(Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) "Even when we are all alone we are in it together." -- Mark Bloom (Background music) One of the more contemporary questions people may ask themselves and others today is whether or not the increasing usage and consumption of computers (phones included) make us lonelier or more connected to the world, or in other words, more together. Based on my contemplations, I believe it's safe to say that the answer is a complex interplay of yes and no: Yes, because we can become detached from our local communities. The charm and addictive potential of the digital world can lead to a diminished focus on face-to-face interactions and engagement within our physical surroundings. Nowadays, many of us may be connected to people we never even seen physically, more than we are to those who are in our close, physical vicinity, like neighbors or our local cultural scene. And no, because the potential for global connection is immense. Computers have opened up opportunities for communication and collaboration with people from all corners of the globe, fostering connections that would have been unimaginable just several decades ago. Nowadays, people can even build massive content distribution channels and businesses from the comfort of their own laptop in bed, without having to get out much from one's home. This, in a way, necessitates us to try and redefine what a hermit means. Throughout history hermits were physical isolators who had very little communication with others, if at all. Nowadays, with the entrance of the virtual dimension into our lives, people can become physical hermits while still maintaining contact with the world at large and have stable jobs using their computers alone. They are, technically, still physical hermits, for they see very few people, if at all, on a regular basis. Just like myself. If I lived in an era before computers, my alternative to writing articles on Quora and Philosocom would be a solitary endeavor, confined to my own thoughts and ideas and some paper to write on. The process of sharing my work would've been uncertain, relying on the whims of publishers to either accept or reject my submissions at a far greater price than what I pay virtually to keep Philosocom afloat. Even if my articles were to be published, they would likely face censorship and would only reach those who happen to read the specific newspaper or magazine. The viral reach and potential impact we enjoy today would be a distant dream. Additionally, if my books would've been greatly criticized, they could've faced the possibility of being burnt to the ground. And like with Baruch Spinoza , I could've liveed as an excommunicated, former member of a community I happened to live and/or be born in. All because I had my own share of original viewpoints. Using my personal life as example, it becomes evident that many writers today, myself included, would've face significant far greater isolation without the presence of computers. That includes our writings. Our ability to connect with a global audience, uncompromised by the limitations of traditional publishing, is a testament to the transformative impact of technology. Undeniably, people were more isolated before the use of computers, rather than after their introduction. This is because computers appeal greatly their potential for global visibility and recognition. Nevertheless, a justified claim asserts that computers have driven us to unseen-before levels of isolation, as well. The Japanese hikikomori, a culture of extreme modern-day hermits who spend nearly their entire waking hours alone, interacting primarily with computers or televisions, serves as an example where the opposite holds true – computers and the internet can encourage social withdrawal. Well, I'm technically a hikikomori myself. Largely due to the rationale behind a concept I devised and call "The Same Result Problem" . Why should I bother engaging in social-based interactions , which I dislike, when I can philosophize and learn from the safety of where I reside? The impact of computers is so severe on humanity, that in China, individuals who spend excessive time on computers are sent to rehabilitation camps, otherwise known as internet detox camps. While I'm uncertain whether these camps still exist, as China is an extremely secretive country , their existence suggests there is a wide recognition for excessive computer use, and its impact on human isolation. This aligns with the notion that communism, a loyally-committed collective ideology might view computers as a potential barrier to maintaining collective unity in a contemporary authoritarian society. It is similar to Buddhist monks in China's far-earlier history, who were viewed in antagonism for not being part of general society and for not fulfilling their "civic duties". It is evident in Emperor Wuzong's persecution of buddhism for this rationale in the 9th century. As you can see computers have a revolutionary potential on human collectives that extends beyond mere communication, but also in the shaping of said collectives. Here are some additional thoughts on the topic: Correlation does not equal causation . The mere fact that people spend more time using computers doesn't necessarily imply that they are lonelier. Numerous factors, such as social isolation, mental health concerns , and life circumstances, could contribute to loneliness. Let us try and avoid generalizations as much as possible, for they are easily proven wrong by existing exceptions. Computers possess the duality of serving both beneficial and grim purposes. They can lead to new connections, new knowledge, and global expansion of organizations and enterprises. However, they can also lead to self-isolation, the quick spread of misinformation, and addictive behaviors of several kinds. Let us not appeal to novelty so easily. The decision to utilize computers is ultimately a personal one. However, it's crucial to be aware of the potential advantages and disadvantages of computer usage to make informed decisions about their integration into our lives. We might be sacrificing more than we take account for, as with much of our short-term-based decisions. The moral thing to do is to be responsible for any decision we personally make. However, it is unrealistic to expect others, like online trolls, to do the same. The answer to whether computers foster loneliness or connection hinges on how we utilize them. If we engage in live streaming, we are technically connected with our audience. But livestreams can also be used to create dysfunctions in societies, as with the example of livestreamer Asian which I covered before in the world's most unproductive jobs. If we write online articles, we exist in a "dual state" of solitude (during the writing process) and connection (when our work is read by individuals worldwide). The writing business can be a very solitary activity and of course writing is largely done today through computers. Immersion in games without meaningful interactions, primarily with non-human/player characters (NPCs or bots), mirrors the isolation of a traditional hermit. Something I call the "Robot Lover's Dilemma" further compels us to think about the importance of human society when people might begin, gradually, to prefer AI companionship over human beings. The very nature of computer and smartphone usage is complex, as in something I call the philosophy of virtuality. The act of using these devices is not as straightforward as it may seem. Computer use can transform us into either social butterflies or extreme recluses, or a blend of both, depending on our online activities and on our distinction as individuals with distinct personalities and potentials. Currently, as I revamp this article, I exist in a state of solitude. Writing is essentially a monologue. However, upon publication, the article transitions into a "hybrid" or "dual" state of solitude and connection. Solitude, because I, the writer, am elsewhere (even asleep), and connection, because reading this article is technically a form of interaction between two people. As such, I may be interacting with someone from anywhere in the world while I may be busy doing something else. Virtuality is a state of existence in a non-physical manner , (or a non-pure physical manner). One undeniable fact remains: physical proximity is no longer a necessary for any kind of human connection and communication. As long as we share virtual spaces, such as chat rooms or online communities, we can interact with others, regardless of our geographical separation. And I'd like to propose the idea that our loneliness is determined not by lack of physical presence but by lack of depth in said presence. Computers can therefore be resemble physical spaces without these spaces being physical. If you occupy a space solely by yourself, without any external perception and interaction, you are essentially alone, like a hermit. If you play a single-player game and avoid recording your gameplay for others to consume, you essentially enter a state of electronic hermitage. However, this is not the case when you interact with others in a multi-occupied space, like a virtual chat, which can resembles a public space, especially with the power of virtual reality technology. The exception arises when you are not engaged in any form of interaction. A lengthy piece of writing or recording can indeed be considered a form of isolation during its production, but not after its publication. And yes, when you read this text, you actively engage with it, therefore interacting with it. Therefore, even though this article serves as a means of communication, it is still a work that is produced in solitude. Only when it is read does it transition to a state of being consumed by others, which constitutes a form of interaction. This creates a hybrid state, similar to that of books and other non-virtual material that has been produced in solitude. Virtuality has forever enabled this dissonance-esque idea of being alone and together at the same time no matter where you are. And yet, none of this solves the rising epidemic of loneliness in this world, which can simply be solved by either mastering the art of being alone , or fostering deep and meaningful relationships with other human beings.

(Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is explaining how modesty can harm authenticity; as such being honest with yourself and others could be a way that is acceptable within a wide enough group of people… Mr. Rubinshtein is getting us to question those social habits of pretending to be modest, and does bring a good enough point reflecting on! Maybe we can be happy that we did something that we are proud of... (Background music) Why Self-Worth Gets Lost in the Pursuit of Social Expectations Looking back at past experiences, along with observations of society itself, it appears that people are not fond of people who think highly of themselves.  They view them as pompous, pretentious, arrogant and so on -- and all based on the insufficient fact of this self's "high-thinking". Why is it insufficient? Because not all people who do, necessarily look themselves as superior to others, even though that is the most common assumption regarding this subject. Why can't we be ourselves beyond the external world? That is what I'd like to call The Barrier of Modesty . Society at large has an expectation of its members' self-image. They expect equality where there is little of it ; they expect modesty, while modesty undermines one's importance in the world, and self-love in general is frowned upon as it seems narcissistic. And as the frequent Philosocom readers already know, impressions are the tragedy of philosophy. Should we stop underestimating our capabilities so much, we have the power to improve the world further , making it a better place. As such, the intellect, while it is viewed as intimidating , has the potential to better the lives of both us and others. Undermine your own intellect because of societal expectations, and you can unintentionally hinder your moral potential. And the same goes for any quality or merit that has much altruistic value. Undermining it due to collective tradition... seems a bit too counter-intuitive, is it not? Embracing Authenticity in a World of Modesty Pretenses On a personal note, I understand now why I spent most of my life feeling small .  No matter how much I attempted to fit social expectations, some still saw me as arrogant nevertheless. It was as if simply existing authentically was a violation that I should feel ashamed for. Based on this experience, I believe this societal obsession with modesty is fundamentally flawed for two key reasons: Firstly, not everyone can conform to this fabricated humility, no matter how hard they try.  I was living proof. This enforced modesty becomes a mask, forcing us to suppress our true selves in a futile attempt to appease others. And there are consequences to repression. By the way, some people, like an ancestor, couldn't conform either way. They are just too eccentric to fit in. You therefore can't realistically expect everyone to be able to conform. And this shows the potential, anti-human potential of norms, but I digress. Secondly, modesty itself is often a performance.  We often just put on this act to maintain social norms or gather respect, but at what cost? It's acting. An attempt to avoid making people uncomfortable with our self-acceptance. While modesty has its place, it shouldn't be a mask we wear to avoid expressing self-love. Nevertheless, the need to act in society could also explain why we love acting so much in general. There's a crucial distinction to be made between arrogance and individualism.  Some may be genuinely unaware of their intellectual pretentiousness . However, not everyone who believes in their unique contribution to the world is holding delusions of grandeur. And of course, not every self-lover is a megalomaniac. Wouldn't a true self-lover won't see a need to be an "energy vampire"? We are not all equal in merit or capabilities.  This inherent inequality doesn't necessitate a hierarchy of worth. Equality is a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring equal rights and legal protection for all. But within specific fields, recognizing natural differences in talent and potential shouldn't be equated to a display belittlement. Either way, we do need to be people of great merit, when said merit allows us to survive better. We've entered an age where self-promotion and marketing in general is crucial, and where having social media followers is an important resource. We might need to promote ourselves not in the name of vanity but as a means to an end. Importance can be seen as but a tool. The Barrier of Modesty seeks to erase these important point, pushing a false narrative of universal sameness.  It's time we shed this mask, embrace our authentic selves, and celebrate the inherent diversity of human experience. Breaking Free from the Toxic Culture of Modesty There is something toxic in modesty — toxic in having to keep the pride in your accomplishments to yourself. It could be people don't like other people who are proud of themselves. It makes them uncomfortable. Ever considered the fact that they wish to limit us because they could be projecting their insecurities? Because they don't want to face the truth about their own vulnerabilities, so they shift the blame on you, for not being as insecure as they are? Because you're reminding them what they could be, but are struggling to become? In an ideal world, where lack of comfort wouldn't be such a bad thing , there would be no social need to appear more modest than one is. After all, we humans are capable of great feats, aren't we? It isn't just me, right? If we dedicate much of our time and effort, great things can happen, and if they are as great as we claim them to be, why keep them to ourselves? Why not celebrate them? What is actually wrong in being happy that we did something that we are proud of and/or that helped others? Why keep anything, in fact, to us, in a world that is uncomfortable, either way? So what if you don't want to hear something someone says? Shutting them up isn't your duty, nor is mine when I hear someone yell outside my windows. Do you think I like living in a world of yelling? No, and yet I was told, throughout my life, to simply deal with it. Discomfort is not that bad when it is temporary. Even when I am distressed by yells, I hear, I just try moving on without telling that stranger on the street to shut up. No matter how much I suffered, I'm secluding myself from the world at large because I can't change the behavior of which others are entitled to by right. And rights have little regard for misophonia. Pretending modesty is the way of the coward, and a coward I was. Looking back at school, and the little social life that I had, it appeared that my anxious loyalty to the norms did not matter at all, because people kept stepping on me like an ant, without regard for my own sensitivities. The Barrier of Modesty is requires an understanding of it to a degree that would oblige you to oppose it in the name of undermining the norms. For the norms have little regard for the overly-different, no matter how much good they're doing. No. It has only regard for what is "proper" and what isn't. The overly different can easily be rejected for their "insanity", while those who act decently will be rewarded accordingly. Don't you think that we humans fake too much? Should you be told to "know your place", how would you thrive? How staying in the same place nurtures societal contribution and self actualization? If you are told not to elaborate too much on yourself, how else can you realize your full potential as an individual? All this repression, just to keep a rotten set of behaviors that don't do well anyways -- what's the point of it, if it damages the individual in the name of collective comfort? When you are freed from your societal obligations, such as school, university, the military, and the job -- that is when you have the time to shine beyond the modest proportions you are required to wear as a mask, during your visits at the external world. It is when you can realize that you are more than socialization , and more than the ways this process imposes itself on you and on others. Stop the show, stop the pretending. Be yourself, and be prepared to face the consequences of those who fear authenticity! Only by having the guts to reveal who we are to those whom we value as people, that we can appreciate, if not love, them better. As such, modesty minimizes the value of honesty.

(For more on communication, click here ) (As to how to be a philosophy blogger, click here ) (Background music) Why Clarity is Key in Philosophical Writing The philosophical text often differs from other types of writing. If we approach it with a reasoning not aligned with its nature, we risk misinterpretation. This has been a frequent source of frustration for me, as my own work has been misunderstood due to this very disconnect. This is ironic, considering the reader's genuine desire to comprehend the text, wouldn't you agree? To navigate this conundrum, I'll focus on two main types of philosophical texts. One type, which I'll set aside for now, demands profound reflection on the reader's part. It's known as reflective thinking. The other, often more readily accepted as "wise," tends to be characterized by abstract and seemingly paradoxical reasoning. Examples of this can be found in the writings of ancient Chinese philosophers. To quote Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu : The usefulness of the pot lies in its emptiness. Now, here's the important thing: writing like Confucius isn't a prerequisite for passing a philosophy exam. In such situations, clarity and directness are far more valuable than cryptic pronouncements. Remember, philosophy is inherently complex, even when expressed in simple words . Why, then, burden your reader with unnecessary obscurity, when the understanding itself requires significant effort either way? Traits of a Strong Philosophical Text The intrinsic worth of a good philosophical text is not entirely subject to external comprehension . Its strength lies in its inherent qualities, regardless of misinterpretations by readers. The fact, for example, that philosophy is hard to understand, does not mean it does not get its point across, nor that it does not make any objective sense. It's in this case where the subjective should adjust itself to the objective, and not be redeemed. Firstly, such a text is self-sufficient. It presents all necessary information with minimal, if any, subtext. The duty lies on the reader to possess a grasp of logical fallacies , for the text might assume familiarity with them. By minimizing these fallacies, the text reduces potential misunderstandings. Secondly, a strong philosophical text strives for neutrality. Even when critiquing opposing viewpoints, it prioritizes clarity over bias . Explaining the rationale behind opposing positions, regardless of personal disagreement, is crucial. This applies especially when advocating against something – understanding its underlying logic is equally important. Subtext has no place in this pursuit, for omitting relevant data compromises the text's integrity. Thirdly, A competent philosopher is a skilled communicator. Philosophy thrives on diverse forms of communication, be it articles or videos. The core argument and evidence should be readily apparent, aiming to either persuade or inspire readers, thus proving the practicality and relevance of philosophy. Fourthly, a focus on ad hominem attacks distracts from the text's substance. Whether a philosopher is deemed arrogant or pretentious is irrelevant; the text itself and its potential insights hold precedence. While personal experiences can enhance arguments, using them solely for self-promotion is antithetical to the point of philosophy, which extends beyond the philosopher themselves. Striving for Excellence in Philosophical Exploration A text set towards adoration or appreciation becomes one-sided, failing in its mission to illuminate reality for its readership. Philosophy seeks understanding , not indoctrination . Those who use philosophizing to push personal agendas are closer to ideologues than philosophers. While no writer is entirely responsible for reader misconceptions, misinterpretations based on perceived "subtext" or "tone" are solely the reader's burden . The author's responsibility lies in clarity and precision; hinting and implying only makes the message unnecessarily unclear. Write down all what you have to say, that's important for the text in order for it to be properly understood. Otherwise, people will attribute to you things you never wrote down or said; things that they believe you meant to imply, but never actually implied. Don't expect the reader to take what you take for granted, as such, as well. You and them might not have the same depth of knowledge, so expecting them to know the same thing you know, just because you're both engaging in philosophical interaction via your text, is counter-intuitive. Lay whatever needs to be laid down on the paper/file/whatever. To enhance your understanding of philosophical texts, including my own, mastering logical fallacies is invaluable. Identifying and minimizing these flaws improves comprehension significantly. It is something I myself attempt to do to this day occasionally, and remembering them all isn't easy at all. I may sometimes even devise my own fallacies, such as the Victory Fallacy or the Bored Man's fallacy . From this we can infer that there might be even more fallacies to be devised. It's important to acknowledge that not every philosophical text adheres perfectly to these criteria of this article's previous segment. However, even imperfect texts can offer valuable insights, and as such should not be discarded so easily. Striving for self-improvement, lifelong-learning and reflection on the quality of my own work, while deleting of unworthy pieces and revamping existing ones, demonstrates my commitment to delivering valuable philosophical discourse. Remember, readers of philosophy seek truth, not disguised propaganda. Cultivating Clarity in Philosophy Discourse By the way, any concept that requires more than common knowledge deserves a detailed explanation. Whether it's a concrete detail or an abstract idea, your readers deserve to understand exactly what you're talking about. This isn't just for their benefit, but for your own as well. If you want to be taken seriously, clarity is key. For example, mentioning a fictional character without context alienates newcomers. Just assuming everyone knows who Walter White from "Breaking Bad" is a major misstep . In many media analysis videos, this "assumed expertise" amongst viewers, creates a barrier to entry, hindering the very discussion the video creators aim to create. And don't fall victim to the ad-populum fallacy . The fact that something is widely known does not mean that everyone knows it. Not worldwide, and not even in a specific country. Conclusion This article aspires to equip both readers and writers of philosophical texts with the understanding and proficiency they deserve in this fascinating niche. By embracing clarity, and understanding how to cultivate the good traits of a philosophical traits, and aiming for mastery , we can unlock the depths of philosophical discourse. And as such, we can ensure inclusivity is included.

The Rubinshteinic Philosophy on Antagonism Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is getting us to consider different aspects that we can look at when we encounter antagonism... Reading this article can help us see those hard to deal with circumstances as opportunities instead of negative experiences! He is also explaining that he managed to go through a such experience that he managed to turn to his benefits such as motivating him to put more energy in mastering his creation of his site dedicated on philosophy! (Background music) What is an antagonist? What significance does it have in the world of fiction, and what significance it can have on real life, in both unique situations and in everyday life? You may be surprised to know that a person does not have to be evil, manipulative , or malicious in order to be a "villain" or an antagonist. The only essential requirement to be an antagonist is to serve as any kind of opponent or conflict-maker to someone else, regardless of their behavior, goals, hopes and dreams. In other words, an antagonist is necessarily a source of adversity. To think an antagonist is a villain, is an assumption that stems from quasi-specific mentality. For instance: A psychopath isn't necessarily an evil man. He simply experiences and feels this world differently than most people do. Technically, even friendly competition can be regarded as a "battle" or "conflict" between a protagonist and antagonist. Case example: A game of a friendly sports marks the rival team as the antagonist. It's not about being evil or good, even though in countless works of fiction, the antagonist is often the bad guy. It's the case because it's the easiest way to portray conflict between two sides—by using a stereotypical, simplistic form of a clash between basic, opposing terms that even little children can understand. Popular case examples are in superhero comics and in the Star Wars franchises. It's not to say that fictional works about good and evil are overrated. However, it's extremely easy to portray the hero as the good guy and the antagonist as the bad guy. That's although, in reality, it's most of the time not the case. Reality, for the most part, isn't about "black" and "white". With that out of the way, we have to be honest: We can all be, to some extent, an antagonist to someone or some people, at least during a certain period of time—as much as we can be the opposite. The human social reality, both in real life and in the online world, is basically amoral , or a mixture of both good and bad in any choice we make. We humans, after all, have conflicting desires, and as long as we live and interact with each other, there will always be a potential for some conflict. Society is a necessary evil , hence why conflicts with people can be an inevitable possibility. It is often wise to avoid battles than to even start communication with people in the first place. That's true especially given the fact the world is becoming more and more corrupt and cyberpunk-esque as well. The nature of conflict or adversity itself doesn't have to be a war, or an attempt to stop the "bad guy" from taking over the world: The antagonist can be your parents, your child , your partner, and even your friend. That's how basic the concept of antagonism is in our existence. The antagonist doesn't even have to be a person or even an animal such as a big giant bear. It can be an abstract concept or an unanimated object, such as finances , if you're struggling with money, or a computer that doesn't work when you need to use it. Anything that cause you to struggle or have your brain on a mode of mental survival , is basically an antagonist. The antagonist, in addition, doesn't have to be always present in your life in order to have their influence on you: Some people, and even contemporary issues , have an indirect, adversarial effect on your life, whether understood or even unconscious. In Shrek, for example, the main antagonist of the whole movie series isn't any of the main antagonist in any of the movies. -- it's actually an unnamed, unseen witch was responsible for Fiona, Shrek's love interest, to be cursed . Your antagonist, regardless of the situation, does not have to be dominant in your life to serve as an obstacle in your path. That mysterious witch is responsible for Shrek's struggle in all of the movies—to leave his solitary and misanthropic life in order to be a part of civilization that doesn't always accept creatures of his kind. If that sorceress had avoided cursing Fiona, there would not be a motive for Shrek to rescue her, and thus the whole Shrek cinematic universe would not move forward, as there would be no conflict. Therefore, the antagonist is always a catalyst for conflict, or even a series of conflicts. Antagonism is also a matter of perception: Not every antagonist has to be a villain; they can be a hero, depending on the perspective and/or on the morality between the two sides. Technically, even a noisy neighbor can be an antagonist, even if they didn't break any actual law. For some perspectives, even a distressful baby can be an antagonist. An antagonist can simply exist beyond your walls without causing them any misfortune. Sometimes, the antagonist doesn't even exist: In real life, there aren't necessarily any evil masterminds that plan your demise. However, people suffering from paranoia might think there are. Sometimes, an opponent simply exists as a concept, represented by a real life person. My conflict with the antagonist "Ms. Chen" is not direct with her. My conflict with "her" is in the idea that my unconventional mastery in philosophy is meaningless. This idea fosters the understanding within me that fuels me to be more competent than many other people when it comes to working on the Philosocom Article Empire. Her words I decided to subvert. Despite my solitary lifestyle , I maintain a website that attracts daily visitors, allowing me to indirectly connect with others through my writings. The potential for this platform to exert a lasting impact on my life could have prompted me to abandon it entirely, yet I find myself compelled to continue. Conclusions This feelings of struggle are not necessarily good or bad objectively. Feelings are basically tools. It is your choice on how to react to antagonistic feelings, perceived antagonism, or actual antagonistic acts and people and events on yourself. Your greatest asset to such experiences is the power of your mind.

The Philosophy and Functionality of Importance (Background music) If we consider determinism as true, do we not all have a preordained plan set for us? After all, in the absence of a grand design for each and every one of us, our existence would seem absurd. I fear this philosophy, the philosophy of absurdity —the idea that we are here for no seen reason, that we are mere random entities operating in a chaotic, random universe. Do I believe in the philosophy of absurdism ? Atheism and even agnosticism may suggest that we are, in fact, plan-less beings; creatures that have somehow evolved intelligence , whose purpose is largely determined by the biological facts that led to their birth, and little else. I have a deep, profound desire to justify my existence, as I feel that without justification, I am as good as dead. Not in the eyes of others, mind you, but objectively, independent of human perception. By having things to lose , I have no reason to lose myself to the madness within. A life of post-purpose is a very difficult one. To be honest, this idea frightens me—the notion that none of us may have an external justification to exist beyond the mere processes that have led to our existence , lacking something deeper, something more philosophical. Something that is tailored for us, and not universal. I don't know if determinism is true, but if it is, there might be what some call a " Plan of Coherence ." A design by a higher entity, meant for us to follow in its steps, in order to truly fulfill the potential reasoning for our existence, the reasoning of our... potential creation. It might seem plausible that we are created , but we do not know for sure, do we? It's simply our human logic speaking, our primitive, inferior sense of logic. Perhaps there are other beings out there, in the universe , who have discovered the true origin of the universe—an origin that might not feature creationism at all but instead... frightening absurdity. This is what's so unsettling about absurdism: If I were to take my own life, it would change very little in the grand scheme of things. Some people may cry, some may acknowledge and be sorrowful, but in the end, people die every day, and it occurs as if dying is a mere function—a function like waking up in the morning, drinking coffee , and so on. Would you consider death as mundane as any other function in our existence? If so, and if it is, then I could end my life if I ever wanted to, and leave this site without preparation for succession, as if continuing it is as mundane as catching a bus to work. After all, in absurdism, everything and everyone is equally meaningless and thus, absurd. Thus, if I want to justify my existence, then I must find my potential Plan of Coherence, regardless of whether determinism is true. If it's not true, then I ought to forge one for myself if I wish to continue this life of painful loneliness and skin deprivation . One of my readers is an arcane researcher, one who delves into numerology . I do not know if this practice holds any real truth, but it is the only lead I have at potentially discovering the purpose of my so-called "creation" that goes beyond my personal commitment to philosophy. I have thus far come to the conclusion that my Plan of Coherence, also known as my "destiny," is to be important. Importance , you see, is not something I seek for its own sake. I have enough confidence in myself, and I don't need constant praise from the world. A narcissist, on the other hand, does. Hence why they don't truly love themselves. However, importance is, no pun intended, significant if I wish to achieve my overall goal: world domination, or more specifically, world relevance . Those who are not important, you see... what worth do their words hold? Are we all important? To some degree, for sure, but when the former Prime Minister of Japan is assassinated , people hold this in higher regard than most other murders that may have happened at the time. The former Prime Minister's death is valuable because he was of higher importance, and that is the sad truth. It's the truth that acknowledges that not all are equally relevant. Not all matter not to functionality or to others' hearts and minds. And when someone is unworthy, he can redeem himself or herself by being more relevant... even on a global scale. Why was his death important to the world? It was important because of his contribution to the world and the impact he left behind. I do not pretend to ever be as important as a Prime Minister of a country, but if I want my words to matter, if I want Philosocom to matter to the world, then I MUST BE IMPORTANT enough for the world to care, and thus, to contribute better! My quest for importance is therefore a means to an end. If it weren't for my writings, I might have failed to survive mentally. Why? Because my existence is physically painful for me. Living is painful, and I find no real joy in it. Such is the fate of those who suffer from post-trauma, often times. School has practically being 13 years of trauma I'll have to grow from, along with much, much traumas throughout my life, with one of them being my birth. I used to be happier regularly, but not anymore. I'm stuck, and it seems that the only way up, the only way to justify the acceptance of my regular miseries, is to contribute to humanity in a way that will outlive me. That way I will know, for sure, that my relevance exceeds myself, and that I am less important than what I give to others. Since I do not need much validation, since I don't have such voids within me, I am an altruist. And for altruism to be effective, my readers, one must be important enough. There is no better way. Importance gives you power, and you can use that power not only for your own benefit, but for good. The effectiveness of power, and thus relevance, lies within its potential to create change. He or she who is capable of creating the most change, can be deemed the most important, and as such, the most relevant. If something was not important, it would've been insignificant, and thus, irrelevant. Humans want to be relevant, for it makes them feel that they are doing something valuable with their lives. Those who suffer from unimportance may also suffer from depression, and depression can lead to self-sacrifice. It is known as anti-mattering. If we are to say all human beings are social, it isn't because all human beings like to socialize. It is because human beings have a mental need to feel they matter to someone other than themselves. And no, not everyone likes to socialize, but they may still attempt to prove their worth to the world despite the common fact that it is lonely at the top. Such a way is inevitable, because only those who are held in higher regard will be remembered by the world for generations to come. Such immensely-long-term memory is proof that someone has been important by their very deeds for others. And that's what I really want, my readers: To contribute. But for contribution to have a greater impact, one must be important. Not necessarily as important as a Prime Minister, but important enough to matter beyond a person who is less remembered by others. "Who do you think you are?" A hater once asked me. I am merely a philosopher who wants to justify his existence, that's all. I look at the analytics of my site and watch as people from all over this planet visit my legacy. However, so much more can be achieved, don't you agree? Why have a certain number of visitors when an even greater number could suffice even better? Why be satisfied with current contribution, when that impact can be deepened? When that impact can last longer? Hundreds of articles await you, my dear readers! Use the search button, if you may. This is a vast library, and I try to find any article I can to share with the world on a daily basis. Join me, help me, and together, we will create another legacy to be remembered and appreciated in this world!

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) The Rubinshteinic Philosophy on Genius A genius can be considered a person who is exceptionally good in one or more fields. A person who is exceptionally talented in many fields is considered a polymath. Regardless of the definition I just gave, there is no universal consensus on what a genius is. Of course, I'm referring to the noun and not the adjective. The adjective is synonymous with brilliant (and in Hebrew as well). Some may believe that a genius is someone with a high IQ. This is not necessarily true because one can be a genius in fields that are irrelevant to IQ tests. Thus, we can conclude that IQ tests are insufficient when it comes to testing our intelligence. I'm saying this as someone who scored around 130 as a kid. It doesn't really matter to me anymore. There are several misconceptions about what it means to be a genius. For example, a genius is not necessarily someone who can't make dumb mistakes. Walter White from "Breaking Bad" can be seen as a genius scientist, but he made some unwise choices that could have cost him his life as a criminal. His mathematical mind couldn't stop him from making choices that were far more irrelevant to the fields he was an expert in. Emotional and social intelligence are also important for those who want to achieve their goals in life. A genius is not necessarily exceptional in either of those categories. In my experience, many people prefer a nicer tone than an important message when communicating. And without sufficient emotional intelligence, you may find it difficult to understand others. Being exceptional in a field does not guarantee you will live long and prosper. If that field has less demand in society, you might have to find a job you dislike that has greater demand. For example, since there is a decreasing demand for books in the world, I moved to blogging. As I said before, there is no universal definition of genius. Even if you consider yourself a genius, it doesn't mean it will be wise for you to mention it, constantly or at all. In my opinion, genius is simply a display of excellent merit in one or more fields. Many people are considered geniuses for that principle alone. I do wonder if it is possible to be a genius without its display. However, I think it is possible, which then makes genius hidden by default. Can something exist without anyone's awareness? Like a supernova occurring in another galaxy, hidden from the detection of astronomers -- of course it does. Some people are attracted to intellect. They are called sapiosexuals. However, some people might not even entertain the idea that someone in the same room is more intelligent than them. Therefore, it may be wise to not brag about your intelligence, if you seek to expand your connections. In my experience, a display of intellect seems to make people feel threatened, even if they are not in danger. As a result, they might attempt to retaliate against you in order to "defend" themselves. In philosophy, that possibility might as well be inevitable, because philosophizing is impossible without intellect (or the ability to think in a complex way). A genius might not be rich, just because he's a genius. In some cases, you might not even need to be a genius in order to be rich. If you are able to think like your customers think, then you may be better able to serve them. I would not say that being a genius is a necessity for that. I don't believe that every genius is born with high intelligence. I think that we can achieve great things without being born with a high IQ. It takes time and practice. I started writing philosophical texts in 2013, and they were quite poor, I think. If I hadn't spent years practicing, I would be a much poorer philosophy writer today. My original book, which I call "Book Zero," will probably never be published. I see it as an early exercise in my craft. Please note that I never called myself a genius in this article, nor did I imply that I am. Others may see me as one, but I see little reason to adopt this title. A title that is counter-intuitive and cannot be properly defined is probably unwise to claim. If I cannot find a proper way to confirm whether it is correct or not, then I prefer to avoid it. I prefer to avoid it because I dislike deceiving others (and myself). In general, it is unwise to say that you are wise. Those who say they are are either naive or don't care about external reactions. Somehow, anything related to intellect is nowadays seen as arrogant. However, in some cases, like my own, it is nothing more than a stereotype. If you want to achieve your goals in life, focus on the things that are functional to your cause. Genius or not, it does not matter for that end. Actors may need a lot of emotions in order to do their jobs well. In my job, I don't require much of it. Some people may like being regarded as geniuses, and their followers may also like attributing this title to them. Mothers and fathers may be proud when they receive social validation regarding the intellect of their children. I just philosophize because I want to contribute to the world and make philosophy more relevant. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback True geniuses are humbled by it and don’t feel the need to brag but are always willing to use their intelligence to help someone. True geniuses are also possessing incredible amounts of polymathy . Don’t even require learning multiple things. Can pretty easily connect anything together despite knowing much about it.  Being a genius and being unaware of it makes you stupidly intelligent. It kind of randomly surfaces and makes you seem really out of character so people don’t put much stock in what your saying. Genius, and being aware of it, commands a certain degree of authority. I don’t feel the need to go out and tell the world about it. I find it better to just put myself out there so people can become aware of it on their own terms. Actions speak louder than words so if your actions are pure then you have nothing to worry about and do not give into your ego while doing it. Be humble and partially depersonalized . Remember it might be in your body but it isn’t you that is making you do anything spectacular. It’s all a result of your genetics giving you the intelligence that it did. Stay humble and just admire the wonderful things it is capable of. Best advice I can suggest is to market the presence of your genius/ intelligence, through your actions, to let others become aware of it. Do not advertise it. When you build a healthy ego you can learn to fully appreciate your own genius and truly start to see what it is capable of. Enjoy some sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genius https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/iq-load-bs/ https://oxbridgehomelearning.uk/blog/characteristics-of-a-genius/ https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-objective-criteria-independent-of-opinion-for-determining-if-someone-is-a-genius 2024 EDIT: A Quote by Mr. John Duran , for you to ponder on: There is often a very high price to pay for being an unconventional genius. Especially in such a morally judgmental and limited society that we are forced to exist within.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Mr. O. C. Isaac's Articles) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "The Vibrational Energies in Humans" by Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac is a comprehensive exploration of vibrational energies, combining spiritual and scientific perspectives. It offers a balanced approach , providing clear definitions and distinguishing between spiritual and scientific interpretations. The article also addresses philosophical questions about the nature of existence, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of all things , encouraging critical thinking. The article promotes a holistic view of human well-being, discussing the interconnectedness of body, mind, and spirit. It also discusses ethical implications regarding the influence of one's energy on the world around them, encouraging readers to consider their moral responsibilities. In conclusion, Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac's article is a valuable resource for anyone looking to enhance their logical thinking and critical reasoning skills. In the context of humans, vibrational energies often refer to the concept of energy centers or "chakras" in some spiritual and alternative medicine practices. Chakras are believed to be centers of energy within the body that correspond to specific physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of a person. Vibrational energy manifests an unseen force that drives all physical matter to convulse in different frequencies. It can all be concluded as a state of being or present, the environment, or the energetic quality of a person, atmosphere, place, thought, or act. The philosophical meaning of vibrational energies in humans is often associated with the concept of spiritual or metaphysical energy. It is rooted in various belief systems that suggest that humans possess an invisible energy or life force that influences their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Some traditions and practices, like certain Eastern philosophies and holistic healing modalities, explore the idea of balancing and aligning these vibrational energies to promote health and harmony. However, it's essential to note that the concept of vibrational energies in humans falls within the realm of philosophical and spiritual interpretations rather than scientific consensus. Different cultures and traditions may interpret and approach this concept in diverse ways. Spiritual Interpretation: In spiritual and metaphysical beliefs, everything, including humans, is considered to be made up of energy . This energy is believed to vibrate at different frequencies, and these vibrations influence a person's physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual well-being. Practitioners of spiritual healing and alternative medicine often talk about balancing and raising one's vibrational energies to promote health, harmony, and personal growth. According to this perspective, negative emotions, stress, and physical ailments are thought to cause disruptions or blockages in the flow of energy within the body, leading to imbalances. Techniques such as meditation, energy healing (e.g., Reiki ), yoga, and certain rituals are used to harmonize and raise the vibrational frequencies to improve overall well-being. Scientific Interpretation: In scientific terms, humans, like all matter, are composed of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These subatomic particles are in constant motion, and their movement creates vibrational energy. However, the vibrational energies referred to in spiritual contexts are not directly related to the scientific understanding of atomic vibrations. It's essential to distinguish between the spiritual and scientific interpretations, as the former is based on subjective beliefs and experiences, while the latter is rooted in well-established scientific principles. While spiritual practices often use terms like "vibrational energies" to describe experiences and effects that might not have a direct scientific basis, these practices can still offer benefits for mental and emotional well-being. Meditation , relaxation techniques, and mindfulness, which are often associated with discussions about vibrational energies, have been scientifically studied and shown to have positive effects on reducing stress and improving overall health. However, the concept of vibrational energies in humans is multi-faceted and encompasses spiritual beliefs about energy flow and frequency, as well as scientific knowledge about the movements of atoms and molecules within the human body. While the spiritual interpretations are not scientifically proven, the practices associated with raising one's vibrational energies may contribute positively to mental and emotional health. Vibrational energies in humans refer to the concept that everything, including our bodies, is composed of energy that vibrates at different frequencies. Some people believe that these vibrations can affect our physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The idea is rooted in various holistic and alternative healing practices, but it's essential to note that scientific evidence supporting this concept is limited. The Philosophical Question About Vibrational Energies In Humans: The philosophical question about vibrational energies in humans revolves around the nature of existence and the interconnectedness of all things . It touches on ideas about consciousness , spirituality, and the potential for subtle energy fields influencing our well-being. Some people view it as a metaphorical way to understand human experiences and connections beyond the physical realm, while others may interpret it as a more literal concept tied to various belief systems and practices. The debate lies in the absence of empirical evidence to conclusively prove or disprove the existence and impact of these vibrational energies. As such, it remains a topic of ongoing contemplation and exploration for individuals with diverse perspectives. The philosophical appraisal of vibration energies in humans can be approached from various perspectives, including metaphysical, spiritual, and scientific viewpoints. It involves contemplating the nature of vibrations within humans, their significance, and potential implications for human existence and consciousness. Here are some philosophical considerations related to vibration energies in humans: Interconnectedness: The concept of vibration energies often involves the idea that everything in the universe is interconnected and constantly in motion. From a philosophical standpoint, this interconnectedness might lead to reflections on the unity of all things and the interdependence of human beings with the cosmos. Consciousness and Awareness: Some philosophical schools of thought suggest that vibrations within humans might be linked to consciousness and awareness. The notion that our thoughts, emotions, and perceptions are manifestations of varying vibrational energies could raise questions about the nature of consciousness and the mind-body relationship. Holism and Wholeness: Viewing humans as complex systems of vibrating energies could align with a holistic perspective. Philosophically, this might lead to discussions on the unity of body, mind, and spirit, emphasizing the importance of treating individuals as integrated wholes rather than mere collections of parts. Eastern Philosophies: In various Eastern philosophical traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, the concept of energy centers or chakras is central. These energy centers are believed to be associated with different vibrations and have an impact on physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The philosophical examination of these beliefs could delve into the significance of such concepts in understanding the human experience. Subjectivity and Perception: The idea of vibration energies in humans might also prompt discussions about the nature of subjective experiences. How individuals perceive and interpret vibrations within themselves could be seen as a subjective and personal aspect of human existence. Ethics and Morality: Philosophical inquiries into vibration energies might touch on ethical considerations. For instance, if one believes that their energy or vibrations can influence the world around them, ethical questions may arise about the responsibility that comes with that influence. Integration with Science: Philosophical discussions about vibration energies can also explore the relationship between scientific understandings of the human body and more esoteric or spiritual perspectives. How can these two realms be reconciled, if at all, and what implications does that have for our understanding of human beings? Appraising this topic involves exploring a wide range of beliefs, viewpoints, and cultural backgrounds to gain a comprehensive understanding of the various perspectives on this subject. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I don’t see what is so special about vibrational energy. As noted, you are made up of cells which are always moving. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed , so it has to transfer somewhere. The idea of using the energy inside yourself isn’t that bad of one. You are literally a walking ball of energy. Life becomes simpler to understand when you realize your life force. The thing inside your mind which lets you see, hear, or think is composed of energy. These cognitive features are what are used to process sensory data into information the brain can use.  You are always literally vibrating. No effort needed. Why do people visit gurus to figure these kinds of things out? Complete better actions and you are putting your energy to better use. If you put the right energy out there something has to happen. I occasionally play power-ball in hopes the energy I put into the ticket will one day turn to cash. Your thoughts really are the result of energy, neurons firing.  I’m convinced the term mind and soul need to be clarified a bit. Soul being the conscious mind would mean they are one and the same thing. If you separate your conscious mind from your mind, you realize all the mind really is a storage device for your soul to use.  I think this whole idea of energy in a spiritual basis makes sense. If we consider the conscious mind a ball of energy, and if the mind and the soul are one and the same, then you actually can put energy out there into the world. That's because your energy has to go somewhere. Just make sure you are using your energy wisely. The power of thought is you are calling on energy to do it. You need to send that energy somewhere. Make sure you are sending it places worth receiving it.

(Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Unconscious Conclusion -- Exploring the Labyrinth Within" is a thought-provoking exploration of the human mind, particularly the unconscious. Mr. Tomasio uses a blend of quotes, metaphors, and personal reflections to convey his ideas. The article is structured in a way that keeps the reader engaged, with each section introducing a new aspect of the unconscious mind. The use of metaphorical language, such as referring to the unconscious mind as a "shadowy protector" and a "ninja bodyguard," helps demystify complex psychological concepts in a relatable way. The inclusion of quotes from figures like Joseph Murphy, Carl Jung, and Arthur Wellesley adds depth to the discussion and provides authoritative support for the author's ideas. The article delves into profound philosophical questions about self-knowledge , the limitations of the conscious mind, and the role of the unconscious in shaping our actions. It challenges the reader to reflect on these topics, making the article intellectually stimulating. Finally, The conclusion offers interesting thoughts about using the unconscious as a tool and maintaining a sense of mystery in life. Overall, "The Unconscious Conclusion -- Exploring the Labyrinth Within" is a compelling exploration of the unconscious mind that blends psychological insight with philosophical reflection.   (Background music) Part I: The Shadow Dictator 's Office “The power of our subconscious is beyond all measure.” -- Joseph Murphy If the knowledge in psychology about the human mind is true, then we all in theory have an unconscious part of our minds. This unconscious part is a department that, no matter how much we learn about ourselves, will never be fully realized by our conscious mind. That is, unless, we learn to overcome our mental weaknesses, our denials and our repressions. With the truth, with it, we can set ourselves more free from the horrible prison of the mind. The unconscious mind is there to protect us from the world beyond our mind , and from the self beyond the external world . It is always working, and it seeks to control us because it is afraid. Afraid of what we might become. Afraid of what we might do to others. Afraid of what others might do to us. It plans alongside us, in the shadows. And yet, it is not an external part of us. It is within us. Yet it is who we are deep inside... It is not necessarily the self we externalize to this world... This 'dissociation' frequently occurs for people who have experienced trauma and is the mind's coping mechanism. Just as people who experience car accidents do not remember the actual collision, so the subconscious mind always protects us by putting the trauma into a safe place by creating another 'person' who deals with it -- Margaret Cutler All of what we repress and deny goes there. It is there to relieve the conscious mind of suffering. It is there to manage information and realizations, which the conscious mind is too weak handling itself. It is our shadowy protector, our ninja bodyguard . And, as long as we refuse to question our true motives , our true ambitions, we will keep being dishonest, as we are thinking we are honest. As we are deceived by politicians with ulterior motives, how much do we realize that we are deceived by our own automatic self? What if the oppressive tyrant is not only broadcasted, but manages us like an anxious puppeteer, trying to make sure we retain our sanity, least we be rejected as "insane"? Part II: A Game of Xanatos Speed Chess "They planned their campaigns just as you might make a splendid piece of harness. It looks very well, and answers very well, until it gets broken, and then you are done for. Now I made my campaigns of ropes. If anything went wrong, I tied a knot and went on." -- Arthur Wellesley There will always be a part of ourselves that will forever be hidden from our sight, no matter how much we improve our self-knowledge. This means that total self-realization, at least by the self, is impossible. And yet, there is no point succumbing to the Nirvana Fallacy, is there? After all, it is within our mental strength that we are able to break our mental chains, chain after chain, as the world around us can become more visible to our chained eyes... Regardless of my honesty with you, the readership, I purposefully allowed myself to let much of my unconscious self take over for me, as I was busy being its enforcer, with it as my tactician . I therefore remain mysterious, as I will always be. However, realizing my unconscious self's outlived usefulness, I killed off my former self, and emerged anew from chains I allowed to restrain myself. I, am, mysterious. Society was always a distraction I had to vanquish from sight. I do not regret the outcome. As I appeared weak and defeated in solitude , I came out on top. I got what I wanted by saving the people I wanted to save, from the poor philosophy of irrationality. Part III: The Internal Akashic Records Fallacy Man strives toward reason only so that he can make rules for himself. Life itself has no rules. That is its mystery and its unknown law. What you call knowledge is an attempt to impose something comprehensible on life. -- Carl Jung If a person ever reaches a state of fully understanding themselves on a psychological level , both on the conscious and unconscious level, then they will become the antithesis to the unconscious conclusion. In other words, he would debunk the belief that every human has an unconscious part of themselves that they are too unconscious of to fully realize. This would deduce that, while we have an unconscious mind, its own unconsciousness is not infinite, and can be breached by an internal, omniscient realization , capable of unlocking our fullest self. However, what if our theory of universal ignorance is not only from without, but also from within? The question is, therefore, are we humans capable of such self-insight, required to decipher every motive and content of the otherwise hidden part? And even then, can we have any certainty that we can fully understand ourselves? Despite having unconscious memories ,  a weaker mind of ours may forget memories. Without sufficient evidence, I do not agree with the generalization that our subconsciousness remembers everything. The falsehood of it is presented in the Whole-Person Fallacy I devised. Yet, if we are not to succumb to negative bias, we can try to know ourselves as much as possible without having to worry about total self-knowledge. Why? Because it is very hard, if not impossible, to attain. It is also not very realistic of an achievement when we can simply pursue mastery  of such knowledge without reaching "divinity" in that certain expertise. Part IV: The Mental Illness Factor "Even the doctor from that far away hospital doesn't understand me. After everything I tried to tell him during the examination, all he did was prescribe more drugs. The side effects were torturous and soon it became too much." -- Angela Orosco Of course, we can always go to a psychologist or any other psychology expert and let them decipher that part of the mind. However, remember that they can only reveal the symptom, and not the problem's roots. They may struggle understanding you truly, if you refuse venturing inside for the truth yourself. Going to therapy, like taking psychiatric medication , is something that handles a specific problem at a specific time. Once the symptom is deciphered, the unconscious will resume creating new symptoms. This can keep us in the dark about ourselves (or at least some parts) more than it should, hindering us from realizing the origins of our misery. This is one of the reasons why psychological treatment can take years , as it only treats the symptoms and cannot necessarily cure the underlying problem. It could, but thinking it surely will is a delusion of necessity. Conclusions: Unconsciousness As a Utility We can use the unconscious as a tool, rather than a means to an end. An end which can be the quest for truth. We can use the "signs" it may give us through dreams , through our actions, and through our art. It can also be seen as a tour guide that leaves clues along the way. Clues, on the path to ourselves. With our desire and its power, we can go hand-in-hand and increase our self-knowledge as far as humanly possible, until we become "experts" of ourselves. This expertise should help us make better decisions. In fact, it is reasonable to think that we don't have free will because we are influenced by so many unconscious layers of information. How many of us are aware we all vibrate energy, and that we sense that energy, as well? Either way, we might as well only be the ones who make certain choices out of these influences, unconsciously. That is rather than out of our own, conscious will. However, with enough development in meta-cognition , I believe we can exist beyond external layers. That is, especially through solitude , where we are less distracted, and are more focused to examine such intricacies . Nonetheless I do agree that not everyone is as autonomous as they may think. We are all automatic to an extent. A Bonus Inquiry If you know yourself entirely, including the very unconscious part of yourself, leaving no trace of unawareness.... What would you do with that knowledge? After all, you can't "re-know" it, and you can't know anything new, as everything has already been known. Perhaps, then, a constant aura of mystery is quite the virtue for the inquiring mind. Why would we want to end the philosophical journey? Takeaways from "The Unconscious Conclusion" Protective Mechanism:  The unconscious serves as a shield from overwhelming trauma and negative emotions. Shadow Dictator:  It operates independently, often influencing our actions without conscious awareness. Inaccessibility:  Full conscious understanding of the unconscious is unattainable. Influence on Behavior:  The unconscious significantly shapes our decisions, desires, and actions. Imperfect Self-Awareness:  People have inherent limitations in understanding their own psyche. Value of Mystery:  Maintaining a sense of enigma about oneself can be beneficial in unexpected ways. Role of Society:   Social constructs can distract from self-discovery. Symptom vs. Root:  Traditional therapy often addresses symptoms rather than underlying causes. Limitations of Professional Help:  Therapists may struggle to fully comprehend a patient's unconscious mind. Self-Exploration:  Personal introspection is crucial for understanding the unconscious.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Luck) Introduction: How WWII Birthed Fictional Villains Most would probably agree that WWII has been a stain on humanity, from the loss of human life to the havoc it wreaked on the minds of those who survived it. It is because of these reasons that Nazism became the textbook example of evil. It even influenced our understanding of logic, adding another proof that it is relative to time . Justifying something as morally wrong by comparing it to Nazism or to Hitler is known as the Hitler Card . It also inspired the creation of countless fictional characters and organizations, from the Galactic Empire in Star Wars to basically any fictional tyrant that is associated with military symbolism involving oppression. In this article, I'd like to analyze what I see as a representation of an oxymoron between the evils of Nazism and the scars it left on the world for many years to come; a trade-off that was packed into comic-relief with little depth but with significant symbolism I believe we can learn from. Made of Scars This is the philosophy, and the sad truth, I've found behind the character of General Reginald Peter Skarr , a forgotten side character who fully appeared in only two TV animation shows: the obscure "Evil Con Carne" and the childhood-favourite "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy." To put it briefly, Skarr is a union of oxymorons structured in the form of a comic relief character . He's often treated with little seriousness by both the other characters, the creators, and the audience. He is evil, but too sensitive to ever pose a threat; he appears in a Nazi-like uniform (yes, in children's shows), but is actually British and never confirmed to believe in Nazism. He is smart enough to hide his attempts at overthrowing his leader until the very end, yet remains extremely dumb. What I'm trying to convey is that the General is basically the "love child" of Hitler and an extremely unlucky, extremely unfortunate, traumatized man. However, his "ancestry" of Nazi influence is never explicitly linked to the traumas he endures. It's the traumas of being a butt-monkey , AKA comic relief, seems to stem from almost everyone and everything he encounters. From one-scene nameless characters whose sole purpose is to beat him up, to objects that harm him due to extreme bad luck. His name, "Skarr," is both ironic, literal, and symbolic. Literal due to his scar, ironic due to him being the scarred one, and symbolic due to his designation in existence - the archetypal " Chew Toy ," AKA, a being whose sole purpose is to suffer. His title, "General," is an oxymoron as well - he is important in rank but impotent in execution. Whether faced against heroes or villains throughout the shows, he will always lose one way or another, and no one loves him, including his mother . What made Skarr the unfortunate being he was during the airing of the two shows? His "deal with the devil" was, according to his mother's demand, to join the military. This decision ultimately made him the unfortunate character he was -- an undermined henchman to a belittling dictator and eventually permanently, both physically and mentally, ill by the desire for evil and the actions that stem from it. The Unseen Scars: A Reimagined Look at General Skarr What I call the "tragedy" of General Skarr is better understood if we replace key aspects of his character. The Traumatic Existence: Military:  Skarr's enlistment becomes his point of no return , one that involves a series of violence and defeats. Evil as Mental Illness:   For Skarr, his evil could a symptom of a deeper issue, a mental illness shaped by his experiences. One that compels him to desire world domination . Despite "rebirthing" as a retired home owner, his ill desire for evil pulls him back, as an echo of his unique past. Skarr/Scar:   His name, "Skarr," becomes a constant reminder of his traumas. It's not only a physical scar that's on his head but also the mental scars he had when interacting and facing off people from all walks of life -- and losing to them, often with no way to properly fight back, nor take revenge . Bellitilement -- Ignorance:  The constant ridicule Skarr faces becomes a symbol of ignorance, apathy and misunderstanding. Pain as such becomes a granted only he experiences as extremely harsh -- because it is, and directed at him. A Rebellion Against Fate: Usurpation:  Skarr's attempts to overthrow his leader become a desperate rebellion against the cruel reality he inhabits. While he was successful at doing so one time, it was only temporary. Fighting the Denial: After retiring from his evil ways, he faces with the struggle to return to his former self, the truth within him . His wish for world domination shows his desire to be far more than he currently is. To live a different life... One that may have him suffer the Drug Lord's Fallacy should he ever succeed. A Curse, Not a Choice: Through this lens, we see a deeper tragedy: Some people, because of their specific, traumatized past, are more susceptible to mental illness, such as PTSD . These struggles are often met with misunderstanding, perpetuating a cycle of pain like the one experienced by Skarr. This burden of the past can lead some to rebel, often in vain, against their seemingly predetermined fate. Mental illness, like the past, can inescapable. Joining certain organizations, which are bad for you, like the titular Evil Con Carne , becomes a point of no return and a scar that's here in our minds. Beyond the Joke: We may laugh at Skarr, the comedic villain in a Nazi uniform. But a closer look reveals a character cursed by his affiliation with evil, which although addicting for him, is followed by extreme bad luck whenever he tries to achieve evil, and in general. The problem with mockery comes with it biases us from understanding the people who are the "butt" of our "jokes" on a deeper level. This allows us to ignore their pain as sufferable and deem it enjoyable instead. That is the darker side of humor. In some environments, like the military, mental illness can become a more-common condition. This internal struggle then becomes a source of unfair suffering, met with either mockery or ignorance. A Product of Black Humor: This reframing, presented in this article, reveals Skarr not just as a comic relief character, but as a product of black humor. He is a shell of a former evil, a chilling reminder of the true horrors of Nazism and oppression in general, which some audiences today reduce to laughter and internet memes. In philosophy, we seek to understand reality beyond what it makes us feel, even if that feeling is good for us or spoils all the fun. As such, being part of an evil organization is not only bad for its victims but also for its members. It's why gang members can also be victims of their own gangs. A Shared Burden I don't relate to Skarr because he's a villain; I relate to the unseen scars he carries. Like Skarr, my family carry the weight of the Nazi era's implications on the world, like many, many families across the world. I believe, through generations, the trauma has manifested as mental illness, passed down from my great-grandfather who lost his family, to my later grandmother who witnessed violence, to my mother, and perhaps even myself. To see these scars one must deeply reflect on the past, and realize that our genes also carry trauma. As such, the wise thing to do is to avoid trauma, and doing can benefit not only ourselves but also our future children, who are there to carry our genes. However, this subtle reality lies dormant because many people won't bother doing so, and will inflict trauma on us and on themselves as well. Like Skarr's retirement from his evil career, the best thing we could do is to live in peace, or at least try to. However, our ambitions, which often require sacrifice, like in philosophy , may get in the way. Peace therefore becomes a liability for what we want to do and achieve. Even if we fail constantly, the very thing that resonates with us the most will deter us from giving up. Despite the Pain If it weren't for the Nazis' deliberate infliction of pain on humanity, countless lives, including mine, would have been spared a great deal of suffering, both during WWII and for generations after. This is why I don't conceal or see own mental illness as shameful. For I know my traumas are not my fault. Even if the specifics of my theory are wrong, the core truth remains: The past can cast a long shadow, but the choice to whether to retire from our plans to avoid further pain, depends on our resolve and determination to endure that pain regardless. Ancestral trauma and past trauma in general can potentially ripple through generations, impacting the mental and physical well-being of descendants. We are not entirely free from the past, even the one that predates our own existence. This lack of agency, coupled with the often negative reception of how past events can impact us, creates a profound sense of injustice and loneliness. Final Words We are, in essence, bound to a legacy of trauma, whether individual, collective or even organizational.  The laughter directed at General Skarr, a character burdened by the weight of his "traumatized Nazism," exemplifies this societal disregard for the enduring impact of historical atrocities on individual mentalities, rejecting said individuals as either weird or insane. By recognizing the burden carried by Skarr, and by extension, those like myself with a family history of trauma, we can begin to move towards a more empathetic understanding. But for that, we need to overcome our own shadows. We cannot be there for others properly, if we have yet to deal with ourselves. As such, the elevated state of altruism can only be reached once we reign victorious over our own personal problems within... The very problems that cause egoism. As such, Skarr was a sick man who worked in a sick environment. One that refused to deal with its internal problems, to allow greater collaboration and even harmony. This is why leaders are best to be altruists, and care for its members, if they want to not spread the very trauma they themselves experienced by the world. Otherwise, they will never be fit to lead. They will only be fit to be incompetent, and to be defeated from outside and from within, thus hindering their own progression using the collective they're in And that collective does not have to be the military but any collective that is led, whether you're a military officer, a CEO or a parent. You must cultivate the inner strength to be healthy enough to not spread the very own suffering you endured to others. To subordinates, to workers, to children.

On the Path to Philosophership -- Public Ethics Guide Philosophership series https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-the-importance-of-inclusion https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophership-as-duty-definition-and-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosphership-being-proven-wrong (Background music) Forging True Connections: Why Mental Toughness Makes For Better Companions If you, as a philosopher, decide to publicly publish your content, and not within private circles, you have a chance to get readers, who are more distinguished than "regular" readers. In the language of digital marketing, these distinguished folk can be called "buddies". Examples of that can be found online. What makes them special is the fact that they wish to communicate with you, beyond the content you provide to your general audience. They are more than just readers, they are people who want to be your companions, thanks you your philosophership. Don't expect them to respect you all the way, however. Because should you make certain slips that will displease them, some of them will treat you like garbage, and some of them will treat you as deserving to be disposed, regardless of your contributions. That's what happens when a short-term feeling biases our perception of the general, long-term value of things. As such, you might feel disrespected, and see a person as dishonorable, despite their contributions to your life and efforts. Giving in to these emotions makes you less trustable when you put the feelings of offense as more important than the essence of loyalty. After all, you might be compelled to commit the whole-person fallacy , based on a single situation among your most loyal of companions! This starkly shows the self-interest nature of human beings. Because all it takes is one or more -- or even one -- mishap on your behalf, that will make the most sensitive and weak of them to get rid of you. However, they are doing it to protect themselves. And as such, a person who does not need much mental protections, if at all, they are the ones who deserve to be your "buddy" more than others . It is them who are more deserving of your own time, because without these protections they will be more than willing to go alongside you, through thick and thin. Never underestimate the power of endurance. And as such, internal vulnerabilities are weakness. Should we become more tougher, therefore, and learn to see the world beyond the tyranny of our emotions , we will be able to be more loyal to one another, and create a more compassionate, tolerating world. A world that understands and listens to one another's pains. A world where intimidation by intellect , is nothing more than a feeling, unless that feeling actually tells us there's a danger. In an age of treachery and remorsless self-protecting cowardice, the best thing you can do to your sanity is to try and depersonalize your feelings from you. Then, unlike them, you won't be so hasty to act on petty emotion, for your emotions are then experienced as something's external to you. Not as something that hinders your decision-making. Decision-making deserves being more rational. And with each rejection, you'll remain more unfazed. For adversity's a natural part in societal life. Philosophy vs. Fanaticism: Protecting Your Integrity Pythagoras had many "buddies", to the point that he founded a cult based on mathematics. His example represents the dark side of having "buddies". It all depends on you, the philosopher, to decide what to do with your "buddies". It is a dark example because cults could lead to dark temptations that could result in things such as manipulation, brainwashing , and even actual crimes that will not be mentioned here. That is one of the few dangers that await you if you wish to become a philosopher -- the tempting possibility of converting your "buddies" into a self-recognizing group, called a cult. Pythagoras, although he contributed significantly to mathematics, might as well have been a power-hungry cult-leader. And that defies the very purpose of philosophy, which ethically compels us to overcome the Trial of Power. What is a cult? It is basically a miniature version of religion , controlled by a single "dictator" so-to-speak, which is the cult leader. Major religions, such as Christianity, began as cults, until they gathered enough followers to become established enough to be powerful on the political and cultural scales. And I quote Khan Academy : Originally, Christianity was a small, unorganized sect that promised personal salvation after death. But "Buddies" are, in short, people who see you as someone they wish to communicate with you in private, thanks to what you have to offer to the world. They aren't necessarily came to you to worship you or anything of that sort. The formation of cult worship is a slow process that can be prevented. Thanks to the wonders of modern communication, every reader nowadays can become a "buddy" of yours, as long as they have the means to communicate with you privately. The more "buddies" you have, the more you can indicate that your work is supported , which is excellent by itself, but not when you use your power unethically. Cultivating Ethical Fandom Once a private communication is established and developed, these readers will only become even more willing to read your content whenever they have the energies to do so. The more "buddies" you have as a public figure, the more it is good for your public credibility. As said in similar articles, they are in no way your servants or henchmen. Their loyalty to you does not mean they deserve to be expendable , because doing otherwise means that you should not be trusted. You should be trusted, correct? They are just friendly people who enjoy your content, and thus should be treated as such -- with gratitude and with appreciation. Socrates, after being imprisoned by the Athenian government, was eventually approached by his buddies in order to rescue him. Should Socrates desired to oppose his suffering philosophy ( he preferred to die as long as the law demands it ), he could've escaped prison and lived a free man. That is merely an example of how having these kind-hearted followers can help you in life. They won't necessarily bail you out of jail, but connecting with them could inspire new ideas or even lead to collaborations. The world is filled with what I'd like to call "pseudo-cults". These are groups of people who admire a certain person and show so by following them on social media, while cultivating an identity behind doing so ( as given by example in the world of pop ). They are pseudo because you don't exactly worship them as a divine figure. You simply really, really admire their work. Actual cults, on the other hand, are built on three main things -- manipulation, isolation from the external world, and adoring the head figure as divine (or more than a human being). Should you manipulate people into adoring you, and have them only read your own content, then you've damaged your credibility as a philosopher, just like Pythagoras did. Why? Becaue their loyalty to you does not diminish when they do anything else with their time, including supporting other philosophers. They're fans, buddies, not fanatics. Ethics, Manipulation, and the Perils of Charismatic Leadership For the honest philosopher, the attainment of power over others isn't the main goal, if at all. The main directive is to discover the truths of existence, study reality and so on. Anything else is an addition. Other goals could be possible, but only as secondary, and not the creation of dogma. And not using that dogma to make people adore you. Dogma, if anything, is an anti-thesis to the truth , for it leads to the " Same Result Problem " and must endure debate. Ultimately, what cults usually exist for is to deceive people into paying you money for delusions. They might even create original viewpoints just for that very goal. That goal contradicts the path of the moral truth-seeker, whose material gain is but a secondary aim compared to the discovery of insights. Should you ever manipulate your "buddies", (and I'm talking about those who have proven your worth to you, not the emotionally weak that lack loyalty because they are victims to their own feelings) you will lose your objective credibility as a philosopher. Therefore, you see, there is a monastic element to being a philosopher. Corrupt philosophers, who downgrade their oath to finding the truth, are technically no longer actual philosophers. It all begins with whether or not you're going to manipulate or deceive those who support you, want to help you, and are loyal beyond what their own emotions tell them (for they compromise their own ethics by doing so). Once the main goal becomes secondary, the motivation for philosopherhood becomes corrupt. Don't Build a Cult, Contribute to Knowledge The message of this article is this: don't make a cult out of your work, not only because it will make you a manipulator, but also because it could end up becoming a disaster. Scientology , the People's Temple -- all are examples of philosophies that were integrated into cults, which ended horribly. No honest philosopher would wish to destroy their image and legacy, just due to the temptation for power. So, if you happen to force people to call you "master", or give away their property, perhaps philosophy is not for you. Philosophy isn't about the ego of the philosopher, but about their contribution towards the truths in their respective fields.

(Philosocom's Directory on Politics) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Philosocom's Directory on Sacrifice) Sacrifices of War -- How To Elect Candidates In the Name of the Greater Good (Background music) Case Example 1: Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu In December 1st, 2023, a man named Yuval Doron Kestelman was shot accidently by IDF soldiers after he killed several terrorists in Jerusalem who were carrying out a shooting attack at a bus stop. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified Mr. Kestleman's death with three, following arguements: "In the previous waves of terrorism, the presence of armed citizens saved the situation and prevented a major disaster. That's why I support this policy" "That's how life is" Albert Einstein demonstrated once how with each growing, repeated mathematical equations, with each successful solution there is also a chance of mistakes. (For example, 1+1=2, 2+2=4, but it will eventually grow more complex and as such the commitment of a mistake, like 9+9=70, is an inevitable possibility ) These statements can reflect not only the mind but the heart of the one saying them. According to my Storage Room Theory , Mr. Netanyahu has a very small heart, for he is too calculating to consider the implications of human death on an emotional level. Our hearts, symbolically, serve as metaphors for our emotional capacity of human beings. And that can be both an asset as well as a liability. It is an asset when it increases our empathy and makes us compassionate. And it is a liability when we see people as expendable. Was Mr. Netanyahu right in his assessment? He was right only partially. He was right in saying that mistakes are prone to happen. He was wrong in not willing to call to the reduction of these mistakes. Mr. Kestelman's death, you see, wasn't an inevitable possibility. Theoratically, all it took to prevent his death at the hands of the IDF was to not assume he was a terrorist as well. Mr. Kestelman's death wasn't inevitable simply because he didn't have to die. Not for his heroic deeds, and not if a greater consideration was invested in identifying the people involved. To claim that "that's how life is" is foolish because it justifies unintentional friendly-fire. And friendly-fire, after all, can be reduced. Even if it cannot be eliminated completely, the chances of friendly-fire can still be reduced. Mr. Netanyahu therefore refused to call for reducing the chances of it occuring. And the fact that it occurs, does not mean it shouldn't be reduced, correct? The fact that traumas and mistakes happen regularly, does not mean they should resume at their current frequency. And that's how the disposing of an indosposeable altruist was justified for his altruism. If it wasn't sad, the reasoning would've been laughable. Mr. Netanyahu's greater good... I wonder what is it? Perhaps, it is... Preservation and order. Case Example 2: Dr. Robotnik (Source: Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog - Coconuts Demoted [4K] - YouTube ) In the source I just linked there's a fictional example from an old animation series, where a henchman gets disposed by his boss, despite helping his plans. He gave him information that was very useful for his next steps, but the boss, Dr. Robotnik, punished the henchman by demoting him to a janitor, all because he failed doing more with the given information. Instead of giving his boss the device, he only gave him the information of its existence. Dr. Robotnik's greater good was... Perfectionism. I will explain the invaluable necessity of the greater good, later in this article. War As Investments Military conflicts, whether planned or inflicted on us, are unfortunately similar to business in a sense that they are investments. You gather resources and employ them under your management in order to achieve your desired results, which can be deemed as success. And of course, human beings are also resources. Have you cared enough to realize that nations operate similarly to businesses? Even contemporary politicans dress in business attire. That's because politicians ARE businessmen. With the countries they manage, being their enterprises. So, by electing a representative to lead us, we basically elect our next, national executive staff, CEO included, of course. When we elect our executive staff, we elect those who will have power over us. And in order to understand how people might behave, in order to understand their next moves, we need not only observe what they're saying. After all, their words can be manipulative lies. No. We need to understand the intentions behind the words. We need to understand how they think. And that is a very difficult task, is it? We are not telepaths. So, in order to better understand our elected representatives, we need to understand their words and their actions, and see if there is a greater strategy at play. That is something most of us might not necessarily do. And that's a great flaw in a democracy. Why? Because we might not necessarily truly understand the people we're giving power to. And the people we give power to, can and will eventually sacrifice us as investments. How come? We are, after all, human resources. HR. We elect those who will make us their resources. And to know what leader is best fit for our priorities, we need to ask ourselves: How are we going to be used by them? And NOT ONLY, how they will be useful for us. Not being able to put ourselves in other people's shoes, is our greatest flaw as democratic societies. We mustn't be too self-centered, or we will suffer the implications of our egotistical biases, and poor long-term thinking. The Greater Good In order to optimally understand how the other side thinks, we must understand his or her "greater good", or their core ethical values. They're also known as standards or criteria. Without understanding this, or at least having a clue about them, how can we even elect our representatives wisely? Because when we elect people for power, we elect not only them but also their core values. When we elect them, they will use their gained power to promote these values. Electing people give us a chance to promote these core values as well, especially given the fact that we also have core values. Inspecting our core values, and being able to see if politicians have these core values as well, is how a democracy can have a better chance at being managed per the will of the people. Therefore, a collective effort at introspection , and debates on our individual, core values, is key to better understanding of what leaders we want to rule us. And by "rule us", I also mean, "use us as human resources for their own core values". And these are the type of values that dictate whatever we -- and those at the top -- would consider the greater good. Do we want a leader like Netanyahu who prioritizes order, even when that order is filled with flaws? Are we perfectionists, like Dr. Robotnik, and would tolerate no achievement that is smaller than what we expect of others? It all begins in collective introspection, and the exchange of our individual findings, post-introspection. Bonus There are resources online that can offer you clues as to how detect lies, which politicians do to conceal their true intentions. Verywellmind.com has one of them.

The afterlife is a likely assumption, that no one actually knows what happens once we die. After all, should we die, we can't go back to the original body. We can't return and tell the tale of what happened after we died. Even if we were to create a sentient robot, we might not know what would happen to their consciousness once they ran out of electricity. Why? Because death is also end of knowing, and thus, of experiencing . It is the ultimate end, because those who die, don't know what it's like to die. They might not even know, ever. It's a process that is either long or short, and when it happens, the "plug" is disconnected. My only theory is that everything fades to black, and that applies to all the senses as well. You lose your sight, your hearing, your smell, and so on. You become nothing, and yet your body remains. A few years ago, I told a religious man just that. They can't know for certain what happened once they're dead. There are many theories and assumptions, but no actual clue, even if these beliefs are portrayed as facts in different societies. The man told me this: that he chose to be a devout Christian, because he's "not taking his chances" when it comes to of Heaven or Hell. But the thing is, who said Christianity was the truest of all religions? It's certainly the largest religion in the world, with a following of more than two billion believers . Which is India and China's populations combined, more or less. However, it meets with the fallacy known as Ad-Populum. The mainstream isn't correct just because it is mainstream . Christianity became this large for a reason. Its philosophy is missionary ; It's is all about spreading the word of Jesus and converting as many people as possible. It is done in order to save humanity from possible doom. And yet, who said there would be a doomsday? Who said the most important religion was the most correct one? After all, not all religions are missionary by nature. Judaism and Shintoism are not missionary at all, as they are based on ethnicity. A "macro cult," for lack of a better term. The Druze and many others also apply. There are possibly dozens, if not hundreds, of religions in the world. Each one of them has the probability, of being the truest of all religions. The thing is, since that probability is unknown, then religion in general is a gamble. A gamble for what might happen next after we die. You can love your God(s) as much as possible, but your love and faith in them don't make them truer than any other religion out there, whether you know these religions or not. The only way to know for certain, which religion is the most correct, is to use a time machine and see if that religion's founder has actually talked to a higher deity. It is said that God/s work in mysterious ways, but how can we know they exist if they so desire to remain in the shadows? Furthermore? How can we know for certain what happens after we die, if our fate is in the hands of a mysterious force? For we do not truly know what remains in mystery . Wouldn't it be better to actually know things instead of remaining ignorant for all of our lives? After all, even if these truths are revealed to us, we are still mortal, unlike the gods, who are not . Do you expect a villain to just use that godly information and turn themselves into a god ? Why would that be a probability if god/s are, by nature, omnipotent? Do I deserve redemption? I see no need to redeem myself, just because of my thoughts. Is it that bad to doubt? Aren't there bigger sins like far severe crimes? Even those who doubt, can return to their original standpoint, by being proven wrong . Those who do crimes, will have this title of "criminal" for life. Redeemed or otherwise. So how, then, do you tell me, that being doubtful is as bad as being morally bad, like a r***st? In short, because there are so many religions, each with their own view of the afterlife, either one of them is truly right. While the rest have become incorrect, or there is no afterlife, and like a robot, we end once we cease to function completely. As said in earlier writings, faith is no substitute for knowledge. Faith is an assumption, not a fact. Only a fanatic would dare claim they know something about someone they don't actually know if they exist at all, beyond the strength of their belief, love, and prayers . Religion, ultimately, is the most philosophical gamble there is. It is a gamble on something so existential yet devoid of certainty. The certainty of one's faith being correct. Why do preachers talk so much about the importance of religious belief? It is because there is no alternative to faith in religion. It is the main, if not the only, drive that makes people turn from secular to religious or stay religious for the entirety of their lives. Shintoism is an exception to that, given that no faith is required. Only the practice of ceremony. And still, why must there be no possibility of certainty? Why aren't we given the right to know what happens to us after we die? Why do we have to guess and pick sides? If religion is about something, it's about believing in something that is based on faith, love, and loyalty rather than on actual likelihood. You can't quantify the possibility of a religion being true, in percentages, so you are left with the love you develop for your religion's god/s. As that is the thing that will stick you with following that specific religion. Don't expect to know the answers from me; I'm no omniscient god. But unlike such gods, I don't see a reason to "work in mysterious ways". What I tell you is open and sometimes personal, and it works just as well. Why is ignorance bliss? Why believe, when we can try knowing? Know more and more about this existence? While religion is based on accepting your ignorance with love, philosophy is about accepting your ignorance, not with love but with doubt. A good philosopher will doubt their religion in the name of reality. In the name of researching the truth. Socrates accepted his ignorance by saying that he knows nothing, but what separates philosophers from others, is that they refuse to give up on better knowing themselves and reality. There are just people who are satisfied with submission. A feeling that's merely based on the faith that "something has been written from a certain source, therefore it is undeniably true, because." Most of humanity might end up in some obscure hell just because a minor religion is the truest of all religions, and we couldn't even know it because we weren't exposed to it whatsoever. Please note that I am not anti-religious. An irreligious man may be anti-religious, but not every anti-religious man is irreligious. I "believe" in agnostic atheism . And I try not to discriminate against any of my readers based on their religion or other demographic data. I simply criticized a common feature in major religions. As long as we respect one another, I don't think there should be any reason for disruption in Philosocom.

Summary by Anonymous Mr. Tomasio discusses the concept of moral purity and the challenges of achieving it. He argues that absolute purity is an unattainable ideal and that humans are inherently flawed. He uses the example of the Japanese survival horror game "Peret Em Heru" to illustrate the harsh consequences of failing to uphold absolute moral purity. The game portrays a world where only those who commit no sin can escape the punishment of death. The writer then delves into the complexities of morality and the importance of navigating the grey areas. He emphasizes the need for a personal moral compass and the importance of learning from mistakes. He concludes concludes by arguing that the true journey lies in the constant striving towards ethical living, rather than achieving perfection. (Background music) Accepting Imperfection As An Inevitable Possibility An essential question confronts anyone seeking moral purity , be it for personal growth, religious duty, or any other reason, stands. If your pursuit of purity were tested, would you accept death as the consequence of an impure act, or would you acknowledge your imperfection and live with it? What does it mean to be truly pure? It's not simply avoiding intentional malice... It's about navigating the complexities of morality, where even good intentions can lead to unintended harm. A lie told to "protect" someone can still inflict pain. A harsh word rooted in "tough love" can leave lasting scars and even a quest for vengeance. Even well-meaning actions can fall short of purity. Consider the once-common practice of child discipline through physical punishment. The intent may have been "good," but the act of violence against a vulnerable being remains inherently wrong, leaving a stain on the perpetrator's moral canvas, for good. While purity, by its ideal, demands perfection, the human experience rarely obliges to comply. Even individuals with pure intentions and kind hearts may carry the weight of past "sins," for the past cannot be restored , only redeemed. This raises the unsettling question: Are they forever restricted from being considered pure? To delve deeper into this moral grey area, let's turn to an obscure Japanese horror game from the 1990s called " Peret Em Heru " ("For the Prisoners"). This haunting title explores the brutal consequences of failing to uphold absolute moral purity. In its world, only those who commit no sin, including a single lie, can escape death, for all crimes, moral or legal equally deserve punishment. One of the deaths in the game is that of Rin Tsukihara, a 9 year old student who got killed because she was a liar. Failure to save even one of the eleven characters under your protection brings swift and unforgiving punishment. Out of all the eleven, only 2 cannot be saved, which are an evil professor and his henchman. Professor Tetsuya Tsuchida is evil by default for setting an expedition into a cursed tomb while using tourists as meat-shields ( a horrible way to regard humans ). Somehow, the remaining one character who venture into the Pyramid(s) of Giza in the game, is faultless, and thus doesn't need to be saved. "Peret Em Heru" may be a fictional nightmare, but it poses a chilling question: do we, humans, even have the capacity for genuine, absolute purity? Perhaps the true test lies not in the ideal, but in the constant striving towards it, acknowledging our faulty lives, and learning from our imperfections. For in the grand system of morality, the threads of good and bad are complexly woven. True strength lies not in striving for an unattainable ideal, but in the embrace of our complex and ever-evolving nature. Embrace of our faults, and their usage for improvement. That includes the traumatic experience of rejection. Navigating the Labyrinth of Purity Beneath the desert sands of Egypt lies a labyrinth of stone and shadows, the cursed Great Pyramid of Giza, where supernatural forces judge not with malice, but with a chilling, unwavering commitment to absolute moral purity. For that's how pure logic works: It is ruthless as it is merciless. Within its depths, your "tourist exploration" turns into a desperate struggle for survival, not just for yourself, but for the ragtag group caught the clutches of a cursed God. The first to fall victim is a mere child, her only "sin" is lying – a stark and horrifying testament to the pyramid's fanatical moral code. Among the tourists, fear and anxiety dance as each member harbors their own hidden shortcomings. Lies, thefts, betrayals – sins both petty and grievous hang heavy in the suffocating air of the underground ruins. Yet, most of their fates rest in your hands, for only you, the player, hold the power to save them from the pyramid's brutal punishments. But is their salvation truly a victory? The journalist, Soji Mizumi , shielded by his profession, uses blackmail to exploit and harm. Even if you rescue him, will he abandon his wicked ways? In Pharaoh Khufu eyes (the pyramid's ruler), saving him might be as much a sin as letting him die. Hence why he has no remorse in attempting to kill him, the same as he can kill a mere child for being a liar. This is no ordinary fairy tale quest where good deeds bring happy endings. Here, the arbitrator of justice is a cruel villain who haunts all the humans who enter his domain for the sole reason of being flawed human beings, thus deserving death. For purity, in his cursed realm, is not a gentle halo, but a harsh, unforgiving ideal that only very few people can actually attain. Like a crystal-clear white sheet, any mark, however tiny, renders it forever stained. It's a chilling reflection of the human condition, where even the faintest shadow of imperfection can negate all that is good. Yet, amidst the despair, a glimmer of hope emerges. Protected by the pyramid's unseen hand, Kyosuke Hino stands tall on the pedestal of purity, being the only human deemed worthy by the ancient Paraoh. The ancient Paraoh thus strives to eliminate all, while giving that one boy his own powers, as reward for being deemed worthy of succession. But you, too, hold the power to decide as a force against or alongside that monarch. Will you be the instrument of salvation, rescuing even the undeserving from the jaws of their sins? Or will you wield your moral compass like a weapon, condemning those whose past transgressions taint their souls? Remember, "pure" is a label that's constantly doomed for indefinite peril. Your own journey has undoubtedly been marked by moments of imperfection. Lies rose in childhood, curses uttered in anger, moments of unkindness that tempted to be made by hatred. Yet, it is not the absence of flaw that defines us, but our capacity to learn, to grow, to strive towards that ever-elusive ideal of being better, per our hopes and dreams. The game, upon contemplation, challenges with the complexities of our own reality. It reminds us that the path to moral truth can never be a straight line, for a straight line is perfect. Instead, it's a labyrinth of choices, consequences, and self-reflection on the past, all prone to our freedom. The greatest victory may not be in achieving purity, but in navigating the labyrinth of choices with courage, empathy, and a willingness to learn from every misstep like a competent villain. Being called a Tom, or a pure being in Hebrew, is a falsehood that can never be a reality. Thus, I am Tomasio. Stepping Through the Moral Maze: Lessons from "For the Prisoners" Unlike the game's save files, real life doesn't have a rewind button. Each decision, each action, leaves a mark, a ripple in the fabric of our existence, that could change reality as with the example of the butterfly effect. But while absolute purity may be a distant mirage, the journey towards it, the constant striving to be better, is what truly defines us. Morality is not a static code, marked in stone. What one era deems sinful, the next might embrace. Dungeons and Dragons, once a trigger for moral panic , is a common game for clique groups . Coffee, once the devil's brew, now fuels the energies of millions for work. This inherent subjectivity necessitates a personal compass, a guiding light within that helps us navigate the grey areas, the blurred lines between right and wrong, from becoming an anti-hero to becoming an anti-villain. But amidst the grey, there are lines we must not cross. Bullying, a malicious infliction for another's pain, can push someone to the despair of self-sacrifice. Harassment, as well, can get you PTSD . Violence can escalate in the blink of an eye, leaving behind a trail of regret and devastation. These are not mere transgressions; they are acts that tear at the fabric of human connection, capable of making us lose faith in humanity , thus reducing our overall potential as individuals and collectives. While no divine intervention may necessarily inflict punishment, the human conscience is a powerful judge. The sting of regret can be a heavy burden to bear. A moral compass, nurtured by empathy and compassion , can help us navigate this treacherous terrain of this unforgiving world while avoiding the pitfalls of remorse. All in the name of choosing paths that lead towards a more just and harmonious world. Conclusion Ultimately, the journey towards ethical living is not about being perfect, but about being better. It's about learning from our missteps, embracing our imperfections, and striving to make choices that align with our values. It's about acknowledging the inherent subjectivity of morality while holding ourselves accountable for the consequences of our actions on others. It's about stepping through the moral maze with the humility of a lifelong learner, seeking to build a world where kindness and understanding light the way, one person at a time. For the choice to be ethical forever rests on our shoulders no matter who we are and what feelings we have (and don't have).

(Background music) Table of Contents: The article itself. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback. Mr. M. Svartgold's Self-Preservation Strategy. The Article The Power of Staying Unseen Lying low, otherwise known as laying low , is a continuous attempt to remain hidden, in order to avoid attention that is usually negative. I learned that when I played games where I was the criminal or the "bad guy" and had to hide from enemies, usually the police, until they stopped looking for me. If there's anything we can learn from this activity, it is that external attention can be more powerful than ourselves. So, in order to overcome it, we don't fight it, but hide from it until it will be reduced by itself. External attention is not always a good idea, especially in today's world, where everything can be traced digitally. As such, when you're a public figure, you need to be very prudent as to not sabotage your own endeavors. Jack the Ripper, a Victorian-era serial killer , was never found, and is obviously dead. If he wasn't a master at lying low, perhaps his true identity would've been revealed to the world. If he had no reason to get caught, then he would've had no reason to remain hidden, because those who hide, usually have something they hide from the public eye. Maybe his first name was never Jack at all. When Transparency Hurts More Than Helps And the thing is, we all have things to hide, don't we? We want our private lives to remain private. Clothes are essentially glorified walls that keep others from seeing our real, physical selves. Just like with make-up and facial hair. We don't tell just anyone very intimate information, even though some of us have nothing illegal or not indecent to hide from others. If we are not criminals like Jack the Ripper was, then why hide anything at all from the world? Why not all those who did nothing wrong, expose themselves to the world in a free manner? The problem with these questions comes with the fact that privacy somehow still exists, despite the invasive-ness of the internet , and that not all of us are exactly comfortable with foreign attention. Some of us just want to live in peace, so we may abstain from social media , sometimes or even permanently. Interactions with human beings can often be dramatic, and some of us have no desire for drama, and want to live the remainder of our lives in peace. Freedom of speech allows anyone to say anything, basically, unless confined by local rules, like that of a school or workplace or even certain forums (even if public). This means that anyone can comment on any information that they receive, as long as they don't break any local rules in the process, AKA, the rules of the frameworks they're in. Since norms are not of the same degree of importance as rules, there's little that prevents people from not behaving in an uglier fashion . After all, why should they care, if no rules were broken? By the same token, there isn't necessarily a law that forbids us to share private information of either ourselves or of others with strangers. We may ruin each others' anonymity without even being aware of that. The lack of privacy is a growing contemporary problem. The Downsides of External Attention Some of us may be too naive to realize the virtue of lying low. Of living at peace within a conflicted, divided planet. Of having the entitled potential to live in peace, and not just rest in peace. Of having the right to not be harassed by others, and so on. In a sense, we're all laying low, at varying degrees, because of the threat of foreign attention. External attention can be intrusive, lack any empathy, and even lead to harassment, either online, offline or both. Is it something we want for ourselves? For our loved ones? We humans are, arguably, tribal people , or people have more care towards people we know and associate ourselves with, than other people we don't care as much. As a result, some people have to lay below the radar, so the people who identify others as external of their own "tribe", will eventually go away, while the former get less and less relevant than other subjects and people. Being associated with with a toxic person can also make them an adversary . With a greater level of recognition comes a greater level of privacy sacrifice . Those, like me, who want to be more relevant, either worldwide or locally, must prepare for the option that lying low won't always be an option, should one be known enough. Make sure you're aware that what you're doing is worthy of your sacrifice. When Public Observation Turns to Mockery Anyone can be banned from Twitter, but if you're like the Canadian philosopher Jordan Peterson , you can become a laughingstock for complaining about your ban. Since people like having a good laugh, you too can become a common subject for their laughter, and unless you have the option to lie low until the mockery stops, you just have to deal with it. That's because you have no control over others who don't owe anything to you. You can only influence them. Some people like the idea of themselves being famous, of being celebrities and thus privileged , but that cliche premise is biased because it's a fantasy that ignores the downfalls of being famous. Being famous means that you are now public knowledge , and therefore, you've lost a massive deal of the privacy you could've had. When you're famous or aiming to become famous, you may want to conceal your physical location in order to avoid being harassed. It's something that will cost you extra. We're all flawed to an extent and it's very hard to find an exception to that rule, but when your relevancy gets significant, your flaws can be emphasized by the public, and some may even tell you: Go away, do your thing elsewhere! Lay low! Being a public figure means that some of your deeds can overshadow other deeds. Make sure that these deeds are positive and not negative to your image. It is when you are told to go further away from the public, it is when it's possible to convince yourself that you are truly important on the public scale. Why? Because more anonymous people won't necessarily receive the same rejection and disapproval , as you do, whether or not you also receive the opposite, too. People care less for the anonymous, and so much more for you. It is an unfair bias, where "the small" are discarded , whether or not being discarded is desired. The Sacrifices of a Public Figure The anonymous don't publicly matter as much, so people will overlook their presence. The anonymous are defined by their ability to blend in to the point of being non-distinct. Most of humanity is anonymous. So, if you do not like public or foreign attention, I would suggest trying to be less relevant. It's nice to contribute to others thanks to your work , but should your work be important enough that it would turn you into a public figure, you might need to consider that laying low won't always be a feature. That is true the more and more known you are. Therefore, with renown, comes self-sacrifice, or more specifically, the sacrifice of the private self. It is the same with honesty. A world of truth often requires vulnerability. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Lying low can be done as a way to stay hidden or a way to bide one’s time. What do you mean by lying low? Yes... I see how it can be beneficial, but I also see how it can be damaging . It's a kind of way to avoid things. Think of Bonnie and Clyde . Outlaws lying low [have different reasons to do so than] a CEO or some other corporate person laying low so they don’t get into trouble until they fix a problem. Mr. M. Svartgold Strategy for Self-Preservation I've found that keeping a low profile has been an effective strategy for my well-being. It helps me avoid unnecessary drama, protect my unique perspectives from mockery and from offense, and learn from my past mistakes. By being more selective in my social interactions , I've been able to surround myself with supportive and understanding people. I sometimes don't even talk positively about myself, so to make sure no one would use that against me maliciously. I mainly accept people whose behavior to me demonstrated their good-hearted nature.  I prefer not spending time with people who can't empathize with me. While staying low can sometimes feel isolating, it's a strategy that has allowed me to maintain my hope to stay alive , and avoid negative consequences. My tendency to be alone and in peace, has empowered me to make decisions that align with my personal values and goals. The rules and the norms of society are not determined in the favor of people like me. They are determined in the favor of the majority. This is why I prefer, physically, to stay unseen.

(For more meta-philosophy material, here are some articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophers-and-relevancy https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-become-a-philosopher-philosophy-as-art-and-science) A Concise Guide to Philosophy -- A Revamped Introduction (For a great, brief introduction of philosophy, here is an external source ) . (Background music) Let's begin with a fun fact: In Hebrew, philosophers are called “ Formulators of Ideas ” (Hogeh De’ot in singular, Hogei De'ot in plural), which can be interpreted as opinions, assumptions, and theories. They do this through inquiry, contemplation, and research. It's also possible to argue that contemplation is a form of research. Whereas scientists experiment empirically, philosophers communicate, either through speech, discussion, or writing. Should the philosopher experiment, they would use thought experiments. An opinion stops being just that when it covers a philosophical subject with a great deal of focus on reason, and is backed up by evidence. Then, that opinion becomes elevated beyond a mere assumption . Even in the search of truth, we are bound to our own conception, since everything we do comes from ourselves and/or cooperation with others. And since the self is subjective, so are its deeds and expressions, regardless of existence. Being bound to ourselves means that we are bound to the functionality of our brains as thinkers. Thus, should we improve said functionality by improving our reasoning and preserving our cognition , we can then take better advantage of the work tool that is the brain. And there is no thinker that does not use his brain for carrying out cognitive tasks. As such, philosophers are considered "great thinkers" because they often do whatever they can to not only use their cognitive skills constantly but also make sure these skills are not impaired by irrationality . A seasoned philosopher would in theory be able to criticize anyone and anything, as critical thinking is a very core element stored in the tool box that's the thinker's brain. It would only make sense that a philosopher who is a poor critical thinker is also a poor philosopher. The more logical and evidence-backed an opinion is, the more likely it is to be a fact or at least close to it. This is why different philosophers reach different conclusions on the same issue: As philosophers may approach the same issues differently. It is why different philosophers are distinguished by name, the more they are known. For there is a certain, unique individuality to each philosopher, which is evident in the way they think, and in the ideas they formulate. And as such, philosophers may create different schools of thought, and may have their own brand of thinking, categorized by their names. And as such, my own thinking is of the Rubinshteinic kind. Philosophy is the search for truth through the creation of premises, followed by their legitimacy for existence through good logical reasoning and searched evidence. Once a premise is built on these two, and once it is considered philosophical, it is a philosophical idea . It is an idea which can also be considered an opinion, as opinions can be correct as well, and thus should not be degraded nor discarded, as they could be more valid than others. Example: If you believe there is a God, and God exists, then your belief is true; a belief known as theism; which is a theory, which is an assumption. Therefore, assumptions could be true, and not just mere speculations , backed up by momentary impressions of an object/idea. The truth is out there and can be found even through subjectivity, which we are bound to by existing as subjective beings. And in this article, I attempted to redeem the logical worth of subjectivity. Hence why the sentence "in my opinion, God exists" is true if there's actually a God. This means that our opinions could either be true, or serve as valid indications of truth. And as the premise of this article went: The philosopher is a formulator of ideas/opinions. It is the job of the philosopher to formulate valid opinions that could lead us to a greater understanding of reality around us. The pseudo-philosopher  may lack clarity and may "sin" in delusional thinking, which he or she may regard as valid points towards reality. The more he or she does it, the more evident that they are a pseudo-philosopher, or someone that markets themselves as a true philosopher, but lack the qualities of true philosopher-ship . If you believe it will rain tomorrow and it will, your assumption becomes true, even if it was a product of your subjective opinion. Ultimately, the truth exists regardless of the tools we've used along the way to find it. And according to consequentialist thought, the end justifies the means. Should someone call you pretentious for expressing your philosophical opinions, remember that even opinions can be true, as all opinions are beliefs or disbeliefs, which, through the work of scientists and philosophers, can be backed up and thus indicate whether your opinions are, in fact, true or false. And when you advertise yourself as a philosopher, you need to " walk the talk " -- prove that you are indeed a philosopher. Or else, you will be deemed pretentious wrongly, even if you are not a pseudo-philosopher. That's because people can quickly submit to their confirmation bias, and as such, deliver misinformation by their own unintentional accord . Prove yourself publicly, and make your evidence present as a credible entity , and you can reduce this bias in the minds and hearts of others. Let me finish with this: If you're going to be a public philosopher, make sure you are not as sensitive enough, to the point that you will succumb to your emotional biases.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Philosocom's Directory on Sacrifice) The Puppet Philosopher (Poem) (Inspired song) I am controlled by the constant need to be productive, Socially unengaged at all, but on the net I can still remain active. This isn't a game of win or lose, for me its life or death , What else do I have to live for, for there is no other worthy path? You might think it's unnecessary, When one can live in hedonistic apathy ; But it's unacceptable, Unproductive, Unforgiveable, Non-contributing! And absolutely, probable, Hence, I want to avoid it and to become, A puppet philosopher! There is no hope left, for me, Not in friends nor in family. My desire for greater hope now ends... When I submit to my chosen destiny. Followers, or haters. It doesn't really matter. You are all my, dear readers, Of my article empire. As I confess my despair, You might realize that I have no choice , But to write philosophy, As long as I can breathe the earthly air! So… I'm now a puppet philosopher! (He's a puppet philosopher) And I live inside a computer. (He's a puppet philosopher… He just wants to show his care!) And so, for me, it's a necessary cry, To try being relevant, after the day I die. I'm a puppet philosopher, And I'm writing, in my eternal solitude! (You see, we too have a plan, for this person over here. So now that I, ???????, is truly in control... Get to work!) People used to belittle me due to my eccentricity, But things have began to change, when I practiced philosophy. Many began reading me, from the U.S to Japan, And then I realized, that indeed, being relevant is something I can! I'm a puppet philosopher! (He's a puppet philosopher!) And I live inside a computer. (He's a puppet philosopher! He just wants to show his care!) I'm a puppet philosopher, Death, is, but, a, shield. (He's a solitary philosopher, But to contribute, is still something he needs!) Why do you think there is any hope, to see, When nothing else I can gladly foresee? Because if I breathe, I still have the chance, To sound my share, and nothing else! And now that I might still live, I will tend to my strings; It is a certain work, no matter what the tomorrow day might bring! I'm a puppet philosopher, I cannot help but lose. (He's a puppet philosopher, He doesn't believe that he can, differently to choose!) I'm a puppet philosopher, I lost my liberty when this I've internalized: That I'm a puppet philosopher, Who is only here… To… Expand, with little, Fear. Poem Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac The Puppet Philosopher is a profoundly existential and deterministic poem that explores themes of purpose, self-worth, and intellectual compulsion . The speaker, a "puppet," is bound by their intellectual compulsion, expressing a sense of loss of autonomy and external control. This tension between free will and determinism is echoed by thinkers like Arthur Schopenhauer, who argued that individuals are bound by their nature and inclinations. The poem also addresses the conflict between productivity and perceived uselessness, reflecting the modern struggle against nihilism . The speaker's existence is tied to their intellectual work, resembling Nietzsche's Übermensch concept. The poem also touches on intellectual solitude and alienation , with the speaker acknowledging their detachment from the world but still maintaining online presence. This highlights the idea of digital existence as a substitute for real-world connection , a phenomenon seen in the modern age where many intellectuals thrive in the online space but remain isolated in physical life. The poem also touches on the desire for legacy and posthumous relevance , with the speaker attempting to be relevant after the day they die. This aligns with the philosophical tradition of thinkers like Socrates , Descartes, and Kant, who shaped the intellectual world beyond their lifetimes. The speaker's submission to their role as an intellectual worker can be read through a Nietzschean lens , as if one's fate is inevitable, then it must be embraced. In conclusion, The Puppet Philosopher presents a tragic yet purposeful existence, with the philosopher bound by their intellectual compulsion, isolated yet engaged, free yet determined, despairing yet committed. The work suggests that meaning is found in contribution, even at the cost of personal liberty or social connection.

(Philosocom's Directory on Uniqueness) (Philosocom Directory On Children) The Reverse Individuality Theory: How to Appreciate Humanity and Individuality Every person - with his or her own skills, abilities and uniqueness - can contribute to others and bring great joy to those that fortune has not smiled upon -- Shari Arison (Background music) A Childhood Realization I recall a certain, distant memory from kindergarten. A realization dawned upon me through my interactions with both individuals and the larger framework of the world. It helped me appreciate humanity, not just myself. The kindergarten teacher sat us down in a circle and asked us how "special" we all were. She pointed at each pupil and affirmed, "You are unique," and "You are unique," until the premise sank in: we are all unique. But the paradox became clear to me, even as a child : If everyone is unique, doesn’t that mean we are all the same? If uniqueness is universal , does it not negate itself? The Paradox of Individuality To be unique is to be distinct, to stand apart from the collective. But if everyone shares this trait, then uniqueness becomes a universal constant—an irony that undermines its very premise. Perhaps our unity as humanity stems from our shared uniqueness, from the idea that we all contribute in different ways. It is not that we are all unique in the same way, but rather that each of us possesses something singular to offer. The irony deepens when we consider that someone who is entirely unremarkable—so bland as to be forgettable—could be more unique than any of us. Such an individual would be a deviation from the norm, not through eccentricity, but through.... an extreme form of averageness. Yet... how can a person be distinct by being ordinary? Take physical appearance , for example. Everyone possesses different body structures, varying facial features, and individual traits that distinguish them. But suppose there existed a person whose features aligned perfectly with an imagined "textbook average"—a person so prototypically normal that they embodied the statistical mean of all human attributes. Would this individual not be more unique than any eccentric artist or rebellious trendsetter? Their normalcy, by virtue of its near impossibility, would be a rarity, and thus paradoxically unique. The Normalization of Uniqueness The pursuit of individuality is fraught with irony. The more people strive to be unique, the less unique they become. Trends emerge as deviations from the norm, only to be adopted en masse and transformed into conventions. Subcultures such as Goths, punks, and hipsters initially arose as distinct countercultures but eventually became part of mainstream fashion. What once signified rebellion now exists as mere aesthetics. Individuality is inherently relative. One cannot be unique in isolation, just as one cannot be tall or short without comparison. Our identities exist only in contrast to those around us. A person who is "just like everyone else" is not unique, while someone who stands apart from societal conventions is. Yet, if everyone becomes unique in the same way, distinctiveness ceases to exist. The Relativity of Self-Identity The notion of i ndividuality is inextricably tied to comparison. If everyone suddenly embraced a uniform sense of uniqueness—say, by dyeing their hair blue and wearing flamboyant clothing—then the person who refused to do so would become the true outlier. Uniqueness would shift toward those who conformed to a previous norm. Thus, the status of "normal" and "unique" is fluid, always dependent on context. If everyone were genuinely one-of-a-kind, then the standard person—the person with no extraordinary traits—would become the most remarkable. This is the crux of the Reverse Individuality Theory: Uniqueness and normalcy are not fixed states but shifting positions relative to the environment in which they exist. When uniqueness becomes standard, normality becomes extraordinary. The Statistical Average Human A fascinating example of this paradox can be found in statistical analyses of the "average human." A 2011 study identified the most statistically "normal" human being as a 28-year-old, right-handed Chinese man with a cell phone but no bank account. Given China’s vast population, this is not particularly surprising. If we were to broaden the study to include more Asian populations, we would likely find even more individuals fitting this "average" archetype. However, consider the implications: While this man represents statistical normality, he is, in a way, one of the rarest individuals on Earth. He is the sole embodiment of the precise average—a living median—making him, paradoxically, an anomaly. The Extremes of Difference Now, let us turn to individuals who deviate dramatically from the norm. There exist people with rare genetic traits, extreme physical modifications, or unique lifestyles—such as a man with 96% of his body covered in hair or an individual who has tattooed their eyes black. These people, while undoubtedly unique, belong to a subcategory of human experience that is itself normalized. Society tends to categorize and label such deviations, making them predictable in their own way. If every person with extreme modifications were to walk together down a street, passers-by might perceive them as part of a coordinated group. Their collective uniqueness, ironically, makes them blend into a new, separate norm. Thus, uniqueness is not only contextual but also dependent on the framework within which it is perceived. It is not merely a matter of personal choice but of how society defines deviation. The Path to True Uniqueness If one truly wishes to stand apart, the key is not in simply opposing the mainstream but in understanding the framework in which one exists. First, one must identify the dominant traits, behaviors, and values of a given environment. Then, by consciously diverging from these norms—not arbitrarily, but thoughtfully—one can craft a distinct identity. However, even this effort is bound by the paradox of individuality. If you successfully differentiate yourself, you may become an archetype for others to emulate. What was once radical becomes fashionable; what was once unique becomes mundane. This leaves two paths to absolute individuality: Extreme Normalcy: Embracing such a complete level of statistical averageness that one becomes an anomaly by virtue of their lack of distinguishing features. Extreme Deviation: Becoming so fundamentally different from societal expectations that integration becomes impossible. Neither path is inherently superior, but both demonstrate the fluid and paradoxical nature of uniqueness. Conclusion: Embracing the Reverse Individuality Theory The pursuit of uniqueness is one of humanity’s most persistent yet self-defeating endeavors. As individuals strive to distinguish themselves, they often find themselves caught in cycles of normalization, where their distinctiveness is absorbed into the mainstream. True individuality, then, is less about outward expression and more about internal realization. By understanding the shifting nature of normalcy and distinctiveness, we can learn to appreciate both the diversity of humanity and the strange paradoxes that govern our sense of self. Perhaps the greatest irony is that, in a world where everyone is striving to be unique, true individuality lies in embracing what is already there—ourselves, as we are, without forceful deviation or artificial conformity. Thus, to be uniquely human is to exist in the delicate balance between the normal and the extraordinary, the common and the rare. And therein lays the beauty of our shared existence.

(Philosocom's Masculinity Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Background music) *********************** The problem with masculinity lies not within its entirety, but within its unhealthy components. Are virtues such as honor , strength , courage, confidence, and self-discipline a problem in today's society? No, or at least not as problematic as the following concepts that lie within the term " masculinity ": 1. Repression Have you ever heard the sayings "don't cry, you're a big boy," "stop being so sensitive," or "stop acting like a little baby"? While the intentions behind these sayings may be good, and not necessarily an insult, they are almost always counterproductive. These sayings only intensify one's problems, rather than weakening them. Such sayings are unhelpful and can be harmful. Mental states require attention and care . Simply ignoring them, or attempting to do so through repression, only makes them stronger. Such an approach to one's mental well-being is not aligned with healthy masculinity . Masculinity should not be about escaping challenges, but rather about facing them head-on, both external and internal. Saying things like "don't cry" or "stop being so sensitive" are unhelpful because they promote the idea that men should suppress their emotions. This type of repression is a form of escapism from our internal reality. Would you say that escapism is part of a well-defined masculinity, when escapism is cowardice ? Facing one's emotions, with minimal to no repression, requires strength and courage. This is a virtue that aligns with healthy masculinity and promotes emotional well-being. 2. Oppression One of the core values that define " toxic masculinity " is oppression. This behavior manifests in various forms, ranging from overt violence and aggression to bullying, intimidation, and other harmful forms of social interactions . True masculinity does not require acts of physical aggression, domination of others, or disregard for personal consequences ( such disregard is, in fact, foolish ). It should instead serve as a moral compass for maturity, strength, resilience, and self-reliance. You might often find that masculine people follow a code of conduct. Being a dependable man of your word is such an example. Oppression stands in contrast to these values, rendering it incompatible with a possibly-healthy expression of masculinity. (It's important to acknowledge that femininity also faces challenges and complexities, and striving for a healthy society requires addressing all forms of harmful societal expectations. Whether or not we wish for such a thing is our own shared prerogative). Consider the consequences of oppression , not just for the target but also for the one causing it. In a society built on democratic principles, the oppressor may face severe repercussions for their actions, from legal consequences and social isolation to lasting guilt and shame. Furthermore, oppression proves illogical beyond its moral failings. While a fleeting sense of power or pleasure may be stem from inflicting harm on others, the long-term risk of retribution is undeniable. Even if the oppressor believes they are currently evading consequences, this illusion of safety offers no certainty for the future of their rule. From schoolyard bullies and street harassers to cult leaders and abusers, no oppressor is truly immune to the consequences of their actions . Their downfall is often inevitable, making oppression a reckless gamble with potentially devastating outcomes. 3. Shame Instead of focusing on shame , let's shift the conversation towards understanding and acceptance . While I may not personally identify with certain behaviors, I believe everyone is worthy of respect and freedom to express themselves authentically, regardless of whether it aligns with traditional expectations of masculinity. Whether or not they will get their worth, is another thing that depends on the moral compass of others. And why expect a highly-moral approach from the average human being, when ethics are to be taught? Modernity, at its core, hails not only advancement in technology and science, but also inclusivity and diversity, though it has its own fair shares of hypocrisies . Labeling individuals who deviate from gender norms as inferior is rooted in outdated and harmful perspectives. It's important to remember that criticism is a valuable tool for social progress , but it should never be used to undermine someone's worth or dignity... Not on purpose at least. Just as a masculine person doesn't hold inherent superiority over a feminine person, gender expression does not have determine an individual's value. When it does, its perception is sexist. Instead of focusing on perceived differences, let's strive to create a world where everyone feels comfortable and empowered to be their true selves , regardless of how they choose to express their masculinity or femininity. 4. Superiority/ Arrogance It's inaccurate to claim superiority based solely on individual characteristics, as that lies on inductive reasoning and not on deductive reasoning . Connecting values like strength, courage and wisdom to superiority creates harmful stereotypes. Being physically stronger, braver, richer, or wiser doesn't automatically make someone superior. These stereotypes, like all others, hinder our perception of diverse individuals and experiences. Being "better" than someone doesn't make you superior, even if the term is used synonymously. Even when I end my writings with "thanks to X for requesting my wisdom," it doesn't imply any sense of superiority. There's no comparison or implied hierarchy in that statement. Impression, stemmed from false subtext , isn't reality. Traits like being gay, feminine, obese, or physically weak are simply expressions of individual diversity, not indicators of inferiority. Superiority, in a biological sense, is about survival and adaptability, over others, not masculinity or femininity. A mere expression of hierarchy, either recognized or pretended. Stereotypes are distinct from the complex factors influencing individual lives and experiences, which we assign them to. Not being able to distinguish between the assigned stereotype and what something really is, is a problem in comprehension. Let's strive to move beyond limited definitions and embrace diverse perspectives, recognizing that individual worth is not based on stereotypical assumptions or arbitrary comparisons. If anything, the masculine person won't necessarily belittle others from being themselves, due to excuses such as an internal void, like boredom, like narcissism and so on. 5. Objectification Objectifying others, treating them as mere pawns in a game, like Heisenberg from "Breaking Bad" , is a dangerous form of superiority that disregards individual worth, and nurtures ignorance. This narrow-mindedness restricts a person's perspective and hinders their understanding of the world and its diversity. "True" or a more moral masculinity, a force of good and authenticity , is not about limiting one's horizons, but rather about letting people be themselves, without an immoral "need" to regard them as mere pawns. It is about developing one's skills and strengths to navigate the world and become a more capable and knowledgeable individual. What masculinity is there in the acceptance of our universal ignorance , in neglecting curiosity and refusing to learn about ourselves, others, and the world around us? As long as we remain ignorant of others as more than relating to ourselves, we will remain tempted to use them as chess tools, and little else if at all. Conclusion While not all aspects of masculinity are inherently negative, as the idea for positive masculinity exists, it's crucial to critically examine its various manifestations. Traits like resilience, strength, and endurance are certainly valuable, but they are not exclusive to masculinity and can be cultivated by all individuals regardless of their gender expression. Ultimately, a healthy and inclusive society requires moving beyond toxic/harmful expressions of whatever "masculinity" may universally mean, and embracing a wider spectrum of human experiences, emotions, behaviors and virtues. Judging individuals based on stereotypical assumptions or impulsive comparisons only serves to create division and hinder progress to a more moral, tolerating society. But whether we as societies are interested in such a progression, lies only within our resolve to actually promote such visions.

The Factors of Unhappiness And Their Solutions (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Background music) There may be those who claim that we are unable to find happiness from within. This statement is illogical, because we indeed have the potential to find happiness inside of us. I think a more reasonable question would be: “ Why can’t we usually find happiness within ourselves ”, because the assumption we find happiness not so frequently inside ourselves is more reasonable than implying it’s not possible at all. Now, it is indeed reasonable that there are “ special little moments ” which carry the potential to make us feel happy. It is indeed reasonable to claim that special but few situations can make us truly happy. This is an issue I believe I am capable of solving, after the fallacy I mentioned. Well, why can’t we really feel happiness all the time, or at least on a frequent basis, aside from excluded events? I can come up with a few assumptions. * We take things for granted : Imagine how fortunate the average person is! They may have a house or apartment of their own, money for food, water, electricity and so forth, and perhaps also a loving partner. Many of us possess so much things other people, whether today or in the past, would suffer much in order to achieve them, if at all. We are filled with fortune and benefits all the time, that we eventually start to get them taken for granted. Then, we ignore their important meanings and their positive affect on us, to the point we barely think about them. Whether we own a house, a car, have a partner or whatever else, we just don’t bother to consider anymore their importance, once we grow accustomed and acknowledge their existence. Thus, our daily lives, with all the good in it, becomes grey in the eyes of our perception, to the point only extreme changes can alter our constant feeling of an inner void. Do not let similarity breed contempt , or you will under-appreciate what you have in life. That includes your achievements. * We are unsatisfied with what we have . Even the rich and socially or politically powerful can fall to this edge. Like in that Depeche Mode song, Everything Counts : “Everything counts in large amounts”. Even with what we have whether by genetics, cause or effort, we still may feel worthless in this era of financial materialism . I like to compare it to a platformer video game: you step on a nice and beautiful platform in a middle of a level, but the game - the metaphor for our social lives - is built in a way that you need to immediately step to the next platform in order for you to eventually complete the level and move unto the next level. The “game” does not care if you like the scenery you are found in. You have a mission and you are in a state of survival until you finish this level, and even when this level is finished, another level begins, with the main satisfaction being the progress itself. A more “effective” “game”, in my opinion, would be a “game” that can teach you to enjoy what you already have, and eliminate the constant feeling that you are in a race against the clock or against other opponents. Try looking around you and not just on your computer or smartphone screen. Consider more what you earned and achieved, instead of just focusing on more and more progress. Try to create this balance between appreciating what you have and earned, and between what are left to gain. Do not let one overshadow the other, or you'll be biased. * We treat time like it’s something to be killed, not used . Even at the times where we are in leisure away from our commitments, we may become bored because there we learn, even in school, that we always need to do something no matter what. This perception on ourselves creates the assumption that free time needs to be “spent” if it was something like money and we are in a shopping mall. We go into our TVs, computers, smartphones and so forth, just to waste time. The thing is, that we learn to view the action of time-wasting/killing as the meaning or an expression of fun. We can all burn our times through various activities (mostly electronic nowadays) and see how fast our free days have went from morning to evening. We may forget the value of not doing anything, or not even be aware that doing nothing has its own value to begin with. I think this perception on time and fun is counterproductive because it can also make us feel worthless, meaningless or that we have “no lives”, as it is common to be said on the net ( Or a "klumnik "). This notion of free time as something to be “killed” instead of being used, can make us feel like we do not do anything meaningful in our personal lives, thus making us feel unhappy and unsatisfied with ourselves. That's because "killing time" means that we have extra time we don't know what to do with, even though we can find some way to utilize it for our wellbeing. Instead of wasting our time on entertainment, why wouldn’t we do things that give us meaning and a sense of purpose? This is why I decided to write so much, because it gives me a sense of purpose , and when I feel productive and efficient, I feel happy. You can thus take me as an example. Contributing to others is something that makes me happy, far more than killing time that can be used for just that. * Our perception of routine works against our desire to feel good and content . I believe this is the factor that is most direct and relevant to this issue. Who said we always need to change our routine in order to feel happy? Is routine always a bad thing, or at least, always a threat to our general sense of satisfaction? Is routine always something to be seen as grey and lacking in color? Do we always need to have something extra, something different, in order to feel content? Why? Because it is usually difficult to stay in the same monotony with all the temptations around? Even though this perception is common, I still do not understand how it can be beneficial in a world which is built on routine. Make your routine a healthy one and you might find out that you will be feeling happier than otherwise. No matter how much you'll diversify your days, you will still have to stick to a routine in order to be productive at what you're doing. Conclusion Thus, my conclusion is that our general lack of happiness, a common phenomenon in our era , is partially our fault. It's not that we have done something wrong or immoral, but our perception of life can be responsible for our general feeling and state of mind. The same goes for some of our activities in life, such as anything revolving killing time instead of doing useful things with it. We may also lack the mindfulness required to appreciate our achievements. If we are to adjust our perception to the current reality in a way that can benefit ourselves, then why not do so? The mission for anyone who seeks happiness as a supreme goal is to figure out how they, as individual beings, can do so with their own current set of perceptions. Remember, perception is a choice . And believe it or not, perception can, at least partially, change our mental state. It is not that the world is grey, but that we choose to view it as such, consciously or unconsciously. The effort of changing our perspective, even if it could be proven as difficult, is still an option worth considering. And to do that, we must handle such matters from within. Practice introspection , and understand what within us deserves to be changed.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (The Directory of Brad Michaels' Content: Plato's Republic Through The Lens of Morrowind (An RPG) -- A Guest Post By Mr. Bryan Michaels ( philosocom.com ) The Never-Ending Solitude -- A Story by Mr. Brad Michaels ( philosocom.com ) ) Table of Contents The Story itself. Story Analysis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. (Background music) ************* Part I: The Story Itself There was a man that lived by the sea. One day, when he was fishing, a mermaid came to him. She told him “I have a green peridot stone in my left hand and a sapphire in my right hand. If you choose the peridot, you will be granted wisdom. If you choose the sapphire, you will be granted companionship.” The fisherman thought about it for a while, and then decided to choose the sapphire. The mermaid granted him a wife. He was married to her in a happy ceremony. Family and friends came to their wedding. They were happy, but only for a time. Then, one day, the woman was crying. “Why don’t you understand me? We have nothing in common,” she was in tears. The fisherman was taken aback. He thought he provided everything his wife needed. He would catch fish, and sell them for everything they needed in their home. He bought her clothes, food, rugs and tapestries, a nice bed, other necessities, and anything she needed and most of the other things she asked for. What could he have been doing wrong? He thought about this issue for a while. After thinking about it for a couple weeks, he realized that he was not happy either. The marriage the man had made seemed empty. He did not know why this was, and he lacked the creative thinking skills to figure it out. He had done everything society had asked of him. He had settled down and made a nice life with his spouse. But then, he started thinking about choosing the peridot, the wisdom-attaining choice. He started to wonder about this, and wondered about what wisdom really was . What was it that really characterizes a wise person? He lacked a lot of context. Shortly after this, his marriage began to fall apart. He and his wife were always arguing. He was never spending money on the right thing. They had disagreements about how they spent their time. All of his special interests did not line up with hers. The man did not really have an anchor to which he could attach his special interests. He lacked the background to really have pursued anything beyond fishing and the occasional swim. He was lost in a complicated, multi-faceted world. He had dreamed of starting a merchant business, but he lacked the knowledge about how to do it. He thought he would be happy at home with his wife, as long as he had someone to spend time with. He had not thought about working on himself more, so that he would have something to offer a partner, and so that he would know what he really wanted in a partner. After the man had lost his wife, he found himself on the sandy shores again, swimming. He was very sad. He knew he had to take a different path in life. Which is the correct choice? Let’s say he chooses companionship. Where will this companion come from? Will it be a real companion, or will it be just the image of one? What is companionship that does not flow from wisdom? Is it real or is it a mirage? If the fisherman chooses companionship, can he expect to get real companionship, or is it nothing more than a fantasy? Meanwhile, if he chooses wisdom, he can use his wisdom to find a companion that fits to him. It is only by gaining wisdom and knowledge that we forge ourselves in the crucible of learning to become our highest self . If we were to find love or companionship without being educated or wise, how can we tell if these things are real or fake? The answer is that we can’t. We lack context and understanding if we do not inform and develop ourselves using the truths of reality. Without this development to anchor us, we don’t know what kinds of things we really find enjoyable. We need to know ourselves better . We are like lost out to sea. It is only upon building our knowledge and experience that we can find the things we really want out of life. Mr. Rubinshtein's Note In the story, the choice of companionship was dumb to begin with, because the fisherman was not given a selection of potential wives to choose from. Thus, his intended wife could've been anyone. It is like picking food in the dark and hoping to get a meal that will be the best for your taste buds. So, from the very beginning, the fisherman's best, long-term choice was to pick wisdom. Therefore, The Fisherman's Choice also teaches us the importance of denying instant gratifications in the name of long-term rewards, using the virtue of patience . How come? Simple: Wisdom improves our ability to plan ahead . Part II: Analysis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "The Fisherman's Choice" is a philosophical parable that explores the tension between two fundamental desires: Wisdom and romantic companionship. The fisherman, faced with a choice between a peridot stone (symbolizing wisdom) and a sapphire (symbolizing companionship), selects the latter, leading to an unsatisfactory marriage and a sense of emptiness. The story suggests that without wisdom, companionship alone cannot fulfill a deeper need for meaning and mutual understanding. The two stones, peridot and sapphire, serve as metaphors for distinct life paths. The sapphire symbolizes a desire for external fulfillment through relationships , while the peridot represents internal growth and self-discovery. The fisherman's choice leads to temporary happiness but ultimately results in dissatisfaction, as his inability to connect meaningfully with his wife stems from a lack of self-awareness and personal growth. This dynamic illustrates the idea that true companionship is not just about having someone to share life with, but about having a deeper understanding of oneself to know what kind of companionship is truly fulfilling. The story emphasizes the importance of self-knowledge and internal development as prerequisites for any external relationship. The narrative critiques the superficial pursuit of desires that are not grounded in wisdom or self-awareness. The fisherman's marriage falls apart not because he fails to provide materially or fulfill his societal role, but because he lacks the introspective capacity to understand himself or his partner. The story suggests that wisdom is necessary to discern between real and false forms of companionship. Without wisdom, the fisherman is like "food picked in the dark," lacking the clarity and understanding needed to make choices that truly align with his deeper needs and values. The moral underpinning of the story revolves around the idea of resisting instant gratification (the immediate reward of companionship) in favor of long-term fulfillment (the gradual reward of wisdom). Mr. Rubinshtein's note highlights that the fisherman's choice was flawed from the beginning because it lacked discernment; the promise of a "companion" was vague and undetermined. This randomness is compared to selecting food in the dark, implying that such a choice is driven by a hope for fulfillment rather than an informed decision. By choosing wisdom instead, the fisherman could have developed a better understanding of his desires , goals, and values, which would have enabled him to seek a meaningful relationship more effectively. The dual necessity of wisdom and companionship raises the question of whether wisdom and companionship are mutually exclusive. The story suggests that without understanding oneself, one cannot truly understand another or forge a meaningful connection. Therefore, wisdom enriches companionship by providing a foundation of self-knowledge and empathy. However, the story also seems to simplify the complexity of human relationships, as real-world relationships involve a dynamic interplay of personality , circumstances, and mutual growth, factors that are only partially within our control. In conclusion, "The Fisherman's Choice" is a thought-provoking story that encourages readers to reflect on their own choices, values, and the pursuit of fulfillment. It serves as a reminder that wisdom and self-understanding are essential foundations for any meaningful pursuit, be it companionship or any other life goal.

(Background music) How We Justify the Unjustifiable The Star Wars Stormtroopers , the Nazis, demons, and even robots – what do these seemingly entities have in common? They're all victims of the "dehumanization virus" , a potent injury of thought that allows us to distance ourselves from others, rendering them less than human, and thus, less deserving of our empathy and compassion . This virus, unfortunately, is not confined to the realms of fiction. It has tragically infected our real world, paving the way for atrocities like the Holocaust and countless other mass atrocities throughout history. The Holocaust stands as a grim reminder of the devastating consequences of dehumanization. By twisting Darwin's theory into a grotesque justification for their ideology, the Nazis stripped Jews and other minorities of their inherent humanity, portraying them as lesser beings, barely worthy of life itself. This insidious belief system fueled the flames of tempting hatred and discrimination, ultimately leading to the systematic, calculated murder of millions. The chilling similarities between fictional and real-world dehumanization are undeniable. Just as we witness Stormtroopers mowed down without a second thought, real people, deemed "undesirable" by twisted ideologies, have been subjected to unimaginable horrors. The disconnect between perpetrator and victim , created by the metaphorical dehumanization virus, allows the conscience to remain disturbingly silent in the face of brutality. And it is a virus when it is spread by societal norms, like a disease. When it becomes acceptable. Nevertheless it's important to remember that the virus is not invincible. We can fight it with the potency of empathy, understanding, and a unwavering commitment to recognizing the inherent humanity in every single individual, regardless of their background, beliefs, or any other perceived difference. By fostering a culture of inclusivity and respect , we can build a world where the dehumanization virus finds no fertile ground to flourish. We must never allow the dehumanization virus to take root, for the consequences are far too dire, as presented not only in atrocities such as WW2, but also in lesser known events, such as the Black War in Tasmania . By recognizing our shared humanity, we can collectively build a world where every life is valued and every individual treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. But as long as we would refuse learning from the past , we are likely to repeat it, again and again. When Fiction Blurs the Lines of Morality The thrill of victory in a video game , the cathartic release of watching an enemy meet their demise – these are normalized form entertainment, which condition us to see pain and suffering as normal. But beneath the surface of these seemingly harmless narratives lurks a potentially insidious phenomenon: the dehumanization of others. Whether they're faceless soldiers, monstrous demons, or even seemingly sentient robots, reducing beings to mere obstacles in our path can have disturbing implications for our real-world values. This, unfortunately, is not just a hypothetical concern. History is littered with examples of how dehumanization has paved the way for atrocities, from the horrors of the Holocaust fueled by Nazi ideology to countless acts of violence against marginalized groups. When you put killers on the screen and market them as heroes, you might inspire others to follow suit in real life, by the psychological affect of having them as role models for younger audiences. As such, propaganda organizations such as the Global Islamic Media Front may use video games such as the Quest for Bush to trigger anti-American sentiments amongst its content consumers. North Korea, being the propaganda powerhouse that it is, follows suit . And as such, the noble concept of heroism can easily be twisted in the name of social engineering , tailoring our mentality in accordance to the content we consume. Understand, we humans are at large bad at critical thinking, for we have many barriers in the way. Such barriers, like the reluctance to alter one's own views, is capable of stripping others of their personhood, thus creating environments where suffering becomes invisible, and lives, expendable. The Challenge to Prevail Evil The challenge, then, is to break free from this dehumanization trap. We must cultivate empathy and understanding, recognizing the shared humanity that binds us to all living beings, even those who may appear different or oppose us. This doesn't mean allowing acts of evil, such as kidnapping and extorting. For some deplorable acts, nevertheless, show the evil in humanity. By refusing to fall into the trap of dehumanization, we can build a more just and compassionate world, one where the value of life is recognized and respected, regardless of the labels we attach to it. Remember, even the faceless stormtroopers in Star Wars are humans, thus leading to a concept called " The Stormtrooper Paradox ". It's a powerful reminder that every life, every being, deserves to be seen, heard, and valued, never deserving to be deemed in the corners of global recognition. Let's strive to create a world where the thrill of virtual victories doesn't come at the cost of our moral compass, and where the lines between fiction and reality are never blurred by the insidious virus of dehumanization. Recognizing the Spectrum of Personhood The concept of "evil" is indeed a potent one, often leading to the dehumanization of those deemed irredeemably wicked. To dehumanize evil... isn't it evil by itself, when the people behind it, are humans? We tend to distance ourselves from their suffering, even justifying it as something they "deserve." To play the devil's advocate ( which is very important in critical thinking ) --- this is a dangerous path, for who gets to decide who falls under the label of "evil" and who deserves pain? History is rife with examples of such labels being misapplied, leading to tragic consequences. The Spanish Expulsion is such an example, where dehumanizing Jews can lead to the deaths of tens of thousands. Should we choose to dehumanize specific social categories and/or groups, we risk being evil ourselves, should we even normalize dehumanizing behavior. In order to not be malicious ourselves, we must learn to not do to others, what differnet have done to us. By avoiding the commitment of these same moral fallacies, we are able to transcend the cycle of suffering which evolved and dominated the past and has its roots in the present. Doing so, on a collective degree, has the potential for a more benevolent future. Some are unworthy of our forgiveness. But despite of the hardship included , some do deserve it. As such, it's important to avoid romanticizing or condoning heinous acts, no matter how heroic they are marketed by propaganda. Individuals like Hitler and Eichmann made conscious choices with horrific consequences, and accountability is crucial. Blindly claiming "following orders" doesn't negate personal responsibility , especially when those orders are demonstrably inhumane. Discover how to navigate the intricacies of humanity and personhood, learning how to avoid the pitfalls and embrace the best qualities of being human. As such, complete obedience should not be seen as heroic by itself, no matter how much it is endorsed by patriotic sentiments. The key lies in recognizing the spectrum of personhood, one that transcends labels and outward appearances. Perhaps, unless proven morally deplorable, people deserve our consideration and respect. Conclusions Ultimately, it's this constant questioning , this ongoing dialogue about personhood and suffering, that keeps us from dehumanizing others. Engaging with these complex issues, without resorting to easy labels or absolutes, is the path towards a more just and compassionate world , both on and off the digital screen. Let's strive to create a future where entertainment doesn't come at the cost of recognizing the inherent value in all forms of beings. For even the malicious psychopath deserves to be learned from. Learned, how not to be like them. How to be... better. Perhaps, that could be seen as the " tikkun olam " of evil in this world. Should you share my vision, please share this article for more readers, thank you.

Why Did It Had to Be Me, Who Saved Grandma? Why... (Philosocom's Subcategory on Master Numi) (Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Philosocom's Subcategory On the Past) Summary of by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is delivering to us his deep insightful intentions that did help him get over his burdens and challenges at an early age! He speaks of his grand mother that he loved and still loves beyond death! He is somehow touching and is also trying to let us get more aware of what we could do to improve this world, the same way as he tries to do it using his philosophy site to do just that! Rectify this world! Despite his personal problems, he had caught the wish of his grand mother and he made it his! Others could have just fall in depression or complete uselessness! His approach here is very personal and can touch us if we grasp his motives and his desires to help as many people as possible to do as he did... perhaps in a different way... and try to collaborate in the rectification of this world! If each of us does find a way of finding out what our existence purpose is, then, the many who knows can maybe be models for others! (2025 Note: For the sake of my sanity, I will not save more people than I already did. 7 is enough for me). (Background music) I was born a misunderstood genius, and live until this day, as one, not entirely being able to be understood by most people, to this very day, as I remain a rare enigma, even in plain sight. I do not experience the same reality as you do. My neurodivergent brain doesn't process reality the same way most brains process it. Negative. My brain is designed only for research and intellectual exploration. Studying under my late master, a mere child understood her well. Her profound loneliness, her profound mental detachment, which was as the same as mine. In 2007, realizing how she was misunderstood by most, and will always will, until her final breath, my late master sought her own demise. It was too difficult for her, to be so severely misunderstood.. all her life. I was there, saving her from herself, restoring back her desire to live, simply by being there. Simply, by being myself. My unique brain was deeply troubled by her distress until this very day. Her mental anguish did not compute well, given I was but a mere child. Trying to help her further, as to keep helping her believe in being alive, I began philosophizing and being an extensive researcher, while suffering from the cognitive dissonance of amnesia. Despite saving her once, I wanted to save her more. I wanted her to live, for as long as she can. Yet, under the the tyranny of amnesia, and of a world designated to teach me (and not vice versa), I only managed to extend my late master's life by 5 years, in my love and care for her. The compulsory education system prevented me from taking care of her. I will never forgive the education system, for taking my sweet, adorable grandmother, away from my loving arms... It is the responsibility of the state to make sure the elderly will not live in such misery, like she did. However, how can we expect most humans to not be corrupt? In 2011, my master ventured to a nearby mall, to consult with her doctor about her declining physical and mental health. The incompetent mall could not do a simple thing, like placing a defibrillator in its halls... As such, my late master draw her final breaths as an independently functioning human being. Ever since 2011, she was in a vegetative state. I, myself, has not seen her ever since our last meeting, 2 days before she collapsed in that cursed mall. I remember that final meeting... I remember we exchanged smiles, and had fun, me and her, by ourselves.. Seeing the peaceful smile of those I pick to be my dear ones... is the only thing that brings peace to my heart... I recall looking at her huge smile, as she bid me farewell with her waving hand, as I closed that door. It was the final time, I saw her. When she died, in the night of April 2012, I woke up intuitively. Obliviously, I accepted her death. I always accepted death obliviously, for death is a fact, and humans cannot be restored back to the living... In her funeral I only bothered to cry because I was told that I was her favorite family member. Why I cried, was because.. these feelings were mutual. For she was my first true love... I loved her unconditionally.. and in my heart... I still do. How.... how a child, saved her? Why.. why did it took a child to save her? Why did the hospital failed to recover her back? Why did the mall did not have the proper equipment, to prevent such distress? What... what is this utter injustice? Why... did I managed to do... what many could not...? Why....? Why? Why does the world cares not? Why, why only I cared? Why, why it was a mere 10 year old child, who did what a mall couldn't do? Who did what a hospital couldn't do? What her own FAMILY, couldn't do? Why? Why? Why?????? Why it is me, who has to be better... and stronger... than all of them... Than most of humanity... Why me? Why? How is this arrogance? It's just the facts... Why would I be proud? I am not proud! I am ASHAMED! ASHAMED FOR ME, A CHILD BACK THEN, BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THIS PLANET COULD NOT! I wish the average human would've been as good as me! I wish! I wish people were smarter... and heartful... and more moral... as I... But, it is beyond my control... so I let go of such... fantasies.. ..As understanding always has to come... from the other side... So... ever since then, I began my eternal quest of philosophy, to understand why this world is so silly, why is this world so absurd! To understand, why it takes a child to do what these institutions could not! To do what her doctors could not! To understand, what this world understood not! In my increasing rage, under the feeble attempts of the education system to engineer my brain, I only turned more and more aversive and hostile to most humans. I built myself on darkness. I built myself on antagonism. For humanity's growing incompetence... I slowly grew... more and more.. dead inside. Psychologists were ill-equipped to understand me. Schools were ill-equipped to understand me. My own dear ones were ill-equipped to do so. Incompetence, after incompetence. I raised myself. None rose me. I am solitary since the day I was born, for my origins are only understood, and are only elementary, to me. I am as mentally detached as Numi was. I am as solitary as she was. However, I am not as naive and helpless as she was, in her final years. It is my moral duty, to surpass all those I deem in my mind, my masters, just like... "Chen". ...I will never forgive this world for treating her the way it did! I will never forgive an incompetent world for not being able to do, what I did, in 2007! What I did! Was to make her seen! Was to make her understand, that she was not as solitary as she perceived herself to be! For I had the genius! To pierce the isolating mental barriers that kept my sweet grandmother so alone! So! Alone! Poor Numi... How the planet treated you... Ever since 2007, I observed in solitude, the growing incompetence and helplessness of this world. As a child, I already deduced many things that slowly begin to unfold today... The replacement of humans by an AI labor force.... The growing corruption of democracies, as they slowly turn into corrupt dictatorships... The growing alienation of humans, as they turn estranged and unfamiliar to each other... The growing rarity, of something as basic, as love. As mutual understanding, as empathy... The growing weaponization of nations, and the rise of many, many corporate paramilitaries... What do you think? I knew it all. I knew it all for I researched it extensively as a child and as a teenager. I came mentally prepared, 20 years ago, to what occurs today, and to what shall continue to be, the very same trends I deduced in my philosophical research. At the age of 27, I already wrote 9 non-published books, and manage a growing philosophy empire of articles. I have no desire to please those who see less reason to understand me.. I have collected perspectives and narratives of people across the planet, researching and renovating the pieces of many, many diverse individuals. I know more than most people. I am solitary and ascetic, accordingly to a world I already know what it is going to become... I avoid most people, because I see no reason to feel as lonely, misunderstood, and dehumanized, as my sweet grandmother felt. Don't you understand? Her distressful behavior is the very same reason I philosophize! I see less and less a reason to need an ego... I don't need much.... I just want to keep philosophizing until the day I die.... My troubled mind will always be troubled. It will only know rest in the mental company of those who can understand my troubled nature. My own troubled mentality, allows me to live despite the existential struggle, of a sweet grandmother, long gone from my arms... As I will just keep on going, building this empire for a world of health and wisdom.. For all of this art! All of my research! All of my articles! Are for one reason, and one reason only! Because I am trying to make sense, of the absurdity, called a 10 year old child, saving his own grandmother from her own distress! I am surrounded by cluelessness! I, however, dare to examine and to know! To examine and to know and to deviate for as long as I live! Most of this humanity is but a distraction to my growing understanding, which I honed in solitude... I spent most of my life in ruthless, ascetic training, for I understood early on, just how weak I was, within a world that fails to understand me.... Haha, even Numi failed to understand just how her distress traumatized me. I lived much of my life as a monk, not just as an ascetic, as I was busy guarding a bipolar parent under her request... My loyalty is to my grandmother, and will always be to my grandmother... the one... who understood me the most in her time... and vice versa. Be most of this world respect me at a great distance, and respect my wish to rectify it! This world is free to fight its own petty wars! The world is free to fight its own petty conflicts! Given my anguish was rarely seen.... It is... hard for me to care... beyond... beyond fulfilling her ultimate request: To rectify this very world, I struggle very much... caring about... in my growing... contemporary apathy... How? How can I forgive this world for taking away my sweet grandmother, away from my loving embrace? Why? Why would I want to partake in this world, beyond my extensive research? Why? Why would I want to care about a world, that cares for me not? No. I only publish my extensive research for free, because it's what Numi would've wanted. My heart's desire is her heart's desire... She has layered her plans before me... which she wanted me to carry out for her... Grandiose plans.... of restoring harmony to this planet... Grandiose plans... of leading humanity, in her name. Grandiose plans... of eternally improving this world, as her ultimate soldier. I am Master Tomasio Rubinshtein... and I am a master as my late grandmother before me, who has placed me to rectify this world in her name, and in her image... I cannot believe in solipsism. I am too aware of the very world I wish to tirelessly rectify in the image of a dead grandmother... I do not know "freedom", and never will, as long as I live. "Robot" comes from the Czech word, "Robota". Meaning, compulsory servitude, which I designate for global improvement. That is who I am. For most, work is for them to achieve their hopes and dreams. For most, work is a way to survive another day. And for me, work is to be done as long as I live, under some temporary breaks.... And by deduction... To work... is to die. This world will never be rectified fully, for its flaws are indefinite. It is my role, as Numi's ultimate soldier, to rectify this world, as much... and as long.. as I can. Nothing less, nothing more... Nothing else beyond temporary respites.. I am undead inside. The joys of this world, matter to me less, compared to the quest of bringing forth her many, many requests on me. For me, fun is absurd. That is my choice, and my loyalty is undying to my master. She picked ME to rectify this world. She didn't pick YOU! This is my..... sole... responsibility... And this empire, which I made in her image, will last as long as I live, by MINIMUM. AT MAXIMUM, MY EMPIRE WILL ENDURE FOR AT LEAST 100 YEARS! AND I WILL RESEARCH, AND I WILL EXAMINE, AND I WILL KEEP DOING WHAT I DO, WITH RELENTLESS ADVANCE! THAT! THAT SHALL MAKE MY MASTER SPIRIT'S PROUD OF THE ONE CHILD WHO BOTHERED CARING ABOUT HER, BEYOND THE VEIL OF PERSPECTIVE. ME, WHO SAW HER, BEYOND THE MENTAL PRISON THE WORLD HAS CONFINED HER TOO! IT IS MY JOB, TO HELP THIS WORLD BELIEVE IN ITSELF! JUST AS I MADE NUMI DID! IT IS MY JOB TO ADVOCATE FOR THE TRUTH! FOR VIRTUE! FOR MORALITY! FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT, TO MARCH, AND DEFEAT EVERY WEAKNESS! NOT FOR POWER! NOT FOR EVIL! BUT FOR GOOD! FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY, FOR THE GOOD THAT SHE HAS WANTED! I, HER ETERNAL SERVANT, REFUSE FAILING HER! GLORY TO PHILOSOCOM!

(Background music) 2023 Note: This article has been revamped and is targeted to philosophers/philosophy writers *************** Are you a people pleaser ? Do you aim to please as many people as possible, if not everyone who interacts with you and your work? In philosophy, pleasing others is irrelevant to the quest for insight, because insight does not change or compromise itself for the public's approval. Therefore, as philosophers, we are committed to two things in that regard: that people will love us, and that people will hate us. Either way, we cannot expect ourselves to pay much attention to external reception when our goal in life is to seek insight. When we do that, people will either approve or disapprove us for our efforts; Some may even treat us like dirt for doing this work. Compromising our work just to get a positive reception can definitely damage our quest for further insights, because the philosopher does not write to please, like many other types of content creators may do. No. The reception deserves to be lower in priority, unless it has something constructive to do with our own work. By " constructive " I refer to the ability of a criticism to improve upon our own work; refine the present material, and inform us of our mistakes and fallacies. Any other reception, especially lambasting , is not really relevant, is it? It logically isn't, no matter how abusive or violent it may appear to us philosophers (and content creators in general). Positive reception, even if not constructive, is far better in comparison, when we can utilize it to be in good spirits, and have faith in our work. In other words, we should tell others our conclusions regardless of whether they will like them or even begin to despise us. Of course, we need to make sure that these conclusions are logical. The problem with philosophy as a profession is that one will inevitably have to cause a certain degree of discontent to someone eventually. That's especially true when it comes to uncomfortable or controversial topics --- especially if they are relevant to contemporary society. Unlike prostitution or even running a coffee shop, the role of philosophy is not to please others, but simply to present them our logical reasoning, arguments, and conclusions about certain topics. The point of our work is to generate insights that can help this world, thus further proving the relevancy of philosophy as a field of study. And unlike the other professions I mentioned, the goal is not to get a "like", an "upvote" or whatever. The quality of a good philosophy piece is measured by its reasoning and by its relevance. The virtual engagements are simply there as a display of proof, nothing necessarily more than that. As such, the philosopher isn't necessarily an attention-seeking narcissist . The philosopher, at its most basic, is simply a recorder of their own findings in this niche. And like myself, he or she may use personal examples if desired, in order to increase interest, and make the readers relate more. A philosopher is simply the messenger of their own thinking, not a cashier at Starbucks or Walmart. Whoever thinks that a philosopher's writing should please them is far from right, because philosophers are not there to serve like a waiter, but simply to present what they believe to be true after contemplation. Therefore, as long as the reception does not try to limit the philosopher in their work, negative reception should be of little-to-no concern to the insight-seeker who shares their work to others. The truth is, nonetheless, not always pleasing. So, it would be counter-intuitive for the philosopher to hide the truths in their findings to the readers, if their purpose is to study the truth. It would be a paradox. I turned off the comments on Quora for a reason and even left the platform entirely; I had enough with the entitlement of some people who may or may not think I should write whatever they like to hear, as if I am there to tell them whatever they like. This niche is an exception to that rule, and it shouldn't be my problem if whatever conclusion I've reached displeases someone. Nonetheless, it is important to still write in a professional, calculated approach, even in this field. Writing in a civilized and polite manner can make your readership appreciate you more. You do not have to write in a demeaning, intentionally-arrogant way in order to deliver your findings. In fact, writing in a more mature and respectful manner can ease unnecessary, offensive reception inflicted by displeased readers. Remember: Humans are largely emotional beings. Some of these emotions are just unnecessary for a rational discourse. For that end you can do something very simple: "Bring the medicine before the injury", by reducing offensive and uncivil features in communication. Do so, and you can avoid a lot of unnecessary drama and suffering. Coincidentally, it is also the moral thing to do -- to reduce unnecessary suffering. A philosopher can be compared to a blanket. Even if it will only cover some of your body, it doesn't have to cover several people in order for it to be a good blanket. Even for a blanket, there is a limit to how many people it can keep warm in a cold night. If you're unsatisfied with one "blanket", use several of them. A good philosopher doesn't have to be the only one you're listening to. And on the same breath, the good philosopher is well aware that he or she cannot please everyone in the first place. As such, they will not aim for that. By not aiming for that, they are more prepared for displeasure from others. Logical, or otherwise. Do not "give power" to the severely irrational, who have no clue about their own logical fallacies. The pain they may wish to inflict on your mentality, can be avoidable using your own sense of internal reasoning. As a content creator in general, you have the power to influence the minds of your readers, but you can also influence their hearts. Taking that into consideration means that you have power that you might not even be aware of, as a communicator. Still, do not fall into the illusion that influence is direct control. No. Influence is far more subtle. Those who are more refined in subtlety, are also good at charming others. And as an experienced writer, I seem to have that affect on people. Perhaps I did to some of you? Eventually, it can come naturally, like a well-developed, metaphorical muscle. The people-pleaser is not the same as the charmer , necessarily. The charmer is more assertive, and is charismatic enough to gain the respect of other people, using the combination of assertiveness, politeness and respect. In comparison, the people-pleaser may lack the self-confidence and the self-respect to gain the respect of others. Unfortunately, both of these voids can have them manipulated by abusers, such as the mentioned narcissists and other people of more-evil nature. There is no way to fully estimate whether or not one is logical enough on social media beyond mere statistics of approval. That is, unless a deeper connection is to be forged between the creator and the content-consumer. Anything else can, unfortunately, be nothing more than a product of stereotypical thinking. And as we know, stereotypical thinking is very fallacious, when it comes to the understanding of the reality outside our heads. Although impressive, these statistics are nothing but an indication of the "Ad Populum" fallacy -- the fact that many agree and support you doesn't make you correct by default. Thus, a philosopher will not place approval as a high priority; that position is for insight and insight primarily. And of course, a good philosopher will not necessarily be controversial and hated on purpose. It is a very poor rhetoric method, if we can even call it one. Why would people want to read someone who feeds on the hatred of others? If anything, a good rhetoric like a tyrant may arouse hatred towards people or groups other than themselves. And a good philosopher is also good in rhetoric . Whatever the result is, AKA the "product,", the "content" is as legitimate to receive approval as it is to be disapproved. Do not cancel constructive criticism, whether done offensively or not, just because of your personal sentiments. We should not hide the fact that philosophizing is a work like any other, whether it is at university or when writing articles such as this. A good philosopher, therefore, should also put the limit of how much hate they are willing to receive due to their work, legitimate as illegitimate. After all, we do not invest our time and energy just to be harassed. The people-pleaser on the other hand, may prioritize pleasing those who harm him mentally or otherwise. It isn't very rational, when we can have the confidence to set boundaries. In conclusion, don't expect yourselves to agree and enjoy each product you're consuming. You are not drinking a latte at Starbucks. You're reading something that can trigger you as well as make you feel anything else possible. The philosophy-reader is here to learn. The philosopher is there to dispense products for study. The philosopher isn't a therapist , and is not necessarily responsible for your emotions as you might think they are. Whether these emotions are problematic or legitimate is a very subjective matter, and as such, up to a lot of indefinite speculation. As long as a writer/speaker's words are legitimate, in a sense that they do not incite or call for acts of terrorism, the "coffee" they serve to you is good even if it's not of good taste to you. EDIT : There are some relevant articles in this subject that I'd like to refer you to: Why I'm Against Trigger Warnings Solomon Maimon and the Villainy of Philosophy A Writer's Voice (Poem)

(The Undead Metaphor's Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-new-type-of-undead-and-my-background-story ) (Background music) "To be a philosopher is to have already died and become immortal . Now you are the walking dead. A zombie. Everyone thinks you are alive, though a little strange. But the truth is that long ago you died and became immortal." -- J.S., 2017 These were the words of a certain reader I once discussed with, many years ago. To this day, I ponder upon that comment. Over and over again. It was then that I gave myself the title: "The Undead Philosopher." A being that is neither below nor above human. A being apart from humanity, even when in the company of others. The Transformation into the Undead Philosopher Because when the world enjoys, I remain anhedonic. I remain so because I no longer see the point in much emoting. To me, philosophizing is greater than any fleeting pleasure . Greater, to the point that I lost some of my humanity. I became a shell of the man I once was. Any other interest has been minimized in comparison, and it does not necessarily give me pleasure—it gives me reason. And reason, I share with you. I have merely masked much emotion throughout these years. In practice, philosophy made me dead inside. Because " for anyone who has never experienced it, feeling dead inside can be hard to imagine . And those who have struggled with it might not always have the right words to explain the confusion, sadness, and numbness that comes with this feeling. " It is time for some analysis. An analysis that can be deemed my ritual to becoming the Undead Philosopher, once more. Use this piece to understand how reality is seen from the lens of a seasoned philosopher . An earlier work of mine on the subject will be added below. So, enjoy. The Metaphor of the Immortal Philosopher Obviously, philosophers are mortal beings. The words of that anonymous shaman from Nepal are metaphorical. Beyond being recorded in history like anyone else, there is no difference between the words of a philosopher and the words of someone else whose records last for hundreds of years. And even then, this is not immortality. Far from it, literally. Constantly philosophizing can make you see the world differently. The feeling of alienation can be compared to that of a hypothetical immortal through the eras of civilization. Regardless of the generations that have grown and passed, their insights are already clear to the immortal, as clear as the bright sky. To the philosopher, much of what society holds as novel, as revolutionary , may feel redundant. Because history, when truly studied, repeats itself in various forms. This is the weight of awareness. This is the burden of wisdom. The Isolation of Philosophical Thought I often find myself accepting insights very quickly. I may use terms like "of course" and "obviously," and yet, none will necessarily get it. This is not bragging. It is an example of alienation. An alienation caused by being away from the human element. By thinking in a more robotic and automatic way... To those who tell me that I am human, I need no reminder. I am merely away from the human essence in the name of my craft. What does that mean? It means that philosophy may often fail to touch the human element , and thus, the philosopher may remain within their own solitude. Within the walls of their own intellect. Thus, there is quite the sacrifice of humanity when philosophizing regularly. Whether that is a good or a bad thing remains a matter of choice. (By "humanity," I refer to the common human experience. One that isn't overshadowed by one's own philosophical alienation. I also refer to the human race and to the very components that make us "human," at least stereotypically, and are imperative for said common experience.) The Spiritual Counterpoint Some may claim that there are points within us that connect to an infinite dimension of light . A dimension that can never be accessible through mere rationality and senses. Instead, it is gained through spiritual practices such as meditation . That claim, therefore, offers the notion that philosophizing is pointless when done on rationality alone. When it lacks emotion, intuition , and so on. Because it lacks the humanity granted by a hypothetical divinity , in whose image we are made. A rational person might regard such a counterpoint as pure nonsense that remains baseless and illogical. That is also my inclination, but as a rational man , I strive to understand such notions, not discard them. What if they contain some truth? What if they are onto something, even if only metaphorically? So, don't be surprised if I return to it in the future. Moving on. The Death Within Philosophizing There is some death in philosophizing, as mentioned before. A death that is not as literal as a natural death or a killing. It is the death of certain aspects of one's humanity especially those aspects tied to the instinctual and emotional dimensions of life. A philosopher is someone who is both elevated and cursed by their knowledge. The joy of ice cream, the beauty of a flower, these are not lost, but their significance is diminished in the face of grander questions. A philosopher's eyes, trained to scrutinize existence itself, may become too weary to focus on life's small pleasures. What is joy, but a chemical reaction? What is beauty, but a matter of perspective? These thoughts haunt the philosopher , and in doing so, steal away some of their innocence. The Sacrifice of Humanity in the Name of Reason To expand on the metaphor of the undead philosopher, one must acknowledge the implications of stepping beyond the commonly accepted emotional and experiential framework of society. The philosopher, in their intellectual rigor, divorces themselves from many of the instinctual joys that define the human experience. It is not merely a rejection of pleasure but an elevation of rational thought over primal inclination. This detachment, much like the fictional undead , creates a schism between the philosopher and the world they analyze. The more one delves into philosophical analysis, the less one is able to partake in the distractions of contemporary life. This can manifest in an inability to engage in frivolous conversations, an impatience for small talk , and a disinterest in activities that do not further one’s intellectual pursuits. Yet, this sacrifice, voluntary or not, is what grants the philosopher their wisdom. The Undead Philosopher’s Burden The burden of the undead philosopher is twofold: isolation and perpetual contemplation. Unlike those who move through life embracing distractions, the philosopher stands apart, always questioning, always searching. And with this eternal search comes a price: the difficulty in forming deep, lasting connections with others who do not share this worldview. Even among peers, there is often a sense of being different, of thinking too deeply when others are content with shallower waters. This is why the undead philosopher walks alone. This is why the undead philosopher exists in a world that often fails to understand them... But perhaps, just perhaps, that is the price of insight. And perhaps, just perhaps, that is a price worth paying. Conclusion To philosophize is to take a step beyond conventional existence , to question that which others accept without thought. Yet, with this power of inquiry comes a loss of innocence, of commonality, of simple joys. The undead philosopher is neither fully human nor fully beyond humanity, trapped in an eternal cycle of analysis and reflection. Whether this is a curse or a gift remains a matter of perception, but one thing is certain: once you have embraced this path, there is no turning back. And so, the undead philosopher continues to walk, neither fully here nor entirely gone, bound to the pursuit of truth for all eternity.

(Background music) Summary by Anonymous The article delves into the philosophical depth of three songs. "The Ship's Going Down" by Voltaire explores the dangers of conformity and the importance of individual thought. It highlights the power of groupthink and its corrupt potential for disastrous consequences. "Melancholy My Love" by Hemi Rodner explores the concept of finding solace in solitude and the power of emotional connection. It demonstrates the depth of human emotion and the ability to form meaningful relationships with intangible, abstract concepts. "The Imperial March" by John Williams, often associated with evil, is reinterpreted here as a lament for a tragic fall, highlighting the destructive power of misplaced negative emotions . It also raises questions about the nature of power and the potential for democratic systems to devolve into tyranny. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and avoiding superficial judgments. It encourages readers to seek deeper meaning in everything and to use those insights to live more fulfilling lives. Introduction Welcome to another article. This one is going to be different from what I usually provide here on Philosocom, mainly because exhaustion has hit me again, intensively this time. I have spent much of my life executing my late master's wishes, you see... However, I did come up with an idea for an article you might find enriching to both your musical knowledge and to your contemplations. This will be a list of music I like that I also find philosophical, that I'd like to share with you. I hope you will enjoy this list, both musically and intellectually. Hereby are 3 songs we could learn from on the wider scale of things: 1. The Ship's Going Down - Voltaire Death is largely undesirable, even to those who had enough with life. This is why acts such as self-sacrifice were but attempts -- they ended in failure because the attempters might've been to afraid to die. Death, usually, means two things: life-taking pain and the unknown whom we might permanently find ourselves in. Nonetheless, death is often romanticized in ways we might be too afraid to genuinely admit: the deaths of national heroes, heartbroken men and women who find the pain of heartbreak too overwhelming to endure, and life-long sentences of convicts who may never see the light of day. With the samurai, such acts might even be regarded as the moral thing to commit. In his song, modern-day Voltaire celebrates death in a story about a ship with a huge hole that is inevitably doomed. Instead of struggling for life, all of the crew, including the singer, accept their fate and drowns themselves in collective acceptance. It is romanticized as a deep form of brotherhood, amplifying the value of friendship. In the final verse, the only crew member who tries to save himself by swimming to a raft is knocked unconscious by the other crewmen, who are all eager to die together. His attempt of swimming away can be seen as an act of treason. Of course, treason/betrayal is considered largely immoral by many. This shows us something important about conformity: that this value, especially under the framework of ethics, can often glorify an idea many would find awful and even twisted . As sheep to the slaughterhouse, conformity can lead individuals to devastating consequences, whether or not the end result is ultimately worth it. Therefore, Voltaire's song highlights the twisted glory of the herd mentality , or of being only a cog in a bigger machine. If you consciously conform, remember that following an idea can often be counterproductive to your own survival. Consider whether your sacrifice is truly worth it, because it could be a waste of time and an avoidable misfortune. 2. Melancholy My Love - Hemi Rodner (In Hebrew) This is a crucial song in these times of physical and, often, social isolation, which in turns leads to problems like skin deprivation. For non-Hebrew speakers, it is a song that tells a story that takes place over a day. The lonely man , serving as the protagonist finds himself agonizing over his inability to attract good-looking women for love, intimacy, and marriage. That is while, his only true company is his deep, intense emotion of melancholy. This emotion is so dominant, the lonely man describes it as his only "love," "wife," even. Failing to even interact with the women of the external world, he leaves for his home; his melancholy being his wife, sadness his atmosphere, and sweetness his blanket. We can manage and even thrive within a life of relative or even major solitude, even within the company of other objects, other so-called "entities" that we interact with. Even if they are not other people, AKA, "actual" company. As demonstrated by Rodner's song, we can form relationships not only with people but also with concepts... I have no Friends; I make my Mind my Friend. -- Anonymous Samurai, 14th century. Those who claim that a solitary life is one of great void might not realize they can be far from the truth. Whether a positive or negative experience , this feelings of alienation can still be felt as if it is the company of any person you interact with. Sometimes, remembering a lost one, or fostering a relationship with obscure emotions , can ironically feel less alienating. And finally, 3. The Imperial March - John Williams Next to the "Happy Birthday" song, John Williams' Imperial March is likely one of the most recognizable songs on Earth. It is commonly used to describe the concept of evil , a critique of an over-militarized regime, or mockery of the nerdy who may resonate with niche topics like Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. However, less is taken into account the possibility that this is first and foremost a tragic song, lamenting the metaphorical death of Anakin Skywalker, and his descent to "the Dark Side," a state of being that is fueled by hatred, rage, passion, grief, and vengeance. It is a state that also consumes the entity's life force like a vampire, and often leaves a permanent effect like the Mark of Cane. More on it I have covered on the Sith Philosophy article. This is not about being "edgy." In fact, by focusing on the cringey, edgy aspect of media, we can easily reject a piece's philosophical depth, turning such labels into a straw man's fallacy. Rather, the "Imperial March" is very similar to Chopin's funeral march. It can be seen as the funeral of Anakin's life before the descent into moral greyness and constant suffering, per the result of his wife's death, Padme. In Darth Vader's case, his submissive subordination to Emperor Palpatine, also marks a symbolism of mourning in the Imperial March, which is supposed to also represent the Galactic Empire itself, falling from the grace of the Galactic Republic before Palpatine took over. The Imperial March can also be seen philosophically, as to why Socrates was right about his critique of Democracy, given that Palpatine manipulated the entire galaxy when he led the Republic as a supreme demagogue... Tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy -- Socrates Therefore, before you consider something or someone to be evil by default, like Darth Vader and his well-known theme song, consider giving them the benefit of the doubt. You might ignore the fact that it symbolizes the lamented downfall of the galaxy to total domination. This fall led to the revolutionary potential of rebels, and thus to a galaxy civil war, leading to the deaths of plenty. And that's the problem of casually dismissing things that otherwise could teach us a lot. We should not succumb to superficiality, otherwise we would remain more ignorant than otherwise, preventing us from living more virtuously and seeing the wonder of reality. Words of Departure Thank you very much for taking the time to read this article, and I hope it has contributed to you in some way or another. At least remember the following: theoretically, everything can contain Extracted Wisdom, as long as we contemplate enough about it. Even an odd mishap with a taxi driver can foster much wisdom, after all.