My Duty as Philosopher -- Definition, Poem and Directory "Philosophership pertains to an individual's journey towards the achievement of the title of philosopher and therefore encompasses many years of writing and contemplation " -- Astronism wiki This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. Here is the rest of the material: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-buddies-and-temptations https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-the-importance-of-inclusion https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosphership-being-proven-wrong The Poem, "My Duty as Philosopher" I know that the power of some's resistance... ...Is as strong, as myself before I got fatigued . But doubtful as you are, why do not reconsider, One who builds an empire of intrigue? It's clear from your facial expressions... That my innocence has yet to be proved... But what of my word, as a philosopher, I want to make sure it won't be disproved? So prepare to be proven wrong, maybe for a lifetime, For I strive to be a man of my word! I only live, to contribute to this world, And if I'm just deceiving, What is the worth of my work? I know it can be difficult, When the world became digital , When everything is prone to change and to scam! But philosophy's my vow, don't be fooled, Don't be fooled! .... So, stick with me... ...And we'll likely to philosophize until the Grim Reaper calls! It great to vision the possibility, Of turning a great reason to a reality. And of course, that's exactly why, I refer to... Being a philosopher, to the entire world! There is no intent to pretend, To be something which is untrue... As I have little need for your validation, Far greater is my need to contribute! This won't be just about global relevancy , It's about turning more value to humanity. Logical-reasoning, Mistakes remembering, learning, Decades of dedication, Is simply why I will, Be worthy of your time, Someone who is worth a dime, And won't steal it like a thief, like a crime. And that's why you should read my words, Read my words! And that's why the world should read my words, Read my words! Read my words! Read my words!

(Philosocom's Directory on Culture) (Background music) Summary by Anonymous The article of Truth, Opinion and PC Culture presents a philosophical debate between two perspectives on the relationship between truth and social sensitivity. The first perspective argues for prioritizing truth over sensitivity. It contends that political correctness hinders honest discourse and intellectual development. Emotional sensitivity, Mr. Tomasio claims, can be a weakness that prevents individuals from facing reality. True love , according to this perspective, requires courage, including the courage to be brutally honest. The second perspective, however, advocates for a balance between truth and sensitivity. It argues that sensitive communication can enhance understanding and promote empathy. Brutal honesty, without regard for others' feelings, can damage relationships. A balanced approach, combining truth and sensitivity, is essential for a harmonious society, according to this perspective. The article's debate highlights the tension between the pursuit of objective truth and the need for social harmony. Both perspectives offer valuable insights, and the optimal approach may vary depending on the specific context and the individuals involved. (Background music) Part I: By T. Rubinshtein We as a society did not replace truth with our opinions We tell others what we think is true (and perhaps it is true), but we hide it behind the façade of “opinion” in order to be sensitive towards one another. We may in fact be hindering the best versions of ourselves in the name of being sensitive to those whose emotional problems surpass their need to know the truth. It is one of the reasons it is difficult to be friends with philosophers , but I digress. Not everything we claim to be an “opinion” is truly only an opinion. Perhaps our opinions are true, and are backed by a consistent logic and evidence, but because we are a heterogeneous society with large portions of it believing in things that are not true, the “religion” of political correctness has “forced” us to portray some truths as opinions, so the feelings of those who deny those truths won’t get hurt. Autistic people, for example, may have understanding problems on the interpersonal level. However, saying it like that could hurt their feelings. On the other hand, saying "In my opinion, a lot of autistic people have interpersonal problems because they struggle to understand other people" can be far more insulting, correct? Why wouldn't it be less insulting? The truth hurts. The truth hurts because the vast majority of humans have feelings, and when our beliefs are challenged, the truth can also challenge our feelings. Therefore, in order to avoid triggering people's emotional problems, it is easy to deceive them (and perhaps yourself) by portraying the truth as an opinion. And the whole point of PC culture is to avoid hurting people's emotions. Should we work to solve our personal emotional problems, and should we be able to distinguish between "Kli" and "Tochen" , the need for PC culture, and of "walking on eggshells", will be reduced significantly. So we did not necessarily replace truth with opinion. We can't do it regardless because there is a world that exists beyond our minds. We "replaced" truth with political correctness, in the name of cooperation and harmony within a multi-cultural, universal society . Those who do not accept the opinions of others (even if true) are often portrayed as either aggressive or arrogant , as if those who do not accept the beliefs of others are "omniscient." In reality, no one is capable of omniscience. Being an intellectual is not always easy when others feel threatened by your debating, memorization of evidence, and logical skills. Intellect may intimidate. Perhaps as a result, they have developed the stereotype that intellectuals are arrogant and narcissistic dreamers who believe that they know everything and are superior to others. Or they may believe that intellectuals are simply "trolling"—a belief that may be used as a way to overcome the uneasy feeling of being intimidated. In reality, however, some people are smarter than others. It's the truth and it has a lot to do with genetics but also to other factors. You don't even need to go that far and pull off an ad-hominem just because you dislike the truth and/or feel insecure about people with different intellectual capacity than yourself. I am only bringing this up because ad-hominem is a very popular logical fallacy used by plenty of people. And, it is one of the products of someone being insulted when you prefer the truth over PC culture and post-truth. The truth does not have to be composed of your feelings in order for it to be one . A "personal truth", AKA post-truth, is either correct or incorrect regardless of your thoughts and feelings on it. Either way, because of people's emotional problems they may feel compelled to insult back or even threaten others as a self-defense mechanism. Or, in other words, because they are insecure . Insecurity is an emotional problem that shouldn't be yours to deal with because it is not your responsibility. Why should we even nurture a culture where people do not deal with their emotional problems? Why is it our responsibility, when it is theirs? Why should we be at fault when someone has such a problem we are not responsible for, even if we triggered it? After all, working to eradicate these problems will eradicate the need to be PC in the first place. And likewise, it can help us to become more honest and open with others. And when others allow us to be more open, we can even nurture true, unconditional love. You cannot love what you fear. The opposite of love is not hate but fear. You cannot love what makes you feel threatened. Thus, PC culture, in the long-term can ruin true love when it encourages us to resume fearing, instead of fearing less. That includes the truth. We are faced with the choice of either being tolerant of others' possible and/or existent truths as "just your opinion" or simply being "brutally honest". In the eyes of the cowardly it is because the fear is unease and thus have no desire for it. In reality, there is always a probability of unease within human beings. And as long as we fear or disdain unease, to the point of escape, we, will, never, love, unconditionally. True love requires courage. When you lack courage, you result to a PC mentality to make sure both sides are not hurt by the bluntness of honesty. "Enjoy" having para-social relationships if you desire. You will never ease your existential loneliness if you prefer to cower instead of dare to sound your true voice. We will never love each other truly... if we are afraid of being ourselves, unfiltered, and honest. After all, the opposite of love, is fear. And fear, we have a right to resist it. Part II: A Counter-Argument by an Anonymous Apprentice While Mr. Tomasio's passion for truth and intellectual honesty is praise-worthy , his approach to social interaction and understanding seems overly simplistic and dismissive of nuance. Firstly, the claim that we've replaced truth with opinion can easily be proven as an oversimplification and a generalization. It's more accurate to say that we've developed a greater awareness of the social implications of language and the importance of considerate communication . What we should do instead is to present the truth in a way that is both respectful and accurate. However, whether or not our honesty is respected, along with how we present said honesty, is a matter of subjective reception. Secondly, Mr. Tomasio's insistence on brutal honesty disregards the complexities of human relationships. This disregard could serve as the reason why he claims that liberty has a dark side, and suggests to develop self-ruthlessness. While honesty is important, it's equally important to be sensitive to the feelings of others. A blunt, insensitive approach, even if it's technically truthful, can damage relationships and hinder understanding. That is why honesty can be seen as sharp as a blade. Furthermore, the philosopher's dismissal of emotional sensitivity as a weakness is misguided. Emotional sensitivity is a weakness or a strength, depending on the context at hand. Being sensitive is a strength when you try to understand them, for example, and a weakness when you work as a butcher. That is while his ability to kill off his emotions is something that may be seen as extremely difficult (and exhausting) to carry out , requiring much training. One cannot expect others to be so relentless in such difficult mental training in a world where AI technology encourages us to be lazy. Finally, by avoiding harmful language and promoting understanding, we can create a more compassionate and inclusive society. In conclusion, while it's important to strive for truth and intellectual clarity, it's equally important to cultivate empathy and understanding. Thus, a balanced approach that values both honesty and sensitivity is essential for building strong relationships and creating a more-harmonious social environment.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) Abstract In an increasingly interconnected yet culturally divided world, intercultural philosophy presents a crucial critique of universalizing meta-narratives . This article examines how intercultural philosophy, through its appreciation of diverse cultural perspectives, provides a robust framework for resisting the dominance of meta-narratives. By exploring key philosophical traditions and thinkers from various cultures, this study underscores the importance of pluralism , dialogue, and contextualized knowledge. Meta-narratives have deeply influenced Western thought, particularly during the Enlightenment and modernity. Thinkers like Kant and Hegel crafted comprehensive frameworks to explain human history, ethics, and knowledge, promoting universal principles that have shaped intellectual discourse. However, the universalizing tendencies of these narratives often marginalize alternative perspectives, highlighting the need for a more pluralistic and inclusive approach to understanding human experience. Intercultural philosophy provides a vital critique of these meta-narratives, advocating for the recognition and integration of diverse cultural viewpoints in the quest for knowledge and understanding. Intercultural philosophy's critique of meta-narratives and its advocacy for a pluralistic and inclusive approach underscore its potential to contribute significantly to contemporary global discourse. By valuing diverse cultural perspectives and fostering dialogue, intercultural philosophy challenges the dominance of any single narrative, promoting a more equitable and just society. This philosophical approach provides essential tools for addressing the complex and interconnected challenges of our world, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity, mutual respect , and global cooperation. (Philosocom's Directory On Culture) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Background music) Introduction Intercultural philosophy, emerging as a significant discipline, seeks to bridge diverse philosophical traditions across cultures. It emphasizes dialogue, understanding, and respect for cultural differences, challenging the notion of universal meta-narratives that claim objective truth and marginalize alternative perspectives. This article aims to critique these meta-narratives through the lens of intercultural philosophy, advocating for a pluralistic approach that recognizes the richness of diverse cultural viewpoints. Defining Meta-Narratives Meta-narratives are grand overarching stories or theories that aim to provide comprehensive explanations of the human experience. These narratives strive to establish universal principles or truths that transcend cultural and historical contexts, offering a singular interpretation of reality. Historically, meta-narratives have played a crucial role in shaping global discourses, particularly in fields such as history, science, ethics, and politics. They often assert a dominant version of reality, marginalizing or ignoring the diverse and multifaceted ways in which different cultures understand and interpret the world. The Nature of Meta-Narratives Historical Context Meta-narratives, stories or theories that aim to provide comprehensive explanations for existence's aspects, have significantly shaped Western thought. They find their philosophical roots particularly during the Enlightenment and modernity. Key Enlightenment thinkers like Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel sought to establish universal principles based on reason, progress, and human development, crafting meta-narratives that profoundly influenced Western intellectual history. Enlightenment and Universal Principles The Enlightenment, spanning the 17th and 18th centuries, marked a period of intellectual awakening characterized by an emphasis on reason, science, and empirical evidence. Thinkers of this era aimed to replace religious and superstitious explanations with rational, systematic understandings of the world. Immanuel Kant, a central figure in this movement, argued for the use of reason as the basis for understanding and structuring human knowledge. In his critical philosophy, Kant sought to portray the limits of understanding while establishing universal moral principles through his concept of the categorical imperative, which posits that moral actions are those that can be universally applied. Kant’s meta-narrative revolved around the idea that reason could lead humanity toward moral and intellectual progress. His vision of a rational, ethical society where individuals act according to universal principles laid the groundwork for subsequent philosophical discourse, embedding the belief in universal truths and principles deeply within Western thought. Hegel and the Dialectical Process G.W.F. Hegel further developed the idea of meta-narratives through his dialectical method, which posited that history unfolds through a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis . Hegel’s philosophy aimed to provide a comprehensive explanation for the development of human history and consciousness, viewing it as a teleological process moving toward the realization of human freedom and self-awareness. His concept of the "World Spirit" progressing through history toward greater rationality and freedom exemplifies a meta-narrative that seeks to explain the entirety of human development within a single, overarching framework. Hegel’s dialectical process influenced numerous subsequent philosophical movements, including Marxism , which adapted his ideas to understand historical and social change through the lens of class struggle and economic development. This adaptation by Karl Marx exemplifies the enduring influence of Hegelian meta-narratives on Western thought. This further embeds the notion that human history and social structures can be comprehensively understood and predicted through overarching theoretical frameworks. Characteristics of Meta-Narratives Meta-narratives are characterized by their universalizing tendencies, asserting claims to objective truth that often marginalize alternative perspectives. They typically present a linear, progressive view of history, suggesting that human development follows a predetermined path toward improvement and enlightenment. This approach tends to prioritize certain cultural or ideological perspectives, particularly those of the dominant culture, while dismissing or undervaluing other ways of knowing and experiencing the world. Universalizing Tendencies The universalizing nature of meta-narratives often leads to the imposition of specific cultural norms and values as universally applicable truths. This can result in the marginalization or erasure of diverse cultural perspectives and experiences. For instance, Enlightenment ideals of reason and progress, while promoting critical advancements in science and ethics, also justified colonialism and the subjugation of non-Western cultures under the guise of bringing "civilization" to the "uncivilized." Marginalization of Alternative Perspectives By promoting a singular, overarching narrative, meta-narratives can obscure the multiplicity of human experiences and knowledge systems. This marginalization is evident in the dominance of Western philosophical traditions in global discourse, often at the expense of non-Western philosophies and epistemologies . The privileging of Western modes of thought in academic, political, and social contexts perpetuates a hierarchy that devalues the contributions and perspectives of other cultures. Implications for Contemporary Discourse In contemporary discourse, the critique of meta-narratives has become a crucial aspect of postmodern and intercultural philosophy. Postmodern thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard have explicitly critiqued meta-narratives, arguing that they are totalizing constructs that fail to account for the diversity and complexity of human experiences. Intercultural philosophy builds on this critique by emphasizing the importance of dialogue and the recognition of multiple perspectives in understanding the world. Epistemological Critique Intercultural philosophy fundamentally questions the epistemological foundations of meta-narratives, which often falsely appear to present objective, universal truths. By emphasizing the contextual and situated nature of knowledge, intercultural philosophy challenges these grand narratives, revealing their limitations in accounting for the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. The Contextual Nature of Knowledge One of the primary critiques that intercultural philosophy offers against meta-narratives is the assertion that knowledge is inherently contextual. This means that what is considered true or valid is deeply influenced by cultural, historical, and social contexts. Meta-narratives, which strive for universal applicability, often ignore these crucial contextual factors, leading to a homogenized understanding of knowledge that fails to reflect the richness and complexity of different cultures. For instance, Western scientific methodologies, while powerful and effective in many ways, are not the sole arbiters of truth. Indigenous knowledge systems, which have evolved over millennia, offer alternative ways of understanding the world that are equally valid. These systems are often dismissed or marginalized by dominant meta-narratives, which prioritize Western scientific rationality over other epistemologies. Intercultural philosophy, by recognizing the value of these diverse knowledge systems, challenges the hegemony of Western scientific paradigms and advocates for a more inclusive epistemology. Situated Knowledge Intercultural philosophy also emphasizes the concept of situated knowledge , which suggests that knowledge is not only contextual but also situated within particular social and cultural positions. This idea is rooted in feminist epistemology , notably articulated by scholars like Donna Haraway , who argued that all knowledge is produced from a particular standpoint. This perspective challenges the objectivity claimed by meta-narratives, asserting that all knowledge is influenced by the specific experiences, backgrounds, and biases of the knowers. For example, Western philosophical traditions have historically marginalized voices from non-Western cultures, women, and other oppressed groups. By highlighting the situated nature of knowledge, intercultural philosophy critiques the purported objectivity and universality of Western meta-narratives, advocating for the inclusion of diverse perspectives that have traditionally been excluded. This approach not only enriches the understanding of human experience but also democratizes the production of knowledge , by giving voice to those who have been historically silenced. The Myth of Objective Truth The notion of objective truth, central to many meta-narratives, is critically examined by intercultural philosophy. Meta-narratives often claim to represent an ultimate truth that transcends cultural and contextual differences. However, intercultural philosophy argues that such claims are inherently flawed because they overlook the plurality of truths that exist in different cultural contexts. For instance, in the realm of ethics, what is considered moral or ethical can vary significantly across cultures. Western ethical theories, such as utilitarianism or Kantian deontology, often assume a universality that does not account for the moral frameworks of other cultures, such as Confucian ethics or African communalism . By recognizing that ethical principles are often culturally specific, intercultural philosophy challenges the universal claims of Western ethical meta-narratives and promotes a more pluralistic approach to moral philosophy. Epistemological Humility Intercultural philosophy advocates for epistemological humility, the recognition that one's own knowledge system is not the only or necessarily the best way to understand the world. This humility is crucial for meaningful cross-cultural dialogue and understanding. By acknowledging the limitations of one's own perspective, individuals and cultures can open themselves to learning from others, fostering a more inclusive and respectful global discourse. This approach is exemplified in the work of philosophers like Raimon Panikkar, who emphasized the importance of intercultural dialogue and mutual learning. Panikkar's concept of "diatopical hermeneutics" involves interpreting texts and ideas from multiple cultural perspectives, recognizing that each perspective offers valuable insights. This methodology challenges the dominance of any single meta-narrative and promotes a more balanced and equitable exchange of ideas. Ethical and Political Dimensions The epistemological critique offered by intercultural philosophy has profound ethical and political implications. By challenging the dominance of meta-narratives, intercultural philosophy advocates for a more inclusive and equitable approach to global ethics and politics. Global Justice and Human Rights Intercultural philosophy promotes global justice and human rights by recognizing the legitimacy of diverse cultural traditions. This approach challenges ethical relativism , which suggests that moral principles are entirely culture-specific and cannot be judged by external standards. Instead, intercultural philosophy advocates for a nuanced understanding of ethical principles that can accommodate cultural differences while upholding universal human dignity. For instance, intercultural dialogues on human rights often reveal that while the concept of human rights is universally important, its interpretation and implementation can vary across cultures. By engaging in these dialogues, intercultural philosophy helps to develop a more inclusive and culturally sensitive understanding of human rights that respects local traditions while advocating for global justice. Political Implications The political implications of intercultural philosophy are equally significant. By promoting dialogue and mutual respect, intercultural philosophy encourages more equitable and inclusive governance structures. It challenges the imposition of Western political models on other cultures, advocating for systems that are responsive to the specific needs and values of different communities. For example, in post-colonial contexts, intercultural philosophy can help to deconstruct the legacy of colonial meta-narratives that imposed Western political structures on colonized societies. By recognizing the value of indigenous political systems and traditions, intercultural philosophy supports the development of governance models that are more culturally appropriate and effective. Methodological Approaches Intercultural philosophy employs various methodologies to dismantle meta-narratives and promote a more pluralistic approach to knowledge. Cross-Cultural Dialogue Cross-cultural dialogue is a fundamental methodology in intercultural philosophy. By engaging in conversations and exchanges between individuals and communities from different cultural backgrounds, cross-cultural dialogue fosters mutual understanding and respect. This process helps to break down the barriers created by dominant meta-narratives and encourages the recognition of diverse ways of knowing and being. For instance, dialogues between Western and Eastern philosophical traditions can reveal both commonalities and differences in their approaches to issues such as ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. These dialogues can lead to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of these issues, enriching the philosophical discourse. Comparative Philosophy Comparative philosophy involves systematically comparing philosophical traditions from different cultures. This approach highlights both the similarities and differences between traditions, fostering a deeper understanding of each. Comparative philosophy can reveal common themes and insights across cultures, as well as unique contributions that enrich the global philosophical discourse. For example, comparing the ethical theories of Confucianism and Aristotelian virtue ethics can reveal shared concerns about character and moral development, while also highlighting differences in their approaches to social harmony and individual virtue. Such comparisons can lead to new insights and the development of more comprehensive ethical theories. Hermeneutics Hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation , is another key methodological approach in intercultural philosophy. By interpreting philosophical and religious texts within their cultural and historical contexts, hermeneutics allows for a deeper appreciation of their meanings and significance. This approach challenges simplistic, universal claims and emphasizes the importance of understanding the specificities of each cultural tradition. For instance, interpreting the Bhagavad Gita within its historical and cultural context can reveal insights that are not apparent when reading it through a Western philosophical lens. Hermeneutics helps to uncover the rich, multifaceted meanings of texts and ideas, promoting a more nuanced and respectful engagement with different cultural traditions.   Intercultural philosophy offers a profound critique of the epistemological foundations of meta-narratives. By emphasizing the contextual and situated nature of knowledge, it challenges the notion of objective, universal truth and highlights the limitations of meta-narratives in accounting for the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. Through methodologies such as cross-cultural dialogue, comparative philosophy, and hermeneutics, intercultural philosophy promotes a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to understanding the world. This epistemological critique, along with its ethical and political implications, underscores the importance of intercultural philosophy in addressing contemporary global challenges and fostering a more equitable and just society. Conclusions Intercultural philosophy provides a vital critique of universalizing meta-narratives, advocating for a pluralistic and inclusive approach to understanding human experience. This philosophical stance underscores the importance of valuing diverse cultural perspectives and fostering dialogue, challenging the dominance of any single narrative and promoting a more equitable world. The Significance of Intercultural Philosophy Intercultural philosophy recognizes that the world is composed of a mosaic of cultures, each with its own unique ways of understanding and interpreting reality. Meta-narratives often attempt to impose a singular, overarching interpretation of human experience, marginalizing other viewpoints and experiences. By questioning the epistemological foundations of these meta-narratives, intercultural philosophy emphasizes the situated and contextual nature of knowledge, arguing that no single perspective can claim absolute truth. This approach is not only an intellectual exercise but also a moral imperative. It encourages us to recognize the limitations of our own viewpoints and to be open to learning from others. This epistemological humility is crucial for building a more inclusive global community. Addressing Contemporary Global Challenges In the contemporary world, characterized by increasing globalization and cultural interactions, the insights of intercultural philosophy are more relevant than ever. Global challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, and social justice issues require cooperative and inclusive solutions. By fostering cross-cultural dialogue and understanding, intercultural philosophy can help build the mutual respect and cooperation needed to address these global issues. For instance, in addressing climate change, incorporating indigenous knowledge systems that emphasize living in harmony with nature can complement scientific approaches and lead to more sustainable practices. Similarly, in the realm of social justice, recognizing the diverse experiences and struggles of marginalized communities worldwide can inform more equitable policies and practices. Promoting a More Inclusive and Just Society Intercultural philosophy’s emphasis on dialogue and mutual respect can transform not only intellectual discourse but also practical aspects of society, such as education, governance, and international relations. By integrating diverse philosophical traditions into educational curricula, we can cultivate critical thinking and cultural sensitivity among students, preparing them to engage thoughtfully with global challenges. In governance and international relations, the principles of intercultural philosophy can guide the development of policies that respect cultural diversity and promote global justice. This approach can help create governance structures that are more responsive to the needs and values of different communities, fostering peace and cooperation. Future Directions and Research The future of intercultural philosophy lies in its continued engagement with diverse cultural perspectives and its application to contemporary global issues. Further research can explore the role of technology in facilitating intercultural dialogue, the impact of globalization on cultural identities, and the ways in which intercultural philosophical insights can inform global policy-making. By exploring these topics and integrating intercultural philosophical insights, we can better understand and address the limitations of meta-narratives, fostering a more inclusive and equitable global discourse. This ongoing effort will help build a world that values diversity, promotes mutual understanding, and works towards global justice and sustainability. References Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers . W.W. Norton & Company. Panikkar, R. (1993). Cultural Disarmament: The Way to Peace . Westminster John Knox Press. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture . University of Illinois Press.

My Secret Life as a Bipolar Woman's Guardsman One man with truth on his side is stronger than a majority in error, and will conquer in the end. -- Philip Schaff I'm not mad. All I want to do is to create the perfect moral soldier. Not for power, not for evil, but for good. March out of my laboratory and solve every problem , every issue, every dispute, until the very last the Pax Ethica is achieved, and the world shall be thank me in humble gratitude -- Master Numi, 2003 (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Philosocom's Directory on Competency) (Background music) The reason why I am so mysterious is because I have 17 years of unconventional security. Much of my research as a philosopher is also because I was busy guarding my mother for much of my life. In 2007 I purposefully chose to save my late master in order to prevent a chain reaction of harm in her family. I was only 10 when I did that. It was so massive, my heroic act , that I remained in utter obscurity for most of my life, recovering, traumatized and confused. I suffered from amnesia as a result for literally 18 years. It is quite hard to speak of such things under amnesia. Only... only I was there. In that very same year, Master Numi asked me to guard and take care of my mother, in a secret phone call. Having extremely high regard for morality all my life, I agreed to Numi's proposition. My mother suffers from bipolar . She will always suffer from it. There is no cure to the cursed mental disease. Acting strategically ever since the age of 10, I grew up extremely fast as a result. It is not easy to undertake such a difficult task, especially in the very same year where I literally prevented a chain reaction of deaths. A lesser child would escape his late master's attempt. Furthermore, a lesser child would refuse guarding the bipolar. Had I not saved Numi, my life would've been different. Had I not studied under her, as a child, my life would've been different. Yet, it was my choice , all along, to commit an act of heroism, and then to guard the very person that triggered it. Also, it was my choice, to forgive the very person that caused the horrible incident. As a child, I've let my personality be shaped by her. The "mad" master turned me extremely disciplined and extremely philosophical. Had I not done so, I would likely have ended up in the criminal underworld. However I always refused to do crime, despite growing up in a criminal neighborhood. I chose the right thing to do all my life, for as long as I could. My ethics are intuitive , and are advanced by default. Furthermore, I did not have the ego to tell much. My modesty was so profound I have ended up mysterious even to my own extended clan. I've started up this article empire to be relevant, for my life as a single bipolar woman's guard was extremely though. A lesser guard would've gave up. Can YOU imagine yourself saving a life on purpose, and then guarding the very same culprit, on purpose? The answer, most likely, would be no. I've spent much of my life in front of computers because it is what guards do. Guards research. Guards patrol. Guards train. And most of all, moral guards ensure there are no battles. Finally, genius guards can be so calculated that they apply unconventional stratagems to ensure there are no battles fought in the first place! Both my mother and my late master had the best man they could ever had! The average person would been a slave to their whims and not care about such dire obligations. I cared, however. I have guarded her much while she was resting. Furthermore, I trained in ruthless asceticism, while under amnesia, fatigue , and PTSD. I've built myself on dark content to make myself tougher. I used video games as a tool for research and simulations. I applied rationalist epistemology , and rarely traveled in my life because I chose to guard her all the way. Much of my life as a result was spent online. Very quickly, I turned asocial and anti-social as I quickly avoided people and sabotaged many possibilities of social interactions. Guards don't socialize. Guards focus on the target's safety. Guards spend their days honing not only their bodies but their minds as well, so they can be sharp. Philosophy was and is a great way to prevent your brain from getting rotten . Furthermore, guards don't seek fame. Guards can lie low so much, people often forget they exist, and/or many details about them. I spent much of these 17 years, from 2007 to 2024, in voluntary solitary confinement. It is clear to me how damaging it can be to your brain. Philosophizing helped my brain not only stay sharp, but also recover. No one else guarded her. My chosen and embraced purpose was unique early on. I did not take security courses. I am an auto-didact in most of what I do. After all, knowledge is power, and I did all I could to use that power for good. The fact that I was treated as a distinct individual, prevented people from understanding my connection to my late master, and to the reason why I lived with my mother for many years. Furthermore, it is quite hard to make sense under amnesia and heroic PTSD. In chess, the King appears helpless. The King rarely moves, and that is why it is hard to conceive the king's top significance in the bigger chessboard. However, when your significance is that of a king, everything else collapses. As such, had I risked myself too much, it would compensate the task I was given. The guard always knows he doesn't live in a vacuum. A good guard has an interconnected understanding of reality. A strategic guard will rarely use brute force. Instead, he would appear as "helpless" as a king in chess, while influencing the world around him per the tasks he was given by his commander. My commander in this case was Numi, who also defined me as a king. Her king. For most people, guarding is lonely as heck and also boring. A true guard must be focused and disciplined. The enemy of my mother was simple: Her bipolar disorder. I understood even back in 2007, when I was 10, that my job is to ensure she rests . The more the bipolar woman rested, the more she would be able to deal with her bipolar more effectively... I did much unconventional training, mostly by myself. I went out for immensely large walks, studied independently, and sabotaged my personal, conventional success and ended up an early retiree as a result. In 2018, I decided to stop my academic studies and also the office job I had, in order to resume my mission. I did not work ever since. This makes me a retiree. I retired... when I was 21. That's right. A most difficult job, I also decided to retire from humanity in 2020. However, trouble brewed as no one understood why would I become a hermit at such a young age. Furthermore, bipolar hurts your memory, alongside your brain in general. Furthermore, I still suffered from severe PTSD. Being a guardsman, I don't have social skills. The label "autism" fails to conceive me because autism is a spectrum. Furthermore, I am not an autist but an Asperger's. The term Asperger's is not officially known anymore, yet this is what I am regardless of the DSM (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual For Mental Disorders). My expensive knowledge always surprised people because it was hard for them to conceive how in the world would a solitary man like me know so much and at such a young age. I am like Monsieur Chouchani. Highly competent guardsmen deserve to be educated. I sabotaged my academic career because I despised the social interactions and found them disrespectful to the study material at hand. Furthermore, it were the same social interactions that I despised in school, and I despise social interactions in general. Good soldiers don't socialize. Good soldiers follow orders. Genius soldiers study the art of war by Sun Tzu. Genius soldiers run simulations and are auto-didacts. Genius soldiers do not kill time for fun or pleasure. Genius soldiers deny and criticize hedonism. Genius soldiers live and train in self-ruthless asceticism. Genius soldiers surprise you only when demonstration is needed. Otherwise.. they lie silent. Genius soldiers understand not only the physical but also the very same abstract ideas which the physical reality is made of. Genius soldiers are not friendly. Genius soldiers hide in plain sight and ignore you unless you might serve as a distraction. Intentionally... or otherwise. Suffering from loneliness, the genius guardsman would form unconventional networks to ensure his mind is occupied. Furthermore, guards deserve hobbies when guarding is not needed (AKA, time off). This massive article empire is a hobby I enjoy taking extremely seriously. Writing so much is a good way to maintain your cognition while your target rests. The target, codename "Laurel", only understood my true purpose in 2024, the final year I guarded her, during a literal war. It was in that exact year I recovered from my amnesia. "Laurel" cried and thanked me for my years of service. Finally, I suggested she will be under psychological supervision. "Laurel" agreed. Later on, I forgave "Laurel" for her misdeed. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely she will be able to forgive herself for what she did to my late master. However, my late master cared for her, hence why I was given the secret request to guard "Laurel". Late master wanted her safety, and seemed to know that she is not her bipolar. It is of course something I knew all along, too, as her guardsman. She wasn't the enemy. Her bipolar was. Glad I took care of the enemy within her. As hard as it was, and as long as it took, the mission was a great success. After 17 years I am finally free of this most difficult duty. I shall keep doing what I do best: work on my empire, and use it as a platform to rectify the world!

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Background music) The Good Place , created by Michael Schur, is a unique blend of comedy and philosophy that aired from 2016 to 2020. The show quickly gained a following for its clever writing, unexpected twists, and deeply thought-provoking examination of ethical dilemmas and moral philosophy. Set in a seemingly joyful afterlife , the series is a profound exploration of what it means to live a good life and what might await us in the hereafter. Through its diverse characters, complex narrative, and engagement with centuries-old philosophical debates, The Good Place offers a modern reflection on morality, ethics, and the human condition. The Premise: A Deceptively Simple Setup The story begins with Eleanor Shellstrop (played by Kristen Bell) waking up in a waiting room where she is welcomed by Michael (Ted Danson), an architect of "The Good Place." Michael informs Eleanor that she has died and entered a utopia reserved for those who have led morally exemplary lives. This "Good Place" is a community of perfectly designed neighborhoods where each resident enjoys eternal bliss, custom-made to suit their preferences and desires. However, Eleanor soon realizes that she does not belong in "The Good Place." She is not the selfless, charitable person described in her file; rather, she led a selfish, inconsiderate life. This sets off a chain of events that brings her into contact with three other key characters: Chidi Anagonye (William Jackson Harper), a former professor of moral philosophy. Tahani Al-Jamil (Jameela Jamil), a wealthy philanthropist with a penchant for name-dropping . and Jason Mendoza (Manny Jacinto), a lovable but clueless DJ from Florida who also appears to be in "The Good Place" by mistake. From this seemingly simple setup, The Good Place expands into a rich framework of ethical inquiry. It explores everything from the nature of justice and virtue to the complexities of human relationships and the search for meaning in a post-moral world. A Critique of the Point System: The Limits of Moral Quantification At the heart of The Good Place lies its central conceit: a point system that quantifies every action a person takes during their lifetime to determine their place in the afterlife. Each action, from buying ethically sourced coffee to committing a crime, is assigned a numerical value based on its perceived moral worth or harm. Those who accrue enough positive points are sent to "The Good Place," while those with negative points are condemned to "The Bad Place." This system seems to reflect a form of utilitarianism, where actions are judged by their consequences and the net happiness or suffering they produce. The point system aims to provide an objective measure of goodness, reducing morality to a simple mathematical equation. However, as the show unfolds, it becomes increasingly evident that this system is far from perfect. The Complexity of Moral Choices in a Modern World One of the show's most striking critiques is its portrayal of the impossibility of leading a purely moral life in a complex, interconnected world. For example, when the characters discover that the last person to enter "The Good Place" did so over 500 years ago, they realize that modern life is fraught with unintended consequences . Even seemingly harmless actions, like buying a tomato, have ripple effects that might result in a negative point value due to labor exploitation, environmental harm, or other unforeseen factors. This critique reflects the moral philosophy of thinkers like Elizabeth Anscombe and Bernard Williams , who argue that morality cannot be reduced to a mere calculus of actions. Williams, in particular, critiques utilitarianism for oversimplifying human life and ignoring the deep and conflicting values that shape our ethical landscape. The Good Place dramatizes this tension by showing how the point system, while initially appearing logical, fails to account for the complexities of real-world decisions and the moral weight of intentions, contexts, and relationships. Moral Luck: The Injustice of the Afterlife’s Scoring System The concept of "moral luck," introduced by philosopher Thomas Nagel , also plays a significant role in the show's critique of the point system. Moral luck refers to situations where factors beyond a person's control significantly affect their moral standing. In The Good Place, characters like Jason and Tahani face moral judgment not just for their actions but also for circumstances outside their control — like the environments they grew up in or the societal pressures they faced. For instance, Jason’s life choices are often shaped by his lack of education and opportunity, while Tahani’s insecurities and need for validation stem from her upbringing in a family obsessed with social status . By penalizing these characters without considering their contexts, the point system exemplifies the problem of moral luck, raising questions about the fairness of any system that claims to impartially judge moral worth. Deontological Ethics: Chidi's Dilemma and the Limits of Duty Chidi Anagonye, the moral philosophy professor, embodies another ethical perspective: deontological ethics, most famously associated with Immanuel Kant. Deontology emphasizes duty, rules, and the adherence to moral principles, rather than focusing solely on the consequences of actions. For Kant, an action is only morally right if it is done out of duty and in accordance with a universalizable maxim — a rule that could consistently apply to everyone. Chidi's obsession with doing the "right" thing, even to the point of extreme indecision, serves as a critique of the rigidity of Kantian ethics. His inability to make choices , such as selecting a muffin or deciding whether to help a friend , paralyzes him. The show humorously but sharply depicts the challenges of living strictly by abstract principles in a world full of nuance and ambiguity. Moral Paralysis: When Principles Become Obstacles Chidi's constant struggle with decision-making highlights the limitations of a purely principle-based ethical framework. The series shows how adhering too rigidly to moral rules can lead to "moral paralysis," where the fear of making the wrong choice prevents any choice at all. This reflects a real-world criticism of Kantian ethics: It can be overly idealistic and impractical, failing to accommodate the messy realities of human life. Moreover, Chidi’s character development illustrates a gradual shift from rigid deontology to a more pragmatic approach . He learns that ethical behavior also involves empathy, context, and a willingness to act even when the morally "perfect" choice is unclear. This evolution points to the necessity of balancing moral principles with practical wisdom, or phronesis, a concept central to Aristotelian virtue ethics. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics: The Quest for Moral Growth Aristotle’s virtue ethics, with its emphasis on the cultivation of good character traits (virtues) and the pursuit of eudaimonia — a flourishing life — provides another critical lens through which The Good Place can be understood. Aristotle believed that morality is less about following rules or calculating outcomes and more about developing virtues through practice and habituation. A virtuous person, in Aristotle’s view, is someone who has developed the right habits, emotions, and practical wisdom to navigate life's challenges. Eleanor's Transformation: From Selfishness to Self-Improvement Eleanor Shellstrop's journey is a quintessential example of Aristotelian moral development. At the beginning of the series, Eleanor is self-centered, dishonest, and indifferent to the well-being of others. Her presence in "The Good Place" is a mistake, but she decides to use this opportunity to become a better person. Unlike the rigid calculations of the point system or the strict rules of deontology, Eleanor’s moral growth is portrayed as a process of self-discovery , learning, and repeated effort. Her transformation is not about achieving perfection but rather about striving for continuous improvement. She learns from her mistakes, develops empathy for others, and begins to understand the importance of community, friendship, and love. In doing so, Eleanor exemplifies Aristotle’s idea that virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, achieved by following a "mean" between deficiency and excess — not an inherent quality but something that must be practiced and cultivated. Existentialism: The Absurdity of the Afterlife and the Creation of Meaning Beyond its engagement with traditional ethical theories, The Good Place also explores existentialist themes, particularly those associated with Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de Beauvoir. Existentialism, as a philosophy, emphasizes the individual's responsibility to create meaning and values in a universe that appears indifferent or even absurd. The Absurdity of the Afterlife: Breaking the Illusion of Objective Morality The Good Place frequently challenges the notion that there is an objective moral order governing the universe. A s the characters discover the flaws in the point system and the arbitrary nature of the afterlife’s bureaucracy, they are confronted with a sense of existential absurdity. The afterlife's administration is depicted as a sprawling, inefficient bureaucracy filled with arbitrary rules, nonsensical paperwork , and endless red tape. This bureaucratic farce highlights the absurdity of trying to manage something as complex as human morality with rigid, institutionalized procedures. The very structure of the universe they inhabit seems to lack inherent justice or fairness , echoing Camus’s idea of the "absurd" — the conflict between humans’ desire for meaning and the silent, indifferent universe. However, rather than surrendering to nihilism, the characters embrace their freedom to define their own meaning and purpose. This is particularly evident when they decide to improve themselves not because they fear eternal punishment, but because they genuinely want to become better people. This reflects Sartre’s belief that "existence precedes essence," meaning that individuals are not born with a predetermined purpose , but must create their own essence through their actions and choices. Freedom and Responsibility : Redefining the Afterlife’s Purpose The characters' existential journey reaches its apex in the final season when they are given the chance to design a new afterlife system. Rejecting the arbitrary and punitive nature of the original system, they opt for a process that emphasizes moral growth and learning, rather than eternal reward or punishment. This reflects existentialist ideas about freedom and responsibility — the recognition that, in the absence of an ultimate moral authority, humans must take responsibility for creating a just and meaningful existence. This new system introduces a “test” or series of challenges that allows souls to continue learning and growing until they reach a state of moral completeness. This shift from a binary, eternal judgment to a dynamic process of self-improvement, underscores the show's existentialist underpinnings, suggesting that the true purpose of life (and perhaps the afterlife) is the ongoing effort to become better, wiser, and more compassionate. The Final Frontier: The End of the Afterlife and the Embrace of Impermanence As the series concludes, the characters in The Good Place ultimately face the choice to "move on" from existence once they have achieved their personal sense of fulfillment. This decision reflects elements of Buddhist philosophy, particularly the idea of nirvana — the liberation from the cycle of suffering and desire. The show's depiction of the afterlife becomes less about eternal bliss and more about the acceptance of impermanence and the natural end of all things. A New Perspective on the Afterlife: Embracing Completion and Closure The characters’ final choice to leave the afterlife suggests a radical departure from traditional Western notions of heaven and hell as eternal destinations. Instead, it embraces the idea that even in paradise, existence without end can become monotonous and unfulfilling. By choosing to move on, the characters affirm the value of completion, closure, and the acceptance of life’s transience. This decision echoes the existentialist idea that meaning is found not in eternity but in the finite, in the moments of genuine connection , growth, and understanding that give life its richness and depth. The Role of Friendship and Love in Moral Development Throughout The Good Place , the characters' relationships with each other are a crucial aspect of their moral growth. The bonds formed between Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, Jason, and even Michael (the architect who becomes their friend and ally) illustrate the profound impact of community, friendship, and love on ethical development. These relationships provide the support, challenge, and motivation necessary for each character to confront their flaws, make difficult choices, and strive toward becoming better versions of themselves. Ethics of Care: The Power of Compassionate Relationships The show’s emphasis on relationships aligns with the "ethics of care," a framework developed by feminist philosophers like Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. The ethics of care focuses on the importance of empathy, compassion, and the interdependence of human beings in moral decision-making. Unlike traditional moral theories that prioritize abstract principles or outcomes, the ethics of care places relationships and the well-being of others at the center of ethical reflection. In The Good Place, the characters often find themselves facing ethical dilemmas that cannot be resolved by strict adherence to rules or by calculating consequences. Instead, they rely on their growing empathy, understanding, and care for one another to navigate these challenges. The Limitations of Institutional Morality This satirical take on bureaucracy can be seen as a critique of real-world institutions — from governments to corporations — that attempt to impose moral order through rules and regulations. The show suggests that such institutions often fail to capture the nuances of human experience and may end up perpetuating injustice or incompetence, much like the flawed point system of the afterlife. The character of Michael, who begins as a dutiful architect of the afterlife's neighborhoods but later rebels against the system he helped create, embodies this critique. His journey from bureaucratic enforcer to empathetic ally of the humans reflects a deeper philosophical commentary on the need to transcend rigid, rule-bound systems in favor of more humane, flexible, and compassionate approaches to ethics. Conclusion: A Modern Ethical Journey The Good Place is a remarkable exploration of ethical philosophy, cleverly disguised as a comedy about the afterlife. By engaging with multiple philosophical traditions — from utilitarianism and deontology to virtue ethics and existentialism — t he show invites viewers to reflect on what it means to be good , to live a meaningful life, and to confront the ultimate question of what awaits us after death. Additionally, "The Good Place" challenges us to consider that perhaps the true “Good Place” is not a reward to be earned after death, but a state of being we strive to create in our everyday lives. Through kindness, compassion, and the willingness to grow and learn from our mistakes, we are constantly in the process of building our own version of “The Good Place” — not a perfect paradise, but a community of individuals committed to the ongoing work of becoming better, together. Ultimately, The Good Place suggests that morality is not a static endpoint but a dynamic journey, one that is less about reaching an ideal destination and more about the choices we make , the relationships we form, and the meaning we create along the way. It leaves us with a hopeful message: that despite the flaws and imperfections inherent in being human, the pursuit of goodness, understanding, and love is always worth the effort — both in life and whatever may come after.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Aliens and Outer Space) Table of Contents The Story Itself. Story Analysis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. (Background music) **************** The Story In a lovely park in Victorian England, there was a young, handsome lady who frequented the place in her free time. She enjoyed the scenery, the blooming flowers, the scent of nature, and the refreshing clean air of the trees. Gold was a truly compassionate woman who had no desire to cause harm to anything or to any being. Whenever she heard the cries of young children, she was sad as well, even though she had no clue what was going on each time. The thought of causing harm or being harmed herself caused her a great deal of concern. She did, however, have a rare and deep faith in humanity. Every thief, every scoundrel, and even every murderer, could be redeemed and forgiven. That was her philosophy on humans. She had a great fear of fire as well. In her eyes, fire resembled pain. It resembled a ravenous demon whose thirst could never be quenched. It sounded like a million screams and the agony of a million souls who eventually gave up hope of surviving the ordeal. The park was her holy ground. It was the place for her to forget life's worries and miseries. In a way, it was her continuous attempt to escape the horror that is agony. Regardless of her bliss, Gold was a lonely woman. Despite being tall and pretty, she had few friends, and she was a true believer in love between husband and wife. It was a faith so intense that it made her burst into tears one day. After all, solitude is a pain of its own. A pain like a great flame, able to consume one's mind and soul. Lady Gold, desperate for company, has noticed a certain person in her cries who appeared to be as aloof as she was. Unlike her, he was far more stoic. He sat on a bench with no visible emotion. He simply observed his surroundings in an apparent infinite attempt to process whatever he was seeing. It was very unclear and very strange to Gold, who just looked at him with awe. "What is he doing, all alone? What is on his mind? How come he is not in any pain, so it seems?" She inquired in her mind. Gold began feeling strange emotions. Emotions she had not felt before. It was not love, for her heart was broken many times by heartless men. She saw the arrogance and the hatred in their eyes. Truly a pain of their own. A pain of hers, as well? She was not sure. She decided to turn to the lone man as the English sun set, wrapped in her own insecurities. "Hello there, good sir." The man looked upon her, slowly and carefully, so he appeared. "How was your day?" asked the woman politely. There was a short period of silence. It was awkward for her, but knowledge, she thought, could calm her anxious nerves. The cloaked man replied: "I am not a sir, and I am not a lady." As Gold was confused even further at the eccentricity, the entity resumed with a mechanical voice: "I am a being who has traveled through a million worlds and even more lands. I observe my surroundings. I try to study them well. Do you know why?" "Um... why?" "Because everything and everyone is capable of wreaking havoc. Every opportunity, every good intention. Even you." Insulted, the lady invited herself to the bench and wept. She cried and suffered, but the being just stood there and watched, as usual. Suddenly, the being replied, which caused Gold great distress. "Do you see? I did not do anything that other beings may consider to be wrong. All I did was tell you about my findings. Nonetheless, you experienced a great deal of anxiety. Just like countless others." The park grew darker as the sun went down. The grounds didn't really feel divine and blessed anymore. The strange being has expressed its first emotion, which Gold witnessed. A quiet, short sigh of frustration. He replied afterwards, "I have no idea... Why do I even cause dysfunction in my wake. Even my very existence disturbs others, even though I deem myself to be fine, usually." The human (?) smiled from the cloak and asked, "Do you think I will ever find a star where no destruction, no misery, and no agony appear?" Amused, Gold answered, "Of course, you will, mister! Of course! There is always hope for everyone! And you are fine as well! Look at your wisdom and your insight! You know so much, and I wager you can teach many others as well!" "I apologize, human. You seem to be greatly incorrect." The being left the bench as he stood up. For some reason, it now appears much smaller now that it stands compared to its appearance when it sat. It looked at her and said, "From my experience, at least... where there is life, there is insufferable fire. The way I see it, there is only pure peace in death. Those who want greater peace, withdraw from society. I care less for peace... hence why I might not be as smart as it may seem." Gold looked down at it with a repressed sense of terror. It concluded: "Caution thee, young lady. Beware not to let your shiny golden hair and heart blind you from seeing the bigger reality at play." The cloaked being began walking away, leaving the park as it was getting dark. Gold ran after it. Despite her efforts, she was unable to reach the being, who was walking slowly. "Wait! Wait! Please don't go! Please! I don't want to be alone! I don't want to be in the shadow of solitude! I beg you!" The being stood still for her response. For some reason, the cold British weather began heating up. The skies went from black to orange. Strange airborne objects began patrolling the skies like ravenous eagles, as if they were looking for prey. Some screaming was heard, and some explosions as well. However, none of the harm came from the skies but from the ground. People were too afraid of the sight, and cannons and gunfire attempted to bring these things down. Nevertheless, all the cannonballs and bullets of the military missed, causing terrible friendly fire throughout the land. Hence the screams, too. In the midst of the confusion, the being turned to face her and removed its cloak, which concealed its face. What was that? It was utterly incomprehensible. "You've seen your part of reality. Allow me to welcome you to the rest of it. However, I feel obliged to ask for your permission." "I understand. I do." "Then, let us travel to the heavens. Maybe the truth will be found as well. We can only hope. I hope it will set us free." A strange purple hole appeared from nowhere in front of them. Terrified, the golden-haired lady looked at it as if it were a monster. She had no idea it was a portal to... somewhere else? The being pointed at it with its indefinable arm and finger. "Come, if you desire. However, I only ask that you accept the inevitable possibility of disruption. Of some fire in your way". *********** Story Analysis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "A Tale of Golden Fire" unfolds in a serene Victorian park in England, centering on a young woman named Gold. Gold, characterized by her compassion and fear of causing harm, finds solace in the park— a refuge from life's miseries and uncertainties. Despite her serene surroundings, she feels a profound loneliness and a longing for meaningful companionship. One day, she encounters a mysterious, stoic figure on a bench—a being who claims to have traveled through countless worlds. This enigmatic entity speaks of the inherent capacity for destruction in all things, causing Gold to weep. It suggests that true peace can only be found in death and warns Gold against her naive idealism. Despite her efforts to understand or reach out, she is left contemplating the being's grim philosophy, and ultimately, the story leads to a strange portal opening—a gateway to further unknowns. Philosophical Analysis The Nature of Suffering and Reality: The poem explores the idea that suffering is an inseparable part of existence. Gold, who fears pain and destruction (represented by her fear of fire), finds herself confronted with the stark view of the mysterious being. The being suggests that suffering and chaos are inherent to life itself, and even well-intentioned actions can lead to unintended harm. This aligns with existentialist ideas that life is filled with inherent absurdities and contradictions— peace and suffering are interwoven into the very fabric of existence. Compassion vs. Stoicism: Gold embodies compassion and hope , believing in humanity's ability to redeem itself. Her belief that even the worst of people can find forgiveness shows a deep faith in human goodness. In contrast, the mysterious being represents a stoic detachment, focusing on observation without emotional involvement. This juxtaposition highlights the tension between two ways of understanding reality—Gold's emotional, empathetic view against the being's rational, detached approach. The stoic response of the being echoes a sort of existential realism: that to exist is to confront and accept suffering and the randomness of existence . This also touches on the concept of the "Absurd" from existentialist philosophy—where human beings seek meaning in a world that is often indifferent or incomprehensible. Fire as a Metaphor for Pain and Transformation: Fire is a recurring metaphor in the poem, representing pain , destruction, and the uncontrollable aspects of life. For Gold, fire is a manifestation of agony— a demon with an insatiable thirst. The being, however, sees fire as an inevitable disruption that accompanies life. This use of fire as a symbol can be linked to the idea of the "eternal return" found in Nietzsche's philosophy —where pain and suffering are essential parts of the cycle of existence, necessary for transformation and growth. Hope and Despair: Gold's interaction with the being reveals a dichotomy between hope and despair. Despite her initial optimism and her attempt to find goodness even in a potentially dangerous encounter, she is left in a state of doubt and fear. The being challenges her hopeful view, suggesting that peace is an illusion that might only be found in death. This moment can be seen as an existential crisis for Gold—a confrontation with the idea that hope might be futile in the face of an indifferent universe. The Role of the Mysterious Being: The being's role is akin to a philosophical questioner, like Socrates —one who provokes Gold to think deeply about the nature of existence and suffering. It poses questions that lead to self-reflection, challenging her beliefs and pushing her to confront uncomfortable truths. The being's indifferent, almost mechanistic perspective reflects a kind of metaphysical skepticism, questioning whether true peace or a life without suffering is even possible. Choice and Freedom: In the end, the being offers Gold a choice: to step through a portal and confront further unknowns, or remain within her limited understanding of reality . This moment is emblematic of existentialist themes of choice and freedom—the idea that human beings are condemned to choose, and through those choices, define their essence. Gold is presented with a decision that could lead to new knowledge and understanding or deeper chaos and suffering. The portal represents the possibility of transcending current limitations, but also the risk of confronting even greater uncertainties. Existential Freedom and the Limits of Knowledge: The poem closes with a contemplation of the limits of human understanding. The being's statement, "there is only pure peace in death," might (?) suggest a fatalistic view where ultimate knowledge or enlightenment might only be achieved in non-existence. Gold’s hesitation before the portal symbolizes humanity’s perpetual struggle between the desire for knowledge (understanding the "greater reality at play") and the fear of what that knowledge might entail. Conclusion "A Tale of Golden Fire" is a philosophical exploration of suffering, existence, and the human quest for understanding. Through its central characters—Gold, the compassionate yet lonely seeker, and the mysterious, stoic being—the poem delves into existential themes such as the nature of suffering , the limits of knowledge, and the tension between hope and despair. It challenges the reader to reflect on the inherent ambiguities of life and the complex interplay between compassion, suffering, and the search for meaning . Ultimately, the poem leaves open the question of whether true peace and understanding can ever be achieved—or if they are, in fact, illusions within the ever-present chaos of existence.

(For more on rights, click here ) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "The Motives, Ethics and Nature Behind Human Rights -- Understanding the Subjectivity of Systems Across Civilizations" presents a complex exploration of human rights, challenging conventional views and offering a fresh philosophical perspective. It engages deeply with philosophical ideas, drawing from thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Edvard Westermarck , and explores concepts like moral relativism , social contracts, and the nature of rights as social constructs. The article's real-world application, such as the Wagner Group rebellion and the Treaty of Versailles, ground the philosophical discussions in reality. The article takes a balanced and nuanced perspective on human rights, recognizing them as both necessary and illusory, and challenges readers to rethink widely accepted ideas about human rights, justice, and morality. (Background music) Part I: A System of Illusion The concept of 'human rights' is a social construct rather than an inherent, objective truth.  In other words, it is more of a shared perception , agreed to be part of the world beyond our minds , but it doesn't mean rights exist beyond our minds. It does not mean that rights are discovered, but rather, invented. Invented and then recognized by at least those who don't desire to violate them. Sociopathy, in this case, makes people understand this well, further compelling these individuals to ignore the rights of others (Under the idea of Edvard Westermarck 's moral relativism , sometimes, as a "justification"). Similar to the notions of " plant rights " or " intellectual property rights ," it exists primarily within the realm of human thought and agreement. Fundamentally, what we term 'human rights' are a collection of mutually agreed-upon limitations on individual behavior. The Reasoning Behind This System Driven by our shared desire to avoid premature death, unnecessary trauma and excessive suffering, we have established these boundaries as a means to foster a more equitable and secure existence. This, according to the monarchist philosopher Thomas Hobbes , the reasoning for the foundation of society: To foster and apply a social contract where our individual freedoms are sacrificed in the name of our rights and in the name of justice. Hobbes, opposing the idea of democracy like Socrates did , very much understood that the cultivation of rights have to do with limiting others. However, rights are about limiting others for the greater good, and not out of a need or desire to oppress the populace. We can also learn from this that sometimes moral and immoral acts often interplay with each other to produce results of either kind, however I digress. The System's Functional Purposes By designating certain actions as 'rights,' we highlight their significance and collectively commit to upholding them. However, it's essential to recognize that these rights are not absolute but rather conditional upon ongoing social consensus, enforcement and the development of the world at large throughout the course of time and history. Therefore, even when judged as such, the value of rights is never absolute nor universal. Judging a society like this can therefore deter us from further harmony and collaboration with other communities and with each other. The Problem with a Supposed Universal Objectivity Not being able to develop this multicultural tolerance across the world, is the problem in general with the attempt to create this global, "universal culture" . That is because morality is often function-based, and so are rights, being part of morality itself. All and all, different communities, nations and people, develop their own systems of morality based not only on their hopes and dreams, but also on their local, distinct challenges. Hence why some countries deem military service as a compulsory duty, while other nations may regard this as just a possibility (like in the U.S) or even an excessive expense (Like in Liechtenstein) despite the awkward incidents that might come along with this. Finally, in anarchic communities , rights of security might not even be considered relevant on the collective scale, despite the dangers that may rise as a result. In such places, it is often "every man for himself", seen in the micronation of Freetown Christiania . Respecting other people and groups therefore has a lot to do with their moral reasoning, and whether or not we're willing to tolerate their own reasoning. These reasonings may be as different or even as hidden as they may appear to us. The approach is based on our freedom of choice. Part II: The Anti-Social Society Paradox Furthermore and quite unfortunately, in a world devoid of philosophical inquiry, rights are not justified by the reasoning of logical beings or the "common folk". Rather, they are "justified" through this ad-hominem logic: Through those wealthy and a high-enough social status to be supported and to have their will enforced by their followers , hired or otherwise. When an idea is not given in education systems , nor effectively communicated or enforced, it can easily be rendered irrelevant in the eyes of many. That is despite the idea's ability to be a correct or competent philosophy. Case Example: Basilean Ethical philosophy As such, concepts such as "Natural Rights" are effective in logic, perhaps, but they will be seen by many as nothing more than lofty ideals, rather than ideas that are realistic and reasonable. Kaiser Basileus provides an example to such a concept: Everyone has the natural right (free of created/ systematic restraint ) to do anything that isn't harmful to another creature. It cannot be less than that for the idea of rights to have any meaning. They have the right to wander the Earth freely and settle anywhere anyone else may settle. Because it is not necessary for the good of anyone else to infringe those rights, no one can have the right to infringe them. From a more contemporary-point of view, Basilean ethics are easily violated without much effort, simply because there is no contra force to prevent such ethics to be utterly infringed. This might've led this philosopher to regard this world as a dystopian reality . How Society Can Breed Sociopathic Tendencies In general, this utter disrespect of rights among many people is, ironically, "sociopathic" and "anti-social", for this fits this core symptom described in people with Antisocial Personality Disorder. As it is normalized to ignore the feelings of others through apathy and specifically towards minorities such as the homeless , society could accidently encourage the genetic inclinations of people towards sociopathy and narcissism. Without examining and rectifying the environmental factors that could lead to such human-rights-disrespecting personality disorders, society would, naively, breed its own sociopaths and narcissists. As much as they might be a product of genetics they are also the product of a morally-depraved environment . Thus, when we criticize them when they are in political and corporate positions -- we also need to criticize our families, communities and the way we conduct ourselves in civilization. Part III: Why Philosophy Is Relevant Here More Than Politics In a world that ignores the continued relevance of philosophy, rights are not as discussed and examined well enough. Rather, they are far more laid in a pretentiously "universal matter", and/or are used as political jargon to gain and deter influence or credibility of people. People under the matrix of the "herd mentality" are then expected to accept ideas or face becoming outsiders from "the herd". This is generally the problem with political methodology, when it is applied across the different areas of human activity. As much as people hate politicians, they are hated not because of their "verdict of being", or because they exist. No. They are hated because of their methods and from the actions that are followed from them. Case Example I: Politics, Ulterior Motives and Military Combat For instance, there are a lot of ethical disputes in military warfare when it comes to human rights. Whether a military force, be it a national army or a mercenary force , is violating the rights of others, is more questionable than one might think. That is because propaganda plays a large role in military conflicts , making our understanding of battlefields quite distorted and unclear. With our intellectual hubris, we become easier to manipulate by many organizations without even realizing it. As much as we might be biased to define a country as an entity that commits crimes against humanity, is more up-to-debate than people might realize. After all, with advancements in AI technology , at this point we shouldn't even trust our eyes as much as our ears. It is the nature of ideologies to make us believe in certain assumptions regardless of whether or not they are true. Politically, our beliefs matter more than reality itself. Therefore, when we are convinced that a country or an army is committing crimes against humanity, our political decisions may change accordingly. Whether or not any crimes of such kind are actually being done, doesn't functionally matter in comparison, in the lens of those who seek to mislead us. Case Example II (Subverted) : The Compassion of Welfare -- A Right? In the world of social welfare, it is believable that some people have the special right to receive support from the state, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive independently... Thus, the disabled fight to advocate a reasonable pay of welfare so the social minority/ies would be able to sustain themselves. And what other way to promote such an agenda than calling it a "right"? The right to for a proper standard of living? The Necessarily Disabled Fallacy Designed the way it is designed, society lacks accessibility to those it is not designed for. Physically, neurologically or otherwise. By this poor design, meant to cater to the average individual , certain people become unfortunate minorities merely because of this. As unique as people are, this extent of uniqueness is a double-edged sword that can render them disabled. That's despite "disability" not necessarily being an intrinsic trait, but rather a setback in relation to the environment. It is like the idea of "fish people" needing to have aquariums attached to their heads whenever they are above a water surface ( Like the villain Dr. Wasabi , being "objectively disabled" only because he's a piranha fish not living in his natural habitat). Part III: The Double Edged Sword of Freedom In the world beyond the mind, no one is entitled to anything. Likewise, some nations may not think that things like safety, other people's freedoms, and the preservation of democracy are important enough to be enforced by the authorities. That is because we need to look both ways. Freedom can also mean, "Freedom from responsibility and accountability". Outsiders may call these nations as those who violate human rights. However, the idea that people are supposed to care, as moral and compassionate as it is , is not objective. Social contracts are not an integral part of external reality. Rather, they are integral part of human reality. They are business agreements, and nations are essentially business concerns. Should we look at things that way, we can realize that contracts can be broken, as they often did throughout history. Contracts are agreements. Agreements are temporary and prone to decisions. Decisions can change. Adolf Hitler breached the the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact by re-occupying t he Rhineland . The Wagner Group Rebellion , according to their late leader, was caused because the Russian Armed Forces attacked his mercenaries ' camps. The accusation of betrayal was made after their alliance in the Russo-Ukrainian War . And of course, the famous assasination of the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, seen as a threat by his own Empire for proclaiming himself Dictator For Life. Ironically, he was a very effective -- and supported -- leader. Why are we entitled to safety, to individual freedoms, and to democracy when there isn't necessarily an objective, universal set of rules to how people should live, and how states are best governed? Technically, as long as a country has the powers to protect itself from the outside world, as in the case with North Korea, what power do human rights advocates have, against one of the biggest military forces in the world? The Analogy of Harmonious Conflict And why is that? It's because when someone comes to you with a knife and threatens to kill you, you expect not only safety, but justice to be done as well to the harasser. Yet, nothing absolutely ensures this. Nothing. The more corrupt a society is , the more unrealistic it is to passively expect justice without disappointment. Don't expect your version of justice to be agreed upon by anyone. It is an unrealistic expectation. A bear that attacks you is trying to fulfill the justice of solving its hunger. You escaping the bear is the attempt to fulfill the justice of surviving. Justice is not only not universal, but in a Tao-like state of conflict, where opposite forces, by fighting, represent this uncanny harmony of the universe, where peace and conflict balance each other. And by subjective equality, such opposition and conflict has the ability to execute harmony. Both you and the bear are serving a greater justice by this encounter. Harmony can be found both in peace and in conflict. Advocate your own justice as much as you like. It will never be absolute like you might think it is. Conclusions The theory of universal human rights , as with any theory referring to generalizations and absolutions, is paradoxically narrow. The more simplistic our reasoning is, the more we would generalize, not realizing our appeal to universality can very easily be a mental trap we set for ourselves. This trap can easily cage us from accessing the bigger picture. Theories of universality entail the objective existence of a universal paradigm as its evidence . That evidence then gives reason to enforce them and implement these theories. And yet, this world is very unjust, regardless of said theories, and reality is far more intricate and dynamic than these theories give their credit for. More than anything, claiming that there are universal human rights is like claiming there is universal justice and other forms of entitlements this existence just doesn't have. What if these pro-justice, benevolent theories just don't do justice with their taken-for-granted claims on reality? What if, by not being criticized, we shoot ourselves in the foot by resuming following their conclusions? The real reason why most of the world's countries are gracious enough to actually care for their citizens' wellbeing in some way or another is because rights are effective system of illusions, making people forget how objectively they're not entitled to anything. Society is more of a theatre than one might think , especially given how well we don't question our role in the stage, thinking we are the role we were given by the tyranny of circumstance. In the end we are just meatbags capable of forming complex languages and thoughts, while seeing both as more real than they actually are. However, we could all need or use help , for we are not stronger than our own environment. Like fish, we depend on the world's quality of substance. It's just we're busy with our egos than realizing the world beyond our mental aquariums, worsening this world as a result of our selfish actions. Whether by intention, preparation, or circumstance, we'd either die quickly or have very poor lives. These illusions are false, but practical.

Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article on The Rubinshteinic Guide to Deal With Longing, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is explaining in short what his journey was and still is. He managed to briefly inform us on and of the overall picture on how he was successful in dealing with his burdens and personal issues. Finding one’s own existence purpose is not for all of us to find easily; I have the feeling that Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein has been successful in finding out and putting his plan in concrete realization.... This is what Philosocom site is for; this need to rectify the world as per his unique way of doing his share of what can be done to help get our world a better place to exist! (Background music) "A safely lived life, free of risk is no way of living at all. It is mediocrity and boredom as a sad lifestyle" -- Mr. John Duran I've always said... People are better when they're simple. -- Elenor Silverberg (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) (Philosocom's Directory on Technology) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) Sometimes, the tyrrany of circumstance goes beyond your control , for there are some things we are unable to completely prepare for. The world is rapidly changing according to what I believe is going to be a world that's more cyberpunk. Or, in other words, a world of technology so absurdly advanced, it considers not the natural world... which humanity is also a part of. Nothing is set in stone completely, yet should you live ascetically , you can prepare for such a world more effectively, and find yourself long less and less for the life you once had. In some places in the world, war in inevitable. I would like to further argue that war is an inevitable possibility everywhere in the world. As such, no where you would completely live in is entirely safe... This idea of absolute safety has a deep darkside many people not might be even aware of. To make things short, please never expect world peace or peace in the world outside your own. Your safe space will always be within you. Even if you would know a life of isolation, when your safe space is within you, your isolation turns ethical. Yet, when your safe space is within yourself, whenever you will go in this seemingly-absurd world, the value of risk then turns less and less significant in its perceived coercive control on your mind. When you long for a past long gone , it might be harder for you to move on from it, even though moving on is the wise thing to do. Many people would find themselves traveling worldwide because they wouldn't have a specific home, for instance. Some may look at such travelers as pitiful, even though said travelers are having the time of their lives, living in their own ocean of self-honesty. As delusional as they might appear, their perceived madness is like that of the flawed hero's journey. Then, life becomes a wonderland of philosophy, and philosophy becomes a way of life. When you give up on longing for a past long irrelevant, you change your thinking from that of a competent villain to that of a wise fool. In other words, instead of planning long term, you plan short-term, like a taxi driver would. Some people who are dear to you might feel concerned deeply, despite not necessarily understanding you like they think they would, especially if, like Nietzsche's overman, you go your own way. Yet, is going your own way, by following your own truth, is a grave misfortune? How is going your own way, with trial and error like one would do in science, is something to be ashamed of? When you have less and less responsibilities in life, you are free to live a carefree life. Those who are more moral than most, like myself, would live not only ascetically but monastically as well, as I did for many, many years. Either way, when you make your own decisions, regardless of where or who you are or with whom you're with, your confinement is merely perceived. Your reputation, whether big or small , is always perceived, and perception is always the choice of another. I lived life as a wise elder sage, living as a mysterious master of ex-apprentices and as a secluded hermit, successfully separating my life with that of my own family from the very day I was born. Being mentally detached, my freedom was always internal no matter where I am. I do not see reality like most people do as a result, and I never saw the need to be emotionally attached to most people or even to my own philosophies. I enjoyed laying low for most of my life and would probably keep doing so too. I rarely believed in this common notion that physical company doesn't make me alone. Nay, I see this as a fallacy. I am a calculated man who enjoys shedding his own autistic symptoms in his own mysterious ways. I see little reason to talk to most people when what they have on me usually is nothing more than a narrative, and not me. Even in real life, the detachment remains as well as the alienation. My only affiliation bias is with the Philosocom Article Empire and its childish philosophy , and I often find myself handling this website like a one man army regardless of anything going on around me. I do not believe you'll read my Rubinshteinic guide to being friends with philosophers seriously enough either way, unless some of you would. But either way, managing my life around my site no matter where I am on this planet, makes me the only proper individual to make this the greatest philosophy blog this world has ever known. I am not an entitled man and I see no reason to beg with guilt and shame to things I don't want to do, or to people I see no reason to talk to. After all, as I promised to my late master, I have a world to rectify. Hiding my connection with her for almost 2 decades was easy already. If I long for anything, it's not even for the past, even when mesmerized by my own nostalgia bias. No. What I long for is to improve this world with the power of philosophy and sapience. Unlike many of you, I never longed for a past long gone. No. What I long for was always for the future. A future of my own influence , not for power or evil, but for good. And, sometimes, even under the spell of true love, your ideas are yours and only yours, as well as your hopes and dreams. Should you succeed in understanding me beyond the tyranny of false narratives, you'll find me less of a stern and ruthless man , but probably one of the weirdest and funniest people you've ever seen. But other than that, just leave me alone, for in my detached mind, I am, in one way or another, always alone. As hermits and masterminds deserve to always be... And for most people, when they have to deal with longing, they would not likely need to ever deal with longing for me, a mere esoteric master with esoteric affinities...

(Philosocom's Subcategory On the Past) Alex Mos's Synopsis The Rubinshteinic Technique to Deal With The Past teaches us that, studying our past helps us navigate life's hardships morally and leads us toward our desired life. Past experiences allow us to understand our deepest dreams and teach us what to do and avoid. Even traumatic flashbacks can be an opportunity to learn how to prevent similar misfortunes by moral conduct. We must be strong and determined to reflect on past experiences constructively and use them to overcome new challenges in life.  Contemporary hedonistic culture conditions us to escape hardship through pleasures, weakening our discipline and tenacity. Submission to pleasures deprives us of strength and can lead to addiction. We must endure hardship to gain wisdom and become stronger, more moral beings. Ultimately, we might suffer less as we can prevent or reduce misfortunes using the lessons learned from the past.  We must examine our past activities, break bad habits , become open-minded, and analyze how to alter our behavior to improve. Life can be compared to a maze with many possible choices. If we carefully follow the superior conduct of our choosing, we will reach the desired destination. Learn from the past to make better decisions toward the future of your dreams.  (Background music) Introduction: Why We Must Confront the Past Within our past and the past of others, lies the key of a better future. Within our personal and collective struggles, lies the key towards a greater cultivation of a more functional moral code, capable of helping us better navigate the hardships of life, and the hardships in which we may face. Therefore, neglecting the past is also the neglection of much-needed study towards living the life we truly want to live: A life that correlates with our deepest desires. The point of an ethical code is largely functional, and as such, ethics are the most practical asset of all of philosophy . With ethics we can gain much power , necessary to transform both our lives and others' lives, towards a more bearable existence. If not a loveable existence, too. Have you ever asked yourself if you love being alive? Did you ask yourselves if you're ever going to achieve the achievable notions of your dreams? By studying the past according to our deepest desires, we can better understand what we should do in the present, and what to avoid entirely. As such, flashbacks, as tormenting as they may be , and I suffer from them too, can be regarded as opportunities. As possible resources towards studying our misfortunes. By studying our misfortunes, we can also learn how to avoid repeating them again. How to avoid them from repeating, lies in the conduct of our actions. Or in other words, towards our moral behavior. As much as uncanny as it may sound to you, flashbacks can be quite functional. And the wisdom we distill from the past cannot be distilled if there is no memory of it. And as such, if we refuse to confront our memories , we won't be able to distill the necessary wisdom required to avoid experiencing them again! Of course we do not want to suffer from the same misfortunes we had before. And if we have the power or influence to avoid them, why not act on that power? At the very least, we could decrease the probability of experiencing misfortune again. See it like crash tests. A damage being made is useless if we refuse to learn from it! And in order to reflect on the damage we experienced, we must have the virtue of strength. Why We Must Strive For Strength Strength might not be the sole factor for our survival , but it can surely reinforce it. Why then, not seek what is beneficial for interests? Strength can be regarded as the combination of tenacity, discipline , endurance and power. In order to overcome the challenges of life, past events included, we must be strong enough, as well as determined, to handle the lessons that await us in our reflection of the past. While we cannot change the past, its most functional role lies on our tenacity to return to it in our thoughts and feelings, and relive, mentally, the misfortunes we endured, once more... This contemporary culture of hedonism is how we are conditioned collectively to be weaker than we should. As we submit to life's many pleasures, they become a form of escapism and an unnecessary bond of dependence , which can bias our thinking, and not understand the importance of other values. Values other than joy. We shouldn't rest on the laurels of life when we still have much to learn from the past. The socially-engineered notion of fun as this higher good, is how we depraved ourselves from greater strength, necessary to endure the hardships of life . That is how fun therefore weakens our tenacity and our discipline, and compromises our own power on the altar of hedonism. The strong, the tough, are those willing to endure hardship, and embrace it, even in the temptation of distracting pleasures. They would actively resist pleasure, for the last thing they morally aspire to, is to be weak. And the weaker one is, the less control he or she has on their own lives, instead falling into the allure of addiction. Much of addiction stems from joy. The addicted mind is compromised of its powers to act independently and long-term from their source of addiction. Overcoming our addictions, is how we can become stronger. Strong enough to resist the desire to escape our confrontation with the past. And how can we work towards a better future, if we're too busy thinking about other things, other than the misfortune we had? To prevent or reduce misfortune, mere escape to the embrace of pleasure is insufficient. No. Misfortune is the enemy, and as the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said : “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” We must be willing to endure the hardship of study, if we wish to reap the rewards of wisdom. We must be strong-willed enough to explore our traumas , and still remain there, as we once again relive it in our minds. As you can see, morality isn't as simple as "Do good, avoid bad". "Good" and "Bad" are in constant interplay with each other. What if we must suffer, if suffering lies the key to less painful life, in the long run? What if adversity could also be like a medicine for the mind? Hard to swallow, but effective for it to become accustomed to it? Therefore, the ability to suffer can make us more moral beings. In other words, learning from the pain caused by the past, can equip us with the wisdom necessary for better conduct with the world around us. Avoid suffering entirely, and you will deprave yourselves of not only insight, but also greater strength. It's through this strength that we can better explore the darker sides of reality, and come out of them, victorious and with the practical idea of either preventing or reducing such misfortune again. Revisit, and Act Like You're the One in Charge The past, never to be physically relived in the exact way again, becomes a sandbox for our personal thought experiments with it. Thought experiments are important in philosophy because reality consists not only from the present, but from what that present might become. Much of what the present might evolve or devolve to, depends on our actions. We must examine our activities, both in thought experiments and in general, if we want to break the same bad habits that led us to the past's misfortunes. We mustn't be so hell-bent on not being open-minded, nor not being considerate of looking both ways. No. We must see where we did wrong, and think of ways to do better. While we cannot fully control others, we can either influence them, or at the very least, control our own behavior. Morality is largely a guide to how to act. We might see morality as this lofty value, but we all act upon our own moral conduct. From a functional standpoint, a moral code is inferior when it unnecessarily meddles with our own planning. Therefore, the notion of subjective equality in ethics is flawed by default, if we are to regard morality as a means to an end, rather than an end of itself. Your means either delivers results, or it foils your own hopes and dreams. The past can be revisited like a place in a maze we were once in. A maze of different choices, each leading to a different outcome. The superior conduct, therefore, is one that actually brings us to the desired destination, the desired outcome. Why would we want to follow a code of conduct that places us in outcomes we don't want to experience? Thus, to play on a Socratic quote , the unexamined morality is not worth following! When we treat life as this practical, intricate series of mazes, we may realize how powerful we really are in actually working towards the destination we wish to find ourselves in. The length towards it, while important, does not compromise this allegory, as long as we're determined enough to walk the right "lanes" of the "mazes". Imagine the outcomes. Imagine how your life would've been if you chose a different route with people, with your resources and so on. What lanes did you overlook? What lanes did you underestimate? Life is really this logical series of paths we can walk in. All we have to do is to be aware of the vastness of our choices, at any given time. Must we choose to be submissive during interpersonal conflicts? Must we walk the same path others walk in, all because their paths are the normal ones to walk? What if these normally-chosen paths are fundamentally flawed? Why, then, bother to follow them at all times, if at all? Ask yourself these questions, and do not yield to fear . If you want to better navigate the courses of life, you must be aware of what you're truly capable of! And to work towards the expansion of your choices, some aspects might have to be sought, while others must be sacrificed. Reality is that it is intricate as well as it is subtle . Make one bad move and it's like an unwanted turn in a highway road. You're going to find yourself entirely in a different place if you haven't done that move! Do not blame others too much, when in reality, you can be capable of being in greater charge of your own decisions. For your own decisions influence others! Blame others for acting unintentionally due to your own choices, and you'll deprive yourself the opportunity to be a better decision-maker! Do not deprive yourselves opportunities to learn, when they have the power to teach us how to be better at making decisions. Making the decisions we want towards our hopes and dreams, and not towards the very misfortunes we seek to avoid! Alex Mos's Review The past is our tutorial, the testimonial of who we are and who we like to be. Society and tribal communities require every member to be an "actor" in its grand production of norms and expectations. Yet, in every thought and every action lies the truth of our authentic selves. Some are so talented in masking that they "forget" their core identity and become the role-playing character of the life's reality show. They might be successful and powerful, cruel or compassionate , yet they will not be at peace if they don't know themselves. Every pleasure is like a loud shout of joy with an echo fading to silence, leaving the true inner self empty, hungry for more, and unsatisfied. To find answers to our frustrations, we must first see ourselves under the coatings of mental makeup and scars of self-inflicted mutilations to fit, succeed, and please. We must look back at a character we play and strip the inner self to its core, layer by layer of societal and tribal conditioning, honestly analyzing the reasons for our actions, causes, and effects. The journey of self-discovery is for the courageous because it's long and uncomfortable. Ultimately, we must be prepared to discover what we dislike or despise. What we find deep inside ourselves might not align with the norms we consciously value in our personal play's setting , such as moral weakness or strong moral values, absence of empathy or too much empathy, and extraverted or introverted characteristics. Also, we might find long-forgotten, neglected interests like artistic, sportive, philanthropic, or intellectual ambitions. Knowing ourselves means accepting our subjective weaknesses or objective individual characteristics, which is the first step in personal growth. Understanding the precious and repulsive within ourselves enables us to find our purpose to improve and polish till we become the best version of ourselves: the saints, the demons, or the philosophers. The choice is ours.

(Philosocom's Directory on Bias) (Philosocom's Directory on Communication) (Philosocom's Directory on Time) (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis One of the worst biases hindering understanding between people is poor communication timing. Today's virtual and fast-paced world is impatient and chooses instant gratification instead of practicing a more relaxed communication style through delayed, better-timed responses. Overcoming the timing bias on the individual level is relatively easy. The key lies in finding the right time to react when calm and clear-headed. Practicing such patience can reduce stress and alter relationships. While we can't control the world around us, we can respond better and create a more peaceful exchange of words , leading to a more relaxed life. We have greater control over our lives than we realize. It's essential to manage tasks effectively, prioritizing and avoiding multitasking. Take time to recover from intensive events to face new challenges calmly, make sounder decisions , think clearer, and minimize stress for ourselves and others. A calmer mind should be part of our ideal selves in the stressful world. Arguably, much of our problems with other people can be solved by identifying and overcoming biases in both them and in ourselves. Biases are "great" at hindering our understanding of other people, thus unnecessarily derailing our relationships with them. As such, philosophy is highly practical because much of it has to do with how to understand others, reality and ourselves. Improving our understanding of reality can therefore improve our relationships with people, by minimizing unnecessary miscommunications. In contemporary times, one of the worst biases has to do with timing. That is because our virtual and fast-paced world has compromised a very important function in behavior that has to do with a more relaxed mentality : patience. When we lack patience, we may act far more on the need for instant gratification , therefore picking poor timings for replying, far more frequently. Allow me to give an example in order to explain in greater detail: Imagine you had a very bad day at work and your partner complains about a minor thing. Be surprised but the connection between work and his/her complaint is more obvious than you might think: It is yourself. It isn't to say that your day at work necessarily had to do with them complaining. It's just that your day at work influenced your energy levels , your irritability and your overall mood. This can make it harder for you to contain your partner's complaint. Perhaps if you had a more-pleasant day at work, you might've not overreact to his/her input, and you might've not, let's say, got into a heated argument as a result. Timing teaches us the fact that nothing exists in a vacuum, and that one event can affect the other even by proxy. The "proxy" of event "A", influencing the outcomes of event "B", can be ourselves, transitioning between the two events. Morally, making sure your employees don't suffer unnecessarily , can lead to a better mental wellbeing, preventing them from causing that same kind of suffering to others around them. On the macro level, developing a more "proxy understanding" of reality can improve our understanding of how events and people influence each other. However, unfortunately, it is not very realistic to expect from anyone to have this degree of understanding. That is, even though it can lead to a far better society , with far greater empathy and compassion for other living beings. On the micro level, AKA the individual level, overcoming timing bias is quite easy: Delay your gratification. Don't answer quickly to people if it's not the ideal time for you to do it. Try to reply to people when you are more clear-headed, and less stressed. Try to develop a greater sense of patience. If the other side isn't patient, encourage them to be patient. Explaining to them that, right now isn't the best time for talking, could be a great help to your overall relationship. "The best time" should be taken not so strictly. It is necessarily a better time to reply to people. A literal "best time" for replying isn't always realistic, given that you might want to talk to them either way. Instead, always strive for a more relaxed time to do so. The world is in dire need of relaxation. A lack of patience is not how stress is reduced, but increased. That is the paradox of instant gratification: You might feel compelled to be gratified, only to realize you should've picked a better timing for your actions. While we cannot control the world around us, our greatest power lies in our ability to make better actions , by examining the competence of actions we regularly perform. If we want to create a more peaceful life, and conduct peaceful exchange of words with others, we mustn't underestimate the importance of whatever it takes to reach such a life. To overcome the problematic nature of timing bias, the same applies: Ask yourself: Is it a good time for me to respond? If not, why not delay the conversation? Must we quickly respond to people, even though both we and them can wait? If we feel like responding, should we really do it right now, just because our feelings compel us to? What prevents us from having a more peaceful conduct with other people? Why not regulate our responses, when we have the power to do so? All of these questions, upon regular contemplation, can serve as the key for a less stressful life and an easier time with other people. Reduction of any reducible difficulty can prevent much social agony and social fatigue upon any interaction we might have with others, thus promoting in action a more harmonious and serene communication. Ideally, we should approach others when we are the most relaxed. Interactions with people shouldn't be as painful as they currently might be for some of us, when the associated pain can be dealt with in the first place. We often forget that we don't have to respond to anything as quickly as some of us may do, and that nothing bad would necessarily occur if we took life more calmly. Patience, therefore, is a great asset in maintaining good and harmonious relationships with others. Remember this well: Everything and everyone has its time and place. Try dealing with issues one at a time, instead of multitasking. Try to distinguish between urgent issues and issues that can be delayed without much consequence. Focus on the issues that are more immediate, than solve your way down to the last issue. A more-effective time-management, one that prioritizes our need for peace, can go a long way for a better life and better conduct with this information-intensive reality. Do not let yourself be a "pawn" of events that do not have to do with unrelated situations. Try to recover and rest from intensive events, so you'll be able to manage the next events with far greater grace and balance. The key to a calmer life, one that is necessary for our physical and mental health, rests on our shoulders. All that it takes, initially, for that state of being to be reached, is to be aware of the fact that we can reach a healthier future. Then, we must identify the actions necessary for that end. And of course, we should perform these actions. Many arguments and unnecessary conflicts can be avoided, if we would only be aware of the importance of timing, and of the notion that we can actually influence that timing, with our words and behavior. How come? We can understand that not all timing is forced upon us, and that we have far greater control of it, than we might think. Never underestimate the value of a calmer you. A calmer you can: Make better decisions. Think more clearly. Not spread the same stress you have, to other people. Not have other people, stress you in turn. As such, in this terribly-stressful world, a calmer self can and should be part of our ideal selves. Successfully have a chilling effect on others, and by the golden rule, they can return the same effect towards you, thus promoting this healthy trend of cool-headedness. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Encouraging others to be patient is something I believe must be handled delicately. People are often biased about timing bias. They only want to do stuff in their own time and if it isn’t it is very inconvenient for them . Next time someone is angry about something, tell them to be patient and see what happens. Examples of timing bias and emotions dictating their interactions [can be found anywhere]. There is a way around timing. If you need to talk to someone, pretend the conversation by saying “Hey I want to talk about……... .When would be a good time to do so?” It gets rid of timing bias and will prepare them for the conversation you are about to have. Plan a specific time to talk about it so you can both be mentally prepared. Timing is a two edged sword. Too early and you deal with timing bias problems. Too late and you have the opposite problem of them not thinking you care. You might delay your response, but don’t forget the importance of at least acknowledging them. “Hey I am busy right now but I will reply to you later." You can also prepare people to avoid the timing bias. Doing what I said earlier and planning a time to talk about something or taking a moment to put them in the right state of mind for what you are about to say. People close to you are easy enough to fix the timing bias. Plan a specific time each day for you and someone else to get things off your mind. Be respectful and listen as you will have the same opportunity after they are done. What if everyone in the world took a siesta of sorts and used the time to unwind so they wouldn’t be impacted by other people? I believe this article talks on the importance of being mentally strong. That way stuff that happens to you throughout your day is less likely to impact you. When you are more mentally strong you are less affected by timing bias.

Articles Primarily on Video Games: https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-we-still-crave-video-games https://www.philosocom.com/post/video-game-logic-answering-potential-criticism-in-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/3-video-games-with-wisdom-we-can-learn-from The "Cowed" Case -- Cowardice and Serenity The Flawed Philosophy of "Free to Play" -- The Contemporary Casino (Background music) How Video Games Reflect and Extend Ourselves To put it simply, video games are an extension of the self, transcending the limitations of our everyday lives. Their appeal cuts across various demographics, from mainstream blockbusters to niche indie gems. While entertainment is undoubtedly a major function it fills, some players seek more than just thrills. We yearn to push our boundaries, to experiment with who we could be, to extend our abilities through a virtual simulation . At their core, all video games, regardless of genre, offer a temporary escape into an electronic world. We put on the mantle of a character, stepping into their shoes for a predefined period. This chosen persona, be it a valiant soldier, a cunning strategist, or an ordinary person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, becomes a an opportunity for self-exploration, between who we are and our ideal selves. Think of it as a psychological mirror. Our choice of role, the actions we take within the game's world, can reveal hidden facets of our personalities, desires, and fears. Do we wield power with grace or succumb to its corruptive allure ? Do we face adversity with courage or crumble under pressure? These virtual experiences, while fantastical, can offer valuable insights into the depths of our own being, in the real world. Having traversed a vast landscape of virtual realities since childhood, I firmly believe that the true allure of video games lies in this potential for self-discovery, similar with writing . They offer a true safe space to experiment, to explore our potential beyond the confines of the real world, and to discover the multifaceted heroes and villains that reside within us all. Such escapism is a safer space than actual safe spaces. Holding a controller is like to operating an extension of our brain, each button press a ripple in the digital world, dictating our character's movements and interactions. During gameplay, the screen becomes our portal, our consciousness absorbed by the pixels within its borders. It's like watching TV, but with the added thrill of being the puppeteer, pulling the strings of our virtual selves. How Video Games Offer Escape and Puppet Mastery Video games, with their fantastical worlds and limitless possibilities, offer an escape from the constraints of reality, thus allowing us to further eradicate boredom . Here, we can indulge in actions that would be unthinkable in real life, from wielding unimaginable power to forging pixelated romances with characters designed to cater to our every whim ( similar to what I call "robot lovers" ) However, this allure of the simulated raises a crucial question: does it improve or worsen our modern-day isolation? It is such a question I also covered regarding computers. Dating sims, for instance, present a perfect partner, always available and eager to please, potentially warping our expectations of real-life relationships. Witnessing someone so engaged in these virtual worlds, seemingly more invested in fictional characters than actual people, can be quite disturbing. As such, video games may also make us question the social value of humanity, and not only from the knowledge-related aspect. It's important to remember that video games are not mirrors reflecting reality, but meticulously crafted escape pods, designed to be consumed for our delightf. They are designed to entertain, to provide an adrenaline rush or a comforting sense of control. In some rare cases, they can actually offer some depth, like Silent Hill 2, but I digress. Unlike books, where we passively absorb narratives, games put us into the driver's seat, granting us agency within their pre-defined pathways. This active participation, this puppet mastery over our virtual avatars, is what makes them feel like extensions of ourselves, even if those extensions exist solely within the realm of fiction. And because they fail reflecting reality in an accurate way most often, fictional media often serve as poor teachers of reality. As Epictetus reminds us, most things in life fall beyond our direct control. Yet, we can find solace in the power to shape our thoughts and decisions, even if it's just a small victory in the grand scheme of things. Theoretically, in the real world, we are "pawns", for lack of a better word, to the tyranny of circumstance. "Pawns" of the law, "pawns" of teachers, family, and bosses; and "pawns" of our duties, if we have any. If there is indeed a spiritual realm to reality, we might also be "pawns" to dharma. You can quit your job if you'd like, but that would mean that you would have one less source of income that is imperative for you to afford being alive and/or taking care of others. Ultimately, video games are about control, not necessarily in a grand, power-hungry sense, but in the smaller moments of dictating our character's actions. This control, however alluring, serves as a stark reminder of our limitations in the real world. Unless we would actively pursuit after power ourselves. You can quit school, but that might decrease your job opportunities. You can harass people, but that might put your life in danger or, at the very least, ban you from certain places (even online). While not all video games allow you to be a God of sorts , you can always start from the very beginning, or even reset a level you're in. Thus, even if your character is about to die, you can always start anew, as if your choices have absolutely no consequences. Even events that have no point of return, can, in fact, be returned to by resetting your game or loading a different file of the game. With this power, you can control a virtual world's concept of time . That is true in the vast majority of video games, thus making you, the player, a "time lord", or a manipulator of time. In addition, if the game's too hard, you can change its difficulty in most cases, and thus make your time there less painful. The philosophy of video games is, therefore, that you are capable of far more than what you would otherwise be in real life. That's what makes these worlds a form of great escape and of giving you power you wouldn't otherwise have. By "power," I refer to liberties rather than authority, even though in some cases they are both. The problem of video games is similar to that of a recluse. Why should one desire the real world, when the virtual one can offer so much more? Seeking Meaning in Reality's Imperfections In an age of hyper-personalized "realities" (Like in the concept of a "metaverse") , a sad question arises: Why settle for the messy uncertainties of real-life relationships and societal engagement when you can craft/control a digital persona and live within a meticulously curated virtual playground? These are pressing questions, echoing in the minds of many, potentially driving us further apart, seeking refuge in the fantasies of simulated worlds. But I, having delved into the alluring depths of virtual fantasies, have found my answer to this existential query. My continued presence in the online realm, this digital echo of myself, is fueled by a different desire: the yearning for relevance. The thrill of crafted virtual romances and fabricated victories pales in comparison to the profound satisfaction of genuine human contribution. To be thanked, to spark joy, to receive an authentic "well done" – these are not mere ego boosts, but a deep-seated fruits of work, to leave a ripple in the vast pool of existence. This yearning for relevance, for feeling like more than a human ghost, is what I have never discovered in the pixelated realms, despite years of exploration. For it's all fabricated, fake. Being realistic, I have come to understand, lies in embracing the imperfections of humans and their connections. But it's in forging bonds with beings who challenge and surprise us, with whom we must compromise and adapt, where human reality exists. It's in contributing to a society that, like us, is flawed and ever-evolving, offering our unique skills and perspectives to weave a richer diversity of shared, authentic experience. And to want to run away from them is to minimize the worth of our potential in the real world, thus wasting it away in favor of interactive simulations that are nothing more than representation of code and graphics, in the world beyond the mind. This is not to dismiss the allure of virtual worlds. They offer respite, exploration, and joy. But ultimately, it is in the messy, sometimes frustrating, yet immensely rewarding terrain of real-life interactions that allow us to realize our true potential and make a difference that does not solely lie in interactive fiction. It is in this imperfect dance with reality that we discover the profound truth: to "feel real", AKA, present beyond our loneliness, is to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. I will build my empire, in the real world. It deserves being built here, and not within a screen alone.

(Definition for repression) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "The Consequences of Repression" is a thought-provoking and authentic exploration of the negative effects of emotional suppression in modern society . Mr. Tomasio's willingness to engage with this difficult and often overlooked topic is commendable. The article offers a personal touch and authenticity by having personal experiences with repression shared, which fosters a sense of connection with the reader. The article offers actionable advice, encouraging readers to be more honest with themselves and others. This solution-oriented approach not only highlights the problem but also empowers readers with steps they can take to improve their mental health and resist societal pressures to conform. The critique of modern society as "a well-oiled machine of facades" effectively conveys the author's concerns about the dehumanization and detachment caused by social norms. Mr. Tomasio's exploration of the balance between societal functioning and individual well-being has a philosophical depth that makes the article thought-provoking. The piece aligns with existential and humanistic ideas, encouraging readers to question the meaning and purpose of their actions in society. Overall, "The Consequences of Repression" is a thought-provoking and authentic exploration of the negative effects of emotional suppression in modern society, with its philosophical depth, personal touch, and clear call to action making it an engaging read.   (Background music) If we think about it, life in the external world is unhealthy. Gone are the days when the people we regularly interact with care deeply for our emotions and personal problems. It has become the norm where being too personal with others is either a taboo or at least embarrassing. This dehumanization of human beings in civilization has created generations upon generations of people who suffer from mental problems due to the external encouragement to hide their emotions under a façade of officiality. While such pretending is beneficial to the world, in the name of more "important" things, like paying bills, work, etc., it indeed does make us humans more detached from ourselves. Detached, from the ability to be completely honest, and from feeling safe enough to "commit" eccentricity (or vulnerability). All in all, we can learn from this that even if society is by large beneficial for our survival , it still isn't necessarily good for our health. According to this logic, society is toxic to a degree. This is what happens when we are encouraged to repress our authenticity: the emotions are directed inward, not outward, and are kept away from the relief of expression . Due to this, they lie permanently within the subconscious, where literally every memory you have ever had remains there, either following or haunting you for the rest of your life. This is technically how much the external world can poison both our individuality and our honesty, leading said world to be a well-oiled machine of facades who are too afraid to be honest with themselves. The solution to this problem is this: counterattack the pretentiousness enforced by the social norm , encourage people to be more honest with themselves and with others, and accept the possible fact that our well-being is often more important than what others think of us. And indeed, it seems that our reputation is often more important to us than the strength of our well-being, which on the long run, is absurd, especially given the fact that a deteriorated well-being can be inherited to the next generation we produce. I have supported repression before. I claimed that we can use our repression to transcend our humanity and achieve a more solitary nature that does not depend as much on the tyranny of social escapism. However, realizing that repression is actually counterproductive, and is actually a tool used by society to maintain control and order, I have come to the conclusion that we should not repress something so powerful as an emotion that could in turn haunt us and our children potentially. Regardless of the solutions I gave, the sad reality is that society does not care as long as it functions and provides its individuals money in return for their service to maintain it. The problem with such a mechanism is that it is too narrow-minded. There really isn't a purpose beyond material gain and household preservation. There are literally countless professions whose main purpose is to just be able to pay the bills or beyond, without necessarily any hope beyond it. Because of that, the many unnecessary things of the world hinder us in our quest for serenity , while we are working usually under pressure and under inhuman apathy, generating, usually, more and more of them, as the world's resources are dwindling in the name of consumerism. This is my advice: If you are willing to sacrifice some of your reputation in the name of relieving your stress , you should indeed consider it. The perspective of others should not supervise every single area of our public and personal lives. We should also better distinguish between the law of the country and the social code, since both are highly different in their severity, should they be crossed. My hope for a more humane and tolerant society might end in disappointment, but as a philosopher, I'm just doing my "job": seeking what I believe to be the truth, even if disturbing, and analyzing it based on observation, logic, or both. Hence why I believe the taboo of the personal aspect of our lives should be less restricted, so we can have the chance to prevent more and more potential people from suffering from psychological problems that might haunt them and their children for the rest of their lives. Everyone can be a mental victim to repression, even those who were completely fine in their well-being thus far in their lives. It is a silent killer that can arrive to anyone at any moment, after all, so no one is completely safe from its consequences. Do enjoy an extra read.

(Background music) (Philosocom Directory on Work) Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc When it comes to work, we are asked to perform more and more, and there is no end to this request… the obsession that regardless of what we do, it's never enough. When it comes to know when this is good for us or not, we are not the best person who can tell! Here in this article, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is inviting us to reflect and consider when or for what are we to commit ourselves , and thus, see if this is good or not for us? The obvious answer would be, that the more we produce the better rewarded we will be? Is this true for our own good? This article is just asking us to have a look at our motivation towards being addicted or not, or for what purpose we are/should we be addicted to work? Basically, it means that once we are asking too much on our selves, it is not the boss that is asking us to produce, we are sort of used to produce more and more, and this can be an issue that we need to face and try to resolve in our unique case that is fit for us! We as the subjects of the External World become a "mental farm" of which we can be used to gain profit on a regular basis. Knowing that, we are better off using a bit of free time in order to check out if this is worth it...  Should we be letting the system take too much advantage of/over us? "Concerning "work".... as a nation, America has leveled its entire self-worth on the concept. Work used to support society as a whole, but now society supports work. Monstrous" -- Mr. John Duran One of the many flaws of our world is that it encourages us to be as productive as possible. With each advancement in productivity, we are often rewarded with a good increase in our reputation, our own pride, or our motivation to maintain such productivity. However, such advancement comes at a toll on our lives that can make our own endeavors for productivity counterproductive. It may sound like a paradox that our very own efforts to promote ourselves can demote us. In reality, that demotion is not a construct of a "demoting promotion", which does not make sense, but of mere obsession—the obsession that regardless of what we do, it's never enough . This can lead to a situation where we are so focused on being productive that we neglect our own well-being, both physically and mentally. And not only our well-being, at that, but also that of the world... "Society's productiveness" is how we have reached the point at which we now stand: overpopulated, overheated , agriculture artificially stretched to a breaking point, air and water polluted, multiple essential natural resources depleted , oceans dying, forests felled not for the resources they contain, but for grazing land , further choking the lungs of the planet, extinction of plant and animal species rampant. Anyone and anything that has held "society's productiveness" even partially in check is to be treasured and fostered and commended for its irreplaceable service to Humanity. -- Anonymous Therefore, it is important to find a balance between productivity and our own well-being . We should strive to be productive, but we should not let our productivity consume us. It is important to take breaks, to relax, and to do things that we enjoy. If we do not take care of ourselves, we will not be able to be productive in the long run. Workaholism should not be praised by society, because it is an unhealthy condition, even if we regard it as a way to advance our efforts in whatever we are doing. Words such as "addicted", "crazy", "sick", "insane", and so forth, seem to have taken on an opposite meaning from their original definitions, as if being "sick" or "insane" are good things that should be pursued. However, their counterproductive nature lies in the deeper meanings of their consequences. Some of our efforts towards society seem to work against us, rather than for us. This is what we get when we completely abandon any sense of self-care, which in healthy doses (as we are also important, not only others) can be good for us. Workaholism, a condition of addiction that should be treated as such, is a construct of a world that doesn't always know when to take a break. More and more, we are pushed to our limits by family, friends, spouses, and bosses, so we can please them as much as possible. However, this comes at the price of not knowing when to regulate ourselves to relax and recharge. Furthermore, this condition is not only a product of obsession, but also of stress . We are constantly trying to get as much done as fast and as efficiently as possible, so the requirements of whatever we are doing will be met and we will finally be left alone for the remainder of the day. This can lead to burnout, anxiety, and depression. As I wrote in my mysterious book , "The Rubinshteinic Teachings", contemporary civilization, along with its many corporations, seems to benefit from the individual and make a deal off of them, by creating many ways to make them either addicted or stressed, in the name of optimal profit. It could be that because of this very reason the negative-turned-optimistic terms I mentioned earlier have originated ("insane", "sick" and so on). These terms have originated from encouraging us to comply to the demands of many bodies, individual and collective, so we will give them what they want from us, and be finally left alone. Hence, for example, the importance of free time . When we have free time, we are liberated from the demands of the External World, at least temporarily. Anyways, the problem with today's society is that it is too stressful , and the encouragement and/or demand to make us more productive than we already are could have, eventually, a serious toll on our lives. This could be translated to a long-lived sense of frustration, even after our duties to the External World have been met. And, the alleged "horror" of workaholism, like with many addictions, is that no matter how productive we will be, any amount of work wouldn't be enough to satisfy our passion for activity. Since this addiction, again like with many others, is an issue of void. An internal void that is needed to be taken care of more deeply, in a way which continuous, short-term fulfillments, are not enough. That's because while said fulfillments might temporarily satisfy our emotions, they do not permanently answer the mentality, AKA, the mindset, that encourages said void to grow beyond regular proportions. Hence the futility of addiction-fulfilling, obsession-encouraging activities and consumables. From sex to video games and even candies. Activities and consumables which are widely encouraged to be done and to be consumed despite their long-term uselessness. This is how we as the subjects of the External World become a "mental farm" of which we can be used to gain profit on a regular basis. It's also a flaw that exists in the pursuit of the so-called "full-life". Therefore, if we want to satisfy workaholism, no amount of productivity will necessarily fill the void created by ourselves and by those who influence us. No amount of candy, coffee, alcohol, or intercourse will ever fulfill our void as long as we don't fill this void internally. If we do so, we will not only save money and free time, but also become more free from the enslavement that is the spectrum of addictions. We must let go of the suffering-creating, frustrating passions that seem to never go away . Of the desire for more beyond its necessity; and of whatever might only create more void within our minds in the name of short-term gratification. In other words, we must let go if we want to be let go by the misery of our various frustrations, and by the temptations of the more-than-unnecessary things that control our lives and the way they encourage us to unnecessarily spend more and more of our time, money, and mental health. We must take a look at the fruits instead of relentlessly working to raise new ones. Unless you're fine with discontent? (2023 Update: I realized I am fine with being discontent as it allows me to utilize working optimally on Philosocom ). Serenity, all in all, can only be achieved by the void of passion, for passion itself is a form of serenity-halting emotion that stands in our way for a life that could be better lived ; well-lived with less, instead of being less-well-lived, with plenty of more, whether that "more" is an activity or a consumable. Again, unless you would like to put your life at a lower quality in favor of ambitions greater than yourself. This is the problem with today's world: many of us are not strong enough to admit the fallacy of any kind of obsession that is seen and accepted as good hedonistically, even though it can be bad realistically. It's a fallacy that fails to satisfy our egos for the long run. But these are egos that may admits there isn't enough within itself. Hence why they strive to work outside, and not inside of themselves . Because they either know or believe that simply resting is never enough for them to feel content. I am one of them, for I am a means to my own ends. ************************** For more on letting go, click here . Thank you for reading thus far. Feel free to share if you found it insightful for you.

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Bane of the Sensitive -- Push Notifications" is a well-crafted article that explores the impact of push notifications on mental health , particularly their adverse effects on sensitive individuals. Mr. Tomasio skillfully intertwines personal anecdotes with broader societal observations to create a compelling narrative that resonates with a wide audience. The article begins with a personal reflection, setting a relatable foundation for discussing the broader issue of push notifications. The well-organized structure and flow of the piece help maintain reader engagement and comprehension. The philosopher delves deep into the psychological ramifications of constant notifications, linking them to increased stress, anxiety, and disrupted focus. The analogy between personal peace and the intrusion of digital alerts is both poignant and effective in illustrating the broader impact on mental health. The article uses real-world examples to ground its arguments in tangible contexts, making the discussion more relatable. It acknowledges push notifications' role in maintaining user engagement and business success, demonstrating the writer's comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The conclusion offers practical advice for readers, encouraging them to limit push notifications and cultivate a more peaceful digital experience. Overall, "The Bane of the Sensitive -- Push Notifications" is a well-crafted article that effectively raises awareness about the hidden costs of our increasingly connected digital lives. (Background music) Introduction Slowly but surely... I adjusted to fewer social interactions took some time . the quiet was a welcome change. Becoming more and more free from having to answer all the time to other people, just to please them and to not be lonely myself, was something I'm glad I let go of. This experience serves as an analogy for what I want to discuss: the bane of many sensitive souls – push notifications. Them, and how they seem to unconsciously increase our stress levels, instead of reducing them for the sake of our health. The Power (and Peril) of Push Notifications Push notifications are the lifeblood of many websites and apps. They keep users engaged and foster ongoing interaction... Even when said interaction is only desired by only a single party... Both social media platforms and businesses rely on them for success. However, push notifications have a dark side, and it affects everyone, regardless of one's low or high levels of sensitivity. The constant barrage of alerts on devices, disrupts focus and fuels anxiety, a state of heightened alertness. When said alertness is too high, it seems to induce misplaced rage, harming relationships and destroying them as a result. Anyone struggling with anxiety knows the feeling of being on edge or fixated on a source of worry – both forms of high alert. In schools, for example, push notifications might be a key culprit behind students' inability to concentrate on their schoolwork. This could be one of the many reasons as well, as to why many of them keep failing tests, and thus hindering their own academic success... And their own success in the orthodox ways of this world in general. This is why cinemas enforce phone silence – the notifications disrupt not only the phone owner but everyone around them. Traditional cinemas, at least, do it. Not necessarily those that are more... Anarchic in nature. When Notifications Go Too Far The real trouble with push notifications starts when they intrude on your peace of mind. A "significant" example involves Facebook push notifications.... An innocent comment that I wrote on a post triggered a "lynching" by strangers. Ridicule, shaming, and insults stemmed from their misunderstanding of my autistic point of view. In this world, curiosity is a mere, personal choice, rather than a preached value in the medias, influencing the "herd" whose mentality they socially-engineer. On the other hand, apathy is a very common trait in this modern world. Combine these two, plus the anxiety-inducing push notifications, and what you get is mass irrationality. In theory, this is done on purpose, as to keep engagement within platforms. Engagement that is converted into data, and sold to third parties. As such, supporting a technologically-advancing world due to its mere developments is a product of the progression fallacy, or the "appeal to novelty". The unhealthy use of highly-advanced technological features, that come at the cost of your mental health, merely to make something as simple as an innocent comment or interaction, is to be condemned. This experience highlights a harsh reality of online interactions, which may or may not be devised on purpose by the very corporations who capitalize on user engagement, be it positive, be it negative... The artificial impression that you have to respond, due to the flickering sounds of your smartphone, is a delusion of necessity. Seeking Peace in the Digital Age The unregulated push notification, which should compel us to regulate it personally... seems to compel people for greater aggression and unnecessary drama with each other. Of course, this excessive drama over something as simple as a text on the screen, demonstrates the folly of excessiveness,  and the need for a greater balance in our priorities.... Balance. That is the infrastructure necessary for our health. Health, is the infrastructure that allows us to prosper. Prosperity, is the infrastructure necessary for a greater array of decisions, and the sound, logical mind, is the infrastructure, imperative for us to make the right decisions , within said array. It all starts with balance, therefore. As such, balance is key to peace. Peace, and a greater wellbeing. As a result of these negative experiences, I disabled most push notifications, so I could rest in peace.... Rest while alive that is! I prefer to use more timing-based approaches to my conduct with people, so both me and them would actually be prepared to peacefully discuss with one another. Conflicts only deteriorate our serenity and our mental health. Why should I bother with a method that triggers and regulates aggressive behavior with humans? Why must I use conventional methods of communication, like social media, when it encourages a habit for people to simply lash out at each other without warning? When the conventional fails to cater for one's needs, one resorts to the unconventional, until these needs are met with minimal need for one to sacrifice their own sanity. For the basic functions of engaging with this world, one must not think they have to sacrifice themselves in full. One must not see assumption as necessity. Negative. That assumption is to be criticized, if not lambasted , until an alternative is either found or made! That is how we should approach technology in general! How to Protect Your Interest For Peace in a World of War To cultivate a sense of enduring peace in my new, quieter life, I had to leave push notifications behind, just like many things... and many people too. When your pro-morality, pro-health interests are discarded by people, such people render their pro-health, pro-moral worth as lesser. Their size of reputation matters less to me personally, in a world that prioritizes luxury instead. If you find yourself easily affected by negativity , here's my advice: Just try to limit push notifications, so you can focus on your respective tasks and on your ability to rest. As an ascetic I easily discard technology when it fails to cater to my priorities. I am the one consuming it. I refuse letting a mere tool consume me instead. I am the customer, therefore I am the "king". Don't let the hostility of others turn your sensitivity into a burden. The internet offers immense knowledge and entertainment, but its global reach comes with a downside. Learn to block out the negativity and focus on building a more peaceful digital experience.... Given the logical interconnectivity of this reality, consider the fact that doing so, can improve your experience in the physical world, as well. You can even use your digital presence to be a force of good in this world, not a force of excessive stress. You know, to help others in their times of distress. Be a beacon of light , from the comfort of your own home... Must we waste time deteriorating a world whose flaws we can have the power to rectify? Sources: https://www.ibm.com/topics/push-notifications https://qz.com/819284/you-dont-have-to-switch-off-push-notifications-personalized-notifications-can-help-reduce-our-anxiety

(Background music) (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Importance of Rules & Their Impact on Human Mentality" is a compelling exploration of the role that rules and laws play in shaping human society and behavior. Mr. Tomasio presents a balanced perspective on the necessity of rules for cooperation and societal stability while acknowledging the drawbacks and complexities associated with authority and governance. The article raises thought-provoking questions about the nature of rules and their impact on human behavior, challenging readers to think about why we need rules even when we often dislike them. The discussion on the balance between order and chaos is particularly insightful, as it effectively illustrates the dangers of a rule-less society and emphasizes how rules provide the necessary framework for cooperation and societal progress. This dichotomy is explored with concrete examples, such as the formation of cartels and the hypothetical scenario of a lawless world. The article takes a nuanced approach by considering both the positive and negative aspects of rules and governance. It does not shy away from highlighting the potential for oppression and exploitation under the guise of law and order but also acknowledges the essential role that rules play in maintaining social cohesion, advancing technology, and enabling human cooperation on a large scale. The philosopher's writing style is engaging and personal, using rhetorical questions and first-person reflections to create a connection with the reader and make the content more relatable and compelling. The article is enriched with relevant examples and analogies that help illustrate complex ideas, such as the comparison of a society without rules to a post-apocalyptic scenario or the reference to "The Purge." The article dives deep into the complexities of human nature and governance, questioning whether true love and altruism can exist under the constraints of laws and rules. It explores the idea that while rules are necessary, they can also limit human potential and foster feelings of resentment and distrust. The final section provides a constructive reflection on what it means to be a decent leader or ruler, suggesting that genuine consideration for the human element and the interests of subordinates can help foster trust and compliance. In conclusion, the article provides a rich and multifaceted exploration of the importance of rules and their impact on human mentality, engaging the reader in a meaningful dialogue about the nature of authority, governance, and human cooperation. ************ "Rules exist because people are afraid of what would happen if they didn't" -- John Duran Why We Need Rules, Even if We Don't Like Them If there were no rules, there would be no cooperation, Importance of Rules are there to ensure the procedure of cooperation, and enforce its continuation . Without cooperation, the continuation of complex organizations and advanced technology wouldn't exist, for there must be cooperation to develop and maintain them. This, in turn, could lead to significantly fewer humans on the planet, and to far less advancements in any field regarding human knowledge and invention. With the power of cooperation, now available on a planetary scale, we are able to ensure the procedure of many complex collaborations, required for the initiation, growth and preservation of countless projects. And without rules, AKA, agreed terms of conduct, these joint efforts would either go badly, or less-than-optimally. Why, then, do we so often despise the authorities, even if they are there to maintain order? We all have our own reasons, and that includes myself with my despise of social conventions. However, it cannot be denied that we need to agree on how to behave, or how to conduct, in order to co-exist with one another and to perform and oversee many collaborations. Without laws, we'd likely see a fragmented landscape of small communities, or even gangs or warbands, like in post-apocalyptic scenarios . Some might be controlled by tyrannical leaders, relying on raw power and fear to maintain order. Others might be held together by bonds of friendship , but these groups would be fragile and vulnerable whenever conflicts pose a threat to their collective existence. Still, others might be manipulated by charismatic, charming figures, deceived through grandiose visions and empty promises. In such a world, security would be limited to the immediate strength of your own group, against that of other groups. Money and finance would lose their meaning in the absence of stable institutions and safe trade. If anything, barter would be both the norm and the last resort. Rules and authorities, for all their flaws, serve as the grounds for cooperation, advanced technology, a chance for societies to prosper, under the limitation and regulation of individual behavior. They provide a framework for peaceful coexistence, and create the conditions for economic growth, as much as they can provide the opposite: A setting ground for oppression, exploitation and conquest. While we may disagree with specific policies or actions, despising the very system that underpins our well-being might ignore the general picture, to say the least. Can We Truly Love Naturally Under the Tyranny of Law? Because laws are necessarily there to limit the individual, we cannot expect general society to freely enable love between humans. For the best way to love a person is to let them be the best version of themselves. And you cannot do that when you strive to limit them in the name of collective interest. In a sense, under the tyranny of law, the individual is exploited by having his or her freedoms stripped from them, in the name of the collective ambition, or procedure, the laws are there to enforce and regulate. As such even in the most liberal of democracies, some limitation is to be applied , so the procedure of the democratic system would commence smoothly. You cannot expect people to simply love each other naturally when their natural behaviors serve as grounds for conflict over authority and even ego. Loyalty originates most especially when the individual allows themselves to be limited, not only by consent, but also by a genuine will for a certain procedure to occur. As such, syndicates , in whatever field of human organization, occur when individuals collectively strip away their own personal freedoms in the name of a common interest/s. And you might not have that in countries, where the law applies on you without either consent or honest desire. Because the country can be quick to disregard you as a human being who is entitled to both features, you might feel a burning passion to disregard the country as well. As such, since the country does not care for your desires and agreements, as long as you'll do what it will say, they will leave you alone. The only exception, unless there are others, is its own consent to give you welfare. As such, "naturally", feelings of hatred and distrust may stem from the populace towards the country, despite the perks it gives them, by limiting them and enforcing its will on them without considering their thoughts and opinions beyond the democratic forms of resistance (such as protests and private media). A state/country that naturally disregards its citizenry cannot contain as much true love as it was more considerate of them. As its anti-love approach is normalized, people may gradually forget how it is to love one another as human beings. To love one another, and let one another be themselves. As such, even without good feelings towards the country and its government, people may act as oppressive as the country itself. How can humanity be desired in such societies? No. When we disregard others, we can be quick to create unnecessary foes. And as such, our world is built out of an endless series of wars, struggling over gaining power and reducing the freedom of others. All in the name of allowing interests to come into fruition, in the form of procedures, and their enforcement. Due to the country's (any country's) inconsiderate nature, I'd like to suggest this as the reason for psychopaths and sociopaths getting high in the ranks of society. That's because a common trait both types of people have, is disregard towards others. The Relationships Between Chaos and Order Imagine a world without rules, a lawless anarchy. It's easy to romanticize freedom, but the reality would be far bleaker. Without limitations, motivation to cooperate the operation of small-scale interest would be hindering the formation of large, cooperative societies. No government? No collective potential was realized thousands and even millions realized. We might as well remain in the Stone Age or some other primitive era. Yet, despite the frustration of a parking ticket or a speeding fine, the police are, ultimately, the guardians that preserve this potential to exist in its current state (for good and for bad of course). Even in this hypothetical, enforce-less world, rules would eventually emerge, vital for the survival and growth of small bands. Slowly, these bands will form coalitions to maintain their interests and prevent future conflicts with one another, leading to order. This is, by the way, how cartels form : Competition leads to conflict, and conflict is bad for business (sabotage of rival operations for instance). So, in order to increase overall business, organizations reorganize into cartels. As such, it is within collective interest to limit one another, and it can be done either voluntarily or involuntarily. Fear of punishment or the hope for justice would justify the enforcement of laws, deterring traitors and thieves. Little love can actually be found between humans and it's one of the many reasons figures like Jesus Christ, fictional or otherwise, are considered exceptional. But in a world devoid of such exceptional love of humankind, outlaws and criminals would beg for redemption, serving as a grim example for others. No matter how much we crave dynamic, unrestrained behavior, some form of law is inevitable for smooth functioning, whether formally or informally. And those who resist that system, if powerful enough, can have the power to tear it down, thus leading further into chaos. This fantasy about humans living happily ever after in eternal co-existence is far from realistic because we are driven more by interests rather than by genuine love for each other. Along with alienation , this leads to society continuously being a stage for conflict, thus eliminating the absolute possibility for long-term peace with one another. With community growth comes the extraction of collective potential, leading to advancements in various fields. Technology has freed us from many premature deaths, yet it also carries the potential for immense destruction , especially if global laws are broken. Execution for violating laws remains a reality in some parts of the world, highlighting the ability of some states and countries to take away lives of human beings under the value of the law. A Short Guide To Decent Rulership While we may be irritated at the constraints of rules, their role in shaping and safeguarding humanity is undeniable. Whether just or unjust, these limitations have been, are, and will continue to be the fabric of which our collective development and preservation rests. Imagine a hypothetical "purge" where all laws were temporarily dissolved. The ensuing chaos would be a grim reminder of the fragility of order, potentially leading to the deaths of countless individuals, should their enforcement fail terribly. It's this crucial role of order that once sparked my childhood fantasies of becoming a police officer, like the originally imposing figures of Imperial Stormtroopers, originally being portrayed as an elite military force. The idea of upholding the law, of reducing crime and its devastating consequences, held a certain allure to me. To actively contribute to the entity I would have served, to see criminals face legal repercussions and prevent future harm – that, for me, would be the essence of impactful work. But in the end, there is no law enforcement force that will not have, at least in potential, apply violence on its own populace. This further escalates the possibility of a great distrust between the government and its citizenry. And how can you love the very entity that can send out people to harm you in the name of the law? The very entity that calls to limit you, as well? If you want people to obey your inevitable rule, to comply, consider remembering how to be a decent human being first. Make people want to comply. Consider the human element that is within your subordinates. Consider their interests, and they will consider taking you in higher regard as well.

AI art given without credit. Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Olympics, Sports and National Identity -- A Philosophy of Individual Excellence, Not Collective" presents a critique of the relationship between sports, national pride, and individual achievement. It challenges the conventional notion that Olympic victories are representative of a nation's overall excellence, instead suggesting that they are reflective of individual efforts rather than collective national identity. The article presents a thought-provoking argument that questions the widely accepted idea that the successes of a few athletes can be equated to national pride. By arguing that individual achievements are often mistakenly generalized to represent an entire nation, Mr. Tomasio invites readers to reconsider the logic behind celebrating Olympic victories as a matter of national importance. The article effectively identifies and explains logical fallacies that underpin the traditional narratives of national pride in sports. For example, it discusses the pitfalls of inductive reasoning , assuming that the accomplishments of a select few reflect the capabilities or identity of a whole nation. The reference to the "hasty generalization fallacy" helps to articulate how national representation in sports is often misguided. The piece stands out for its original viewpoint, contrasting individual and national identities, and presenting a compelling argument that national boundaries are becoming less relevant in a globalized world where individual achievement is more accessible through various platforms. The use of North Korea and other authoritarian regimes as exceptions to the argument provides a balanced perspective, acknowledging that different political and cultural contexts might result in different relationships between the individual and the nation. The article also uses creative cultural references, such as the analogy between the Olympics and the Tekken video game , to illustrate how different societies might view the relationship between the individual and the nation. In conclusion, the article presents a thought-provoking critique of the relationship between sports, individual achievement, and national identity, challenging readers to reconsider the rationale behind national pride in the context of international sports events. (Background music) Why the Olympics Captivate Us The Olympics, a spectacle that unfolds every few years, ignites a global collaboration unlike any other. Athletes from across the world compete on a single stage, pushing their limits to achieve the pinnacle of their sport, similar to the premise of the Tekken games. On the surface, it resembles countless other competitions – the pursuit of romantic validation, workplace dominance, or academic excellence. And in general, it represents the competitive nature of human reality , where the victor is rewarded for displaying the most merit. You can't get more meritocratic than participating in a full-on meritocratic association. This is where a pure meritocracy actually works. However, the allure of the Olympics, and similar international events, stems from a fundamental misconception. It's the fallacy that a single victor, or a select group of representatives, can embody the essence of an entire nation . An entire nation with its diverse citizenry and a large range of skillsets, both great and poor. The national pride associated with Olympic victories therefore raises a critical question: Why should the triumphs of a few be seen as a reflection of the entire nation? In logic, that is known as induction, whose opposite is called deduction, a far more logical concept, compared to the pitfalls of inductive reasoning . Why National Pride in Sports is Misplaced National pride prospers with every Olympic victory, but let us further dissect the logic behind it. Imagine a weightlifter, whose body endured the agony of years of training, winning a gold medal. How exactly does this singular feat translate to national pride? How is this unique bodybuilder, a representation of a country that might not necessarily be as physically powerful as him? Here's the disconnection that's overlooked: a nation's sporting prowess isn't synonymous with the physical fitness of its entire, or even most, of its population. A champion weightlifter could hail from a country with a high obesity rate, like the United States. The victor, in this case, represents themselves, not the collective health of their nation. Can you say, for example, that American weightlifter Katherine Vibert is an accurate representation of the average American woman, despite being one of the best athletes in her class? According to Fitnessvolt , the untrained woman can bench-press 80 to 90 pounds, which is around 36 to 40 kg. Vibert/Nye, on the other hand, managed to clean-and-jerk 136kg, or 299 pounds, becoming the youngest U.S. woman to earn an Olympic or world title. Can you really say this was a national feature, when the first Olympic games began in 1896 ? That victory isn't American. Our lives are separated, not united just because of a social category. This fundamental mismatch between individual achievement and national identity is how national-based sports events lose their rational appeal. Nations are vast networks of skill sets, a far cry from a singular identity. These networks don't necessarily even have anything to do with one another, let alone when it comes to the members within them. Don't think we have anything in common just because we're men, because we're on the spectrum and so on. A deeper connection and collaboration takes more than one or few things in common. And when it comes to mastery of skill, it's often something that's done alone. National borders, in today's globalized world , hold less weight. The internet unlocks a world of learning, making geographical origin less relevant in shaping an individual's skillset. It even diminishes much of the need to socialize. While a nation might nurture talent through funding and programs, such benefits don't boil down to every citizen, and much of their accomplishment, in the first place, comes from their own willpower and inner strength. Beyond Borders: The Mismatch Between Individual and Nation National representation in sports often overlooks a crucial aspect: the individual's identity transcends national boundaries, as well as societal in general . Athletes, artists, or anyone representing a nation have personal lives, passions, and skills that may or may not align with their national identity. This mismatch between individual and nation applies universally, regardless of skillset or profession. And it's only when you actually prove your worth on such a historic scale, is often when your nation actually cares about you, the individual. Without your demonstration of skill , your country might as well leave you to starve on the streets. That is the hypocrisy of many nations without a regard to welfare. Even national dominance wouldn't change that, as that's just a minority representation, not a representation of a whole. It's a representation of a minority that isn't persecuted or victimized but cherished. For true representation, the hasty generalization fallacy needs to be addressed. The representative needs to have a common connection with the average citizen, fostering a sense of "They represent not only my nation, but also myself as an individual." Without this personal connection, it becomes a detached act, disregarding the individual who forms the foundation of the collective. And thus, our affinity with the olympics, when generalized, turns into the para-social fallacy as well. Bonus: A Glimpse into North Korean Patriotism However, there might be exceptions. North Korea, or other authoritarian regimes, exhibit a different dynamic. Oppressive systems may engineer a deep national identity within individuals through carefully-planned strategic communication , potentially blurring the lines between self and nation. If I may, I would like to share with you a beautiful North Korean music video, not because I love that country (not at all! I hate it!) It's just because I want to show an example of how patriotism is done: By using the national identity and combining it, with little distinction, with the individual identity. It's also where the collective actually recruits the individual to its cause, and not forsakes him or her if they don't demonstrate their own excellence. The song in question is about encouraging education, not only for your own sake. It's also for the sake of the country. I actually think it is a great message. It gives the individual a purpose that extends beyond his or her own egotistical pursuits. Can you say the same about contemporary South Korean KPOP music? Please turn on translation and English subtitles and enjoy!

(Philosocom's Disability Directory) (Background music) “Disability is a matter of perception . If you can do just one thing well , you're needed by someone.” -- Martina Navratilova After attending an online philosophy course about pure idealism (the absence of any physicality), I, as (largely) a physicalist, have come to a possible truth about the concept of disability.... Since we humans are limited beings in our various capabilities, it is safe to assume that many of our limitations are in fact disabilities. Even if we are functioning, average, or above average individuals. Disability is pretty much individual, whether or not welfare is received for it. It can be innate as well as acquired, like philosophy itself. How are all of us disabled? If we are to take a look at a textbook-disabled person, some of them are only disabled in comparison to someone else, or more specifically, the archetype of what a normal human being is and what normalcy entails. Disability is not per standards but per personal ability that may or may not be accessible for competence. However, if most people, if not everyone, had the same disability as the person in question, would we be considered disabled... or normal? After all, the premise about disability is that one who has it cannot function as much as the relative "normal" archetype. Why do we keep making these irrelevant comparisons when disability only has to do with specific activities we specifically cannot do? Why do we keep treating disabled people as an unseen minority when we are all disabled in our own respective ways? If we were all blind, for example, that would not necessarily be considered a disability as it is today, simply because it would be the "norm" to not see. The Widemouth Blindcat is a blind fish that lives in total darkness. His blindness isn't even a disability, given his circumstances. Rather, wouldn't vision be the one disabling him, 900 feet below the surface of San Antonio, Texas? In some way, we humans are also confined to any place with air, which means we are unable to swim or be in outer space for a long time without appropriate equipment. Even if we cannot, the mere fact that we are unable, renders us in a way, to be disabled. In other words, whether you have no human-relative disabilities or not, you are still disabled—all because you are, by existence, confined as we all are, away from omnipotence. The difference between a "truly" disabled person and someone else is that the latter is as disabled as any human is, while the former is uniquely disabled. If a cat were able to hear like a human, it would be considered as someone who suffers from a hearing deficiency, as it is not usual for a cat to hear as less as a human. It is not a way to condescend over people, but it is known that a cat's array of senses is far greater than that of a normal human. Thus, they are less "disabled" than we are. Likewise, should an alien species, capable of flying in the air solely with the power of their minds, integrate fully with our own civilization, then eventually, to be a human would be considered a "disability" just as being autistic or deaf will. Why? Because it would then be normalized to fly without the assistance of vehicles. Pure humans, who are unable to do so, might be considered as "aerodynamically disabled", like penguins became. And therefore, airplanes might be equal to wheelchairs in this scenario. We are all disabled in a sense that we are confined to our consciousness. We cannot perceive nor experience anything without the minion that is the mind . Because of that, some thinkers may believe that there is, in fact, no such thing as the "physical reality," just as the solipsist will tell you that only they exist. Why? It's not that they are mentally ill or handicapped just for having these beliefs—after all, who can truly say what lies beyond our subjective experience? Hence why the mind is like a lifelong caretaker that gives you the newspaper every morning, as you cannot do so yourself. How can we know if the mind does not do things to said papers in some way? How can we know if they write whatever they want and give it to us under the guise of being an actual newspaper? Our own mind is our cane, our wheelchair, our respirator...

(Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "On Ungratefulness and Entitlement - Exploring The Depth and Solutions of a Toxic Cycle" delves into the complexities of ungratefulness and entitlement, offering solutions for breaking the toxic cycle they perpetuate. It is reflective and philosophical, tackling difficult ideas like narcissism, entitlement, and the importance of gratitude. The article's strengths include its philosophical depth and personal reflection, using references like Taoism to emphasize the contrast between peace of mind and toxic behaviors. Mr. Tomasio acknowledges that entitlement isn't inherently negative, but there are justified forms of entitlement, particularly when individuals have worked hard or made sacrifices. By using real-world examples, the article provides practical ways to think about and recognize entitlement and ungratefulness in everyday life, providing useful insights. In conclusion, the article is thought-provoking and demonstrates a deep understanding of the complexities of ungratefulness and entitlement. Part I: Ungratefulness: A Despicable Downgrade Ungratefulness is one of the most despicable personality traits, especially in a world built on work, favor, and tribute. Whether these components involve personal gain like money or other compensation, an ungrateful person disregards the efforts of others, as meaningful as they objectively were (like helping someone with insights, like offering humane shelter to a homeless, like saving someone from distress, and so on). This disregard is often amplified by a sense of entitlement. Entitlement breeds the belief that one deserves something or a lot more from others, and demonstrates their emotional difficulty in letting go of such conditions. When these expectations aren't met, ungrateful individuals may disregard or even insult those who have worked for them or helped them outside the professional world. As such, depending on demands, the ungrateful and the entitled become the practical antithesis to the philosophy of Taoism, the writings and the way of life that are imperative for a calmer, less stressful life. The ungratefulness literally stresses the ungrateful for others to comply with their demands, which of course stresses them. The problem isn't necessarily the ungrateful person, as much as their clinginess to entitlement (and sometimes privilege as well). Case example: The Null World of Narcissism In narcissism, the sense of superior entitlement stems from the fear of negative emotions . Narcissists thus become pro-social and anti-philosophical as a coping mechanism and a way to deny how empty they truly feel inside. Of course societies that breed individualism and the ego are ideal for their self-denying ungratefulness. As such, ....Data provides empirical evidence that sociocultural factors are associated with differences in narcissism and self-esteem. -- PLoS One The narcissist has not truly self-esteem. Underneath it all, they are in fact more fragile than one might think. The Toxic Atmosphere of Ungratefulness Ungratefulness is a repulsive trait that undervalues the efforts of others. Imagine dedicating hours to a project only to be met with criticism. While not everyone is inherently ungrateful, many fail to appreciate the work and effort that goes into creations, as with the example of writing, as... “Easy reading is damn hard writing.” -- Nathaniel Hawthorne Even flawed products, like bad movies, deserve recognition for the time and energy invested. Not everyone possesses the skills to write or produce, so it's essential to acknowledge the endeavor involved. However, it doesn't mean we should encourage narcissistic traits in people... especially those who are susceptible to actually develop narcissistic personality disorder. We should, instead, strive for equity in our judgement. We don't always know if someone is capable of developing such a disorder, and we don't always understand we can be the environmental factor imperative for their genetic tendencies. Many personality disorders begin with genetics. Ungratefulness is not only repulsive but also stems from unrealistic expectations. When these expectations aren't met, people may disregard the work entirely, overlooking its positive aspects. For example, a customer at a restaurant might become upset if given the wrong drink, despite enjoying the food and the customer service. As you can tell this stems, also, from the difficulty of distinguishing what is primary and what is secondary. "Kli" and "Tochen" are both objective and subjective. While reactions may vary, it's challenging for many to overcome perfectionist expectations. This applies to various fields, from restaurants to other service industries. Part II: The Nuances Empowering Entitlement Entitlement isn't inherently bad. Sometimes, it's justified, such as when someone has earned something through hard work or sacrifice . However, entitlement can become problematic when it's directed towards those who haven't benefited directly from your efforts, like family, friends, or volunteers. It's important to remember that not everything in life comes with a price tag. Worldwide, literal pricing of products is subjective for context-specific reasons. That is why you can do good business in places like New Zealand , and less good in Indonesia. If you've received something without significant personal sacrifice, expressing gratitude is appropriate, even if the outcome isn't perfect. On the other hand, entitlement is justified when you've made a substantial investment and receive a disappointing product or service. In such cases, it's reasonable to seek compensation or address the issue with the company. Subjectivity As an Active, Concrete Force For a Wonderful Wellbeing Entitlement is therefore realized as complex, depending its legitimacy on many, many parameters, and without a universally-clear idea for it. As such, using Occam's Razor, we can deduce that entitlement is justified when it is agreed by all relevant parties (as in the case of a dispute). Those who utterly refuse to understand in an equitable manner, automatically become unnecessarily problematic for their own, self-biased sense of justice , ignoring the logical fact of interconnectivity. That is the dark, subjective aspect of being ungrateful: When one deems their pain, more important than the employment of critical thinking for optimal conflict-resolution. Love makes us prioritize a more holistic approach to justice, increasing justice overall. That is understood, given that nothing exists in a vacuum independent of logic products and outcomes. The root cause of ungratefulness, therefore, stems from a hurt ego that fails healing itself in non-destructive ways. The Tenacious Value of Time In Entitlement While free content might seem like a very tempting bargain, the biggest investment is often time for both the reader and the writer. Given that none of us are immortal, it's crucial to consider how you allocate it. Allocate not only for the content itself, but in the name of your subjective set of moral values. This is why I focus on writing articles rather than books , and also why they are often summarized on the regular. Articles allow for quick consumption and internalization (demonstrated in reflection). Your time management philosophy is yours to decide. I simply provide the content. The choice is yours to sink in ungratefulness, constructive criticism, or outright exiting Philosocom and moving on with your life. Books, on the other hand, require a more significant time investment due to their length and depth.   In today's world of short attention spans, content should adapt to the evolving needs of future generations, while still maintaining the ability to be understood when it is complex. This might involve creating shorter, more attractive formats ( like having AI art, links to music and smaller paragraphs for easier digestion). Nuances From A Personal Perspective I am already aware of the shortcoming of being grateful. I don't "deserve" your validation. The only equality I truly believe in is the equality of opportunity, necessary for a competent, fair meritocracy. For sure, chances are hard to be given to certain people, like ex-criminals. That is exactly why justice is so hard to attain, for there is no clear definition of what we are truly entitled to, as already written. I really believe in giving people chances to redeem themselves, not out of pity but for a better world than this one. Of course, not out of entitlement either. We are not entitled for a better world! We are simply condemned by our immense liberty , by the very same thing we praise. Part III: Constructive Criticism -- How To Be Grateful For Feedback While it's tempting to dismiss ungrateful individuals, there's value in listening to those who can offer constructive feedback. By seeking out diverse perspectives, we can challenge our biases and move closer to the truth. However, the more we will avoid improving our ability to handle criticism , the more difficult it will be for us to be grateful. Rectifying this world compels us to rectify ourselves first, and focus less on embracing our flaws. As such, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to appreciate your work , especially those with intentional biases, stronger than their desire to explore. Trying to please everyone is like trying to stop someone from leaving by clinging to their leg, and therefore, anti-philosophical. Just try to peacefully let go from those who utterly refuse changing their opinions about you. Anything you say to them can, what? Can be twisted by their confirmation bias. Focus on the positive, and you'll save yourself from willingly entering a petty rivalry. Aim to avoid the battle, and try to appreciate what was good with these people. The Liberating Value of Letting Go Since it's impossible to satisfy everyone, by bothering with this unrealistic tendency? Why lament the less-realistic, when we can aim to attain our realistic ambitions, instead? If something becomes so failing that no success can realistically heal it from its failure state, why bother? That, would be like feeding entire planets to a being that needs to eat planets on the regular. Instead of striving for perfection, focus on achieving the best possible outcome. Take note that the best possibility may alter with time due to forces beyond your control. You lack omniscience, correct? Name a human l that doesn't. Being open to different perspectives (enabling learning them and also enabling yourself to criticize them in your mind), you can improve your work and build stronger relationships through a more-effective navigation than otherwise. Article Conclusion: Understanding the Deteriorating Delusion of Necessity Ungratefulness can be seen as a delusion of reality, as it can easily defend one's well being on entitlement. The ungrateful may complain about lacking something, but is it truly essential for their satisfaction? Did Alexander the Great need to conquer the world just to bee happy? Why must we depend on our wellbeing on very, very specific ambitions? And if we already do it, why must these specific ambitions be unrealistic? In a world that is often unfair and imperfect, expecting more from others can be unrealistic, especially when their efforts have met the sufficient criteria at hand (as in the case of being provided good food and good service, but a mistake in giving you the drink you requested). A product or experience doesn't need to be perfect to be enjoyable or effective. By focusing on the positive aspects and avoiding unrealistic expectations, we can cultivate a more grateful and fulfilling outlook on life. Also, compassion towards others can reduce not only their suffering, but yours as well, as compassion can help the world be less antagonistic. Understand how the ruthless pursuit of justice causes you unnecessary grief as well. Personal Conclusion: How I Became Less Entitled in a Careful Childhood Even video games, often subject to much severe lambasting, can be enjoyed without every imaginable feature. As a child, I fantasized about additional features in my favorite games, and I always preferred seeing flaws in them as triggers for my creative thinking. I found it much better than whining, and I still do to this day as a writer. You can instead develop your ability to be original through creative experimentation. Resentment is unnecessary when one can learn to appreciate what exists, and build a better existence using the existent.

Article Synopsis By Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "7 Notes About Philosophy -- How To Understand Philosophy With Greater Clarity" provides a unique perspective on the nature of philosophy, focusing on the distinction between academic study and the personal act of philosophizing. It aims to demystify philosophy and make it more accessible to a broader audience. The article breaks down complex ideas into more digestible pieces, using analogies to help readers understand abstract concepts through familiar terms. The emphasis on personal philosophizing over formal academic study is refreshing and empowering, encouraging readers to think critically and creatively without the constraints of academic requirements. The critique of academic philosophy is bold and thought-provoking, challenging the notion that a degree is necessary for philosophical inquiry. This perspective could spark important discussions about the role of academia in the modern world and the value of self-directed learning. The article recognizes the challenges of engaging in philosophy as a career, particularly outside of academia. The points about limited professional opportunities for philosophers and the realities of monetizing philosophical content are realistic and pragmatic, offering a grounded view of the field that is often romanticized. The article makes a strong case for the continued relevance of philosophy , especially in a world increasingly dominated by science and technology. By distinguishing between empirical science and the logical inquiry of philosophy, the article defends the unique contributions that philosophy can make to our understanding of existence and purpose. The discussion on the role of debate in philosophy is nuanced and considerate, acknowledging that not all philosophers are suited for or interested in debating. This point encourages readers to respect different approaches to philosophical inquiry and understand that not all philosophical work needs to be confrontational. The author's personal reflections add an authentic and relatable voice to the article, making it more engaging and less abstract for readers. Overall, this article provides a valuable and fresh perspective on philosophy, making it more accessible and encouraging independent thought.   (Background music) Introduction Philosophy is a field that to this day remains within the more-esoteric sphere of study, due to both the difficulties of studying philosophy , and due to other fields, mostly scientific , that are becoming more dominant in the quest for knowledge, wisdom and truth. Because of being kicked within the relatively-far corner of intellectual roles and/or occupations, there are some things that might remain misunderstood about it. The Notes Hence why I made a list of a few things that should be considered when it comes to philosophy: An Academic Fallacy 1. You don’t have to have a degree in philosophy to be a philosopher. Having a degree in philosophy is nice and impressive, but insufficient for one to be considered a philosopher. It’s not like in other areas of academic study that you have the title of what you’re studying. In other words, studying philosophy isn’t the same as philosophizing. When you study philosophy you try to understand an existing text . Philosophizing, however, compels you to not only consume existing content but also create your own. And unlike in other fields, such as medicine, you don't need to be qualified academically doing just that. The belief that this qualification exists leads to the redundancy of the same result problem . For this matter, the concept I just mentioned is my own because I devised it by philosophizing. As such, studying a concept is not the same as creating it. Philosophizing compels you to study in order to devise. That's while getting a degree requires you to only study existing material. And that's why a degree alone in philosophy does not make you a philosopher but a scholar in this field; someone with much acquired knowledge, rather than knowledge created by themselves through creativity and the synthesis of existing notions. Teaching about other philosophers and their history is not the same as coming up with new ideas, insights and concepts for you and others to consider. And indeed, one of the reasons why I quit university is because I realized I don't have much to do with a potential philosophy degree beyond lecturing about the work of others. It makes such a degree not only not exactly necessary, but also fairly impractical for research I can conduct on my own. Conduct, sometimes merely by contemplating on reality . On Reading and Writing Philosophy ​2. You don't have to be well-versed in the philosophy of famous philosophers in order to be a philosopher. However, having knowledge about them and their philosophies can surely contribute to your knowledge and improve your reputation. Yet, that contribution isn't necessary for the title of "philosopher" to be applied. A philosopher is a philosophy content creator, or one that contemplates on reality and then records it somehow, whether alone or through students (as in the example of Socrates, who wasn't a writer, and had Plato record his thoughts ). Contemplating on the deeper aspects of existence and/or having them published is all it takes to philosophize. Be recognized for it, as something you do like an occupation, and you will become a philosopher like a nation exists de-facto because it's widely recognized as such. As an analogy, the pretentious philosopher, the make-believe intellectual , is like a micronation -- classified for no official recognition whatsoever. Just look at very early philosophers, who technically had little-to-no other examples of previous philosophers to follow, and they were still philosophers nonetheless. The existence of a precursor is not necessary, only beneficial. For comparison, having a lot of knowledge about famous Nazis and Nazism does not make yourself a Nazi. An intrinsic trait, or a set of traits, is required to be a philosopher as prerequisites. Another set of traits is required in order to be a good philosopher , AKA, good at philosophizing. Being well-versed in other philosophers doesn't by itself make you a philosopher like being well versed in the history of Nazism doesn't make you a nazi. Maybe an armchair historian at best, through extensive study , in both cases of this analogy. And while a historian doesn't have to "make history" or be a historic figure, he or she produces content as well. Content is therefore proof of philosophership. On Occupation and Profession 3. By large, being a philosopher isn't a job unless it's academic . The closest one can be a philosopher as a profession nowadays, that's not academic in nature is to either lecture or publish writings that are about philosophy, independently. In other words, a contemporary philosopher can be any kind of philosophy content creator, whether that content is monetized or not, through whatever media available to sufficiently transfer philosophical ideas (blogs, videos, and so forth). Whether or not forms like reels and tiktok videos are competent at delivering philosophical content competently is debatable . Despite their thriving online, these forms of media delivery are with good reason considered teasers, instead of something sufficient like an article. Thus, anyone who creates philosophical content on a regular basis can be regarded as a philosopher, especially when the content that is created is of their own rather than of other philosophers. Like in the retail industry, each philosopher is their own brand of content creation. Arguably, can we really say that making teaser-like philosophy shorts is competent for one to be a good philosopher? I'm leaving this debate for you to contemplate. Let's move on. The Outsiders of Academia 4. Based On What I Wrote, Philosophy doesn't have to be purely academic. Philosophers do not depend on academic studies unless they are looking for financial security as academics. Nietzsche for a large portion of his life was an independent philosopher , for example, and wasn't an academic philosopher, but a professor of classical philology who resigned early. Another example is David Hume who failed becoming a philosophy professor, only finding a full-time job in his 40's as a library keeper . Additionally, not everyone, including philosophers, are fit for the intensity of academic life . Whether or not they have the financial ability to afford it, the demanding regimen of study can deplete one's energies and demotivate them. By viewing academia as a "middle man", we can cut it off from our lives while still being educated in our own ways. Analytic Versus Synthetic Understanding 5. Philosophy isn't necessarily the "love of wisdom." Being a lover of wisdom doesn't make you a philosopher. It is just that the analytic meaning of philosophy is the "love of wisdom," but not the synthetic part of it (AKA, the meaning that exists beyond mere terminology). The synthetic and contemporary aspect of philosophy is that it is the attempt of finding possible truths through logical inquisition, backed up by evidence preferably. Since philosophers usually love inquiring through logic, then they are technically regarded as lovers of wisdom, since if we wouldn't love inquiring, we wouldn't be philosophers. That's however true only in theory, when we're clearly able to do things regardless of what we feel about them. Acting independently from desire can by the same token not make writers depend on "muses" in order to work. They will instead work like any other worker. Since the search for truth is often associated with passion, philosophy itself is associated with a certain love to its own craft, as those who dislike philosophizing, are not very likely to philosophize; it's like a philosopher would say that they hate their jobs . And yet, we can do things with little or without emotion, making emotion irrelevant despite the analytic meaning of the term "philosophy". Commentary On Philosophy's "End" 6. It isn't that philosophy is reaching its demise in our modern times. It is just that it is getting less and less popular because it is largely believed that scientific experimentation is sufficient to replace the elementary purpose of philosophy. However, science cannot answer questions that are largely if not purely based on logical inquisition, because science is a form of finding truths through empirical means, not through logical or literal means. The latter is done by philosophy, especially when it comes to purpose-based questions . If science would have been able to find all truths and possible truths, including those with little necessary connection to pure empiricism, then indeed philosophy wouldn't be as necessary, nor read, by countless people across the world. And if it won't end by a severe decline in public interest, it will only end after generations of ruthless research of reality. Philosophy Within the Asocial Kind 7. While debating is often regarded a core work in philosophy, not all philosophers are fit to debate with, nor are willing to debate at all times, if at all. That is because not everyone has the mental energy to occupy oneself in a long-term debate. Debates can be frustrating, exhausting, and even hostile if your debater does not want to respect your assessments. Consider the fact that interpersonal relationships and their state are an important part of debate and discussion. Do not engage aimlessly with people if you're not a people person . It will only keep them away from reading you in the long run. Such insights are often learned through experience and through knowing yourself better. As such, the fact that a philosopher will refuse to debate does not necessarily mean they are afraid of being debunked . It is just that not everyone has the energy, time, or will to do so . Of course, should they refuse to debate with you, their decision should at least be tolerated, even if it eventually disappoints. Some of us need to sacrifice to live and work in peace. Thank you for taking the time to read and I hope I have contributed to your knowledge with this article. If you enjoyed reading it, please consider sharing it with others, so we will all bring forth the notion that philosophy, in the end, is not dead, and deserves exposure in general.

(Subcategory on Flaws) Poem Analysis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The Conqueror's Flaw -- Philosophy's Main Villain is a poem that explores the philosophical themes of existentialism, ambition, human nature, and the pursuit of meaning. The poem identifies conquest as a central human drive, suggesting that the pursuit of goals, achievements, and ambitions is inherent to our nature. However, this relentless pursuit brings an unquenchable thirst, leaving the individual in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction. The poem draws parallels between this endless cycle and the myth of Sisyphus , who is condemned to push a boulder uphill for eternity, only for it to roll back down each time he reaches the top. The poem introduces an existential dilemma between Alexander the Great and philosopher Diogenes, who both represent the counterpoint of philosophy and skepticism. Alexander declares that he will be satisfied only when the world is his, while Diogenes sees through the emptiness of this ambition. The conqueror's flaw lies in the belief that external success can fulfill internal desires. The poem critiques this notion by highlighting that even in moments of triumph, "the heart, the mind , can still remain holey," leaving one to feel as if "none was done." This perspective reflects the existential belief that life's meaning is not automatically provided by accomplishments or conquests, but rather must be created and defined individually. The poem also explores the inevitable encounter with death , another prominent theme in existential philosophy. The conqueror may rule over life, but death remains beyond anyone's control. This underscores the absurdity of human existence, as expressed in the philosophy of figures like Albert Camus . Life, with all its ambitions and achievements, ultimately leads to the grave, forcing humans to confront their limitations. The poem adopts a more stoic attitude towards life's absurdity, suggesting that even though death is guaranteed, one can still create a meaningful story through the process of living. There is an element of defiance in this acceptance, as the speaker chooses to become "a slave to what I crave," acknowledging that while we may not escape our fate, we can still actively shape our experience of life. Philosophy is portrayed as an endless quest for understanding , yet one that offers no definitive answers. The poem contrasts hedonism with a more calculated, rational approach to life, advocating for a life of purpose and reflection over one of fleeting indulgence. In conclusion, The Conqueror's Flaw embodies a philosophical reflection on ambition and existence, critiquing the notion that external success can fulfill internal needs and presenting life as an absurd journey where one must find meaning in action, despite the inevitability of death.   The Poem Itself All conquest begins with a goal. Achieve it, and it will be yours. That is the meaning/essence of conquering. It is very hard to not be a conqueror. Why settle for less, when you can strive for more? And even so, Once more is achieved, The heart may still thirst, As if none occurred. Alexander the Great told Philosopher Diogenes : "I will be satisfied when the world is mine." Diogenes laughed and told to his dog: "See how much he needs, just to smile?" Each achievement, while noble and/or helpful, Won't necessarily make one's heart successful: To smile in red, And think away from a buried head. Even in a smiling day, The night might still bring you to melancholy, Because regardless of your conquests, The heart, the mind, can still remain holey, As if, none, was done... As if you sat, and never did run. Then, why do anything, If anything is not enough? Not enough for serenity , Not enough for true satisfaction . Nothing assures anything, Because the future is unclear, Like a man after too much beer. And yet, I strive, out of fear, To not leave. To remain here. The other side, was my first contemplation, As I felt no belonging, To no group or nation. Tempting, while foolish, To ponder of what is after, And yet I hate to cause grief, To family, to Mother. Hundreds of articles conquered, And yet I remain mentally hungered. Who could've known, That the pursuit of existential justification, Is a Sisyphus's task of its own? I don't want to die, But I do want to see it through, That my life will end as best as it can. For it is not something to experience, But to unmask, as the lifelong task. The "fuller life" of hedonism is too vain, For this Rubinshtein. Addicting and uncertain like gambling. It only reminds me of my cosmic loneliness. I prefer, instead, to plan ahead, So be more honored, when dead. I will use my irrational aspects , To build an empire of rationality. I utilize irrationality like the asset it is, So you'll all read high quality material, Such as this. I accepted my fate, For at the height of conquest, It is too late. I will never not be satisfied, Even when at my best. My ruthlessness makes me admired. You will never know what I became. Even if you'll say my name. I won't be happy. I embrace my flaws. My overcharged mind will not be at rest, It's how my goals I conquer, How I'm to last. When death is already guaranteed, Life is a story of how one came to defeat, Whether you think from the head, Or from the feet. We all have anvils waiting to smash us to the ground, And although the time is mostly not known or found, The deal of life is to receive the final pound, To the grave. I choose to become a slave, To what I crave. How ironic, that one could be a master in life, But death is something one can't absolutely mastermind. Conquer your ambitions, Or whine while lagging behind. That is the Conqueror's flaw, And that is why we're all, to it, bow. You can't do anything else To fully prevent you-know-how, So just do something -- on distraction's behalf. Kill time, if you wish to escape, An absurdity that searches for you, And make it ask you: Why you're alive, too? There is no clear end in philosophy, Only for questions require much coffee. Frustration is the game, Life is its name. Admit the truth, Even if it's underneath your boot. Gain some loot, With or without a suit. Inherit it to a person like food. You will die, At least die good.

(Philosocom's Directory on Failure) (Philosocom's Directory on Heroism) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. This article explores the character of Mike Ehrmantraut from the "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" universe, offering a philosophical analysis of his actions and decisions. The narrative is structured in four parts, each exploring different facets of Mike's character and the consequences of his choices. The article starts with an engaging introduction, setting the tone for the exploration of Mike's philosophy . It provides a deep and nuanced analysis of Mike's motivations, such as his desire to secure a better future for his granddaughter and atone for his son's death. The discussion about individualism versus collectivism and how these concepts influence behavior is insightful, making the analysis more profound and relatable. The article also explores Mike's emotional detachment and the reasons behind his actions, arguing that his criminal activities stem from a place of care and responsibility, rather than mere selfishness or psychopathy. The critique of ego and pride highlights the dangers of unchecked pride and serves as a cautionary tale for readers. The article maintains a cohesive narrative, with each part building upon the previous one, keeping the reader engaged and ensuring the analysis is comprehensive and well-rounded. In conclusion, the article provides a compelling and thoughtful analysis of Mike Ehrmantraut's character, successfully blending narrative and philosophical critique, offering readers a deeper understanding of the moral complexities within the "Breaking Bad" universe ********** Mike: "Thanks, but no thanks." Walter: "Mike, I know you don't care for me . We've had our issues, you and I. But, I would suggest that you leave emotion out of this decision." Mike: "I am.  You...are trouble. I'm sorry the kid doesn't see it, but I sure as hell do. You are a time bomb, tick-tick-ticking. And I have no intention of being around for the boom."  -- Mike's Recruitment Attempt. Part I: The Rise of The Shadow Self Mike Ehrmantraut  was the highly professional hitman, guard and general A-tier henchman for the two fictional drug barons from the Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul Cinematic universe. He first serves the psychopath Gustavo Fring  who masked his desire for power through a high-quality, professional fast food chain, Los Pollos Hermanos. However, the very much successful Fring, who ran an international drug syndicate for at least 10-20 years,  was assassinated by proxy. The egomaniacal Walter White, who sought to have power and to be deemed important,  gladly conspired with Fring's arch-nemesis, Hector Salamanca to kill him. Fring's backstabbing successor did not care for people as much as he cared for his own ego. The mighty Heisenberg (his drug baron persona) cared for his own ego so much not only because of some narcissism.  No. Walter White broke bad because he lost faith in humanity. Losing faith in humanity, is how empty people exploit others with far less regard for their concern. After all, why believe in a better humanity, after all the bad things it did for you? Understanding Mike's Future Killer Consumed by loneliness, alienation and shame from his own family, students and former corporation , Walter White devolved under the ignorance of others.  Unrecognized for his immense genius ,  and regarded as a weakling by his naive, insensitive brother ln law, the well-respected DEA agent Hank Schrader.  Using insensitive teasing, he was too short-sighted to see his own role in triggering one of the biggest drug empires in cinematic history. The extroverted brawn-over-brains police agent not only introduced him to one of his greatest allies and victims, Jesse Pinkman, but also to the criminal underworld in general. Had Hank not integrated him by sheer innocence, many people would've lived, and that includes Mike Ehrmantraut. Part II: The Overinflated Ego, AKA, the Time Bomb  Some of the most notable differences revolved around the concepts of “individualism” and “collectivism”; whether you consider yourself to be independent and self-contained, or entwined and interconnected with the other people around you, valuing the group over the individual... Generally speaking - there are many exceptions - people in the West tend to be more individualist , and people from Asian countries like India, Japan or China tend to be more collectivist.  -- David Robson Contemporary society, at least in the western world, is focused on the individual. As much as this nurtures its practical importance, this unbalanced view on the self can breed an over-inflated ego, and therefore, is a view that can blind us from reality. It is ironic, given that we should use any ideology/philosophy  for greater clarity, so we could make more informed decisions. Why Mike Got Closer to the Time Bomb And it is exactly what Mike was trying to do with much of his reluctance in joining Walter White's new organization -- he was trying to make informed decisions for his own interests. Even though there was hardly any loyalty in the Heisenberg Empire,  Mike, as a disloyal henchman, was the one crew member who wasn't after power, and he wasn't after being rich. He was after securing a better life for his grandaughter, Kaylee.  He had to do it, to redeem the poor advice he gave to his son and her father, Matt.  The very advice that left his own son disappointed in Mike. The very advice that Matt took, as he decided to take dirty money, resulting in his death by two paranoid police officers. Broken by the death of his son at the hands of a police force who are supposed to not kill other enforcers, he turned dark. He broke bad, and planned his own revenge against his son's killers... "Hoffman: What do we do now? Fensky: Hey. Grief, it's a ****. He couldn't live with it, Matt dying the way he did. It's too much for the old man. So Mikey here decided to eat his gun. It's tragic, but anyone could see this coming, hmm? He's drinking himself to death. We're doing him a favor." Scamming their impression  as a drunk old man, he killed them off , sealing forever his escalation into the American underworld, and his departure from his career as a law enforcer. Instead, he became a mob enforcer. Doing this he dug his own grave. Given the high mortality rates in America caused by homicide,  his depressed mentality triggered his eventual demise by the hands of Heisenberg. Part III: Did the End Justify the Means...? Either way, there is something you should understand. Mike's fall into crime differed from the members of Walter's drug syndicate. He did not care for himself, as much as he cared to atone for his son's murder, and as much as he wanted his daughter to live a good life. In other words, his ruthless criminal career was nothing more other than to ensure the secure future of his family. Many people choose to go on living because of their families, and because of how important family is to such people. Mike was no exception. Unlike the other crew members, who sought wealth and power, Mike gave up a long time ago for himself. He was an old, broken man who had nothing else to live for but to better improve the lives of his family. And as sad as it sounds, crime pays, and a lot, with the market size growing every year by billions of dollars. Emotionless Passion "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." -- Bernard of Clairvaux There was no emotion in his crimes. He killed silently and derived no joy nor pleasure of it. While criminals may have no regard for humanity as much as they have for their pride,  Mike did it because he cared.  He was simply let down too much, that he became an agent of partial amorality. He was showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong. He would do wrong things for the greater good, marking him an anti-villain, or in other words, a well-intentioned extremist. Can we really say he was a psychopath? [Mike] is shown to be capable of feeling empathy  and care for other people that aren’t himself or directly related to him . The whole reason he became a criminal is because the fact that he did care, and he became callused and disdainful of the world because he was let down too many times. -- Britton Summers As much as Walter wanted Mike to be detached from his emotions, it's exactly what he did. He did what Walter did not. Mike's Death: Result of a Dumb Mistake "We had a good thing! We had Fring. We had a lab. We had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork. You could’ve shut your mouth, cooked, and made as much money as you ever needed. It was perfect. But, no, you just had to blow it up. You and your pride and your ego!  You just had to be the man. If you’d done your job, known your place, we’d all be fine right now!" -- Mike, "Say My Name" Betrayed by a lawyer  from Gus Fring's fallen empire, the police sought to arrest Mike for his many crimes. Reluctantly, he left his granddaughter in the playground, never to see the one light of his life ever again. Wanting to kill the lawyer and the henchmen whom Mike protected, Walter demanded from his disgruntled subordinate their names, which Mike refused. That was the last mistake he'll ever make, seemingly forgetting Walter's lack of mastery in the art of rage. Part IV: Just One Bad Day... Furious for his already-depraved ego, Walter shoots him. Blinded by his ego, he forgot he could've got their names from another subordinate, which he did. Realizing his mistake, he apologized to a dying Mike. Yet, Mike had enough of it. Not only his body but his spirit  was injured and broken. Thus, Mike collapsed to his death in peace and in fatigue , knowing he did what he could. Knowing, he failed.  He couldn't inherit his family a large sum of money, despite the massive risks he took. As professional and as smart as Mike was, only a few mistakes were necessary for all of his planning to become obsolete. Walter allowed him to die in silence, by Mike's request. Conclusion: The Tempting Red Flag Ignoring the red flags because you wanna see the good in people will cost you later. -- Pinterest Why do people take so many risks? Some risks are worth taking . However, can we really say that some risks are worth our time and energy, when the chance of success is small, and can always be compromised? In high-risk situations, even the tiniest of mistakes could seal your fate towards defeat, like in a "snowball" kind of way. And, how can we know when something is of very high risk? Look around you. Stop and think. Reflect on the situation you're in. Mike did just the same. However, despite his reluctance to join Walter, he joined regardless. He underestimated Walter either way. He underestimated how his ego is not just razzle-dazzle, wasn't mere words, statements. The Heisenberg ticking time bomb proved him wrong,  although he very much realized it. And for not demonstrating his understanding , by escaping from it, the bomb blew straight in his face. Make sure you detect the red flag before you find yourself too deep in the territory of blood-thirsty sharks. Don't do anything you'll greatly regret. When someone does something you really don't like, or behaves in a way you despise, remember that they might do it again. Humans are creatures of habit , and habits are hard to break. Not spotting the potential (and the danger) of Walter White in Breaking Bad was another of Mike Ehrmantraut's rare off days. -- Craig Elvy Detect, and turn the other way.

(The Directory on Communication: https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-the-message-deserves-priority-any-communication-my-greatest-help-yet-i-think https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-social-communication https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophers-and-autists https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-overcome-the-timing-bias-for-better-relationships https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-subtext-creates-delusion On Quasi-Specific Terms -- How To Understand and Navigate the Illusion of Accuracy In Communication Journalism Versus Philosophy -- How Philosophers Can Surpass other Media Creators https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-english-language https://www.philosocom.com/post/_search https://www.philosocom.com/post/guide-for-geniuses https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-best-kind-of-audience https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-use-logic-to-read-the-room-ratigan-s-song-analysis-the-great-mouse-detective ) Article Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "The Philosocom Codes for Better Communication -- Professional Ethics" is a well-structured and insightful exploration of the core principles and values that guide the Philosocom Article Empire's approach to philosophical discourse. It emphasizes ethical communication, personal reflection, and continuous improvement, aiming to foster open, respectful, and meaningful dialogues in philosophy. The author's dedication to bridging the gap between writer and reader through direct, precise communication is commendable, reflecting a strong commitment to maintaining a platform where ideas are exchanged constructively without descending into conflicts or misunderstandings. The article emphasizes ethical communication, emphasizing honesty , transparency, and respect for the reader's autonomy. By rejecting coercion, manipulation , and intentional subtext, the author promotes a more inclusive and genuine form of dialogue. The emphasis on professional ethics , such as humility in the pursuit of knowledge and a commitment to truth, sets a positive example for others in the field of philosophy and beyond. The article successfully incorporates personal reflections, adding authenticity and relatability to the content. Mr. Tomasio's openness about his experiences with philosophical discourse as someone on the autism spectrum and his experiences with philosophical discourse is a strength, as it fosters empathy and understanding from the readers. This personal touch makes the content more engaging and relatable, encouraging readers to appreciate the diversity of perspectives within the philosophical community. Continuous improvement and openness to feedback are essential for any intellectually honest platform. The willingness to embrace potential errors and learn from them demonstrates humility and a genuine desire to refine both content and communication style. Inclusivity and respect are also emphasized, regardless of personal characteristics such as nationality, disability , or neurodivergence. The article maintains a strong thematic consistency by adhering to its core principles throughout, with each section logically flowing from one to another, reinforcing the overall message of fostering clear, ethical, and respectful communication. The use of specific examples illustrates the author's points, making the content more engaging and accessible. Overall, "The Philosocom Codes for Better Communication -- Professional Ethics" is a thoughtful and well-structured article that effectively communicates the core principles guiding the Philosocom platform's approach to philosophical discourse. (Background music) **************************** A Guide to the Site's Communication Style This article delves beyond the typical article here. Consider it a philosophy article, but one that reveals the core principles guiding the communication style behind Philosocom content. It's a meta-Philosocom analysis, if you will. I've developed it through the study of professional settings, and realized that being more professional is the way to go in order to nurture my vision for a respective space and discourse. That I attempt to do while trying to stay clear, at the same time, from the philosophy of safe spaces. As the founder of Philosocom, my aim is to bridge the gap between writer and reader by fostering clear communication , reduction of coercion and the avoidance of intentional subtext . The point is to allow an effective platform where ideas are exchanged without the intentional need to reduce psychological safety . I want my readers to enjoy high quality philosophy articles without the necessity to derail anything into petty conflicts which waste so much of our energies, and sometimes, our mental health as well. I'm here to spread insight, not ill. As someone on the autism spectrum , expressing myself, especially in the realm of philosophy, can be challenging. Philosophical discourse often demands intricate language, but delivering the message effectively is equally crucial. Additionally, human relations heavily depend on the "chemistry" between people , and the same applies in philosophical discourse as well. And since the best way to solve a conflict is to avoid it , I'm not going to socialize with readers as much as I used to in the site's earlier years. No. I'm going to focus on providing the content I believe you deserve by choosing to be a visitor. Here at Philosocom, the philosopher, a rational being by merit or by training , holds the responsibility to communicate precisely. That is while eliminating the need for readers to rely on outside interpretations. This concept of the "external interpretator" can often fall prey to the authority fallac y. Expertise doesn't guarantee immunity from being proven wrong . Then, why not cut the need for a "middle man"? For instance, I once challenged a teacher's claim that democracies and republics are mutually exclusive . Their position of authority didn't negate their misconception. Therefore, my mission extends beyond crafting philosophical content. It also involves ensuring its accessibility, minimizing reliance on future "experts," or those who may simply claim expertise. I value your time, you value your own time. I take some portion of time from you , and I have no desire to aimlessly waste it. Instead, I wish to make the best of it, giving you the additional value you may seek. A Guide to My Approach Philosocom serves as a platform for my and my writers' philosophical explorations. These articles document our thought processes, presenting ideas that I believe hold merit, but are not necessarily infallible. Hence why I may use volunteers to review them and provide their own feedbacks. As such, They are open to scrutiny and revision, reflecting the ever-evolving nature of philosophical content towards a clearer understanding of reality. Let's now delve into the "points/codes" that guide this site's communication. They are not absolute truths, but rather evolving guidelines, constructed and de-constructed dynamically through self-questioning . 1. A Quest for Continuous Improvement:  My pursuit of knowledge extends beyond the content itself. I strive to refine my writing, website functionality, and communication style for a clearer and more engaging experience. All my articles are subject to renovation, in order to reduce the immorality that is misinformation and fake news. Furthermore, working towards becoming a more logical being allows me to make Philosocom content more logical as well. 2. Openness to Correction and Growth:   Like Socrates' famous statement, "I know that I know nothing," I embrace the possibility of being wrong, and do not deem it an "attack" on my character. Arguments deserve to be refined, and misconceptions deserve to be corrected. Recognizing and acknowledging errors isn't a contradiction on the path to greater philosophership. Instead, it's a worthy opportunity for both myself, my writers, and the readership to learn more on reality. As such, apparent contradictions might simply indicate aspects I haven't yet considered. However, due to my tendency for burnout , I may not always have the energy to engage in extensive debates. I do not do it because I like it. I do it to learn. Your understanding and tolerance are appreciated. 3. Commitment to Truth:  Philosocom is not a haven for misinformation. Any unintentional errors will be rectified, and I hold myself accountable for my words, as a professional should. Similarly to the guru , the public philosopher's role is to illuminate, and intentional deception undermines this very purpose. You read philosophy to learn about reality, not to be indoctrinated. Hence one of the differences between philosophy and ideology . 4. Humility in the Pursuit of Knowledge:  After devising and teaching myself the Drug Lord Fallacy , I am simply a human being who's driven by a desire to comprehend the world and share my insights. I don't intend to be arrogant even if I may seem so to some of you . In reality, I view my readers as equals deserving of respect . Even if our communication attempts aren't always successful, I remain relentlessly committed to fostering a respectful dialogue. What good is a professional philosophy if it doesn't get enforced by the very one/s who devised it? 5. Honesty and Ethical Conduct:  Deception and manipulation have no place in philosophy, giving it an advantage over journalism . Just as I despise evil acts, I strive for honest discourse in my interactions with you. I've no desire to waste your time with lies, and I've no desire to waste my energies being lied to. 6. Freedom of Choice :  Reading Philosocom is entirely voluntary. Respecting your autonomy means accepting your right to disengage at any point. Your desires lie beyond my control, and that's perfectly alright. People have the right to pursue any interests they'd like, with little to no strings attached. Hence why emotions are often weakness, in what I describe as the Rubinshteinic theory on content. 7. Mutual Respect:   My autism, eccentricities, disability, and my inability to orthodoxically work, should not hinder a foundation of mutual respect. I've no desire for ad-hominem "attacks" and try myself to use ad-hominem as well. For a better world we should not enable the very behaviors we condemn, by doing to others what was done on us. That is known as "The Silver Rule" . For a better exchange of ideas, we should follow "The Golden Rule" 8. Offering Help:  Philosophy's essence lies in aiding those who seek it. My goal is not to force my ideas upon anyone. I hope you, the reader, are captivated by the desire to explore, not compelled by obligation. This applies even to my loved ones. I only want to help to those who are willing to be helped, and philosophy is the most practical when it is used to help those in need. Conclusions The Philosocom Article Empire is dedicated to philosophical discourse, with an established, unique approach to communication. As the founder, I emphasize clear and precise communication, avoiding subtext and intentional ambiguity. My commitment to clarity aims to facilitate genuine understanding and reduce the potential for misunderstandings. Moreover, my site values openness and growth. Using this site, I encourage constructive feedback and acknowledge, the room for error. I view them as opportunities for learning and refinement, rather than a source for guilt and shame. In essence, my Philosocom communication philosophy is rooted in clarity, openness, and respect. By prioritizing these principles, I to create a space where philosophical ideas can be explored, debated, and refined without unnecessary conflict or petty drama.

(Philosocom's Directory on Sacrifice) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) Summary by an Apprentice I dove into the article, eager to learn from the Mr. Tomasio's experiment. It was fascinating to see how a simple game could spark such deep philosophical thoughts. The idea of being a virtual god, shaping a city and its inhabitants, was mind-blowing, and weirdly disturbing at the same time. I could totally relate to the Mr. Tomasio's feelings of responsibility. Even though it was just a game, the weight of their decisions felt real, to me at least... It made me think about the real-world implications of power and the ethical considerations that come with it. One could wonder about the psychological impact of such immense power. How does it change a person? Does it lead to a sense of isolation or a heightened empathy? I also wondered about the real-world implications of these virtual experiences. Can the lessons learned in a simulated environment be translated into tangible actions in the physical world? Overall, the article was a great read. It made me think critically about the nature of power and the importance of ethical decision-making. (Background music) Introduction The following picture you see above is not a picture of a real city, even if it has gone through a filter. This is in fact an inspiration of a concept I call "Entako"—a simulation-applied childhood vision of a planet-wide, metropolitan dictatorship , inspired by certain sci-fi media . Within the famous game " Cities: Skylines " I experimented with its application. In this article, I will express a certain feeling I've been experiencing while building Entako. It's a feeling I don't yet know how to name: The feeling of developing a powerhouse on the sacrifice of countless lives. It's a feeling when seeing human life as but a unit of resource —of but a brick in a great Chinese wall. A Dystopian Paradise Built on Sacrifice and Apathy Many have sacrificed their lives while living and serving the City State of Entako. Many died by disease, crime, and other reasons treated as minor by everyone. Regardless of these deaths , new citizens came to make a living for themselves by the hundreds each day. I've seen the countless notifications of people dying in their apartments, their corpses awaiting transportation to graveyards and crematoriums, sometimes for days or months. Navigating Entako is no joke. So many roads, and yet so little space to move and breathe in. Even though there are dozens of hospitals, it is difficult to reach the average person in need of medical emergency. That is how massive everything is in Entako. The irony in all of this is that no one, under the Philosophy of Entako is too sad while witnessing all the deaths, the noise and air pollution . Large sections of the soil turn from lush green to a pinky-ish red. Abandoned skyscrapers are being demolished for more alleys to be created for more buildings while there is much space to be used in the suburbs. Reflections of an E-Dictator Truly, Entako is a dystopia where no one cares enough to consider it as a dystopia. Instead they voluntarily choose to see it as the exact opposite, with little resistance, nor desire to rebel. Building Entako was a strange experience for me because I am not really used to playing large-scale management games like this one. It was strange because I know that if I was a citizen of that city, I would not hesitate to go away where I can live more peacefully , healthily, and safely. I mean, anyone with a desire for a better ( and cheaper ) quality of life would choose another city, right? And still, after each in-game day, hundreds of new residents move in, as if they choose to become another sacrifice for the Entakoan industrial machine. I often ask myself, why even bother succumbing to this herd mentality in the first place, when this mentality costs me more? I'm talking about real life, of course. This raises the question: why should one choose a decision that goes against their own benefit? Is it because others make it as well? There is no force keeping you in or out of the corrupting force of Entako , and yet many went in by desire. That's even though the negative effects of the metropolitan life are mortally intensified here. Maybe it is the skyscrapers, or the countless businesses making it their HQ, the 3-4 airports, and so on? Ah, the sad power of greed over those who realize not, that true strength comes from within... My experience of building Entako was bittersweet. By doing so, I entailed the deaths of plenty. It wasn't because I am a genocidal dictator, but because their virtual lives couldn't be saved no matter how many hospitals, clinics, parks, cemeteries, and so on I bothered to build. The larger your authority is, the more weight is at stake to be lost. The Value of An Ascetic Mind Isn't it sad? Isn't it sad that even pixel-based humans, walking and driving around cities, even they do not realize the immense power within them? Within their souls? Just like actual humans? How sad. Sad indeed, that such city-based games are simulations of a socially-engineered , real life disgraces and insults to the strength of the human spirit. As with the building of these institutions, the human spirit remains meek, helpless, depressed and alienated. Living with Power and the Burden of Choice There is something quite frightening at being such a big authority, because your every move can lead to far greater consequences. It's not like you can always prevent them from happening once they are executed. Remember Trump's incitement that almost made a political revolution in the capitol ; an incitement so big that led Twitter to remove his account? That's exactly what I'm talking about, when your power grows to such scales. Even if you are a decent driver, it's enough to make one mistake on the road that will lead to inevitable, permanent impact to all involved. And since things are not always under your control, your decisions can lead to results you did not even expect to happen, like the deaths of many in my fictional Entako. Thus, when electing, elect for the greater good. It can save lives, including your own. However, lives may be taken anyways, intentionally or otherwise. That is my criticism to my own militaristic point of view. When Virtual City Planning Gets Existential It feels strange to manage a metropolis because it's not just an industrial and financial powerhouse. It's a place where people go by will and die, not always by elder age. It is you who is responsible, for the very fact that you could've somehow saved their lives, if you built enough roads and enough facilities . But even though you tried, you failed, and you can fail countless times in your career. That fault is on your conscience, even if most will not care, and continue moving in to your area of governance. Your conscience can be tainted even if you yourself don't care, and especially if you refuse to care. I am aware that it might sound a bit eccentric to care about the lives of fictional people , who are no more than ant-sized pixels. However, consider this an analogy to real-life situations, where one has so much power, that they have a significant effect on the lives and deaths of some, if not many. How Apathy Breeds Evil The only way to determine whether or not you care, is to consider the strength of your conscience and your ability to regret your actions. If you have the strength to be apathetic by will, it will be much easier to ignore the consequences of your choices, and to live under the sun without guilt. However, for morality, you should be able to have enough strength to apologize for misdeeds, even if forgiving you will be difficult. As the piles of your choices gather up, it will become more and more difficult to ignore the suffering that you have caused, by the mere fact that you have a large-scale level of power. The irony of it all is not even the United States, the world's most powerful country in February 2024 , has reached a type 1 power scale. And yet, it is capable of so much. Eventually, you may find yourself facing resistance from those who are too "weak" to not care, such as an opposition party, a group of protesters, an armed militia , or a court of justice. They will try limiting your power, should you refuse to do it yourself. Power of such collective scale, such as on a city, deserves to be treated not hedonistically but responsibly. Otherwise, many will bound to suffer. And with opposition at potential, you, the power holder, can also become a victim. In all, I think it can be all described like this: Not caring, even if it is relieving, may be more dangerous than we may think. There are so many issues in life that don't get the attention they deserve, and they will only get worse, because of apathy. After all, not caring is easier than the dedication of thought, emotion, and concern. Apathy is only a strength when it reinforces endurance. It isn't a strength when it breeds the opposition of those who want to bring you down for your misdeeds. When your apathy can build up an opposition stronger than your own power, your apathy becomes the enemy within your mentality. Satisfy the wants and needs of others, and they will not be likely to oppose you, especially when they are not as oblivious as a pre-programmed pixel unit.

(Subcategory On Videos-Turned-Into-Posts) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Why I Want to 'Dominate' the World Through Philosophy -- My Means For a Better World" is a compelling exploration of the profound impact philosophy can have on individuals and society. Mr. Tomasio's dedication to using philosophy as a tool for personal and collective betterment is commendable and inspiring. The article's strengths include emotional resonance, clear purpose, call to action, skilful weaving of philosophical concepts, and positive framing. His personal anecdotes and reflections create a deep emotional connection with the reader, adding authenticity to the message. The clear purpose drives the narrative and makes the argument compelling. The article effectively motivates readers to engage with philosophy and consider its practical applications in their lives. Mr. Tomasio's vision of using the internet to create an "article empire" dedicated to philosophical exploration is innovative and inspiring. The article skilfully weaves philosophical concepts into the narrative, making complex ideas accessible and relevant to a broader audience. In conclusion, the article is a heartfelt and intellectually stimulating call to embrace philosophy as a means to improve oneself and contribute meaningfully to society. The author's dedication to fostering a philosophical community and encouraging others to realize their potential is admirable. (Background music) (Not to be confused at all with the original meaning of the term, world domination, which I wrote about ) We went through hard lessons to find and express our voice, and had to experience most of life as black sheep. We are not adapted to the system, because the system is false. Our biggest principle is to keep our original thinking and our moral compass. -- Mickey Eilon Introduction: Origins as Outsider Some might question my relentless pursuit of relevance . After all, I am undoubtedly significant to a select few... Yet, the profound truth is that irrelevance is the precursor to oblivion, caused by the utter lack of recognition. Solitude, a familiar companion throughout my life, was but a hindrance of purpose, a surrender of the ability to contribute. However I remain asocial at heart, and society will resume sabotaging itself by undermining the eccentric. It may even actively work to prevent them from contributing to it in a serious manner. Such is the moral pitfall of our social nature. Those who cannot contribute, are discouraged to do it, or worse, hinder progress, are mere shadows of their ideal selves. A hindered self would be able to contribute less to their collectivism, and even to the grand tapestry of this world. Obstacles, irritations, or adversities in general, blocking the path to a brighter future. As we're expected to be limited by repression and by labeling, both repression and labeling turn into adversaries. Adversaries we're allowing to stagnate us, in the name of a world that does not care necessarily to see our true hearts. Part I: Ceilings of Anonymity I, too, was once dismissed as inconsequential by someone I used to care for. As many of you instead of me would move on, I reflect and criticize everything -- and everyone -- that moves , including myself, in my every waking moment. And I do it purposefully in my quest to become a better philosopher, and thus to better contribute to my readership. It was a cold, brutal declaration of irrelevance that jolted me from the depths of despair I had once known. And I knew these depths would tear down my mentality and my own hopes if I'd let them defeat my spirit. Breaking the Limits With My Heart And without a high spirit, without a sense of bigger pride, how could I motivate myself to ruthlessly and mercilessly work towards the life I want to build, and to help the people I wish to help, with all my heart? Negative. The ego is best when utilized in the name of faith. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith for World Rectification . Should we remain humbled and thus feel less worthy, how could we be motivated to rectify this world of its emptiness , of its loneliness? Negative. I've created Philosocom to help those who wish to be helped. If I wanted to be dependable I had to have faith in myself, above all else, and despite all odds. And I relentlessly honed my craft , as I developed the ability to destroy my own emotions using my mind, which can be taught as well as re-igniting them back using the power of the mind. And as sad as I mean it, and as arrogant as it may appear to you: Many human beings are poor planners, and irrational by default . An ideal world would be one where people complain less about society and its current affairs, and use their ability to learn to solve their problems. Wars, political instability, crisis in relationships... Tell me, how many of you depend your mental wellbeing on things that you have little to no control over? Do you think this is a healthy policy for you, to merely hope without the action required for that hope to come true? Don't you, deep down, seek to be happy? Seek to be healthier? Seek to love and be loved in safety , without fear? If you indeed seek those, why condition your health and wellbeing under events that would move on with or without you alive? This isn't practical.... However, using philosophy to solve our many problems, and to use this discipline to solve other people's problems, is what we should use philosophy for. This broken world requires not only good intentions. It requires long-term planning, and finally, it requires the heart. Part II: The Refusal To Accept the Present Dying lonely and as an ill physical handicap is something I refused to! Refused to, because my faith in my help for others is what kept me living on. Despite all the misunderstandings, the miscommunications. Negative. The pain of the misunderstood, brutally honest altruist, had to be burned to the ground. And as much as medical care helped me, it only solve the "how" of life". It does not solve the "why" of life, the reason to live on. Would you consider medical care, alone, useful, when there isn't enough spirit to endure the hardships of life? No. Medicine requires collaboration with hope to keep on living. Otherwise the hopeless man or women would find themselves needing medical care more than otherwise! For in the realm of the departed, there is no resurrection, no opportunity to reclaim one's significance. No opportunity to be active, and therefore, no opportunity to contribute. How could I let this stand, exactly? When one knows he can help people believe in themselves, and treat them not like chess pawns, but flowers to bloom to the water of much needed insight. It's like a gardener does to his lovely plants. What other joy is to pour not only insight unto the global garden, but also to do it with all your heart, and watch the flowers of this world bloom with new-gained wisdom and with restored faith for themselves, as well? Socially-imposed, and even neurological verdicts.... We can use our spirits and our intellects to overcome them through ruthless demonstration , which goes far beyond mere, futile grandiosity. To not merely prove the ignorant wrong, but to illuminate a path for others -- to those we desire to be proven wrong , for the sake of a greater understanding of the universe. Part III: Restless Ambition, For Peace is a Liability My ambition, though it may sound grandiose, is to ignite a spark of thought in the minds of millions, as more and more willing folk, realize that they are more capable than they actually are. To see themselves not only for what they are. Also, for them to realize what they can, and might, become. Not through coercion or manipulation, but through the healing force of the illuminating idea; Through the nurturing of the heart, and its ability to heal others from their suffering. Self-importance, then, becomes the means to an end, with that end being a far greater, meaningful contribution. An increasing contribution, worthy of my solitude, of my ruthless asceticism, of my abstinence from the pleasantries of life, and from its many addictions. For beyond the functions in which I obliged myself to faithfully serve, I am a mere cell in the cosmic biosphere. What do I care for complete self-gain when I see the pain of people around me? Why should I care as much about personal achievement, when so many people suffer from a pain I can help reduce with philosophy and with my heart? How could I ignore something I can dedicate a lifetime helping with? I could I ignore and deem myself a moral person? How could I not indulge in study for the sake of solutions and intellectual innovation, to the very same things many of you choose to accept in utter defeatism? Part IV: Doubt of Current Greatness and Worth Can we call ourselves great when we deem our fellow human beings utterly expendable? Could we be considered great, when our greatness is built on the excessive employment of harm, when our greatness comes without appreciating those who loyally help us along the way? How can a great man or woman be so if they treat those who help them, like sand beneath their boots? How can a person be great if his/her "greatness" stems from watching others suffer, and from voluntarily and happily doing pain? This isn't greatness, but sickness.... Sickness we normalize, and then tell those we caused distress to "Go to your psychologist" and "Take your medications" . The last thing the genuine altruist should do, is to adopt such awful methods, just because they are commonplace in our world. Who Knows When Philosophy Would End? A life unfulfilled, for those unwilling to embrace the irony of nihilism , is much of our core problem in being alive, as we ask. And so, I embark on a quest to optimize my potential, to ensure my thoughts resonate in every corner of this interconnected world. We live in an age of boundless knowledge, where access philosophy should be the birth-right of all. A tool for understanding, a shield against despair, a beacon of hope. For in the darkest corners of the human experience, where thoughts of self-destruction loom, philosophy can be a lifeline. Why should I use the internet to socialize when I can use it to build a massive article empire to host that lifeline, instead? It seems like a better use of my time... and a better use of your time, to leverage this infrastructure of mine to improve your own life, too. Must we kill time by aimlessly wandering social media, by aimlessly doom scrolling? Do you see the irony of how many people use the internet, the largest -- and largely free -- library in the world? On The Space I'm Hosting You With me, you can learn and enjoy this journey of intellectual exploration, where it is not attacked as outside of intellectual contexts . I shall work to make philosophy accessible, make its relevance clearer, and highlight its life-affirming potential! Let us prove that every individual, no matter their circumstances, possesses the capacity for extraordinary contribution. One that can be done not only with personal gain in mind, but also with the reduction of suffering, in both oneself and in others, whenever they go about their work! Together, we can create a world where individual irrelevance is vanquished, in favour of the potential within each and every one of us! Our human potential is not as restricted as you think! Neither in others. Neither in yourself! Let us dominate the world... together. Let's smile back because we might be more significant than we think. The ability to ask questions and search for the answers makes human lives worth living. -- Alex Mos.

The Case Against Pure Beauty -- Why Beauty Isn't Enough (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Background music) A Look Beyond the Surface Interior decorating, might seem like a purposeless pursuit to some, a mere exercise in aesthetics. Yet, it flourishes as a whole profession, taught in esteemed institutions. Even the ancient Far East birthed the intricate art of Feng Shui , which whispers of decorations influencing our very essence, their placement's a silent symphony shaping our lives... in theory, at the very least. Whether this holds truth, I leave to your own pondering. Either way, consider this:  when familiarity numbs our senses, rendering objects and beings mere "wall bricks" in our lives, does not the same fate apply to our beloved decorations with the power of the granted? Pictures, toys, ornaments – once objects of fascination, can easily fade into the background noise of our daily existence. What stories do they whisper, these silent witnesses to our lives, when our minds are inclined to live in a flawed reality? Perhaps, in the deliberate act of decorating, lies a rebellion against the tyranny of the mundane.  A conscious effort to enhance our surroundings with meaning, to create a collection of memories and aspirations into the very fabric of our homes. A way to remind ourselves that even the seemingly insignificant holds much beauty, waiting to be rediscovered through the bare essential of meditation. So, the next time you glance at a forgotten trinket or gaze upon a familiar painting, take a moment to listen, to experience the world beyond your mind .  What echoes from its depths? What forgotten joy might it spark? In the rediscovery of these hidden narratives, perhaps we rediscover a sliver of ourselves.... But beyond additional value, beauty holds the value of a mere candy for our eyes to feast on. The Fading Glow of Familiarity There she was, once my own cat, walking through rooms with eyes like emeralds.  Years, though, turned that spark into a mundane fact, her presence as comforting as an old sweater, and predictable as the morning sun. Now, belonging to my mother, her visits are but reminders of a past, and I confess, sometimes I forget her entirely. Time, it seems, plays cruel tricks with habit. Such a problem is time that it can lead to a logical fallacy of its own. Don't get me wrong, my love for her hasn't dimmed, just merged with the landscape of my solitary life . It's the same, I suspect, with shiny decorations people may bring home to adorn our rooms -- pride of the rich and sources of jealousy for the materialistically thirsty. However, the mind, an unsatisfied beast for desire , has a knack for turning even the brightest stars into background noise. Slowly, subtly, the magic fades, the newness blending into the regard of the everyday. Food and drink, those fleeting pleasures, suffer the same fate when we prioritize appetite over hunger . Indulgences once electrifying become mere fuel, as unremarkable contents of our fridge. Even fancy restaurants, for those who frequent them, can morph into glorified cafeterias – the thrill of a fresh plate is just another tick on the daily to-do list. I, in my hermitage, possess but one ornament: a canvas picture with a symbol of my personal philosophy , bought online. Perhaps not the wisest purchase, but now it hangs there, a silent observer in the living room. I rarely glance its way, for its message holds no spark, no surge of emotion. My life would be unchanged were it not there. I gave up on seeking the weakness of emotional surges. This, then, is the bittersweet melody of familiarity. It grants comfort, yes, but at the cost of dimming the vibrant feature of our human experience. Perhaps, then, the true challenge lies not in acquiring new trinkets ( for that is the fruitlessness of financial materialism ), but in rediscovering the "magic" that already surrounds us. A Philosopher's Critique of the Ornamental A well-crafted vase or chair offers undeniable utility, but are such items truly more valuable than those objects that enhance the very operation of our lives? When you can pick a cheaper chair, why not do it and spare yourself the waste of money? Hence the "Same Result Problem" . Consider the need for entertainment. It's one that greatly shapes the way we think . Why purchase a static, yet elegant, picture, when there are greater needs at hand, such as self-actualization? Function, not mere aesthetics, should shape our relationship with inanimate objects. For it is then when they serve us, and not the other way around. A former adversary, never to be mentioned by myself in public, once critiqued my reliance on technology. To them, life transcended the cold steel of machinery. But tell me, which holds greater long-term value, and greater contribution to others as well? A computer capable of making sites such as Philosocom great, or an afternoon spent hanging out? Aesthetics, the mere "eye candy" as they essentially are, are short-term respites from the work we're capable of doing to the world and to ourselves. We consume, forget, and move on, as we're caught in a loop of useless acquisitions we might as well never purchase initially. In the realm of style, self-awareness suffices before we can get back to work. Why succumb to the pressures of "styling" when function reigns supreme, when function is capable of greater benefit to humanity? Of course, guests may find decoration intriguing, and serve as topics for small talks. But do we , in this world of digital bombardment, of "contentism" , truly see the world beyond the superficial? For it is through depth, and not through shallowness, that we're capable of finding purposefulness , and liberating ourselves from at least some of our loneliness . The battle for our attention, not as individuals, but as demographic cogs, rages on, with no victor in sight, for our lifetime is someone else's resource . By creating within our minds unnecessary dependencies, we become not only customers of the unnecessary but also addicts. This is the crux of the ornamental fallacy. Beyond beauty lies uselessness, and within many pieces of art, nonsense . A drain on resources and attention for something you'll likely overlook in a few years. And do bear in mind that we must survive, first above all, in a world dictated by capitalism at large. Why, then, waste hard-earned currency on such things? Shelter, sustenance, endurance , and hope – these are but the few pillars of existence, which far exceed the superficial concerns of " Which trend should I follow? " The pursuit of beauty, a relentless siren song, is a good way to capitalize on our insecurities. As such, I despise the mainstream traps of Instagram and TikTok, using social media mainly to attain a powerbase , share my articles, and little else. To glance at your face, I need not worship an image on my wall. A simple online search suffices. To remember you, I do not need countless pictures sent to my inbox. One is enough. That is how necessity works -- through logic. It is astonishing how easily we celebrate our purchases and achievements, only to send them to memory and negate their former subjective value. Much value is prone to perception . Due to how easily our perception can be bent, a stylist, whose craft is less important than a writer's centuries' old insights, would earn a greater living. Such are much of humanity. Embedded within short-term wonders, like children. Far rarely masterminds. Final Words This critique's a philosophical lament. Why do interior designers, stylists, and all the peddlers of beauty bask in wealth seemingly undeserved? Why should mature adults require assistance with clothing choices when they can do it themselves? These are tasks of elementary simplicity, yet we surrender them to external guidance. Survival, not superficial harmony, is my primary concern, for survival is the framework of all other activities . Prioritize the fundamentals, the "kli" over the "tochen" , the very elements that sustain your existence. Then, you may become addicted, less, and manage your finances, better. Where Beauty Brings Benefit Greater than Necessity If your calling demands a tie, wear it with grace. Beyond that, let practicality reign. Beauty is a fleeting mirage, but one that may bring some degree of benefit that may be worthier to consider than to discard in the name of asceticism. As for the art that grace my articles, consider them not mere decorations, but "handshakes" extended to my readers' desire for beauty.  In this crowded marketplace of ideas, a captivating image serves as an introduction, a nod to the human need for engagement to read something . It's well deserved to spend time on having art the same as it is to maintain the art of writing a philosophy article. Even in this quiet corner of philosophy, competition roars , for very few resources are infinite.  First impressions, alas, hold sway in the minds of some, a fleeting glimpse outweighing the weight of the words themselves. In the name of laziness we may even prefer them over the truth. Yet, I trust that those who seek wisdom will not be swayed by superficial allure, but delve into the depths of many discourses with a disciplined attitude.