Alex Mos's Synopsis Finding a functional balance between individual freedom and equality is the key to a prosperous and just society. In a fair democracy, all citizens have equal rights, and the law applies to all without favoring the privileged. Meritocracy is an idealistic social system that allows everybody to succeed based on their abilities, regardless of wealth or social status. However, meritocracy can create an undesirable or dangerous elite based on outstanding skills, destabilizing society because of a lack of regulations. Equality can limit individual freedoms in some cases. An example is economic equality, which requires heavy governmental intervention and control. On the other hand, equal opportunity to jobs and prosperity without discrimination aligns with individual freedom and should be promoted. Yet, equality of pay that disregards work quality and talent leads to demotivation and decreased performance, followed by decline. Communism serves as a cautionary example. (Background music) The Limits of Meritocracy in a Fair Democracy The core principle of an honest democracy , I believe, lies in the equality of rights and the law. This equality ensures that everyone, regardless of background or ability, stands on the same ground before the legal system. Here, individuality should not influence legal judgments. Imposing legal consequences based on individual capacities or social standing is a slippery slope, bound to favor people like celebrities over common citizens . It would lead to an autocratic structure where those with "favored" traits receive preferential treatment and protection under the law. This inherently contradicts the core democratic value of fairness. Meritocracy is best expressed not when it gives access to privilage but when it allows anyone an opportunity to prosper without discrimination. That can only be done by elimination of unfair discriminations, promotion of equal opportunity, and removal of all " glass ceilings " that hinder our progress. After all, a meritocracy, according to Cambridge dictionary , is: a social system , society , or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities , not because of their money or social position : Case Example 1: A Gifted Musician Imagine a talented musician receiving a lighter sentence for a crime compared to someone less fortunate. Such a system breeds injustice. The law should strive to be blind – judging actions, not the potential or accomplishments of the individual. Their musical talent of a gifted pianist is irrelevant to a crime they committed. Here's where the meritocratic ideal needs a check. The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime, not the talents or social standing of the offender. In a fair and just democratic society, equal rights and the application of the law are imperative. While individual merit holds value, it shouldn't dictate legal outcomes. A well-functioning democracy ensures that justice is served based on the crime, not the characteristics of the person proved guilty Allowing so can prevent people from seeking merit on the basis of getting a lighter sentence. Freedom and the Limits of Equality: An Individualist Perspective There's a tension between freedom and certain forms of equality. While I firmly believe in equality of opportunity and equality under the law, absolute equality can contradict individual freedom. Here are some examples where my arguement applies: Economic Equality : Striving for absolute economic equality might require heavy government intervention, which could limit individual economic freedom (e.g., high taxes, wealth distribution, equal salary and so on). A Pure Meritocracy : A purely meritocratic system might lead to unequal outcomes, where it allows individuals to reap the unequal rewards of their unequal efforts. This in turn leads to the creation of the meritful few, employing the talentless many with little to-no restriction. An example of that is the fictional city-state of Rapture , which we'll be covering later. Equality of opportunity ensures a level playing field regardless of background (race, financial status, disability) . This core principle aligns with individual freedom. Everyone deserves the chance to succeed based on their merit, not on pre-existing disadvantages/advantages. Measures that promote equal opportunity, such as affirmative action programs and the avoidance of nepotism , can be seen as a limitation placed on absolute freedom for the overall benefit of disadvantaged groups. Such moral limitations can allow the prosperity of the disadvantaged based on their merit mostly or alone, which in the long term should fix their current socio-economic status. However, complete equality, particularly in outcomes, goes too far, when greater merit is naturally rewarded with greater outcomes. It implies that everyone is identical, neglecting the inherent differences in talent and work ethic that define us ( and a high degree of work ethic should be considered a merit of its own, as presented by salarymen ). Communism serves as a cautionary example . By forcing an equal distribution of wealth, it stifles individual incentive and innovation. People with exceptional talent, the potential economic engines of a society, are demotivated to exert themselves when the rewards are capped at a basic level. This ultimately leads to a decline in overall prosperity, along with the increased motivation to perform just the bare minimum. Case Example 2: The City State of Rapture Rapture was a fictional underwater nation of one city from the Bioshock series . It was created by its visionary, Andrew Ryan , a wealthy industrialist who sought the freedom of all people from outside intervention. He imagined a wealthy society where there will be no government intervention on the economics of the city. However, Ryan was too intimidated by a prominent crime lord Frank Fontaine , who followed the very same philosophy Ryan promoted, which is Ayn Rand's Objectivism which states that life is to be preserved for its own sake through the use of rational thinking. As proved in the article, " How to Survive in Capitalism" , getting more power is how survival is further ensured. However, in the absence of regulation, unrestricted liberty can be expolited to oppress the very same government that allows it. Thus, the concept of a pure meritocracy is a dangerous one when the vaccuum of regulation allows its own downfall by the very people it was ideally designed for. Conclusion Meritocracy, while ideal and fair in nature, can have a darker side when there are no regulations to ensure its own preservation. Thus, the application of pure meritocracy is a dangerous one, and should be avoided in order to preserve itself and its ability to allow anyone to actualize themselves, without the risk of a civil war, caused by meritful revolutionary faction/s. A well-functioning democracy thrives on a delicate balance between individual freedom and equality. While meritocracy is a desirable goal, a purely meritocratic system can undermine the very foundation of a fair and just society. A truly meritocratic society requires a strong foundation of equal opportunity and a fair legal system. By finding the right balance between individual Equality and Meritocracy , we gain the power a society where everyone has the chance to thrive based on their own merits. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I can laugh about this a little because of America’s "American Idol Meritocracy". A fallacy as people aren’t elected for their abilities, they are elected for their marketing and creating an image which people like. [They must be] good at selling themselves. It used to be that people were in power solely for their abilities. Look at the military. People are ranked based upon their abilities. A person is a senator all because they are good at selling themselves to people. Politics is the death of meritocracy.  What happened to America’s Meritocracy? We used to be a country where people held power because of their abilities. Now it has more to do with social standing. We completely lost sight of this. People confuse what economic equality actually is. It does not mean everyone is as rich as each other. What it means is you have the freedom to buy whatever it is you can afford. You have every right to try and go out and make more money. That is economic equality. Where people’s merits determine their economic level. Anyone can be rich if they find a new way to solve a problem which solves it better.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Immortality Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-danger-of-immortality ) Alex Mos's Synopsis: What does Sisyphus and Jason Voorhees have in common? Both are immortal and can't find peace until they accomplish their futile, impossible-to-complete tasks. While Sisyphus' assignment is a perpetual punishment, Jason's eternal revenge on his tormentors and killers is his mission. We can view our earthly existence as either punishment or as a calling. Finding a vocation helps us accept our fate, endure modern life's emptiness, and give us a reason to stay alive. When we think of the myth of Sisyphus, a former king who was punished for his death-cheating ways, by being forced to eternally roll a boulder up a hill, we think of pointless suffering. This suffering's origin comes from what Albert Camus claimed to be our lack of willingness to joyfully accept the absurdity of existence . Even today, Sisyphus' name birthed an adjective that's used to describe an activity that is terribly monotonous, endless and futile. A Sisyphean task, however, can also be one that is very long, to the point that it seems never-ending. If we are to look at one of the most iconic horror-slasher villains, the hockey-masked Jason Voorhees , we can detect a similarity between Jason's personality and mission with that of Sisyphus. Both are driven by a relentless and ultimately futile quest: A quest that is doomed to never succeed, regardless of the attempts being made. Instead of pushing a rock to the top of a hill, Jason is forced by resurrection to destroy humanity for abandoning him as a teen, and for killing his mother who tried to avenge him . Like Sisyphus, Jason will never achieve his goal of overcoming humanity, despite his deadly powers, and have his undead spirit rest in peace. His bloodthirsty motive has killed 157 people in his movies , but that wasn't enough to prevent humanity from imprisoning him i n a research facility made specifically to contain him . There are simply too many people for one undead killer to overcome. One of the core horror components behind the character of Jason Voorhees is that he cannot die. No matter how much damage he takes, he always comes back for more. This makes him a truly terrifying villain, as there is no way to defeat him permanently. Like Sysphus, he is immortal, and will never be able to have his soul rest in peace like his mother wanted. An enemy of humanity, Jason's immortality can be seen as a form of punishment, similar to the realm Sisyphus was casted to: the prison of Tartarus . In Greek mythology it was a realm so isolated that, according to the Greek poet, Homer , "A brazen anvil falling from earth nine nights and days would reach Tartarus upon the tenth". The most common trait between the two iconic characters is that they can't escape from a fate they cannot accomplish, but must accomplish nevertheless. Sisyphus must complete his task to please the Gods. Jason must clear Crystal lake from people so he would finally be at peace. Both cannot exist in peace until their tasks will be finished. Sisyphus was condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for all eternity, only to have it roll back down again each time. Jason is similarly condemned to a life of vengeful violence, never able to let go of what humanity did to him and to his mother. Both beings are undead, or between life and death. They cannot forsake life, despite not being within the realm of the living. But to finally reach death, they must complete their tasks. But since they can never accomplish them, they are stuck in a workaholic-like  purgatory state . They've forsaken life in their own ways. Sisyphus did so by disobeying the gods by cheating death,  while Jason became an undead revenant by lightning  in one of his many encounters with his enemies. However, there is one key difference between Jason and Sisyphus. Sisyphus was punished for his attempt to outsmart divine fate , while Jason became a special kind of undead: a Revenant. The term "revenant" comes from old French, meaning "to come back". While Sisyphus' immortality is a punishment, Jason's eternal life is a higher calling, to haunt the living forever. Also, Sisyphus' tale is about the importance of not cheating fate. Jason's tale about the importance of caring for those whom you're responsible for. For abusing and forsaking the mentally-disabled child, the teenage employees at the summer camp created a horrible monster who is destined to haunt humanity with no hope for his redemption. The only theoretical way for humanity to be redeemed is to return from its abusive ways. Until then, Jason might as well keep returning to life infinitely. As a result, Jason can be seen as a tragic figure, as he is driven by forces beyond his control. But for his murder of innocent lives he is beyond redemption. Relentless and unstoppable, Jason Voorhees can be regarded as a being who embraced his Sisyphean fate . While I won't tell you that we should be like Jason Voorhees, I would tell you that we could learn from him how we can, too, accept our existence, and live it through relentlessly, embracing the roles we were either assigned by others, or choose to assign to ourselves. From the comparison of these two characters, we can relate the comparison's wisdom to our own lives. We can either see this monotonous, seemingly-absurd existence as either a punishment or as a calling. We can learn that with the right attitude, we can increase our ability to endure the monotony and emptiness of modern life. That can be done by either finding our calling, or by creating one ourselves. And both the search for our calling or its creation lie in the ability and the practice of knowing ourselves more. Hence, Jason is more than a villain. He is one who, shaped by his interactions with humanity, became a broken man, and later on, a vengeful undead monster. He has loyally embraced what Sisyphus will never be able to accept -- that he (Jason) will never fully satisfy his revenge, but would keep at it regardless. Is it truly a better option to suffer monotony like Sisyphus, or to embrace it like Jason? Instead of seeing it as a form of punishment, we can see it as a source of empowerment -- a motivator to keep on existing. This comparison teaches us the importance of avoiding counter-productive mindsets that make life harder for us than it already is. And to become as relentless as this revenant, we must understand that ruthlessness is a virtue . One capable of keeping your mentality afloat, and yourself, remaining alive, functioning, and increasing the chances of accomplishing your goals. Studying these two characters, I now know I can lift this article empire to much greatness, as long as I survive and remain relentless in my work. Hail Philosocom.

Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is inviting us to consider the advantages of getting to be a philosopher: First, getting to know oneself better. Second, having access to a better Truth pertaining to a greater reality. Third, Mastering the art of expressing your findings in an easier way. Fourth, being able to go down inward in order to find hidden meanings of existence. Fifth, reaching your own unique existence purpose eventually! Thus... by doing so, you can rectify this world in your own unique way of doing it! (You might be interested in this article , as well) (For more meta-philosophy material, here are some articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-short-guide-to-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophers-and-relevancy ) Philosophy is a unique branch in the arts and humanities not only because it originally started as a science but also because nowadays it can be considered both a science and an art . As a science , it is a method for finding truth via logical reasoning , and as an art, it is a skill that can be mastered; a skill called philosophizing . What I find great about philosophy is that anyone can become a philosopher as long as they are willing to devote much of their time to thinking about and contemplating the deeper aspects of existence. Unlike other fields, you don't need a degree or any kind of certificate in order to become a philosopher. You don't even have to attend university in order to be good at philosophy. All you need is your mind, your time, and your rationality . From this perspective, anyone who is capable of deep thinking can become a philosopher, as philosophy is simply this: deep thinking about deep stuff in order to find or reveal the hidden truths of this existence. That is where philosophy is split into two parts : the study of others' work, and the development of your own work as a philosopher. When the first is applied, you simply increase your education about something that isn't yours, but when it comes to the second half, it is something that you must develop either on your own or through discussions with others. Philosophy isn't necessarily about what is objective and what is subjective; it is only about the truth, regardless of its nature. Truths don't have to be universal in order to exist as truths, and " subjective truths " are nonetheless still things that could be applied to more than one person, thus making it not completely a work of "fiction", or of something that has no relevance to its existence. Besides, due to how many philosophers reach different conclusions, it is already hard to objectively define what is true and what is not , even though that is the very purpose of philosophy. Regardless of how much the truths you find touch others and reality, not all philosophers will agree with you, and that's okay. In fact, that's how philosophy is expressed as a science. Like science, philosophy isn't perfect or "ultimate". It is ever-growing, ever-developing , and in order for this process to continue, there must be controversy, and skepticism, simply because these values encourage further thinking and, thus, further development of the material at hand, as layered down by other philosophers. What philosophy isn't, is a religion . Religion can be described as theistic philosophy, as I mentioned in an article about religion , but as a science, philosophy isn't about axioms or accepting principles that are beyond our understanding . Ideologies or opinions are just theories, if we regard philosophy to be a science. Their subjectivity does not matter. What matters is their potential to better understand reality. If you happen to believe in God and you are told that " God works in mysterious ways ", if you are a true philosopher, that answer will not satisfy you. Theoretically, religion is about embracing what one doesn't know, while the philosopher is discontent, with the fact that they do not know. Because there is uncertainty in religion, there is the word " faith " as a substitute for not knowing for sure. The philosopher is not faithful, for he seeks knowledge and truth , not faith and confidence about things that are not known to them for certain. They seek to see beyond the belief, the opinion, as they can blind. Again, these are just theories. All you need to be a philosopher is a rational human being who is aware of logical fallacies , is an inquisitive person, is willing to publicly criticize, and be an original thinker . What does it mean to be an "original thinker"? After all, we're all "thinkers" because we all think. When you are a philosopher, however, you do not just think; you think deeply, and by deeply, I mean that you actually sit (or stand) and consciously ask yourself questions about subjects you wouldn't otherwise ask yourself. Philosophy is, pretty much, the art of being deep and the science of reaching truth by being a very deep thinker. You need to come up with ideas, mention problems in existing systems, point out logical fallacies, and so on. If there's something I recommend for you to study as a philosopher, it's at least some fallacies in logic that allegedly grant legitimacy for things to be widely accepted. When you are a philosopher, you become aware that logic is something to be taught and that different people have different capacities for logic. Since logic is the main force of philosophy, you must strive to become the most logical person you can be and detect fallacies on the go as you study reality. I myself took a course online on logical fallacies. If we are to use an analogy, a philosopher's logical thinking is like a wizard's mana, or magic. It is the lifeforce you use to create arguments, theories, and ideas about this existence, and the less of it you have, the more unstable those arguments, theories, and ideas will be in terms of being easily brought into falsehood by other philosophers. I will (soon) end this article by saying this: a philosopher is not a higher being . Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, was a stonemason , and Diogenes , one of the Greek philosophers, was a homeless eccentric who laughed at Alexander the Great's desire for conquest as the condition of his happiness. If we are to use the analogy I used in the previous paragraph, a philosopher is a "wizard" , but not the kind that can necessarily bend the world to his or her will; they are an intellectually oriented person who uses logic for their "spells", with these "spells" being philosophizing. I hope I made it clear, because there isn't necessarily any divinity in being a philosopher , especially if you choose the physicalist path and believe that everything that truly exists must be material. When some people think of a philosopher, they think of someone who is otherworldly, while philosophy is all about knowing more about THIS world , not other "worlds" necessarily. People choose to become philosophers, therefore, to extend their knowledge of existence and be one step away from ignorance. Another note, if you will: There is no guarantee that you'll be a good or successful philosopher . Just as there is no justification for you to be a good and popular musician. That's where the art comes in -- the art of being a more rational person, as a way to better understand existence, using your mind as the primary source of information, criticism, and intellectual innovation (thinking about new insights and possibilities). Who is a philosopher? They are deep thinkers, and depth is something that requires skill . Once that skill has been attained and honed, one can use their deep thinking as a method to understand things better than other people, without necessarily making them better or "holier" than other people. This is the scientific part of philosophy -- the part when you use your brain as a method for attaining and seeking truth. Beyond that, I'm afraid, contemporary philosophy has been stripped of the scientific nature it once had, and thus is largely a topic of the humanities.

(Background music) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) Star Wars has been a very dominant feature in much of my lifespan, to the point that you could've called me a "fanboy" of that franchise. My favorite faction in that franchise used to be the Galactic Empire, a totalitarian regime that exists on a principle called the Rule of Two , where it is largely governed by a Sith Lord or master and his or her apprentice. That core principle, which indicates the nature of the Sith philosophy, is based on something you might already know that I hate: disposability . The role of the master is to teach their apprentice. Once done, the role of the apprentice is to kill the master. That's right. In Sith philosophy, only the strong and capable survive. The main antagonist of the entire franchise's movies was a character called Darth Sidious, a mysterious figure pretending to play both sides of a larger galactic conflict in order to hopefully become an undisputable emperor, using the method called the Rule of Two. This principle simply says that a master can have only one apprentice, and an apprentice can only have one master, and not another apprentice of their own. This very concept is what led Darth Sidious to become what many know as Emperor Palpatine, who even then, planned to dispose of his apprentice Darth Vader through trials and assassination attempts. Many people, including my own mentor, feel more at ease when they are anonymous. It is the thing that makes them so at ease that they miss opportunities that their Sith counterparts would otherwise seize. For the dark lords of the Sith are wild, fearless creatures, who may not hesitate to sacrifice their own health if victory is at hand. They are a true warrior culture that follows the laws of the animal kingdom; those who are too weak will be removed and replaced with more worthy candidates. For the energy they feed on, the dark side of the force, is like a very powerful, addictive narcotic. It is a pathway some may consider unnatural. The Sith merely utilize it for their own selfish gain. It's what make them so evil and powerful. Troopers, officers, and even the elite: nothing stands in the way of those who seek true power and strength at any cost. So is the hunger of the Sith, and so is their destruction and execution of the subordinates mentioned. None is safe from them, should they dare step in their way. Intentionally or otherwise. Even failing a Sith, can technically mark a subordinate's death. When we think of destruction, what do we think of? What comes to mind when we think of pain and loss? We think of suffering, trauma, and any other kind of damage dealt to others. However, for the Sith, it is merely a means to an end, even if the destruction at hand has also been dealt to your side. Darth Sidious caused so much of it just to become a ruler of his own galactic empire. To both who he trusted him, and to those who dared to oppose him. For a mastermind-level brain such as Sidioius', everyone and everything can be a tool. Everyone and everything, but him. Because Star Wars media is so dichotomous and simplistic -- a battle between good and evil, light and dark, democracy and dictatorship, and so on -- we tend to see the Sith as evil. They are only considered "all evil" because they were prominent enough in said media to become so. Darth Vader, Sidious' apprentice, ended up becoming a hero by the end of his life. All because he was willing to betray his master in order to save his son. Until that point, he couldn't rebel against Sidious, for the latter was too powerful. Make no mistake, there is no real loyalty among the sith. In the end, we can find much that is "human" in the factions that represent the Sith. Because to be Sith is to release everything and remain unchained to only your own willpower. The stronger your willpower gets, the more followers you might also acquire along the way, thus making you even more powerful. With my growing relevancy... I am speaking from experience. It is only in meditations when I realize my true self. The self unchained by any restraint or morality. The beast within. Only I know who I truly name, and what my name truly is. I am a master of masking. And like a Sith, to get what I want, I may be dishonest, even if I don't want to, with other people. Mostly, I don't want to. Mostly, I wanted a woman named Chen. I was too honest, so I paid. Paid with pain and suffering. I've risen up, like a fallen Darth Vader. Risen up to be a cold, distant man who rarely feels anything. Look into my eyes, and perhaps you'll understand. ..... What is described in Star Wars as the "Dark Side of the Sith" is simply the very grand bravado of human passion. One that is unrestrained, non-monastic, and bound only to the dominion of personal gain, which in this case is power. Thus, it is no surprise that the Sith figures have tried to betray each other in ways seen and unseen in the movies. The world is a stage, and you are its actor. The only exception is that as a Sith, you get to write your own script. The Sith can teach us how cowardly we theoretically are. We are so afraid to express our emotions and anger, which society typically suppresses. To seek the dark side of ourselves is to choose the freedom of impulsivity, because impulsiveness is usually confined to our repressed, or "dark," sides. Some might argue that we all have this dark side. Whether we have the audacity to let it loose sometimes or restrain it within ourselves, that is our own decision to make, as wise or dumb as it may be upon execution. There is something very bold about admitting that you, as a Sith Lord, sacrifice your followers for your own interests. However, followers of such a figure are treated as pawns on a large chess board. That is something I am not immoral enough to accept when it is applied to me by comparison. I guess that's a good thing. All in all, if there is something we can all learn from Sith philosophy, it is to consider being bold enough to overcome the things and beings that keep you away from your ideal goals in life, should they be possible to be accomplished, of course. You see, fear is a tool used by the Sith to control the masses—fear of failure, and thus punishment or death. However, it is not a feature that should exist in anyone when they are dreaming of a better life from their own point of view. In a way, the Sith are inspirational because they are strong-willed enough to overcome their fears and achieve their desires without seeking anyone's permission. Unless you are in some way confined, such as in a prison or a military base, that sense of fortitude may also apply to you as a freer being; as someone strong enough to recognize the true legitimacy of his or her actions. The Sith Code: Peace is a lie, there is only passion . Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken, The Force shall free me. .... For further clarification: I do not support the entirety of this philosophy, as it is very destructive in nature. However, some notions could give one great fortitude upon contemplating them. I firmly hope that with enough renown, her disillusionment will be in her own vain. How simple it is to get rid of someone whose potential you have underestimated. Like with the Sith, there will be either an attempt at renown or there will be death. As a result, I've resumed writing because doing so allows me to choose the freedom of life over the death of anonymity. Because I either survive and be victorious through the power of my contributions, Or I die. I will not fail.

(Philosocom Directory on Friendship) (Background music) **************************** Why Men and Women Can Be Friends It's a common trope: men and women can't be friends because sexual or romantic tension inevitably gets in the way. This belief, however, falls prey to a well-known logical fallacy: the generalization fallacy, and more specifically, the whole-person fallacy. The whole-person fallacy occurs when we make broad conclusions about a person based on insufficient data, like them being a part of a group/social category of people. In this case, the assumption is that all opposite-sex friendships succumb to romantic or sexual attraction. And it's all because they are men having a connection with women (or vice versa). This simply isn't true, and thinking that it's true could lead to jealousy in your existing relationships, based on misunderstandings. Here's why the fallacy of "men and women can't be friends" crumbles under lambasting: Flawed Foundation:  The belief hinges on the idea that friendship requires a complete absence of attraction. But friendships can exist alongside various forms of attraction, not just romantic or sexual. Platonic relationships are based on a deep sense of friendship, for example, whether or not there is a desire for greater intimacy. We appreciate our friends for their intelligence, humor, or shared interests, and this can exist with or without physical or romantic attraction. Gender Alone Is Not Enough:  Generalizations about entire genders, AKA sexism , disregard the spectrum of human experience. Men and women are as diverse as any demographic, and even in religions you may find sects disagreeing with each other on core tenets. To suggest they all succumb to romantic tension with every opposite-sex friend disregards this diversity in individuality. Parallels to Other Prejudices :  Believing men and women can't be friends shares similarities with racism , due to both this belief and racist beliefs have to do with judging an entire person based on mere demographics. Thinking doing so is enough for an assertion, is the basis of all prejudice. Just as judging individuals based on race or sex is unfair, judging friendships based solely on gender is illogical. You just have to take more aspects into consideration. Friendship's Importance:   Strong friendships enrich our lives. They provide companionship, support, and different perspectives. To limit these benefits based on gender is to deprive ourselves of valuable connections. For instance, to deny a woman's request to be your friend, although you have a girlfriend, disregards a certain fact. Friendships can still be maintained in their current form, through mutual respect and the ability to put boundaries. Sure, biology makes men and women different , but it doesn't entirely have to dictate the nature of our friendships. Other factors, such as the ability to resist temptation , often honed in discipline , can significantly determine the future of your relationships of the gender you're attracted to. Develop self-control and you might be able, for instance, to avoid being sent to the HR department of your company. It's time to move beyond viewing other people as mere instruments for romantic or sexual pleasure. Not all communication is about pleasure or even socializing. The fact that someone is attractive to you doesn't mean anything would necessarily come out of trying to flirt with them. And to lambast incel philosophy , nothing romantic nor sexual must come out of it. See certain humans as beyond merely dateable, and you might have further reason to talk to them, leading to other forms of collaborations. Of course, it's especially true when you are already in a relationship, and are expected to commit from your heart. My take on relationships might be a little different from some men. To quote Sandra Faulkner who interviewed to VICE, "[Male-Female relationships] play into what I call the heteronormative script "If you are operating under this script, then anytime you think of a man and women together, you assume it must be romantic—because of the script. But many of us don't operate under these scripts." Understanding Asexuality and Aromanticism There's a misconception that everyone craves intimacy and romance. The truth is, sexual attraction isn't a universal human experience. For some of us, the concept of sex holds little to no interest. This identity has a name: asexuality. But asexuality isn't the whole story. Romantic attraction is a separate spectrum, and some asexual people also identify as aromantic . This means they experience little to no desire for romantic relationships or even sex . If they are not asocial, they could be the prime example of people who may have friends of any gender, without gender or sex even being much relevant. By recognizing these identities, we can move towards a more inclusive and accepting world, decreasing the illogical habit to dismiss arguments with ad-hominem or with the Strawman's Fallacy. Bonus I: "Will They, Won't They?" Let's explore the article's concept and unpack the limitations of relying on anecdotal evidence. This one is based on "The Office" sitcom . The "Will They, Won't They?" trope , is something that pop culture loves. In it, it's where close friendships between men and women remain with unspoken tension. Jim and Pam from the mentioned series are a classic example, as their story does highlight a potential complication. However, it doesn't represent all friendships. Thinking that it does leads to the ways fiction can mislead our understanding from reality. You might as such think that the man, like Jim, may harbor feelings for his friend. Using Jim and Pam's story, or any single anecdote, to prove mere anecdotes as logical fallacy. Their experience doesn't have negate the countless strong, platonic friendships between men and women. Here's a broader perspective: So, the next time you hear the tired notion that men and women can't be friends, remember: it's a myth. Strong, fulfilling friendships can exist between any two people, regardless of gender. Bonus II: The Misconception of Platonic Love The contemporary world often misuses Plato's idea of Platonic love, as did I in this article. The Greek Reporter lectures: Platonic love is one of the most widely misinterpreted concepts in Plato’s philosophy . It has transcended the realm of philosophy, becoming widely used across culture and has strayed from its original meaning throughout the process. Plato believed that love is the motivation that leads one to try to know and contemplate beauty in itself. This happens through a gradual process that begins with an appreciation of the appearance of physical beauty and then moves on to an appreciation of spiritual beauty. For Plato, love is not an end in and of itself but only a means to achieving this supreme concept of beauty. Plato’s ideal love is connected with his notion of the ideal world (a world where everything is perfect and our material reality is a copy of its image). That is why this ideal of Platonic love does not refer to having an unattainable love but to love in a sense that is eternal and intelligible: a perfect ideal form.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Suikoden Content) (Background music) (Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4cRqFYo73o ) The Immorality of Minority Isolation A flicker ignites, a village engulfed in flames. My eyes watched as the cutscene unfolded, showcasing a plot with chilling logic built on a foundation of abhorrent, merciless morality. The irony clawed at my conscience: a video game resonated with an unsettling truth about the consequences of blind obedience and the illogicality of hate . A psychotic character named Dolph , commanded his legion of lethal assassins known as the Nether Gate , raining fire upon a secluded village of sentient beavers. The beaver's crime was their choice to live in seclusion from the rest of the Queendom of Falena . A desire for quietude, an escape from the civil war beyond their settlement (and in general). Their hostile, collective isolationism, parallel to the real-life Sentinelese , is a shield against conflict. On the other hand, it's also their executioners' justification for a more-homogonous society. To quote the extremely ruthless Dolph: "When differerent people and different cultures collide, a nation suffers. And yours is the most vile of cultures... His Excellency wants a Falena for Falenans" His logic, a twisted reasoning that tries to justify genocide, unravelled before my eyes. To sacrifice lives for borders drawn on maps, to deem existence unworthy based on lines of loyalty – what madness was this, if not a reference to ideologies such as anti-semetism? Yet, within Dolph's warped rationale, I glimpsed a chilling logic. Those deemed outside the circle of nationhood, the "insufficiently involved," were deemed unnecessary . Expendable sacrifices on the altar of national unity. An actually-vile notion, pretending to be humane logic, paints cultural isolation as a crime punishable by annihilation. Such is the systematic genocide attempts of people, whether succeed or fail: Purely Story of Logic and Immorality and based upon the perception of excessiveness not as a potential virtue but as a great liability that needs to be cut off. When you consider something -- or some people -- as "not pure" in any way, to be worthy to reside within your territories, the purely-cold logical thing to do is to dispose of them. It's like purifying a drug from impure material -- some components "have to go". I can comprehend the twistedly-pure logic, the cold efficiency of Dolph's act by playing the devil's advocate . But to accept it as legitimate? To equate peaceful isolation, where no harm to the external world is desired by the people as an indication for planned extinction? No. Even if they are not their own self-defined nation, why exterminate a peaceful populace? No man, no kingdom, held the right to extinguish lives seeking solace, their desire for harmony no justification for such barbarity. Even if they are within a country that isn't their own, does not justify it. And then, amidst the embers of the ravaged village, hope arose from the ashes from the destruction. The protagonist and their rebel army , defying the tide of injustice, rescued the beavers. After lives spent in solitude, they were forced out of their sanctuary by flames and fury, and these beavers chose a new path. They joined the rebels' fight, not for conquest, but for the overthrow of the tyrannical regime that had usurped the throne through the blood of the protagonist's own parents. Such is the good that can stem from the natural evil of vengeance. The beavers' choice mirrored a profound truth: Sometimes, the quietest of introverts can rise the loudest, fueled by the fires of fury. Their isolation, once a shield, became the crucible that forged their resolve. In choosing to fight, they defied the logic of purification, proving that the desire for peace can be the spark that ignites revolution. For peace is often fought with war and blood. Conclusion The story serves as a stark reminder that logic, devoid of empathy and compassion, can become a twisted blade. It challenged the notion that isolation equates to weakness, highlighting the quiet strength found in seeking peace.

How to Build the Mind with Rejections (Inspired music) ( Disclaimer: I first and all support survival in this world, that is full of gender biases. And I'll do whatever it takes to survive. I do not, for example, support the works of Andrew Tate , nor the man himself. No. I only support the means of survival, and not see them as the end. In a better world, sexism would've been irrelevant. It's why, by the way, I built the masculinity subcategory ). (Disclaimer II: When reading me, do try to distinguish between the means and between the end. I am a very functional thinker. Try making the difference between when I talk of this reality, and between a better reality. This poem is about this reality, which is, of course, far from perfect). ************************* Where the cowardice ended, A new man, rose up, begun. Cowardice, depraves human hearts, Thus with it, I am done. For I, to prove, What the ex-self, couldn't. And thus, being infantile, Is not a thing a man, be or should. Time to crush emotion beneath my boots, If it was dumb, then, I certainly wouldn't. Rejection caused by worry, Of threats, imaginary. People, and their lack of inner safety . Fill what is lacked, Requires being hefty . For I, to prove, Others to support: Approve. Hermitdom is the realm of the weak-hearted, Who also escape from society . But I, recovered to sobriety, In favor of not me, But fellow humanity. Because I again proved, by memory, To be a lesser man. To prove myself's my purpose, Something, I need and can. To whom? To all. As been rejected, Too long. I do not seek your pity, Because killing it, is my dignity. Gender roles keep playing humanity, So unconsciously . For I am, the big and lonely wolf, Capable of scaring away anyone. It is all because I exist, But to exist, I will not be done. For I build, an empire, Filled with pride. My orders: Fire. I will work to make many who read me, Enjoy it and admire. For I utilize rejection and I, Elevate myself higher. Broken hearts can be broken, By anyone you love. But to survive , you must, Build upon it, and rise above. When given, shatters, Build something, That matters. Thus I care little for what is in the way, As long as I live another day. As long as I can work, and thus, Give you work, I may. Serving a contra to the needy, Is a role of philosophy. For the philosopher enlightens, Those who choose the cave's story . For I, to prove, What the ex-self, couldn't. And thus, being infantile, Is not a thing a man, be or should. Time to crush emotion beneath my boots, If it was dumb, then, I certainly wouldn't.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Alex Mos's Analysis The Joker is an enigmatic antihero defined by madness, an inconsistent background, and a lack of purpose . He is a fictional terroristic nihilist who mocks our societal purpose and morality. The Joker does not embrace any ideology. Unlike Nietzsche's Overman, he doesn't reclaim morality or values but rejects any meaning and is the authentic ultimate anarchist. The Joker is the anti-philosopher, rejecting any school of thought and acting on emotion. His popularity in pop culture stems from a human fantasy of the ultimate disconnection between a rational mind and primal desires, along with giving up the yearning for a more compassionate society. In real life, people abandoning reason end up in a psychiatric ward or jail. "Both Insanity and Wisdom knows no race, creed, allegiance or country" - John Duran (Background music) ********************************* Unmasking the Joker's Nihilistic Madness The Joker , a devoid being under a clown's guide, is a villain who transcends the confines of comic books. More than just a nemesis, he's a cultural icon , arguably competing with the popularity of superheroes like Superman and even Batman himself. But what makes the Joker so captivating? How can a character defined by madness hold such allure in a reality constructed by logic?   The answer lies in the Joker's enigmatic nature. Unlike most villains driven by revenge , power , or twisted ideologies , the Joker has no clear origin story, no real name, and no exact purpose. He's a "chameleon" of sorts, shifting through different identities and backstories, being both inconsistent and loyal to his image at the same time. This lack of grounding makes him unpredictable, a force of chaos that mocks the very notion of order and meaning. And that's where nihilism comes in. The Joker is, in essence, fiction's most joyful nihilist. He sees life as a meaningless joke, devoid of inherent purpose or value. This doesn't make him passive, though. No, the Joker actively embraces the absurdity of existence, prospering most in anarchy and mayhem. Should a being like him burn the world, he'll dance in its ashes. His manic laughter echoes this nihilistic worldview, a very distorted form of positive nihilism . It's not just a reaction to his own madness, but a mockery of our societal obsession with meaning and morality.  He laughs at our attempts to impose order on chaos, our desperate need to find purpose in the void. In the Joker's eyes, it's all a cosmic joke, and he's just a cruel ringmaster, taking some of the chaos into his own hands, watching it unfold to his own amusement, even if it causes suffering of countless victims. This terroristic nihilism is what makes the Joker so dangerous, for he is a terrorist for terrorism's sake. Without respect for anything, he becomes a walking embodiment of pure chaos, and he enjoys every second of it. His acts of terror are not driven by malice, but by a playful desire to upset the cripple meaning and watch the world crumble. He's a walking paradox: a nihilist who creates his "purpose" in destroying purpose itself. The fact that wears clown makeup all the time, as part of his professional terrorist attire, a symbol of his mockery. He paints a smile on his face to hide the abyss within, a constant reminder that everything, even his own insanity, is nothing more than performance. He's the ultimate anarchist, not just tearing down society, but also the "act" of being in a fictional piece, by breaking the fourth-wall occasionally. He may even tell us that we are fictional ( And I have a clue why ). The Joker is a complex, contradictory character, a captivating blend of mania, anarchy, and absurdism . He's a reflection of our own anxieties about meaning and purpose, a reminder that sometimes, the biggest threat comes not from whether or not we will attain success in life, but rather, if that even matters in the first place. Laughing in the Face of Meaning: The Joker's Terroristic Nihilism vs. Nietzsche's Overman Friedrich Nietzsche's " Overman ," a being who transcends conventional morality and embraces their own values, stands as a beacon of individual liberation. Yet, lurking in the shadows of comic book lore, the Joker emerges and surpasses even Nietzsche's vision of crumbling the traditional values of society. The Joker's "philosophy" doesn't exist; "it" exists to explode other philosophies into smithereens. "It" doesn't merely reject morality; he gleefully dismantles it, throws it into an electric chair, and watches it explode in glorious nihilistic fireworks of what once was a meaningful pursuit. Unlike Nietzsche, who seeks to reclaim morality and authority for the self, the Joker abducts it entirely, leaving behind a void pulsating with chaotic laughter. Unlike Nietszche, the Joker has no desire for objective meaning of any kind, for the only "meaning" that exists in his eyes it's the lack of it beyond our deluded perception. One might dismiss him as a lunatic, but the Joker's "rationality" lies in his clarity and brutal honesty, for he cares to be far more true than he wants to be socially proper (as the truth often hurts). Why reason when you can reject it all, embrace your urges, and paint the world with your own manic image? Logic, after all, isn't an inherent human trait; it's a learned skill, a tool we refine through philosophy – the very study philosophers may praise as a path to the mastery of reality. This is where the Joker's "Terroristic Nihilism" takes center stage. Stripped bare, it's the ultimate rejection and opposition to meaning. It's a philosophy that laughs in the face of order and purpose, and at those who even dare think they are real and not constructs of fairy tales. The Joker doesn't believe in anything, not even himself. He's a whirlwind of chaos, a living embodiment of the absurd. Yet, unlike Kefka, his nihilistic counterpart from Final Fantasy 6 , the Joker doesn't drown in despair or ruin. He doesn't see the world as something to be destroyed due to its inherent lack of meaning. No. He sees it as a playground of possibilities, shackled only by our own social and self-imposed limitations. He wants to break free, to laugh in the face of expectations, and dance on the disco dancefloor of oblivion! By directly opposing anything we regard as real and meaningful, he allows himself to be the most authentic version of himself, unhindered by anything but the forces of justice and morality. In this twisted perspective, the Joker becomes a perverse liberator, a childish version of Nietzsche's Overman who refuses to grow up into a grown creator of meaning. While the overman destroys former meaning in exchange of their own, the Joker has no desire to develop into this stage which Niezsche saw as the next stage in human development. He doesn't forge his own moral code; he shatters all codes, leaving behind pure, unfiltered experience, devoid of any reason but that of humor. It's a terrifying freedom, a descent into the abyss with a manic grin plastered on your face. And very, very few people in real life would have the guts to do the same. Ultimately, the Joker's "philosophy" is a reminder that the pursuit of individual liberation can be a slippery slope into the abyss, as the rejection of all meaning can lead to a sense of emptiness that can destroy our will for purpose. At the same time, it also forces us to confront the limitations of our own constructed "realities", which we choose , the fragile frameworks we build to find meaning in a chaotic world. The Anti-Philosopher's Abyss The Joker, a criminal thought leader on chaos, defies easy categorization. This enigmatic figure, I propose, is an anti-philosopher . Unlike traditional philosophers who seek meaning and understanding through reason (AKA, through a-priori means ), the Joker gleefully throws logic out the window. Morality, ideology, even the very concept of "good" and "evil" – all crumble under his manic laughter. In a sense, he has his own brand of anti-philosophy, seeing how he opposes not just a-priori reasoning but any reasoning, including practical ethics , which must be based on experience of some kind. His anti-philosophy isn't a rejection of specific schools of thought; it's a rejection of any school of thought. He operates on pure instinct, driven by emotion and a twisted sense of humor. This makes him, in a way, deeply relatable, for there is something quite human in admitting how unreasonable one might be. In a world where control and restraint are well-developed , the Joker's deep indulgence in the id, the primal part of ourselves that craves immediate gratification, offers a seductive escape. That is of course despite the fact that his schemes are often elaborate, for he is, as said, a very inconsistent being. He embodies the rebellious child within us, the one who yearns to tear down the walls of parents, teachers and bosses, and chase the fleeting thrill of the moment, without a care in the world. For people like him just want to watch the world burn. His actions, however, are never without consequence. He's a comic relief, yes, but a dark one, reminding us that unchecked emotional impulses can lead to chaos and destruction of even ourselves. His own henchmen seem to be the most expendable I've witnessed in fiction. Expendable by himself, as he may kill them off for entertainment. As you can see he opposes any sensible business philosophy within his own organization. The Joker's popularity, I believe, speaks to a growing disconnect between our rational minds and our primal desires, along with a general discontent from societies that disregard us in the first place, leaving us to survive homeless on our own. And yet, the real-life price we pay for abandoning reason entirely can easily strip us off of anything we and others view as dear, and leave us either dead or locked up in a psychiatric ward or jail. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Words Insanity and wisdom are both summary words to describe a handful of characteristics. A wise man or “insane” person is only that because their collective characteristics have determined that they are. I personally believe that they are one and the same. Ends of one particular spectrum meaning at any point in our lives we might find ourselves leaning more towards one direction and at a different point in our lives learning in the opposite.  The defining factor with each boils down to a person's ability to process reality. Insanity would result in a person being poor at doing so and wisdom would be the opposite as life experiences have taught a person how to process things better. One becomes wise by living their life to the fullest. You can witness this type of spectrum by reviewing a comic book story as a live spectrum in action . You will see throughout the entirety of the story line that both heroes and villains are witnessed to have moved around on it a bit. A villain might be seen doing a kind action, regardless of the reason and a hero might disregard their own morality and do something evil, regardless of the reason. This is proof that a spectrum exists with heroes and villains, or more specifically evil vs good. A constant battle which happens inside of everyone. We all possess the ability to be either good or bad. Most people understand this as a moral compass. It acts as a beacon to let us know if we are going in the right direction but as we are human it doesn’t necessarily, as we have free will , mean it is the direction we will go towards.

(Background music) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) Article Summary by Beacon Sage The article "The Philosophy of The Bigshot And Why Wise Guys Are Dangerous" delves into the psychology behind power, leadership, and anti-villainy. It argues that bigshots are often driven by personal pain, trauma, or deprivation , as seen in characters like Darth Vader, Mr. Freeze, and Count Dooku. The article also highlights the complexity of morality, with villains and anti-villains often seeking to rectify past injustices. It relates this to personal experiences, such as a late mentor and the creation of Philosocom. The article warns against "wise guys" who challenge authority and expose hidden motives, emphasizing the importance of self-awareness and understanding one's motivations for power or influence. Big shots are only little shots who keep shooting. -- Christopher Morley Don't wait until you are a big shot to do big shot things. -- Tony Evans Part I: The Inverted Roles Our orthodox perception of bigshots and their followers is often a big mistake for what we see is what we are often imprisoned to. We do not necessarily understand the pain that fuels people to become bigshots. We do not necessarily understand the pain that fuels people to follow those who call the shots in a community, in a family and in any other form of human organization!! Sometimes, the bigshots and their followers don't even know entirely themselves why they do the things they do. Often, human reasoning remains unconscious , making things we do in life a journey towards self discovery. The Relations of Fantasy and Depravity As Sigmund Freud has suggested... Our fascination with gold is related to the fantasies of early childhood. Why do we fantasize in the first place? We fantasize, often, out of distress. We fantasize and dream of lofty ambitions out of our own depravity. Of our own internal struggles. Of our own agony. Of our own depression. Of our own thirst and hunger and apatite... In the world of fictional villainy, the bigshot becomes one often because of a traumatic, tragic backstory... Bane has a deep depravity that compels him to rule Gotham city after he ruled the hellish prison of Pena Duro . Being a helpless child who grew there, to rule with fear is what allowed Bane to survive both that prison and the criminal underworld of Gotham. To survive, he rules by subjugating others. Mr. Freeze's primary goal is to save his wife, Nora. He does what he does and works outside the law and society in general because he seeks to restore his fatally-ill wife back to health. Scarecrow is ironically a very honest intellectual, who perhaps might be too honest for his own good. His lack of pretending as an intellectual makes the entirety of Gotham a test subject for the research in his field. The character's real name is Dr. Jonatan Crane and Dr. Crane is an ex-professor of psychology. Logically, people become intellectuals because their biggest depravity is their own ignorance. In Star Wars... Darth Vader is consumed by deep rage and regret for not being to defeat the Sith like he intended to. He is the Emperor's chief enforcer, however he is also his greatest slave. He is deeply consumed by guilt and shame by the fact he helped his greatest antagonist defeat the Jedi order who raised him. Always being an emotional man, the narcissistic Palpatine couldn't do anything but subvert his moral alignment out of his own sick and twisted depravity. Palpatine took away his former life, made him an outcast both in his Empire and in general, the famed war hero he was as Anakin, turned into a shell of his former self, a dead inside man under a mechanical suit that was made not only to sustain him but also to cause him pain. Consumed by pain and hatred and many other negative emotions , Darth Vader sought revenge against Palpatine and was finally able to dispose of him. An anti-villain, Vader was Palpatine's greatest rebel, despite being the Rebel Alliance's greatest foe as a one man army. Boba Fett's ultimate depravity was revenge against the Jedi Mace Windu who killed his father, Jango Fett. However, the fall of the Jedi Order, including Mace Windu's, meant that he already has that depravity cut out for him. As such, he simply resumed doing most of his life what his father did as well: Be a bounty hunter, or in other words, a paid mercenary and hitman. He is a simple man because his greatest psychological depravity has already been solved. Despite failing to kill Han Solo himself , it was, likely nothing more than a mere job he was hired to. Unlike Vader, Fett is an emotionally distant man who treats his job like an actual butcher would: With emotional detachment. Count Dooku , like actual pirates, was disillusioned with the Jedi Order, who deemed them corrupt and therefore undeserving of any legitimacy. Being an anti-villain too, Dooku sought to reduce corruption , only to be corrupted by Palpatine himself, long before Palpatine corrupted the man who would grow up to be Vader. Both Dooku and Vader deviated their perception away from the galaxy's established matrix because that society was did not appeal to them. Being horribly misunderstood by that society, that's how you unintentionally turn your own fellow allies against yourself. In both their respective cases, they were disillusioned from the Jedi Order specifically. Part II: Why People Rise to Power People rise to power over others, as we can logically deduce , because of their own personal pain. They become bigshots, or in other words, the top leaders, because of their pain. Their pain prevents them from moving on and accepting reality like many other simple folk would. People who have power over others are complex individuals because they need help. The means to get that help matters less than one might think, in this context. The very fact that we need help and help others stems from some kind of depravity. Some kind of weakness. This weakness isn't always known or told. The bigshot's weakness may often be repressed and denied by their mind . As such, our literal understanding of altruism is always false to a degree, because everything people do, they do out of their own depravity. As such, any interaction is always a conscious or unconscious interplay between egoism and altruism. Depravity Subverted For the Greater Good Those who are deemed moral paragons and those who have moral greatness are usually those who are the most troubled. Like with Bruce Wayne, whose parents were killed by a robber, some people may seek to rectify problems, like saving people from themselves. These people do it because they understand that they do not live in a vacuum. When you understand and accept that you do not live in a void, who you are and what disorders you have, may matter less to you as they should. When it comes clear, then the help you may get from others you might use not for exploitation or destruction, but in methods in which more than yourself is seen. Villains and anti-villains are always troubled beings. However, the villain redeems himself, AKA turns into an anti-villain, because he or she understands the greater fabric of reality. A reality that exists outside themselves. Returning to case examples: Mr. Freeze in an anti-villain, AKA an antagonist with redeemable qualities , because his purpose is already clear, and involves his terminally-ill wife. From the very start he deems it fit to cause terrorism for the greater good that is saving his wife from her own illness. Darth Vader is a redeemable villain because deep inside he cares for his son, Luke Skywalker. The pain inflicted on Luke by his slave-master Palpatine sparked an inner light in him. By hurting his son whom he wished to rule by his side, Vader finally gained the courage to destroy the very Sith he was raised and educated to destroy. Ultimately, he managed to do what he was told to do as Anakin: Wage war against the enemies of the Jedi in the name of peacekeeping. For peace, one must prepare for war. Troy, the obscure villain of Suikoden IV, is a redeemable villain because he makes it a habit to be merciful and compassionate towards the weak. A mysterious man, he serves under the colonizing Kooluk Empire. However, following his own moral code, he was seen protesting against a weapon of mass destruction that literally nuked an island nation for the sake of establishing a Kooluk Base there. Being mysterious, his origin story remains hidden in the shadows and we might never know why he chooses to pity those he deems as weaklings. Although mercy can be considered impractical , as people should ideally help themselves before helping others in the first place, one could reason that some anti-villains have this pity-based code of honour because someone who was/is dear to them, had an unfortunate event/series of events. I am an anti-villain similarly to why Troy is. Troy is nicknamed "Child of the Sea God". I am the apprentice of a late master whom I saved. She sought recognition and relevancy from the world for her merits. However, she never got her victory, as she was a difficult person to be around. Seeking her own despair, I saved her from herself. Being regarded irrelevant and unseen as an autist, I began resenting the very society I am a part of. As such, I've built an underground apprentice dojo meant to rectify the world through the Philosocom Article Empire. The fact that my late master was as distressful as she was, changed me forever and I couldn't bear the thought of partaking in society the normal way. As I still try to learn how to be normal, forgiving the world for traumatizing me will always be difficult. As such, how I return to myself is by rectifying the very world I am in, as my own late master has instructed me in her final years. By helping others, I help myself. When I rest and recover from my philosophy-related fatigue , I can work on this site far batter, thus helping you, far better!! Conclusion of Part II People seek power over others out of a desire that may be hidden or otherwise. Out of logic that may be hidden or otherwise. You need to understand that, in order for you to be honest with others, you first must be honest with yourself. You cannot be reasonable with other people if you cannot be reasonable with your own motives, or depravities, of interacting with them in any way. In other words, you must not conceal your dispositions with those you are helping. Otherwise they will be angry at you if they are... well... wise-guys. Final Part: The Danger of Wise-Guys Sometimes it's better to be lucky than smart. -- Guy Kawasaki Wise guys are people who don't care about your privacy. They would ask a lot of annoying questions and bother you unnecessarily. They would focus on justice, but in a very narrow kind of way. The way they would do it is annoying and is mainly serving their own obscure need to argue and/or debate with you or those who are affiliated with you. That motive is not always known, and most of the time is not known. As such, the term "wise guy" is not a praise but a sarcastic way to tell you you're foolish. If you don't understand it, or even if you feel praised by it, your foolish behavior can be used and exploited. Why Armchair Philosophers Aren't Often Wise Guys The armchair philosopher may be called as such not because they are not academically-trained. They may also be called that because they don't necessarily venture outside their homes (or armchairs) to inquire and apply their philosophy. Wise guys can be seen as wise fools. And fools in general can, in layman term's, get whacked. Furthermore, many esoteric philosophers are not deemed philosophers but practitioners of their own ideology. Let us look at case examples... Philosophers like Socrates were wise guys. Socrates' own Socratic method of research, costed him his life.   Yukio Mishima may be considered an ideologist more than anything . However, he can still be seen as an attempted revolutionary who tried to put into his ideas into practice, and found out they weren't accepted by anyone. Unable to cater to the understanding of others, and dying because of it, can make him be regarded as a madman. For not being able to ground themselves in reality, due to their own idealism, the guru Gandhi and even some more contemporary political activists may be seen as wise-guy individuals or wise-guy organizations. Innovative people in general who have wild ideas can be deemed wise guys who are detached with the reality around them. That's because they are too busy making plans and ideas like masterminds would do. That includes myself and this whole concept of Philosocom. In my case, however, I begin to recognize and appreciate normalcy the more I study it. Final Words Over the course as the head of Philosocom , I've spent much of my time exploring the intricate relationship between power, psychology, and morality. As we delve more into this topic, it turns clearer that individuals who ascend to positions of power are often driven by complex, often hidden motivations/logic systems. It's easy to judge those in positions of authority, as the power of domination corrupts absolutely. However, I believe it's essential to approach them with understanding, while not involving ourselves too much, if we deem it too risky. Many of these individuals have experienced much trauma, which shaped their worldview and actions. While their methods may be questionable, it's important to recognize the human element behind their behavior. Of course, the abuse of one's power over others is a serious issue, especially nowadays. As such, it's crucial to hold those in authority accountable for their actions. However, to quote Mr. John Duran: Never beat yourself up over motives.. That's the job for courts to do!  However, it's equally important to promote ethical leadership and to encourage those in higher positions to use their influence for the betterment of the world they are a part of. As we understand the intricate nature of the human condition , we can also understand its complexities. As such, we can better navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by power dynamics in our own lives and in the world around us.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Our mind is our greatest tool for experiencing the world; however, our emotional biases can ruin our lives. Humans imprison themselves to live mediocre, immoral lives, unwilling to help others because of their emotional weakness. For a better world , we should question corrupt choices dictated by our unchecked minds. We should be open-minded and aware of our biases. Our minds can deceive us by creating illusions and distorting reality. With open-mindedness, we break free. Even what is widely considered the truth can be a fallacy of popularity rather than an objective reflection of the actual world. The philosopher's job is to assess bias-free truth and to help others understand the world around them. However, human perception of reality may be flawed due to innate human limitations. The mind's essence remains a mystery , and so is the objective nature of our existence. Most humans accept the perceived reality without question as they must focus on survival; however, we also wish for a purposeful reality worth living. Otherwise, we must accept either the nihilistic perspective or the philosophy of solipsism. Being aware of biases and the mind's deceptions, we must critically question our world perception, think logically , be skeptical, and stay curious . (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) (Background music) The Mind: The Enemy Within We exist within the confines of our minds, a necessary medium for experiencing the world. Every sight, sound, and emotion is processed and interpreted by this internal filter. We often forget that it, in a way, always does. We often lead it to mislead us unnecessarily, thinking we are objective all the while. Sad, isn't it? Sad, that we think emotions are good sources for knowledge, confidence particularly? What if this filter isn't always transparent, and thus, not as reliable, as we might think? What if our minds are not only our greatest asset, but, by the same token, our greatest enemies as well? What if our emotions tell us that we should not live? Should we always trust our emotions, even if they may go against us? I see so many people over-trusting their emotions, but I remember that sometimes, they ruin things for us. They may even ruin our lives, for example, through addictions, for they tell us that horrible things are good for us, and they reward us for following them, too. How can I support and validate such unreliable filters with haste? Filters capable of telling people, at times, that they should die? That they should become addicted to horrible substances? That they should enjoy seeing others suffer? How can you expect me to respect such backstabbing informants? Nietzsche was right . Humans are to be overcome. Their beastly nature, one that preys on the weak, and ignore them in their cries, is one enabled by one's refusal to resist their emotions. For their emotions enable their weakness, the weakness that is refusing to question the very mental construct which confine them, both in society and within their hearts, to live a mediocre, immoral life. And without the ability to question this beastly prison, one cannot get out of it, and become strong enough to lend others their help , in their time of uncomfortable, emotion-threatening need. If someone cries, "I don't want to die!", and your mind tells you that you need to kick them out of a meeting with you, is your mind a moral advisor to you? Of course not, for morality dictates that fear is to be decreased using the cultivation of psychological safety. One does not need to listen to their own mind too much, when it is capable not only to enable suffering, but to increase it, too. One must, then, for a better world, question it , and lambast it ruthlessly. For an incompetent advisor, if cannot be completely stripped out of its role, must be punished for its poor assertion of reality, in which it applies its decision-making plan. It must be put in its place, if it thinks that we should enjoy suffering just because enjoyment is "all good and well". An unquestioned mind is no worse than unchecked North Korean tyrant who thrives on the suffering of the very others that serve him. The mind deserves its own checks and balances, just like with any other official authority. It isn't illness that loses the mind, but death. We are stuck with our minds as long as we consent or desire to live. We must scrutinize it remorselessly in order to be able to think and see reality with greater clarity. For the point of clarity is to allow ourselves to make better decisions. Otherwise, we would doom ourselves in perpetual loops, both personal, collective and multigenerational, of making the same mistakes again and again. Make them as we are confined in a mental prison whose chains must be broken, so we would be able to work towards a better life, a better world. We may condemn scammers for misleading us with their carefully planned schemes to exploit our naivety. But how dare we not condemn, as well, the very same scammer that lives within us? The only reason our minds deceive us so easily, is because we let it. We let it by not being aware of our biases , and by not willing to look both ways. The Enigma of Perception Perhaps the very fabric of our waking world is no more than another elaborate dream. This raises a more unsettling question: can we ever truly know what's real? Have you ever woken from a dream so real it left you questioning the nature of reality itself? This experience, where the mind meticulously crafts a convincing illusion, exposes its profound ability to deceive. Dreams offer an uncanny example of the mind's ability to deceive. Waking from a vivid dream leaves us questioning the reliability of our very own perceived world . Our mind's capacity to create elaborate and convincing realities, blurring the lines between dream and waking life... That is the one clue that any logical being needs to get, when it comes to the reliability of the uncriticized mind itself. Of course, the agreement of others on a perceived reality doesn't guarantee its absolute truth. Objectivity and intersubjectivity are not the same. Shared experiences can be tainted by cultural biases or simply the limitations of our senses. There exists an external world that exists regardless of what we think or feel about it. What appears universally true could be a product of collective agreement, a fallacy of popularity rather than an objective reflection of the world. And could there even be something that is an "objective reflection", that is completely pure of subjectivity? Most likely not. But it's the philosopher job to pure himself or herself from as much subjective bias as possible in order to asses reality clearly, and with that assesment, help others understand the world in which they inhabit. We are very much like gurus in that regard. And I refer to its traditional meaning, not to authority figures, and to the fallacy that comes from it. A Gateway to Deeper Questions Our meta-cognitive abilities and our minds are the sole interpreters of the world around us. However, but what if this filter is inherently flawed? This raises the unsettling possibility that our understanding of reality is fundamentally flawed due to our default human nature.  We may only ever experience a filtered version, shaped by the limitations and biases of our own minds. But it is nonetheless one we can partially overcome by enhancing our understanding skills. The very essence of the mind itself is a mystery. It transcends the physical, existing as a formless presence within us. Could this intangible entity be the architect of our entire reality? Perhaps this world, with all its sights and sounds, is nothing more than a mere projection, an experiment conducted by an unknown force. Nothing more, of course, than a mystery that we choose to accept without much question just as we did with the existence of reality itself. Many of us gave up on this innate questioning when we had to focus on our survival, and also of others' survival. But what about the mental aspect of survival? How can we simply accept the universe as is without having it affect our mental health? We may restrict others' and ourselves from overthinking, but "overthinking" is what we want to do if we wish to deem this reality a rational one, and thus, of one worthy of continuing to live in. And it's either that or nihilism, and I'm talking about true nihilism, one that goes without the hypocrisy of deeming things and beings as meaningful. The philosophy of solipsism , with the premise that only you are truly real, becomes a chilling possibility in the face of such uncertainty. By comparison, we could also assume that we're inside a VR world , or that this universe is nothing more than a computer simulation . There is no clear understanding if either theories are true, if at all. The Unreliable Advisor Analogy Imagine yourself as a powerful king, ruling a vast and magnificent kingdom ( unlike the contemporary British and Japanese ). However, your knowledge of this domain comes exclusively from a single advisor. This advisor whispers of prosperous cities, strong military forces and the approval of your people. However, you have no way of knowing if this is the truth or a meticulously crafted illusion. This, you see, is the ever-living predicament that is the human mind. Our minds act as mediums, that filter all information about the world before it reaches us with the manipulative power of bias and logical fallacies . We experience everything, from the heat of the sun to the sting of betrayal , through this enigmatic lens imposed on us by our verdict of being . And yet, can we ever be certain the information it presents is accurate enough for practicality? With its incompetence after all, much miscommunication is caused. And with it comes much avoidable misery. Why not train it for the better? The advisor analogy holds true even when we attempt to learn objectively. Research and statistics, supposedly the hallmarks of truth, can be misinterpreted or even fabricated under an ulterior motive. The agreement of others on a piece of information ( appeal to the popular opinion ) doesn't guarantee its validity. It could simply be a product of shared biases or limitations in our senses. Final Words This predicament leads us to a sobering conclusion: our grasp of reality might be fundamentally limited. We may be forever trapped in a labyrinth of our own perception, forever reliant on an advisor whose trustworthiness remains a mystery. The true challenge lies not in succumbing to despair, but in acknowledging this limitation, and deciding to resume living nonetheless. By understanding the mind's potential for deception, we can embark on a more critical exploration of the world. We must constantly question our perceptions, seeking diverse perspectives and employing rigorous methods of inquiry. The ultimate goal is not to achieve absolute certainty, for we cannot necessarily achieve it anyway. Rather, we have the power to navigate the labyrinth with a healthy dose of skepticism and an insatiable thirst for knowledge. The thrist of knowledge i s a legitimate thirst for power , one that can help us going forward. This exploration isn't meant to breed despair, but to ignite curiosity. By acknowledging the mind's potential for illusion, we open a door to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. We need not to simply accept our perceptions, especially when they are false. Instead, we have the power to overcome the mind by challenging our own biases. The mind may be an enigma, but through its complexities, along with our unique relationships with it, we can do what we can to gain greater clarity. This journey may not lead us to a definitive answer about the mind or reality, but it is a quest worth undertaking. Why give up when we can still try? You see, this questioning isn't entirely impractical if we wish to make sense of our universe, correct? We need to understand what we're in for so we'll be able to know how to act, which is of course in accordance to the truth. And whatever other people may tell us does not always settle with us, and often for good reason, too.   Sound reasoning is like a gift we can give to ourselves -- the gift towards our greater sanity.  Do not expect others to understand your pain when they dismiss your concern as impractical... As unrealistic as I might sound, this is unfortunately the truth in many cases.. Ms. Hali Bash-March's Feedback: I liked the conclusion of the ending, but I still feel a specific bias throughout the text that I didn't like, and that is the assumption that the ideal form of our thinking is without bias at all, meaning without emotions or prejudices, like robots. Most of the beginning of the article is written with a hint of sadness and tragedy that we do not control our biases and our emotions. And I don't really connect with this approach. I think it is a very necessary and important foundation to recognize our biases in order to succeed in getting important control and understanding over our own lives. But it is not a tragedy in my eyes, but something that is part of life and part of the beauty of life. Our emotions are part of who we are, the experience of life through emotions is part of life. It is true that it is a double-edged sword as Mr. Tomasio mentioned, the emotion can contradict the will to exist and this is an anti-survival trait. But it also means that emotion is an essential part of life. The very fact of our biases, whether through thoughts or emotions, is something that we can indeed navigate, and it is part of what I do as a psychological process on myself, but it doesn't work at the push of a button. This process works and the results come late so you can't tell if the process is working until it works. There is a certain paradox in this too because emotion produces bias and bias produces emotion. In order to break the cycle, we need to understand the bias and "feed new data" into the brain. The bias and emotion will change on average after 3 months, which has been neurologically proven as the time it takes for the brain to create a new neural pathway. This is a very interesting topic by the way, we can expand the conversation about it.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, and apply knowledge skillfully. Wisdom is a practical tool, using knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgments. An intelligent person is not necessarily wise and may make poor decisions due to a lack of experience and mental maturity . IQ tests are controversial because they are inaccurate, can be discriminatory, and measure only logical intelligence, not emotional and social. The difference between wisdom and intelligence in communication is negligible beyond when education is involved. Obtaining knowledge is the key to intelligent decisions and wisdom. Accusing somebody of "stupidity" is offensive, so it's better to avoid the topic rather than ignore the stupidity or twist it into a false compliment. Although many individuals possess intelligence, not all hold certificates . Diplomas grant people privileges even though not all take the best decisions and are competent. Even though intelligence is genetically determined, anybody can become wise by using their inborn intellect in the best possible way. ************************** (Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (Background music) ************************** What is intelligence, and how is it different from wisdom? Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand, and apply knowledge skillfully . As such, intelligence is a virtue. The artist may be intelligent by the fact that he applies his knowledge in one or more artistic crafts. Wisdom, on the other hand is the ability to use knowledge and experience to make good decisions and judgements. As such, wisdom is a practical tool. Thus, the intelligent person may not be practical, necessarily, if their skill isn't practical. That is, while the wise person is measured by their ability to make realistic judgement of situations and characters. The point of making judgement is to survive. And surviving, of course, allows us to thrive. Intelligence is often measured by IQ tests, which are controversial in their ability to do so. However, there is no single test that can measure intelligence accurately. Can a person be considered more intelligent but less wise, or vice versa? Yes, it is possible for a person to be more intelligent but less wise, or vice versa. As stated, Intelligence is about the ability to learn and understand, while wisdom is about the ability to use that knowledge to make good decisions . For example, a person can be very intelligent, and yet, lack the life experience or emotional maturity to make wise decisions. Conversely, a person can be less intelligent but have a lot of life experience and wisdom, which he or she may use practically. Dr. Eggman , which has been covered o n Philosocom , is very intelligent, but very unwise character -- hence why he constantly loses to his foes, despite being an extremely talented genius. He is very gifted, but far from practical, making him an incompetent intellect . What role does intelligence play in our everyday lives, and even in our survival? Intelligence plays an important role in our everyday lives. It helps us to learn new things, solve problems, and make valuable decisions. Intelligence can also help us to avoid danger and survive in difficult situations, when combined with wisdom. Here is a simple example of a smart decision: Deciding to study for a test instead of going out with friends. Here are 2 examples of a foolish decision: Deciding to drive drunk. Working as a text-to-speech livestreamer Why is it measured by IQ tests, which are controversial in their ability to do so? IQ tests are controversial because they are not always accurate. In addition, they were and can be used for discrimination against those who scored lowly, in favor of those who excelled . IQ tests also only measure certain types of intelligence, such as logical-mathematical intelligence. There are many other types of intelligence, such as emotional intelligence and social intelligence, that are not measured by IQ tests. In turn, this could lead to misconceptions that can trigger the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Is there actually a significant difference between intelligence and wisdom? The problem is that each of these words can be used to define the other without the need of distinction. The fact that they are so similar may be sufficient for an effective communication , thus devaluing the need for distinguishing between the terms. An intelligent decision, for example, can just be as accepted as a wise decision without the necessity of altering the meaning in this sentence. It is reasonable to assume that the true difference between these words only arrives when education is at hand. Several insights The most obvious pathway to intelligence and wisdom is knowledge. Knowledge is a resource that can reveal to you opportunities you would not have otherwise considered. In other words, knowledge is power. For example, learning new strategies in chess can increase the intelligence of your decisions when facing a formidable opponent. Those who are unaware of their abilities and their potentials are not necessarily stupid, but they can make their current decisions even smarter than before, should they be aware of what they're truly capable of. As such, the intellect applies knowledge in the name of their skill, like with the artist's example. An intelligent artist is one that uses their skills very competently. However, not all skills are practical necessarily. The wise person may apply the knowledge they earned thus far in order to make smarter decisions, and in order to better evaluate the environment they are in. The problem with the word " stupidity " is that it is often used as an insult. Almost everyone is likely to be offended by this adjective, so when referring to people without the intention of insulting them, you are either confined to ignore their "stupidity", falsely call them wise, or twist your speech in a way that will compliment them through a change of perspective... All in your efforts to not insult them with the possible truth about them. For example, talking about one's potential instead of their incompetence can give a person hope instead of being insulted. It might be important to criticize, but unfortunately, some people are more emotionally sensitive than others . Thus, you may need to understand the individual you're speaking to, in order to make smart decisions upon interaction and collaboration. Perhaps you don't even need to bring the topic up, nor lead to the subject? While many people can be smart, education requires certificates that not everyone has. These documents grant them a distinction, both interpersonal and practical, that does not exist within the other adjectives. Regardless, not every educated person will make smart decisions in all fields, even if their academic titles represent extraordinary intelligence in a very specific field. This leads to a variant of the appeal to authority fallacy , known as the degree fallacy. Thus, even the educated can be somewhat "dumb" as all of us can be. And by "dumb" I mean incompetent . It all depends on the task at hand and whether or not you have the knowledge required to make choices that give you more benefit than otherwise. Conclusion Intelligence is a complex concept that is difficult to define without pure disagreement. However, it is clear that intelligence plays an important role in our everyday lives. Especially in our professional lives . The more intelligent we are, the better equipped we are to make good decisions that will lead to beneficial outcomes. Everyone is only as gifted intellectually as their genetics allow, yet anyone can become wise by figuring out what they can do with the intelligence that they have been given. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: Intelligence isn’t something which people either possess or don’t. The average intelligence is 100 for a reason. It might be more correct to describe learning, understanding, and using as steps of successful intellectual expression. A trait which anyone can accomplish. We all learn as children and somehow forget to as adults. Does that mean that children are more intelligent than adults? They can learn better. Food for thought, does age hinder our own intelligence? In other words, why is it more difficult to teach an adult than it is to teach a child? Do we become so set in thinking we know everything that we don’t bother learning anything else, only about what is important or interesting to us do we learn? Is the reason why kids learn better, is because they're forced to learn, unlike adults who can learn about one thing just good enough to make money doing it? Isn’t a huge point in the journey of life, the fact that the more you learn the higher your value as a human goes? You can do more things as a career the more that you know. Basically, some professions prerequisite is that you must know so much in order to do it. An example would be a doctor. Can’t be one unless you are willing to learn an "X" amount about it. Willingness to learn might be a very good skill to list on a resume . Most places don’t care what you’ve done, as much as they want to know what your willing to learn. Life-long education is very important.  Intelligence isn’t merely an ability. Your intelligence, being part of your genetics, is more an essence of who you are. Intelligence is the thing which gives you life. Your brain is naturally intelligent as you look at all the abstract things it lets your body do without you having to tell it to. You don’t have to tell your stomach to digest food. It's all because your brain is intelligent enough to tell your stomach to do it all on its own. Something has to tell it to. So, intelligence is also responsible for every body process you have. None would occur if something didn’t tell it to. You don’t have to tell your body to fight off an infection. Your intelligence designed body functions which will fight things off for you. So, intelligence does a lot more than people think, all without their knowledge. Intelligence is how you receive knowledge and wisdom is about better processing. Your intelligence is constantly aware of what you are doing even though you might not be processing. Wisdom comes when you learn to efficiently process information and sensory data. Wisdom is finding a better way to do things . Intelligence can simply tell you what is available for you to do. Just because you can do X amount of things doesn’t mean your wise. You're intelligent, sure, but only wise if you find an effective way to use that information. Intelligence is more a possessive trait and wisdom is more a processing one. Intelligence can help with quantity whereas wisdom can help with quality. Think about wisdom versus intelligent using the piano as an example. An intelligent person could figure out what all the keys were and where they were. A wise person could use that information to create music. Wisdom is the result of intelligence's self actualization. Intelligence is the application of learned knowledge and wisdom is effectively doing so. There is no multiple type of intelligence. Look into psychometric G . The theory of general intelligence. All that there is is your intelligence and different cognitive features which it can use to express itself with. "Musical" and "emotional" are like intelligence personality types. All they are is expressions of intelligence. Musical intelligence has more to do with your neuroanatomy and the way you process sound. It is not intelligence. It is learned information which your intelligence can use to express itself with. Any action you do is an expression of your intelligence. If you don’t want to be seen as stupid, all you have to do is avoid doing stupid things . Your actions will speak more to your intelligence than anything else and shouldn’t really be stated but rather demonstrated. Wisdom accompanies good morals and those who use their intelligence for good deeds. Everybody possesses it, and it isn’t exclusive to those individuals with higher than average. Anyone can be wise and learn to best utilize the intelligence that they’ve been given. "Stupid" is a relative subjective term. "Stupid" is something that everyone is. You are always someone who possess less information than someone else. Doesn’t everyone know stuff which you don't know? When it comes to knowing someone else, you are always stupid. They can always tell you stuff which you don’t know. Today's stupid is used as a status symbol. You want someone to know they are stupid, So you can feel smarter than them. Most commonly referred to as the consequence of an action. People do something unintelligent and they get ridiculed like it is an absolute. Does everybody not do something not that smart from time to time? You try remembering to do every single 1 of a million things. See if you don’t occasionally make a slip up. Imperfections are a part of life so why are people considered stupid for making a mistake. Nobody is perfect. You could say everyone is capable of stupidity just due to the fact of how many fallacies they fall victim to. Intelligence has to do with your genetics. Plus, intelligence is pretty stationary . It has nothing to do with how much knowledge you possess. It exists apart from that. Super intelligence , I believe only applies to a small portion of the world. Smart is something everyone understands. Intelligence is a very complex thing. It has to do with brain power and not with knowledge.

(Philosocom's Directory on Luck) Abstract I argue that our lives are not predetermined by fate or divine intervention. Instead, they are shaped by a combination of chance and our own choices. I use the concept of possibility to explain this . Everything that can happen, no matter how likely or unlikely, is a possibility. These possibilities can come about without any supernatural guidance. I also argue against the idea of miracles. Miracles are seen as rare events with a low probability of occurring. However, if a higher power dictates a specific miracle to happen, its likelihood changes. This contradicts the very nature of miracles. I conclude by emphasizing the role of our choices in shaping our lives. We may not have complete control over everything, but we can influence the outcome to some extent. Even in a world governed by chance, our actions can tip the scales of possibility in our favor. Mos's review delves into the debate between determinism (everything is predetermined) and free will. It starts with Einstein's deterministic view and the question of whether existence is random or predetermined based on physics and quantum mechanics. She explores concepts like entanglement (linked particles) and the theory of super-determinism (hidden variables influencing outcomes) to question if free will is an illusion. It then presents John Bell's idea that choices might be predetermined but doesn't negate free will, using a video game analogy.  She concludes with the idea that we may be part of a multiverse experiencing one reality and our choices influence the outcome within the constraints of our existence. It ends with a thought-provoking metaphor comparing consciousness to a sophisticated PlayStation hardware in a virtual human life simulation. (Background music) Why All Possibilities Hold the Dice Regardless of the topic or issue at hand, anything that has the potential to happen, no matter how likely or rare, is a possibility nonetheless. These possibilities can come into actualization without the necessary guidance from a supernatural hand, which is to be determined . In fact, introducing a guiding hand only biases a possibility, making it likelier or rarer than its inherent chance. Possibilities are either evitable or inevitable. Inevitable possibilities cannot be denied, and will happen regardless. They are possibilities because their happening is not a matter of "if" but a matter of "when". Death is an inevitable possibility because you're going to die anyways. Whether you die tomorrow or in twenty years, is the possibility discussed in the concept of inevitability. Using merit and understanding, inevitable possibilities can be detected and recognized. This, in turn, can help you plan your decisions like a mastermind. Take winning the lottery, for instance. Divine intervention isn't a requirement. And arguably, there is no necessary connection between chance and prayer. A person's religious devotion in faith and in ceremony won't magically improve their odds (or worsen them for non-believers). However, this criticism isn't to completely denounce the practical value of prayer on our mindfulness capacity, as presented in the religious philosophy of Shinto-ism. Either way, the zealous act of picking numbers has no influence on the random drawing at the end. Both the chosen sequence and the winning numbers follow predetermined chances, independent of any external forces. To give you a clearer understanding of lottery methodology, let's read Investopedia's info on the matter: A lottery is a low-odds game where winners are selected by a random drawing. Lotteries are a popular form of gambling, encouraging people to pay a small sum of money for the chance of winning a big jackpot, often administered by state or federal governments. A lottery refers to a random draw, which results in a winner or small group of winners. When there is a high demand for something that is limited, a lottery may be run to make a process fair for everyone. As demonstrated, the integration of a divine component is not necessary. But in the name of greater inclusion , feel free to prove me wrong using the components of truth. Why Miracles Lose Their Magic -- The Miracle Paradox In simpler terms, a one-in-a-thousand occurrence can happen just as easily as a one-in-a-million one. The difference lies only in the probability, not the possibility itself. If your medications can always complicate your condition in a one-in-a-million chance. So, why should a rare event be treated differently from any other chance occurrence, be it mundane or extraordinary? Both exist within the realm of possibility, waiting for the unpredictable "roll of the dice". And a consistent result of "the dice" can determine whether we are fortunate/blessed, or have the luck of an ineffectual sympathetic villain trying to hunt speedsters . Either way, preparation for risk and the willingness to endure life's hardships can reduce the affect of negative outcomes on our mentality. Introducing a concept of divine guidance contradicts the very nature of "natural" or random possibilities. If a higher power dictates a specific miracle to happen, its likelihood shifts dramatically from "rare" to "common." This creates a paradox, as miracles, by definition, are extraordinary events with a low probability of occurring. Yet, if we know a miracle is guaranteed, isn't it stripped of its miraculous nature? A "Divine Miracle" isn't a miracle at all. If it is fully intended by an omnipresent entity, none have the force to oppose such intention. Furthermore, some claim miracles do not really exist. To quote Ian McClymont: Miracles do not happen ever, coincidences happen, people are always ready to call a near miss or good fortune. Miracle, when someone is found alive in the rubble of an earthquake after 9 days people call it a miracle, but the truth is that person had the will to live strongly embedded in their brain, they did not give up. When you survive an accident perhaps in a vehicle it is not some God smiling on you, it is not your guardian angel protecting you , the vehicle withstood the force of the crash without collapsing and killing you. Miracles do not happen, people have been conditioned by religion to believe in miracles but the truth is they do not happen. There is always a [root] cause, for what happened. Miracles, whether existent or alternatively understood, can arise from sheer luck or from deliberate attempts. And as such their probability can increase through the virtue of work . However, for something to be considered a miracle, it must inherently possess a low chance of happening. The idea of a miracle is preordained removes the element of surprise and improbability, diminishing its awe-inspiring quality. As such, in the concept of destiny, chances, high or low, don't even exist. The true essence of a miracle lies in the unexpected, in the fortunate convergence of unlikely circumstances. It's the moment when possibility defies perceived odds, leaving us in wonder. However, expanding our understanding of reality can make one question if such a term is factual or a myth. The "Chew Toy" Archetype Example Have you ever encountered "chew toy" characters in fiction? These hapless souls endure a never-ending cycle of misfortune, existing solely for the audience's amusement. A prime example is Ol' Gill Gunderson from The Simpsons. To quote the Whatculture Blog: Gil Gunderson is a jack of all trades, master of none . He has held every job you can think of including estate agent, mall Santa and car salesman. From an early age Gil was cursed with the ability to fail at everything he did. At the tender of age of six he managed to send his brother's lemonade stand into bankruptcy and drank all of the produce. Unable to make sales or finalise deals, Gil often only keeps his job for a matter of days. In "Screaming Yellow Honker[s]" Gil discovers his wife is cheating with his friend and knows there is nothing he can do about it as she is all he has. In "I Don't Wanna Know Why The Caged Bird Sings ", we find out Gil held a position as a security guard and was shot as he was entering the premises for his first day of work. It is also implied that Gil does't have a home with him having lived in a hostel and a storage locker. Gunderson's relentless misery feels fabricated because, in reality, such a string of bad luck is incredibly rare. In the real world, unlike sitcoms, misfortune isn't a constant companion assigned by a cruel writer. Although, there are exceptions... “I was homeless for 35 years across 46 states. I believe it's the future for millions more Americans” -- John Duran (On Philosocom) Life's circumstances are a complex synergy, produced from our own choices , external influences, an chance. While we can't control everything, we do have a say in shaping our experiences. Sure, you can believe in whatever brings you comfort, but relying solely on prayer won't magically alter the odds stacked against you. No. Don't fall to this Victim's Mentality . Work your way to become better. Focus less on playing the "Blame Game". Focus on improving your situation instead. Ditch the belief that you're destined to be a perpetual punchline, and start taking charge of your own narrative. The Cruel Coin Flip And You The universe operates on chance, not a moral compass, and far less on justice. It's indifferent to our notions of justice, when the dice is rolled. Frequent, infrequent, or extraordinary results may ensue each time. And it's only perceived like that because of our profound sense of ignorance about the world and actors around us. What if you slipped on banana peels 3 times today because you were too distracted, and/or lack physical balance? Maybe you wouldn't be so prone to banana peels if you improved your balance and focus? And no, there are no prank-based criminal syndicates in real life like there could be in fiction. A stray cat once gave birth. But her new-born kitten vanished, seemingly abandoned. It's a heart-breaking scene that begs the question: why are some innocent creatures left to fend for themselves, while others find comfort? The answer, harsh as it seems, lies in the realm of chance. Psyche. Feral cats can survive better in the streets than stray cats. Ferals may live in cat colonies, be better in hiding and operate at night to escape from daytime heat and to lay low. Why do you think some criminals work at night? Reduced visibility. Easier to survive in hostile environments when you're less detected. Furthermore, cat breed plays a role in their personality , personalizing their interactions with the world. In a deterministic universe, where every event is pre-written, your strategies won't matter as much. But what if they do? It's a world governed by the predictable flips of metaphorical coins, some kittens find a nurturing family, while others face a harsher reality. But why not find ways to live either way? Why not calm effectively during wartime? Why not better endure skin deprivation? Why be so much at the mercy of the uncontrollable? Of course, mercy is often impractical... Unlike cats, we possess a degree of agency... Even in the age of artificial intelligence. We can alter our course, pursue goals, and navigate the currents of chance, influence and temptation. Conclusion This inherent ability to influence our destinies is precisely why I struggle with blind faith. After all, if the future is set in stone, actions wouldn't matter. But demonstrating our intention in action can be extremely powerful. The very act of planning, strategizing, and taking initiative speaks to the dynamic, changing nature of our existence. In a world governed by chance, our actions can tip the scales of possibility in our favor. Even a game of coin toss can be mastered. So, while a kitten's fate can be harsher, we humans hold a tiny bit more control over "the game" of life. Even North Korea can be escaped. We can choose to actively shape our lives, even if some elements remain beyond our grasp. (How To Live With Or Without Luck) A challenging truth, but one that ultimately empowers us to create our own narratives within the unpredictable script of life. Alex Mos's Feedback "If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way on its own accord." These were the words of Albert Einstein, who believed in determinism and doubted the existence of free will. If physics governs everything, and quantum mechanics explains the phenomena of universal reality, is existence random or predetermined? Many scientists consider quantum mechanics indeterministic, as experimental outcomes appear random depending on human observation , known as The Observer Effect. However, there is a strange causality between how particles "behave," even at a long distance. This phenomenon, known as entanglement , enables us to accurately predict the spin of an entangled particle based on another particle's experimentally determined spin. How is it possible from the indeterministic point of view? How do these particles "communicate" and influence each other? In 1964, the physicist John Bell proposed a radical theory of super-determinism , suggesting missing information, a "hidden variable" that might prove the causality of everything and disprove the seeming randomness of outcomes we observe in quantum mechanics. Is human free will an illusion resulting from the unknown fabric of our Consciousness, or do we possess free will? In John Bell's view, our choices are predetermined, but this does not necessarily oppose the existence of free will. Imagine a computer game with many alternative endings. A programmer predetermines the game, yet different decisions lead to different outcomes. Imagine we are part of a multiverse with unlimited alternatives existing simultaneously. We play them all, but our Consciousness makes us experience only one reality at a time. Our human mind is unaware of the infinite possibilities of everything based on entanglement, causality, and logic. In every "moment" of our lives, we make unconscious and conscious choices, leading to seemingly random outcomes we call miracles and curses of life. As in computer games , we cannot choose whatever we imagine. We are bound by software, like our physical bodies and the observable reality of our universe. However, we can still influence the outcome to some extent because we are aware of only one reality and experience it psychologically as free will. Some choices result in unexpected challenges, while others open opportunities. Death is inevitable, yet it might be a sequel to the game, with a new "body" and new realities. Consciousness might be a sophisticated PlayStation hardware, enabling us to enter the virtual simulation of a program called human life.

Synopsis by Alex Mos By confronting our flaws, we can achieve redemption and become better, moral humans. Success and power do not make us better individuals or more deserving of love. The essence of true love is being loved for the core of our being and not for our achievements. Three fictional drug lords , Moritz Zimmerman, Walter White, and Tony Montana, shared that they were not loved for who they were and that success didn't change their personalities. Only Moritz understood his flows enough to fix them with redemption. The Drug Lord's fallacy is the false assumption that success will grant you love and respect. We can only earn love by improving our character, not gaining success or power. (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Background music) *********************** Introduction In real life, like in fiction, we are capable of what is called a "redemption arc". According to Krystal N. C.: A redemption arc is a literary term for a type of character development in which a bad or a morally grey character turns into a good person by the end of the story. They redeem their worst sins through their actions in the story’s resolution. Redemption is a major theme in storytelling because it appeals to our deepest selves. Ask yourselves the following question: Were you evil in your lives? By not denying the darkness within you, not only you can recognize the deeper aspects of yourselves, but also work towards your own redemption from it, to become better, moral beings. This is why, in the name of greater moral behavior, we must not deny our flaws, must not deny criticism, and allow ourselves to face distress. For the agony included is a means to the greater end of becoming morally-better people. For redemption arcs cannot be done without facing our true selves. That includes the aspects in which we deny. Should we fail to deny them, we might as well remain, unconsciously, the morally-grey/evil people that we currently are. However, we can be stopped. In the name of the reduction of unnecessary suffering, and even avoidable deaths in some cases, we deserved to be stopped through redemption. This article shall further explain why it is through redemption , and not through the power of authority , one can become a better person. Why a Great Success Reveals Who You Are To quote Moritz Zimmerman , the morally-grey protagonist of the show, " How to Sell Drugs Online ": Success doesn't make you a better person, it just makes you a more successful person. Some of us may think that we would become better people by becoming richer, by becoming more powerful and so on. The problem comes when we realize that people would love us for who we are, and not for our success. That is the essence of true love: Being loved for being, and not for building great things. Moritz Zimmerman failed to accomplish what I myself already knew I won't be able to accomplish. That fictional character and myself both have suffered heartbreaks. However, the fallacy in his thinking was the belief he would be loved by his former girlfriend should he attain a massive success. As for myself, I already knew that she, Chen [fake name], will not love me either way. But this article isn't about my successful revenge against her, expressed by not letting myself become like her. Moritz's girlfriend, Lisa Novak , is one he knew from his childhood. At one point of time, she left him for America, and when she returned to their homeland of Germany, she told him that she is taking an indefinite break from him, leaving him for someone else. To win back her love and appreciation for him, Moritz did what Walter White did to reclaim his honor : Become an international drug baron (while hiding his identity as a high school student). However, the teenage drug lord, despite his international success through a start-up app he developed with an accomplice, failed to earn back the love of his life. Instead, he remained the same nerdy, social outcast he was before. That is also in parallel to Scarface, AKA, Tony Montana , who, despite his own massive success, remained the same foul-mouthed, low-life thug he was before his transformation. All three fictional drug lords have one thing in common: They were never loved for who they are, as their success didn't change them, but only expanded on what was in them, all along. And if we are to return to Walter White/Heisenberg, some may claim he had that potential within him, to be evil, all along. The nickname he adopted refers, in theory, to Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle . In layman's terms : The uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle's position, the less we know about its speed and vice versa. In other words, if we could shrink a tortoise down to the size of an electron, we would only be able to precisely calculate its speed or its location, not both at the same time. By applying the Uncertainty Principle to success, we need to understand that there is no necessary correlation between success ("speed") and who we are ("position") . If anything, success is there to make us more successful, not necessarily change or "transform" us. Think of success as an illuminating opportunity to know more of who we are and what we're capable of. Just like with a particle's potential for greater speed. It might be slow, but with enough velocity, it reveals how fast it can truly move. With enough resources and opportunities, we can better understand who we are. Power is a form of expression we use to get what we want. Power, therefore, is a means to better tell us who are -- an opportunity of self-discovery, otherwise unattainable by having less power. For it is with power that we can at least try to achieve what we desire. As such, power is an illuminating flashlight to the deepest part of ourselves, otherwise restrained by complying to society and to its conventional limitations. Therefore, by this logic, Tony Montana was Scarface all along. Walter White was Heisenberg all along, and Moritz Zimmerman was M1000 all along. Even before their nicknames were created. How come? It existed within them as potentials. Through their own rises to power, these potentials merely manifested themselves. We do not know ourselves as much as we think we do. For we need to understand not only who we are currently, but also what we could become, given the right tools and circumstances. Redemption: How the Drug Lord's Fallacy is Solved The Drug Lord's fallacy is one I am coining in this article. It is the assumption that through a great success, you will surely reclaim or attain from humanity the love and respect you desire. However, this is contradicted not only by these fictional examples, but also by the fact that it is lonely at the top. We need to create this distinction between attraction and love . To quote Marc Wallace : Love is something that is built over time. It’s a deep feeling of affection and connection. Attraction, on the other hand, is more physical. It’s an initial pull towards someone that is often based on looks or chemistry. Attraction can lead to love, but it doesn’t always. Love involves much more than just physical attraction. Love is about trust , respect , compromise, and communication. It’s about sharing your life with someone and growing together. The allure of power and success is one that can either attract or captivate many. However, it is nothing more than the initial impression we have over someone. To love them more, we must understand the man or woman behind the power they hold. This is also why power won't necessarily make you a better person, but simply and certainly, a more powerful one. Moritz Zimmerman achieved what both Heisenberg and Scarface never managed to achieve: He redeemed himself. Redemption begins when we understand that we are flawed , and that these flaws need to be either changed or atoned for. By the end of his story, Moritz was faced with a decision: Either murder a former associate who tried to kill him, or refuse to. Had he killed the man, Moritz would then become truly evil: A man beyond the possibility of redemption. How can one be redeemed when he murdered someone? His allies won't forgive him, and most importantly, Lisa Novak will not forgive him. Only through his friends and love interest, who were there for him, two people were saved on that day: The former associate, from death, and Moritz himself, from becoming evil. To redeem himself even further, Moritz deceived everyone to leave the crime scene, so he alone would be arrested for his crimes . He understood that he needed to redeem himself for his past actions. Only that way, he would improve. And only through improvement, through working on ourselves, we can be loved . Walter White didn't want to redeem himself, admitting that he did what he did for himself. Tony Montana not only refused to redeem himself, but did whatever he did to keep his empire afloat, despite his eventual defeat. Yet, the only reason Moritz wasn't as villainous as those two, was because he understood his flaws well enough, to fix them through imprisonment and through atonement. The first two forgave themselves without a second thought, knowing well what they were doing. However, Moritz, because he knew what he was doing, refused to forgive himself, in the name of the greater good. In the name of his friends, family, Lisa Novak, and himself. Should we forgive ourselves for the things we have done, or should we atone for our actions? Whatever our choice will be, we are flawed like everyone else. And we will be more loved by others, once we work on our being, not on building a great thing. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Redemption should be viewed as a blessing. It is external acknowledgement that you have turned your life around. It is really all about replacing bad habits with healthier ones . You do this by making those good habits a part of your daily routine. It can be nice to have another person acknowledge your redemption but in this case you must be minorly selfish and believe you have it inside yourself to be redeemed. Every person is capable of changing their reality at any point. As above, so below: If we were to use this analogy towards how to change your life, all external created things were the result of a person imagining it in their minds. [If] you want to be a better person, and gain redemption in your own mind, start by imagining in which ways you can be better. Those thoughts are gateways to actions.  The quicker you realize that you have no control over what’s going on in a person's cognitive reality the sooner you will begin to realize that change only occurs through your own actions. Yes, we all love being outwardly redeemed, but as you have no control over if other people do or not you only have your actions. At the end of the day they are the most important tool a person has. Your actions are seen through daily habits a person has.

(Philosocom's Directory on AI) (Philosocom's Directory on Competency) (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis An AI app programmed with a philosophical library and access to vast internet knowledge could produce answers to philosophical questions, but would it replace human sages? There are several differences between AI and human thinkers. Though AI can answer many questions, it can't replicate humans' intricate thinking process, which is unique for every person and crucial for philosophizing. Secondly, AI applications lack the depth of human experience based on consciousness and emotions, a cornerstone of philosophy. Another significant difference is that humans possess originality , whereas AI is trained on pre-existing content. While human philosophers can innovate and adapt, AI is limited to reproducing old concepts. AI is evolving and becoming a worthy adversary to anybody who sees the AI revolution as a challenge. The author works relentlessly on Philosocom and his Rubinshteinic philosophy to preserve his legacy by supplying superior, high-quality, human-made content. Many AI applications are engineered by media and data companies to influence our thinking. An AI philosopher app might discretely analyze the users and craft personalized answers based on their preferences rather than the truth. The better option is to exchange ideas with a reliable human source, such as Philosocom. The Rise of the AI Sage Imagine a world where the answers to all your deepest philosophical questions are just a tap away. No more wrestling with complex texts or enduring the frustrations of unanswered queries. This hypothetical future presents a fascinating question: With an all-knowing AI philosopher at our fingertips, will human philosophers become obsolete? The concept of a superintelligent computer holding the key to life's mysteries might sound familiar. Works like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" explored this theme, although with a humorous twist – the answer (42) lacked meaning without context. Now, picture this: An app that harnesses the vast knowledge of the internet, coupled with a philosophical library fed by programmers. This digital sage could produce answers on demand, bypassing the need for human contemplation, and the shortcomings that it may take on the human mind. This scenario parallels the way libraries have evolved . While libraries remain invaluable for in-depth research, quick answers often come from a simple Google search, and arguably from libraries as well. Much of technology is about saving you time and effort , often leading you to the brink of being lazy . Similarly, the AI philosopher could become the go-to for readily available solutions, despite the complexity of many questions and issues involved. However, is the death of human philosophy truly imminent? Here's why it's not that simple: The Different Mechanisms: Philosophy thrives on the process of questioning, analyzing, and constructing arguments. An AI might offer answers, but it can't replicate the human intricate and adaptive thinking process , which is individual to every human brain. Due to the great variability between human brain s , truly no human brain is alike, hallmarking the uniqueness of each "brand" of philosopher and their life's work. The Depth of Human Experience: Much of what philosophy is, is grappling with highs and lows of human condition. This is impossible without some degree of awareness, as presented in my Flashlight Theory . Furthermore, it is debateable if AI applications have awareness due to them lacking key components in what allows human awareness. Lacking true consciousness and emotional depth , the AI might struggle to understand the intricacy of human emotions, experiences, and the complexities of existence. If anything, it would be able to simulate it, although without exactly understanding it as deeply as human subjectivity allows us to. The Evolution of Thought: Philosophy adapts and grows alongside humanity. Human philosophers will continue to break new ground, posing questions unforeseen by an AI solely trained on existing knowledge. Because of human originality, that might as well exist in modern times, And yes, all AI is trained on existing, human-made content. The way AI is trained may often be compared to an author copying another author, which leads to the controversial argument that AI is a form of theft. The rise of the "AI philosopher" may signal a drastic change in the landscape of philosophy. However, it's unlikely to be a complete replacement. That is especially true when AI content that is based on itself actually gets worse. To quote researchers sourced from the Futurism Blog: "Seismic advances in generative AI algorithms for imagery, text, and other data types has led to the temptation to use synthetic data to train next-generation models," the researchers write. "Repeating this process creates an autophagous ('self-consuming') loop whose properties are poorly understood." "Our primary conclusion across all scenarios is that without enough fresh real data in each generation of an autophagous loop, future generative models are doomed to have their quality (precision) or diversity (recall) progressively decrease," they added. "We term this condition Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD)". A New Challenger! Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving , becoming a worthy adversary to anyone, including myself, who wishes to see the AI evolution as but a challenge to my skills. Yes, I treat this technological feat as if it was an enemy I had to face in a game of Tekken. But of course, AI's reach extends far beyond video games and chess, as it's also a worthy opponent to face in the arena that is philosophical discourse. With the powerful ability to learn far better than your average human , along with its inability to suffer from mental health issues ( as they still lack the depth of consciousness required ), they can put any fatigued intellect to submission using their quick response and highly detailed replies. But the difference between myself and the fatigued intellect, is that I am no longer fatigued. Make studying and researching a habit, and regularly work to master the art of article-writing , and you might as well be a worthy match of this new metallic challenger. Remember: AI lacks much features that humans are capable of, as demonstrated earlier in the article. Why do you think I work relentlessly on Philosocom? I'm well aware of the changing work environment, and I devised not only a training regimen but also my own, Rubinshteinic philosophy towards content generation. I seek to do what my general philosophy was designed to do: Help me endure reality. So, in order to preserve my legacy, I'm going to do whatever I can to not make my mind a liability compared to the fast-growing development of AI generation technology. Therefore, in order to survive in this capitalist world , all I have to do is to be the superior supplier of the demand you're after: High-quality philosophical articles. Of course the consumer is going to enjoy the better product. All I need to do is to renovate Philosocom to enhance the content to the very product my dear readership is after, correct? Personalized Gurus or Big Brother in Disguise? Now, imagine an AI philosopher that knows you better than you know yourself. It analyzes your browsing history, purchases, and location. It would do so for the same reasoning social media platforms do the same as we speak : Craft personalized answers to your philosophical inquiry. Do you already see the problem? I'm not referring to you giving up your privacy for a service. I'm referring to you receiving the answers you want to hear. The issue with philosophy is that people don't always want to hear the truth, even if they tell themselves that they do. To better promote themselves in society, people would lie under ulterior motives, because telling the truth comes with the social risks. Remember that many AI applications are engineered by what would call "virtual dictatorships" , all these unelected internet, media and data companies who influence much of our thinking. ChatGPT, which is the hallmark of OpenAI, is as of April 2024 owned largely by Microsoft... Of course, shareholders have control over the product, for they are the ultimate owners of their respective companies. With so much influence, massive corporate empires can alter the nature of the product which they control over, without necessarily telling you, the consumer. That's how things are professionally done: discreetly. This notion contains a dangerous potential: You would think that the AI app you're using is reliable, while in reality... it just isn't. It cannot quite examine critically the material it is trained on. You know... Something philosophers ought to do , including towards their own intellects, too. Why, then, use an unreliable source for your philosophical inquiries? Why use a subpar thinking simulator? Of course you should think for yourselves, but if you want a true thinker to exchange ideas with you, maybe pick the human option. Maybe pick, Philosocom. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback There is one reason why AI can never answer questions which humans can’t. AI can only do what it is programmed to do. If the important questions haven’t been figured out by humans, then it is impossible that AI can [do otherwise]. The exception being, it can provide answers which are missed by humans, due to all the information being available but we haven’t pieced it together yet. AI can only do what it is told to do, so if we can teach it to piece stuff together for us. It isn’t doing anything which humans can’t do . AI just has access to more information than humans do. That is all AI is good for, being a portrayer of existing human knowledge. Why will it never be able to do anything which humans currently can’t do? A primary missing component from AI is free thought and creativity, AI can’t make something out of nothing . That is the difference between AI and Humans: Originality. AI also has awareness. Not awareness in a free will kind of way. But as with humans aren’t we less aware of our system than AI is? AI can detect its own system better but only because humans taught it to do so. Is creativity nothing more then organizing things in the correct order? A random occurrence so to speak of which AI can do random occurrences as well: Random image generation. Maybe in an order that hasn’t been used before. Is there a difference between random and creativity? Both involve creating content which doesn’t exist. The difference is that humans can put things in a different, more enjoyable, order and AI can only do random, no thought to determine a conscious new order to put things in. AI can never put content into a different creative order. It can only throw stuff in random places. Why it can never do creativity, is because creativity involves utilizing things which aren’t there and all of AI’s resulting products are nothing more then coding and doing what humans have told it to do.

(Background music) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) Alex Mos's Synopsis There is a fundamental difference between ruthlessness and cruelty. While ruthlessness is an emotionless lack of compassion, cruelty is focused on pleasure by intentionally inflicting pain and suffering. A ruthless person pursues their goals at all costs, eliminating obstacles standing in the way, even if it means sacrificing their weaker personality traits. We must be unforgiving of our imperfections and others if they hinder us from realizing our goals. The author explains the poem's meaning. He intentionally leads a modest life, focusing on his work as a writer and philosopher. He takes excruciating walks to toughen his self-discipline and endure hardships of solitude like sadness, emptiness, post-traumatic flashbacks, anxiety, and skin depravation. Training ourselves to endure pain and become ruthless reduces our need for others' compassion, frees us from the "victim mentality," and boosts our development. The key to reaching our goals is to become better at our work and a better version of ourselves. In that aspect, ruthlessness is a virtue, and mercy can lead to counter-productive results. There are no universal virtues, as the practical value of virtues depends on personal goals. Introduction: A Poem Called "Two-Leg Comeback" I again became, A ruthless walker. And I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, That I needed a cane, This recent year. I will conquer each kilometer, Without fear! My feet were hurting, And only I'm the one knowing. But I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, That I'm suffering, For I can be unforgiving, To anyone including myself! My mind needs to be strong, To endure what's coming along. So I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, Hence why I dare, To endure this nightmare, Of walking hours on end! And should I have the power, To walk a city by its entirety, I don't care, I don't care, I don't care-care-care, For I will do so, For my emotions, Are external from Tomasio! So should you whine, About my harsh criticism, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry-rry-rry, But it is no matter, I am easily a ruthless caster, Of brutal words, including on myself. I'm too logical, To over-regard, So I don't care, I don't care, I don't-care-care-care, I handled enough, My former emotions, Handle your own yourself, It's not my behalf. I'm not in this world, To have fun and games. I need to be strong, That's done, By pain. Ruthlessness As a Virtue Ruthlessness can be described as a lack of compassion or pity towards something or someone. Therefore, in order for ruthlessness to be considered a virtue, we need to explain why these values aren't always virtues, and why they can also be a liability, AKA, something that defies virtue. First of all, there is a difference between ruthlessness and cruelty that is needed to be made, as they're not the same . Cruelty is focused on the intentional infliction of pain and suffering. That is while ruthlessness is about the absence of compassion and pity. While both lack compassion, cruelty is done specifically by the desire to gain pleasure off the suffering of others. Ruthlessness, on the other hand, does not have to depend on pleasure at all, and not even by the desire itself to cause suffering or be the one suffering. Ruthlessness is, in other words, mercilessness. And the mercilessness isn't always there for the fun of it. There may be other goals in hand that may require a merciless approach. That is because logic, in essence, is conditional. And someone who is ruthless on the pursuit of their goals, does whatever it takes for the goal to be attained. When our own, positive traits become an obstacle in our path towards said goal, these traits become a liability. And since a liability cannot be virtuous, not all virtues are virtues at all times. We are often told that we should be more forgiving towards ourselves. That we should accept who we are because no one is perfect. However, what this mentality fails to realize is our goals might require us to be more unforgiving towards ourselves and others, or else we might likelier to fail. And since we might fail due to certain traits that we have, these traits become problematic. Therefore, to encourage traits that may be problematic for the attainment of our sincerest goals, is counter-productive. As such, our goals may often require us to change ourselves, in whatever way possible, in order to accomplish our ambitions. While there are facets in our mentality that cannot be changed, like autism , there are traits within our personality that can be altered, at least to a degree. It is unrealistic to expect the world to be accessible to all our differences , as well as expecting our goals to be ensured in their accomplishment. Therefore, what we can change at best is ourselves, and even then, partially. As you can see, pleasure, as expressed in cruelty, is irrelevant in the matter of success. We should therefore be ruthless because the uncompromising human spirit is one that is far likelier to reach success than someone who is too forgiving and compassionate towards themselves. Being harsh, while not exactly nice-feeling, may be critical for better understanding what it may take to pursue our goals more effectively. And our joy from all of this, if anything, matters only if we lack the discipline to act independently of it. And even then, ruthlessness allows us to pursue our activities without the need of joy to be present or sought. Personal Case Study (As Shown in the Poem) Aside from my Reaping Fatigue Era , which lasted 5 years, I've been going on extremely long walks since 2012. My point of making these hours-long walks is to make my spirit tougher despite the hardships included in long, solitary walks. I'd rarely, if at all, take buses, and won't even rest often during these difficult exercises. Although I sometimes went with others on these walks, doing so was not very effective as they didn't have the time and energies that I had and have. I intentionally lead a modest lifestyle in order to focus on my work as a writer and philosopher. Writing articles , as well as managing my website, can be a very solitary work. And as I learned by experience, solitude often requires us to be mentally strong in order to endure the hardships that may be included in being alone. That includes symptoms such as sadness, emptiness, skin deprivation , post-traumatic flashbacks, anxieties and so on. Being able to endure solitude better than otherwise, helps me minimize these problems and focus more on work. And to endure solitude better I need a stronger spirit to develop and maintain. What I mean by "spirit", is my resolve to not "escape" to the company of other people when I can resume working on Philosocom. This contemporary age is a very distracting one, and the increasing distraction of the external world, unnecessarily hurts the competency of our work, by making us mentally-feeble and by shortening our attention span. To combat my default human weakness, I "torture" myself by going on to extremely long walks in order to get used to get things done independently of pleasure and comfort. When I am outside on a walk I have only 2 main objectives: Reach my destination, and return from it. There are no compromises here. Taking any ride would compromise the ruthless efficiency of this challenge. Conclusions Whenever we don't take compromises, we normalize ourselves to get things done without depending on them. This stands in the way of ourselves being the better versions of ourselves in whatever role we have, because should I not take a bus back home, I will be a better walker, for instance. And the key to reaching our goals more effectively is to be better at whatever we're doing. Giving ourselves mercy, and therefore compromising our development, will only hinder us from reaching our goals, by being less good than we otherwise would've been. Compassion, or ruth, wouldn't have been as necessary to many of us if we had a higher pain tolerance. One of the key points of compassion is to reduce our and others' suffering by sharing their pain and understanding them using empathy. However, the need for pain reduction, while helpful, can have its necessity altered by being tougher and, indeed, more ruthless and unforgiving. And toughness is evident by enduring pain, of any kind, without the frequent call for its reduction. And when our pain tolerance is greater than otherwise, we can focus more on the tasks at hand with less suffering, caused by said pain. Because of all these reasons, ruthlessness can indeed be seen as a virtue, often other virtues such as mercy. Mercy, for that matter, can normalize victimhood, and a victim's mentality is a liability. Would we consider victimhood a virtue just because it was enabled and accepted through a virtuous value like mercy/pity? Virtues therefore are never universal if there are cases when they lead to counter-productive results. By the same token, things that we consider darker than to otherwise, can be redeemed as helpful, practical values. It really all depends on what we're trying to make.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) (Philosocom's Philosophy of Environment Directory) Synopsis by Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Issac The article "The Horror of Heat and Its Effect on the Human Mentality (And Why We Need to Decrease It)" discusses the impact of rising temperatures on human mental and physical health, emphasizing the importance of regulating body temperature and avoiding conflicts. It criticizes capitalism's prioritization of profit over sustainability and calls for more sustainable practices. The article also highlights the broader implications of global warming, including mental health issues, increased healthcare costs, and the need for renewable energy sources. (Background music) ************ It appears that as the years go on, it's only getting warm and warmer. I have an air conditioner on, I have a fan on, and yet I feel so hot... I wonder if anyone else sees the trend here. I do not recall having this much heat in my earlier years. It was also one of the reasons I used to be happier as a child in the 2000's. Heat changes the way we think, and the way we feel. That is although we need to remain in a certain degree of heat, as heat allows lifeforms to exist. To quote the JarganJosh blog: The Earth and the Sun are equally important because without the Sun's heat and light, the Earth would be a lifeless ball of ice-coated rocks. It regulates the temperature of water bodies, weather patterns and provides energy to the growth of plants. The distance of the Earth from the Sun makes it a perfect reason for the life because it receives the perfect amount of heat and light to allow life to be created and to support it. However, overheat is still bad for our bodies and minds: Students suffering from overheat were reported to perform less well on tests. In other words, inaproportionate heat literally compromises the extent of our intelligence. Body overheat can lead to heat exhaustion . It can lead to fatigue and can get complicated to heatstroke, capable of damaging your brain and body and risk death. In order to maintain our mental health we must regulate our body temperature more effectively. Keeping a healthy body can keep a healthy mind . By the same token, keeping a cooler body can keep a cooler mind. Our mentality is never independent from the physical environment it is in. Making smarter decisions can literally keep us healthy by influencing the environment in a way that will deter us from getting anymore ill: Learn to put boundaries with people. This will help you reduce stress. Learn to forgive and to learn to let go. That will also help calm your mind and by proxy your body. Stress and anxiety contributes to the rise of body temperature. Work to reduce it. Avoid arguements with people. Learn the difference between discussions and arguements. Work on discussing peacefully while making sure the other side doesn't suffer. Some of us suffer more than you think, hence why masking is so horrible to honest relationships. You need to know if someone is in pain if you want to help them better. Some people are too self-destructive in their behavior, and as demonstrated by narcissists they won't necessarily understand or even care. Identify such people and work to avoid them if possible. By making pro-health decisions, especially on the interpersonal level, we can deter ourselves from much grief caused by heat, related both to the external environment and to our own mental worlds. As you can see much of our own suffering is in our hands. Although the world has been gradually suffering a raise in heat since the 19th century, we can still make personal choices to better cope with this negative phenomena. The caring for the environment is underrated and underutilized, as many business organizations prefer yielding profit over honestly caring for the environment. However, the problems with green energy are as follows: Green-energy require much financial investment and planning in order for them to even come to fruition. Solar farms and hydropower stations for example require much land and electric infrastructure. Wind energy farms and the like depend on weather and therefore can only be as reliable as the weather can be. The means for renewable energies (production, transportation, etc.) still create a carbon footprint. Carbon footprints are a lead factor to the severity of climate worldwide. I believe capitalism is by nature anti-green, not because it seeks to destroy the world, but because it prioritizes revenue over the world which allows it to gain it in the first place. Greed can be that destructive. Having more benefit to the the planet's health, and to customers is general, is sometimes costlier than reducing anything else in the name of further increase of revenue. Think of airplanes. They have a limited space, right? If you want to capitalize on the potential revenue of air travel, then you must let in as many people as possible, so you will earn more money from their consumption of your services. Thus, some sacrifices must be made in order to optimize the revenue of your business. In this case it is the sacrifice of your passengers' wellbeing. As long as we prioritize capitalization of revenue over the preservation of our environment, I'm afraid this greedy philosophy of profit over wellbeing, would eventually lead us to our earlier doom. Planets are not immortal , and can be measured in health. To quote Jane Marsh: Everyone bears personal responsibility for maintaining a healthy planet. If we utilize our environmental resources, we need to do so sustainably. Rather than see ourselves as separate from the natural world, we should remember that we are part of it. I too see it a personal responsibility of mine to promote greater health and not enable ill. This is also why I don't really want to contribute or participate in the world beyond Philosocom. The world's industries are only making the world hotter than it should, and I have no desire to partake in this more than I should just to live. I know how hard suffering can be. I don't want to partake in people's self-destructive behaviors, which they fail to judge and criticize. I see it as my moral duty to be left alone and try helping this miserable world from my solitude , so people would suffer less and not more... How would it help me increase the stress of already stressed people? I live in the same planet as you. We share the same air, the same mental energies, and the same illnesses we transmit by not taking care of our health and by abusing others as our victims. No. I refuse. I prefer be unique and not normal, when our normalized behaviors only lead us to grief and to ill. We can prevent unnecessary spread of illness both on the individual and the organizational level. You can also use your own breathing to cool your body temperature , in order to avoid risk of heat-related illnesses. And it seems that, this trend will not be going any better, only worse, for we refuse to properly judge our methods , with or without our good intentions in mind. I can only imagine how it would be in the next few years.. Why should I want to contribute to people who have not the intention of a better world? Why would I want to help those who relentlessly refuse to realize the harm they are doing for me, for themselves, and for others? This isn't just about me, it's about anyone else as well. If we want to extend the duration of humanity, then we must work on the world's industries, to be more echo-friendly. After all, our existence depends on Earth's condition. After years of fatigue I refuse enabling it for myself and for others any longer! We can all be healthier! We can all suffer... so much less.. Alex Mos's Feedback Global warming causes temperatures to rise worldwide and increases the frequency of extreme weather events like floods, droughts, and hurricanes. The fear of and aftermath of natural disasters negatively impacts our mental health, resulting in high-stress levels and PTSD, affecting millions of people globally. High air temperatures affect brain functions, lowering cognitive functions, worsening mental disorders, and deteriorating mood. Consequently, global warming contributes indirectly yet significantly to sky-high healthcare costs and hurts mental health, causing a domino effect of increasing crime, stressful life, and low productivity. In the scorching heat, we are forced to run the air conditioning non-stop, contributing to the surging demand for electricity in tropical r egions. In these countries, electricity is often irresponsibly sourced and contributes to pollution and the greenhouse effect. To break the cycle, everywhere in the world, we must invest in green electricity, such as solar power, wind energy, hydroelectric and biomass systems, and renewable electricity supply. We should also actively protest against and boycott energy generated by burning fossil fuels. However, it's often difficult because there are not always other choices beyond voting for more visionary political leaders. We have to become less selfish and be actively willing to work toward a sustainable future. Otherwise, our Earth will soon become hellish hot, more polluted, and plagued by terrible cataclysms and diseases. The future might be grim for humans as we might not survive mentally due to the industrial devastation we have inflicted on Earth over the past few centuries. Eventually, we may cede our uninhabitable home planet to its future inhabitants and our creation, the AI beings.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Occam's razor is a principle explaining that the simplest solution is logically the best. Executing evil requires a mastermind and collaboration , making an evil plan less preferable than a moral one. Following this logic, the best revenge is a great success , and an evil person has a greater chance of being betrayed and living in paranoia. Knowing ourselves better allows us to understand our represented ambitions and needs, which can otherwise lead to regrettable actions. Being good can spare us the trouble of planning cunning schemes, and make us perceive others as more friendly. We should similarly approach our goals. For example, we may value and love others first to receive back their contribution and love. Evil, however, requires intellect and accuracy to achieve goals that can be accomplished morally with less effort, agony, risk, and opposition. The author chooses to build an empire of good and work as a philosopher without making enemies and distractions. "The greatness of evil lies in its awful accuracy. Without that deadly talent for being in the right place at the right time , evil must suffer defeat. For unlike its opposite, good, evil is allowed no human failings, no miscalculations." -- Control Voice , The Outer Limits. ************************ Introduction I have spoken much on evil in the form of Philosocom's subcategory on evil. To execute evil, or malice, in the most optimal way, one ought to be a profound mind. The profound mind becomes a mastermind when it realizes it cannot execute their plans entirely on their own. As such, they would require agents, flying monkeys , and any kind of people to become assets for their plans. When the mastermind views individual lives as expendable , they would treat their own assets as pawns to be sacrificed when they've outlived their current usefulness, or when sacrificing them is a beneficial move in their own heartless eyes. However, the fallacy of evil arrives in the form of Occam's Razor. According to Chris Simms : If you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one. Occam's Razor brand logic can explain how good is preferable over evil in many ways. Allow me to give several examples on the top of my head: One of the reasons that the best revenge is a great success is because attaining revenge through criminal ways, like murder , kidnapping and extortion, requires much planning that wouldn't be necessary if we just accomplish our vengeful tendencies in ways that help people. When you turn your vengeance to something beneficial, you'll have a lot less enemies. That includes not only individual people who might come after you, but also entire organizations, like the police, like actual criminals and so on. You'll become a lot less paranoid like many tyrants were over the course of history. People who choose good over evil can accomplish their aims with far less threats on their mental state and over their lives in general. According to John Hopkins Psychiatry Guide : "Paranoid individuals may have trouble maintaining social connections due to doubting the loyalty and trustworthiness of others." Obviously, this will put you in a constant state of very poor psychological safety . People are more likely to betray you when you're evil. Being evil may require you to associate with the morally depraved, those who lack integrity, and as such may be selfish and greedy, viewing you as a means to an end , rather than an inspiring, respectful leader. In "Breaking Bad", Heisenberg associated with Jack Welker's Gang, who became his enforcers. These Neo-Nazis, who are only loyal to themselves, eventually betrayed their kingpin, thus marking the fall of Heisenberg's Empire. Such decisions can help us question Heisenberg's intellect at least to a degree. The Underlying Motive Behind Our Actions We need to understand ourselves in order to know what we want to get in life. Knowing ourselves better also allows us to know how to get what we desire/need. We might be surprised to realize that we operate under an underlying motive that we're not even aware of. For example, our childhood is a determining period in our lives, which shapes who we become as adults. To quote the Kathmandu Post : Childhood is a crucial stage in a person’s life. It is a formative period that lays the foundation for our future selves . It is a delicate period where being unable to meet a child’s needs can have long-lasting effects on their adult life. We often assume that children don’t fully grasp what’s happening around them because they are young. However, this is a misconception. Even at a young age, children can comprehend and understand their surroundings. The experiences faced as a child, from the nurturing environment provided by caregivers to the quality of relationships established, play a crucial role in shaping who we become. If we repress our memories or deny our true motives, it might negatively affect our decision making, increasing the probability of us making regrettable mistakes just to get what we really want. Deep inside, our ambitions might be more basic and universal than we might be brave enough to admit. For example, the need to be loved, the need to be recognized and so on. Like a destination has several ways to reach it, there are several ways to get what we really want. The Possible Solutions We might realize that being good to others can spare us a lot of headaches, caused by elaborate, cunning schemes. Being nice to others can make them nice to us as well. Changing our perception of ourselves allows ourselves to see others in similar ways, and vice versa. In psychology this is known as the Assumed Similarity Effect . Thus, it could be possible that much of what it takes to get what we want or need from others, lies in the examination and application of our perception in our behavior and actions. If we want others to contribute to us, we need to add additional value to their lives. If we want to be loved, we need to show others genuine love in the first place. And perhaps, if we want power, maybe ruining the rights of others isn't necessary when others can lend us their power not through force but through genuine will to cooperate and work with us. Maybe, we don't need to become authoritarian dictators when we can become good and honest altruists instead, helping others in their time of need and donating for worthwhile causes. And doing so can spare us much agony, fear and antagonism from individuals and organizations who can either not meddle with us, or even cooperate with us. That is while evil requires much accuracy to be executed successfully with as little risk as possible. That is why evil requires much intellect, even through the intellect can realize he or she doesn't have to be or do evil. Personal Conclusions Thus I find it better to spare myself the trouble and do good instead, which can bring me benefit regardless of its accuracy. I want to build an empire of good, and that is exactly what I'm doing and intend to keep doing. This will allow me to have more energy to actually philosophize over being distracted over things whose existence I can either reduce or eliminate completely from my life. I've no need or desire to make enemies because many unnecessary interactions can easily prevent me from working as a philosopher, as I would invest much more worry over dispute than philosophy. And I live to philosophize. My underlying motive is to work. Work, as a means to mentally survive in a world I find vain and absurd without the presence and promotion of philosophy. And one of the points of philosophy is to give a rational explanation and purpose to existence, thus liberating us from irrationality. Hail Philosocom. Feedback from the one known as " St. Javelin 's Pretext Seeking Missile" In essence, it seems two-three observations overcome the notion that one might ought to seek to serve themselves at the expense of others : Firstly, nature is the only unavoidable authority , and she declares that overall might will determine the victor in any contest in which overall might is deployed. Any party to a conflict can escalate to this point, hence, the capacity for might is the only mechanism that can prevent one's conquest. Second, those organisms and organizations which cooperate are mightier than those which compete exclusively. History seems to rebut this conclusion , yet it remains present, that cooperation prevails. In addition to Darwin's findings, we also see this in the tit-for-tat strategy to game theory. Lastly, we can observe people engaged in hierarchies waste energy on maintaining or advancing their own positions within the hierarchy rather than advancing the organization itself. This waste of energy is not made up for in any respect. Therefore, for any organization to reach it's fullest potential in terms of energy management, all forms of coercion and general hierarchy (as opposed to electing a fire chief to manage a house fire) must be abolished. People are ends unto themselves. Treating each other such is the theory of a stable society, as the Blackfoot tribe Abraham Maslow stole from and misinterpreted a little : It was not ever about individual's self actualisation, that's the bottom of the pyramid, then community actualization is the middle, and community perpetuity is the top. In essence, "being good" allows not only a person, but a community to achieve its potential. Or, perhaps rather, the general acceptance and observation of the golden rule is one necessary condition for a person to be healthy and for a community to be healthy.

(Philosocom Directory On Children) (Background music) Part I: Exploring the Choice of Parenthood Children are a necessary burden, and obviously, without them, there would be no continuation of the human race. However, that alone does not mean that every adult has to bring children into this world. Even if children are imperative for our survival as a species, it wouldn't matter as much if a few adults decided that they wished to not have children at all and live their lives childless. Not everyone is good with children, and that perhaps should be a good enough reason as to why not every adult should be a parent. The website, TherapyMantra , suggests the following reasons for how come some people don't get along with children: Too immature and don’t want to deal with the responsibility. Unpleasant childhood memories (Think of children serving as triggers to past traumas, which are natural in occurrence ). Kids are annoying and disruptive to some people. Consider people with misophonia , a sensory disorder that causes people to experience distress by hearing certain sounds. In addition, introverts, people who are prone to suffer from social fatigue , might be drained energetically by the overwhelming company of children. Parenting As Skill It is a skill, to care for the next generation, especially when they are babies or young children. It is a skill not everyone has. It is a skill not everyone want to develop. It's a skill that, without its development, the world will still carry on with the next generations of those who are more kid-oriented. According to an article from 2021 published by PsychologyToday , 27% of Michigan adults are childfree. out of that percentage, only 4% of the adults were involuntarily childless. Now, ask yourselves, would the 10 million population of that American state survive with this statistics in the future? Of course it would. The fact that the world population is so big, gives people the collective-scale privilege of not having children if so they wished, without risking the overall future of humanity. The idea that we do can't have that privilege in this contemporary era is unrealistic. It would've been realistic if we lived in a post-apocalyptic world . It isn't realistic in this era of material, capitalistic prosperity. Part II: Ethical Considerations Should there be a parenting license for potential parents? Not necessarily, but anyone considering becoming a parent should ask themselves whether they are mentally and financially capable of enduring such hardship, without resorting to abuse. Without abusing a child, and thinking it's a good idea to do so. It's why a smart parent does not act on petty emotions. These emotions can make them abuse their children ( and hence why rage shouldn't be unleashed unwisely ). Sure, children are cute, fun, and whatever. But in the end, they are a great responsibility, and even a mature adult wouldn't necessarily be able to execute this whole ordeal on their behalf. Not all of us have the required empathy and compassion to raise children who won't become cold-hearted. That's unless, of course, you want to raise cold blooded hitmen like Marco and Leonel Salamanca from "Breaking Bad". But do you really? Well, the freedom of choice allows you to make such regrettable moral mistakes. After all it's the dark side of liberty. The Right to Choose Either way, people should not be forced into having children. Perhaps it is expected in some cultures for a married couple to do so, but in the end, it is a personal choice , not a societal one. After all, a democratic society has no say in the bedroom, let alone in your reproductive organs. Surely, the country depends on the bedroom to produce the next generation of workers and leaders, but in the end, it is the choice of individual citizens as to whether to have children or not, as the reproducing organs belong to them and not to the country. Recognize that people are their own private property, unless you endorse slavery. Part III: Briefly Exploring the Abortion and Adoption Debate When it comes to abortion, this is a most difficult moral dilemma . Some people believe that a woman has every right to terminate her pregnancy, since her body is her private property. That's while others believe that abortion is murder, and of course, we shouldn't murder. I have not made up my mind on this issue, but I believe that if a baby is born, and the parents are not capable of providing for and taking care of it, then it is best to send it to an adoption agency rather than aborting the pregnancy. I think it's better to give these next generations a chance at life, then to terminate their potential from the very beginning. According to Lifesong.org , here are some notable people who were adopted, instead of aborted: Eleanor Roosevelt , American diplomat and first lady. Steve Jobs, the late CEO of Apple. Inc, and inventor . Leo Tolstoy , great Russian writer and philosopher. Now, when considering abortion, consider the long term loss of not birthing the next Roosevelt, the next Jobs, or the next Tolstoy. Do not underestimate the virtue of genius. And if the baby has the potential to live a proper life, why take it away from them? There should be no shame in sending a child into adoption if the parents believe that they are incapable of providing for it and raising it. It's far better than to abuse them. Part IV: Why Having Children Isn't for Everyone Raising children is very difficult , even for a very willing parent, especially in their first years. The younger a child is, the more they depend on you to provide for them, not only financially but emotionally as well. Not everyone is capable of that. Thus, before getting someone pregnant or becoming pregnant, one should ask themselves if they have the mental and financial prowess to take care of one or more children as best they can. To anyone wanting to raise children, I recommend taking courses in parenting and child development. Online , or otherwise. This will give you the tools you need to provide a happy, secure, and safe life for your children. Raising children is not something to be taken lightly. It is a big responsibility, and it is important to be prepared. I believe that having children is a privilege, not a right. After all, if you want a partner to help you raise children, you must attract them. You're not entitled to a partner. You're entitled to try, not to succeed. Who Children Should be For Children should be for those whom they can bring a unique kind of joy. A joy that fills a parent's life with wonder and renowned vitality. To people who deem children as innocent, curious and having boundless energy. People whose children ignite a spark within them, and reminding them of the simple pleasures of life. To those willing and determine to watch their new-borns discover the world with wide eyes and open hearts. To those whose smile, can brighten even the cloudiest of days, and reduce much, much of one's depression. To those who are willing to learn from children about the virtues of patience, empathy, and love.   To those whose children's silly antics melt away their worries, and not succumbs them to irrational anxiety. To those whose children are a privilege to be proud of, and whose milestones are to be celebrated. To those whose love for their children is a bond that transcends time and space , and an ever-enriching connection. Conclusion In the end, no one should be forced into having children if they do not want to. By the some token, no one should prevent us from having children if we have the faith that we can raise them. Our adult lives belong to us, as they are our own private property. Our decisions, as well, should be respected by those who are close to us. Solitary men , like myself who despise loud noises, might not optimally function as philosophers when children distract ourselves from our true purpose as individuals. Soon-to-be parents do not know what kind of child they will give birth to. The child could be born with a deformity or suffer from birth complications. On they other hand, they could also become distinguished intellects. This is why I think it is important for people to be aware of what they are getting themselves into, even though the future is uncertain. Considerations for Responsible Parenthood by Alex Mos Having children should be seen as the great, if not the most significant, responsibility of human life. Therefore, the parent/s should be equally motivated and understand the consequences and sacrifices. No child asked to be born, and this is why no child can ever be blamed for being born and being a burden. However, there are still many cultures and relationships where women have no power, education, or access to contraceptions . At the same time, men may misuse sex as a power tool, not caring or refusing to cooperate in avoiding impregnating women. In the opposite cases, women use children as blackmail to extort money from men. Both practices are morally depraved. The education and evolution of religious and cultural practices concerning sex, marriage, and having children are necessary to make the world less populated and populated with happy , trauma-free people. I believe that women have the right to abort their baby in the first months of pregnancy as the zygote is underdeveloped and can’t be categorized as a human being, similar to sperm or egg cells. As pregnancy can not be prevented all the time and sex is a natural part of life, I don’t see the reason to punish the woman for going through an unwanted pregnancy. That has a significant effect on her body, mind, and career. Children should be born from happy mothers, grow up in loving homes, or not be born. For me, it’s somehow strange that parents wanting to adopt a child must go through strict psychological screening and prove to have financial means and sufficient housing while every human can have their child not being able to care for them. Also, I believe that crime, mental illness , dysfunctionality, and low moral standards are, to a high degree, a result of preventable childhood trauma entirely blamed on the incompetence or malice of parents. Only motivated, conscious, and emphatic parents should be “allowed” to have children for the sake of children, society, and humanity.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) Alex Mos's Synopsis Newcomers to philosophy can encounter a paradox within themselves: they are interested in the field but find it difficult to accept the uncomfortable truth , which is an inseparable part of philosophy. Philosophy is called the "Love of Wisdom." Love symbolizes a bond of commitment above pleasure. Loving wisdom means studying the truth, even if it's hard to contain. In democracy, if we cancel people because we don't like their opinions or because they hurt our feelings, our interest in democracy is partial. The same applies to philosophy. In both, we must allow the optimal exchange of ideas and openness rather than depend on emotions and sensitivities. Philosophy is a virtue embodied in an honest, moral philosopher. A devoted newcomer to philosophy genuinely wants to seek and get answers, even if they are displeasing . You must be open-minded and willing to accept the truth to avoid frustration and wasting the time of others investing in helping you. (Background music) Making Things Clear A common hypocrisy among many newcomers to the world of philosophy, occurs when a certain paradox is entailed, aware or unaware. It's similar to the hypocrisy I detected in an article I wrote, called "The Fault in Contemporary Liberty" . It's a paradox where the individual who is interested by something, also disdains from it at the same time. However, it's quite hard to know these feelings within you, when you lack the foresight to understand what you're in for. Philosophy isn't philosophizing for its own sake, AKA "intellectual masturbation". That derails the whole practical point of the field by a strawman's fallacy . It's not like in relations that are made for pleasure. Philosophy does not have to be done from pleasure nor from love, nor from any specific emotion. In fact it's far more functional than you might think, being, you know, the "mother of all sciences". It's called the "Love of Wisdom", per se, but whose to say "love" is exclusively about joy? Love As an Umbrella of Virtues "Love" symbolizes other things , other than pleasure or even willpower. As long as we love something or someone, a bond is created. A bond of commitment . And as love can expire so can the commitment that comes along with it. And whose to say commitment is done out of pleasure entirely? No. When you are devoted to something, you are likelier to stick to it in light as well as in dark. Love and commitment aren't always joyful, and so is devotion. Devotion, in fact, is tested not when one is at their highest, but when they are at their lowest. And I quote author Shannon Adler : “If he can't handle you at your worst then he does not deserve you at your best". The same applies to any activity where hardship is involved . If you want to commit to something but can't handle it when it causes you hardship, ask yourselves not if that activity is beneath you. Ask if you are not disrespecting the activity, when you say you are interested in it. Like for those who say they are interested in democracy, they will only say they are until someone says something they do not like. Then, they will seek to cancel you and condemn you for exercising your right to voice your thoughts. If you are repulsed by something you're interested in, you contradict yourself . You contradict yourself, because interest attracts, and repulsiveness extends distance. The question is: How can one both desire and not desire something at the same time? Love in philosophy is also devotion to the craft , and not only fascination and wonder. If you love somebody you will be with them at their lowest. If you love wisdom you will want it even if it is hard to contain . You cannot seriously desire wisdom if you are not devoted to its reception. Therefore, saying that you are interested in philosophy requires putting your interest to the test, to see how interested you really are in the study of the truth. Relations Between Philosophy and Democracy If we cancel people in a democracy because their voiced thoughts do not appeal to us, then we are only interested in democracy to an extent, and are repulsed by its other parts. Thus, our interest in democracy isn't completely honest, if we, as non-government people and organizations, seek to limit other members of society. Thus, our interest in democracy is not full, and as such, not entirely genuine. Because we're only interested in democracy until we find out we despise what it entails. And it entails hearing thoughts we don't like or want to hear. The same rationale applies to philosophy. Because otherwise, we are only interested in it until it hurts our feelings, when its legitimacy is exercised by other, equal members of society. No. Both in philosophy and in democracy, to allow an optimal exchange of ideas, we should learn to let go of our dependency on desire, and focus on the world beyond ourselves and its virtues. Philosophy is too a virtue , embodied in any honest philosopher whose honesty is expressed in their good traits. Thus, when a newcomer to the field says to me that they are interested in philosophy… how genuine are they? That is the question every decent mastermind should ask themselves if they want to properly plan ahead the continuation of that relationship. Because their interest can swiftly vanish, if they lack the will to endure what they're going to be in for. Be Honest With Yourself And a truly devoted newcomer would understand what every new employee should understand: Confession of devotion amounts to little if it isn't endured. Philosophy is the study of truth . One cannot desire the truth, if they are too repulsed by it, to desire it. Desire is a capacity that is to be demonstrated and not only stated. Why study something you aren't necessarily interested in? Study takes dedication if one truly wants to become a master. By the same token, if you asked a question, and you received an answer you didn't like, then why ask the question? Why ask the question, if you are not interested in the answer? Why ask for an explanation if you're going to condemn the other person for supplying the very content you requested? See how our short-term thinking shoots us in the foot. It would've been laughable, if it weren't unfortunate. People "dig their own graves" because they lack this basic foresight, of needing a strong character in order to take the mantle of proper study and understanding. And yes, understanding by itself is a complex issue, involving several components. To avoid unnecessary frustrations, be prepared to try to understand, or else the other person's time isn't worth investing on helping you. Takeaway Insights For the Hungry Newcomer So, next time you say you're interested in something, remember that you're interested in knowing it because you do not know what it fully means. You might not want the answer. No, you might be interested in the idea of wanting the answer. These are two different things, expectation and reality. If you are repulsed by your search, the only person you can blame is yourself, for not being prepared enough to face what you wished for. Why wish to study truths you don't desire? Why devote yourself to study a truth you don't want to know? Whose to say the truth is always something you want? And all it takes to overcome this fallacy, is the ability to build up some foresight before making inquiry. The Other Side The philosopher isn't repulsed by the truth, because they are more devoted to study it, than any other human being (in theory). And as such, I am not repulsed by it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel. I'm not doing this to feel alive. I'm doing this because knowing the truth is what matters to me the most. And I'm not afraid to admit the truths I find, should doing so may be of use to me and to you. This is a philosophy site. A site based on the endless seeking of the truth, here to be potentially stored for whole generations. Make sure you know what you're in for. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Review: Shouldn’t the answer to why you want to be a philosopher be because you want to know everything? Just as with anything else in life, y ou need to have a good reason behind your actions. Otherwise you are just like a neuron firing in the brain for no reason. You need to have a reason for doing stuff. Philosophy included. Otherwise you will end up in a stop light. Just doing what you're supposed to when you're told to with only a few options to choose from: Green or red.

"A tragedy when only your alternative selves are the ones successful, and you are not" -- John Duran (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) Synopsis by Mr. Ephraim Peter The article "How To Turn Anything into a Desired Opportunity (Or At Least Try) -- The Philosophy of Subversion" explores the concept of subverting expectations to transform any situation into a beneficial opportunity. It challenges societal norms and traditional expectations, promoting individual growth and liberation. The philosophy suggests that subversion can lead to fortunate accidents but also acknowledges the potential for unexpected outcomes. It emphasizes the importance of humor and resilience in navigating life's challenges. The article references the Taoist principle of "Sai Weng Shi Ma," which teaches acceptance of life's changes and dualities. The message is to remain open-minded, adaptable, and find strength and optimism in the face of unpredictability. (Background music) How Subversion Opens Up New Possible Pathways In theory, any situation, either positive or negative, can be transformed into a beneficial opportunity, benefitting whatever need or intention one has. This concept, often unforeseen and surprising to those unaware of its potential, is known as subverting expectations. It is difficult to grasp a situation that cannot be subverted in some way. This extends beyond mere circumstances and, and includes literally anything in existence's several layers . Consider the unexpected sight of a woman confidently striding down the street in a tuxedo. This simple act, by defying the traditional expectation of what's "feminine" wear, subverts societal norms and challenges its expectations. Such subversion, in this case, stems from good intentions, aimed at promoting self-expression and opposing sexist philosophies. For a woman seeking to project respect and professionalism , a well-tailored tuxedo can be an empowering and unconventional choice, defying the limitations of traditional expectations associated with feminine attire. At the same time, in today's climate, a man attempting to achieve the same level of respect through feminine attire may not always achieve the desired outcome, which indicates the ongoing struggles with gender fluidity and its acceptance. The power of subverting expectations lies in its ability to break free from the limitations of the known, and open doors to the less known or the unknown. This challenges the very fabric of our understanding, making our understanding never fully a reliable source. Through questioning the reliability of our current understanding, we not only gain individual growth and liberation but also contribute to a more inclusive and dynamic world. A world where boundaries are constantly redefined and perceptions are forever evolving, in accordance to the truths we discover throughout our lives. Laughter in the Face of the Unexpected Subversion, in its essence, is a mischievous "dance", or toying, with expectations. It is the act of pulling the rug out from under someone's feet, leaving them surprised, delighted, or even just slightly confused. We can trick people easily as well as be tricked ourselves. It's all a question of whether or not we know what they think of us, and how we can use that information against their expectations. This shows that reality might be far more dynamic than our understanding, making the latter have problems with keeping up with the former. This act of rebellion can lead to fortunate accidents which can be refreshing. However it also comes with the potential for the unforeseen. Sometimes, the outcomes we hope for can subvert us in unexpected ways, leading to frequent disappointment . Expecting what shouldn't be expected is what makes our mentality so illogical and inconsistent. We seek certainty, yet every moment holds the potential for the rug to be pulled out from under us. Perhaps Socrates was onto something when he declared his ignorance – maybe true wisdom lies in accepting the absurdity of attempting to control the unpredictable flow of life. How can we control what can't be controlled? Subversion is a tool wielded masterfully by comedians , allowing them to twist reality, finding humor in the unexpected. I recall the anecdote of a comedian who skillfully subverted the situation of a woman's illness, by transforming "cancer" into a pet crab. In this instance, laughter became the antidote to grim reality, demonstrating the power of subversion to find light even in the darkest of moments. Life is filled with such instances. When confronted with a narrow-minded individual who criticizes our emotional expression, we can find comfort in the playful subversion of their words. Just as a "chicken" can be interpreted as one who has "eggs" rather than an insult, we choose to interpret in a way that empowers rather than diminishes us. However, as the fate of Fidget in " The Great Mouse Detective " reminds us, every action carries the potential for unintended consequences. Fidget, carrying out his duties, met his demise by being thrown from the very airship he helped operate, when he told his boss they needed to discard extra weight for the airship to fly ( and thus got discarded himself ). This serves as a caution, reminding us that our actions, even those with good intentions, can shoot us in the foot . While an optimistic outlook on life is valuable, we must also acknowledge the power of subversion. It is a force that can not only dismantle negativity and ridicule those who seek to harm us, but it can also transform the grim features of life, into unexpected moments of joy. Ultimately, embracing the unpredictable nature of life and the potential for subversion within it allows us to navigate the world with either humor, resilience, or even both. Not being too reliant towards the confidence of our expectations, is therefore the realistic thing to aspire to. Bonus: Charles Darwin's Sting In a song called "Ash Ketchum VS Charles Darwin," Ash cruelly mocks the famed scientist for losing three children to disease, stating they caught all the fevers ("Gotta catch them all!"). Darwin, surprisingly, doesn't deny the pain, acknowledging but admits it . His reply, however does seem to serve his rival's sting back at him: "It was as hard as the wood that Oak gave your mother." Alex Mos's Feedback When something bad happens, the Chinese have a saying, "Sai Weng Shi Ma," meaning "Remember the Old Man Who Lost His Horse." They remind themselves and others about the parable of how "bad luck" can lead to a good outcome and how life changes rapidly. In the famous story, The farmer goes through various fateful situations, which the neighbors judge as "fortunate" or "terrible." On the contrary, the wise farmer accepts the events, good or bad, with the same Taoistic calm and responds with a non-judgemental "perhaps." He understands that every situation has an unexpected consequence because life is like yin and yang, an endless change. According to Taoism, the universe is governed by a dynamic interchange within a cosmic duality of opposite and complementary energies like dark and light, male and female, or positive and negative. There is no happiness without suffering or good without evil; everything changes and fluctuates between its dualities. Therefore, when you experience misfortune, don't despair but accept it with patience and optimism. Remember that it's only a momentary state that will change, opening the door to a new possibility, perhaps something you dreamed about. Beware of missing opportunities by dwelling through the dungeons of sadness and self-pity. Find the door, and walk confidently into the next reality of your life.

Why We Need to Doubt Ourselves (and How to Address It Effectively) Alex Mos's Synopsis: Criticism allows us to discern truth and falsehood and is the basis for philosophical knowledge-seeking. Psychological toughness is vital to self-development, leading to lower sensitivity and less suffering. We should criticize assumptions made by our emotions and investigate evidence. Fact-seeking is also helpful as a learning opportunity for personal growth.  In Criticism Towards Anti-Critical Thought Criticizing is the means of all doubt. You cannot doubt anything or anyone without judging their pretended value, whether actually pretentious or true. Philosophy teaches us that we need to criticize frequently on the basis of knowledge-seeking. And indeed, one of the roles of criticism is to allow us to discern between truth and falsehood. After all, an assumption might be too flawed to be deemed as correct, upon further examination. Therefore, in the name of seeking the truth, we must be willing to criticize as much as possible. And the purpose of seeking the truth is a practical one: To act and plan in accordance to it. The problem, however, arrives when some of us may regard criticism as "an attack" on either the things they value or on themselves. When they make this unhealthy attachment between themselves and their values and beliefs, criticizing them would by extension make them feel "attacked" or threatened. When someone, as a result, is compelled to use fallacies such as whataboutism , we can realize that they are not secure enough have their beliefs or themselves criticized. As such this can serve as a red light, an indication, that they might not be suitable for philosophizing. They might lack the psychological safety to allow themselves and their values to be criticized, even if they would claim that they are tough. Unfortunately for them, toughness isn't necessarily a black-or-white situation , and traits can be possessed partially as well, not necessarily by their entirety. It is quite hard to philosophize with someone who not only regards an argument as an accusation, but also does not do much to serve a counter-argument of their own. As such, in the niche of philosophy, high sensitivity is a weakness when it distracts you from arguing reasonably, by feeling either attacked or accused. We need not to see the other side as a threat on us. However, that would only be done once we become psychologically strong enough to quickly dismiss the false impression of being under a threat. To be as strong as that, we better not regard any criticism as an attack or insult so quickly. Instead, we need to criticize that impression and question its truthfulness. Logical debates do not spiral into heated fights so quickly because either one or the two sides are strong enough to not regard people as a threat, especially if there is no actual threat being present (AKA, one towards your life, for example). However, that requires the cooperation of all sides involved in this exchange of ideas. By refusing to criticize our own false impressions, we enable a culture where toughness is overlooked in the name of softness. In reality, however, toughness, while hard to attain , is imperative for our prosperity in life , and for the greater expansion of their potential as both individuals and members of organizations/communities. Becoming tougher is also how we can really not be hurt by the world, without having to resort to threat others just because we ourselves feel threatened. In the name of greater harmony with this world, being tough is one of my top priorities when it comes to self-development. I also believe people would suffer less as a result of my gradually-reducing sensitivity. I have no longer a desire for people to suffer over weaknesses I can solve or at least reduce. And reduction of general suffering could serve as a reason to regard a weakness partially immoral, where inner strength is a virtue to nurture and celebrate. Obviously, by refusing to criticize what our senses and thoughts tell us, we can be quick to make much misunderstandings, caused by relying too much on our emotions as absolute credible sources of information. Instead, we can see any data/impression we receive as an opportunity to further investigate, to actually learn. Instead of regarding any data we receive as fact, we can instead regard it as an hypothesis, deserving to be questioned in the name of the truth. Case Example: The March 2024 Facebook Outage On the 5th of March, 2024, Facebook's (And Meta's Platforms in general) collapsed for several hours. This event could in theory affect certain groups, social categories, and individuals, in interesting ways: Americans might think Chinese hackers have breached their accounts. People who suffer from paranoia or a victim's mentality might think they were specifically hacked while others weren't. People suffering from anxiety might believe they won't be able to log in to their accounts again. The problem with these assumption only occurs when we refuse to use them as opportunities to actually learn what's going on and/or why. Should we lack the necessary willpower to doubt ourselves, we won't necessarily realize the truth. In reality, outages such as these, while not occurring often, also happened in 2021 due to the similar reason of "technical/networking issue/s" that was also the cause in 2024 . The Core Points Without proper questioning of our beliefs, they remain beliefs until proven otherwise. Compare this to the idea of " innocent until proven guilty ". The burden of proof lies on you, as the one intrigued by the belief, and also as one who might have the ability to put said belief to the test. Otherwise, why else would we regard a belief as fact? Because of our confidence? Our confidence is not proper evidence. Fact-checking is the key to gather evidence, not having the capacity to feel emotions which confirm our beliefs. To the universal businessman's archetype , anything can be regarded as an investment opportunity. Not necessarily of funds exclusively but also of time and effort, used to yield useful results in one way or another. When we can regard any assumption as a learning opportunity to invest resources to, we can use any assumption as an opportunity to grow and become more knowledgeable. Nurturing a studious culture is therefore key to doubting anything and anyone, not as something that threatened us, but as an opportunity for improvement and transformation into wiser beings. When we regard criticism as a threat, we deny ourselves the growth of our knowledge. And the whole point of philosophy, in the first place, is to grow our knowledge. Let us all do so, not only to learn more, but to actually feel more secure around those who don't really threat our lives, and don't have to threat our wellbeing. All it takes initally is to question ourselves. Hail Philosocom.

Note: No intention of inflicting guilt upon anyone, is intended. Alex Mos's Synopsis Life can be seen as an escape from an infantile past, a choice to develop and contribute to the world above the enjoyment of hedonistic pleasures . Stereotypically, viewing older people as wiser is often inaccurate, as not every older person is wise, and wisdom can also be obtained at a younger age. Therefore, ideas should be respected, regardless of age or neurodivergence. Extensive past experiences attributed to aging can only contribute to one's wisdom if reflected upon, questioned, and learned from. Youth is a state of illusion of knowledge . The philosopher may welcome an older age to gain more wisdom and witness the value of their legacy to their followers. “It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable” - Socrates (Maturity Directory) (Background music) ****************************** Journey Towards Growth Life, I believe, is like an escape from the past.  The closer I was to the moment I was born, the more incomplete I felt. My logic was shaky, my interactions awkward and cowardly, and my sensitivity raw and infantile. No wonder I struggled with self-acceptance as a child and as a teen. Continuing to live is my way of escaping this perceived imperfection, a constant pursuit of becoming better.   I view each day not as an opportunity to seize, but as a problem to be solved . If I simply accept flaws as unchangeable or as worthy of acceptance, then why strive for improvement? Why shouldn't I work towards development, if it will not only help myself but others as well? Why, then learn, grow, and contribute, if life isn't problematic? After all, my life can be utilized for world repair, or "Tikkun Olam" . And I can only do so by becoming less ignorant and more impactful in the world. I thus prefer to help myself to contribute to the world, than to embrace myself and enjoy this life. And I take it for granted. Age: Re-looking at Wisdom There's a certain mystique surrounding older people, due to the positive stereotypes, along with pity, due to the positive's negative counterparts. They seem to radiate wisdom and possess a calmness forged by experience, but also technological incompetence . This perception, however, isn't always accurate, as with all stereotypes. While I once equated baldness with respect due to its association with age, I've come to realize that true wisdom transcends physical appearance, and age as well. Wisdom if anything is purely a cognitive faculty. According to research: These components [of wisdom] appear to be localized primarily to the prefrontal cortex and limbic striatum. If we want to be wiser, we shouldn't just let ourselves gain more and more experiences, we should study new experiences and also reflect on past experiences more often. Aging becomes a liability when we fail to protect our brains from cage-related ognitive decline using a healthy physical and mental lifestyle. Life is a continuous learning process, and mistakes are, often, inevitable stepping stones. I'm comfortable with the idea of making them unintentionally, but the ever-present future does bring a touch of anxiety. Will I make fewer mistakes as time goes by, simply because of time passing? No. I must work on my intellect to prevent making mistakes I might regret and pay for. This line of thinking pushes me to constantly strive for growth and improvement, independent of my age. Simply living life without much thought is a recipe for disaster waiting to come, and more than once. Having more life experiences only yield important results if we bother study them, and not forget them. Otherwise many of them would lose their potential to help us grow into better and wiser beings. Youth carries the advantage of being further from the inevitable end. Perhaps this explains why some fear aging. Beyond that fear, though, is there a real reason to dread the passage of time, as long as we're still capable of doing what we wish to do? A dream I once had, where I was mistaken for an elderly resident in a retirement home, was a thought-provoking experience. Despite my actual age, my cane ( which I used during my chronic fatigue era ) led to assumptions. However, the dream (and real life as well) was a reminder not to judge based on appearances. The mind isn't seen beyond the behavior it expresses, making it like a prison that can be quite invisible to other minds. Just as I hated being treated like a child, even as one back then, I understand how condescending it can be to dismiss someone's ideas solely based on age or neurodivergence. While I may not have chosen to be young or neurodivergent, both are parts of who I am. Dismissing an idea because of someone's age is age-based discrimination and ad-hominem in general. Instead, ideas need to be tested independently of their presenter's irrelevant characteristics. And of course, age is one of them. And in the age of contentism , much of who we are, as people, doesn't matter as much as the content we deliver. Experience is a natural by-product of aging, but it doesn't guarantee wisdom.  The elderly may possess a wealth of knowledge, but age alone isn't the sole factor for their knowledge. Information is to be processed and assessed, questioned and criticized. True wisdom lies in the ability to learn from experiences, adapt, and approach life with an open mind, expressed by the correct application of knowledge . From Plato's Cave to the Light of Wisdom Like a prisoner escaping Plato's cave of ignorance, I see youth as a state dominated by illusions of knowledge.   To emerge from this self-deception, we must strive towards the "light," a pursuit of truth beyond mere appearances. As a philosopher, embracing aging becomes an act of liberation. It's a chance to shed the delusions of youth and ascend further on the path to wisdom. Yes, the physical manifestations of aging – greying hair, potential hair loss – may come. There might be a shift in how we relate to younger generations, too. However, this is a fair trade for the potential gain in wisdom, as time marches on. A true philosopher would readily accept this deal. The deal of staying alive, and see it through that his work is not only accomplished but stays for others to consume and enjoy. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Life is also about utilizing the past to shape our futures. I can’t say all escapism is about ignoring stuff. A huge part of the future falls on being aware of where you are at. Taking a self inventory so to speak.... Any thought I have I will utilize my past to determine its validity.... Do you not increase your human capital through learning new things?

Kill Mr. Nice Guy (Poem) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (For the directory on success, click here ) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) (Background music) I am calling it off. This world unjustly walked over her ultimate apprentice. Hell, paved with good intent, Shaking my sanity , throughout my life. And the memories are running through the night , in pitch-black mentality. Back and forth, through the conscious mind, behind endless cups of coffee. And the conclusion that I have reached, Is to rectify with philosophy! There are far weaker folk. Every single one, minion to unconscious hard knocks. They're afraid to re-surface the truth.. I can sense their repressed cowardice. The education I have received Failed its quest for deceit! This planet hastens its early fate, And I'm fueled by tempting hate. This humanity deserves my forsake, And its improvement to make! I want to die World Rectificator, From humanity I remorselessly departed; The hubris of many I mercilessly tackled! Those attached without consent I dis-entangled. For I'm writing and I'm writing and I'm writing, For the Pax Ethica world! I shall keep killing off my inner nice guy, As long as possible! Late master needed a child to carry out her word, Can't help but pity you all! Took a 10 year old boy to save her, And prevent a fatal death reaction.. She is long dead herself. The circle is complete, I remain the only master. And I saved myself countlessly, For 14 years! While guarding the same target, That compelled me several to save! And the darkness in my empty soul, I must keep using for the greater good!

(Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). (More on depression here ) (Background music) Many people care, Only for what gives them, The sweet, sweet sense of pleasure. Should they be pissed off, They'll apathetically try to scar you, Even if your intentions are pure and good. Fleets of memories, fly above my mind. Fly around, like Saturn's ring, And in my mind, their depressing content, they sing. For they seek to be gratified, -- That is their king. They dislike, Anyone who says things Which they despise to hear. Their lack of satisfaction, Serves in their eyes, a justification, To bring the sensitive mind, Into the sinking temptation, Of depression. They care not for the impact they made, On the sensitive mind. The words implicated, Like bombs from the sky. Many days are a struggle, To not shed a tear from the eye. The more inhuman you are, The "better", For that means life will go easier, Both when inflicting and being inflicted The more humane, naïve you are, The more prone you will be, To the irritating tyrants, Of unwanted emotions, Like ghosts haunting you, For the rest of your life. (I tried de-sensitizing myself, All I am left is, The love for edgy adult media and horror). Even if you've wanted to do good, They care not. Even if you do it almost entirely as a volunteer, They care not. That sector cares only, To read the words they want to hear, And should they not receive which they seek, They'll not hesitate, To strike fear, Into your heart, Of the world at large; The very world, You were taught by, Naïve, biased teachers, To seek, to desire, to contribute, To conquer with love, with care. Sensitivity, for them, Is a weakness; A ridicule, a joke. And as they live their lives happily, You cannot but try to wrestle against the desire, For them to choke, As the retribution, Of making you suffer, Just because "it is their right to say whatever they want". I volunteered for an office that wasn't spacious, I was hungry once. Hunger makes me anxious. Because of that I told my officer that I will not attend, That individually-irrelevant ceremony. They called me arrogant and selfish... Me, a volunteer in the collective dirt, Who just wanted to eat, Or else anxiety might tempt him to scream. I do not enjoy the suffering of others, you see. Is it arrogant, to bring something of your own? Is it arrogant, to not act like I'm a slave to others' satisfaction? It seems that, whenever I wanted to contribute, Much of what I got, was but words of hate, Words of rebuke. So what if it will deteriorate my mentality, So what if it will make me dependant on more pills, For the rest of my life...? All they want, Is that sweet, sweet taste of APPROVED CONSUMERISM. And once they've done, they want it again! And again! and again! Because things they dislike, They dislike with such burning passion, That makes one wonder, If they think the world owns to them, Anything, anything at all? Unease? Lack of satisfaction, too? Boy, do I wonder, Do I look like a s*x worker to you? Is it my job to be hit for "not delivering the goods"? Why is pleasure.. such a self-entitled douche? That sector, when unsatisfied, Will wish to make you feel so bad about yourself, That you are tempted to wonder... Are they right? And, saying NO and NO and NO, Does not make the question go away, In the mind of the obsessive, highly-caffeinated, Unwillingly-emotional writer, That I am. If you are sensitive as I am, (Or less) Let's share this, to show awareness to the fact, That sensitivity is one heck of a curse, Inflicted on one's mind, Perhaps for all of eternity. There is no escape... ..Only in a life of solitude.

(Background music) Note: The article was written before "Rubinshteinism" became a political philosophy. However, the term is used here as a shortcut for Rubinshteinic Individualism, and none beyond. Introduction Being both individualist philosophies, there are obvious similarities between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and my own Rubinshteinic Individualism. However, there are also extreme differences between the two. Since Rand herself has divided her philosophy by four branches ( metaphysics , epistemology, ethics, and politics ), she saved me the work of having to do that dividing myself, making it easier for me to compare my own branch of individualism with her own. Metaphysics Both philosophies agree that there is an objective reality, AKA, a reality that is independent of human observation. However, this is where the similarity ends on that subject. Rand claims that there are three axioms of objective reality, which are existence, consciousness, and identity. That is while the philosophy I present to you in my writings, claims that there are in fact seven essences to reality, as written in this article , and completely discards Rand's so-called "axioms" of consciousness and identity. Consciousness and Identity Furthermore, Rubinshteinic Individualism denies consciousness to be real in the sense of physical existence, alongside with identity, and claims to be existent only as illusions. Since the definition of an illusion is something that doesn't exist, consciousness and identity, as abstract, non-physical things, do not exist as well in what I call "The World Beyond the Mind". More on it you can find here . Why I don't believe these two elements do not exist in physical reality Here's why I don't believe these two elements do not exist in physical reality: while they are a product of our brains, they do not possess physical characteristics, such as space , being able to be detected by the senses (like touch and smell) and so forth, while actual physical things and beings do carry said traits that are only exclusive to the World Beyond the Mind. Therefore, a distinction should be made between physical and abstract, and since Rubinshteinic Individualism is a purely physicalist philosophy, the consciousness and identity cannot be real by that philosophy. Returning to Rand's Objectivism Ayn Rand claimed that "existence is identity," something with which I heavily disagree. If we assume that something beyond our minds is labeled as "A," while someone else identifies it as "B," and "A" is contrary to "B," how can we know for sure whether the object we perceive is "A" or "B"? According to logic, one existent thing cannot be its exact opposite at the same time and remain whole. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there must be an existence that is independent of our perception and identification, and that existence is the World Beyond the Mind; an existence that is beyond our subjective perception. Epistemology Both philosophies, in short, are based on the importance of reason in order to attain knowledge and to understand reality, at least better than the instability, momentary nature of our emotions. Emotion, while a useful resource, is not competent enough to indicate something is actually true. Some people may believe that the existence of one or more gods is evident by the believers' feelings of faith. However, the insensitivity of one or more emotions does not make something truer than it actually is, and the same goes for the number of people experiencing said emotion. If we are to claim that most of the world's population is theist, that alone does not indicate that theism is correct, and is basically a logical fallacy known as "ad populum." Giving another example, Nazi Germany's love for Hitler does not necessarily make Hitler a person that should be loved, even if many Nazis at the time adored him. That is connected to another logical fallacy known as the "is-ought" problem -- the fact that something exists (Nazis' love for Hitler) doesn't mean it should be followed as an example (loving Hitler). On Philosocom I refer to this as "The Way Things Are Problem". Knowledge Rand claims that knowledge is a product of perception; a product that is ultimately determined by that action, while Rubinshteinism, along with the "world beyond the mind" theory, claims that knowledge, otherwise known as truth, is based on three elements: evidence, logical coherence, and correct information. If these three components that build up knowledge/truth are vital to its discovery, then it can be claimed that perception isn't needed in order to reach a truth. A leftist and a right-ist can find the same truth in politics without the need to have the same perception. If our leadership is corrupt, for example, even if no one will perceive it, the leadership itself will still be corrupt even if it's kept in the most competent of secrets , making knowledge unnecessary to be perceived in order to be knowledge. In other words, knowledge can be independent of perception. It is, after all, a resource, and a resource does not have to be attained in order to be a resource. Rubinshteinism is not a political philosophy Before we finish this article and get to the last point of comparison, I must inform that Rubinshteinism is not a political philosophy. In other words, it does barely talk about politics because it is a more individualism-driven philosophy , a one that focuses on the individual rather than on the political system they are in or should be in. Therefore, politics are irrelevant in the Rubinshteinic school of thought , at least at the writing of this article. Rubinshteinism is apathetic towards religion The same goes, by the way, when it comes to religion. In my first printed book, the Hermitericum , it is written that ideologies are there to be practical, to serve a function in our lives, which by the way is similar to the original intentions of the founders of Western philosophy -- to serve us in life, rather than indulge in endless discussions of impractical importance. Therefore, while Rand's objectivism is atheist , my philosophy is apathetic, even though I myself am an atheist. Apa-theism can be described as apathy to the existence of divine entities . I believe we can get along with each other without the need to have the same religious beliefs, and the same thing goes for agreeing with one another without said beliefs. Rubinshteinism is not focused on happiness. And finally, we should not forget the fact that Rand's philosophy is explicitly egotistical, but not in the obvious negative stereotype. Similarly to Nietzsche's "will to power" idea, the idea behind objectivist egotism is to celebrate the notion of life, reach long-term happiness, and actualize yourself as a distinctive individual. Rubinshteinic philosophy also shares some of those positive egotistical traits , but with the dominant exception of happiness as the highest goal in life. In other words, happiness by itself in Rubinshteinic philosophy is not justified by itself to be attained. Think about it -- if someone found their happiness in being a serial killer, does their happiness justifies the means to itself? Is happiness always justified, even when the action itself that leads to it is counter-productive to either the individual, a local collective or humanity as a whole? Rand claims that happiness should be the ultimate goal to us as individuals, but at what cost? While it is indeed arguable that there is no objective morality in existence, there are subjective and collective morality codes that we can choose to pick and follow as a basis to our lives, but said codes, nonetheless, shouldn't justify harmful crimes. Returning to the incompetence of emotions in the epistemological section -- emotions alone are incompetent not only as a truth-seeking tool, but also as goals, should they hinder our progression in life. Surely, criminals, for example, cannot pursue their trigger of happiness without creating a huge risk of being punished for their actions by the authorities, making the happiness as an ultimate goal, an often-counter-productive one, at least by itself. I'd like to thank you for reading this article. I hope I've helped you with my insights regarding the two philosophies presented in this article.