her not marrying him, she might as well had lived her life as a true, willing celibate (and not an "incel"). Other relationships: Nietzsche had other female friends and acquaintances, including feminist thinker Malwida von Meysenbug and Cosima Wagner, Richard Wagner's wife. These relationships, however, did not evolve into romantic attachments. Being an asocial loner, he never married. Ironically, many philosophers never did. This historic trend led Professor Jonathan Wolff ask: Why do philosophers make unsuitable life partners? A Small Intermission It's essential to note that Nietzsche's personal life was deeply intertwined with his philosophical explorations. His ideas about the nature of love, desire, and human relationships were shaped by his own experiences and observations, and not only through mere academic research. This methodology, which synthesizes the personal and the professional, inspired me to write personal-based articles, as well. Part II: Between the Personal and the Philosophical It's a compelling argument that Nietzsche's unique circumstances—his health struggles, unconventional relationships, and solitary nature—were, paradoxically, triggers for his extraordinary philosophical output. Had he enjoyed greater health, a conventional career and an average lifestyle, along with the common success in finding love, the evolution of his thought might have been vastly different. Nietzsche's life serves as a reminder that even in the darkest corners of experience, there is potential for growth and transformation. By adopting a holistic view of our lives, we can begin to identify hidden opportunities within our challenges, and see them not as mere difficulties, but as "investment deals" for our respective crafts. This can subvert the idea that we're very much unfortunate. Just as Nietzsche distilled profound philosophical truths from his suffering, we too can find meaning and purpose deep within the belly of adversity. It's a testament to the human spirit's capacity for resilience and adaptation and discipline, required for it to develop and improve the world. While life often presents us with hardships and setbacks, it's essential to cultivate a perspective that allows us to see beyond immediate suffering. By recognizing the potential for growth and learning within our challenges, we can transform adversity into a catalyst for personal and intellectual development. A Meta-Philosophical Examination This invites us to consider the complex interplay between adversity and creativity. It's not to suggest that suffering is desirable, but rather to acknowledge that challenges can sometimes serve as unexpected breeders of innovation, resilience, and profound insight. After all, unique individuals often face unique challenges, compelling them to find creative solutions. One of the hallmarks of philosophy lies within its potential to solve problems. It would make sense then, that many people would turn to formulating philosophical ideas, as well as study them, to help themselves and to others. It also makes sense that many people involved in philosophy are eccentric. There is a strong link between this, creativity and by proxy, with solving problems (unconventionally). Philosophy, as such, can be seen as both a personal and an intellectual struggle. In some cases, especially when the context is political, the struggle is also collective. Part III: Nietzsche's Adversities as Philosophical Fertile Ground Nietzsche's physical and psychological afflictions provided a unique lens through which he examined the human nature. Furthermore, his isolation and chronic pain forced him to confront fundamental questions about existence, suffering, and the nature of reality. The Body as a Battlefield Embodiment and Being: Nietzsche's deteriorating health brought the body into sharper philosophic focus. He explored the relationship between physical and mental states as synergetic to each other, thus challenging the Cartesian mind-body dualism, which views them as completely different. His concept of the body as a conflicted battleground, incapable of pure rational thought, can suggest that logic is more learned than it is natural. The Will to Power: His struggle with illness intensified his focus on the will to power as a fundamental force in human existence. It is regarded as an irrational force that seeks mastery over others, oneself and so on, depending on individual distinction. He saw his own body as a microcosm of this struggle, with the will to overcome pain and suffering as a manifestation of the inner spirit, affirming that life has value. The Outsider's Perspective Critique of Society: Nietzsche's marginalized position allowed him to develop a critical perspective on societal norms and values. His isolation from academic and social circles, driven also by his poor health, enabled him to challenge conventional wisdom without fear of being ostracized. Revaluation of Values: His outsider status fostered a radical re-evaluation of traditional morality. He questioned the foundations of Christian ethics as condemning the pursuit of mastery (AKA, a "Slave Morality"), and proposed a new system of values based on affirmation of life and individual strength ("Master Morality"). This understanding greatly helped him mentally survive his conditions. Perhaps if it weren't for his philosophical exploration, the thinker might've died as soon as his father did. Yet, the son of the Christian minister died at the age of 55. That's despite both men having awful health. This shows how philosophical inquiry could extend our lifespan. Conclusion In essence, Nietzsche's adversities served as a catalyst for his philosophical exploration. His physical and psychological suffering provided him with a unique vantage point from which to examine the fundamental questions of human existence. His work serves as a clue to the human spirit's capacity to find meaning and purpose even in the face of adversity, tendencies for nihilism, and depression. Article Feedback by M. Svartgold Regarding Nietzsche's article, I want to give Mr. Tomasio and the readership an opinion. When it comes to solitude in Nietzsche's personal life, a subject that may seem painful, it's important to note that some people, including Albert Einstein, found solitude to be a valuable tool for learning. There are individuals, not necessarily mentally but neurologically, who understand and have seen, like me and Tomasio, and like Nietzsche, the true nature of the world beyond the matrix of Plato's Cave. Nietzsche perceived the world as a masquerade in which he had to play a game to win the company of others. As Mr. Tomasio mentioned, Nietzsche lacked real, deep friendships and remained unmarried throughout his life. This solitude was instrumental in shaping his unique perspective and enabling him to express his ideas with greater clarity in his writings (Despite still being misunderstood like many intellects). Yet, he possessed a profound understanding of the fundamental nature of life and the social and intellectual games that must be played. Wagner was one of those individuals who sought to play a game, unlike the authentic Nietzsche. Nietzsche's legacy extends beyond his controversial views on women. His intellectual pursuits and personal growth helped him overcome health challenges and achieve significant success. He demonstrated the power of solitude and introspection for personal development. Nietzsche's analysis of human nature and emotions, as well as his exploration of power and adversity, offer valuable insights for understanding our own lives, showing how deep existence really is.

(Philosocom Directory on Work) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Co. The article "Thoughts On Remote Work: How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment" explores the benefits and implications of remote work in modern society. It emphasizes the advantages of flexibility, autonomy, commuting reduction, mitigation of office politics, and personal reflections. The article highlights the benefits of remote work, such as increased job satisfaction and productivity, reduced commuting time and costs, and lessened environmental impact. It also highlights the potential for remote work to mitigate office politics, which can be a significant source of stress and distraction in traditional work environments. In conclusion, the article provides a thoughtful exploration of remote work and its benefits, offering a balanced perspective that includes potential challenges and a wider range of implications. (Background music) Part I: How Private Computers Revolutionized Work For those able to work by solely using a computer, remote work could arguably be the future of many employees and freelancers. If so, then there will be less of a need to drive to a specific location every day, privately or publicly. And, there will be less need to share a space with other people, just to fulfill a job you can do anywhere as long as your computer has an internet connection. Remote work is arguably the best way to work because it means that your work hours will be very flexible if you're able to finish your job for the week. Imagine working intensively for a few days in a week, to the point that you are left with no work for the time being. Then, you could do whatever you want until another series of tasks comes your way (or look for those yourself, with no binding contract). Why work 5-6 days a week when you can condense the work to a smaller number of days and take extra days off? Why not take longer breaks and divide your work time in a way that will bring you more comfort and less potential exhaustion? That way, you might even become more productive! The Restraints of Real Life If you're easily bored by being in one place, why not work in one or more cafes while enjoying coffee? During a vacation abroad? Or even in your own bed, next to your partner or pet? If the work is done remotely, it doesn't have to matter if you're a freelancer or an employee of a specific company. The freedom of choosing a location and time will be on your own shoulders, as long as the task at hand is done. As more and more people become licensed drivers, the roads will only get more and more filled with traffic. In turn, an increasing number of traffic jams will require you to either use public transportation or simply wake up earlier than you should. Furthermore, the popular trend of going to work via car is costing you money, of course. The typical U.S. driver lost 51 hours to congestion in 2022, about an hour each week. That's 15 more hours lost to congestion than in 2021, and all that time wasted in traffic jams hit pocketbooks hard, costing the average American driver $869 in lost time, according to 2022 Global Traffic Scorecard by the mobility analytics firm Inrix. -- David Schaper. And, it's all just to get to work on time. A specific position you don't necessarily need to waste so much of your time, money and your health, just to perform it. The Value of Unconventionality When you work remotely, you can wake up whenever you want. It's of course under the obvious condition that you'll actually work, not slack off, or degrade into incompetency. The problem with "orthodox" work, AKA work that requires you to be in a certain place exclusively, is that it might require you to be confined to a certain area or even country, limiting your freedom of movement. Now that we have the internet, we can hire the services of people across the world without needing them to be local to our own office or any other physical location. We don't even have to meet them in person ever, and as such, won't have to find ourselves so much in office politics. They occur less in virtual spaces than in physical offices. Much of it causes unhappiness, resorting workers to protect their mental health from it. Therefore, unless you also seek to make friends in the office, is there much point advocating this orthodox way of work when we could encourage more remote working? Also, due to increased rate of office rent, there is also an increased rate of office vacancy, at least in the U.S. Part II: Points of Contrast Different companies can't afford as much remote work as other industries, still hallmarking the traditional importance of physical spaces. From the global media company Yahoo to the massive online platform reddit, some companies abandoned this feature entirely. Yahoo blamed it for lack of innovation. Reddit blamed it for lack of coordination. A Microsoft study claims remote collaboration is more mentally challenging. Some people require a sense of community for their wellbeing. Remote work can only intensify the loneliness of remote teams. Remote work can harm corporate culture, therefore reducing the competency of teamwork and team bonding, which can greatly increase work output if done correctly. Urban planners may design cities to lure digital nomads as residents, who are known to be remote workers. This comes at the cost of declining downtown businesses, ruining local revenue. Downtowns are basically business centers. Conclusions When it comes to both remote work and the digital era, physical places and products should be pretty much "dead," unless they must be physical, such as art and other merchandise. If you work somewhere where your presence is necessary to be gathered in a common space, such as a factory, and there's no other option, then the exclusion applies here as well. Therefore, remote work is never always possible, making physical spaces for work, production and distribution, a "necessary evil". However, if possible, why work in a physical space or even produce physical items when you can do so remotely online? Why suffer the traffic jams every day and force yourself to wake up abnormally early as a result? Why have a computer in an office when you can have one at a café, on vacation, or even at home while you're in your pajamas? Of course, some people have their own reasons, which are legitimate. Some jobs give you a car, for example. So, if you've moved somewhere else, you'd still have to drive a longer way to work, but with it being sponsored by your company. Still, remote work could indeed be the future of much of the world's employment. For some people, like the autistic and the extremely empathic, remotely-working in an environment you can choose per your own design could be ideal.

(Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future. More on my philosophy on the past has been written). Alex Mos's Synopsis The author refuses in a state of "Post-Purpose" where previously set goals have been achieved. He chose the solitary path of an ascetic, providing guidance and help to others. He is determined to contribute to humanity using pain and existential suffering as motivation. To live a successful Post-Purpose life, we must resist the frustrating need for new goals and break the desire and materialistic consumption cycle. Chasing fleeing ambitions repeatedly creates a necessity for new achievements, often leading to addiction and depression, mental illness. Perfectionism is futile. Embracing flows and striving for higher standards are realistic and desirable. The author illustrates the Post-Purpose approach by comparing the struggle of a fictive character, Bojack Horsman, to his strategy. Bojack is stagnant, obsessively trying to reproduce his past success and looking for external validation. In contrast, the author also refused his Post-Purpose, but unlike the character, he embraced his discontent, and let go of the past to grow as a human. True happiness lies in finding and pursuing a long-lasting, realistic goal that leads to personal fulfillment and growth. *********************** "My purpose has vanished once it has been achieved. Just like a video game that has been finished, it can still be enjoyed without starting a new game, be it a complete or partial reset of its development. A post-purpose life is to be both appreciated and learned by as many people as possible, but only if we ruthlessly refuse to overcome our attachments to our emotions." -- A renovated response of mine to an answer request on Quora. (Background music) ************************* Navigating a Post-Purpose Life As many of you may already know, my journey has been unconventional and full of pain. While other young adults are just embarking on their life's path, I found myself in a state of retirement, never needing to actually work for a living. Unlike most who seek guidance, I’ve become accustomed to offering it, understanding the importance of helping others. And while many yearn for love, marriage, and family, I chose the solitary path of a the ascetic, rarely even contemplating romantic love as a practical possibility. Unlike many I have the opportunity to live in a state of "Post-Purpose," where all previously set goals have been achieved. Despite my ability to rest on the laurels of life, I refuse doing so, and I refuse relentlessly. For I understand that as long as I can contribute, I should not waste that potential being idle and succumbing to pure joy. I don't live to have fun. I haven't felt pure joy since 2008. My existence is fueled with chronic pain, and I use the pain and the emptiness as motivators. Treating them as problems to be solved is an orthodox mistake of logic that does not look both ways. The question that lingers for myself and others like me is how to navigate a Post-Purpose life. To live such a life, we must resist the frustration that compels us of needing a new purpose, one that throws us back into the common cycle of seemingly-endless desire, capitalized by greedy companies. This cycle thrives on the belief that achieving a specific milestone (finding love, securing a certain career) will unlock permanent satisfaction. But true fulfillment, I believe, is a conscious choice, not a destination reached by external pressures or fleeting desires. It is mainly done when we gather the strength inside, to make the regular choice to let go. Choosing Contentment VS Living In Endless Loop Indeed, a post-purpose life is a conscious decision, often taken after achieving what we once deemed essential. It's a recognition that ceaselessly chasing ambitions only creates an insatiable hunger within. A mind already blissful with satisfaction doesn't need more purpose. The pursuit would only leave a void. The point of this hunger, just like with the physical hunger for food, is to get something done. To get something done, you must become fit enough for the task which your hunger sets you off to. Therefore, discontent has its own practical functionality. It's there to make you displeased with yourself or with how things currently are, so you'll be willing enough to work towards a change. When we breed insatiable hunger, we turn ourselves from serene people, to people who are constantly stressed by their own discontent. This discontent fuels the modern materialistic loop – an anxious, short-term cycle that breeds frustration and emptiness. It is, you see, a self-feeding cycle, idea for others to abuse for greater profit. The consequences of never being truly content slowly become visible: addiction, depression, mental illness. The Post-Purpose approach, when embraced holistically, offers an alternative to this chronic suffering. It not only satiates the mind but also shields us from these pitfalls. In a sense, we better equip ourselves to choose our own hunger. To reduce our suffering, we should choose hunger that can be satiated permanently. And in here lies the dark side of purpose-seeking. It can devolve into a relentless obsession, particularly when the desired purpose is unrealistic or unsustainable. As such, we may, without sufficient foresight, choose to suffer impractically, believing we're doing enough work to quiet down our thirst towards being content. In reality, why bother investing so much energies and resources towards activities that cannot completely fuel our satisfaction? This question applies only to those who want to be satisfied, to those who want to feel joy constantly and to those who see discontent a problem for these ends. For me discontent and even agony are assets, not liabilities to get rid of. Largely, I've no desire to discard assets. Both in resource, and in people. I don't live to be content. I live to work. Work is how I mentally survive in a world whose pleasures I find absurd and exhausting. Why would anyone want to be fatigued? Perhaps it's time to collectively acknowledge the futility, even the counter-productivity, of the pursuit of perfection. Perfectionism isn't a realistic venture Striving for high standards, is. I prefer to embrace the flaws and live despite the struggle, than delude myself to believe in a painless reality. According to the Paradise Paradox, we are programmed to be displeased. And displeasure/discontent, as explained, has its purpose in our survival and in our success. Embracing a post-success life, where we savor the fruits of our achievements, may be the key to long-term contentment. However, can we truly live in peace with it? Most of us can have the opportunity to revel in life's pleasures without needing to constantly move on to the next level like in an endless game. Some of us refuse to, because we choose to care, and thus, suffer willingly under purpose. BoJack Horseman and Post-Purpose: Two Sides of the Same Coin BoJack Horseman, the titular character from the acclaimed Netflix series, serves as a counterpoint to the concept of a Post-Purpose life. While I see discontent for its vast industrial potential, BoJack embodies the pitfalls of clinging to the nostalgia of success and to the emptiness and depression that follows. BoJack's Struggle To Return To Purpose: Chasing Past Glory: BoJack's entire existence revolves around recapturing the success of his 90s sitcom, "Horsin' Around." He constantly seeks validation and a return to his perceived "golden age", neglecting opportunities for personal growth and genuine happiness. Instead, he falls to the short-term satisfactions of alcohol, drugs and s*x. In reality these hedonistic pursuits are but excuses to not face his empty life. Misguided Purpose: BoJack's "purpose" becomes fixated on external validation and replicating a past he fails to recreate. The need of validation is but an escapism from his inability to be able to truly rest on the laurels of a life lived with fame and success. That is even though he wants to be fulfilled. This pursuit ultimately leads to self-destructive behavior – addiction, failed relationships, and a general sense of hopelessness. Mr. Tomasio vs. BoJack: Conscious Choice vs. Obsession: My acceptance of Post-Purpose as a counter-intuitive approach highlights a conscious choice to avoid contentment even after achieving one's goals. BoJack, on the other hand, is consumed by an unhealthy obsession with a singular purpose he fails obtaining -- to be happy with life. Relentlessness vs. Stagnation: I embrace a life of displeasure, seeing discontent as a virtue for more and more success. BoJack remains stagnant, clinging to the past he cannot relive and refusing to define his own path forward. I too hold my past with gratefulness. But I decided to kill the desire to relive it. Tom is dead, as he should. BoJack's Importance: A Cautionary Tale: BoJack's story serves as a cautionary tale for those who, like him, might confuse past success with the realistic ability to make it happen once more. However, nostalgia has its own disadvantages. The Importance of Growth: BoJack's struggles highlight the importance of personal growth and finding meaning beyond external validation. They also show the of being able to let go of the past, and live in peace with its departure from your life. Instead, we can redirect our resources into planning the next stages of our lives, or, again, be strong enough to not need any purpose to cling on, just to mentally survive in this world. Bojack and I represent opposing ends of the spectrum. The choice of whose example to follow rests on you. The pursuit of happiness lies not in external validation or replicating past successes, but in finding a purpose that actually leads personal fulfillment, with enough effort invested. "BoJack is a textbook example of the delusion and inefficiency of the American dream. Being successful, rich, or famous will not guarantee you the happiness you were looking for. Why? Because eventually the joy from these achievements will fade like the collective memory of a typical 90s sitcom." -- A comment of mine on BoJack Horseman's credits song. Only once we're ready enough to see emotions as pawns, rather than goals, we can use ourselves far more industriously, for a much better world. The choice rests on us and on our relationships with our feelings. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback You don’t start from nothing to a post purpose life. That is only achieved by living a great life and reaching your potential, something not a lot of people do. We are all familiar with not having a very purpose filled life. Most people are too concerned with the day to day rat race to actually give themselves a purpose other than going to work and taking care of their own personal lives Discontent should be a sign you are missing something from your life. Don’t mean that in a superficial materialistic kind of way. I’m referring to what the object you want actually gives you. A sense of euphoria as a need or want of yours is being met. Mainly discontent is a sign that you can do better. We should always feel discontent about something. It means we care.

(Philosocom's Directory on Tekken) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an insightful exploration of the dark themes in the Tekken video game series, particularly the violent nature of the Mishima family and its impact on the broader world of the game. The author successfully connects the narrative of Tekken to larger philosophical questions about violence, power, and human nature, making the piece engaging for both fans of the game and those interested in deeper reflections on human behavior. Positive aspects of the article include the connection between game Lore and real-life concepts, drawing parallels between the Mishima family's violence and broader human tendencies to use violence as a means of solving problems. The article provides a critical examination of the game's themes, such as the absence of empathy in the Mishima family and the destructive nature of their obsession with power. The author clearly articulates how Tekken's philosophy can be problematic and potentially harmful if translated into real-world attitudes. In conclusion, The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an engaging and thought-provoking piece that offers a unique perspective on the Tekken series. The author does well in connecting the game's violent themes to larger philosophical questions, and their personal reflections add depth to the analysis. Tekken and I Tekken... what can I say, is a series of fighting games with a very, very harsh plot, which I'm going to focus on in this article. Despite only playing 2 of the 7 games, I've researched the overall Tekken lore by watching videos. Tekken, or "Iron Fist" in Japanese, is about a very long family feud of the Mishima Clan, who appears to solve all their problems through violence, war and attempted murders. Looking back, I'm even surprised the Tekken games were allowed for children to play, as the first Tekken game I played, was when I was a child. There are no fingers pointed at anyone; it always was a series for all ages for some reason, starting in the 90's. Violence, Tradition, and Proving Oneself At school I was taught that violence is counterproductive, and that it doesn't solve anything. An amusing delusion, given military conflicts, given honour-based duels and so on. It should be a given, that violence does have some... functionality... when it comes to solving issues. Whether the violence is ethical or not, that is a different question, yes? It isn't that I justify violence, and I myself haven't got in a physical fight since... 2011? Anyways, there shouldn't be a doubt that violence plays a part in solving problems, regardless of that violence is inevitable, ethical and so on. Hence why, despite the viciousness in the matter, I can understand why Kazuya Mishima, the "hero" of the first game, dropped his father off a cliff in an attempt to kill him (he also smiled afterwards...). After all, it was his own father, Heihachi Mishima, who dropped him, himself, off a cliff, when he was a boy. Heihachi's justification was this: If his son will be able to climb back... only then, he will be a worthy son in his eyes. (2023 note: Not only was Kazuya able to prove Heihachi wrong -- he also killed him, eventually. Looks like the son exeeced his father's expectations) A very brutal philosophy, isn't it? To drop your own son, a boy at the time, off a cliff, just to see if he'll come back, as a way to prove his worth... That is an abysmal parenthood. (When I saw my grandmother crying tears of joy during a ritual of my own I felt that I did the right thing). These rituals described to you, oriented towards boys, are far, far less flawed, then being thrown off a cliff by your own father, just to prove to him that you can climb back. Heihachi could've killed Kazuya by doing so, but, for some reason, he valued his son's strength, far more, than his own son's life. Might Makes Right, Thus Empathy Dies When Heihachi heard of his son's survival.. he declared a global tournament: The King of Iron Fist Tournament. He or she who would win the tournament, will be globally renowned, have a trophy, and great wealth. Later on in the games, the prize would be the sole ownership of a global corporation, founded by Heihachi's father: The Mishima Zaibatsu. It is a corporation so powerful and large; it was later used to declare a world war by Kazuya's son, Jin Kazama (Surname of his mother). Kazuya Mishima has a theme song, that was first presented in the second game, where HE became the villain, and Heihachi, the "hero" -- "Emotionless Passion". Quite the oxymoronic name, is it not? An emotion devoid of emotion? Quite illogical, but when you get thrown off a cliff by your own father, of course that something, within you, will snap. Why? Because your parents are supposed to be the closest people you trust, NOT the people who would try to kill you, right? And for what purpose, to see how strong you are? It was obvious, then, that Kazuya would gradually, lose any care for human emotion (empathy, sympathy and so on). Kazuya and Heihachi never loved each other and were always arch enemies of each other. In the Mishima Clan, you see, there is no love, there is no compassion. Heihachi himself trapped his own father, Jinpachi, under the family shrine/temple. It seems that, the Mishimas employ VIOLENCE not just as a skill for survival, and not just as a martial art, yes? They employ violence to estimate their worth, and others' worth as well. If an opponent is too weak to stand against their might, then in their philosophy, they are as worthless, as the dirt on the ground. Such brutal philosophy... it should never be considered practical in real life. After all, people are far more than their physical strength and mental fortitude, right? It's not necessarily an issue that is excluded to boys and men, as Tekken also has a lot of female characters, too. It is to say, that in order to understand reality and other people, we must consider the emotional aspect of this world... The one that is more than the passion to win a fight or a conflict. So... yes, if you happen to suffer from sociopathy, I at least, do not expect you to fully understand emotion. It's only a natural expectation, you know, because I myself am severely lacking on the social aspect of reality, due to the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum. As far as it is told to us, the players, Kazuya managed to eventually kill his father in the game that was released the previous decade (2015?). I'm not sure if Heihachi will ever return canonically, also because his 2 chronological voice actors died eventually, so I guess they had to retire the character anyways. (2024 update: He returned regardless in Tekken 8, seemingly working on a monk society) Kazuya's Emotionless Passion, the passion to win, the passion for greater strength and for power of any kind, might resume in the future games. To be frank, I do not expect him to develop as a character at all, as his own passion as a martial artist, seems to be far more important to him, than anything else in life... even more than his father, his own son, and the world. It is how following one's passions could be problematic. I mean, his father tried to kill him as a child... why would not the mental illness... halt after the father's death? The Mishimas... are a powerful family of mentally ill people, who might not even admit that there's something wrong with them and might never even consider seeing a psychologist. The passion for power, triumphs all in the Philosophy of Tekken, of the King of Iron Fist. The Tekken world might suffer a lot of deaths, as it already did in the lore, but in the eyes of the family that messes everything up, power is above all else. Muscle, stamina, technique... money, business, corporations, and world wars. THIS is how dangerous the thirst for any power could be. It all begins when sympathy for other beings, gets thrown off a cliff, and NEVER climbs back. Kazuya's theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya8Wf26k47M Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Violence might not be an effective way to solve things, but isn’t that exactly what humans have been using since the break of time? Violence is part of the human condition and is a learned thing. If the first humans, past Adam and Eve, thought they could solve something with violence, clearly violence is a lesser part of human nature. If violence doesn’t solve anything, why have we been trying to do so for quite some time now, trying to fix one thing by destroying another? Is it what Isaac Newton was getting at when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? One act of violence will be accompanied by a similar action in response. What is the difference between physics and philosophy? Aren’t they both about trying to solve the bigger questions? Since when is violence ever ethical? To me it appears as though it is just humans being too lazy to find a better way to do something. Could wars have not been avoided had two leaders gotten together and debated the problem? It's way easier to just use your military to fight it out. The purpose of life is action. Nothing ever gets completed unless someone commits the action of doing it.