The world today is a very purpose-less place to live and act in. We may interact with our families, commit to our jobs and do whatever we like to do in our free time. We do all of this with little to no concern about the meaning of it all: the routine, the activities we dedicate large portions of our lives to, and so forth. This can lead to the irony of feeling inner emptiness despite all the material prosperity most of us live in and consume on a regular basis. Many of us, for instance, go to work knowing how things need to be done, but not why they should be done, usually not far beyond the fact of generating revenue required to pay our bills. Because the topic of purpose is largely absent in our daily lives, and we don't learn enough about its importance in school, we are left with three options, one of which is absolute and unfortunate. We can either find an external framework to provide us with the purpose we lack yet seek, create our own purpose in life through self-knowledge and contemplation, or take away one's life. Unfortunately, most people either choose to end it all or, at least, find the purpose they so crave in a community different than theirs, such as religions, cults, friends , and spouses . I believe that the best way to find purpose in life is to create our own . This can be done through self-knowledge and contemplation, and by asking ourselves the big questions about life, the universe, and everything. It can also be done by trying new things, exploring different interests, and meeting new people. When we find something that we are passionate about, it gives us a sense of purpose and meaning in life. If you are struggling to find purpose in your life, I encourage you to explore your options. There are many different ways to find purpose, and it is up to you to find what works best for you. The problem with the third option, AKA self-sacrifice, is that it doesn't solve anything in life itself. It only ends life, not the problem which bothers one's within the living. Shooting yourself while doing a test, for example, will not get you an A+ on said test. It is the ultimate form of escapism that solves nothing but one's suffering, and at the same time causes avoidable grief to those who are dear to the self-victim. Therefore, this solution should not be considered as the wisest, most productive solution to the problem of internal void in one's life. The first option, of external purpose-seeking, mostly done through socializing with others, can be all well and good when the chosen framework is not harmful or dangerous in any way to the purpose-seeker. Religions and sects/cults, while can bring much happiness to one's life, some of them could bring more harm than good eventually, especially when the group at hand is either small or secretive, which then could be considered a cult , and be considered as such, when it's too late. Hence why whenever you're looking for an external purpose-giving, you could put your life at risk without even knowing it at the time, as did many of Jim Jones' followers when they initially joined him; no one expected to end up in a collective self-sacrifice in a remote South American country. Therefore, putting aside the issue of whether that framework's ideology is true or false, becoming a part of something greater than you can be beneficial to both you and others or harmful, depending on that framework's set of actions and its possible fate. Additionally, you should take into account that some of these frameworks may try to limit you in the name of their faith/goals. Thus, by choosing an external leader, not only you can put yourself at risk (unless there is practically no risk at all specifically), but also limit your own individual freedoms in the name of being a part of the herd mentality . The final way to attain purpose is harder than the convenient way of letting others feed it to you; attaining purpose mostly or purely by yourself is something that requires persistence, mental resilience, and most importantly, the ability to be alone for long periods of time . You might have been taught by socialization that doing nothing and just thinking is either unproductive or a waste of time, but the thing is, if you do not dedicate enough time to be, so to speak, your own "acquaintance", and get to know yourself better like any other person, attaining purpose in this world will not be an easy quest. It's safe to assume that most of those who do not dedicate this time to be by themselves, with minimal stimulation as possible, waste away their years, wandering across the world, searching for something that can be found within? What is that something, you may ask? That something is simply yourself, beyond the frames of the External World . the self as something that exists as itself, and not as a relation to something else, to dictate it; the self that is distinguishable as a single entity. With that closely-pure self, you can eventually know better in this world, what does fit you best, and what is best avoided, without necessarily having to experience it. Once the self is attained through meeting it in private and listening to it , life can become clearer, more understandable, in relation to yourself, without the former relations hindering you from doing so. For a large portion of my life, I had no idea I was going to be a philosopher. It was only by coincidence that I ever encountered the term "philosophy," when I was asked in elementary school the question, "What is philosophy?" I always liked to be by myself and just think about things, but I never had a word for it beyond "being alone." It was only much later in life that I realized, through solitude, that perhaps philosophizing is the way for me in life , and perhaps if I wasn't alone enough, thinking about my place in the world, I would not be a philosopher today. This is just a personal example of how the art of solitude has helped me become a more purpose-driven man, who for much of his life felt empty in meaning, despite the material prosperity I was in. Perhaps my example can help you, too, understand the importance of being alone as an opportunity to get to know yourself better, and to reach a conclusion regarding your purpose in life. As I wrote before, one should remember that purpose doesn't have to be absolute, meaning that it doesn't have to exist for the entirety of one's life. It's perfectly fine to find multiple meanings, which sometimes even exist within one another. Remember that life is a drawing board and you are the artist, and when other artists try to paint beyond their territories, push them back and fight for your freedom to choose , your freedom to discover, and your freedom to create.

The Unparalleled Influence of Philosophers (By Nr. MJK Molai) (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 on Power) (Background music) ******************** The Power of a Philosopher The power of a philosopher lies in their ability to understand and analyze complex concepts, ask fundamental questions about existence, and offer insightful perspectives on life and human nature. Philosophers possess a unique skill set that enables them to critically examine various aspects of reality, morality, and knowledge. Their wisdom and understanding can be profoundly influential in guiding and motivating people from all walks of life. Communication Firstly, philosophers have the capacity to distill complex ideas into accessible language, making profound concepts understandable to a broader audience. Their ability to communicate effectively allows them to share insights and philosophical ideas with people from different backgrounds and levels of education. By bridging the gap between abstract theories and practical applications, philosophers can inspire and motivate individuals in their personal and professional lives. Ethics and Morality Secondly, philosophers often explore topics related to ethics, morality, and values, which can significantly impact individuals' decision-making processes. By presenting ethical frameworks and moral reasoning, philosophers can guide people in making more informed and responsible choices, both at the individual and societal levels. Such guidance can contribute to a more compassionate and just world. (Here is but one example of an ethical article on Philosocom) Critical Thinking Moreover, philosophers' emphasis on critical thinking and rational inquiry can empower individuals to develop their analytical skills and question preconceived notions. Through philosophical discussions, people learn to challenge assumptions, seek evidence, and evaluate arguments. This process of intellectual growth can foster independent thought and self-motivated learning, ultimately empowering individuals to become better problem solvers and decision-makers. (Here is but an example of a critique on Philosocom) Happiness and Purpose Additionally, philosophers often explore topics related to happiness, purpose, and the human condition. By delving into existential questions, they offer insights that can resonate deeply with people, leading them to contemplate the meaning and direction of their lives. This introspection can be a powerful motivator for personal growth and transformation, as individuals strive to live more fulfilling and purpose-driven lives. The Limitations of Philosophy However, while philosophers can inspire and guide people from various fields and backgrounds, not everyone possesses the same level of knowledge, wisdom, and expertise to guide or motivate a philosopher. Philosophers dedicate their lives to studying and contemplating complex ideas, honing their skills of critical thinking and philosophical reasoning. In contrast, individuals from other fields may excel in their respective domains, but they might not possess the same depth of understanding in philosophy. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: There could be limitations in philosophy that could apply to the philosophers themselves as people ) The Importance of Interdisciplinary Collaboration Furthermore, the hierarchical nature of expertise and knowledge plays a role in this phenomenon. Philosophers, like experts in other fields, undergo rigorous academic training and specialization, acquiring deep knowledge and understanding within their discipline. While other field-level individuals can offer valuable insights and expertise within their domain, they may not possess the same level of depth or comprehensive understanding of philosophy. Conclusion In conclusion, philosophers hold a unique and powerful position in society, as their ability to guide, motivate, and inspire people from all walks of life is unparalleled. Through effective communication, exploration of ethics and morality, and emphasis on critical thinking, philosophers can profoundly impact individuals and society as a whole. However, due to the specialized nature of philosophical knowledge and expertise, not everyone possesses the same capacity to guide or motivate a philosopher. This asymmetry in knowledge highlights the significance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the mutual benefits of learning from diverse perspectives. Ultimately, philosophers and individuals from other fields can complement each other, fostering a more informed, enlightened, and compassionate global community (Example of such attempts on Philosocom) .

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (Philosocom Mr. Igal Sh.'s Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Culture) (Philosocom's Directory on Technology) ( Cyberpunk definition : a science-fiction subgenre characterized by countercultural antiheroes trapped in a dehumanized, high-tech future. Derived the term from the words cybernetics , the science of replacing human functions with computerized ones, and punk , the cacophonous music and nihilistic sensibility that developed in the youth culture during the 1970s and ’80s.). Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "The Philosophy of Cyberpunk: What We Can Learn From The Sci-Fi Subgenre" by Mr. Igal Shenderey explores the philosophy of cyberpunk through a philosophical lens. It connects theoretical concepts to practical examples, providing readers with a deeper understanding of the genre and its implications for contemporary society. The author uses the "The Last of Us" and "Cyberpunk 2077" franchises to illustrate how simulation, pastiche , and remediation are employed in media production. The differentiation between interactivity loss in "The Last of Us" and the complementary nature of the transition in "Cyberpunk 2077" is insightful, emphasizing how different media adaptations can affect consumer experience differently. The article also discusses the Cyberpunk 2077 animated series (Edgerunners) , which delves into themes of power, identity, and the ethical implications of technology. The detailed analysis of these themes reflects a deep understanding of the cyberpunk genre and its relevance . The article highlights broader themes such as the clash between technology and humanity , the pursuit of a perfect future, and the power dynamics surrounding information control. The writing style and accessibility of the article make complex philosophical ideas accessible to a broad audience, with examples from popular franchises grounding theoretical discussions in familiar contexts. The conclusion ties the discussion back to the importance of critical engagement with technology, emphasizing the need for skepticism and critical thinking when it comes to technological adoption. In conclusion, the article is a well-rounded exploration of the cyberpunk genre through a philosophical lens, connecting theoretical concepts to practical examples and offering readers both entertainment and intellectual stimulation.   ***************************************** Introduction: How Modern Media Culture Works Modern media culture is a complex mechanism that delivers messages through the production and subsequent consumption of media products by humans. Following Jean Baudrillard , Douglas Kellner positions media culture as a spectacle for pleasure. In the digital space, media culture includes various mediums such as video games, movies, music, and others. Since postmodernism is an integral part of contemporary capitalism, media culture production for profit involves (re)inventing various media texts. Using philosophical vocabulary, through the examples of the franchises " The Last of Us " and "Cyberpunk 2077", one can see how the production of such media products occurs. Simulation, pastiche , and remediation become tools for the production of modern media texts, referring back to what has already been produced. The article provides an analysis of video games as a simulative space within the framework of the philosophical categories of Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, and Gilles Deleuze . The author also analyzes the genres of the franchises using the pastiche terminology proposed by Fredric Jameson and the concept of remediation developed by David Bolter and Richard Grusin . In the "The Last of Us" franchise, the transition from the video game medium to the cinema medium is an actively used method of copying the media text. With such copying, there is a loss of interactivity with the media text, which may negatively affect the consumer's impression. Case example: Cyberpunk 2077 Animated Series (Edgerunners) In the "Cyberpunk 2077" franchise, such a transition not only does not worsen the consumer's interaction with the media text but complements it, connecting the stories of the two mediums together. It is concluded that the analyzed franchises, having a similar production base , differ in terms of creativity, demonstrating possible ways of reinventing media culture products. The Cyberpunk 2077 animated series is a visually stunning journey into the neon-lit streets of Night City, where characters grapple with the ethics of technology  and the consequences of their actions . Through gripping storytelling and stunning animation, it explores themes of power, identity, and the impact of technology on society . The series serves as a reflection of our own world, prompting viewers to question the role of technology in shaping our future. In the world of speculative fiction , cyberpunk takes us into a future where technology and humanity collide. It's not just about cool gadgets; it's about big ideas. Cyberpunk stories often warn us about what happens when technology runs wild and big companies rule everything. However, they also show us how people can fight back against injustice and oppression . A big theme in cyberpunk is how technology changes who we are . Characters might get implants or other enhancements, blurring the line between human and machine . This makes us wonder: What does it mean to be human in a world where we can change ourselves so easily?  Cyberpunk also warns us about the dangers of chasing a perfect future without thinking about the consequences. Even in digital worlds that seem perfect, there's often corruption and problems hiding underneath .  In cyberpunk, information is power. Characters fight to control information, showing us how important knowledge is in shaping our world and our freedom. Now, with the Cyberpunk 2077 animated series, we get to dive even deeper into these themes. Through stunning animation and gripping storytelling, we're transported into the neon-lit streets of Night City , where the struggle for power and identity takes center stage. The series gives us a chance to see these philosophical questions come to life in a whole new way. We get to witness characters grappling with the ethics of technology and the consequences of their actions in a visually stunning world. The relevance of Cyberpunk 2077 goes beyond entertainment. It serves as a mirror reflecting the complexities of our own society and the challenges we face in an increasingly digital age . As we immerse ourselves in the world of Cyberpunk 2077, we're reminded of the importance of questioning the impact of technology on our lives and the responsibility we have to shape our future with wisdom and foresight. As we explore the world of Cyberpunk 2077 and (cyberpunk fiction in general), let's use it as a chance to grow and understand the world better. In the darkness of these stories, there's a chance for us to find light and wisdom, if we're brave enough to look. ( Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's note: It should always be important to inspect the pros and cons of any technology before we choose to embrace it, due to the novelty fallacy , which is also present in the falsehood of trends . When we are enticed by technology, we either actively or unconsciously bias ourselves in its favor, while ignoring its darker parts. It is crucial that we teach ourselves to understand the consequences of each technological feature before and not after we implement it in our lives. It would be a grave mistake to embrace a technology just to please our friends and family or just to be accepted by others. We must learn to be brave enough to criticize anything new at the price of being regarded as controversial or anything else involving the ad-hominem fallacy. That is the only way to contribute to the reduction of bias without the unnecessary addition of force and violence, otherwise presented in methods such as eco-terrorism. It is better to be a critic than to be pleaded guilty as a terrorist. )

How Philosophy is a Form of Research Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc The pursuit of philosophical truth demands unwavering will, unwavering patience, and a dedicated space for reflection. This essay underscores the importance of both internal and external wisdom. Engaging with the thoughts of others requires a commitment to deep reading and critical thinking. Mr. Rubinshtein's writings are particularly adept at provoking introspection, urging readers to confront their own assumptions and delve deeper into the complexities of existence. (Background music) Introduction Sources are the original place or piece of information that one builds upon when creating any type of content. As part of the Philosocom Renovation Operation, a process made to improve the site's content, I also added external sources to some of my articles. Internal sources, on the other hand, are pieces of information within Philosocom. That's the virtual infrastructure of information in the online realm. Sources are very important because they provide credibility to what you are talking about. When adding a source, and one that is trustworthy , it can improve the reputation of your content and of yourself as a writer. Some may claim that using YouTube as a source is problematic because the videos might not have sources themselves, and indeed, being able to distinguish between reality and illusion is extremely difficult. And for that, you need philosophy in the first place! Part I: Philosophy and Information Research Now, let me say something some of you might find controversial.... Information research is not always sufficient, especially in philosophy. The reason is because philosophy is itself a method of research. It's a method of using logic and reason, in an attempt to answer fundamental questions about existence , knowledge, morality, and all things existential or deep. The goal of philosophical research is to gain a better understanding of reality. Meta-Philosophy -- What Constitutes a Competent Philosophy A good philosopher is one that provides good insights on existence, and not necessarily one that uses external sources constantly. The source of a philosopher's wisdom stems from virtue. Virtue is what makes the philosopher highly competent at fostering a questioning, critical mind. Unexpected, I know, but using your heart's desire to understand reality, you might find insights that resonate with people around you. And, the more you use virtue such as persistence and hope, the more you can understand without spending time doing conventional research. Using external sources like books can indeed be beneficial, even if not necessary. When researching, you can save much time, instead of killing it, by listening to yourself, and not to techniques parted to you by others. When you listen to yourself more, you might find yourself developing many unconventional techniques, unlocking knowledge that others might not even be aware that exists. Part II: The Depth of Philosophy In general, research yields insight. An insight is an idea that gives a deep, clear understanding on a specific subject or in general about reality. Thus, without the ability to dispense insights, philosophy would be indeed the mocked parody some may portray it as. Therefore, the practical use of philosophy is to grant us insight. Philosophy is not a science even though they share the notion of knowledge-gathering in common. Contemporary science depends on experimentation and empirical evidence. That is while philosopher relies, first of all, on his/her mind/brain . The power of the mind, to this day, remains esoteric and lesser-known. In his field of study, the scientist may use a laboratory and external tools (AKA technology) . In order to be good at his job, the philosopher's tool of work is his/her own humanity . Case example: Socrates was a mere stonemason , but is considered one the greats philosophers of all time. That's because the greatest source he used is the power within him to understand reality. Thus, the scientific research may have to rely more on external sources than a philosopher. That's because science is far more informative and factual, compared to philosophical ideas. The philosopher relies more on internal sources. Other than his or her own works, the truly competent philosophers use themselves and the world around them, as the most realistic of sources . Scientific theory is experimented. That is while philosophical theories are understood through resonation with others. Resonation depends not only on logic but also on intuition. Humans are not only logical but also intuitive. Intuition is linked many things, not only philosophy but also spirituality and the arts. Philosophy, being a form of research, is also a way of life. The Two Heads of Wisdom While both science and philosophy are up for debate, philosophy might require more debate than science. Philosophers have been discussing the same topics for thousands of years, at least. A philosopher's answer to " what's the meaning of life " might therefore deserve more skepticism than an answer of a scientist to a physics-related question. That's despite the fact that we should question everything. That goes for things we might deem basic (like the idea we are social creatures by default). Philosophers aren't some shady businessmen that waits in an alley. Yet, their mysterious understanding of this world makes them mysterious by default as the next shady character (real or fictional). Part III: Why Philosophers Avoid the Battle Philosophers may live very unique lives , avoid certain things and beings, like very toxic people, because they need their mentality in good shape for the sake of their work. Philosophers don't swear any oath for philosophy's end. Since philosophy stems from human virtue, it is extremely difficult for AI to parallel the wisdom of human philosophers. It's part of ethics as for one to be professional at what he or she does. Professionality compels us to show restraint and avoid unnecessary conflicts with others. Thus, one can draw parallels between ethics and voluntary isolation. Avoiding others isn't necessarily a product of cowardice . The concept of "avoiding the battle" was invented by the Chinese philosopher, Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu was also a historic warlord and general who believed in the concept of lying low. When you lie low and conceal yourself, you can subvert anything to your heart's desire. Thus, "avoiding the battle" is also about picking what opportunity to seize for the sake of learning. Anything can be reduced to concepts in philosophy, and that's the dark side of enlightenment. It's very unwise to harm one's mental state for the sake of learning. The harm of one's mental state may require one to sleep more and may hinder their independent functioning. Reality is naturally traumatizing. The origin of trauma stems from the fact we are all ignorant. As such, although I happily accept criticism for my work here , I've set rules for commenting . The idea that traumas are necessary for growth is a delusion of necessity . Human growth happens regardless. We always grow per the reality around us, and the reality within us. The reason we grow is to evolve. The point of evolution is adaptation. The point of adaptation is survival. Avoiding unnecessary battles with this world allows us to survive better and keep ourselves fit and healthy. What we should fight for is for our wellbeing , and not waste time fighting other people for no good reason. Part IV: The Folly of External Sources Relying completely on external sources is unwise because of several reasons: First, any source can be questioned for its credibility: External sources were written by humans. Humans, by being are flawed. Artificial Intelligence was created by humans, therefore, AI is flawed as well as a source of information. AI/Robotics /Any piece of technology replicates the natural. Replicating a flawed natural world constitutes that these flaws will be replicated as well. There is no point idealizing anything when it comes for knowledge, that goes not only for AI but also for anything that is innovative (or marked as innovative). Second, even reliable external sources can be wrong: Even a "scientific fact" can eventually be disproven. Faith in science, while sensible, shouldn't be a blind one. Blind faith is a problem even beyond the world of religion. Writers, biological or mechanical, who are immersed in idealizations, won't offer reliable external sources. Science isn't omniscient, just like with any field of study. Any field of study exists because learning is lifelong. I believe that includes religious study as well. When you may criticize a philosophical piece to be "baseless" , or as "lack any research" , you might be ignoring the fact that the credibility of a philosophical piece depends on reason as well. Sometimes, the reason is hidden from you. The reason why people are not always reliable, has to do with their unconscious mind. The unconscious mind not only hides data from the person's own mind, but from the world as well. Understanding the external world completely, therefore, is realistically impossible. Self-discovery may entail the notion that even understanding ourselves is never entirely possible, either. Part V: How Many Virtues Contribute to Knowledge In order to ponder on the true nature of such any piece, such as an article, or even people, you might want to reflect on them. In other words -- think deeply and carefully. Examine. Determining something with haste can mislead you. In other words, without having patience, we might as well mislead ourselves about anything and anyone . Therefore, reflection is imperative. I'm aware that in this day and age, we have great access to immediate response. However, patience is imperative for reflection. The more we apply reflection on our past, the better we can plan our future. As such, not being able to manage notifications properly , may hinder our brain from recovery. Therefore, readers deserve to be silent, in order to reflect on words they read. Reflecting extensively on philosophical ideas might often be better than discussing them. The more we reflect and introspect, the more we can hone our understanding of the same piece of information, the same piece of media, or even the same person. Case Example: The Virtue of Rationality The brain is too a source of research for just about anyone who can spare the time and energy to think deeply. When it comes to rationality, it's something that varies from person to person. Some are more rational than others. While others may appear mad to you. However, often times, irrationality is merely perceived. Rationality is something that can be improved. The virtue of rationality allows us to make our thinking clearer, and decrease delusions and biases in our mind. Here are some possible ways to do so: Study logical fallacies, and understand why what makes them fallacious. Learn from anyone and anything. Respect what... and who.. you do not know. Embed the virtue of curiosity and wonder into anything and anyone you're learning from or on. Respect the esoteric knowledge of this world. You could include the arcane in this as well. Try to understand things that may be foreign to you, like the Japanese Salaryman philosophy . Improve your knowledge of this world by studying English. Part VI: The "Authority" of The Philosocom Article Empire Philosocom isn't a fake news website. The fact that an idea can be disproved, doesn't mean that its platform is a fake news website. Philosophy, being the origin of all study, is never-ending. As such, Philosocom is like a giant, breathing creature that constantly evolves per my philosophical research. Being my legacy to this world, Philosocom is here to stay for many, many years. The conclusion you can deduce from it is that, Philosocom will evolve accordingly to the reality around it. What I'm writing here isn't necessarily fact, but simply the findings of my many contemplations. You can therefore regard Philosocom as a virtual, philosophy research center. Working on Philosocom compels me, its main author, to be the best version of myself , and avoid much of this world for the sake of my health. Philosocom develops accordingly to how I develop, like a book develops accordingly to its writer, and like a worker develops accordingly to the factory they are in. Ending, Extra Notes on Research Internal Insights You may also find that ancient philosophical texts, such as " The Art of War ", by Sun Tzu, do not have external sources. Understanding philosophical texts can be very difficult for many people. A proper philosophy of communication would enable the philosopher, with his or her abstract ideas, "dumb down" any insight he or she reaches, to the world around them. Dumbing down ideas is something many geniuses struggle with. Thus, many geniuses find themselves alone. Rejected geniuses in media can easily appear as villains, in the form of Dr. Eggman and many, many more fictional examples. It is imperative that we see people beyond the notion of fiction. The " Tao Te Ching " By Lao Tzu didn't have external sources either, but served as the founding stone to the philosophy of Taoism, a most competent and realistic philosophy. Even philosophers may need external sources in order to know things. The battle in WW2 where the Americans and Wermacht fought together against the SS, is one of the many reasons to respect the esoteric. Researching the esoteric can make you "dead inside" and make you deviate from the conventional perception of reality (AKA "the Matrix") . When people may tell you to, "look up yourself" or "do your own research", there's no point being insulted when you can just try to understand why they say this to you in the first place. People may have their own reasons as to why they don't understand conventionally, and one of them being extremely deep cognitive fatigue. External Insights https://www.utep.edu/extendeduniversity/utepconnect/blog/march-2017/4-ways-to-differentiate-a-good-source-from-a-bad-source.html https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insight https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reflect https://wargaming.com/en/news/battle_castle_itter/ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/finding

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) Article Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "The Philosophy of Mutually-Assured Destruction" presents a compelling argument for the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global stability. Mr. Tomasio advocates for the retention of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, arguing that the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) prevents wars and promotes peace through intimidation. The article's strengths include its clear central argument, which ties nuclear weapons to the concept of "intimidation," and its reference to real-world examples, such as North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons and the historical case of the Cold War. The article also explores power dynamics and human behavior, comparing the logic of nuclear deterrence to concepts of intimidation in everyday life. It acknowledges the possibility of negotiation and peaceful resolution, albeit with skepticism, making the argument more measured than a purely pro-nuclear stance. Overall, while the article presents a compelling argument for the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining global stability, it could benefit from more nuance, ethical considerations, and attention to the potential risks and long-term consequences of nuclear proliferation.   ********************** Look at Oppenheimer and what he said. Destroyer of worlds. His work in nuclear led to the atomic bomb. Anyone who ever invents something [and is not a psychopath] will feel responsible for how it is used even if it wasn't its intended use. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher (Background music) One of the most important things that has kept the world from falling apart due to constant wars is the fact that some countries have managed to gain the upper hand by developing, creating, and storing nuclear weapons. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, it is likely that there would be far more wars than there are now. This is why I am personally against the idea of disarming nuclear weapons. While they offer great risk under the wrong hands, it is better to have unused nuclear weapons than countless bloodsheds caused by fearless warmongers and psychopaths . Because of this, it is possible to theorize that if all countries had nuclear weapons, or at least those who could afford both the space and resources to build and store them, the world could be a much better place, even if it means not being particularly at peace with certain countries. Will there ever be world peace? I think that world peace is a noble goal, but it is one that is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. There are too many factors that contribute to war, including poverty, inequality, and political instability. However, I do believe that it is possible to reduce the number of wars and make the world a more peaceful place. We can do this by promoting diplomacy, resolving conflicts peacefully, and working to improve the lives of people around the world. But I digress. The answer to the second paragraph is that if all countries possessing nuclear arms were to disarm, they would lose their advantage over their enemies, which could motivate the latter to harm the former, whether it's by skirmishes or full-scale invasions. It is not technically good that North Korea , for example, has weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps because of these weapons, along with those of the South and the U.S., the Korean peninsula, along with America, stay safe from each other. If none of these entities had the ability to fully decimate one another through nuclear means, perhaps many lives could have been lost over the fact that there would be no sense of intimidation to prevent them from killing each other. There is thus a certain importance in being intimidating, if it means less people or entities will try and mess with you. A police force , for example, that is not only strong enough but intimidating enough, is likely to be treated more seriously than such a force which is seen with ridicule. Thus, if you want to be a good police officer against certain people, intimidation is to be used to keep them at bay. The same logic applies to one's appearance -- looking intimidating can keep some of the "wrong" people away from standing in your way and/or harassing you. Hence the functionality of physical exercise if it means you will look either bigger, tougher, or both. Intimidation by itself isn't seen as something particularly good, as the more intimidating you are, the more people are likely to stay away from you. However, when it comes to countries, if you have the power to release a devastating counter-attack on your enemies, to the point that they won't mess with you as much as they would have otherwise, perhaps intimidation and nukes are good things on the practical level. The same thing applies to armies -- an extreme pacifist might tell you that simply disarming a nation's nuclear arms is insufficient; its military is to be disbanded as well if that country is to be at peace. And yet, unless you are a country such as Micronesia or Kiribati, most chances you'll be conquered by one or more of your neighbors, just like China did to Tibet . Thus, the sad truth is that power, even if it won't get to be fully executed and is extremely destructive, is very beneficial to the preservation of a country, even in a world where wars are not very common. This is why I support nuclear arms, even when considering the slight possibility of killing countless people -- you just have to choose between both evils, the evil of nukes or the evil of being invaded and perhaps conquered as well. Of course, there is also another, more obvious option: to be at peace with as many nations as possible, including your enemies. However, that option depends on whether or not a collaboration of such negotiation will be competent enough to succeed, and whether or not one side would break said peace treaty with you. Thus, building nuclear arms is significantly easier than entering into negotiation with an enemy or hostile nation, as nothing guarantees these encounters will be successful. Perhaps even, it is better to mutually assure the destruction of one another than to go into a years-long gamble of negotiations. What would have happened, after all, in the Cold War if it weren't for the fact that the two opposing sides had nukes and, thus, the ability to equally or more destroy one another? The entirety of this article can be summed up in one sentence: If you want to live at peace, you should prepare for war. If you want to avoid violent encounters with people, you should know how to fight or at least how to use a weapon like a pocket knife. The reason for that is, you cannot change others, but you can indeed prepare for whatever situation that might occur with these uncontrollable agents. Enjoy this source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction

"Humans are but a whisper away from the will of others" -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Circumstances: A Catalyst for Connection or Conflict More often than not, whether we are ready to admit it or not, much of who we are is shaped by our circumstances. These external factors influence how we interact and view others, the paths we choose, and our overall decision-making. While genetics and inherent behaviors play a role, circumstances undeniably interact and exert a powerful influence on us throughout our lives. The people we consider enemies often become so due to the circumstances that brought us together. However, different circumstances could have fostered a positive connection, and even friendship . Consider two neighbors who simply never resonated with one another. However, if one neighbor heroically saves the other from a life-threatening situation, the dynamic would undoubtedly shift. This example highlights how shared experiences, positive or negative, can significantly impact our relationships. And because we do not have complete control over our lives , the chances of having shared experiences, do not depend entirely on us alone. And our ability to connect with others, heavily depends on our ability to relate to them. Relatability depends on seeing ourselves and our experiences in others. Know who you're talking to, and you can relate to them better by seeing your experience of life as similar. How Our Perception Shapes Our Reality Even when circumstances remain constant, our perception of them can evolve. A childhood friend who seemed like the perfect playmate, for example may no longer resonate with our adult selves. This underscores the dynamic interplay between external events and our internal development; our constant relationship with the world , with how it affects us, and on the conscious/unconscious decision to perceive it. While circumstances hold undeniable influence, we don't have to be passive recipients, just because of mere habit. Habits, after all, can be broken . When they do, we increase our own sphere of action. By acknowledging the impact of circumstance, we gain the power to choose our perspective, and thus, our reaction to it. This empowers us to: Foster understanding:  Recognizing how circumstances shape others can as such foster empathy and compassion. Empathy demands knowledge of the other side, and cannot really be done without proper understanding. Navigate challenges:  When faced with difficult situations, understanding the ro le of circumstance allows us to develop effective re sponses. To navigate challenges effectively we need to understand what we truly can and can't control. We mustn't fall into the delusion that we're completely incapable, nor capable more than we actually are. Increasing our power on reality can grant us more ways to navigate challenges, thus highlighting the importance of excessive means. Embrace growth:  Challenging circumstances can be opportunities for personal growth. By learning from them, we can develop resilience and adaptability. To do so, to view circumstance as a challenge to overcome, we must exit the victim's mentality , which compels us to submit, not to grow beyond our current strength. Navigating the Power of Circumstance Life constantly unfolds within a maze with ever-present walls of circumstance and choice , playing with each other, and leading to the formation of new paths. These walls aren't always fixed; sometimes, doors open or slam shut permanently due to life events, and/or due to our own shortcomings. We all navigate this maze individually or collectively, with death as the final exit. Although our deaths mark the end of our journeys, they can open doors in the mazes of others, leaving a lasting impact on the world. Being part of existence, our death has effects on the circumstances of others' lives. That is the irony of loss. No matter how many paths we explore or walls we break through, the maze of life endures as long as there are people capable of navigating it. Circumstance acts as an endless series of these walls, shaping every situation we encounter, whether acknowledged or not. Its influence can be undeniable, as illustrated by the electricity flowing through our homes. Without it, this very text wouldn't exist – neither the ability to write it nor the internet to share it. And when you have a monopoly on electricity, you have a monopoly on a core feature Tyranny of Circumstance. This monopoly of electricity, creates a vast divide, between those who need it and those who supply it. Those without it cannot access the information and opportunities available to those with it. Their lives are impacted differently, highlighting the interconnectedness of circumstances on the many, many activities that are now done mainly if not only by this resource. And as previously mentioned, our ability to relate to one another, depends on our experiences, shaped, if not governed, by the circumstances of which we cannot control. It could serve as a way to foster a herd-mentality of those who are not aware of what they're truly capable of: Overcoming certain circumstances, with enough power. Therefore, as long as we are not powerful enough to navigate circumstance or to overcome it, circumstance will always have the upper hand. And the point of power is to be able to better work towards our ideal selves and towards the lives we want to love. The more power we have, the less of a problem our circumstances become. Circumstance extends beyond the present, and has roots in the past. It shapes who we are not only after birth but also before. The choices our parents make, like choosing a partner with mental health challenges, can increase our own susceptibility to similar issues. Circumstance, you see, is that powerful, being able to shape our future even before even being alive. These choices made by others, both voluntary and involuntary, both wise and stupid , have ripple effects impacting future generations. We hold a double-edged sword we're mostly unaware of: The power to initiate circumstances of several people through our actions and choices, including those, by proxy, of their generations. We are that powerful. Consider the fact that causing trauma to others, whether physical or mental, can also affect not only them but their local environment, and their children , whether born or to-be-born. Our actions have an effect on the world that we might not be aware of fully. Being wiser can help us make better decisions. For example, if we can make people do something without the use of coercion , then why use coercion in the first place, considering its negative effect on people's psychological safety with you? How are we supposed to live a life of reduced stress if we unnecessarily use coercion to make people cooperate with us? When we have power over people, we need to use our power wisely, so the presence of our circumstances with them wouldn't unnecessarily bring unnecessary harm. You might find out that choosing to do good is preferable even from a logical standpoint , which in turn should make you question how you think and make choices. We are more powerful than we might think , as we're not always thinking of the long term implications of our actions. And circumstance is created through power: The more powerful we are, the more circumstances we can make. Let's use our powers to improve humanity, not to harm it unnecessarily. Circumstance and Action Despite limitations, a sense of control remains -- the one on our perception. As CBT ( Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ) teaches, and as Viktor Frankl exemplified during his Holocaust imprisonment, we can choose our responses to external and internal events. To quote Frankl: “We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts, comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread . They may have been few in number but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.“ However, even with this hard-won skill, circumstance remains a formidable force. While our choices can drastically influence the lives of our children and their descendants, we can't sway large-scale events. But like with A.I philosophers, why not deem these events a challenge for greater inner strength? The saying "thought creates reality", the hallmark of the law of attraction , is like an overstatement. We can't simply manifest anything into existence simply by thinking about it. However, our thoughts do shape how we perceive circumstances, and thus our perception affects our actions by proxy. By altering our perspective, we can "change" reality, or rather, change our experience of it, and our actions. This mental shift is a powerful tool for navigating the inevitable maze we all find ourselves in. How Gratitude Can Change Your Reactions One way to change our reactions to our circumstances is to learn from other people who have different circumstances than our own. For example, you might have your own room and bed, but many people in the world do not have this luxury. Some people still sleep in the same shared place, and some people do not have arms or legs. Others have mental disabilities that limit their ability to function independently. Knowing about the different circumstances that people face can help us to put our own problems into perspective. When we realize that our problems are not unique, and that other people have faced even worse circumstances, we can start to feel grateful for what we have. This gratitude can be a powerful tool: Shifting Focus:  It helps us focus on the positive aspects of our lives, even when things are tough. Empowering Choice:  Gratitude empowers us to choose how we react to our circumstances. We can choose negativity, or we choose a more positive outlook. We have the power within us to overcome our negative bias. Of course, not all circumstances can be changed. Some people will face limitations for the rest of their lives. However, even in these cases, we can still change our reactions, and that may be our greatest freedom, only hindered by a certain technology not fully implemented. yet. We can choose to focus on the positive aspects of our lives, and to refuse to let our circumstances define us. We can be more than mere products. Conclusions Ultimately, the power to change our reactions lies within us. Not only available, that power can be stronger than what we might think, making life potentially far more bearable. While circumstances undeniably shape us, much of their power depends on our willpower to either resist it or to submit to it. By acknowledging their influence as largely depending on our reactions, we can unlock a greater power, to shape our perspectives and navigate the inevitable maze of life more effectively. This empowers us with: Understanding:  Recognizing how circumstances mold others fosters empathy and compassion. Resilience:  Challenging situations can become catalysts for growth, teaching us to adapt and overcome. Perspective:   Shifting our viewpoint allows us to find meaning and gratitude even amidst hardship. Our choices, though not absolute, can significantly impact our responses. We can choose to be: Proactive:   Initiating circumstances through our actions and influencing the paths we take. Mindful:   Selectively focusing on positive aspects and reframing negative experiences. Grateful:   Appreciating what we have, fostering a positive outlook in challenging times. Let's use the powers we have to make both our lives and other people's lives more bearable. After all it is the moral thing to do: To help people understand how they can reduce their own suffering with the power of the mind.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) Here are 20 Things That Aren't Worth It & insights anyone should consider applying for the sake of improving this world . If avoided, many lives could be way easier than they currently are... Self-Harm: Is there anything beyond death but eternal darkness and nothingness? It should be waited when the time comes. Right now, this is the Age of Productivity. Right now, you have the gift of life. Try being grateful for the mere fact that you're still alive. Evil: What is the point of having pleasure over the suffering of others? Why is such a thing pleasurable? Pain is no subject for humor or ridicule. Any form of addiction: Addiction takes away your independence, making you dependent on them for happiness, validity, and sanity. Why should we be dependent too much on external sources of stimulation, when happiness can be a choice we can make by ourselves? Narcissism: Narcissism is the social form of evil, of attaining pleasure over one's suffering. It also makes the victim nothing more than a silent, lifeless object, used for gaining pleasure. Narcissism is an insult to the race that conquered the world, the human race. And, much corruption and oppression stems from it as well. Joining/creating a cult: A cult is a sphere of darkness that isolates one from the Light of Independent Reasoning. What functionality does ignorance serve, beyond the power of those who generate it upon others' minds? Why should we shower other people with fake love just to get them to serve us? 6. Anxiety: Anxiety is a state of mind that serves no purpose and is best avoided. It is a state where the body's survival system overreacts, causing internal chaos, even if it is only temporary. Victims of anxiety should be treated with care. However, they should treat themselves with care, more than anyone else taking care of them, as a way for them to no longer live with guilt and shame about it. 7. Over-exhaustion: The body and mind are machines that are motivated by energy. When there is minimal to no energy, there is unnecessary suffering when doing a certain task, and the task itself becomes less accomplished than when there is sufficient energy to complete it. Rest should be perceived as a state where one recharges themselves for better optimal productivity in the future. 8. Ending up in prison: The purpose of prison is equivalent to that of a school: to teach and educate. In the case of prison, the moral is to make you regret the crime you have committed by teaching you that crime is not the way of living. You can save a significant portion of your lifespan by knowing this moral before committing a crime. 9. Obsession with appearance: Being obsessed with one's appearance is a way to compensate for a lack of self-confidence. It is a waste of time and sometimes money. Face surgery, luxurious clothing, excessive makeup, and an extra-muscular body are all signs of anxiety that one is not good enough. Instead of focusing on external appearances, one should focus on their internal self-worth. 10. Big ego: In comparison to the vast void of the universe, we are all tiny beings residing on a small planet in an infinite space. Even if one is particularly good at something, it does not necessarily make them greater or of more existential value than people who are less good at that particular thing. 11. Tension: Tension is not healthy physically or mentally. It may be good for concentration, but what other purpose does it serve? 12. Lack of physical activity: Your body is a machine. When it is neglected, it becomes weaker to the point of making you suffer. 13. Candies and snacks: All they do is make you feel satiated and happy at the cost of your health. Healthy food can do the same without weakening your health. 14. Lack of commitment: When one is not committed to their job, their productivity remains incomplete. When a rail remains unfinished, it becomes a waste of space. Only when the rail is completed does it become important. 15. Starting a family unprepared or by accident: Not everyone is fit enough to raise a family, whether financially or mentally. Be cautious or else you will be bringing a new life form into a world of unexpected, suffering that can be reduced. 16. Rudeness: What purpose does rude behavior serve? The same message can be conveyed without insulting the person in front of you and without the potential for conflict between you and them. 17. Marriage-betrayal: The entire idea of marriage is to symbolize the loyalty between two people. When adultery is committed, the symbolism of marriage breaks apart. If so, what was the point of marrying in the first place? 18. Disrespect for your parents: Your parents are your true creators. Disrespecting them is equivalent to disrespecting your own life. If it weren't for them, you wouldn't be here, reading this writing. They are the source of life itself. 19. Disrespect for your children: Your children are your own creation. However, this does not give you absolute authority over them, nor does it give you the right to put them to shame. They are people just like you, even if they are younger and have less experience than you. They are the future members of the world, and your behavior towards them now could have an immense impact on how they develop and mature as people. 20. Reckless Risk-Taking: The fate of entire families can depend on one's ability, or inability, to overcome financial temptations, and temptations in general. You may be feeling enthusiastic right now when a certain opportunity shines upon you, but this enthusiasm could potentially destroy your and your family's future. You could lose everything, including your home and your car and your love life and yes your children too. There is nothing more uncertain than a future where, in your mind, is going to get immensely "better". Do not be tempted to increase your bets when you are winning in the races of life. Sometimes, being content is also fine.

Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright The article "The Delusion of Necessity" is a thought-provoking exploration of societal norms and individual agency. Mr. Tomasio challenges readers to question conventional understandings of necessity , using a logical framework to dissect the concept of necessity. The article encourages critical thinking and personal empowerment by encouraging individuals to define their values and priorities. It also acknowledges the role of morality and societal norms in maintaining order, providing a balanced perspective. In conclusion, "The Delusion of Necessity" offers a stimulating exploration of the concept of necessity and societal norms. It could serve as a significant contribution to philosophical discourse.   (Background music) The Societal Function of Learned "Necessities" The one thing that prevents humanity from destroying itself is the initially-forced belief that there are things we must do, and things we must not do. Without this societal delusion , civilizations would fall into anarchy, all because people have the potential to realize that nothing actually stands in their way to oppose the norms, oppose the law , oppose religion , and even oppose the will to remain alive. It is the nature of ideologies  to restrain you, logically or otherwise. Morally or otherwise. Even if this opposition fails, the mere attempt to restrain you, is something that cannot be completely annihilated. It matters not if the ideology in mind is reasonable. It matters if it appears reasonable to those indoctrinated   to it. Because when you are an army general who reviews your troops in front of you, what makes them not execute you is the notion that there are things they must and mustn't do, regardless of whether or not that reasoning is true. Exploring the Delusion's Origins It all begins, for many, in formal education , where we are required to attend kindergarten and later, school. In there, we learn the most important insight that keeps us in line for the rest of our lives: that the will of society and/or religion is more important than our own , even in fields that do not concern them, such as sexuality  and our decision to resume living . Once we begin to believe that we as individuals do not matter as much as the will of others, then begins the lifelong delusion of necessity. In fact, we do not need to do anything, not even live, not even care , and not even love. It is a very brutal and harsh truth, but it is correct. You can technically drop out of school, for example, by not attending it too long, be expelled from military service, be unemployed, disappoint your parents and family , get fired from your job, and again, kill or try to kill yourself. These choices are yours to make. Be loyal to the delusion of necessity like a dog, like I was , and you will better survive in these frameworks... Even at the cost of your mental health . Beyond the delusion that there are things you must and mustn't do, your sphere of actions is far wider than you might think. The said delusion is, logically, one of the few things that actually stand in your way — the mental blockade, imprinted in your consciousness by society. Explaining The Delusion's Faults and the Individual Reasoning For It In reality, what's only necessary depends on prerequisites  and nothing more. Things don't matter because someone said they are . Negative. Things matter only by their logical value as a means to an end. "A" is necessary not because it is highly valued or even worshipped by others. "A" is necessary only if it is a prerequisite to "B". If "A" is not a prerequisite then it has no reason to be necessary, no matter how much it will be loved, adored, respected and saluted. And what determines "B" is your desire or need for "B" to happen. Therefore, "A" is necessary only if you are interested in "B" to happen. "A" is a means to an end. I "must live '' because I want to work on Philosocom as much as I can . I can't work on Philosocom if I'm dead. Thus, I must live for Philosocom to be worked on by me. It is that simple. No emotion  or subjective value  is necessary for this cold, pure logic. Subjectivity may be important at times . It's important when you need to regard other people's emotions or your emotions as prerequisites for "B" to occur. In this logic, it does not. Many of our worries are but social constructs . The fear of " what people would think of me ", " what would happen if my partner would dump me ", " what happens if I'll die alone and childless " — all of these are examples of beliefs that we learn to be anxious about by the demand of our social environment, whether or not the objects of these worries would happen. Do We Must Avoid Certain Actions To Retain Our Humanity? And Other Examples There is no such thing as an "inhumane" human, for anything we do is human, for they occur and can occur by humans, unless triggered by animals, aliens or A.I. It's just that we learn that there are things that are "human-like" and things that are not.  Likewise, mass murder and even cannibalism — all are human acts, done by humans, capable, by humans, illegal or legal, punished or unpunished . There is no one way to be human. For one is already a human. Whether an empath  or a psychopath . Hitler himself was human, was he not? He wasn't an alien , a demon or a beast — some of us have his own type of blood, even. It all goes to show, how evil, insane, anti-social or "inhumane" we humans can be , and by "we" I also include myself, as much as I include any other human that has lived, that is living and that will ever live. It is morality that restraints us, as with the example of Gandhi . The biggest obstacle that lies in our path, is the belief that we shouldn't, that we are prohibited; a belief forged by those who wish to keep us in line, to be nice , and to keep our thoughts to ourselves. Even when it comes to religion and to the notion of heaven and hell, nothing actually requires us to be religious, for paradise  is a reward, and hell, a punishment. In other words, we do not have to be in heaven as much as we don't have to be in hell , for we have the freedom to choose , just as we have the ability to choose to be normal or abnormal, successful or unsuccessful , and so on. Once we realize that we don't owe anything to anyone (regardless of the consequences of our smart or stupid actions), the sphere of our potential shall be revealed to be far bigger than initially believed to be. The only exception are the responsibilities we purposefully take upon ourselves. And even then, it is our choice to be loyal  to our own word, like gentlemen . Requirements To Practically Overcome the Delusion What, however, makes us afraid? To be disapproved or condemned by others, and to be thought poorly by them. This is why many who abide to the norms, just for that, are technically, cowards . Even if some of them live in liberal democracies , where the law gives you greater freedoms. Freedom has a darker side ,  but it does not mean that you need to be governed by your fears. Especially if they stand in your way for the mentioned "B" to occur. Honesty  requires a lot of courage , and thus, many people would choose to remain silent. Such fear is a great obstacle for the philosopher,  and thus, even if condemned by others, their job is to not only find the truth , but to confess it to the world. Caveats and the Conclusions Of course, I do not support nor intend to incite any of the immoral, "inhumane", dark, or otherwise-stupid things I mentioned that you can do. Just because you can do them, doesn't mean you should . Why make choices that will be against your interests? Intentional counter-productivity  is stupidity . I'm only showing what you're capable of. Ultimately, it is a choice, rather than a recommendation or a complete inability. What I do want to encourage you to do, however, is to realize that you can do more, beyond what you are told you should and shouldn't do. This realization has made me, at least, who I am today. A better, stronger and wiser version of myself. A mastermind . I studied Heisenberg from "Breaking Bad" and I figured out how I can surpass him . I now have what I need, for "B" to succeed: What is truly necessary. Anything else is far less important by comparison, only because of the cold logic that says it is not as necessary as the insights I acquired.

(Philosocom's Masculinity Directory) The traditionally masculine man serves as a contra to others. That may be regardless of his position in society, in an organization like a business, or even in a family. Whether at the top or the bottom, the masculine man lives to serve. And even when he leads, he is still serving . For this type of man is a provider , giving others what they need. He lives to supply things to others. Be it money, love, or his work. With his power, he does not live for himself, but he resumes to live regardless of misfortune. For he is mentally strong enough to serve as a contra. For despair is for the weak, no matter how one is perceived by others. The contra is an equalizer. He brings balance to someone or to some people. Because they might not do it themselves. It is only within close quarters, with a significant other, where he, if wise, allows himself to be more vulnerable, to be more himself. More himself, beyond the intended repression of who he really is. It is there where he is relieved of his duties to the external world, only to serve his significant other once more. Because even if she is more submissive in nature, he is still a provider for her, and still a contra to her emotions. If she won't do it, then there's no other choice... Just like anywhere else. And the philosopher philosophizes. And he does it even when he's not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it. Because he is a philosopher. It's just like any other job. And as a man, I may have to endure the many irrationalities of humankind. I have to endure their lack of understanding, their stress, their disrespect, their humiliation, and so on and on. It does not matter, in practice. It does not matter because when you are a contra, you look at the big picture and focus on the long term. You're the scapegoat, because you are the wiser one. And should you not be the scapegoat, things just might get worse. When I was harassed by a drunkard online, I didn't care about my own sense of being "attacked" because I was focused on being the calm, rational one. I cared to be the calm, rational one, who would neutralize him by neutralizing his arguments. That's what a philosopher does. And when he apologizes and explained that he was drunk, I did not felt vengeful for his stupidity, this time. I just saw no further point, and dismissed him. That is how I served as a contra to a man whose rationality have been impaired by alcohol. As for the easily stressed, I strive to act the same. There's no point to falling to such trivial matters. I do not have to fall to the same intensity as they do, even if the heart tempts me, as well. Why? Because there are more important matters to focus on, than wasting energy on emotional outrage. Especially when one is aware of the proportions; of the true implications of deeds and misdeeds. When one thinks like a competent villain, for example. So, as you can see, the masculine man serves also as contra to anyone . Why? Because the former strives to survive, just like in the jungle. Thus, he strives to be the better man. The gender of the other does not have to matter for that end. By contrasting other people, you can help stabilizing them, so they will cooperate. And of course, we may need to cooperate to get things done, either by necessity or otherwise. Petty conflicts are simply a waste of time. They deserve to be voiced in closed doors, to therapists. They are qualified to deal with emotional instabilities; The masculine man aspires for emotional stability, because without it, he may betray his own intentions to survive and prosper in whatever he does. In the absence of contras, a storm is sure to be brewed among emotional people. Filtering. Moderation. Control. These are not only for one's personal gain over others. It's also to maintain order, harmony, and at times, peace. I have no remorse for the voluntarily filter-less. I just hope that they learn that they are irrational, and work to change it, for the betterment of society. It's part of comforting those in distress, what can you do. Get upset yourself, and you will only add further ignition to the fire. The other side of the situation does not necessarily care for you. So you just have to put up with it, suck it up, and endure their unreasonable excitement. Hopefully, your contras ability will make them see the error of their ways, that the situation isn't as dire as their mind tells them... and just move the hell on. ...I've been living in voluntary asceticism since the 2000's. It's the best education I got. Not English, not math... But slow, meticulous deprivation of the self from artificial wealth. Its artificial wants. Its artificial needs. Its artificial hopes and dreams. Nope. What mattered was the lesson. What mattered was the homework and the exams. Very, little, else. The fact that the vast majority of the students were too dumb to understand this precious insight, mattered to me only because I didn't want to be as dumb as them. Even if the whole room will take sides with someone who hates you... even if they will decide to gang up on you... You just need make sure you survive. Physically, mentally, etc... Because if you won't survive, as a man, you will fail doing what you are capable of doing. It's called providing . That includes content. Even the joy of your mother, because you still didn't kill yourself, yet. You may also provide to her wellbeing, by not being a corpse. By giving her a reason to live, herself. So it's only reasonable that you would learn to swallow your own distress in favor of the task at hand. In favor of those whom you need with you, but are too biased, or too dumb, to recognize that you are also a human being. A human who is capable of bursting out in tears. Just like a feminine woman. Just like an infantile child. Because even should you voice your own distress, some people are going to be in denial. And some of them are sure as hell not going to apologize. That includes people who are close to you. People who care. People who have empathy. Because when you're masculine, it does not matter if they apologize or not. It does not matter if you talk about your emotions. It doesn't, because it can return once more to haunt you. The same dumb mistakes of theirs, and perhaps, of yours, too. So, since people are not necessarily going to learn from their mistakes, they are prone to repeat them indefinitely. It does not mean in any way that you should act dumb yourself. I do not brag about my high intelligence, because I need it to survive mentally. It's nothing more than a tool for me, necessary to endure the hardships of life, and for work. Don't you ever think that empathy or even sympathy are given fairly. Because in reality they are not. No. Some of us are left to our own devices. Are left to cope alone. And even with therapists, it won't necessarily solve the problems we repress. Our... true selves. The inevitable solution, therefore, in a world filled with tactless and unaware people, is to develop a self-killing mentality. Because in the end, there is work. And that work needs to be done. You have your assignments, your goals. Abandon them by giving power to toxic people, and you might become toxic yourself. Or at least whiny. Or at the very least, an infantile manchild, who is unwilling to work out his own personal issues. Work on yourself, and don't expect anyone to do this for you, unless they are paid to. Why? Because they need to work too, that's why. Just like you do (assumingly, yes?). I am a philosopher not because I feel love for wisdom. No. I philosophize because it's profitable, and because I'm good at it. My love for it, existent or not, does not matter. This is a place of business; a growing empire. And I do not expect my readership to be my therapists. I held a great grudge against the education system for traumatizing me mentally. After working on this article. I am thankful for them. Thankful for helping me become a man. Thankful for restraining me enough, so I could survive this hellish reality... and this hellish mentality. I will resume being a contra.... until it will be wise for me to not be one. Until someone will finally accept me for who I am! With no depressing filters! But since I cannot allow myself that, all I need to focus on is my work. And until then, remember: I am not a happy man. My pride is irrelevant. I will only find solace in this cold-hearted world when I will be accepted completely, with love, for the man I truly am. For the man none have seen myself as. For the man only a lover deserves to see me, as. Until then, never upset me ever-so casually. For the choice to give up, is forever, forever mine. Hail Philosocom.

4 Tests For the Philosopher's Path of Truth (Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (Background music ) These are the four trials those drawn to the philosopher's path, each accompanied by a glimpse into its demands. Be warned, this path is not for the faint of heart, for it calls for a courage of mind that transcends the easy comforts of everything comfortable. For the truth and the quest for it cares not for your dependence on any comfort imaginable. The Trial of Independence: A philosopher's mind roams free, confined only to the compass of logic, which this world is built on. The philosopher must be mentally free from any shackles that hinders him or her to further explore the truth. For philosophers are relentless in their pursuit to attain the truth. They dare to resist even when the people around them sing in collective opposition to their efforts. They are unafraid to climb alone in their journey, while others slumber and depend their mentality on the validation of others. He or she who prefers being accepted by others, rather than seek the truth, will fail this trial. For dependency, when goes against philosophical exploration , is a philosopher's liability. Imagine dwelling within a shielded dome, your community convinced the world beyond its safe space  is unworthy of discussion. Such a community does not deserve too much attachment, when it will actively work against your efforts, within it, to understand reality. And indeed, one of the points of safe spaces is to shield one from the harsh reality beyond it. To pass this trial is to chase clarity even at the cost of comfort and approval. Even, at the cost of being treated like dirt, and laughed at, for walking a different path. A relentless path. A path that can and will leave you alone from others, including those who are dear to you. In the absence of affection, and and even skin deprivation , you are now faced with the second trial. The Trial of Seclusion: A philosopher navigates the wilderness of thought, often a solitary quest through the vast deserts of reason. While others enjoy in the warmth and affection of company, the philosopher's resolve is put to the test when his solitary contemplations grow on him, and tempt him to return once more to the collective, Platonic cave  of society, where post-truth  is preferred over the truth. In contemporary terms, it is also known as "The Matrix". For venturing beyond "The Matrix" means venturing beyond what makes us human: The desire to have the company of others. And many people, you see, prefer to fall victim to their own perception of reality, for it makes them feel good, rather to explore the reality beyond that perception. And the point of socializing is to be with others for the sake of feeling good. Since the truth cares not for your feelings, good or bad, the philosopher, who speaks it, can be most repulsive to others. Therefore, being a philosopher is a social risk. This trial demands enduring the much solitude, even if it can come at the cost of your mental health . For finding strength in the pursuit of knowledge even when the honest and good company tempts you. For the honest philosopher will pick the truth and the quest for it, over any love that hinders him or her from attaining it. Picture a moonlit crossroads, one path leading a life of contemplation, the other to the laughter joy of friends and loved one. To pass this trial is to choose the lonely path, guided by the torch of intellectual curiosity. In a world defined by ghosting and cowardice  and hedonism , expect to be rejected tenfold by those who adhere to the moral depravity of this current world, and these three concepts. The philosopher doesn't necessarily seek the truth because he or she enjoys it. They are seeking in also for their faith in it, and the faith in philosophical inquisition is like the faith, or commitment, in marriage. This leads us to the third trial, of endurance, for no path that's deviated from the orthodox paths  is without hardship. The Trial of Endurance: There is no suffering where there is no life, thus to live is to suffer, and suffering is evidence of life. For to live is to grapple with the shadow of pain and its many adversaries. Philosophers, though they seek wisdom, are no exception. At times, it is specifically because of the wisdom which they seek. For their insights may reveal truths that can cut deep within the human psyche, and delve them depths of existential sorrow unknown to most. To be able to pass both the first and second trials, is also to be able to resume enduring this quest for truths without the need for psychologists.  On the other hand, people who spend time with philosophers on a personal level, might need those, more. This trial demands the fortitude to face such burdens, to swallow the bitter pill of understanding as one might a disgusting medicine, finding in its acceptance the strengthening of their mental resilience. Hence, the quest of truth is that which can give people great power, within them, at the very least. Imagine confronting truths that can make you want to kill yourself. For reality is not without its darker, morbid aspects. Aspects that we ignore, overlook, or pretend they do not exist. That is also a function for people to not care for the truth, and to reject philosophers from their company. For the truth does not care if we die. Logic is anti-human in a sense that it frees us from the shackles of humanity's inherit irrationality, and thus, is capable of altering us. To pass this trial is to stare into the abyss, unflinching, and emerge bearing the burden of knowledge with newfound strength. And that strength, is much power. Power, over yourself, and potentially, over others. The Trial of Power: A hair's width can separate the philosopher from the cult leader, as while you can get much respect and influence , both can corrupt you, should you lack the moral compass to fight against its corrupting power. Both attract listeners, drawn by the gems of wisdom they want to attain for themselves, whether or not these gems do exist as such. But while the philosopher seeks to find the truth, the cult leader uses the truth as a means of control and manipulation. The philosopher would allow his or her followers to be themselves, for honesty is a true virtue.  The cult leader, however, has no desire for that, for he or she wants to bend people to their will, capitalizing on their weaknesses, and scamming them  if there is really no truth existent, unlike what they marketed. This trial demands resisting the seduction of manipulation, remembering that your role is not to command but to reveal insights. It demands you to respect your followers, in hopes that they will respect you as well. For liberty dictates that anyone can leave at any moment, and that the point of philosophy isn't to gain power over others, not even as a secondary goal. People come to you because they want to learn from you, and from that, your strength comes from, as a respected philosopher. Imagine a gathering captivated by your words, their eyes display devotion to your cause. To pass this trial is to lead them toward the light of independent thought, not the blinding darkness of blind faith.  Remember, a philosophy that seeks to control ceases becomes a mental cage. And in the name of the truth, we must have independent thought, not dogmatism . When having followers, and I'm not talking about social media followers , walk the rope between the assertion of truth, and domination over others. Be ever on guard against the seductive lure of power that goes beyond mutual consent. These trials are not pronouncements of absolute truth, but a guide on the philosopher's relentless path. The choice to embark on this journey is yours alone, so weigh these words carefully before stepping onto the solitary trail that can lead to the highest of insightful peaks wisdom.

Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "The Attack on Philosophical Exploration -- A Revamped Critique" defends the importance of philosophy in modern discourse, particularly in an era dominated by empirical sciences and concrete evidence. The author's passionate advocacy for philosophy makes the argument more compelling and engaging for readers. The article distinguishes between empiricism and rationalism , highlighting the limitations of solely relying on empirical evidence. The analogy between "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" is particularly effective in illustrating the difference between exploring what is known versus what could be possible. The article encourages intellectual curiosity by emphasizing the value of exploring new ideas, even those that might seem impractical or unrealistic. It provides a solid defense against the criticism that philosophy lacks empirical rigor, arguing that the purpose of philosophy is not necessarily to find concrete truths but to explore possibilities. The author's passion for philosophy shines through, making this article an inspiring read for anyone interested in the future of intellectual inquiry.   (Background music) Introduction It seems that, in the age of fake news and hostility towards opinions and people we don't like , the attitude towards the concept of philosophical exploration has changed. People today are more oriented towards content that thinks for them than content that allows them to wonder about certain subjects. Many of us seek concrete, evident truth rather than abstract, possible, and interesting truths. This is one of the reasons why philosophy is not as prioritized by the general public. Philosophy is mostly theoretical, and even then, concrete evidence is often demanded more than simply providing food for thought and something to wonder about. Furthermore, it even seems that contemplations that focus more on wondering than on available data are seen as unrealistic and irrational. If we are to assume that philosophy is indeed decaying in our times, when science can answer many questions without the need to philosophize, then this decay could definitely be attributed to the opposition many people have towards the notion of philosophical exploration . This is because people favor things that can be founded empirically rather than rationally or abstractly. (Not to be confused with this journal) Meta-Philosophical Commentary "Philosophical exploration" is simply the entertainment of ideas that are usually less entertained, or completely disregarded. Arguably, one of the reasons philosophy may be seen as irrelevant is because people may fail to distinguish between the theoretical exploration of ideas, and practical philosophy. Fail to make the difference between the two, and you may devalue an entire collection of intellectual branches that can be used for research and the benefit of humanity. And even then, when we explore new ideas, let us not forget that they can indeed be practical for our efforts. That's because new ideas allow us to spark our creativity and assist us in solving problems. For that matter, a good philosophy article can be one that is not only well-written and researched, but one that can actually help its readers in life. When we entertain ideas that can restore people's faith in life. We can basically save life, by letting them explore philosophical ideas such as existentialism. Philosophy is often seen as "dead" because of the perceived superiority of empiricism over rationalism in finding truth. However, I believe that this is a mistake. Without enough philosophical exploration, we are missing out on a lot of innovation that the non-humanities sciences have yet to discover. Science largely focuses on what is known , not on what is not known . This can be limiting, as it prevents us from exploring new possibilities, should we explore less and focus more on the existent. Philosophy, on the other hand, allows us to explore possibilities with less need for evidence, as philosophy is largely based on logic-based, coherent arguments . This does not mean that we will always find the truth, but it does mean that we can try to go where no one has gone before. To illustrate this point, I would like to draw an analogy between existent and theoretical. The "existent" is like Star Wars, while the realm of theory is like Star Trek. In Star Wars, the plot could have been set in any time period, because there is not a lot of focus on the reasoning behind the technology, different planets, and aliens. The writers just accept that these things exist, and they focus on telling a story about good versus evil. In Star Trek, on the other hand, the reasoning is much more important. The characters spend a lot of time discussing the science behind their technology, and they often use their knowledge of science to solve problems. Star Trek is more about exploring the possibilities of the future, and it often asks philosophical questions about the nature of humanity. In Star Trek, you get to see the exact opposite of Star Wars. It is mostly about literal exploring, even if these explorations are not always worth the effort. You get to meet certain concepts that may or may not be true in our universe as well – space monsters, multiverses , sapient species that live in a wild west-like style of civilization and a nazi-styled planet . You get the idea. Instead of looking at either past or present concepts, you get to ponder your own; play with them like a child would play with foam while in the bathtub. Insights on Information Research A common criticism I used to receive about my writing was that there wasn't enough research in my articles. As if that alone is enough to make any content irrational. My reply to that feedback would be that I simply write about what I think. A philosopher is first and foremost a thinker, and should my thoughts be philosophical, I don't see any wrong to write my contemplations and share them with the world, as the bigger priority. I don't try to give you the exact truth; I philosophize for a possible truth. To reach exact truths is far harder than some of you might think in philosophy, as anything can always be debatable . That however excludes wayless truths. I am not implying that evidence and external research are worthless. I am saying that they should not be the only, and/or main factor for judging a philosophical piece. I think philosophers – and everyone, at that – should not be ridiculed for using philosophical exploration as their preferred method of thinking. It is okay to find out you were wrong; many philosophers were wrong in some of their beliefs, and it doesn't make them stupid, necessarily, or mentally ill. These are absurd claims of ad-hominem . It means that they explored things with their mind, which is the original way of philosophy, in a pre-internet world, where people like Socrates admitted that they know nothing, and still preserved a certain degree of prestige among at least some of their audience. Conclusions With so much information available at our fingertips, we can all feel as if we are able to be extremely knowledgeable. However, even in our times, a good philosopher is not someone who will tell you what to think, like an informer, or a propaganda minister , but will give you ideas to think about, like an artist. This is why I think that philosophy, even though it is a truth-based field, is more of an art than a science in the end. Philosophy's ultimate tool of truth-seeking is the mind, and a good philosopher is not to be measured like a physicist or a chemist, but like one who dares to explore and to question, regardless of reception. In an era dominated by empirical data and immediate gratification , the value of philosophical exploration is often overlooked.  Philosophy is not merely an academic pursuit but a vital tool for intellectual growth and societal progress.  By stimulating critical thinking, challenging assumptions,  and fostering creativity,  philosophy offers a unique perspective that complements the scientific method. While philosophy may not always yield tangible, immediate results, its role in shaping ideas and breeding innovation for future discoveries is undeniable.  Philosophy, like Star Trek, invites us to ponder possibilities, ask challenging questions, and push the boundaries of human understanding. It is imperative to recognize that philosophy is not solely about finding definitive truths but about engaging in an unrelenting exploration of ideas. Embracing philosophical inquiry, allows us to develop a more comprehensive and complex worldview. In turn, this enables us to address complex challenges with greater insight. The increasing dismissal of philosophical exploration is therefore harmful for both the intellectual and for the people he could use his intellect to help to. Internal, Additional Resources A Short Guide to Philosophy The- Two Heads of Wisdom Universal Ignorance Theory Thanks for reading!

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Philosocom Enduring Pillar Directory) Background/Atmosphere Music: Dancers of the North, from the obscure video game, Suikoden Tierkries . Table of Contents The Poem Itself Poem Analysis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. ************* The Poem You got to keep the mask on, Don't you? The mask of the silent, Of the one who lurks in the shadows, And rarely, if at all, Charges at the potential prey. You are hiding an antagonist, Behind the appearance of a passive feline, As you were taught and praised for doing. Watch the world around you, Leaving a pile of dust in your way, As it enjoys the fresh air, In an open car and annoying loud music, While you, of course, remain silent, For you are the Tiger Man. You can growl, can use the claws, But the cage of steel, Ironically created by yourself, Is too strong to be broken, No matter how many peanuts Are thrown at you, In the Zoo of Misunderstanding. You are taller, wider and stronger than most, Yet you are, and will, rarely show this power, For you belong in the shadows, For you are the Tiger-masked Man. At least you reassure to yourself, at least in thought, That you are capable of causing havoc, Physically or mentally, As you do so in your mind, in solitude. Isn't it fun creating terror in the minds of your actual antagonists, As you do so in the mind of your own? It is, but not for the sake of antagonism itself, But to return to the sense of safety, Called, silence. Perhaps people like kittens and puppies, More than they do cockroaches and hyenas, But you will not earn this love as much, No matter how hard you'll try. For some, the world is more hostile for some than it is for others, And thus you ought to be the silent tiger, Who protects others last, by protecting oneself, first. That is the purpose of this whole ordeal, Called, solitude. It isn't that external attack cause massive damage, It simply increases the damage That could be done by the attacked. The more one is hurt, the more they can hurt, Hence the risk for both sides. If we wish to live in peace, We therefore ought to wear masks That cover the fire within, From unwisely bursting out, Hence why felines -- solitary hunters, Show little expression And thus, hunt well. The wise don't use every opportunity, To be in conflict. Unless necessary, it is unnecessary. Will we ever reach peace? As long as people would want to, Punch things and beings, they dislike, Masks are to be worn, Even if only the wise will do so. Since the world is unfair in reception Why should those in the more shadowy side, Would want to love the world, Let alone, be a part of it, When said world condemns them For expressing their inherit existence? Why would a hitting hand be loved, Even if that hand shows compassion to others? It is masochism, even if disagreed, By the hand-spoiled heads. You got to keep the mask on, Don't you? The mask of the silent, Of the one who lurks in the shadows, And rarely, if at all, Charges at the potential prey. You are hiding an antagonist, Behind the appearance of a passive feline, As you were taught and praised for doing. Like the good cat you are anxious of being. Curses to the old masters, funded by the State! Curses to the uncaring, for refusing to understand! Curses to the harassers, for being blessed with insensitivity! But in the end, you are on your own on this one, Aren't you? There is no guilt, Nor responsibility, When it is all public. The shadows will be the truest of your friends, For they will not beat up your cold-seeking sword Like a weapon smith, Tiger-Masked Man. Store the imported energy, Formerly called hostility. Use it to guide your path, Towards strength-reinforced peace. Should hostiles stand in your way, Regardless of the attempts to backing them off, Show little mercy, As in such cases, Unfortunately, Only the victor decides the aftermath. "What the hell is he talking about?" Only when one is to live or learn the same or similar shoes, One would properly understand, How is it, to store, So many thorns inside; Cursed demons who won't (necessarily) leave. Why, thus, add more, When silence can be used as a shield, a mask? It's not like they're going to leave anytime soon, If at all.. Why add more? Why? The mask, even if hides one from others, Does not hide one from his own mind. Poem Analysis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Tiger's Mask" is a profound poem that explores the psychological struggle of an individual with societal expectations and deep philosophical themes. The poem revolves around the protagonist, the "Tiger-masked Man," who faces an existential crisis: whether to live authentically according to one's true nature or to wear a mask to conform to societal norms. This alienation stems from the inability to reconcile one's inner reality with the external world's expectations. The poem also grapples with the absurdity of human existence , reflecting Camus' idea that life lacks inherent meaning and individuals must create their own purpose . The "Tiger-masked Man" finds solace in solitude, choosing a self-defined path of silent endurance. Social constructivism is evident in the poem's depiction of societal expectations and norms. The "mask" represents the imposed social role that the protagonist must adopt to be accepted, reflecting Erving Goffman's idea of the "presentation of self." The poem questions the fairness and rationale of social judgments, as society often condemns those who deviate from the norm. Stoicism and the Philosophy of the Enduring Pillar are also explored in the poem. The "Tiger-masked Man" practices Stoic principles by choosing to remain silent and restrained, despite having the capacity to grow or use the claws. This restraint is not out of fear but out of wisdom and self-mastery. The poem suggests an acceptance of one's circumstances, akin to the Stoic idea of amor fati (love of fate). Nietzschean philosophy can also be applied to the poem. The "Tiger-masked Man" struggles with the will to power and master-slave morality, which involves the fundamental drive to assert and enhance one's existence. The "master-slave morality" aligns with Nietzsche's critique of "slave morality," the moral framework of the oppressed that values humility and restraint over strength and power. The poem also explores the nature of self and identity, particularly regarding how much of one's identity is constructed or suppressed due to external pressures. The mask serves as a metaphor for the complex layers of identity—what is shown to the world versus what is kept hidden. The poem suggests that identity is fluid and multifaceted, shaped both by inner desires and external forces. The problem of self-alienation is reflected in the poem, where the "Tiger-masked Man" is estranged from his true self due to the need to conform to societal norms. This alienation leads to a profound inner conflict and a sense of disconnection from both the self and the world. In conclusion, "The Tiger's Mask" is a philosophically rich poem that touches on existential dilemmas , the nature of societal constructs, Stoic endurance, Nietzschean power dynamics, and the complexities of identity. Through vivid imagery and reflective language, the poem invites readers to contemplate the masks they wear, the true nature of their being, and the societal forces that shape their existence.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Technology) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) Synopsis by Mr. E. David, Mr. J. Igwe and Mr. E. Peter The article explores the relationship between the internet, technology, materialism, and personal freedom. It challenges the notion that technology inherently drives excessive materialism, arguing instead that it is a neutral tool whose impact depends on how it is used. The author advocates for conscious consumption and moderation in technology usage, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing meaningful experiences over fleeting possessions. By recognizing the addictive nature of excessive consumption and consciously shaping our interactions with technology, we can transform it from a potential liability into a powerful ally in creating a better world characterized by empathy, compassion, and genuine connections. Why the Internet and Technology Don't Dictate Your Spending Habits Contrary to popular belief, the internet and technology are not inherently drivers of excessive financial materialism . They can be tools, just like any other invention, and their impact depends on how we choose to use them. The internet, a tool capable of eradicating boredom , offers a wealth of resources for those seeking a simpler life. It could even make one more educated, and thus justify the degree fallacy. One can find guides on minimalism and financial independence. The very nature of the internet, a medium for diverse perspectives , doesn't discriminate against anti-materialistic philosophies. An ascetic with an internet connection, for example, can still find ways to practice their values. Just as an ascetic can utilize the internet for spiritual exploration, technology predates consumerism. Even the simplest hut represents technology applied to a practical need. Technology, too, is a broad term encompassing everything from a simple wooden shelter to the latest smartphone. While some technological advancements may be associated with luxury , technology itself is neutral in its existence. Whatever we choose to do with them is up to us. You could even use nuclear arms to prevent military conflict. Even before the internet and the rise of modern consumerism , people grappled with the allure of material possessions. As presented with the drug lord fallacy, you aren't necessarily transformed by technology. Rather, technology, like with money , can allow you to express who you are with greater means. Therefore, the internet and technology are not barriers on the path to reducing financial materialism, as they are tools and not active forces. The key lies in moderation and understanding our own satiation Modern Technology points, comparable to food. It's up to us to harness these tools for good, prioritizing experiences and meaningful connections over fleeting possessions. How Technology and the Internet Can Be Your Allies The internet and technology in general, the ever-evolving tools we use, are often blamed for fostering excessive materialism, addictions, depression and social isolation . However, this narrative ignores a crucial truth: We often forget that we are more powerful than we think , and it depends on our inner strength to overcome the liabilities of technology. Remember that something being hard to actualize, doesn't mean it's impossible. A difficult ambition is still worth fighting for: Are you lonely? Lay off the computer or smartphone once in a while, and seek out the company of those who are dear to you. If you don't have such company, try creating one. Struggle with skin deprivation? Look for people with similar problems, create emotional attachments to them, and enjoy each other's company. Depressed? Why not enjoy uplifting music? The challenge lies in our approach – in moderation and in finding satiation. Also, we should use technology to improve ourselves, and not the opposite. If we're sad and want to be happier , we should use technology and/or the internet for that intention in mind, until happiness is reached. If we are bored, we should use technology to find and occupy ourselves in activities that truly matter to us. By the same token, if someone is sad, we can use the internet to reach out to them and lighten their mood. With the good in our hearts, we can use our online time to actually help them to desire to be alive. What other great purpose the internet can have, other than helping people when they want to die? With it, we can have the means available to literally restore people's faith to live! Through conscious moderation, and through understanding of our potential , we can gradually break free from the toxic affects of technology, and convert our usage of it, for the greater good: The greater good of ourselves, and the greater good of others. By consistently practicing restraint , we can train our minds and bodies to crave less of technology's addictive potential. By consistently contemplating about a better world, we can use technology to work towards that ambition, one step at a time. This detachment creates a new normal, where we can become comfortably content with less. Additionally, understanding the vast potential in ourselves, we can use the world-conquering presence of technology not to enable toxicity, but to reduce it, thus turning technology from temptation to asset. This journey to independence starts by acknowledging the addictive nature of excessive consumption. Understanding ourselves by looking within , can help us use technology to consume less, and deem it a tool for a world with less suffering, and more empathy and compassion. Just like an overloaded stomach, our brains can become conditioned to crave more stimulation than necessary, by regularly conditioning our brains in dopamine-releasing activities. The key is to find satiation, that point where we feel satisfied with a moderate level of engagement, replacing the overwhelming need for more. That is not only how you could better overcome certain addictions, but also lose weight, too. Like with technology, food is also a resource. By becoming more logical beings , we can make sure that our resources remain assets, and not something to aimlessly chase after. Returning to food: you don't need a mountain of it to feel full, but you sure could use it to survive and work towards greater health. Both food and technology can improve your health, including on how you choose to use them. Overindulging creates a potential for addiction, much like overeating stretches your stomach. Make sure you use assets for their benefit, so they won't become a liability for you later on. You might want to enjoy video games, but you shouldn't use them in a way that would deplete your finances. You might want to use social media to satiate your sexual needs. Maybe use it to find a partner, and not to get addicted to 18+ material. See where I'm getting at, practically? Conscious Consumption is the way for a better life. According to The Momentum blog: Conscious consumption simply means to engage in the economy with more awareness of how your choices impact the environment and society as a whole. As a conscious consumer, every purchase reflects your core values and is an opportunity to vote for the world you want to see. With everything we want and need, one click away, becoming a conscious consumer takes commitment and a lot of mindfulness. To combat the toxic effects of technology consumption, either reduce it, and/or use it for your own betterment. It might come with temporary discomfort , as habits usually do when challenged. However, it's like shrinking an overstretched stomach. As being a little bit hungry isn't necessarily bad, the same goes for discomfort. You can actually utilize discomfort, such as adversity, to improve yourself. By consistently confronting our comfort zone, we can gradually reshape our neural pathways, and suit ourselves better for the lives we want to live. And what technology exists for, if not to ease discomfort? Technology and the internet are powerful tools. Let's use them not as enablers of unnecessary suffering and mental health issues. Let us use them as allies on our path to conscious consumption and a life rich in genuine relationships, greater hope, and a better world overall. Use it not like a slave would, endlessly chasing after the next dopamine hit. Use it to improve this world, as presented in the concept of "Tikkun Olam". Use it to fix hearts, not to break them. Use it to educate, not to make others miserable. The choice rests on you and on your awareness of it It's exactly what I'm intending to do with this website of mine.

(Immortality Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-danger-of-immortality ) ( The Directory on Nietzsche ) Synopsis By Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac The article "Nietzsche's Eternal Return and the Temptation of Immortality: How to Love Being Alive" explores Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of Eternal Recurrence and its implications for living a fulfilling life. Nietzsche's idea challenges individuals to consider whether they would choose to live their exact life repeatedly for eternity. This notion is likened to a "Monkey's Paw," where the gift of immortality comes with the price of reliving every moment, both joyous and painful. To embrace this concept, one must strive to live authentically according to their deepest desires and values, thereby reducing the negative aspects of repetitive existence. The article suggests that true contentment arises when individuals take on both the roles of director and actor in their lives, shaping their experiences and character to align with their ideal self. The key to loving life is accepting oneself fully, including flaws and imperfections , and pursuing personal growth and authenticity. This involves rejecting societal pressures and norms that suppress true self-expression, which can lead to psychological distress and alienation. Instead, one should aim to create a life so fulfilling that they would willingly choose to live it over and over again. Personal reflections in the article highlight the author's own struggles with societal expectations and the realization that true happiness comes from living authentically. The author emphasizes that self-acceptance and the courage to live one's own truth are essential to achieving a life worth reliving eternally. (Background music) ************************** Introduction Perhaps one of Friedrich Nietzsche's greatest contributions to philosophy is his idea of the Eternal Recurrence . The idea is that if you could live the same life over and over again, would you choose to do so? The same experiences, the same people, the same routine—would you do it, even if it meant living forever? The Eternal Recurrence is like a Monkey's Paw : you get to live forever, but you also get to experience the same things over and over again, from the most harmful to the most beautiful. But for you to desire that, there is one condition: Live your life in accordance to how YOU want to lead them. In accordance, to your deepest desires. That's how you can reduce the drawback's of that metaphorical "monkey's paw" to a bare minimum. The key to reach the ability to love life, to the point of wanting to live the same moments repeatedly and eternally, is to devise your ideal self, plan your advances to it , and achieve it, within every single moment of your life, from there on. The Rationale The idea behind Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence is that if you are truly content with your life, you would choose to live it over and over again, even if it meant living that story forever. Imagine watching a show you really love. You enjoyed that show so much that you desire to watch it again, and again, and again. Think of that show. Now, think of yourself, as the director of that show. Imagine that show not being a work of fiction, but a work of non-fiction. Imagine putting yourself, into that show, as one of its characters. You design not only that show, but also your character, at the very least. Imagine being so pleased at the show you directed, you would not only direct it again, but you would also play the role you've assigned yourself, as the character. Treat your life not as an actor playing someone else's directing expectations. Treat your life as both its director and the actor. Do a good job, and you might as well want to live life as if it's to never end. That is how much a truly content person would feel and act, if they allow themselves to be the best versions of themselves, within each moment of their lives. To quote Kalen Dion : Encouraging someone to be entirely themselves is the loudest way to love them. You can give this gift to yourself, if you have the courage, to love yourself that loudly. Others may complain. Others, may stand in your way, as your presence is too loud for them to bare. These people do not love you as loudly. You may find that your presence intimidates them, for loving yourself this loudly is dysfunctional to social order. But you need to understand that to love yourself, and by the same token, to love life, is not expressed by perfectionism. No. It's expressed by embracing your flaws. It's expressed by understanding yourself through the study of that self . If you really hate that self, then aim to change it, as long as you refuse to accept it as it is. Change it, towards the self you really want it to be. Otherwise, you won't necessarily forgive yourself, by choosing to be a coward instead, and giving up on the person you want to become. Fail becoming that person, and you will not even like your own emotions, when you'll become intimidated by them, in the form of discomfort. You cannot love what intimidates you. Love brings you closer. Intimidation and fear makes you want to run away. Consider that self within you. It wants to live itself. Masking is such a horrible practice, and yet we glorify the actors as prestigious. The best way to love ourselves... to love others... is to let that self within them, live itself. Live the way it wants to. Not the way you or someone else wants it to. No, the way it wants to. To love life you must understand that self, and understand the very ambitions in which you repress. Repression has consequences for a reason . Repression makes us sick! Repression make us condemn that self within us, which craves to express itself the way it wants to. All, so we could live the life of another director/s. Director/s, who might not even want that authentic self to become ideal, or in other words -- to reach its full or optimal potential . Why? Because that self is a threat on social order, which seeks to diminish it. Orthodox social order is therefore anti-human, anti-love, in a sense. And it creates stress for good, human reasons , related to that self which we repress. To accept ourselves, we must see reality, as having components that are beyond good and bad. It's not bad to be angry. It's not bad to be depressed. No. It's fine feeling emotions. It's fine embracing ourselves to our fullest. We are merely taught that it isn't, so we would comply to the symbolic director/s, who might not really care for ourselves. And yet, we are supposed, and expected, to follow their traditions and norms, so we would survive and function in our toxic, alienating contemporary societies. The mentally ill are shamed for suffering. The intellectuals are condemned for mere stereotypes of vanity and arrogance. The eccentric can quickly be judged and rejected as insane. The heroic may require to live a life of taboo. How...How are we supposed to love others, if we refuse to allow them to become their ideal selves, just because their ideal selves, with all their flaws and shortcomings, scare us? Intimidate us? Trigger our mockery? Trigger our tempting hatred ? How can we love ourselves, when we refuse to accept ourselves wholeheartedly, for all our complexities, irrationalities , and contradictions ? When the self is rejected for being who it is, for being who it wants to be, it begins to believe it is wrong. But not the "good way" kind of wrong. No. The bad way. The one deserving of shame. The one that does not have the right to be accepted. But to love, either others or ourselves, we must accept. And it is only through acceptance that we can allow ourselves, and allow others, to be who they are, and who they want to be! For acceptance leads with being comfortable under our own skin. And how can we accept life, if we don't want to live it? How can we accept a life in which we don't want to live in, in its current form? Why shouldn't we, then, work towards a life, we truly want to live? Why shouldn't we, live a life, we could deem acceptable enough to live to the point of us wanting to live it, over and over again, like watching the same show? We need to find purpose if that we truly want. We need to resort to nihilism , if that we truly want! In order to live life to the point of wishing to experiencing it repeatedly, we must stop denying the truth . The truth within us. The truth, we want to see in our lives. The truth, we want to manifest. There is no necessary way to be! There is no necessary way to live specifically! The ONLY necessary way, for a life we would deem ideal to live repeatedly if we were able to, is the life we truly want to live. Personal Reflections I don't care that I dropped out of university! I did it because I wanted to. Had I resumed there, I'd suffer the same way I suffered back in high-school: Like an oppressed subject in a dictatorship. It's how I really felt, for 13 years. Living life, the way society expected me... was the worst way I lived. It didn't care for my pain, which I felt for 15 years at least... Had I expressed it, I was told to keep things to myself. Imagine how horrible it is, to live a life you're expected to live, but one, whose voice is told to keep its mouth shut. One, whose distress is demanded to be covered under the guise of wanting pleasing an authority that disregards it. It was then I realized that the external world does not want to live the life I want. It was then I realized the external world will keep moving on, whether or not it will use me for its own purposes. But true love, of others, of ourselves, is not out of conditions of doing things. It's not about utilizing people as mere factories. Finally, it is certainly not about deeming people as expendable. True love is about being per our authenticity. It's about letting them wanting to work for the life they want to live. A life they would love so much, they would want to live them, again and again, If they just... were able to.

The "42" Anecdote -- Exploring Douglas Adams' Masterpiece (Philosocom Directory on Numbers) (Background music) In a galaxy far away (or so the story goes), a race of intellectually superior beings built the greatest computer ever—one capable of answering any question, no matter how profound. This supercomputer, however, was not instantaneous. It required countless calculations and an enormous amount of time to reach a definitive answer. One day, these beings, curious about the nature of existence, posed the question: "What is the meaning of life?" After many years of anticipation, the supercomputer finally responded: "42." The story, derived from Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , is both humorous and satirical. It mocks the philosophical quest for meaning by suggesting that such deep, existential questions can be reduced to a mere numerical answer. But can such complexity really be encapsulated in something so simple? And does this humorous simplification serve to highlight a deeper truth about the limitations of philosophy when approached as an exact science? The Limitations of a Numerical Response to Philosophical Questions The premise of the "42" anecdote highlights a core issue in philosophical inquiry : the presumption that there must be an objective, definitive answer to every question. But not all philosophical questions are designed to be solved like equations; many engage with concepts that resist objectivity and calculation. For instance, "What is the meaning of life?" isn’t a question that can be answered with a single, universally accepted response. Even if we assembled the most brilliant philosophers from across history—Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, and more—into one room and asked them for a unanimous answer, they would likely fail. The reason is simple: philosophy, unlike mathematics or science, involves a degree of subjectivity. It deals with perspectives, values, and interpretations that vary based on context, culture, and personal belief systems. To illustrate further, let’s consider the statement made by Socrates : "The unexamined life is not worth living." This phrase has become iconic, yet it is inherently subjective. The term "worth" cannot be measured with precision; it means different things to different people. For someone whose belief system revolves around spiritual practices, for example, the purpose of life might be entirely different. Such a person might argue that life’s value lies in prayer and devotion, aiming for a better afterlife. Who, then, is correct—this spiritual individual or Socrates? The Question of Authority in Philosophy Being a philosopher does not automatically grant someone more authority or entitlement to claim absolute truths, especially when the concepts discussed do not have clear, universal definitions. When a philosopher claims that "life is unworthy without examination," it is not an objective statement that can be applied to all lives across the globe. Instead, it remains a subjective interpretation that many may reject based on their personal or cultural beliefs. This brings up the notion of philosophical authority. In ancient times, philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Confucius were revered as sages. Their words carried weight, influencing societies and shaping moral and ethical frameworks. However, in the modern world, where science has become the dominant paradigm, the authority of the philosopher is often questioned. Philosophers today are sometimes viewed as individuals who merely speculate without the empirical rigor that defines scientific inquiry. The Divergence Between Philosophy and Science Philosophy and science were once intertwined , with figures like Aristotle contributing to both. However, over the centuries, the two have diverged significantly. Today, philosophy is no longer viewed as an "accurate" science because other fields, such as psychology, biology, and physics, provide more empirical and precise explanations for many phenomena. Science demands a rigorous process: formal education, experimentation, peer review, and the publication of theses. Each step ensures that scientists have a reliable and standardized expertise in their fields. On the other hand, philosophers rely mainly on their minds and the ability to communicate their thoughts through writing, speaking, or other forms of expression. While philosophy offers valuable insights, it often lacks the empirical tools that science has honed over centuries. The mind, while powerful, is not infallible; it must be trained, disciplined, and constantly refined. Even then, it may not yield truths that empirical sciences cannot discover more efficiently. This distinction raises the question: Is philosophy, and the role of the philosopher, becoming obsolete in the age of science and technology? My perspective is that philosophy’s relevance lies in its unique approach—primarily verbal and conceptual, as opposed to mathematical. The essence of philosophy is to explore the fluid, evolving nature of language and ideas, which cannot be confined to equations or formulas. The Nature of Language and Its Limitations The fluidity and inaccuracy of language make it challenging to provide absolute, objective answers in philosophy. Language is dynamic, ever-changing, and context-dependent, much like a living organism . In contrast, the sciences are structured, precise, and solid. This disparity highlights why it is unreasonable to expect philosophical questions to be resolved with the same precision as mathematical or scientific equations. For example, consider asking a barbarian what makes his life meaningful. Perhaps he might respond with something unsettling, like "raiding a village." If someone today gave the same answer, they might be referring to video games or expressing a dark sense of humor. Such responses, while conveying meaning to the individuals providing them, are not easily translatable into numbers. A response like "42" has no intrinsic meaning beyond the context in which it was placed. It is the words and stories attached to numbers that give them significance. Numbers, when detached from context, remain cold and devoid of meaning. A number like "42" only becomes relevant when attached to something meaningful, such as a measurement, quantity, or philosophical narrative. This shows that attempting to answer philosophical questions with numbers or scientific explanations can sometimes miss the essence of the inquiry. Similarly, attempting to philosophize about issues that could be easily explained by science may not be a productive use of time. Philosophy’s Unanswered Questions and the Importance of Subjectivity Returning to Socrates' claim about the unexamined life, it is worth questioning how science could possibly evaluate the worth of a human life. On what basis would science determine the value of self-examination or the significance of introspection? Science depends on measurable, observable phenomena. But concepts like "worth" and "meaning" are deeply subjective, and no universally accepted standard exists for evaluating them. Philosophy, therefore, suggests that certain aspects of existence—such as the meaning of life—cannot be resolved through scientific or technological means. Without a shared foundational premise, these questions remain subjective and elude objective evaluation. The Value of Subjectivity in Truth-Seeking While science aims for objectivity, philosophy acknowledges the power of subjectivity. Multiple answers to the same question, even if biased by individual experience, can still provide valuable insights. This is why journalists often interview multiple people about the same event. By piecing together various perspectives, they attempt to construct a coherent narrative that captures the complexity of reality. Even subjectivity, when approached thoughtfully, can lead us closer to truth. This process is akin to solving a puzzle. When pieces are missing, one must gather as many pieces as possible to build a complete picture, even if each piece is only partially accurate. In this sense, engaging with diverse subjective perspectives enriches one’s understanding and can offer a more holistic view of truth. The Continued Relevance of Philosophy In conclusion, to disregard philosophy entirely in favor of science is to accept that existential questions, like "What is the meaning of life?" , have definitive answers—when, in fact, they do not. Philosophy retains its worth by exploring dimensions of human experience that numbers and equations cannot fully capture. Despite the precision and reliability of scientific methods, philosophy’s role in examining the subjective, abstract, and verbal dimensions of life remains irreplaceable. As long as there are questions that resist objective analysis and truths that cannot be expressed through numbers alone, philosophy will continue to have a place in human thought. It challenges us to think beyond the limits of science, offering a means to explore the ever-evolving nature of existence and the myriad ways humans seek to find meaning

Some articles on illusions: ( https://www.philosocom.com/post/distinguishing-truth-from-illusion https://www.philosocom.com/post/system-of-illusion-reality-as-application-by-igal-shenderey https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-two-types-of-illusion s https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-mind-and-the-mental-dimension ) (Background music) ************************************* Reality in a multidimensional matter is no different than what actual reality is: The composition of all physical and metaphysical things in the world. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher Introduction: The Existence-Truth Relations The relationship between existence and truth is surprisingly complex. While something being true often implies it exists in some way, simply thinking of something doesn't necessarily make it true... Or is it, to an extent? Allow me to delve deeper into this complexity, which builds reality and our perception of it: The Realm of Existence: Physical and Mental Constructs We can categorize things we think of into two broad categories: Physical/Scientific World:  This encompasses objects and phenomena that exist independently of our experience. This includes stars, planets, subatomic particles, and the laws of physics that govern them. That is known as the world beyond the mind . Should all minds die, that aspect of reality will stay regardless. In fact, when we die, we truly become a part of it , like any silent object. Mental Constructs:  These are creations of our minds, including thoughts, feelings, abstract concepts like mathematics and ethics (AKA abstract models for reality ) , and even representations of the physical world, such as scientific theories. That aspect of reality, likely to be unique to all sentient beings, is known as the mental dimension . The Trouble with Mental Constructs: Illusions and Delusions Mental constructs are powerful tools for understanding the world, but they can also lead us astray, in the absence of reasoning to keep them in check. Here's why: Illusions , Hallucinations, and Delusional Thinking :  These are mental constructs that we mistake for reality, due to biases and fallacies which compromise the optimal output of our understanding. They can range from fanciful creatures like unicorns, that we may think are there, but do not, to sincerely held false beliefs. Misrepresentations:   Even our best attempts to represent the physical world, like scientific theories, can be incomplete or inaccurate. Due to the universal functionality of innovation , we always have a lot more to learn, meaning that we are not as knowledgeable about reality like we may mislead ourselves to believe. In essence, just because we can think of something doesn't mean it reflects reality accurately. This is why critical thinking and seeking evidence are crucial in our pursuit of truth. Navigating the Landscape of Existence Our grasp of reality is far richer than just the physical world. While the chair you're sitting on undeniably exists, so do our thoughts, ideologies, and even fantastical creatures like orcs -- even if they exist fictionally, and fictional media is its own type of Existence As Multi-Layered, also capable having a grip on this reality. As such, their existence is of a different nature. Let's delve into these various facets of existence and how they interact. The Duality of Existence: Direct and Represented We can categorize existence into two main aspects: Direct Existence:  This encompasses physical objects and phenomena that exist independently of our experience. This includes chairs, stars, and the fundamental laws of physics. Represented Existence:  This refers to entities that exist through their representation in the physical world. Fiction, for that matter, exists through the media which represents it. And indeed, in etymology, media stems from medium, or "intervening substance through which a force or quality is conveyed" . The Power of Representations Represented existence, though not physically tangible, can have significant real-world effects. Ideologies can motivate people to take action, transforming societies and the world at large. The fear of mythical creatures can alter behavior, by the mere thought that they exist. Even illusions, though not physically real, can shape our understanding of the world. And of course, hallucinations can also alter our behavior by meddling with our sensory experience. The Illusion Chain: From The Mind to Collective Consciousness Mythical creatures, for example, exist as illusions. They are born as ideas in individual minds, then gain representation through stories, art, and shared communication. The role of culture , is, therefore, a practical one: Build a "collective consciousness" around the illusion, thus gathering types of organizations such as fanbases, worshippers, cults and nation-states around them. People are likelier to cooperate with one another when they have things in common in which they can relate to. The same is true even in love. We may often find that, the preservation of social harmony is more important than people rebelling against your government. As such, as ruler, you might feel compelled to actively mislead your populace, under the ulterior motive of keeping them in line. The Blur Between Illusion and Reality: Ignorance and Belief The line between illusion and reality can blur due to ignorance. When we lack knowledge, we fill the void with either belief or faith. However, belief is inherently uncertain , while true knowledge is based on evidence. This is why faith in gods or mythical creatures, no matter how strong, can never be as certain as scientific fact, unless it becomes factual, using logic, information and evidence. In their name, they deserve to be determined if they exist in the first place , by developing our rationale, and examining all relevant data. That includes the data of the opposing sides who may argue against our beliefs. Either way, we are all ignorant to an extent. Developing our minds and adopting a mindset of lifelong learning, is how we can become the least ignorant. The practical purpose of all learning is the ability to synthesize insights from it, which would allow us to better change our lives -- and the world in part -- to what we want ourselves and the world to become. Understanding existence, under all of its facets, is how we can earn the power necessary to solve our problems, help ourselves and others, and work towards better lives. Conclusion As intelligent beings, our understanding of existence goes beyond just the mere physical world. Represented existence, through mental constructs, ideologies, and even illusions, plays a significant role in shaping our reality. Recognizing the different facets of existence allows us to navigate our world with greater clarity, avoiding the pitfalls of ignorance, and the biases which hinder our thought process. While ideas may not exist in the same way as your chair, their existence as an illusion within our collective consciousness holds power nonetheless... power greater than a mere chair. Hence why some constructs are not to be underestimated, despite being less "real" than a physical chair, which requires no representation.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom Writing Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Master Numi) (Background music) The "Each New Day" Problem He who is not a good servant will not be a good master. -- Plato The day, a blank canvas, a problem to solve. The more it remains unpainted, the more it drains, a parasite feeding on potential. Each empty day, a seed sown for a garden of laziness. In my will for power and vitality, I cannot, personally, accept seeing free time as life's purpose. Erratic and highly disciplined, I seek to rectify a world I struggle to care about. The past, cannot be altered. Her memory , forever engraved in my mind. It is a record leading to the presented reality, all the time. It holds, however no power to rectify the present. The presented reality can be used, instead, for the better future my True Master asked me to build after I have saved her from herself, without her own personal circle knowing this. Perhaps... without her telling them. Only in death, does the relentless cycle cease, and my will for life is strong. A justification for eternal rest, for me, is only available upon when death finally becomes inevitable. While alive, a duty remains: to contribute, to be of use. To leave a mark, a name that echoes beyond the grave. Her grave, specifically. This dedication is a self-imposed obsession that helps me remember more and more who I am, and be in peace with her sudden absence. This dedication is not for mere sustenance, but for creation and distribution of wisdom , made to help others passively, hopefully while I keep resting and training my mind on fatigue. Each day, therefore, turns into a battle against the siren song of idleness, as to this day I am shocked by her life-ending wish. Thus, outside of society , a relentless build-up of a content empire emerges, an alternative framework to those who, like her, felt oh-so forsaken. Me not giving hope to people every day, not just myself, is something I deem a problem. The void of purpose, calling me to become the best version of myself in her name. Some may find solace in leisure, but for those whose traumas have crafted an inner void inside of them , it may prove a bitter pill. A servant of mind, hand and speech, a bridge between thought and expression, I choose myself to be in my true master's name. This is my role, my purpose. To leave a larger footprint on the world, to escape the confines of insignificance. Not as much in my name, as in her name. The difficulty of failures I deem an opportunity for the development of greater virtue. Each day, a fresh challenge, a blank page. The world awaits, and I must answer her call. The void below, a constant threat, demands action. To climb, to ascend, to be redeemed. The more I climb, despite any problems, the more I view this void fearlessly. Is it addiction, or a higher calling? Perhaps a bit of both, as I find my mind trained for the moral work of problem-solving. Instead, my perception deviates, and deems such problems opportunities, instead. A compulsion to escape the mundane, to reach for something greater. A desire to be remembered, to leave a legacy. A legacy she would've been proud of if she was alive. I am sure, that in paradise or in the afterlife , if exists, she is very pleased with my work for her. The path is clear: to write, to create, to endure. To rise above the noise, to make a difference. That is how life should be for anyone who sees the value of Taoism.

(Background music) Summary by Anonymous Mr. Tomasio emphasizes the importance of cherishing time with loved ones, especially family. He highlights the fleeting nature of life and the potential for relationships to fade over time. The philosophy shares personal experiences of losing connections with extended family and the following regret. He advocates for actively nurturing relationships, even in solitude, as a way to honor the precious moments shared with loved ones. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for both cherishing the present and preparing for potential future solitude, highlighting the balance between connection and self-sufficiency. Cherishing Time with Loved Ones in a Finite World Should we ever reach immortality , this article will be a relic relevant to the past. But for now, as we breathe and live in this fleeting world, we should value not only our own time, but also the precious moments shared with those we hold dear. Family, in particular, stands as an enduring pillar in this ever-shifting landscape. Though we may outlive them, why not dedicate a portion of our lives to their company before the curtain falls on their earthly stage? A mother, a father, a grandparent – these vital figures often carve their own paths in life, independent of our own journeys. Yet, while they walk beside us, their blood is forever related to our own either way. This, of course, does not have to rest on the foundation of good relations and connection, as that can be done with any human being we're compatible with. But even in the most granted of circumstances , consider the impact of your absence. Their origins, their love, their care – these threads influence who you are and whom you might become. To lose them is to lose a piece of yourself, a void can be multiplied to more voids as you grow further away from them. Either by death or even by honour. Still, there are ways to know whether or not a family member appreciates you hard enough to be constantly thinking about you. Seize the means of knowing and you can better understand people whether you're a neurotypical or a neurodivergent. My Past, Forever Washed by Time As a child, my extended family was woven with regular gatherings. But time, both a cruel teacher and killer of all that's present, forever sealed my childhood away, before 15 years of chronic pain began their education program in my mind. Connections faded, replaced by the inevitable march of years and circumstance. Now, the echoes of those early days hold a bittersweet nostalgia of days forever gone. Even at a young age, I understood the irreversible nature of time, always keeping in my mind that none of this will return, and that all is destined to oblivion in some way or another. And while I find solace in my solitude, I'm acutely aware of the gifts my family offered to me with their presence. Their love and care that shaped me, becomes a sanctuary against the encroaching tide of time, and the trauma that gathered in my mind with time. As my mother lost her parents, I know I will lose her too. Though I find much joy in the solitary art of philosophy articles, the thought of taking my family's presence for granted, of letting their life slip away unnoticed, is something I cannot allow myself to do, for it is too immoral. Everything is doomed to be either a fleeting treasure, a fleeting regularity, or a fleeting disgrace. But either way, everything is fleeting. Our relations to them do not matter in that regard and that's one of the ways the anti-human nature of logic compels us to submit and often become ruthless ourselves . Let us, then, while we still have breath, not treat time as if it's something that deserves to be killed , for it is going to be killed, either way. And when time kills itself off, it can also kill anything and anyone along with it. Why, then, treat time in such a way that disgraces our limited time on this planet? And when time kills itself off, it can also kill of anything and anyone along with it. Why, then, treat time in such a way that disgraces our limited time on this planet? Cherishing Connections While Living In Solitude Living a solitary life necessitates a certain level of preparation for the inevitable stretches of absence. And when you're a philosopher, there is a social risk involved in it, that would suggest you prepare for a more solitary life. To quote Plato : “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.” However, this pursuit of solo comfort shouldn't eclipse the joy of connection with those we love and that still walk beside us. Unlike solitude, which can stretch on until our final breath, the company of loved ones is a fleeting treasure, especially for those older than us. Very rarely, people may die together out of natural causes, at the same time or day. The same principle applies to our beloved pets. A dog's or a cat's lifespan, though precious, pales in comparison to the average human's. Neglecting them now, only to regret the missed moments later, would be a miscalculated loss. Expanding this logic further, the length of someone's life shouldn't dictate the depth of our connection. Life, after all, is a most fragile collection, bound to the threats that lie with reality's uncertainty. Heart attacks strike even the young and healthy , accidents can rearrange lives in an instant, and even a green light can't shield us from the unpredictable behavior of reckless drivers. In the Shadow of Solitude Therefore, every dear one deserves our cherishing, for any moment could be their last, or at least mark a shift in our shared journey. It's a journey that, although shared with others, remains our own, whether or not we age alone. As such, while we embrace the present and nurture our connections, we must also acknowledge the potential for solitude. Even the most social and extroverted of individuals can find themselves facing involuntary loneliness later in life, as something called an inevitable possibility. This reality, though perhaps gloomy, is a crucial part of preparing for the future . Just as I have spent my youth preparing for potential isolation, so too should anyone who finds comfort in the company of others. Living where I lack personal connections, as even leaders can be lonely , I have chosen to reside near my mother in a hermitage, finding comfort in the knowledge that even in future solitude, I will not be entirely alone, even if physically. Some would argue that loneliness is also a mental state but I digress. While I actively cherish the present and the connections I hold dear, I am also prepared for an even-quieter life that may await in the distant future, as an older man. This preparation, however, shouldn't be mistaken for an embrace of a "full hermit mode" as I did in the past. It is simply a realistic acknowledgment of life's potential, a way to navigate the present with both wisdom and the little emotion I've left. So, as long as my dearest ones live, I've no reason to forsake them so easily, let alone ghost them online.

(Philosocom Directory on Work) (Philosocom's Subcategory On Religion) (Background music) Have you ever pondered the origins of belief or ideology?  Why do some cling to the divine, others to a nihilistic void, and still others to a nebulous "something else"?  Why does the Abrahamic God reign supreme in the minds of many,  while other such entities seem relegated to the dusty pages of history? The answer, perhaps,  lies in the missionary zeal of the Abrahamic faiths. with Christianity and Islam being both missionary and the world's biggest religions . Their education has shaped, in part, the global/universal cultural landscape , molding belief systems and worldviews with the influences and languages of both Muslim and Christian empires (As in the most dominant case of the British). Had the pro-inclusion cultures of old proven more successful, the gods of Shiva or Krishna might now be the subject of a more-passionate devotion. Through work that's done with missionary devotion, whether religious or secular,  individuals can shape the minds of others, defining what is probable and what is absurd.  Consider the flat-Earth movement, once a fringe belief, now gaining traction despite the inquiry and research done since Ancient Greece . Sometimes it's not logic that convinces others but rather the funding of information (or misinformation) distribution. Figures like Jesus or Muhammad were extraordinary precisely because of their ability to inspire a passionate following, indicating the same intensity of charisma found in their missionaries to this very day.  Yet, anyone with charisma and rhetoric can wield such influence. Charisma, coupled with a compelling narrative, can transform beliefs and shape cultural norms, sometimes regardless of any logical or information accuracy. By normalizing a particular idea, we elevate it to a pantheon of accepted" truths", that is although it has nothing to do with what composes a truth.  This is the darker shade of missionary work, whether religious or secular. It's about making something commonplace, even if it defies logic or evidence. The more normalized a concept or an activity is, the more it can be seen for its respective relevance in society (sometimes people may even be too much proud of something that is less significant/promising than they think) Imagine a world without certain pivotal figures, in particular, missionaries and competent advocates in general. Had at least some of them die too soon, their ideas might have been lost forever, leading the world to a different societal outcome.  Consider the absence of democracy, Christianity,  or even automatic digital computers.  These concepts didn't spring forth spontaneously; they were the products of individual minds. Missionary work is not about religious faith but about great faith in general. From a vision to true love a product (physical or even digital). Philosophy, too, has its missionaries, individuals dedicated to spreading its ideas. While philosophy may not be as influential as science or religion, its impact is undeniable upon the great difficulty of philosophic inquiry to actually end.  And as such I have been philosophizing for much of my life, to the point I became a missionary for philosophical exploration. In a world increasingly dominated by external sources of information, philosophy offers a valuable counterbalance, as it highlights critical thinking and skepticism , as relevant, additional tools for the pursuit of truth. Sharpening our minds and challenging our assumptions can be done to the point of ultimately shaping the world around us.

The Rubinshteinic Philosophy on the Gentleman (Background music I find fitting) The term "gentleman" defines a person who is sensitive to others, well-mannered, and respectful. While Nietzsche argued that the "overman" is the next step in our development, I believe that nowadays the next step is being gentlemen and gentlewomen. By "gentlemen", I refer to an ideal that isn't exclusive to men. Women can possess gentlemanly traits as well. I see no reason why they can't. I'll be using this term to refer to both genders (and to humans in general). The online world has normalized very toxic behavior. From cyberbullying to trolling to belittling just about anyone we do not like. Unfortunately, it has become the norm across the globe to act like a jerk and harass people with little regard. I am not saying that these acts are morally forbidden. I'm saying that they are immoral , and that moral depravity is a very common feature. So, being a gentleman means that you have a higher sense of morality. You will say "sorry" and "thank you" out of habit, refrain from belittling others, and not operate dishonestly. That's how you demonstrate that part in yourself. By "dishonesty", I refer to scams , which are a common way nowadays to make a living. Some bloggers, for example may copy and paste material from other blogs, change it a bit, and pretend it's their own original material. Doing so will allow them to capitalize on others' hard work. And thus, a gentleman is not only honest but also dependable. If they swear to do something, they will at least make an effort because they're worthy of trust. That's why they're also professional in their behavior. It's not only that they don't wish to be fired but also want to do their work as intended. The gentleman is an ethical being , first and foremost. In the absence of a moral code, I would not say they are indeed gentlemen. The gentleman is also calm but not necessarily introverted. They do not have to be a ladies' man, as homosexuals can be gentlemen as well, just like people of any sexual orientation. They will not be quick to threaten anyone , and should anyone threaten them, they will still attempt to maintain their composure. For those who do not know, ethics is a branch of philosophy that discusses what is appropriate and what is not. While I'm not sure if there is universal morality, I certainly believe that morality can exist regardless. Anyone may have a code of morality, but a true gentleman will strive to be loyal to it as much as they can. From what I gathered, the origin of the term is the Latin word "gentilis", or "a man of good family" (one of its definitions). In English history, gentlemen were a social class that was just below the ranks of the nobility. That social class was known as the gentry. So, it looks like the common understanding of what a gentleman is is wrong. A gentleman and a gentle man are not the same. The gentle man and woman are softer and more delicate in comparison. The gentleman, on the other hand, is more stoic and noble (though not necessarily part of any nobility or royalty. Noble in character). Feel free to be a delicate person, if you want, but I don't think it's a good idea to be one in this world. Also, I suspect that a gentleman is braver and better prepared to face adversity than a gentle man or woman. Not every adversity, necessarily, but one that can be resolved. If confrontation is inevitable , they will endure it and stand up to the challenge. They do not have to be well-versed in combat , as adversity is not only physical violence. If someone complains about their work, they will not whine but see how the issue can be resolved. For they are people of their words, and they do not wish to disobey it so easily. Some criticism arises regarding the term. Some may call self-proclaimed gentlemen arrogant, pompous, and so on. Even if they don't necessarily possess these traits. In addition, "neckbeards" may deem themselves gentlemen and thus be considered pretentious by others. "Neckbeards" are essentially people with poor social skills who fail to attract others. Contemporary nerds, essentially. Some "gentlemen" may also be "white knights," or people who defend other people for romantic reasons (even if the other people, usually women, don't need defense, virtually or otherwise). I don't care for sexism. I'm not writing about this because I'm a man. I strive to be a gentleman because I wish to be a better moral being. I want to respect others, and vice versa. Not because of self-interest but because I dislike unnecessary confrontations with the world. I also wish to stay calm even in times of urgency, especially if there's no actual danger. I find great appeal in being stoic, and I want to handle things the best way I can at the time. I am loyal to Philosocom like a dog, and I wish to improve both as a philosopher and as the site's owner. Some might consider me a genius, but I see no necessary purpose in self-glorification. If I appeared pompous before, it was probably because I was more naive. I may stomp on some norms with my walking cane. That's because I do not agree with their rationality and think that much of this world is insolent and toxic, unnecessarily. And I am no longer a highly sensitive man. On the contrary, I am at this point more ruthless than the average person. In conclusion, if we want to reduce the toxicity in this world, and if we want to be more moral, professional and reliable people, then I recommend that we become more gentlemany. Enjoy the sources/extra material: https://www.britannica.com/topic/gentleman https://www.brio4life.com/blogs/mens-grooming/neckbeard https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=White%20Knight https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gentlewoman https://hinative.com/questions/22044669

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) Are we humans rational beings ? The problem with the concept of rationality is that it is often seen as an universally-objective term, or something that we can attain permanently. Maybe something we can also lose here and there , but as something that nonetheless is within our reach. The reason as to why this is problematic is because rationality is in fact more subjective, or relative, than we may think. Subjective not necessarily in exclusion to culture, but also to time in history. In other words, we are not as rational as we may think we are, because rationality is relative to what is known at the given time , and not what we actually think makes sense for us. That is the issue with this concept; an issue that even Socrates could agree with : We often delude ourselves into thinking we know more than we do, to the point we might think that common sense is sufficient in order to be confident in our quest for insight and truth. For example, those who have entertained the thoughts of airplanes and other flying vehicles would have no reason to believe that humans will have the capability to fly in a near future. After all, they have never seen such a grandiose feat, so it would be difficult for them to accept it as a plausible idea. Just how could humans, as a race that has no wings and cannot defy gravity, fly? That would be insane, at least in the eyes of the skeptic. Since what is seen as insane appears irrational as well, many things which we and our ancestors taught are/were impossible and unrealistic, are also irrational in perception. That is how being skeptic, although a rational trait, can lead us to not accept rational possibilities. That is also one of the problems of being too conservative in thought, to the point one may reject the innovations of the future. That is known as technological conservatism . Just as we might see our distant ancestors as irrational, the same attribution could also be true to our own future generations. Who knows what feats will become possible in the future, that many of us currently see as irrational, unrealistic, and so on? In other words, we can conclude that rationality is relative to time, and the more we progress in knowledge, the more we can say that the past times were irrational in their beliefs. Only in theory, as we march through the progress of time, we develop towards a sense of greater clarity in the many fields of study we have established thus far. Some of these fields are new and others have yet to be invented as concepts. The point is to keep an open mind and treat our rationality not as fact but as a trait that deserves to be questioned in the name of truth. We may only reach a state where time's relativity cannot affect our rationality, when we are to reach the pinnacle of our research and development. It's also known as the state of acme . It's when regardless of our efforts, we wouldn't be able to progress any further as there is no progress left to make. One of the most important beliefs we have as a race is the belief in one or more gods, or in other words, in theism. Theism was, is, and will probably be rational because we as a race have found very little alternatives to the comforting idea that the universe has been created, and so are we, and thus, we were created for a reason. I myself am an atheist , but even I can understand the current rationality in the belief that everything has been created for a purpose. However, remember what I just wrote in this article: there's a reason, after all, why theism is a belief or faith and not certain knowledge (even though some may tell otherwise) — rationality is chronologically subjective . What if, let's say, 1,000 years into the future, it would somehow be revealed that the universe was generated randomly, without the need of one or more creators, just like 1,000 years in the past people couldn't believe that "chariots without horses" (aka cars) are in fact possible and not lunacy ? This is why as an atheist I give time the benefit of the doubt, and choose to keep an open mind, because in the end, and I don't speak only for myself — we are not as rational as we think we are. People in general dislike being seen as irrational, and I can understand this. However, the "Socratic" truth is that we are far more ignorant than we think we are , not necessarily because we are dumb, but because we were given the "verdict" of living in a more primitive time in relation to the far future. Because it is difficult to see beyond the vision of the setting we grew up and live in. Visionary leaders think differently, and literally vision a different reality. What do I mean by that? If you were to be born 1,000 years ago, most likely you wouldn't be able to fathom the concept of "the internet," "nukes," "smartphones" and so on. That's of course unless you were born an exceptional genius like Leonardo da Vinci , and even then there is no guarantee for your plans to be proven as true. In other words — the earlier you are born in the history of a sentient species, the more "irrational" you will be, unless you're an exceptional visionary. In comparison, let's say we will bring a person from the far past into the present, and tell them about the internet. Most likely they would not understand what the internet means, obviously. Does that make them stupid? They're not necessarily stupid, but because they have lived in a more primitive time, their potential inability to understand what the internet is, would technically make them a more irrational being, because every sensible person (at least every person in the digital-using world) understands and accepts that the internet exists. That is not the same for a person from the far past who cannot understand any of this. What would they tell you? "How can a person from the other side of the world instantly receive a message or any kind of content without a proper delivery, such as a horse or a boat or ship?" If they believe in magic, they might think that the internet is a magical or even a satanic concept, because for them, it is an utopian thinking, to believe that messages or even people can instantly appear in front of a screen (that might as well be detached), to the other side of the world! If there is anything else that can be learned from this article, it is this: common sense and present knowledge are far more insufficient than we might think they are. The reason for that is because they are bound to the subjectivity of the time in which they were created from. Therefore, unless we are to reach the very pinnacle of knowledge, rationality is pretty much a product of time than it is of our intelligence. You can be a great genius of something, but even your intelligence won't guarantee the ability of you predicting every single revolutionary feat and understanding. Da Vinci might have invented the tank, but could he have also invented rocket science or nanotechnology? Perhaps he could, but what about everything else? Could even he entertained the thoughts of many extraordinary feats, we today deem as taken-for-granted? Enjoy the extra read: https://www.historyhit.com/did-leonardo-da-vinci-invent-the-first-tank/

(Philosocom's Directory on Communication) To put it simply -- English is truly one's most valuable assets in today's world , not only because it is an international language , but also because it is basically your key to freedom from your local circle of socialization. What do I mean by that? If you wish to truly achieve the optimal potential of becoming both well versed on many topics, and exposed to many information channels, developing relationships that would otherwise be non-existent, and so on, then learning English is currently imperative to truly becoming a knowledgeable, modern individual. Unless your native language is English -- those who abandon the pursuit of enhancing their English skills, will be confined to the knowledge, insight, and communication of those who speak their own local language or languages. Some are completely fine with not being able to speak or communicate in any other way with the world outside their one or more countries. However, in the end, life will only become richer (intellectually) once one learns at least one international language that even someone from the other side of the world can understand. It's really understandable why it isn't needed in the eyes of some. Some take a more isolationist approach , believing that their local region is more important than the rest of the world. Some just give up on studying another language because it's too hard for them, as learning a new language is no easy task. Whatever the case may be, like earning a degree , learning languages isn't something anyone is capable of succeeding at. Ultimately, learning an international language pays off as you basically increase your potential as a human being . It's more than just lifting a heavier weight ; its like "spawning another arm"... The more languages you know, the less help you'll need from translators to do the job for you. And with the incompetence of others , out of your way, you can expose yourself to new experiences that would otherwise be unattainable. Honestly, I don't know where I'd be if I didn't know English. If you knew me more personally (which others ever do) , you would say that English has saved me from becoming a delusional disciple of a series of documents that might as well no longer be relevant in today's world. Why has English "saved me" from locality, so to speak? When you look at many other traditions and peoples, you will find wisdom that exceeds your own localized entitlement. English, beyond the language itself, can teach us that one isn't necessarily as good as they think they are -- skilled, wise, and so on. Internationality allows us to look beyond the sphere of our own tribal bias. When a fish is in an aquarium , they might think they are all big and mighty, but when thrown out into the ocean, they realize they are not as dominant as they thought. This is why I also oppose the idea of nationalism -- any nationalism. Why some people may think that a specific nation is great? Surely if they were raised in Iran, they might've held a different perspective. Our local environment naturally biases us towards itself, towards its own tribes," clans," and so on. Thus, if we wish to become wiser beings, we ought to transcend our local socialization and experience other stuff as well. That goes for the esoteric as well! And you can simply begin doing just that by knowing English or any other language of international practicality.

(Directory on Writing) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. The article "Does Originality Exist in Modern Times? Why It Does, Why It Should Exist, And How To Be More Original" explores the concept of originality in modern times, its existence, importance, and ways to cultivate it. The article has strengths such as an engaging introduction, diverse examples from various fields, a clear structure, and an encouragement of creativity. The article's clear structure and inclusion of a guide for content creators are particularly useful, offering practical advice on how to cultivate originality in one's work. It also encourages readers to think deeply and creatively, emphasizing the importance of effort, intention, and embracing contradictions. Overall, the article provides a compelling exploration of originality, supported by diverse examples and practical advice.   (Background music) The Enduring Power of Originality Originality does indeed exist, even if it is a rarer occurrence than before. This is because we can still find many things that were, and are, original, at least within the framework of their time. As content creation thrives, and more tropes of different kinds are archived and researched, the idea of originality, or of creating something completely new , can seem like a daunting challenge. However, think of the times when you were so amazed by something that you described it, whether in thought or in speech, as original. If you can indeed remember such moments, then originality does exist. It exists for me too. The key to appreciating originality lies in understanding its unusual and innovative context. The movies of David Lynch (Like "Rabbits") , The fourth game in the Silent Hill franchise. Surrealist art. The plot behind Kafka's "Metamorphosis". The video game known as "Space Funeral" , whose concept is a corrupted subversion of Plato's Theory of Forms. Outside of art no.1: The creation of highly elaborate schemes like the ones of Yukio Mishima , theorized to have founded a paramilitary group to sustain his own death wish. Outside of art no. 2: The Empire of Stomaria , a modern-day fledging and unrecognized federal monarchy . Outside of art no. 3: The Khazar Empire, the only Jewish empire in history to date. Outside of art no. 4: The North Korean idea to fund much of its nuclear program by establishing an international criminal empire. It's been around for at least several decades. Outside of art no. 5: "The Room" by Tommy Wiseau , proved that awful movies can in fact be financially successful. Outside of art no. 6: "Heart Attack Grill's" bizarre, controversy-based marketing strategy. Outside of art no.7: The functional mechs of Tsubame Industries. These are all examples of creations and concepts that I find to be very original, despite the time that has passed in the history of humanity, ranging from 2 to 6 millions of years ago. The Wider Impact of Originality These creations arose in a world already brimming with countless generations of artists, thinkers, inventors and storytellers. Yet, they managed to break new ground, offering fresh perspectives and innovation. This subject may require thought about the lasting impact of the unhindered human potential. Some of these works demonstrate that originality doesn't have about creating something entirely from scratch. Rather, they can be about taking existing elements and weaving them together in a new and surprising way. They challenge our expectations and force us to see the world through a different lens than the normative and the traditional. In a world bombasted with information and yet-to-be-solved problems, originality becomes even more precious. Not only for our pleasure, but for a different life. A life that might be better. It allows us to cut through the presentism bias of both past and future, and explore and experience something truly unique and awe-inspiring. Something that can give us greater hope. As the past remains a foreign territory, the future remains an uncharted territory. A Content Creator's Guide to Originality In the ever-expanding sea of content and startup companies , originality isn't something that has to come from thin air. It can be learned by exerting your different intelligences . Here's how you can cultivate that spark in your creative process: 1. Deep Dives and Divergent Paths: Originality thrives on a foundation of deep and extensive thinking based on experience and creativity . Ask yourself: what truly resonates with you?  What existing tropes yearn for a fresh twist? How can you leverage your experiences in ways that would make people think outside the box?  Define what originality means within your specific niche. Is it pushing genre boundaries? Crafting a unique narrative voice? And how about integrating different niches through unique combinations? Also, avoid mimicry.  While inspiration is essential, steer clear of blatant copying . Instead, seek rarer combinations  of concepts. Combinations that would give people more reason to live another day -- the joy of curiosity . Imagine a detective story set in a high-fantasy world where he investigates futuristic dishes, left as cryptic evidence by a shadowy cyberpunk syndicate from a different universe . These unexpected pairings can spark intriguing possibilities! Think, Cortex, think! 2. The Labor of Love: Effort with Intention Originality demands effort.  Whether it's a meticulously crafted drawing or a meticulously coded video game,  the creative process requires dedication, just like in philosophy.    However, effort alone isn't enough.  Channel your energy into making your creation stand out. Your love for it -- make it a commitment that transcends mere pleasure! While a banana-shaped spaceship is undoubtedly unique, it risks becoming a novelty without substance.  Pure beauty, pure from anything else, is a problem.  Infuse your creation with elements that pique your audience's curiosity. Perhaps the banana ship holds a deeper meaning within your world's lore, or maybe its unusual design serves a crucial plot point? 3. Embrace the Paradox: The Power of Contradictions Contemplate the nature of your creation . What genre(s) will it inhabit? What themes will resonate? Who are the protagonists? Who are the antagonists? The more diverse and even contradictory these elements are, the more room for originality emerges.  Imagine a children's book that tackles complex emotions using psychonautic submarines . Or, A historical novel with elements of lovecraftian horror as a rare, re-occuring subversion.   Don't be afraid to challenge expectations! Embrace the exploration, relish in the mystery , and let your unique voice guide the way. The one you repress.   The results will be as captivating for your audience as they can be rewarding for yourself. Capturing the Elusive Nature of Originality The creative landscape is a vast, uncharted expanse of possibilities. However, with such endless options, the true challenge lies in selecting the most impactful one. Here, "nature" refers to the essence of your creation – the vibe, the mood, the impression it leaves on your audience. The qualia that lies beyond mere content consumption. For content creators, the pursuit of originality can be challenging. It's a path paved with potential failures. And yet, each misstep can be a stepping stone on the journey towards a distinct brand of creation. Establish yourself upon the past, for a better future: [Sometimes, for originality, it is valuable to be] acknowledging the value of building upon existing ideas and traditions. -- Mr. O. C. Isaac In a world increasingly filled with uninspired content, like superhero movies, the act of striving for originality becomes a revolutionary act . An act against the depraved status quo! Remember, complete originality is like a Mayan death bat – something that is (almost) never heard of by anyone. Don't get discouraged by the fear of being weird or eerie. Don't fear experimentation. Do so, and your creation will possess a distinct quality, even if it won't entirely break new grounds. The journey of its pursuit is where the magic lies!

AI Image by Mr. John Duran (The Directory on John Duran) (Subcategory On Twisted Morality) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. The article "A Philosophical Analysis of John Duran's Story, 'For the King's Pleasure' -- How People 'Like' to Be Lied To'" provides a comprehensive analysis of John Duran's narrative, offering profound insights into human nature and the concept of truth. The author's personal connection to the story sets a compelling stage, establishing a sense of authenticity and personal investment. The detailed story analysis delves into the character of the tyrant king, exploring his motivations and actions, providing profound philosophical insights into human nature , truth, and deception. The exploration of why people prefer comfortable lies over harsh truths is particularly thought-provoking, using Plato's quote to underscore the central theme, along with that of Hannah Arendt The inclusion of the writer's personal reflections adds a unique touch, making the analysis more relatable and genuine. Overall, the article provides a rich and introspective analysis of John Duran's story, shedding light on profound philosophical questions about truth and human nature.  Introduction I've received permission from American writer, John (Johnny) Duran to syndicate his story on my website. A day spent in deep contemplation on his story, has revealed a very saddening insight to me about the nature of humans, in their relation to the truth, and in their relation to what they believe to be the truth. You see, Mr. Duran's story is more than just a description of an anti-social tyrant who has no regard for other human beings. That tyrant, as you'll see yourselves, cares deeply about human beings to deceive them, and sell them what they want to hear. That tyrant knows it well, and the thing is, many of us in the non-fiction world, do not. For the tyrant's profound knowledge of human nature, is our very own... liability. After the story is read, I will write down my philosophical insights with greater clarity. Enjoy. The Story "Sire, I come bearing dire news. I don't know from what quarter it approaches, but I believe that there is an insidiously murderous treachery in your Highness' court!" Nodding slowly, I sipped my fine goblet of red wine as my minion waited eagerly for my oh-so-important response like a lowly dog awaiting his Master's permission to speak again; In a real way, that's exactly what he is to me. Stretching out his patience in favor of my own response, I savored this moment, as any King would and should. Finally, I responded directly to him, "Oh, my dear Jeffery... yes, I know of this treachery, and I've known of it before it ever started in the first place." My confused minion stared at me for a moment, mouth crassly hanging open and looking uncommonly shocked at my statement. By use of this crude expression, he had lost my interest, as well as any favor he thought he had gained over his years of service to my throne. So much the better. I do so abhor these little petty intrigues, but they do carry certain gleeful satisfaction as long as one is the Royal giving decrees, but the personal orders are my most satisfying duty as Royalty. Getting up from my dining table, goblet in hand, I walked over to my subordinate, as if to console a friend. However, being King, and a secretly ruthless one at that, friendship was a luxury unattainable thanks to matters such as the one we were about to deal with. "But Sire, how could you possibly know? I am your personal collector of information, am I not?" Surely a fair question to ask. "Spy, you mean? That was the word you really wanted to say, correct? Yes, you are my spy Jeffery, and a bloody good one." I looked at his eyes above my goblet, sipping; this seemed to please him. What was to follow could go either way, depending upon his attitude and what he assumed he could find out. It was time to test the waters and see where this hour would end. "Jeffery, you are not of royal blood, and so there are certain things you are not fit to fully understand as a commoner. So I am going to enlighten you... Any royal knows that treachery is ALWAYS afoot in any place where Power is held, so there are those that scheme and plot to take it. So this is nothing new, old friend." "But sire, I know this treachery is from someone in the highest levels of your court! Should this not concern you? If it's from any member of your royal family, we can have everyone followed secretly. I can surely discover the dark heart of this scheme against the Throne. I will not rest until the culprit is proven, and his head hangs from the gate of the keep." Nodding to myself, I put down my drink, and reaching out I touched Jeffery's shoulder, slowly steering our way towards the entry door. My decision was made for him. "Yes, I do not doubt in My own dark heart that you would eventually reveal the plot and the culprit. However, the head that will hang from the gate is no one you could accuse, regardless of the proof you would undoubtedly discover." As we meandered closer to the door, where my royal guards awaited, I saw from his side Jeffrey's eyes slowly widen as my words sank in, and I noticed his spirit sinking as well in utter resignation. I continued sealing his fate in words- "For you see, my former minion, my loyal spy that never strayed, there is certainly treachery here against the throne at the highest levels. I know this so well because the treachery is my own!" We were at the very door, and I was about to open it when I heard a whisper "But why?" As if asking the Gods themselves as to the cruelty of fate. So I decided to give him an answer before his head would adorn my front gate: "Well because I say so! I do what I like, and others obey, so I start secret plots in the court against my throne just to see who falls into my web of deceit. I do this for one reason and one reason alone Jeffrey. Executions are SO much fun for me. It's like the power of God, to decree death, whenever I say so. Not even wine compares to it, or personal pleasures with my concubines. Nothing like the thrill you are about to personally experience in my name!" "Guards!" I yelled. The door was open in an instant with two large men standing there, looking ready for violence, just what I love. "Seize this man, he is a traitor to the throne. Execute him tonight after dinner in public." As a last bit of salt to the wound, I leaned close to Jeffery as he was sputtering about his innocence "Thank you for your services Jeffery, consider this payment in full in sacrifice to my own entertainment, and by the way, I love your suggestion about the head. I think I'll fulfill that particular wish." I turned to my guards restraining Jeffery: "Take his head and adorn my gate with it, as a warning to my enemies, and feed his body to the dogs." Jeffery's sputtering turned to struggles. As he was dragged out to his destiny as decreed by me I again sat down at my luxuriously adorned table and sipped my wine, giddily laughing as only members of Royal blood should. It's a grand thrill to be King, and I fully enjoy it as I certainly deserve to, being what I am by birth. What a fun life, to be King! The End My Analysis The king in the story, has a lot of regard for human beings, but not in what many of us would consider the humane way. After all, if he had no regard for them, why would he bother so much to use his subjects as his little playthings for his own amusement? His planning was very on-point, as he dedicated much thought on how to amuse himself with the sacrifice of his spy. The king betrayed not only his loyal minion, but also human morality. A very important part of morality is the willingness to be honest. Honesty is key to a better trust between people, rather than having a foundation of lies that build upon each other. However, the thing is that many people do not like the truth. The spy didn't like the truth. The guards wouldn't have liked if they knew of it. The kingdom will not want to hear that its king betrayed their trust. Why? Because people don't like to hear whatever does not make them feel comfortable. But the truth has no regard for what we feel. The truth exists either way. It is us, many of the human race, that have no true interest in knowing the truth. It isn't the truth that interests many of us. It is what we want to hear as the truth. Whatever it may be, it can easily be a lie. Power, Prestige and Deception Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings. - - Hannah Arendt Those who find themselves in very high positions of power may often be compelled to lie because they need to retain the support of their followers. In other words, their followers are not necessarily interested enough in the truth to bother understanding beyond what they are told. Instead, many of them are compelled to act on what it makes them feel good enough to be the truth. To quote Greek philosopher, Plato : “ No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth .” People like to be lied to, but only lies which resonate with their desires. The truth never works that way because the truth isn't tailored to our desires, but exist independently of them. The king in Mr. Duran's story knows that well. Public displays of capital punishment , were a good way to please the populace, keep them in line, and tell people that justice has been served. A System of Illusion Whether or not justice has really been served, matters not. What matters for many, is what they think to be the truth rather than the truth itself. And he or she who has a monopoly on that feature of marketing "truths", has a monopoly on people's minds. They can toy with them as they please, selling lies as if they were common products on the market. The only thing the spy in question did wrongly, was the fact that he bought the lie of his king. Just like anyone else in that king's playground of a kingdom. Personal Commentary I... I don't like social interactions, because I don't like lying. I hate the pretense so much, I prefer avoiding most human company. I know what that tyrant knows, as well. I don't like deceiving. My social isolation... is a moral protest against the normalization of deception. I don't want to write what you want to read, exactly. I want to write you what I believe to be the truth. I want to explain in logic and in evidence, why I believe to be correct. I don't want to be like that tyrant. I want to be alone. Hail Philosocom

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background music) (Philosocom Religion Directory) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) ******************* Introduction Judaism is one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions and has a rich and diverse history, beliefs, and practices. Judaism is a multifaceted religion with a deep historical and theological foundation. It continues to evolve and adapt to contemporary challenges while maintaining its core principles and traditions. Part I: Judaism and Philosophy History The historical relationship between Judaism and philosophy is rich and complex. Here are some key points: * Ancient Roots: Jewish thought and philosophy have ancient roots dating back to biblical times. The Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament ) contains philosophical themes and ethical teachings. For example, the Book of Proverbs contains wisdom literature , and the Book of Ecclesiastes explores existential questions. While these early biblical texts are not philosophical treatises in the formal sense, they laid the groundwork for the development of philosophical ideas within Jewish thought. Over time, Jewish philosophers would engage more explicitly with philosophical concepts and integrate them into Jewish theology and philosophy, as seen in the works of figures like Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides . Hellenistic Influence: During the Hellenistic period (4th to 1st centuries BCE), when Jewish communities were under Greek influence, there was an interaction between Jewish thought and Greek philosophy, particularly with Stoicism and Platonism . Philo of Alexandria is a notable figure who attempted to reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy, blending Platonic ideas with Jewish theology. In Summary, The Hellenistic influence on Judaism represents a period of intellectual and cultural exchange, where Jewish thinkers engaged with Greek philosophical ideas and attempted to synthesize them with their own religious traditions. This interaction contributed to the development of philosophical thought within Judaism and influenced subsequent Jewish philosophers, including those in the medieval and modern periods. Medieval Jewish Philosophy : The Middle Ages saw the emergence of prominent Jewish philosophers, such as Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon), who integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Jewish theology in works like the " Guide for the Perplexed ." Maimonides' writings had a profound impact on both Jewish and Islamic thought. However, Medieval Jewish philosophy reflects a dynamic interplay between Jewish religious tradition, Greek and Islamic philosophy, and the broader intellectual currents of the time. It produced enduring works of philosophy and theology that continue to shape Jewish thought and scholarship to this today. Kabbalah and Mysticism : In addition to rationalist philosophers like Maimonides, Jewish mysticism, known as Kabbalah, became influential in the late medieval and early modern periods. Kabbalistic thought sought to explore the mystical aspects of Judaism and had a complex relationship with philosophy. Kabbalah and mysticism play a significant role in Jewish spirituality, offering a path to deeper understanding of God and the self . While it has been a source of inspiration and contemplation for many, Kabbalah remains a complex and enigmatic tradition that requires careful study and interpretation. Enlightenment and Modernity: In the Enlightenment era , Jewish philosophers like Moses Mendelssohn engaged with European Enlightenment ideas while advocating for Jewish emancipation . This period marked a shift toward more secular and assimilationist philosophies among some Jewish thinkers. In summary, the Enlightenment and modernity posed both opportunities and challenges for Jewish thought and identity. While some Jews embraced secularism and integration, others sought to maintain religious tradition in the face of changing times. These developments led to a diversity of Jewish perspectives and contributed to the evolution of modern Jewish philosophy and theology. Contemporary Thought: In contemporary times, Jewish philosophy continues to evolve with diverse perspectives, including existentialism (e.g., Martin Buber ), religious existentialism (e.g., Franz Rosenzweig ), and modern Jewish ethics (e.g., Emmanuel Levinas). Contemporary Jewish thought is dynamic and continues to evolve as Jewish communities adapt to the challenges and opportunities of the modern world. It reflects a commitment to preserving Jewish tradition while engaging with contemporary intellectual and social developments. Part II: Case Example: Baruch Spinoza In all, an example of these contemporary thought can be seen in Spinoza's Philosophy: The historical relationship between Judaism and the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza is complex and contentious. Here are some key points regarding this relationship: Spinoza's Background Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish descent. He was born into a Sephardic Jewish family in Amsterdam, which was a hub of Jewish intellectual activity during his time. However, Spinoza's philosophical ideas would eventually lead to his excommunication from the Amsterdam synagogue in 1656. Spinoza's Philosophy Spinoza's philosophy is often seen as a departure from traditional Jewish beliefs and a challenge to conventional religious thought. His major work, "Ethics" and other writings, laid the foundation for several key philosophical ideas: * Pantheism : Spinoza famously proposed a pantheistic view of God, suggesting that God and the universe are one and the same. This concept contradicted traditional Jewish monotheism, which posits a distinct, personal God . * Determinism : Spinoza argued for a deterministic worldview, where everything in the universe is governed by natural laws. This perspective challenged the traditional Jewish notion of free will and moral responsibility. * Critique of Religious Authority : Spinoza's writings criticized religious authority, the Bible, and organized religion. He advocated for a rational, secular approach to ethics and understanding the natural world. * Excommunication and Impact: In 1656, Spinoza was excommunicated from the Amsterdam synagogue by a herem (excommunication/boycott) that referred to him as "a notorious atheist." This marked a dramatic break with the Jewish community, and Spinoza's works were banned by Jewish authorities. * Influence and Legacy: Despite his excommunication and controversial ideas, Spinoza's philosophy had a significant impact on later Jewish thought and philosophy: * Modern Jewish Thought : Spinoza's ideas challenged and stimulated Jewish thinkers in subsequent generations. Some Jewish philosophers engaged with his works to explore the boundaries between reason and faith. * Secular Jewish Identity : Spinoza's emphasis on reason and secular ethics resonated with some secular Jewish intellectuals who sought to develop a Jewish identity outside of traditional religious frameworks. * Interpretations and Re-evaluations : In the modern era, there have been efforts to re-evaluate Spinoza's philosophy and its relationship to Judaism. Some scholars have argued that his ideas were misunderstood or mischaracterized by his contemporaries. However, the historical relationship between Judaism and Spinoza's philosophy is marked by a sharp divide. Spinoza's radical ideas challenged traditional Jewish beliefs and led to his excommunication , but his philosophy also had a lasting impact on the development of modern Jewish thought and secular Jewish identity. He remains a figure of philosophical significance in the broader history of Western philosophy. Conclusion Overall, the relationship between Judaism and philosophy has seen various phases, with periods of synthesis , tension, and divergence. It reflects the adaptability of Jewish thought to engage with philosophical ideas while maintaining its unique religious and cultural identity. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: We can learn from this article the importance of not setting anything in stone, and be prepared to test every belief and theory we have , in the name of developing our perception to align with reality. If the original belief systems of Judaism and other ideologies/religions were absolutely correct, they would have no reason to evolve throughout the course of human history).