The Subcategory: "Video Game Logic" -- Answering Potential Criticism in Philosophy The "Hidden Norms" Theory -- How Eccentricity Has Its Own Norms On Quasi-Specific Terms -- How To Understand and Navigate the Illusion of Accuracy In Communication An Article About the World -- Why We Resume Being Alive Even Reluctantly My Philosophy on Mystery Of Beast, Men and Philosophizing -- A Potentially "Hidden Logic" Why People "Micronate" -- Trying to Understand Micronations (and Beyond) The Way of the Cat -- A Philosophy For Satisfaction (Short Article) The Rejection of "Insanity" -- The Consequences of Dismissing Unusual People & Ideas The Horror of the Dimensional Merge Theory -- The Product of a Deranged Mind (And Why Minds Matter In Idea-Creation) The Emotion of Beyond Society and Solitude Nonsense and Uselessness In Art Does Originality Exist in Modern Times? Why It Does, Why It Should Exist, And How To Be More Original https://www.philosocom.com/post/eccentric-realities-how-to-embrace-eccentric-minds-by-mr-nathan-lasher-co-authored-by-mr-t-r https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-humane-origins-of-corruption-graham-cray-character-analysis (Background music) Subcategory Notes Due to the human reliance on patterns as a means to understand reality, a human mind that won't be able to detect patterns  in a piece of media, could easily reject it as utterly absurd. However, looking beyond the Platonic Cave  could help us understand better -- and embrace -- many weird pieces, and even people, as retaining logical consistency of some kind. Should societies worldwide resume lambasting the value of philosophical exploration , we would deter ourselves from further expanding our minds into new cognitive territories, otherwise rejected as "too weird". The Subcategory's Prime Example: A David Lynch Filmography Piece David Lynch's "Rabbits" is a cinematic enigma that defies easy categorization or labeling.  At its core, the film is a surrealist exploration of consciousness, challenging viewers to question their perceptions of normalcy. It is a masterclass in the art of subversion,  where the familiar is twisted into an eerie, yet strangely coherent, world. At its heart, the film presents a paradox: a seemingly chaotic narrative, which adheres regardless to a rigorous internal logic, obscured by an eccentric exterior. Initially, the film's absurdity is overwhelming. The mixture of innocent childlike imagery of a rabbit family, with an underlying sense of dread and darkness is unsettling. However, upon closer examination, a method emerges from the madness.  Sensibility Within Absurdity “Rabbits” has made me want to make a film that similarly explores the boundaries between normality and surrealism within a domestic scene. Lynch cleverly utilises film to create something horrific without any of the usual conventions or imagery such as gore or jump scares. He scripts the language and the few props to portray something frightening and dark, which is something I want to explore -- making an audience on edge with something that is not quite right for some unknown reason. -- Lily Cripps Lynch seems to be constructing a microcosm of society. It is there, where the familiar rhythms of domestic life are disrupted by inexplicable, anxiety-triggering occurrences we try to deny as we go about our days. The characters' repetitive actions and nonsensical utterances mirror the often-meaningless routines of our own lives. Rabbits, psychologically, are quite varied as humans are. Rabbit personalities are as varied as ours. There are total sweethearts and those that are aloof. There are bunnies who are only comfortable around other rabbits and those that are only comfortable around non-rabbits. There are those with anger issues and those that are always looking to see what sort of trouble they can cause. There are those that are moody. There are divas and goof-balls, and those who - I am quite convinced - if they were human, would aim for World Domination . -- The Educated Rabbit Upon further research of both rabbits and the movie itself, we can understand better how even the most uncanny of things retain logical consistencies that can be compared to logic found in the real world. The more correct cross-references we make in information, the more sensible the multi-layers of reality can appear to us. As such, hidden logic systems like the one found in this Lynchian movie can become clearer, and are mainly hidden due to our own default, universal ignorance. How the Bias of Fear Toys With Your Mind The narrative, if it can be called that, revolves around three humanoid rabbits inhabiting a seemingly mundane domestic space. Their interactions are marked by an unsettling lack of attachment,  followed by nonsensical dialogue and jarringly placed laughter tracks.  Lynch's signature blend of the ordinary and the uncanny is on full display, creating a disorienting atmosphere that lingers under your skin long after the credits roll. The film's surface is dominated by the absurd, a prime element in existentialist philosophy.  Anthropomorphic rabbits engaging in mundane activities without any purpose beyond waiting for an inevitable end of some kind.   As such, the consistent application of surreal elements create a framework that, while unfamiliar, is undeniably logical... Being a Surreal Horror film, it is defined by the fear of the incomprehensible . The emotional matrix of fear traps us in a fabricated reality , as our rational thinking gets compromised by the unreliability of what our hearts tell us is going on. The stream of internal dread which we experience could be solved by keeping our minds calm , and therefore relaxed enough to break the mental matrix by asking questions and doubting our own impressions. Then, we can find out universes with rules redefined. A Universe Redefined Lynch's genius lies in his ability to establish a new set of rules for his universe. Once these rules are accepted, the film begins to make sense, although still unconventionally. The laughter tracks and the cryptic conversations , and the nonsensical dialogue are not random acts of absurdity but integral parts of this new reality. They are the building blocks of a language we are yet to fully comprehend, as all we left with are theories. By obscuring this internal logic with a barrage of eccentric visuals and sounds, Lynch challenges the viewer to actively engage with the film. Puzzling us, we may be inclined to question our preconceived notions of narrative and meaning, encouraging us to look beyond the surface-level strangeness. In doing so, we begin to appreciate the intricate web of connections that underpins the film's seemingly chaotic structure. Such unity of connection and reason can be found in our own reality after all. Conclusions Through this surreal lens, Lynch invites us to reconsider our assumptions about reality.  Perhaps the world we inhabit is just as illogical and arbitrary as the one presented in "Rabbits."? What if our world is far more complex than this film is? What if we're just used to absurdity in our own reality, and therefore we are biased towards what is merely seen as the unknown, as the seemingly devoid? Ultimately, "Rabbits" is a provocative work that rewards repeated viewings.  It is a film that refuses to be easily understood, forcing viewers to confront their own preconceptions about narrative and meaning. In doing so, it offers a unique and thought-provoking cinematic experience, without even using much effects nor props. The film was made in Lynch's garden. The movie presents us the power of cinema to create entirely new worlds using very little, showing us how less can be much, much more . It is a film that rewards patience and close attention, offering a rich and rewarding experience for those willing to embrace its unique logic. Here is the movie in question. Enjoy!

(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. Michaels' note: This is a story about the hypothetical scenario of there being only one human on the entire planet, but they are immortal and exist forever.) (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: The text is heavy with obscure terminology used to describe simple concepts. That is to symbolize how solitary is this immortal outsider to this world, compared to the rest of the creatures that come and go) (Philosocom's Immortality Subcategory) (Philosocom's Brad Michaels' Directory) ******************************** Story Analysis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "The Never-Ending Solitude" is a captivating exploration of the concept of being the last immortal being on Earth. Mr. Brad Michaels skillfully creates an immersive world through atmospheric language and imagery, capturing both the vastness of solitude and the unexpected companionship found in fleeting moments. The story touches upon universal human emotions like loneliness , companionship, and longing, with the protagonist's apparent detachment from other beings and a profound sense of yearning for connection. Symbolism is skillfully integrated throughout the narrative, with the creature with "double the appendages" and "oscillating appendage on her back" being a clever reference to a dog and the descriptions of natural elements like the sun and moon adding layers to the theme of cyclical existence . The story also explores existential themes, with the protagonist's musings on companionship, purpose, and the meaning of existence raising philosophical questions about what it means to exist without purpose and how one can find joy in the absence of a traditional understanding of life and death. The unique narrative perspective, combined with first-person narration and ambiguous and alien vocabulary, places the reader directly in the mind of the immortal protagonist, creating an effective sense of distance and unfamiliarity . This detached tone reflects the protagonist's disconnection from the world, emphasizing their role as an eternal observer rather than a participant. The ending is both ambiguous and hopeful, with the protagonist experiencing an unfamiliar warmth and contentment while remaining uncertain about the future. This open-endedness allows readers to project their interpretations onto the story, sparking conversation and reflection. Overall, "The Never-Ending Solitude" is a thought-provoking and richly atmospheric piece that delves into the complexities of existence and solitude, leaving readers with much to ponder about the nature of life, death, and everything in between.   The journey to truth is one we take alone. -- Mr. Mark Bloom (Inspired theme) I am an essence that has existed here for a long time. I walk this world without any guides. I do not remember being born, only that I have existed for many, many natural cycles. I see the natural cycles come and go. Sometimes I become friends with the creatures here, for a time. They eventually leave me. It is a very strange thing. After enough natural cycles have passed, they go to sleep and never wake up. The glowing ball is high in the air today. My friend, a creature low to the ground which uses double the appendages to walk that I do, is trotting ahead of me. She needs to make something go to sleep and consume it. It has been many cycles since she last did it. I have no need of doing this, but I have observed that if my friends don’t consume other creatures at certain times, they return to the ground much earlier than usual. I see her running ahead of me, with the appendage on her back oscillating quickly. This is a sign that she has detected something to consume. I am happy for her. I feel empty when my friends leave me, especially when they must do it early. She is traveling faster now, and I see another creature ahead of her. It is a type of creature that has a long protrusion out of the front of it. It has billowy appendages on either side. Sometimes, creatures similar to this one use these appendages to enter the air. However, this particular type cannot use them to do this. I do not know why this is the case, but my friend quickly advanced on the creature, and soon she was consuming it. I created a floating light on the ground as the ball in the sky began to sink. I found out I could make a floating light on the ground very similar in appearance to the ball in the sky, if I rubbed two pieces of debris together until they became bright. I discovered this a long time ago, and I don’t remember how I came up with the idea. The reason I started doing it was because my friend seemed to enjoy the floating light. Another natural cycle has been completed as the ball in the sky disappears, and the pale ball comes out. It has been many natural cycles since anything was comprehensible and I became really awake. I don’t need to sleep like the other creatures, but I will look out for my friend while she does. My friend is awake. I go to greet her by stroking the soft textured material that covers her body. I have this material on the top of me, but little everywhere else. She is in a good mood today, but already in need of consuming another creature. We get up and go into the densely packed array of fibrous stalks. These stalks are long and sinewy, emerging up out of the soil. They give a home to many creatures. Home is something I have not really had a concept for, but I recently decided to imitate the other creatures by building one for myself and my friend. We took debris from the ground and made it up into large piles. She helped me by retrieving debris and adding it to the piles I made. It gave me a purpose , and it made me fulfilled to see my friend happy. By the time the ball in the sky had gone away, we were finished with our home. We snuggle in together, in the home we have built. I don’t feel the usual emptiness tonight. Something is different and has changed. I feel a warmth I have not known in my long existence. I think I could see myself being happy in this place for a long time with my friend.

(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 Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "Analyzing Mr. K. Basileus Political Fusion Manifesto" provides a comprehensive critique of Libertarian Fascist Socialism, a unique political ideology that combines seemingly contradictory principles. The authors, C. Kingsley and J. Bright, demonstrate a nuanced understanding of libertarianism, fascism, and socialism through their breakdown of key terms and principles like survival, truth, sustainability, and reciprocity. This methodical approach ensures that the analysis is accessible and comprehensive. The article's strongest point is its exploration of the paradoxical nature of Libertarian Fascist Socialism, highlighting the tensions between individual freedoms, authoritarian control, and collective welfare. They explain how the ideology balances libertarian ideals of personal freedom with socialist commitments to equity, while also incorporating authoritarian structures to address existential threats like ecological collapse. The article captures these contradictions without passing judgment, offering readers a balanced view of the ideology. The article's clear structure enhances its readability and impact, with each section treated with equal weight, ensuring that no aspect of the manifesto is overlooked. By aligning each principle with its respective ideological influence, the authors effectively guide the reader through the manifesto's logic , making it easier to see how the seemingly disparate elements of libertarianism, fascism, and socialism can coexist. This organization also aids in critiquing the manifesto’s strengths and weaknesses. The article’s critique is constructive and even-handed, challenging the reader to consider the feasibility and ethical implications of the ideology. By discussing abstract concepts like truth and reciprocity, the article touches on broader philosophical themes, raising important questions about epistemic authority and control. Overall, the article provides a well-rounded, thoughtful critique of an unconventional political philosophy, breaking down complex concepts into understandable segments and maintaining a balanced and fair analysis of the manifesto's ideas.   (The source of the Analysis: the mandate of Libertarian Fascist Socialism ( substack.com )  ) (Philosocom's C. Kingsley and Co. Articles) (Philosocom's Kaiser Basileus Articles) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) (Background music) Title Analysis: "The Mandate of Libertarian Fascist Socialism" The title, "The Mandate of Libertarian Fascist Socialism," combines ideologies that are typically considered contradictory, setting a provocative tone. Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom and minimal government intervention. Fascism advocates for authoritarian control, centralization, and a dictatorial government. Socialism promotes collective ownership and equitable distribution of resources. By merging these terms, Mr. Basileus suggests a hybrid ideology that reconciles these seemingly incompatible principles. The word "Mandate" implies a strong directive or authoritative order, indicating that this ideology is intended as a prescriptive model for governance. The paradox in combining libertarianism, fascism, and socialism hints at a highly structured society with an unusual blend of personal freedom and centralized control. Ethical Universals The section begins with a list of universal ethical principles that shape the foundation of the manifesto. The four principles— survival , truth, sustainability, and reciprocity—are positioned as non-negotiable priorities. This section establishes a framework for the rest of the text , asserting that all policies must align with these core ethics: Survival is defined as a baseline for any meaningful endeavor, emphasizing the importance of ecological protection and banning destructive technologies. It introduces the idea of a "world-level fascist government" as a means of global coordination , which aligns with the authoritarian facet of the ideology. The call for "degrowth to a manageable scale" reflects a sustainability-oriented perspective, concerned with the planet's long-term viability. Truth is seen as foundational to non-arbitrary decision-making , advocating for transparency, privacy, and access to education. The manifesto proposes a world where the government ensures public access to truth , but paradoxically, simplifies complex realities for manageability. The emphasis on minimalist, understandable laws speaks to the libertarian desire for simplicity and transparency, yet within a controlled framework. Sustainability outlines specific ecological and social policies, such as reserving land for ecosystems and developing "semi-autonomous city-states." This reflects a decentralizing tendency, hinting at the libertarian ideal of smaller, more localized governance. The introduction of "Advocates" who have carte blanche to root out inefficiency underscores the authoritarian aspect, suggesting a system where oversight is highly centralized but directed toward societal efficiency. Reciprocity focuses on fairness and societal well-being, promoting "super-socialism" where all needs are met, including recreation and personal development. This reflects a socialist principle of equity, but is tempered by libertarian ideas such as the right to opt out of society via a "libertarian zone." The emphasis on community structures, public goods, and equality of opportunity suggests a deeply collectivist vision, while the idea of Public Officials living as monks reflects an authoritarian, self-sacrificial leadership model. Subheading Analysis Survival: The survival section sets a priority on environmentalism, banning weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring "universal wellness care." The introduction of a world-level fascist government to manage global issues emphasizes the need for centralized control in specific contexts, suggesting that authoritarianism is justified when managing existential risks. Degrowth is positioned as a necessary step for survival, prioritizing resource management over unlimited growth, which aligns with ecological thinking. Truth: The truth section emphasizes a transparent, knowledge-based society where education is free and accessible. The manifesto calls for the simplification of laws and the establishment of a book of common knowledge, which hints at an authoritative standard for truth but within a libertarian structure. The juxtaposition of privacy for citizens and transparency for the government reflects the tension between libertarian freedom and centralized control. Sustainability: This section delves into practical measures for ecological and social sustainability, advocating for permaculture and animal habitats, while suggesting that society should be reorganized into semi-autonomous city-states. These city-states are presented as experimental spaces for governance, aligning with the libertarian idea of diverse, decentralized power structures. At the same time, the emphasis on efficiency, public transportation , and intellectual meritocracy reflects a desire for systemic optimization, which brings in the fascist ideal of structured, hierarchical control. Reciprocity: Reciprocity focuses on ensuring that each individual's interests are valued, advocating for super-socialism where all needs, including personal development and recreation, are met. The concept of publicly owned land and the ability to opt out via a libertarian zone offers individuals autonomy while still embedding them within a highly collectivist structure. The proposed societal structures, such as pseudo-families and community-oriented neighborhoods, aim to foster belonging and connection. Public Officials, required to live ascetically , underscore the authoritarian aspect of the system while also highlighting a commitment to public service. Conclusion "The Mandate of Libertarian Fascist Socialism" presents a unique fusion of ideologies, blending elements of libertarianism, fascism, and socialism into a cohesive political framework . The manifesto prioritizes survival, truth, sustainability, and reciprocity, arguing that each of these ethical universals necessitates a specific set of policies. The authoritarian aspects (fascism) come through in calls for centralized global control, strict oversight by Advocates, and a structured society where leaders sacrifice personal gain for the common good. Libertarianism is reflected in the emphasis on individual autonomy, minimal laws, and decentralized, experimental governance. Socialism is evident in the focus on universal care, public ownership of land, and the equitable distribution of resources. In essence, this manifesto envisions a world where society is structured around ecological sustainability and social equity, with a blend of strong centralized governance for global and existential issues, and libertarian freedoms for individuals within that structure. It is an ambitious attempt to reconcile competing political ideologies into a coherent and future-facing vision for human civilization.

(Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Rubinshteinic Guide to Rage — How To Master the Art of Rage" is a philosophical exploration of rage and its relationship with human emotions, particularly love, desire, and dissatisfaction. Mr. Tomasio presents an ambitious and bold attempt to integrate rage into a broader framework of human experience, highlighting how emotions are driven by voids and unmet desires. The use of Aristotle's quote on anger as the opening sets a reflective tone, inviting readers to think critically about the complexities of emotions. The article explores a unique perspective on rage, likening it to an "art" that can be mastered. By framing rage as an emotion that emerges from a void within ourselves, the philosopher provides a new lens through which we can view anger, not as an inherently destructive force but as a potentially creative one. This aligns with philosophical traditions that view emotions as tools for understanding human behavior and existence. One of the strengths of the article is the use of the Void-Drive-Desire Framework: this model provides an organized and clear way to understand anger, suggesting that without a void (a sense of something lacking), there is no anger. The analogy of empires expanding due to their dissatisfaction underscores the idea that dissatisfaction (void) can fuel progress. The rage becomes not only a negative emotion but also a potential motivator for action and growth. The comparison between rage and love is a fascinating part of the essay, which highlights the contrast and similarities between the two emotions. The idea that both rage and love arise from a void — love being the desire to connect and rage being the drive to accomplish or gain — is compelling. The notion that fear of another's rage may indicate a lack of true love provides an interesting critique of modern relationships and emotional expression. The essay is rich in rhetorical devices that enhance its impact, drawing readers into reflection and engaging them emotionally. Overall, "The Rubinshteinic Guide to Rage — How To Master the Art of Rage" is a rich, intellectually stimulating piece that brings forth a fresh perspective on emotions, especially rage (but of course).   ********** (Background music) “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.” -- Aristotle Rage and/or anger are a combination of three elements: void, drive, and desire. Without any of these elements, one cannot be angry. We are always angry because of something that is missing. It is a form of pain that is used by a drive that makes us express our need for that void to be filled by the thing we desire. Therefore, anger and satisfaction cannot correlate, because the satisfied has no void, as their void has been filled. Being afraid of anger from others shows us that we do not have true love for them. The true lover accepts the person as they are. When the lover fears their anger, they express their distaste for the other person's genuine desire. And you cannot truly accept someone you have some sort of distaste towards, can you? Because when you have any distaste for them, your love becomes hollow and impure. And there is no true love with such impurity. I was taught this by a person whose name you will never know, as I love them enough to not betray their trust so distastefully using my growing public audience. In a world where true love is greatly lacking, much sorrow and pain can easily grow within the human heart. And much illness can develop within the mind . This is because those who dislike the desires that others have, simply because of anger and other uncomfortable emotions, may be deceiving themselves when they claim to have true love for them. And those who threaten over the mere presence of rage, of wanting something so badly that they express it so emotionally, are cowards . If they think that true love is possible when they threaten over their loved one's display of rage, they are unaware of the simple fact that they may only be threatening because they feel threatened themselves. And how can you truly love someone you are threatened by? Why would you threaten them so easily, if you have true, pure love for them? Rage, like true love, is best felt by one type of people exclusively: those who are not afraid of being honest with themselves, and thus, are not afraid to be vulnerable by being honest themselves with those whom they love. The true lover and the true rage-feeler are not afraid of being hurt. Reality is painful. Therefore, because they want reality, AKA, they want to be true with themselves and others, they must also accept pain. The pain of rejection , the pain of disappointment, and the pain of failure and defeat. Should they fear pain, they will escape it like the cowards they are, whether or not they deny it. The lover and the rage-artist are two sides of the same coin. The reason is simple: the coin is composed of void , drive , and desire . Those who love do so because of a void within themselves as well. They are driven by the desire to be with someone, like the rage artist desires to accomplish something. Thus, true love is driven by the being that is desired; rage is driven by the future that has yet to be achieved. True love is about being. The Art of Rage is about doing. And in order to do something, it isn't always possible to just do it. Do you think everyone can simply walk? Have you considered the physically disabled ? There is no need to be so naive, and no need to submit to our confirmation bias so easily. Instantly submit to confirmation bias, and you may blind yourself to reality. Instantly submit to rage, and you can do just the same, in addition to undesired consequences, such as punishment and delay in your plans. An empire expands because it is not satisfied with what it currently has. Thus, empires are best driven by calculated, resourceful rage. They observe what they have, and they refuse to be satisfied with it. Asceticism does not necessarily lead to a life of serenity, as I have witnessed myself as an ascetic. No, it can also lead to an immense source of rage and frustration when the ascetic learns the importance of material and emotional deprivation. Lock yourself in your apartment for days or weeks and you may understand what I mean. Deprive yourself of what you can have, and realize how badly you may desire to have it. As a disabled man, I am a prisoner of my own apartment. Deep inside me, within the void that is left from the corpses of failure, disappointment, and misfortune, something has been unlocked. With it, I know that I am capable of far greater feats! Even if not my body, then at least my mind. Because I am more than what I let myself be. I know that fear, discomfort, and other dysfunctional emotions are in my way. In my way of what I can work to achieve even further. Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. And only then, can I tolerate the thought of peace in death. All because, peace in life can easily be disturbed. Thus, the concept of peace within life is a liability. Void, drive, and desire are the most fundamental concepts that matter when it comes to ambition. Focusing on what we don't have, desiring to have it, and working to attain it, is how ambitions are met and empires are built. Unlike true love, rage is far more prosperous in our violent world. The human economy is built on temporarily filling voids. Every purchase we make is of something that can always vanish due to the uncertainty of existence. Every void we fill can be reopened. Those who don't purchase anything will not survive, because even hunger will always come back into our lives, telling us that we need to make money to eat. An economy built on true love would not be profitable. Being with someone because you love them means being with them for as long as possible. How can you make a profit when you're killing off your future profits? It is, therefore, in the socio-economic interest of humanity to always be unsatisfied in some way. A population that is driven on an endless quest to fill voids, whether real or imagined, can be converted into a buying audience. If you become addicted to something like coffee , you may realize that you have just created an unwritten, unconscious contract with the coffee providers. Why? Because they just created a void in your heart that can be deliciously filled by coffee indefinitely, albeit only temporarily. Do you understand this harsh rationale? Do you understand that you need others to be unsatisfied in order to survive? Do you understand that you need to be unsatisfied yourself for others to survive? That is how money corrupts so easily the naive self that existed within us as children. Because children usually do not have financial troubles, and are prohibited by most countries to work, as that would be child labour, which is unethical. Thus, when outside of the cycle of work, they are free to do that which many adults may struggle: To truly love. Not romantically, necessarily, but wholeheartedly. Their parents, their pets. Most of them need not be too concerned about the addictive nature of adult reality. That is, until they become disillusioned themselves, by the beautiful shattering of their infantile fantasies. The beautiful agony of realizing the truth about this harsh world : That they are not as loved, and that their relevance depends on many circumstances, some of which they have to prove. Those who will remain whiny, will constantly complain instead of acting . Those who will mature, will strive to work regardless of their immediate desires. They will prioritize their dissatisfaction instead, as the worker has something satisfying. The employer does the same, because they need to supervise the workers to survive themselves. In a world based on unsatisfied self-interest, true love is very difficult to attain. It would only be natural that some will not even believe it exists in real life. That it is only conditional, and never about the being they love. Never about the being themselves, beyond the actions. And every action we make, we make to achieve something. We act because the object of achievement is missing in our lives. And to fuel rage into our actions, while keeping it at bay , can remind us of how important it is, to get things done. To get them done right away if possible. And to make sure as little obstacles stand in one's way to carrying out the tasks at hand. Be afraid of anger and/or rage, and you will be afraid of someone's genuine intention to exist. To live. And every life has its own voids to fill. How can you truly love someone when you do not love their honest desire to live? I combined philosophy with rage. Since wisdom can always be attained, I became at peace with rage. Because rage is my slave. Because rage deserves to be conditional, like in logic, as it deserves to be restrained like an attack dog. Released only when vital to one's cause. Like a pawn! Unlike true love, that can help much of this ill world. And that is why they will never be the same.

Alex Mos's Synopsis The following personality traits are essential for a competent philosopher and philosophical inquiry: open-mindedness, critical thinking, integrity, creativity, and humility. These five qualities can guide our pursuit of understanding the world and ourselves throughout our lives. Aspiring thinkers are equipped with six tools to navigate their reality: doubt, leading to critical questioning, independence of establishments and herd mentality, self-sufficiency in isolation from collectivism, logical discipline with restraint of emotions, insatiable curiosity, and a flexible mind open to criticism and changes. Exploring ourselves and the reality around us transforms us into more capable beings. Philosophers are often not instantly recognized, yet searching for truth is rewarding. In doing so, we, too, can contribute to the collective pursuit of wisdom throughout the ages. Embrace the quest, shape your mind, and maximize your innate potential to impact the world positively. (Background music) The Five Pillars of Philosophical Inquiry: Traits for Every Aspiring Thinker Here are five essential traits that form the basis of any competent philosopher's personality and approach to philosophical inquiry. Cherishing these qualities is not just an academic exercise, for they can become guiding and enhancing principles in the lifelong pursuit of understanding the world and ourselves. 1. Open-Mindedness:  Embracing new ideas, even those challenging your own established beliefs, is fundamental. A true philosopher welcomes diverse perspectives and engages in critical examination of their own worldview, acknowledging the possibility of being wrong. 2. Critical Thinking:  The ability to deconstruct arguments, identify flaws in reasoning, and construct well-supported arguments of your own is crucial for understanding reality. Analyzing information with a judgemental eye ensures your conclusions are based on sound logic and evidence, not simply baseless assumptions. And intuition alone doesn't make the cut. 3. Intellectual Honesty:  Relentlessly questioning your own ideas and holding yourself accountable for your reasoning are critical aspects of philosophical integrity ( as well as professional ). Be open to admitting mistakes, revising your thinking when presented with new evidence, and engaging in genuine intellectual pursuit rather than clinging to dogmatic positions. 4. Creativity: Philosophy thrives on fresh thinking. The ability to break from conventional frameworks, challenge pre-existing assumptions, and propose innovative solutions to complex problems, sets truly exceptional philosophers apart. The more innovative you are in either of philosophy's fields , the greater your distinction can be as a philosopher, thus, making you capable of being remembered more after your death. 5. Humility:  Recognizing the limitations of your own knowledge and understanding is imperative as we are all ignorant to an extent. A true philosopher acknowledges the vastness of what remains unknown, and approaches every encounter with the humility to learn and grow from others, enriching their own perspective with diverse viewpoints. By embracing these five pillars, you can embark on a transformative journey of philosophical exploration , honing your analytical skills, expanding your understanding of the world, and navigating the intricate complexities of existence with open eyes and a curious mind. Traits to Navigate Reality In Accordance to Profound Thought Within the realm of philosophy lie six essential traits that guide the journey of any aspiring thinker, equipping seekers of wisdom with the tools to navigate the ever-shifting currents of ideas and their supporters. These are not mere academic exercises, but a way of living life, defined by a burning passion to illuminate the path towards understanding ourselves and the world around us! For the philosophers of old, such as Socrates and Diogenes , are considered great sages not for their writings, which they didn't even produced. For philosophy's relevancy is embodied by its ability to alter lives and minds in accordance to one's findings. And that of course includes the lives of philosophers themselves! 1. Doubt: The Bedrock of Inquiry:  A philosopher wields doubt like a sculptor's set of work tools, chipping away at the delusional confidence of certainty, to reveal the hidden layers of truth, beyond the illusion of knowledge . By questioning assumptions, even their own, they test the strength of arguments and pave the way for a more refined quality of understanding. This skepticism isn't an aimless rejection; it's the fuel for new, greater opinions, forged in the fire of critical examination. And people who care not for the doubting of their own present assumptions, those who prefer to stay in Plato's Cave , are unworthy of the philosopher's relentless pursuit towards the truth outside the bonfires, pretending to be the sun itself! Those who think they want to philosophize, but need to shelter themselves from doubt, are unfit to accompany the philosopher on his ruthless journey. For logic may require us to even doubt our own emotions, shaping us accordingly. 2. Independence: A Mind Forged in Fire:  True philosophers don't simply echo the chorus of established thought, and do not support it in the name of conformity/ herd mentality . They carve their own paths, unafraid to distinguish themselves from the crowd whom, like the Joker, may be anti-philosophical. This independence isn't mere, childish stubbornness; it's the courage to stand alone, intellectually speaking, challenging the boundaries of conventional wisdom, and sayings that are marketed as wisdom ( Like trends being a need ). Even if it means traveling the world in solitude and in alienation , they push against the tides of conformity, their minds ablaze with the torch of intellectual rebellion. For the philosopher's verdict of being is one that is often ought to be a social dysfunction nevertheless. 3. Self-Sufficiency: A Lone Airship in the Sky of Thought:  Unlike ships connected to ports, truly exceptional philosophers don't rely solely on external currents to propel their voyage. They can find intellectual prosperity even in isolation, fueled by the engine of their own critical thinking. This is why doing nothing can have its own fair share of productivity. Their thirst for knowledge isn't quenched by borrowed ideas, but by the self-generated spark of curiosity, allowing them to navigate the seas of thought even in the deepest isolation of their own minds. And the price of this intellectual prosperity, made and fueled without the need of collective discourse, is loneliness. 4. Logical Rigor: A Shield Within the Storm of Emotion:  Emotion, with its swirls and tides, can be a treacherous guide for navigating the philosophical seas, making much of it it a weakness in the era of content generation. A good philosopher understands this, relying instead on the steady guide of logic, its unforgiving light illuminating the path toward sound reasoning. Arguments flow like currents with planning and not with impulsivity . Without the logic to channel and direct these flows, the river of inquiry would become a torrent of confusion and poor consistency. 5. Unquenchable Curiosity: Praying for The Goddess of Wisdom :  Philosophy thrives on the insatiable thirst for knowledge. Each droplet of information, meticulously gathered, adds to the philosopher's intellectual reservoir of the love of wisdom. This curiosity isn't a fleeting fascination; it's a burning desire to delve deeper, to understand not just the grand questions, but also the intricate mechanisms of the studied field. With each drop of knowledge consumed, the philosopher extracts the precious essence of wisdom, a potent elixir that fuels their journey onwards. If they are willing to be public figures , they will also distribute their elixir to the world while they're alive. 6. Dynamics: A Mind in Constant Construction:  Like branches swaying in the wind, a truly traits of a good philosopher's mind remains flexible. They don't become rigid fortresses, defending themselves against new ideas. Instead, they embrace the possibility of their own, current faults, seeing criticism as a tool for growth, not a weapon against their fortifications. Perhaps some, like myself, would choose to remain unhappy , for that purpose. In the clash of opposing viewpoints, they hear not the gunfire of battle, but the symphony of potential refinement towards a more profound mind. By listening to the voices of critics, they develop of understanding, enriching their own thought, and seizing their thoughts like a universal businessman -- even those of antagonists. For the brain is constantly building itself. And the search for truth can easily hold a functional purpose: to shape our brains and enhance their innate potential, which then can do much good to the world. A Closing Call to the Philosopher Within This exploration of the key traits of a philosopher is not merely an exercise reserved for academics, but an invitation to embark on a transformative journey. As you delve deeper into doubt, independence, self-sufficiency, logic, curiosity, and dynamic openness, you cultivate the seeds of wisdom within yourself, and transform yourself into a more capable being. Capable of what? Whatever the answer is, remember that we are more capable than what we think we are. While the path to philosophership may not be paved with instant recognition , the pursuit itself is a worthy endeavor. The act of questioning, of seeking truth through thorough thought and a thirst for knowledge, is its own reward, capable of transforming your inner potentials into reality. It is an evidence to the human spirit's insatiable curiosity, a testament to our yearning to understand ourselves and the universe around us. And it is through a better understanding of reality, that we can act in accordance to the insights we have discovered. Every step you take, every trait you nurture, is a contribution to the grand archives of philosophical thought, recorded and preserved through thousands of years! You become part of a lineage that features countless sages throughout the ages, built on the collective pursuit of wisdom. So, dear reader, embrace the quest. Let doubt be your sword, independence your compass, and curiosity your fuel. Train your mind in the art of logic , cultivate an empire of self of self-sufficiency, and remain forever open to the whispers of new ideas, so they can transform your flexible-capable mind in accordance!

“Its the not the Destination, It's the journey." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (Background music) Introduction Philosophy, essentially, is a quest for the truth. And the path to the truth does not have to be a single one. Sometimes, the same location, can be arrived from different paths. Think of a coffee shop you might like visiting. Think of the different ways you can reach it. You can reach it by foot, which might be more unconventional. You might use a car to get there, which is more conventional, or you might even use the bus. Philosophy as Personal Each philosopher is a philosopher because something happened to them in life. Something triggered their quest. In Socrates' case , this can be attributed to his wife. By all means marry: if you get a good wife or husband , you'll become happy; if you get a bad wife or husband, you'll become a philosopher. From Socrates' case we can learn that philosophy can come from the attempt to understand reality after something bad happened. AKA, it can often be a misfortune that may set people on the course of philosophy. In John Duran's case, a contemporary philosopher, his mother called him the devil when he was a child, setting him on a journey on understanding if he and society is truly good or bad, sane or insane. I specifically philosophize because philosophizing helps me stay sane and stable. When I don't philosophize, reality may start appearing completely different. Philosophizing is how I put myself away from state of confusions, and set me back on track. And I do it every single time. As a result, I cannot work and philosophy is how I mentally survive a world I, by default may perceive as absurd. Philosophy is a tool. For some people philosophy is more important than it is for others for a reason. The reasoning is often deep and personal, and as a result it is often hard to relate to. However, philosophy can also be defined as a way to make sense of reality. When you look at philosophy from this lens, you can see how important philosophy can really be for some people. Philosophy and Catharsis Our world revolves around an endless series of wars -- Zanetti (Beat Down) You Either Die A Hero Or You Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villain. - Two Face (The Dark Knight) Humans are the fools of this world. Being a human, you are no different, and neither am I -- Graham Cray (Suikoden IV) In fiction, it is often the villains who philosophize in monologues . The reasoning from that can be attributed from the fact that something bad had happened to them (thus making them the villains). Indeed, in contemporary culture, philosophy can be attributed to the villains. That is despite the fact a lot of philosophy has to do with virtue. Monologing is a form of Catharsis. Catharsis, in Greek, is purification. Catharsis was invented by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who saw Catharsis as a form of purifying our emotions after a tragic or an unfortunate event had occurred. In return, we feel relieved from stress (AKA, energy that needs to be delivered out of the human body) . Catharsis if a form of purification. After something dark or traumatic has been done , people may resort to purify themselves of the cognitive and mental charge of the misfortune that had happened to them. For me personally, saving my late grandmother at the young age of 10 was the trigger of my own respective philosophical journey. According to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychodynamic theory , the most important phase of a human being is his childhood. Every day I wake up , I am filled with the need to philosophize. Philosophizing is how I make sense of reality ever since that very day where I saved my late master. Whenever I do not philosophize, I may build up stress within me, and then reality may appear different to me. Therefore, I am stricken with philosophy as a way to cope and mentally survive reality. Philosophy is a form of art, and catharsis is most properly expressed in art. In other words, given some people's rare origins, they cannot stop philosophizing. That goes for myself. Then, philosophy becomes more than a mere academic tool ; It becomes a way of life. It becomes something of a shadow that always accompanies you whenever you go. It becomes a coping and a survival mechanism; a way to deal with the trauma/s of life. To quote J. K. Perloff Catharsis provides a unique picture of the eclectic but interrelated origins of the medical profession and the pivotal role it plays between life and death. Conclusions Philosophy, being the origin of all human research , may play a very psychological role in the mental lives of certain people. Philosophy is a form of Catharsis, a term crucial in art as well as the world of medicine. Some philosophers are innate , AKA, they may possess a special need to philosophize. The role of trauma cannot be ignored when it comes to philosophy as a form of Catharsis.

(Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) A Forbidden Love -- A Wise Fable By An Anonymous Lady (Background music) I remember his look. It popped up and stuck with me. When I got up in the morning and when I went to sleep. It started when I was 20. A girl born to parents who pretty much abandoned her all her life. I studied hotel management. About 2 decades ago. I looked at him. His body was muscular, brown, shapely, his eyes exude a taste of passion. I went in his direction, and I looked at him. His gaze met mine. I felt like I knew him at least 2 incarnations back. All of a sudden, images came to my mind. Pictures in my imagination that we are married with a wedding dress and himself as the groom. I saw him all the time with me. I turned to him. We danced together and he won a dance competition. I was with a friend when I saw him. I saw him as a different person. Different like me. A type of high-functioning autistic or person who is unbothered by conventions . I saw his smile. It tasted like mocha. When I asked his name, I myself knew it was love from God. We started dancing, we were the best dancers in the club. We are both different in behavior. We both help others . But we're too mentally dependent on the approval of others. I didn't know we were like that. In my imagination I believed in peace with him at last. True peace . We started going out. He even taught me to drive. He would take me for rides from the tram. We arrived at abandoned places, abandoned houses, hotels that we paid money for. The first time we touched each other was after 3 months of going out together every day. We had a crazy attraction. We started getting to know each other. Walked on the boardwalk. The boardwalk that is our place. We always had love, compassion and care. Each time we did not look at the issues of the relationship between a mixed couple... The problems arose. Religious people started calling me the names of a traitor. "He will give you an abortion in his village!" "He will teach you to bake pita bread for him!" All the prejudices and so on. After about six months of getting to know each other, I invited him to my place. And I asked to say goodbye to him.... to the love of my life. Love that I loved to give him, and he loved to give me too.... But we couldn't just let go. So, continued for another 5 most beautiful years. I was in my early 20s with lots of energy. My positive energy and love blossomed for him. And only him. We began to understand... that love is not enough. Although I was in his village and saw some of his sisters, we felt that religion is critical here. The police stopped him more than once because he was driving a black Subaru. We felt judged by others. We felt different . Different people, but people who believed in peace. Different people who wanted to live in co-existence. ...We had to break up. And there wasn't a day that I didn't think about him and him about me. We were a pair of doves. True love from the root of the soul. Unfortunately, he wasn't mature enough to face the hardships of society and its judgment of him. He ran away. Not because he didn't want me. ...But because he could bear the thought, society would not accept him as normal. And I waited and longed for his return. At that time I got pregnant. However, that's not why I didn't hear from him.... the rest is a topic for another day. He married another woman. He had 3 children. 2 sons and a daughter. When I saw their pictures it was extremely difficult for me. My heart was broken. His was as well, but, again that's a story for another time. My story... expresses true, unconditional love between racially-mixed couples. I purposely wrote it a simple way, to allow everyone to understand. I would love to know what you think about mixed couples? Here is what you can learn from my story 1. Each person interprets according to his personal experiences, on a political, sexual, social level, and on a regular basis. That is whether they are aware of it or not. 2. Openness -- people are afraid of the different and unknown and there is a lot of resentment from the past as well. A couple should talk before they break up, even if it's difficult. We deserve to make sure everything has been settled and dealt with, before moving on in life. 3. Failure to hide information -- it is better to inform each party that the family is against our love, and prepare accordingly, to be united, if ever possible. We should also be open with those whom we love and trust. 4. Actions speak louder than words -- he wanted to see me. He came all the time. He was in touch and showed. His actions shown that he loved me and was loyal to me. Had not he "walked" his "talk", it would've been more difficult to trust his words. 5. Pay attention, ask questions, but don't do so aggressively. Take risks when together. Because united, our love can overcome many difficulties and antagonistic forces. 6. Loving unconditionally is excellent only if the 2 parties are committed to a relationship and understand the meaning of such a complex relationship. It is a serious type of connection that does not need to be taken lightly. Do not play with a girl's heart, when that heart is yours. I hope to spread the wisdom of our love further into the world, using Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's kindness to share my story with you on his blog.

The following article contains an idea that might not be accepted by everyone, due to it being innovative, and yet, very obscure, even for my standard. It based on one of Zeno 's paradoxes, called the "Dichotomy" or the " Race Course " paradox. Take note that the term "Dichotomy" is don't have the same definition it has today, as in this case it means splitting, rather than presenting polar opposites. For those who don't know, Zeno was an ancient Greek philosopher who came up with the paradox I'll draw this article's logic from. Basically, if you are to begin moving from point A to point B, you will never begin the journey nor end it, simply because of the infinity of numbers, assuming reality is built on the foundation of numbers. In other words, you will never reach your destination because in order to reach a different place than your current one, you'll have to reach halfway there, and to do so, you must reach the distance's quarter, which is the half of the current half that was discussed. The list can go long so infinitely, you technically cannot even begin your movement, because there is no end to the dividing of numbers, since they are absolute, yet infinite. This brings us to make a decision between two conclusions -- either numbers are not sufficient to determine and construct reality, because reality isn't infinite, or accept that everything is infinite, including reality itself. Practically, beyond philosophical contemplation, most things are finite. Money, time, life, emotions and so forth -- by "everything" I mean not infinite resources, but infinite in terms of zooming in and zooming out of things and beings that already exist, even in a limited manner, like consumables. Have you ever thought to yourself, what if you are actually a breathing universe? What if there are, within you, entities so small that have yet to be observed by contemporary, scientific means? Beings so small than germs, bacteria and atoms, that they live in their own "world" as in isolation from you, so not you and not them are aware of each other's existence, and yet live in an ignorant state of co-existence? Let us make it the other way around -- what if this entire universe is in fact the extremely complex structure of a random entity, who lives their own life, wakes up in the morning on a much bigger sun and planet? According to Wikipedia , quarks are the fundamental particles from which every observable material is built. In other words, as of yet, we can rest assured that the essence of everything that truly exists in reality is made up of quarks, whose theorizer, Murray Gell-Mann, won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics. If you have ever wondered what everything is made of, science has given you an answer, at least for now. Gell-Mann's prize was awarded to him 51 years ago. Just imagine what other layers of existence there are that everything is literarily built from. Another thing that is important to mention, is that quarks have never been seen individually, only in groups of, most commonly, six. Just as a theory, what if these Quarks are planets, and a random object is a galaxy? What if a room is a collection of extremely small planets, going around each other? What if the Milky Way is just an object that randomly stays in a room, dusty and forgotten, and we can't realize it, because we cannot see it with our independent eyes, and with current technology? Surely, all of these are obscure, bold claims. The idea of us being in a universe where many unseen planets and civilizations live just like we do, is completely ridiculous to the average person. However, if we are to learn from Zeno's paradox, that reality has no start nor end because everything is infinite and never reaches a complete zero, like only the void is, perhaps we will never completely find the most basic particle in existence. As there could not be one, we would only find predecessors, not the ultimate particle, which has no smaller component than itself. In his paradox, Zeno brings an important insight -- that we are never truly one with someone else. Being exactly in the same place as another is logically impossible, as you cannot take a place that is already taken. Such a thing can only happen in a video game, where the object is transparent and you can be exactly where it is as your character glitches with it, but I digress. Infinity, if true, has no start and no end, which makes me think about the universe itself and its need to be created by an external force that itself cannot be created.

(Background music) Unveiling the Inner Flashlight We can be defined as lights of consciousness , awareness-directing beams, illuminating the landscape of existence, with all of its layers . Imagine our physical bodies as the flashlight casings , housing the vibrant energy that allows us to navigate and understand the reality of space and time. And it is through our intelligence that we are able to expend our understanding of the very things we illuminate with our awareness. The lower our intellect and intuition is, the harder for this reality-illumination to be effective. The combined effort of our cognition is what enables a certain degree of understanding , which itself could be increased as well with the application of lifelong learning . Unlike external objects, which remain passively bathed in our internal light, our thoughts, emotions, and beliefs are not independent entities. They are dynamic reflections cast by the flashlight of our being, swirling within the inner field of our awareness, and are prone to change not only by the external world, but by this illumination as well. It is this ability to reflect and ask questions, ousing our impressions of our world and ourselves, that leads to the fascinating illusory construct we call the ego. Like with our brains, that are constantly changing by their neuroplastic potential , we in essence, we are architects of our identity, constantly building and dismantling mental structures, incorporating and separating internal and external experiences in relation to the idea of who we are. When this mental illumination process is damaged, this can lead to identity and even existential crises, as with the case of a fictional character I analyzed once, called Metal Sonic. This process closely resembles a community erecting walls and constructing buildings, forging a collective identity by shaping the environment around them. And while a regular flashlight merely brings something into light, the mental flashlight that is the human being is in a constant state of interaction with that which they bring to light (or awareness). That interaction doesn't necessarily have to be a social interaction , as even the very process of understanding, like when reading this very article, is an interaction between the brain and what it illuminates to itself. To quote the American Philosopher, Mortimer J. Adler : “Strictly, all reading is active. What we call passive is simply less active. Reading is better or worse according as it is more or less active. And one reader is better than another in proportion as he is capable of a greater range of activity in reading. In order to explain this point, I must first be sure that you understand why I say that, strictly speaking, there is no absolutely passive reading. It only seems that way in contrast to more active reading. No one doubts that writing and speaking are active undertakings, in which the writer or speaker is clearly doing something. Many people seem to think, however, that reading and listening are entirely passive. No work need be done. They think of reading and listening as receiving communication from someone who is actively giving it. So far they are right, but then they make the error of supposing that receiving communication is like receiving a blow, or a legacy, or a judgement from the court.” -- From a Linkedin article by Rupak Shah You therefore cannot say that reading isn't a passive activity entirely if some degree of understanding is required. And understanding isn't completely a capcity, but also an activity that can be done and even improved, as with the example with many activities that can be mastered. This metaphor of the inner flashlight invites us to transcend the limitations of ego . By recognizing the illusory nature of self-constructed boundaries, we can embrace the fluid nature of experience without having to live from experience to experience (AKA, short-term), when we certainly can expend and improve of the illumination process of our understanding ( which can be seen as the sum of our cognition types ). Ultimately, we are not, necessarily, priosners of the walls enclosing our consciousness , but the radiant light that illuminates both the "mental cage" and the world beyond the mind . It's a "light" that can break them, as well, forging new paths in both the brain and in what we are capable of ourselves. Humans are, therefore, complex, multi-layered "flashlights" that can convert what they perceive into a synthesis of understanding. Reclaiming the Self Beyond Objects The tendency to identify with external and internal objects – jobs, achievements, emotions, and even our own bodies – is often born of an ability, perhaps an innate one, to see beyond them, as well. These objects, transient and ever-shifting, become the structures upon which we construct the "ego," that fleeting sense of self, which can easily be reduced using both logic and logical fallacies such as the Victory Fallacy. But here lies the paradox: while these objects dance in and out of our lives, the true self, the observer of it all, remains constant, a steady beacon along the ever-changing, chaotic reality. This constant self persists until the final curtain falls, the parting from the world at death, which is the only certain thing we can technically accept. This is why clinging too tightly to specific objects, or even people, can be a call to partake in unnecessary dependences . They are not guaranteed to be by our side until our final breath. No one and nothing is. We only have ourselves, our ability to bring things into the light of our understanding, and the certainty that both will end. These are the only three things we can be assured of entirely in this reality. As such, both the self and its mental illumination processes, cannot be diminished by anything less than death itself. Any other object of association, however cherished, is subject to change, loss, or even complete eradication. A job can be lost, wealth can vanish, relationships can dissolve – these experiences, while transformative, cannot touch the core of who we are. They are merely the shifting scenery against which our true light shines and observes.

Here is an article I would like to offer to the world, whose content we should all consider; words that might be helpful for theoretically everyone: 1. Appreciate the small steps of advancement, because even if they are not grand enough, they are better than no advancement at all. Appreciate them enough and they will make you happier than if you were to take for granted a more significant advancement. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step -- Lao Tzu 2. Accept the possibility that you won't always have something to talk about with those who are close to you. Accept the periods of silence and don't be stressed out. It is only rational that there are times where further topics of discussion are temporarily absent. Try appreciating these moments of silence, as awkward as they may be. Embarrassment is the cost of entry. If you are not willing to look like a foolish beginner, you'll never become a graceful master -- Ed Latimore 3. Know the difference between when apologizing is deserved and when it is useless. Small things do not need to be apologized for, like large-impact mistakes that could have been avoided. Suck it up and accept the blame with respect and tolerance. Don't seek another to take the blame when you can grow up by taking responsibility. Never ruin an apology with an excuse -- Benjamin Franklin 4. The same goes for guilt. There are things that even if they are your fault, you are technically not guilty for doing them. You are not guilty, for instance, for being deaf, and mistakes that occur due to being deaf should not be regarded with guilt. If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey , then it is the fault of their officers. -- Sun Tzu 5. If you are required to take medication , don't miss this opportunity to help yourself feel better. Even if it only delays the symptoms and does not cure them entirely, it is still better than living with the symptoms. You must take personal responsibility. You cannot change the circumstances , the seasons, or the wind, but you can change yourself. That is something you have charge of. - Jim Rohn. 6. By accepting the inevitable and regular pain of life, enduring it will become easier than before. Not all pain is avoidable or unnecessary, and this type of pain can be used for growth in many ways. To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering -- Friedrich Nietzsche 7. Take the extra mile to challenge yourself whenever doing so benefits you more than the opposite. If you are a writer, expand the amount of writing you usually do, and your brain will become stronger as well as your self-discipline and persistence. By taking the extra mile, we learn to grow beyond the capacity of our momentary desires, something that in return grows our independence from them. Put 'going the extra mile' to work as one's daily habit -- Bruce Lee 8. Don't overwork in whatever you're doing. Explore yourself in order to decipher how much it is healthy for you to endure. Don't feel unfortunate when others have a greater capacity in the aspect of endurance; too much overwork and you might unnecessarily harm yourself. Rest is not idleness , and to lie sometimes on the grass under trees on a summer's day, listening to the murmur of the water, or watching the clouds float across the sky, is by no means a waste of time. -- John Lubbock 9. A person is not valued by the amount of views and followers they have on social media , but on the depth of the content they provide. While views and followers are beyond our control, we do have control over the quality of content we provide. Don't use social media to impress people; use it to impact people -- Dave Willis And finally, 10. Don't believe everything you are told. Be skeptical , and do your research to verify the validity of information before you believe it. Without doing so, it is easy to fall victim to misinformation and rumors. Have the courage to use your own reason! -- Immanuel Kant If you have found these words of wisdom to be beneficial for you, feel free to share them with your friends, family, or on social media. Who knows, perhaps you will be able to make a positive chang e in their lives.

(Philosocom's O. C. Isaac Articles) (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 Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article by Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac explores the moral alignment system, particularly in role-playing games and storytelling. It breaks down the system's key components, such as Good versus Evil and Lawful versus Chaotic, and how they can be used to categorize characters in fictional settings. The article is well-organized and easy to follow, with a division into French and English sections for accessibility. The author acknowledges the limitations of the alignment system, pointing out that it is a simplification used primarily in fictional contexts. The article also engages with multiple perspectives, such as utilitarianism and deontology, encouraging readers to think critically about the alignment system rather than accepting it as the only or best way to understand morality. In conclusion, Mr. Isaac's article is a well-constructed piece that serves as both an informative introduction to the alignment system and a thoughtful critique of its application. It succeeds in making the subject matter accessible to a wide audience while encouraging readers to consider the limitations and complexities of moral judgment. An alignment system typically refers to a framework or set of moral or ethical principles that help individuals or groups determine what is right or wrong, as well as guide their actions and decisions based on these principles. Alignment systems are often used in various contexts, including philosophy, role-playing games, and discussions of ethics and morality. Moral alignment , on the other hand, typically refers to a classification of a person's or a character's ethical and moral beliefs or behaviors along a spectrum or system. It is a way to describe where someone or something falls in terms of their ethical values and decision-making. There are various systems for describing moral alignment, but one of the most well-known is the alignment system used in role-playing games and popularized by Dungeons & Dragons. This system uses a two-dimensional grid with two axes: Good versus Evil: This axis measures a character's or entity's moral compass regarding benevolence and altruism . Good characters tend to value the well-being of others and act in ways that promote happiness and minimize harm, while evil characters are typically selfish, cruel, and willing to harm others for personal gain. Lawful versus Chaotic: This axis assesses a character's adherence to rules, order, and societal norms. Lawful characters tend to follow a strict code of conduct and respect authority and tradition, while chaotic characters are more individualistic, value personal freedom, and may disregard rules and authority. The combination of these two axes creates nine basic moral alignments: Lawful Good: Characters who are principled, uphold the law, and strive to do good for others. Neutral Good: Characters who do good deeds and help others, but are not strictly bound by rules or laws. Chaotic Good: Characters who are rebels and non-conformists, but have a strong desire to do good. Lawful Neutral: Characters who prioritize rules, order, and neutrality over personal ethical considerations. True Neutral: Characters who are indifferent to ethical concerns and often act in their self-interest. Chaotic Neutral: Characters who value personal freedom and may act unpredictably or selfishly. Lawful Evil: Characters who are ruthless and selfish, using systems and laws to achieve their malicious goals. Neutral Evil: Characters who are selfish and malevolent, but not strictly tied to a code of conduct. Chaotic Evil: Characters who are destructive, chaotic, and driven by a desire to harm others. It's important to note that this alignment system is a simplified way to categorize moral values for the purposes of fictional storytelling and role-playing games. In real life, moral and ethical beliefs are much more complex and nuanced, and individuals often do not neatly fit into these categories. People's moral values can change over time and vary significantly based on cultural, personal, and situational factors. Additionally, there are other moral alignment systems and philosophical frameworks for discussing ethics, such as utilitarianism , deontology , virtue ethics , and relativism , which offer different perspectives on how to evaluate and categorize moral behavior. How to Detect Good and Evil using the Alignment System: Detecting whether a character or individual in a moral alignment system is "Good" or "Evil" typically relies on their actions, intentions, and values as portrayed in a story, game, or role-playing scenario. Here are some ways to detect and assess moral alignment, specifically in terms of Good and Evil: Observing Actions: One of the most straightforward ways to determine moral alignment is by examining the character's actions. Good characters often engage in acts of kindness, empathy, and altruism. They may help those in need, protect the innocent, and promote the well-being of others. In contrast, Evil characters may engage in cruel, selfish, or harmful actions, such as theft, violence, and deception. Assessing Motives and Intentions: Understanding a character's motives and intentions can provide insight into their moral alignment. Good characters usually have benevolent motivations, seeking to do what they believe is right and just. Evil characters may have selfish or malevolent intentions, aiming to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Examining Relationships: The way characters interact with others can also reveal their moral alignment. Good characters tend to form positive and supportive relationships, while Evil characters may exploit or manipulate others for personal gain. Considering Moral Dilemmas: Presenting characters with moral dilemmas and observing their choices can help determine their moral alignment. Good characters might make decisions that prioritize the greater good, even if it requires personal sacrifice. Evil characters might choose actions that benefit themselves, even if it causes harm to others. Evaluating Loyalties and Codes: Characters with specific loyalties or adherence to codes of conduct can also signal their moral alignment. For example, a character who follows a strict code of honor and justice might be Lawful Good, while one who follows a code of deceit and manipulation might be Lawful Evil. Character Backstory: Often, a character's backstory and past experiences can shed light on their moral alignment. Traumatic experiences or a history of making morally questionable choices can influence a character's alignment. Narrative Context: The context of the story or role-playing scenario can also influence how a character's alignment is perceived. Sometimes, a character's actions may initially appear Evil, but as the story unfolds, their motivations and values may become clearer, leading to a re-evaluation of their alignment. In Summary Alignment systems are tools for discussing and understanding ethics and morality. They can help guide decision-making in various contexts, whether it's creating a character in a game, making ethical choices in real life, or engaging in philosophical discussions. It's important to note that these systems are simplifications of complex ethical considerations and may not fully capture the nuances of real-world moral dilemmas. However, it's important to recognize that moral alignment is a fictional construct primarily used for storytelling and role-playing. In real life, moral judgments are far more complex and context-dependent, and individuals often exhibit a mix of moral traits. Additionally, different observers may interpret a character's actions and intentions differently, leading to variations in how a character's moral alignment is perceived. In Real Life In real life, people rarely fit neatly into categories like "lawful good" or "chaotic evil." Human morality is multifaceted and often depends on the specific circumstances and personal values of the individual. What's considered morally acceptable in one culture or situation may be seen as morally wrong in another. Furthermore, different observers can interpret the same actions and intentions differently. This subjectivity adds another layer of complexity to real-world moral judgments. In Conclusion Moral alignment systems are a fun and useful tool for creating fictional characters and exploring moral dilemmas in storytelling, but they don't fully capture the complexities and nuances of real-life morality. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: It is possible, however, to capture some moral complexity, should the person in front of us may be consistent in their actions. Since being consistent is key in putting productive plans into practice, it would be at least more effective to understand a planner's morality than a person who acts more on impulse, and isn't as calculated . That is because the impulsive is far less consistant in action, in comparison).

(Philosocom's Directory on Fear) (Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Corruption Directory) Alex Mos's Synopsis Coercion is an impulsive way to get someone into cooperating against their will. Successful long-term collaboration relies on loyalty and trust. Leadership based on fear prevents an exchange of ideas, breaks human cooperation, and results in less performance. Yet, coercion is frequent in all types of social interactions. Frequently, people learn to apply coercion from their role models. Teachers, our first authoritative figures, must teach the children the importance of proper character besides knowledge. Altogether, we should stop using fear tactics, become braver, and teach others to be braver. (Background music) Introduction The Cambridge Dictionary defines coercion as: The use of force to persuade someone to do something that they are unwilling to do. Coercion is, of course, but one of the many ways humans utilize to influence the world around them. It might as well be the most impulsive way to affect the world, compared to rhetoric, which requires more planning, more prudence, and more delicacy. For the human mind, which naturally seeks shortcuts in its thinking to save energy , simply threatening someone to comply with you is, by technicality alone, the easiest way you can get them to cooperate at the time . However by threatening others to do as you want, you may win the battle, but not the war. In other words, you may successfully attain your short-term goals, but not your long-term goals. Think of it from the point of view of the threatened. They may comply, but can you really say they would be loyal to someone who uses coercion? Would they feel psychologically safe , being with such a person? Safety is one of our most basic needs, scoring above our physical needs, according to Abraham Maslow. When you threaten someone, you're not only threatening whatever you can take away from him, but also their ability to feel safe with you. The essence of loyalty is also built on safety, because safety allows us to trust the other person. And when we are loyal to them, we won't betray them so easily than otherwise. How Coercion/ Fearmongering Ruin Organizational Cooperation Successful collaborations between humans rely on long-term trust and loyalty. Leaders whom we have faith in will not be deserted so easily. According to Forbes , there are several ways to restore faith in your leadership: Being honest with your followers. Proving your worth by being a man or woman of your word. Listen to the advice of others. Etc. On the other hand, the ThoughtfulLeader blog presents what unintentionally happens when you choose to lead by fear, compared to vision, trust, etc.: Stop (or decrease the efficiency of) teamwork. Make people rally up against you collectively out of fear. Lead divisions to not properly cooperate with one another ( Factionalism ). Eliminate the production and exchange of insights, opinions, advice, etc. Make the followers question what they're truly capable of. To allow better cooperation between individuals and teams within organizations of any kind, it is imperative that the main driving force would be something different than fear. If you can't build a collective out of the cause you favor, at the very least you can build it of the mercenary's mindset . Fear, by nature, is something that keeps people away from each other, compared to love, which brings them closer. By creating this artificial distance around you, you prevent not only a helpful exchange of ideas but also a better output of your overall collaboration. We need to understand that humans originally became social creatures out of the necessity of cooperation for our survival, both individual and collective. And of course, a fundamental human need is safety, as survival is far more difficult when we feel unsafe, whether or not we actually are. When the organization you're part of actively seeks to threaten your fundamental needs as an individual, you lose trust in it, and question it more than you should. Fostering more-harmonious co-existence with the people around us shall help us worry less, feel safer, and actually focus more on delivering the task at hand more effectively. The Greater-Macro Level of Influence Society can be seen as a loose coalition of various types of organizations, ranging from families, clans, companies and other factions. All of these groups interact with one another or influence one another in some way. When more-influencial groups become more prestigious and accepted by the other groups, the latter groups begin to follow the example of the first type of groups. Due to the authority fallacy , it is easier to surrender our admiration to people or groups who have more authority than us. When we also give in to the prestige bias , we also begin to want to become like them. These two concepts can compromise our moral reasoning in favor of becoming normal, and thus, accepted by the larger coalition that is society. It is when our role models, our leaders and our bosses begin to lead through coercion and not through shared ambition, we may follow their example even though we may despise them. Another reason for that, being our behavior, as a product of other behaviors. When we behave in accordance to the behaviors we learn from, that is known as learned behavior. And the thing is, our learned behavior is done both consciously and unconsciously. The education system of a society is an important tool to make people behave in certain ways. The problem begins at the very basis of failing to give the younger generations, the moral education they deserve for a better-functioning society. Teachers may, more often than not, teach based on the carrot-and-stick method . The problem with this method arrives when teachers bother less to make students aspire for rewards, like grades, and focus more on coercion through the following methods: Yelling. Individual punishment. Collective punishment. Other forms of intimidation. Being knowledge-based institutions, many schools hinder their own success by unintentionally making students rebel against them. They focus less on teaching them the importance of learning (AKA, the philosophy of education), and more on making them aware of the consequences of non-compliance. Teachers are one of the first figures of authority any person in a public education nation will face. With or without any of the parties' awareness, teachers not only present the study material, but also how a "proper" person acts. As such, teaching is more than the display of knowledge but also the display of proper character. When we fail to make our teachers teach us the importance of character, of proper behavior themselves, they become bad examples that the students learn from, unconsciously at least. And since teachers normalize the problematic tactics of fearmongering, they fail their own education's directive. They breed the next generations of leaders themselves. The next role models, bosses and politicians. The very same politicians that many of us despise, are also a product of their environment as much as any of us are. They can come from the same socio-economic backgrounds, the same education institutions, and consume the same cultural pieces many of us grew up on as children. We may condemn our various degrees of leadership which form our organizations, but we need to remember that it is us who enable the very same behaviors we condemn. Crime and Corrupt Politics -- The Connecting Element Crime and corrupt politics have one connecting element for sure: They dominate through terror. A controversial example can be found in the history of the United States. According to the NewAmerica blog: ...It's been possible for decades in U.S. politics to cobble together pluralities of voters by offering them new bogeymen. Before ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and China, election seasons sensationalized crime , Japanese imports , and communists . Indeed, political scientists Steven Teles and David Dagan argue that terrorism was largely swapped in for crime in the public imagination—and in political campaigns—after 9/11. The United States’ history of prejudice, combined with its diversity and the demonstrated electoral success of fear-driven approaches, has led again and again to campaigns that demonize and target not just pandemics and ideologies, but people and communities. Such rhetoric has been responsible for spikes of violence against minority groups in the past. Now, with anti-Semitic, anti-Asian, and anti-immigrant hate crimes on the rise , how we direct our fear has major implications for our social fabric. And to quote from an episode of the Netflix documentary series, "How to Become A Mob Boss": Fear. The paralyzing feeling of imminent danger. A dreaded nightmare about to come true. But when you're a mob boss looking to consolidate your power, you look at human emotions differently. Mob bosses rule by fear. It's the best weapon. Conclusions Must I elaborate further? We may complain and even actively eliminate the problems which make us fearful. However, as long as we apply the same fear-tactics in our own behavior, we would only enable the very same problems we condemn! Take a deep dive into the philosophy of coercion to explore the darker side of cultural standards. Find out how this negative force has influenced our views and actions. We mustn't cooperate with behaviors we don't agree with! Or else we would allow others act the same, by learning from us! And to avoid threatening others, we first mustn't be afraid ourselves. We must learn and teach others to become braver. For in the end, all coercion stems from fear itself. Coercion... is a self defense mechanism. The best defense is a good offense. I want to be braver. I will be braver. I could become a better example. So can you. Hail Philosocom. Additional Read How to deal with Coercive Control -- Mentalhealth.com

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Background music) (Philosocom's directory on Mr. Roland Leblanc's Miniseries) Article Summary by Mr. C. Kinsgley and Co. The article "Using Numerology and Gematria to Understand True Love - Part Four: Catalyst" by Mr. Roland Leblanc explores the concept of a catalyst in the context of true love, using linguistic and spiritual interpretations. Leblanc discusses the permutations of letters in gematria, particularly the word "רצז" (Rtzez), which can be rearranged into six different combinations. He highlights the word "צרז" (Trz) as a meaning catalyst, fitting the meaning of true love. The article delves into the symbolic meanings of the Hebrew letters involved, associating them with spiritual and metaphorical concepts. For example, "צ" (Tsadde) represents aspiration and goals, while "ר" (Resh) symbolizes movement and renewal. Combined as "צרז" (Trz), these letters evoke ideas of compression, formation, and the catalytic role in relationships. Mr. Leblanc distinguishes a spiritual catalyst from traditional spiritual leaders or gurus , arguing that a spiritual catalyst encourages inner exploration and self-discovery without seeking followership or leadership . The article concludes with a reflection on love as a catalyst for personal growth and understanding, citing Kalen Dion's quote. ************************** "Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them" Quote by Kalen Dion Part Four: Catalyst In this part four, I want to pay attention to how many ways we can permute the letters of the word that we have used for gematria before! With a three-letter word, we can permute 3 letters into six different ways! See below: Using the word with the gematria of 297: (רצז) (Or "Rtzez" was the original word I have used). See the possible words that we can make of: Resh, Tsade and Zayin. The six words are: רצז, רזץ, צרז, צזר, זרץ, זצר Note: if you copy and paste those words in Google Translate, you get an idea of what those might mean… Note: I have noticed that there is an interesting word that means catalyst ; the word צרז; which word I find quite appropriate in this situation where we are to check how we can find the meaning of true love! Trz צרז is a catalyst; (Speaking of a person; one who triggers a reaction by his mere presence.) (1. reference at the end of the article). In order to figure it out, I did want to check it out by using a biliteral root paper in french from which I have translated the info for you… (3. Reference at the end of this article). Tsadde צ TZ : This character belongs, as a consonant, to the whistling key, and paints, as an onomatopoeic means, all objects which have relationships with air and wind. As a symbolic image, it represents the asylum of man , and the end to which he tends. It is the final and terminating sign, relating to all ideas of split, term, solution and goal. Placed at the beginning of words, it indicates the movement which leads towards the term of which it is the sign; placed at the end, it marks the very term where it has reached. Tadde and Resh צר TZR: If we consider this root as composed of the final sign, united by contraction to the elementary root אר (AR), we see emerging from it all the universal ideas, of form, of formation, of coordination, of compaction, of elementary configuration. However, if we consider it as the fruit of the union of the same sign final to that of autonomous movement; we only see the idea of a strong embrace, of oppression, of extreme compression. From there, firstly: .צוּר Any formation by the coordination alone of the elements, by their own aggregation, or by their artificial connection, and their limitation to a model: All creation, all fiction, all figures, all images, all exemplars: Waw (Vav or ו) l, the action of forming, conforming, modeling, representing, painting, etc. Secondly: .צוּר Any compression by the effect of an external movement which pushes, which squeezes the elementary parts on each other, towards a common point: Everything which constrains, obliges, forces, oppresses, obsesses, besieges, squeezes up close, acts hostile; a violent opponent ; an enemy, a competitor, a rival ; anything that causes anguish, pain : the point of a sword, the steepness of a rock, etc. (.צוּאר R. comp.) Everything that relates to bodily forms: in a restricted sense, the collar. Everything that serves as a link: the vertebrae ; the muscular and bony ligatures: the hinges of a door, which (. .ציר) .bind it to the wall: the ambassadors of a king; a legation , etc. Resh ר R: This character belongs, as a consonant , to the key lingual. As a symbolic image, it represents the head of man, his determining movement, his walk. According to Boehme , the letter R originates from the igneous faculty of Nature. She is the emblem of fire . Used as a grammatical sign, the character ר is in the Hebrew language the sign of any autonomous movement, good or bad. It is an original and frequent sign, image of the renewal of things, in terms of their movement. Resh Zayin רז RZ: Any idea of exhaustion, material annihilation, extreme: tenuity that which becomes indistinguishable (That becomes fragile). רז In a figurative sense, the secret of the initiated. The Arabic equivalent designates, in general, everything that is secret, mysterious , withdrawn. It's an intestinal movement, a dull murmur. Note: The following video provides information about Resh and Zayin's relationship as being the Quouf letter: Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o992-wzdx78 At: 2:35 – and onward... Raz means secret. Note: From there, knowing what each letter and combination of two letters mean, I have checked the following : What is the spiritual catalyst? The Definition of a Spiritual Catalyst Most likely, you have heard the terms “Guru” or “Spiritual Leader” . But it may be true that you have not yet heard the term “ Spiritual Catalyst ”. While Spiritual Leaders, and Gurus are similar to a spiritual Catalysts in nature, the vocation of a Spiritual Catalyst can be quite different from the vocation of a Guru or Spiritual Leader. By definition “spiritual” means something of an essential, incorporeal, perhaps even supernatural nature, the antonym of spiritual of course being, something of a purely physical and corporeal nature. A Catalyst by definition is a thing which precipitates an event or change, often without itself being affected. Therefore, a Spiritual Catalyst is a person who precipitates an event or a change on the level of spirit (the essential, incorporeal part of someone or something). Spiritual Catalysts, like gurus, have achieved a high level of spiritual authority , awareness, and knowledge, which enables them to guide others. Spiritual Catalysts however, do not aim to become “Leaders” to their disciples as much as they wish to cause their disciples to question and find answers within themselves. It is the firm belief of a Spiritual Catalyst that if a person is caused to initiate their own exploration on the level of spirit, that a person will then become the conscious leaders of their own lives . It is also the belief of a Spiritual Catalyst that if a person becomes the conscious creator and leader of their own life, that their life will inevitably become a kind of living enlightenment; thereby allowing that person to live in a continuous state of internal peace and joy. Conclusion: In considering the words of the author of this sentence : ‘’ Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them.’’, we can say that a person who is able to help getting people to free themselves is a catalyst; doing this without self interest is quite amazing! (Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: Essentially, the true lover serves as the catalyst to the person they love; a positive trigger towards a positive evolution. They are there to encourage them to know themselves better and develop themselves, based on that knowledge. They do so without interest, for they are in love. And love is not a business transaction. True love is a genuine wish for the other person, for the best. And in order for that to occur, one must know themselves. One must know the truth about themselves, because one must understand themselves in order to know what would be the best for them; a self-professor of sorts. Hence one of the reasons it's called "true" love. For true love is also the love of the truth). Would you agree? Special request : I would like to hear from the readers of this part four; I wish to know what you think of this same sentence of the author : Kalen Dion? ‘’ Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them.‘’ Thanks for your interest! Any feedback is appreciated! Refrences: 1) https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/catalyseur/13725 “Element which provokes a reaction by its sole presence or by its intervention.” 2) https://tealswan.com/resources/articles/the-definition-of-a-spiritual-catalyst/ 3) THE HEBRAIC LANGUAGE RESTITUTED by Fabre-D’Olivet https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k647859.image#

(For more on the subject, please read this ) (Philosocom Writing Directory) Poetry is probably the easiest form of writing, to the point that anyone with the ability and minimal energy to write, can write a poem. That is whether or not that poem will be received positively or negatively. A poem is simply a song that doesn't necessarily need to have music attached to it in order to be one. In addition, you don't have to learn poetry in order to be a good poet or a well-received one. The whole thing is so easy, that it can take you a few minutes to do so, and even do so successfully, below a hundred words. Not much expertise, therefore, is needed in order to be a poet. The most basic traits in order to be one are two: be able to write, and have a sense of pacing. Unlike rap, which is a more advanced type of poetry, you don't even have to rhyme your poems constantly, if at all, in order for them to be written beautifully. Whatever is considered beautiful falls on the reader's subjective experience of the poem. It's similar to philosophy in a sense that everyone can write poetry as everyone with literal capacity can philosophize, whether they write their contemplations or not. However, since philosophy is mostly more complex, it's usually harder to be a philosopher than to be a poet. In other words, everyone can become a philosopher nowadays, but it is far easier to become a poet than a philosopher. Personally, I feel that there have been a greater sense of accomplishment to me whenever I write an article, than a poem. Writing philosophy takes more effort. Far more effort. When I realized that I'm not that special in my role, even if I have much to say, I still decided to identify myself as a philosopher because it requires far more effort than being a poet. If there is nothing really grand in being a poet when anyone can be a poet, then the value of being a poet is reduced compared to being a philosopher. It is the actual effort being invested that determines the value of the role . I am still aware, however, that there is a certain proficiency needed to write a good poem, but regardless, as a writer, I can testify from my own experience that this proficiency can be mastered quite easily with enough practice. It's why I find it relatively pretentious to be very pompous about this whole field in writing; to use unnecessarily-rich expressions, unnecessarily-rich metaphors and so on. What need is there in such excessive descriptions when it is so easy, in this day and age, to describe things in a way that will make the average person understand it as well as a more educated one? Simply because poetry is so simple, As it is like writing these very words, Words that most of humanity Can read and write, With little difficulty, It is why I do not identify As a poet, Regardless if I am, or not, Objectively, In the world beyond, My thoughts.

(Philosocom's Masculinity Directory) (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). Synopsis by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein Based on my experience, I believe that trying to cool yourselves is something that you should indeed consider, regardless of your sensitivity level. Remember that sensitivity is basically a synonym for higher vulnerability .   To be honest, it's quite difficult for me at least, to understand why anyone would glorify being vulnerable, as if it's a virtue and/or something to be proud of. It limits your life and your ambitions, when you base your life on the value of emotion, and less of other values in comparison. It can make you more anxious and thus more withdrawn from this world and from beneficial opportunities to your cause. Increase your resilience, be prepared for possibilities that are likely to occur, and you might find yourself in less of a need for trigger warnings and such. And this, yes? Comes from a very sensitive man. The irony. I "murder" my sensitive aspects to survive.  Finally, Mr. Lasher gives his own unique perspectives on coolness, sensitivity and masculinity. Coolness can be associated with not seeing reality as a problem to be fixed (and has to do with intelligence), masculinity/femininity can be associated with honesty, and sensitivity has to do with whether or not we choose to disagree with a person's methods and choice of perception. The Rubinshteinc Philosophy Of "Being Cool" When it comes to day to day life, unless there's actually a reason to be "heated up", we all should teach ourselves to "be cool". By being cool, I don't refer to being attractive, fashionable or anything of that sort; I refer to being chill and try to not submit to emotions, whose strength can hurt our mental balance. In other words, I at least define "cool" as simply "chill", and not much beyond this interpretation. My own desire to become "cooler", comes from my troubled past, as a man who was, most often than not, overwhelmed by emotion. The more we are to drive backwards in time, the more you'll see me crying regularly, even if there is, in theory, not much to cry about. When I understood how being emotionally overwhelmed as counter intuitive, I've decided to try and be less sensitive . However, by this ambition, I do not pretend to be without sensitivity, for I may always have had that trait within me. Still, not all hope is forsaken, of course, since I realized that some of that sensitivity is indeed within my grasp. Thus far, I believe it depends not only on one's own sensitivity, but also on one's perception of it, when it comes to suffering from this vulnerability. No, I don't believe in the concept of "real men". I believe that every male human who is an adult is already a man. After all, that's the basic definition of what a man is . I merely developed a masculine personality in order to survive in my solitary life . Thus, even as a man, I don't see a reason to call myself, in public, a "real man", when I already am one, and when such a premise should be out of the question. What I aspire to be, on the other hand, is cooler, which is technically a masculine stereotype. Being a "real man" or a "real woman" only depends on gender and on whether or not you're an adult. Other than that, whether we strive to be masculine or feminine, is our own choice to make, is it not? Some of my meds I take are there to cool my nerves, and ironically, drinking coffee makes me more relaxed. Maybe this is the reason as to why I enjoy coffee so much. As for the meds, I see no shame in having to take them, if it means I will be a calmer person. They also cost me quite a lot and require me to take blood tests every now and then indefinitely. I do not pretend to believe that there will be a future where I won't need these pills anymore, regardless of the fact that they are disgusting in taste. Nonetheless, I force myself to take them just to preserve my current mental state. I take them reluctantly and with distaste, just to function. This constant disgust of swallowing these pills, which taste like rotten fish (I think?), made me a more disciplined man, who sees life beyond the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism... is such a counter-productive philosophy . It basically says, that if you don't enjoy life, then your life isn't worth much. To all hedonists here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, because I no longer depend myself on the emotion of joyfulness to deem myself worthy, life began to be seen as more reasonable. Why? Because there is much more to life than mere emotion. I would define being cool the same as being serene: Having an absence of intense emotion, that could tip you off the balance of your mentality. Mania? Depression? Both are opposites of not only one another, but of serenity as well. Serenity is like the number zero -- it could be an absolute lack of either plus or minus, if you understand what I mean. The whole reason as to why I left the metropolis is exactly this -- to be more relaxed. It was a great sacrifice on my end. I am a solitary person by nature, yes? But after being used to visit your family on a regular basis, life gets only further isolated from the external world. And if it weren't for the fact that I can still write and thus contribute, I would've considered retiring from my public life here online. This awareness, alone, makes me calmer, for it grants me a bit of certainty; a certainty, that cools my head. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I am actually the coolest person I know and I don’t mean that in a social hierarchy kind of way. I scarcely react to anything. What reason do I have for not remaining cool? I don’t see life as a problematic matrix where everything is taken to an extreme level due to an imaginary construct someone has built up in their own mind. After all aren’t all problems are a result of people’s dislike of something's current state? [The] trick to solving all problems is simply deciding which state you want something to be in and doing everything in your power to get it there. Small example would be a mess in a room. People can see it as a huge problem or, like myself, they could see an organized mess where they know exactly where everything is. The state of a room is not a problem. People simply dislike the state it is in and all they have to do is put the room into a more desired state. Why do you think children don’t mind a messy room? [The] power of imagination is an incredible thing which preoccupies our cognitive processes. Other things seem less important when an imagination is being used. Now for the fun part. Is imagination not anything more than raw intelligence being used? So why is it only children primarily use intelligence in this expression? What if adults approached all things in the same spirit? Use imagination as you learn things. Never know what new things might be developed as a result. This is the core, heartstrings, of innovation. Regressing back to the topic, I believe that being cool is nothing more than realizing that you can always change the “state” of something anytime you want to. Don’t see life as a problem which needs fixed . Just be aware that every single thing out there is in a state that can be changed at any time. I’m cool due to my intelligence utilizing polymathy to all me to see how to change any given state out there any time I see fit. This is true of interactions between two cognitive realities. Your reaction will be a result of how their reality is meshing with your own. Simple solution would be to try and understand the other person's reality and what it would be like if you were in their shoes. For those utterly horrible realities belonging to people who have such tarnished personalities, the other option is to simply change the environment you are in, in favor of a more pleasant one with more enjoyable people. Nobody is making you stay somewhere you don’t want to be. Work is no excuse as you are always welcome to go find another job if you are unhappy with the place you are at now. We look into the idea of what it means to be a “real man.” [It's] Not something you either are or aren’t. By objective reality determining to which gender you are assigned. As far as which one you associate yourself with. You have to do nothing other than be yourself to be a real man. Where context needs to be assigned is to differentiate between being a real man and being a better one. Every man out there, as in an adult who associates as such, is a real man in my opinion. So that is not the point we should be focused on. What we should be focused on is being the best man that we can be . That all boils down to start doing the actions of the person you want to be. If you want to be a nicer person all you must do is do the actions that a nice person would do.  Sensitivity only exists as a construct in relation to how you feel about another person's cognitive reality and if it agrees with your own or not. When someone introduces you to their reality you have two options: Agree or disagree with it. Its state in all reality is not important. Assuming it isn’t meant to hurt someone, States can always be changed to become more favorable. Call it stacking the deck in your favor. You find a state you like and do everything in your power for it to remain in that place.

(Background music) Beyond Dharma's Shadow The concept of " Dharma ," while still relevant in some spheres, isn't as imposed on individuals as it once was. Before the Industrial Revolution , societal, cultural , and religious structures largely dictated the course of one's life. It can also be regarded as Karma , in contemporary English, as one of you have stated in the comments. I would say, from my observation, that Karma is necessarily Dharma, or a "cosmic law", but not every feature of Dharma has anything to do with Karma specifically. As a common peasant, your path was mapped out from birth. You were raised within the confines of your community, expected to marry and build a family, and inevitably inherit your father's profession or business. Women faced even stricter limitations, educated for domestic lifeand child-raising within the confines of marriage. While this era offered a sense of certainty and belonging, it came at the cost of individual freedom. While some may romanticize the simplicity of pre-modern life, I, as an individualist , wouldn't trade the autonomy of the present for that society-imposed ways of life. For none of society necessarily knows myself beyond the external world, like I do. Can we say that anyone is capable of self-professorship like we can, as people who are always with our own company? However, traces of this "Father Knows Best" mentality persist in certain societies, often dictated by figures of authority – be it a religious leader, a dictator, or even the interpretations of ancient texts. These societies hinder self-ownership claiming to know what's best for their members, much like a parent controlling a child's life. One Chinese ethnic group, known as the Mosuo , is a matriarchal society where, ironically to progressive philosophies , women are compelled into either having children or adopting ones. That's because their traditional way of life compromises their own regard, as in the case in other collective, self-conserving traditions. To take control over your life -- that begins by refusing to become whatever society wants you to become, by disagreeing with its ways, and actively opposing it, by walking your own path. Reluctantly serve it too much, and you won't be happy. You won't be happy because you won't be living the life you want. Hence the existence of a concept I call, "The Sin of Good".... We may "sin" by being good to other's expectations -- but not our own, thus giving them rule, or "dharma", over our lives, and "karma", as we suffer in accordance to our submission and lack of assertiveness . Criticizing "Dharma" The inherent problem with "Dharma" lies in its subjective nature. And subjectivity is a problem here because subjectivity implies general equality , even between opposite perspectives. That is while Dharma is all about the universality of the truth . It's when a uniform fact exists regardless of external standards. For example: The Earth is both big and small, and yet, we cannot doubt the fact that it's both big than ourselves, and smaller than the sun. Subjectivity is not subject to reality, necessarily, but necessarily to perception . It always originates from perception, but does not even have to be related to external reality. You cannot apply the same to individualism and collectivism because they oppose themselves directly, unlike size, which is always in relation to other bodies. Individualism and collectivism, on the other hand, need to be proven in order to be correct. And they cannot be correct at the same time if individualism opposes collectivism and vice versa. However, "big" and "small" do not, in general, contradict each other, because it always depends on specific relations, and not reality at large. However, the question of "how to live" may not have a single, objective answer. That's because, as in the example of sizes, there is no universality of truth but subjective equality. Those who claim to have found it often fall into the very "sin" they accuse others of – holding a subjective opinion, that does not have to relate to reality whatsoever, in order for it to exist. This is why, logically, there's no one-size-fits-all manual for living. The source of guidance is as personal as the journey itself, and is always up for our freedom of choice. We can learn from different philosophies, but the responsibility of creating a meaningful life rests with each individual, if we even desire it. Finding Your Dharma So, from all of this, I gather that the crucial question becomes: do you choose to live life on your terms, willingly fulfilling your passions, or do you sacrifice your desires for external gains? Take the artist, for example. Their passion might lead to a small apartment and perhaps fewer children, but the joy of creation fuels their soul. On the other hand, a career against your honest desires might bring wealth and a seemingly ideal family, but at the cost of constant internal conflict, between you and your ideal self. Controlling "Dharma", then, lies in prioritizing your life's purpose/s . Before blindly navigating its currents, define what truly matters to you. Every path has its compromises, but each offers unique rewards that won't necessarily be within other paths. Religion, with its diverse doctrines, cannot dictate universal happiness and fulfillment for every individual. This, perhaps, is why secularism is or was on the rise. While religion provides meaning for some, it cannot be forced upon all like a uniform. Some "weeds" will rebel because religion fails tailoring its life philosophy on every single member. Even the most populous religion, with its zealous followers, cannot guarantee universal contentment, if that is even its purpose in the first place. Some may still find themselves dissatisfied, even driven to despair, by its "cosmic laws". To claim one religion as superior based on sheer numbers is to fall prey to the ad populum fallacy . Conclusion Ultimately, the Dharma that governs each life is forged by individual choices or external forces, sometimes willingly embraced, other times thrust upon us. And within this diversity of paths, a multitude of Dharmas can coexist, shaping our lives in unique and complex ways. In many cases the choice is ours to either stay or deviate from our current paths. The lack of a universal Dharma for each human to follow in a uniform matter, allows people to be free within this universe of void and its three expressions of space, seclusion and silence. I explained what it means in another article.

The Directory https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-the-galactic-empire-why-oppression-isn-t-the-way-to-rule https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosopher-who-attempted-to-overthrow-the-japanese-army https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-robot-army-hypothesis-a-i-and-ethics-in-the-military https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-i-am-a-militarist https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-3-values-of-the-rubinshteinic-soldier https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-eggman-philosophy-utilizing-self-appreciation https://www.philosocom.com/post/sacrifices-of-war-how-to-elect-candidates-in-the-name-of-the-greater-good https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-cope-with-war-like-a-stoic-by-mr-o-c-isaac https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-use-reason-to-relax-during-warhttps://www.philosocom.com/post/the-humane-origins-of-corruption-graham-cray-character-analysis The Rise and Fall of the Ronin Boy https://www.philosocom.com/post/toledo-sword https://www.philosocom.com/post/secret-life ) (Background music) The Article The concept of a "One-Man Army" refers to an individual, often a fictional character, who possesses exceptional skills and abilities that make them capable of confronting and overcoming an entire collective, such as an actual army. In real life, however, as with cases such as Herbert Christian's killing 3 people in a row is at the very least enough for one to be a one-man army. This concept extends beyond the military realm and can be applied to any field where merit and individual performance play a significant role. Perhaps this is one of the most enduring and widely appealing fantasies known to humankind. This article delves into the quality of this enticing concept. While this concept is very-much existent in video games and other forms of media (like those involving ninjas) , its origins can be traced far back into history. King David from the Old Testament is a prime example of a one-man army. His exceptional skill with a slingshot enabled him to defeat Goliath, an elite Philistine soldier who towered over him in terms of size, armor and strength. Noah's shipbuilding skills enabled him to survive a global flood, demonstrating the potential for exceptional individuals to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges. Folklore undoubtedly holds many more expressions of this concept, both true and fictional. It is also in such media when we are taught to not be afraid of monsters as much. While the idea of a one-man army might appeal to some megalomaniacs , it's important to recognize its rarity. Throughout history, there have undoubtedly been instances of lone soldiers repelling significant numbers of enemies (Another example being Arthur W. Wermuth ), but such cases remain exceptional. Human progress and civilization have been built on cooperation and alliances rather than solitary endeavors. In a world driven by competition for resources and customers, industries and corporations constantly fight for relevance. Those who fail, remain under the ceilings of anonymity . However, solitary individuals often struggle to achieve the same level of impact and efficiency as entire communities. This doesn't necessarily negate the value of solitude (to the individual, at least), but it highlights the importance of balance and cooperation. While knowledge is power, not all knowledge is equally potent . Expertise in martial arts, for example, can enable an individual to overcome a group of less skilled opponents. Similarly, navigational expertise can prove invaluable in wilderness settings. Would you say, however, that martial arts can help you in the wilderness as much as the other field of expertise? The point is, that the preference for collective effort stems from the inherent strength in having each other's backs. If you want to survive in the wilderness, but lack the navigational expertise, you won't have to bother learning it yourself when you can recruit someone who is an expert navigator. And if you happen to be an expert martial artist, you could, at least partially, serve as that navigator's bodyguard (in case you would stumble across other people in the wilderness). Collaboration often eases the burden of tasks and provides a support system for overcoming challenges. Human nature gravitates towards cooperation to conserve energy and maximize overall efficiency. To cultivate one-man-army potential, becoming an auto-didact is essential. Many people remain hesitant to explore new technologies or skills independently, relying on external guidance. However, self-sufficiency and the willingness to learn on one's own are crucial for personal growth and development. While serial killers are undoubtedly detestable individuals, their solitary existence offers insights into the resilience and determination of individuals operating outside social structures, for they exist in what I call the outskirts of society, as "insane". Their ability to function independently, while not to be condemned by itself, highlights the potential for exceptional individuals to thrive in isolation. The world can indeed be a harsh place, and individuals often find themselves alone. Online communities, for instance, can abruptly dismiss or delete contributions without explanation. Trusted allies can quickly disappear if persuaded by alternative viewpoints (and opportunities). While help is valuable, it's not always readily available, and not always reliable. Sometimes you have no choice but to move forward, alone or with allies by your side. This is why it is critical to understand how to persevere in solitude , because anyone can pull the rug out from under you. Sometimes, it's those you know who might do so, too. While largely a fantasy, I still think it can be valuable to strive to be more self-sufficient in certain areas of our lives. That's because, doing so can help one survive, should one be left out of another's valuable company. It might be a fantasy, but it's one we can greatly learn from, and apply its philosophy to our own lives, in case we ever need to. Let us all try to be "one person armies," so we will be the least disappointed by the world and more hopeful about continuing to exist in it. Because sometimes we better do things ourselves. Solitude isn't always an option. Sometimes it's an inevitability, especially if you're at "the top" In conclusion , while the one-man-army concept can entice us, it's crucial to recognize the power of cooperation and the importance of settling a balance between solitude and collaboration. Being an auto-didact, resilience, and the ability to adapt to isolation can be imperative in the achievement of personal growth and the conquest of challenges.

(Philosocom Directory on Work) (Background music) Introduction Jobs are the engines that allow individuals and communities alike to preserve and prosper themselves materialistically. Through the fulfillment of important roles, people contribute to society through productivity through the compensation of a regular wage to provide for themselves and/ or for their families. Most jobs are there because of this very function which they fulfill. However, there are some jobs that, even if luxurious and may serve a fair payment, they can be very, unproductive be a waste of resources that could've been used otherwise in a more productive way. Here are 5 jobs I find to be most unproductive, with 5 being the least unproductive and the first being the most unproductive and literally useless. I apologize if I am to offend people who serve in these jobs or know people who do so, but this is but my prudent opinion, accompanied by much thinking: 5. Bell Ringer (Non-Musical) Bell ringers are people whose job's purpose is to ring one or more bells on specific occasions on a monotonous routine . Examples for this can be to... Wake people up from their slumber. Beginning and ending a ceremony. Notifying an audience. Etc. With the invention of alarm clocks, automatic bells, and other time-based machines , bell ringers are no longer necessary and can be used more productively. Besides, it is cheaper on the long run to afford a timer and maintain it than to pay a monthly income for an employee whose entire job is to ring a bell. . 4. Elevator Operator Elevator operators, though more common in the past , still exist in various places around the world, from the U.S. to Sweden, Taiwan, and Japan . They are not only found on ancient elevators, which are more complex, but also on modern-day elevators. Like the previous job, these operators have only one role, which is to select a specific level at the request of the people using the elevator. I don't understand why elevator operators are needed when people can press the buttons of the elevator themselves. Perhaps an operator is needed when passengers ask questions regarding the building they're in, but why would it be necessary if they can search that relevant information on the internet? 3. Ornamental Hermit It may sound strange at first, but there were (and perhaps still are) people who are employed as hermits in gardens and other places for the pleasure of visitors. It can be claimed that ornamental hermits are only there for the sake of beautification and nothing more. This job began around the 18th or 19th century by nobles who wanted to impress people who visited their manors. They recruited people to serve as hermits, and they forced them to obey strict rules; the original ornamental hermits were only allowed to eat specific food and drink only water, not shave, and so forth. Today, there are still some ornamental hermits, with one example being in Berlin, Germany, where in a building designated to be a modern-day hermitage, lives an ornamental hermit named Friedrich Liechtenstein who waves to people from his balcony at night. Sounds very charming.... but otherwise unproductive. 2. Text-to-Speech Livestreamer This is the most one of the most recent jobs to exist in the history of mankind and was made possible by the usage of social media . Basically, people who work as livestreamers for a living generate income by allowing internet users to donate to their social media channels. In return, the donors are allowed to insert a text to be heard through a synthetic voice, and sometimes they are also allowed to play a video for a limited time. The idea itself sounds pleasant on paper, but in reality, it is highly abused by "trolls", people that entertain themselves by annoying others and causing mischief through the internet. A popular example of this occupation is the YouTuber nicknamed Asian Andy , a text-to-speech live-streamer that records his daily life around strangers and allows people to donate in return. That's how he and others make a living. In many videos of Asian Andy, he is seen walking in public places while his virtual followers insert offensive, threatening, and harmful messages, leading to disturbances in public areas, such as supermarkets, trains, and shopping malls. In a video of another live-streamer, he was seen being arrested after the cops thought he allegedly made a bomb threat in a room, while in reality it was simply a text-to-speech donation. This job, even if it brings entertainment, is immoral and harms social order and comfort in public areas. Not to mention that it is also dangerous because you might be expelled from an institution, ruin your reputation , and even find yourself in jail. And finally: 1. Gossip Columnist Writing has many roles and many benefits both for the writer and the community , but earning money by gossiping is in my opinion the most despicable and useless job as a writer. Those who earn a living as gossip columnists earn a living by exposing intimate information about people (usually famous people) to the public. For some reason, many people are interested in knowing very personal information about famous people, from romantic relationships to what they've worn for a specific event. Many times, they expose this information without the consent of the person they've exposed, putting their private lives in the eyes of potentially millions of consumers. Let's ignore the fact of invading people's privacy (even if they are famous), there is still the issue that much of this information is useless and brings nothing to society beyond entertainment and potential subjects for social events' conversations. People with excellent writing skills and great popularity should, in my opinion, use their merits as writers for more beneficial subjects that can help promote society and justify their work as writers and their wage. Conclusions There is a saying that goes: "all occupations respect their owners", but due to these 5 jobs I partially disagree.... Even if a job has a decent salary, let's not forget about the degree of contribution and productivity we grant to others and to ourselves by doing these jobs. Sometimes, it might matter to people, more than the fact that it makes us a living and pays our bills. Let us learn from this article that even if there are some unproductive jobs out there in the world, they are at least few in number compared to most of the other jobs out there. Even if many of them are below luxurious, at least most of them come from necessity, from the need of someone to do them. This article, even if possible, was not easy to write in terms of actually finding the jobs and their titles, and that's definitely a good thing in my book! Enjoy the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-ringer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_operator https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-history-of-hermits-in-gardens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTNp6wEzv4 (An Asian Andy video. Viewer discretion is recommended). https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/what-does-a-gossip-columnist-do.htm

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) (Background music) Transportation that is more than our feet has been one of mankind's greatest achievements in the history of the world, hallmarked by the invention of the wheel in Mesopotamia . With the use of transportation, people and cargo are delivered from Point A to Point B in much shorter time than it took a walking human to reach their destination. Indeed, without transportation, humanity could not have reached its peak as a global infrastructure network and a financial powerhouse. Much time can be saved with transportation, but no matter how many artificial islands are created, the land of the world is limited, even if expanded. So is the threat to it by a growing mass of private transportation —every vehicle that is within a private citizen's ownership. With the massive growth of the human population and the increasing involvement of driving-able citizens joining the ranks of veteran drivers, more traffic jams are created, making the time to reach Point A to Point B extremely long. With more cars produced, irrespective of the natural world, there are more hazardous chemicals polluting the world and decreasing our health and life expectancy. In some countries, it has come to people's inability to go outside without protecting their nose and mouth, such as in India, China, Japan , and South Korea. At one point, there was a chance for a solution to this problem, at least partially, by using cars that consume electricity instead of oil. Oil, while a very popular resource for cars, is by definition, limited and non-renewable. That is while electricity can have renewable methods to ensure it never really runs out. However, even if electric-based transportation companies had succeeded and prospered internationally, it would only have solved one problem—the problem of damaging the quality of the environment. It would not have solved the other problem, which is the gradually decreasing space for roads in metropolises, where most of humanity resides. This is why public transportation needs not only to be more invested in by governments worldwide, but also to be encouraged as much as possible to be used. Even if it may take some of your personal time and even if there is no privacy in the bus's interior space, It can reduce the output of unhealthy chemicals into the atmosphere. It is also much cheaper than getting a license, buying a car, maintaining it, and fixing it altogether. And let's not talk about the issue of parking lots—with public transportation, you can save much time from searching extensively for an available parking space to bring you out of your misery. There should be more buses, and they should be used not only in metropolises but across metropolises . In a world where public transportation becomes the norm , there would be less traffic jams, people would be healthier, and the environment would be damaged less by toxic chemicals, increasing our well-being and reducing our modern tensions. Private transportation, on the other hand, should be less encouraged. Even if it brings you independence , your car wastes space on traffic that otherwise could have been used by more passengers. One can estimate that a bus is about the length of three cars, and each car has 1 to 4 passengers. A bus, however, can have a few dozen passengers. If the dozens of passengers would drive a car instead, the sum of their cars could be about the length of a few buses. That's very wasteful, if you ask me. If more people use public transportation, there will be a natural demand for governments to invest more resources in their public transportation departments. This pressure will reduce the number of cars on the road and could encourage the manufacture of more buses and more maintenance for the buses. Even though governments will have to pay more to get things done, it may even benefit them in the long run by having to worry less about the creation of new roads and the expansion of existing ones. In the far future, it may even be inevitable to use some sort of public transportation, because there will be less space left to build roads on, in a world dominated by global warming and traffic jams. With more cars on the road, it would take even longer to reach one's destination, to the point that you may be able to reach your destination much faster by walking, which is by itself a good solution for proportionate distances and good for your health and well-being. Ironic, but in a world dominated by traffic jams, walking might be the easier, cost-effective, less-time-consuming solution to get somewhere. The more we train in walking, or even in biking , the less relevant cars (and even public transportation) would be. However, as long as most humans don't train, they won't be able to carry out the full potential of the human body , to get you to long distances. Finally, don't be deluded by the speed and attractiveness of new cars in the commercials. In reality, you may spend a significant portion of your day waiting in traffic jams. There's no need to boast about the luxury of an expensive car—it waits in traffic jams just like an old one. If you care about the very planet that sustains you, you would use public transportation more often, or even walk long distances for your daily functioning.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (The Philosocom Directory on Illusion) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Background music) ******************* Introduction The realm of philosophy has lost one of its most influential figures with the passing of Daniel Dennett. A philosopher, cognitive scientist, and writer, Dennett made significant contributions to various fields, including philosophy of mind , cognitive science, evolutionary theory, and atheism. His ideas challenged conventional thinking about consciousness, free will , and the nature of reality, leaving a profound impact on both academic discourse and popular understanding. In this comprehensive exploration of Dennett's work, we will delve into his key concepts, theories, and arguments, examining their implications for our understanding of the mind and the world. Evolutionary Perspectives One of Dennett's central themes is the application of evolutionary theory to understanding the mind and consciousness. In works such as " Darwin's Dangerous Idea ," Dennett argues that evolution by natural selection provides a comprehensive framework for explaining not only the diversity of life, but also the emergence of consciousness and complex mental phenomena. He suggests that consciousness, far from being a mysterious or supernatural phenomenon, is a product of evolution, shaped by the same processes that gave rise to biological diversity. Dennett's evolutionary perspective leads him to propose intriguing ideas about the nature of consciousness, such as the concept of "consciousness as an evolved user illusion." According to Dennett, consciousness is not a single, unified entity but rather a series of cognitive processes that give the illusion of a coherent, continuous self. Consciousness is real. Of course it is. We experience it every day. But for Daniel Dennett, consciousness is no more real than the screen on your laptop or your phone. The geeks who make electronic devices call what we see on our screens the "user illusion". It's a bit patronising, perhaps, but they've got a point. Pressing icons on our phones makes us feel in control. We feel in charge of the hardware inside. But what we do with our fingers on our phones is a rather pathetic contribution to the sum total of phone activity. And, of course, it tells us absolutely nothing about how they work. Human consciousness is the same, says Dennett. "It's the brain's 'user illusion' of itself," he says. It feels real and important to us but it just isn't a very big deal. "The brain doesn't have to understand how the brain works". -- Anna Buckley of BBC Science Radio Unit He argues that this illusion serves as a useful fiction, allowing organisms to navigate the complexities of their environment and make decisions based on limited information. Critics of Dennett's evolutionary approach often challenge the reductionist implications of his theories, arguing that they overlook the richness and depth of subjective experience . However, Dennett maintains that his approach does not diminish the significance of consciousness but rather seeks to demystify it by grounding it in the natural world. Philosophy of Mind Dennett's work in philosophy of mind has been ground-breaking, particularly his theory of "multiple drafts " or "the intentional stance." According to Dennett, the mind operates as a complex system of information processing, constantly generating and revising "drafts" of reality based on sensory input, memory , and conceptual frameworks. He argues that there is no central "Cartesian theater" where all mental activity converges; instead, consciousness emerges from the dynamic interaction of multiple cognitive processes. Central to Dennett's philosophy of mind is the rejection of dualism —the idea that the mind and body are fundamentally distinct entities. Drawing on insights from neuroscience and cognitive science, Dennett advocates for a materialist understanding of the mind, viewing it as an emergent phenomenon arising from the physical substrate of the brain. This perspective aligns with his broader commitment to naturalism , the view that all phenomena, including consciousness, can be explained in terms of natural processes. Free Will and Determinism Dennett's views on free will and determinism have sparked considerable debate and controversy. In works like "Elbow Room" and "Freedom Evolves," Dennett argues for a compatibilist understanding of free will , which reconciles the existence of free will with the scientific principle of determinism. He contends that even in a world governed by deterministic laws, agents can still possess meaningful degrees of freedom and responsibility. Dennett's compatibilism hinges on his rejection of libertarian free will —the idea that agents could have acted differently in identical circumstances. Instead, he argues that free will is compatible with determinism if agents are able to make decisions based on their own desires, beliefs, and values, free from external coercion or undue influence. While Dennett's compatibilist stance has been met with criticism from proponents of libertarian free will and hard determinism, it offers a nuanced and pragmatic perspective on the nature of human agency. By emphasizing the importance of social, legal, and ethical considerations in assessing responsibility, Dennett's approach seeks to navigate the complex interplay between determinism and moral accountability. Atheism and Religion In addition to his contributions to philosophy of mind and cognitive science, Dennett is known for his outspoken critique of religion and advocacy for atheism. In works like "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon," Dennett applies his naturalistic approach to understanding religion, viewing it as a cultural and psychological phenomenon shaped by evolutionary forces. Dennett argues that religious beliefs and practices can be explained in terms of their adaptive advantages, such as promoting social cohesion , providing comfort in the face of uncertainty, and reinforcing moral norms. However, he also cautions against the potential dangers of religious dogma and fundamentalism , which can impede scientific inquiry, stifle intellectual progress, and foster division and conflict. Dennett's advocacy for atheism is grounded in his commitment to reason, evidence , and critical inquiry. He encourages individuals to question religious doctrines and engage in open dialogue about the nature of belief, morality, and meaning. While his views have been met with criticism from religious communities, Dennett's contributions to the public discourse on atheism have helped stimulate broader conversations about the role of religion in society. Conclusion Daniel Dennett's intellectual legacy is vast and multifaceted, spanning disciplines as diverse as philosophy, cognitive science, evolutionary theory, and atheism. His work challenges us to rethink fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness, the mind-body relationship , free will, and the role of religion in human life. While his ideas have provoked spirited debate and disagreement, Dennett's commitment to rational inquiry, empirical evidence, and interdisciplinary dialogue continues to inspire scholars and thinkers around the world. As we reflect on his contributions, we are reminded of the enduring importance of grappling with the mysteries of the mind and the complexities of the human condition. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Consciousness could be thought of as an energy force in the mind. Meaning, this collection of energy creates a metaphysical thing. This energy force is continuously reaching out to become aware of what is going on around it. It is the thing which creates cognitive realities and the very source of our intelligence . Part of my philosophy on the conscious mind and the soul is that they are one and the same. The very essence of who a person is. To get theological thinking of it as a core part of who someone is. A good or evil person . By thinking about things negatively , we attract things towards us. Newton was correct when he said for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. For every expression of yourself you choose to put out into the world means that energy must be transferred to somewhere else. Make sure the correct people are getting your energy. One could imagine the soul in everyday terms. Remember a day when you learned something? After doing it enough you have gained mastery over it. You simply know what you need to know about a subject. The brain is just physical matter which can’t account for the soul. It is that thing inside of us which our physical bodies pay no attention to. Look out into your room at an object. What is making you see that object as in what is starting at it. Superficially, you could say your eyes but I think it goes much deeper than that. What is that thing which is making your eyes look in the direction that they are and at the thing which you are? You would be correct in saying you are the one who is using your organs to do things. That is what consciousness is: It is the soul's energy which is reaching out.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Aliens and Outer Space) (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). (Background music) The Prophecy of Lok: A Former Gamer's Unexpected Path to Solitude One of my most cherished fictional worlds from childhood wasn't Tatooine or Hoth . It was a small, often forgotten moon called Lok , discarded away in the vast expanse of the Star Wars universe, along with it many forgettable planets. For me, however, this lonely moon, accessible only through the now-defunct "Star Wars Galaxies," became an unexpected prophecy, foreshadowing the path my life would take. You might wonder why I, a former video game addict, dedicate an article to a seemingly insignificant world from a shut-down game. My answer is simple: Lok, through its stark desolation, whispered a quiet but profound truth about my future. A truth that realized the further I grew up. Back then, a child glued to the screen, the concept of "philosophy" was as alien as hyperspace travel. The thought of dedicating my life to pondering life's big questions never crossed my mind. Writing, my future tool of building this article empire, was something I actively despised. Yet, every time I ventured onto Lok's barren surface, a strange feeling lurked inside of me. For there was something in that desolate planet that resonated with me greatly. This wasn't like any other video game level. Unlike Coruscant or Kashyyyk , Lok offered no friendly faces, no thrilling blaster battles, just desolate silence and crushing solitude, filled with hostile forces of many kinds. From antagonistic pirate factions, abandoned robots and weird alien creatures who would kill you without remorse if you can't protect yourself. It felt like a premonition, a voice whispering that my future would be carved in solitude, a metaphorical journey I would walk alone, even with others being in the background. For despite the power I would attain, I would remain, somehow, solitary. Lok wasn't just a game world; it was a mirror reflecting a future I couldn't comprehend as a child, but felt as if it rang true. It whispered of a path less traveled, one paved with introspection and quiet contemplation, as I gather more and more people behind me. In its emptiness, I glimpsed the silhouette of the philosopher I would become, far removed from the bustling crowds of the online world. An eternal outsider in a world formed by factions. And so, years later, as I grapple with complex ideas and seek relief in the written word, I can't help but thank Lok, the desolate moon that resonated a prophecy only I could intuitively comprehend. It may have been a forgotten corner of a forgotten game, but for me, it became a compass, guiding me towards a path of solitude and self-discovery. For regardless the people I may encounter on my journey, and regardless of their help or opposition to my philosophical cause, I traverse the landscape of life by my lonesome. For there will never be a more honest and everlasting company than my own. The Allure of Solitude: A Journey on Lok Lok held a unique charm. Unlike other desolate planets with multiple spaceports, Lok had just one, placed on the northern the map. A fictional warlord with his own organization made sure everyone will come and go through this port that also serves as his stronghold. Stray too far, and returning meant either a cruel attempt at escaping the planet or a deliberate death-and-respawn near the port. Lok can be seen as a metaphor for human society as well. Composing of several factions, like the Canyon Corsairs and the Blood Razors. And like with Lok, Earth is composed of countless factions, each with their own set of interests, working in unity mostly if not only in the name of self interest. Lok displays this and what stems from it: The fact that we are lonely no matter how much power we will hold, because whatever crew you'll be having, they are loyal to you, each according to their own motives. And I led my own organization in that game, of real people, the Storm Alpha Squad. That paramilitary force of mine also served me a reminder I am aware of only today: Organizations are built on interest. As such, even the powerful will remain lonely in the vast expanse of this hollow world, where genuine love is rare. The relationship between power and loneliness is strange as it is complicated. This isolation, coupled with the game's diverse and often terrifying array of enemies - from monstrous bugs to ape-like creatures - created a ominous desolation unmatched in my childhood gaming experiences. Yet, something in Lok's atmosphere, the music's melancholy, drew me in. For within it lied the resonation to the man I became. Despite the harshness, I craved an experience of solitude, a connection to my own thoughts and the freedom to explore ideas unhindered. This desire manifested in Solitarus , a term I later coined in my book Hermitericum, born from the born from the isolation felt in Lok. And like in Lok, the residents of real life are now divided in two: Those who leave me alone, and those who try to stand in my way. My allies are on the first category, as they should. For many people, there is a third category: Those who share your life's journey with you. But only I fully known what I became. No one needs to know what entirely lies in my subconscious, which I visited in my meditations. I remain mysterious. And I intend to leave an impact from the shadows of my existential hermitage. SWG's closure amplified my desire for solitude. The silence, the freedom of thought, the absence of external distractions - these became my example of true happiness, a happiness that brought tears to my eyes, back when I used to cry and be overly sensitive. Many find this yearning for solitude puzzling. Happiness, for many, lie in the many vivid experiences the external world offers. But I, a lone Lok traveler, find my solace in the vast, quiet expanse of my own mind, where other humans bother me not with their problems and drama. The joy I find in solitude, the intensity of the tears it used to cause, is a treasure I long to share in the form of my many articles. It shaped the core of my philosophy, Rubinshteinic Individualism , originally called Solitary Individualism. Lok may be a forgotten moon in a forgotten game, but its desolate beauty and the solitude it offered became a pivotal point in my life's journey. And perhaps, in sharing this experience, others might find their own solace in the quiet corners of their own minds. How to Embrace Solitude There's a strange beauty in solitude, a quiet symphony of self-discovery often drowned out by the unforgiving, loud noises of the external world. It's a feeling I first encountered not in some grand philosophical tome, but on that forgotten piece of graphical code called Planet Lok. There were no requirement for me to be there, and yet I traveled across its barren plains, as I very slowly realized that there is a self beyond the framework of society. In these solitary moments I realized I exist beyond the thoughts of another, and as such, the thoughts of another matters little for my existence. Within Lok's eerie hostility and neutrality, was in this very isolation that I found a peculiar solace, a yearning for the unfiltered freedom of my own thoughts. A solace never shared with another as genuinely. And yet, it were in these times of "Solitarus" where I felt the most authentic I can be, the most human. Love is used as a framework for this authenticity. But I have not a need in the world to depend myself on a framework that can corrupt itself to imperialism. Imperialism how? Imperialism, by attachment. And attachment and freedom cannot grow together. Most people wouldn't confine themselves in this isolation . But I ventured further from the comfort of the spaceport, drawn by the song of introspection. And this was an online game, designed for socializing.. But it was in that social game where I discovered the joy of self-reflection, the power of exploring the landscape within, and not only with-out. Perhaps this feeling is rare, a hidden treasure in a world that prizes connection above all else. A world that nurtures validation and narcissism . Loneliness, the shadow of solitude, is often met with fear and avoidance. But true solitude, embraced not out of necessity but out of desire, can be a transformative force. It's not a call for complete withdrawal, or rejection of all human interaction . Rather, it's an invitation to carve out moments of quiet contemplation, to listen to the whispers of our inner selves. In these moments, we may discover hidden strengths, unexpected joys, and a deeper appreciation for the complexities of existence. This article might not change someone's life, just as Lok's desolate beauty may seem insignificant in the grand design of the Star Wars universe. But if it sparks a single thought, a flicker of curiosity about the value of solitude, then this article has served its purpose. For in the quiet spaces between the noise, in the embrace of our own company, lies a hidden wellspring of self-knowledge and a unique kind of happiness. It's a treasure worth seeking, and perhaps, just like Lok, it awaits in the most unexpected corners of our own existence.

(Philosocom's Directory on Bias) (Social Media Directory) (Background music) Sold & Scrolled: The Price We Pay for Personalized Ads With social media being the dominant form of global communication, one should ask themselves the following questions: what do I agree to by dedicating much of my time to one or more social media sites of my choice, when I know my private surfing information is being used? What do I sacrifice by letting mega-corporations use my intimate data, simply by being their user? After watching Netflix's " The Social Dilemma ", a documentary on social platforms and their implications on the world, I believe I know the answer to the questions previously mentioned -- being the financial corporations they are, many social platforms basically create a virtual "version" of yourself in their data banks. Not necessarily for the sake of wanting to know you better, but simply to personalize their available inventory of advertisements , in accordance to your every action on their sites. From liking a picture to commenting on posts -- social media is created for the primary reason of selling products. We are their products. Clickbait Capitalism: When Profits Trump Reality This is why many websites and apps are free today for many to download and browse, because the people behind them are already making profit and living luxurious lives. By being a "product," a.k.a. a user, your surfing data is not necessarily sold to third party groups but rather used by the platform to personalize your user experience, so you will have the best likelihood of watching and clicking on ads that best suit you. Obviously, without said ads, many dominant social sites wouldn't exist . The advertisements you receive are there because of you and the way you interact with the social apps of your choice. That alone, at first, does not seem harmful at all to some people, as online commerce is basically the lifeblood of many organizations and job holders , whether their jobs are necessary or not, and indeed, without the internet, the world today might have been much poorer financially than it is today. The problem with said feed-personalization, however, arrives when it puts the value of capitalization as higher than the value of truth. And thus, when your social feed is bombarded with lies and fake news just because you are interested in some subjects, such as politics , spirituality , and so forth. This is where the problem begins when it comes to the personalization of user-made content; content that can easily be accepted the more convincing it sounds. How A Certain Bias Trap You in Your Own Reality Because that is what is being received on your feed, every time you log in. Due to the wide spread of fake news , created by virtual algorithms as a way to optimize your likelihood of clicking on ads in the name of profit, probably one of the most common biases today begins to be more and more dominant. Confirmation Bias , which basically says the following: You are more likely to receive and search for information that supports your own position, even if that position is false, and the more information there is across the web, the more likely you are to be embedded within your own falsehood. The truths to whatever issue at hand are out there, waiting to be received. However, as long as you are to submit to your targeted user-feed, and not take the time and effort to actually read and expand your topic on the matter from as many polarizing positions as possible, be prepared to have your own position shattered by opposing likelihoods. You will likely remain within the comforting ignorance that is the confirming Climbing the Bias-Breaker Hill. And alas, contemporary times have created generations of lazy people , who don't have the willingness to consume information in the search for truth nor are open-minded enough to be skeptics about their own beliefs, whether it is a political view or a religious faith. This is how we are manipulated against one another in the name of excellent products to be picked by the many advertisers out there, anticipating our time, clicks, and purchases, all in accordance with our privacy-breaching surfing data. Philosocom's Refusual to Enable the Internet's Status Quo Within Its Territory This is why, at least at the time this article was published, you will not see on Philosocom a personalized content feed. Instead, you are free to choose your own content from what I've provided here, and your user data is being used solely to get to know my audience better, as a form of assistance in determining what I should write next. Beyond the country of where you are and what time you've entered Philosocom, I have no idea who you are as an individual user. Here, you are not simply a "product", but a reader with the ability to comment and provide feedback per the site's few rules. You are a human being who deserves not to be financially exploited as long as you're in my site and as long as I am alive to enforce this code of morality. Fake news and other false information are probably one of the most problematic issues today, an issue that can easily manipulate, polarize, and intensify extremism between people and within themselves. In the name of morality and truth, the very least we can do is to not follow suit within our own digital organizations.

Abstract Earth won't last forever. In the extremely distant future, it will become uninhabitable due to extreme temperatures or be engulfed by the Sun's expansion. Our reign as the dominant species will therefore come to an end, and ironically, it will likely be caused by the Sun, our very source of life. Our descendants will face a colossal challenge to ensure humanity's survival : leaving the solar system and finding a new home among the stars. The Sun will eventually die out, and its diminishing energy will render the solar system uninhabitable. Unless they find a way to shield themselves from harmful radiation, our descendants will have to embark on a quest for a new Earth. This interstellar voyage will require revolutionary technologies and a radical shift in our approach.  We will need to colonize other planets and become citizens of the universe, exploring the cosmos and adapting our civilization to this new reality. (Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Aliens and Outer Space) (Background music) The Inevitable End of Earth (Space Nomad Theory) The fact that countless generations of people have inhabited Earth for thousands ( if not millions ) of years does not guarantee our eternal reign as the planet's dominant species. Planet Earth's lifespan is finite , and in the extremely distant future, it will either be rendered uninhabitable due to extreme temperatures or consumed by the Sun's expansion. It is, therefore, crucial to recognize that our world's end will likely be caused by the very source of life itself – the Sun. Regardless, the implication of our world being destroyed eventually , even if it will only likely be hundreds of millions of years into the future, means that our very far descendants will have to face the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced in the name of its survival—escaping the solar system to find another home. The Inevitable Journey of Humanity's Survival Our Sun is the life-giving force that sustains Earth and the entire solar system. It's evident by the fact that it holds them all together. However, its existence is not eternal. In the distant future, the Sun will evolve into a red dwarf , exhausting its fusion fuel and becoming a cold, dim star, known as a white dwarf . Eventually, the white dwarf will be completely dead, becoming a black dwarf . The black dwarf, by the way, is currently a concept in-theory, as it's probable that the universe is too young for black dwarves to ever exist. The point is that the sun generates its heat, which is essential for all life on Earth . The energy that the Sun consumes as fuel is known as hydrogen . Although hydrogen can, in theory, be renewable infinitely , it is important to mention that "Hydrogen is only renewable if the process used in its extraction is also renewable ." Since the sun is burning hydrogen, an extraction method which isn't renewable, then its natural lifespan will render our solar system uninhabitable, marking the end of life as we know it. Unless our descendants find a way to shield themselves from the Sun's harmful radiation, the only option for humanity's survival lies in escaping the solar system and seeking a new home among the stars. This monumental task will require a fundamental change of approach in our technological capabilities, propelling us into an era of interstellar travel and space colonization. The vast distances between stars pose a significant challenge. For the record, NASA calculations estimate that it should take 2 to 3 years to get to Mars in a crewed shuttle . Our far-future leaders will need to install a sense of urgency among their people, emphasizing the looming danger even if its effects are not yet apparent. Colonizing planets within our solar system will only provide a temporary respite, as they too will face the Sun's implications of its inevitable demise. The idea of abandoning our ancestral home, Earth, can be emotionally heart-breaking, as our long descendants will have to leave everything they, us and our ancestors ever knew. Future humanity will need to convince its members to leave behind all that they know and cherish, venturing into the unknown depths of outer space. Emotional attachment to our home planet may hinder some from embracing this exodus. However, the harsh realities of cosmic evolution dictate that survival necessitates adaptation and change. Such is the greatest benefit for humanity at large to learn how to overcome its emotional dependencies. The ethics regarding those unwilling to leave Earth comes forth – should we force them into escape shuttles or allow them to perish with their home-world? Should we respect their desire to die with their home planet or their fear of the unknown ? What about criminals and other social outcasts? Should they be included in the evacuation efforts or left to fend for themselves? These ethical dilemmas will demand careful consideration. In the end, the preservation of humanity relies upon our collective ability to confront the inevitable and embark on a journey of cosmic exploration, embracing the vastness of the universe as our new home. And yes, should we as a species live long enough, not only we will have to live this solar system, but also the next one we will find. In the name of our ultimate survival, we will have to become interstellar nomads. The long-term survival of humanity depends on our ability to develop and master space colonization and interstellar travel technologies. By expanding our reach beyond Earth and the solar system, we can ensure that our species endures, adapting to the ever-changing cosmos and carrying the legacy of life into the depths of the ever-expanding universe. The Imperative of Interstellar Travel What should be certain , regardless of how and when we will reach our demise, is that most if not all planets are not eternal , and even if they themselves will survive, it does not mean that all life forms within them will indeed survive along with them . Therefore, interstellar travel, along with any other outer Space Nomad Theory technology, is imperative for our long-term survival. Hopefully, becoming an astronaut in the far future won't be something extraordinary. It should be imperative that anyone, in a theoretical future, will have access to outer space education just as public education is accessible today. Similar to many people have access to computers, and later on, smartphones. Getting used to advanced technologies must be common in order to survive in a dynamic reality. In order to adapt, our descendants will have to become not only law-abiding humans, but good colonists, who will be able to sacrifice their current life in the inevitable exchange of a new one, somewhere far in the stars above. It goes to show how morality, even if inter-subjective, is necessary for the survival of individuals within a larger collective. The vastness of the universe presents both immense challenges and boundless opportunities. While the journey to other habitable planets may be extremely difficult and unpredictable, the potential rewards are immeasurable. It's not only about forming a greater future of humanity, but also about further unlocking the mysteries of the universe itself. It's about building entire nations, communications and economies around the concept of interstellar travel, because it might as well be as common as driving cars in highways or traveling between countries and continents today. As such, We must transition from being mere inhabitants of Earth to becoming citizens of the universe. Innovation will become important, more than ever, for us to not only understand reality but also to operate better in it, thus surviving. And as I wrote in my guide about surviving in capitalism , we can survive best when we prosper, as prosperity is evidence of a competent survivor. And of course, survival is gained once we adjust to our environment . Hence why prosperity is essential to avoid misfortunes, ranging from evitable deaths to the possible extinction of the entire human race across the stars. The vast potential potential rewards far outweigh the risks, should we be able to cooperate good enough in the name of our collective existence within an infinite, dark and dangerous universe devoid of food, water and oxygen. Understand how imperative it is to abide to this social contract existent in contemporary countries as well, thus making them business entities (as a contract is, by definition, a deal) By embracing our curiosity, adventurous spirit and rationality, we can embark on a voyage that will redefine our place in the universe and secure the future of our species. And yet, we won't necessarily get to endure forever, but at least we will extend our historical lifespan independently of this.

Inspired by Crush 40's song lyrics, "I am all of me" (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Background music) ****************** Finding Yourself in a World of Categories On the winding path of self-discovery, a paradox can easily be revealed. We crave the stability of knowing ourselves, as identity crises have their existential shortcomings . We may desire fitting neatly into boxes under the labels of "artist," "engineer," "friend" and so on, and steer clear of the criticism that we're "pretentious", therefore not who we really think we are. Whether or not it is correct, is another matter. Yet, the tighter we grasp these labels, the further we may stray from the intricate ecosystem of who we truly are. Imagine labels as stepping stones, leading us across the expansive river of identity. They are not the destination, necessarily, but the journey. Even the path of mastery, can be regarded as one that might as well end upon our deaths. As ironic as it may sound, even academic education won't necessarily "cut it" , when there is still more to learn, even by the most senior of professors. Each "stepping stone", bears a name of its own – athlete, musician, introvert – is just a foothold, a temporary sense of place. The more "stones" we collect, the the self spreads, encompassing its diverse potential that might as well never be fully realized. Yet, clinging to one stone for too long risks petrifying us on that spot, our identity staying still on a single note that might as well vanish with our pride. Whose to say these labels will stay with us forever? We must develop this inner core so we won't suffer, should we be incapable of fulfilling our part in a label that we see as a basic part of us. The human body and mind is prone to many illnesses that could paralyze them away from doing things we like. We must be prepared for that. The allure of labels lies in their promise of clarity. They categorize the world, neatly sorting people and things into familiar boxes. This structure provides a comforting illusion of control , a sense of security in understanding in the chaotic nature of existence . We label because knowledge is categorized to make sense of the infinite aspects of experience. And we must organize knowledge to learn it more effectively. But the world, in its complexity, rarely conforms to binary labels. We are not simply "artists" or "scientists," "extroverts" or "introverts." We are vibrant mixtures of these and countless other facets, a symphony of contradictions dancing within. We hold within us the light and the dark, the rational and the intuitive, the artist and the engineer, all woven into the "collective" that is our individual selves, regardless of the external world. The true challenge lies not in collecting labels, but in mastering the art of navigating them. We must "dance" across the stepping stones, embracing the fluidity of our identities. For the human being, by default, is too inconsistent to be a logical being. Because logic is to be learned, not something we are born with. Only through logic we can have a far greater understanding of reality -- and ourselves. It is a body of knowledge to be learned , and an art that can be mastered with enough practice and study. The unparalleled influence of philosophers stems from the fact that the non-pretentious ones acquire deep understanding and knowledge that is imperative for their expertise in logic. Without this expertise, their influence wouldn't be as significant. And none can simply be born with it because humans are too impulsive to be intrinsically logical , even if they retain an innate degree of rationality. As such, seemingly opposing forces merge into a unique and ever-evolving whole. Being born into different religions, for example, doesn't have to be a matter of choosing one over the other, as they might witness as they grow up. Living in interfaith is about embracing the richness of two or more traditions, finding the harmony where seemingly separate paths converge into one without confusion. Another example: teenagers are both kids and teenagers, and that fact makes them, ironically, too old to be "just kids", but too young to be fully adult. Additionally, the age of majority is not universally agreed , so you may be an adult legally on one country, but not in the other. They are, therefore, in a state where there is no clear sense of age other than "teen". Parents might not be entirely confident on whether or not they should regard their teenage children as grownups or as kids. That, however, can be changed by assigning responsibility to privilege . Either way, the teenager may often wonder, Who am I? Do my parents have the same authority over me as they did when I was a kid? Am I old enough to do certain things on my own? And so on. Our true selves may be confusing even by the time we live as adults, not really understanding our place in the world, questioning the meaning of life... let us shed the skin of rigid labels and venture into the open expanse of self-discovery. Let us learn to embrace the contradictions, our inherit flaws and the "or/and" of our existence. For it is in the woven web of our selves that we discover who we are and what we are capable of. Embracing the Spectrum Within The color grey can be comprised of variants of contradictions. Black's grimness surrenders to white's purity, birthing a shade that defies logical stability. How come? Logic determines that "A" cannot be "B" simultaneously. Yet, in grey's embrace, this claim is disposed of when the unity of both "A" and "B" create "C,", which transcend its binary origins of them both.. Can we say grey is more of a color than red or blue? The question itself feels futile. Each shade holds its own unique place on the spectrum of existence, just like emotions deserve in a world devoid of repression and its impact . Grey simply inhabits a different corner, existing nevertheless. This symphony of contradictions echoes within us, too. My mind, you say, might appear to be a monotonic landscape – repetitive maybe even a little boring. Yet, within this perceived greyness, words bloom like sunflowers. Sentences dance like sunbeams on a lake, offering a richer variety than what my solitary lifestyle has in store for me individually. This is the solution of the "Grey Problem," you see: It's the acceptance of the paradox within, the recognition that our inner landscapes are not black and white, but vibrant platforms from which threads of light and shadow, logic and emotion emerge, thus realizing our potential in different ways. Embrace the symphony of your contradictions, the quiet hum of repetition alongside the soaring crescendos of creativity. Because only then, you'll be able to love people for who they really are . You can then love not their actions or their impressive feats, but their dynamic self, distinct from their deeds. That is because the deeds do not reflect upon the true self if: They are doing them reluctantly. They are doing it to hide their true colors. Both. Since we are capable of both good and evil, what allows our grey-ish, human nature, is the freedom to act consistently or otherwise.

(Philosocom's Masculinity Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) (Background music) Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor. -- Norman Mailer Introduction Healthy masculinity refers to the idea that men can be emotionally expressive, have female friends or mentors, and express their emotions without feeling emasculated and/ or dehumanized. It is a term that aims to fight against what is known as toxic masculinity . Toxic masculinity is the dominant form of masculinity wherein men use dominance, violence, and control to assert their power and superiority. I will provide sources in the end. Although I am not a sexist, as I debunked sexism's reasoning , this article will be focusing on men. That's because many societies may value gender roles, and I'm not writing to myself. What does it mean to be a man? Although it may be different from country to country, it seems like many people, regardless of nationality, have a "clear" understanding of what a "true" man is. That might be the traditional man ; The stoic, dominant, and often silent man. A man who speaks only when he deems it necessary/imperative. The "real" man is of "higher value" and may be more respected and attractive. The "real", "high value" man is defined mainly by virtue. He may be "real" and "high value" even when he is a very specific individual. In more orthodox-contexts , He is the one that provides for his family. The worker, the manager, and the family man. In unorthodox contexts, he is an overall good man; a man who lives and aspires for virtue. Note: What is seen as virtue is subjective, although many virtues can be agreed upon as if they are "objective". That is why, for that matter, philosophers focusing on virtue ethics can be good politicians , but I digress. Even if he's not physically violent, people might be intimidated by him. He is more respected, than loved. Perhaps, women, especially, would respect than love him, with the exception of a love interest. People may experience "violence" from him, merely due to their own unconscious problems that prevent them from understanding him. Personal Reflections As I got more confidence in life and as I trained in ruthless asceticism , the world began appearing less violent. Far less. That is, even though my life was rarely threatened. I was described by someone, once, to be "violent", even though I do not lay hands on anyone. I presume they were referring to the fact I might not be sensitive. I restrain myself on purpose. Both in body and mind. I must do so for my ambitions. I also prefer to avoid battles and confrontations with people. I am a man who enjoys seeking peace from within and from without. My Issue with "Healthy Masculinity" I believe that masculinity is gained through virtue ethics, not entirely/solely through emotional expression. I believe that the more we grow up mentally, the less often we express emotion. I believe masculinity is gained by growing up mentally, which has to do with giving up on our egos. I believe "true masculinity" is not a matter of emotional expression but a matter of discipline. I claim that "Healthy Masculinity" normalizes infantile behavior. I do not find, for that matter, whining, or throwing temper tantrums, a product of masculinity. Being able to take responsibility for one's actions, for that matter, can "objectively" be seen as more masculine than raw, filter-less emotional expression of the self in settings where such things are unreasonable. "True Masculinity" can take many many times to master. "Healthy Masculinity" is about accepting yourself to the fullest, without necessarily seeking self-development. Self-development, however, is the key to true health, as demonstrated in physical training. To develop oneself, one must be displeased with his current version of himself. One, instead, has to aspire to be the best version of themselves , to attain what is deemed as masculinity. Case Example: Interviews Let's say you're going to an interview. To raise the chances of getting the job , you must provide satisfactory answers. You must be biased towards yourself and towards the very skills necessary for you to pass the interview with flying colors. Even when the interviewer detects a problem in your details, you should not merely express your emotions just because your emotions are there. You must, instead, demonstrate proper behavior and work ethic. What is deemed "proper" always has to fall on the other side. I do not find it healthy to express one's emotions without restraint, when such a thing depraves you of work opportunities. Addressing Toxicity The problem I find with the conception of toxicity, is that sometimes, sacrifices must be made. Not of people, necessarily. Rather, of one's vices. Toxicity is subjective to the eye of the beholder. "Toughness" is a virtue. Therefore, the tougher you are, the less toxicity you may experience from others. Note: Toxicity can have its perks when it is used to make oneself stronger. Case example: Listening to Eminem's music from a very young age. Addressing a Variant of Toxicity, "Toxic Positivity" That also includes any other thing that is deemed "toxic", such as "toxic positivity". "Toxic positivity" is when the emotions of someone are "cancelled" by others. Cancelled in their legitimacy, I mean. When you may be told that there's no need to be dramatic, or no need to be so sensitive, that's toxic positivity. However, what if such sayings are true? Sometimes, logic can be cold like that. Sometimes sayings like "There is no need to be sensitive" or, "Cool down!" come from pragmatic approaches, not necessarily from the ill intent of diminishing what you feel. Case Example: Mr. O. C. Isaac's Taxi Driver story. Conclusions By being more assertive, and reasonable as well, you might be able to surpass others' little-to-no regard of your emotions. The development of virtue, rather than self-acceptance, is the key to gain respect and admiration in this non-rectified world. When in distress, you should to explain yourself logically and honestly. When failing in your societal attempts, you should develop the habit of respecting people's wishes to not collaborate with you. We should always strive to grow, regardless of our gender or age. However, self-growth is often associated with none other than masculinity. A saying in Hebrew: "A hero is one that conquers his urges". Men can still have female friends and still be seen as very masculine. This is a trait I refused criticizing in this piece. Eat your greens from the source. They are good for you. Philosocom Articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-sexism-is-wrong-logically https://www.philosocom.com/post/rubinshteinnutshell External Articles: https://greenhillrecovery.com/toxic-masculinity-vs-healthy-masculinity/ https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-toxic-person https://everyevery.ng/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-traditional-man/ https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-positivity-5093958