The Search Bar

(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 Svartgold/Svarl Articles) ******************* Sexual Transmutation produces a conversion of sex into something else. Sexual energy is said to be related not only to sexuality, fertility and reproduction, but also to setting healthy boundaries. Willpower, motivation and creativity. Making money. Feelings that we deserve to enjoy. Whether it's about money, sports, work, career advancement, or empowerment of any kind. The aspiration of being a true, authentic self is necessary for this energy to develop properly. Our selves have been developing since childhood. We are active to obtain money, power, strength, hobbies; All this requires energy and persistence that is associated with such vital energy. How to set boundaries? What does my body represent? Such questions are of sexuality, but also of other fields on our existence. Arguably, it all boils down to the libido. Even in having children, there is also an ambition to provide for them, so you need money, a job. What do you want to learn? And how do you develop your professional direction? What do I start with? Is there anything for me in savings to start my life and achieve something? What is my expectation of myself as a person or as a breadwinner ? The world operates according to actions. Actions are done by energy. Creating money, creating children, creating an understanding of life. Mainly setting boundaries of what one's boundary is with myself or with others. All this comes from the channelling of sexual energy for livelihood, relationship, family, career, the pleasures of life, some of which are of course orgasms even if alone. Excursions. Planning for trips. Planning things in general. Each person produces energy in his body that this energy is spent on resources. To keep the energy flowing, and to channel it for a living, as well, is very important. And for our relationships and for the children. We must prioritize each topic we have chosen. How much and to whom to give this important energy. We also have to, learn to hold this energy for the purposes of self-improvement, career development, prioritization, planning, increased mood and give it to a place that is really relevant. That is why it is also important to have restraint . We have to hold this attraction and sensitivity thing in favor of our success. Something that will make us more motivated even afterwards. And to spiritual understanding. Sexual energy is limited and depends on biological age, hormonal changes, health status and so on. But it can be helped to become more efficient for our benefit. We must understand that sexual energy is limited. We shouldn't waste it limitlessly. We have to set limits for ourselves as well. and make us priorities and time for everything. We must understand that this energy can be depleted immediately after an orgasm or a certain excitement and then it can be lost. We must know and understand to suspend it, whether not to reach sexual emission (in men) or whether to save it for other actions and things. To convert this energy, you can use Indian mantras, tantra ceremonies where you can dance naked to the sounds of music. Without judging our bodies. Understand like children that our body is our sexual energy can be strengthened and preserved by starving sexuality . For 7 days, to decide that even if there is a desire, do and channel it into better directions. It is possible to do guided imagery and feel sexual pleasure in our body without reaching the thrill of orgasm. but still feel wanted. You can dance without judgment and move your body however you want. Courage , strength and power can be imagined. Increase in sexual energy, sexual levitation without intimate touching. A person should ask himself what is his passion ? What will do him good financially? What will make him happy? Measure his actions... and the time he invests in it. Some channel this by balancing the sex chakra which is 3 centimeters below the navel. There are meditations that refer to this chakra. There are people who for a certain period of time are not with a partner and invest more in their career, wanting to achieve financial success. This is also a conversion of the sexual energy. The more we know how to allow the sexual energy a greater place, the more we will channel it in our direction according to our desires. Feelings that come from sexuality are also real feelings, alternations of desire. And this is also a real energy that flows through us. To raise this energy, we must think about ourselves and focus on our breathing. Deep breaths. Showers with ice or cold water also help us. Suspend this energy in the directions we wanted. After a few months of conversion of sexuality to other direction and goals, the thinking changes accordingly. We do not need approvals from the environment . And we can be and feel authentic. Capable. Motivated. And carry a strong willpower. This is how we will achieve self-acceptance and compassion for ourselves more and more: We can feel good even if we are alone at home or at all. A higher self-worth and self-image is built. We can live in the here and now. And enjoy the love life that we really want. With excellence. Use this tool and feed it all the time . Like a brain that works all the time. We must use it wisely. For positive purposes, for others. And also for ourselves. Never underestimate it, as long as you have it.

The Directory: Disability and Normalcy Of Experience The Mentally Disabled and Independence -- A Severe Critique (By Mr. M. Svartgold) The Problem with Standards -- Advocating Disability Awareness -- A Philosophy of Inclusion Disability Shaming and the Mentally-Ill -- Understanding Mental Illness https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-brainrot https://www.philosocom.com/post/melancholy https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-neurodivergent-sovereign (Inspired theme: Ape Escape 3 - Western Village (ddwefresh Remix) - YouTube ) (Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co, below) When there is a will, There is a way. Despite one's flaw, Why the white flag draw? One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim to succeed, Is their own accord! Blind -- navigate, Deaf -- comprehend, Whatever flaw, Doesn't have to mark the end! Panic leads to irrationality, And despair's your enemy. One can have greater hope, With a practical philosophy ! Unease, is but an emotion, Felt inside of you. It does not have to scare! It just "feels true", But it limits reasoning, As options come, In squads and crews! Don't just give in to that, To one's own tradition! Try developing, Practicality, By figuring out, A greater self in society. One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim, to succeed, Is their own accord! Autist -- learn! Anxious -- please relax . Don't just go to a bridge, And cut your path with an axe! Many fears -- absurdity, Not always a reason to be afraid. Take your cane, and get out there, Don't leave it laid! Reminisce, the possibilities, Which have been missed, Absent developments... Now, lay in the past's list. How, without daring, Can we truly accept defeat? As long as you're alive, You can at least, try. A candidate, Might live in irrelevancy, But have you forgot? The election's in democracy! One's own liabilities, Either handled or ignored? One's aim to succeed, Is their own accord! Impatient? Please, Don't fall to your knees. Van Gogh's success, Is older than many trees! Anyone can practically, Say any nonsense they want. Without a good reasoning, Why would you be torn apart? To each verdict, Its own disability. But a delusion, Might still stand! We might miss, Improving an ability, Since we do not always understand, What it's truly limiting. What it does not, Is blocked by thought, Of confidence, Of what's not there. It can bring us, Into a nightmare, And we might not improve, Due to a fake "truth"! He who can't see, Still remembers his keys. Poem Analysis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Beyond the Disability!" is a profound philosophical poem that explores the concept of overcoming personal limitations. The poem begins with the aphorism "When there is a will, there is a way," emphasizing the power of human will to overcome obstacles. This aligns with existentialist philosophy , particularly those of Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed in individual agency and choice. The poem also emphasizes acceptance and action, suggesting that success is a matter of personal decision and effort. It also highlights the role of panic and despair in clouding judgment, advocating for a practical philosophy to maintain hope. The poem also encourages practicality and self-development, reflecting a form of pragmatic philosophy. The poem's philosophical reflections include existential freedom and responsibility, Stoicism and emotional control , pragmatic philosophy, and criticism of despair and fatalism . It calls for a proactive stance, aligning with Nietzsche's concept of "amor Fati" (love of fate), where one should embrace life's challenges and strive to overcome them. In conclusion, the poem offers a strong philosophical message that personal limitations, whether physical or emotional, need not dictate one's destiny. By employing willpower, rationality , and a practical approach, individuals can transcend their disabilities and achieve meaningful success. This synthesis of existential, Stoic, and pragmatic philosophies promotes a life lived with intentionality, rational control, and practical engagement.

Alex Mos's Synopsis A good philosopher shares fearless insights in public with the risk of being ridiculed and rejected. You shouldn't feel intimidated by more sensitive people, triggered by your thoughts. Some might incorrectly interpret a disagreement with you as an attack, and people with PTSD are likelier to feel threatened. A good philosopher must risk social exclusion or hatred due to their insights. Refrain from compromising to please others if your ideas are controversial. The focus of philosophy is the search for truth, not fame or social status. You might become a social reject and consider living in solitude.  However, you should not be afraid to share your thoughts widely, interact with others, and contribute to humanity. Therefore, a good philosopher can't be oversensitive and must be prepared to get hurt. You might be unable to change the world, but you can still leave a mark on it. The author doesn't expect anybody to agree with him but asks for respectful feedback as his work doesn't purposely harm anybody or violate any rules. (Background music) Being a philosopher takes a greater risk than one might realize. To be a good philosopher , you must not be afraid to sound your thoughts publicly, and you must also be prepared for the consequences of sounding your thoughts and beliefs . Not everyone is going to like you, specifically due to your conclusions and insights, and at times you might not be liked at all, and even be hated by others. Due to their personal reasons, some people are going to get triggered by your thoughts as well. Nonetheless, you must not let these consequences stop you, for you have the right to express yourself and sound your voice even if your voice will not be liked or widely accepted . As long as you have the right to express yourself, you shouldn't fear using this right at all. The existence of the more-sensitive shouldn't intimidate you, either. At times your philosophy might even be controversial or radical in the eyes of others, but in the name of contributing to the world's knowledge, you must not give up just because you'll be mocked, laughed at, or ridiculed. Not everyone is okay with disagreeing, and not everyone will tolerate your thoughts. Some will even be triggered and take offense, whether or not the offense was given or even intended in the first place. That's because disagreement may be seen by many as a threat because our brains may take the impression of a disagreement as an "attack". Some people will be mad at you for having different priorities and might even actively be trying to dispose or reject you from a social circle, as your constant disagreement may be seen as an attack even though it really isn't... In general, people with PTSD may already rarely, if ever, feel safe. In October 2021, the world-scale prevalence of PTSD in the world population is 3.9% . This means that at least 200-400 million people are likely to feel threatened by even the smallest of things. (As someone who suffers from trauma myself, I use logic to look beyond my irrational feelings , and thus I am not as intimidated as other people who would suffer from my conditions). Therefore, in order to be a good and effective philosopher, you must take the Social Risk, even if that risk might unintentionally harm others, due to past, personal events unrelated to yourself. It's their own responsibility to face them , not yours. A site called Lawinsider.com defines "Social Risk" as: "Factors and circumstances leading to social exclusion of persons or putting persons at risk of social exclusion" In other words, a good philosopher is best to be prepared for rejection by anyone due to their own insights. That's because philosophy isn't about fun or about respect or about being accepted ( as was the case with Diogenes ). It is about trying to find and research the truth. If you're not a private person, it is also about sharing what you believe to be the truth, and suffer the consequences. Be prepared to be disliked, hated and even despised , even in a democratic country or community. Don't expect your ideas to be accepted by anyone, and you will be the least disappointed among many. The more you're prepared for any type of reception, the less hurt you might get as a result. You must not change your ideas just because they're not accepted or controversial. Philosophy doesn't work that way, as it doesn't submit to conformity just because others think otherwise. A general controversy is insufficient for that because a good philosopher doesn't compromise to please others. Instead, a good philosopher would alter their philosophy only because it's illogical/incorrect. We philosophers do not act according to the ad-populum fallacy. In other words, the truth isn't a product of a popularity contest. Popularity may apply in democratic elections, but the support of many does not preserve or alter reality alone. Likewise, I don't expect anyone to think like me, agree with me, nor be nice to me due to my thoughts. Other than respectful feedback I don't demand much of you . I can't control others' reactions in general, and whenever I write something, like an article, I never know how it will result upon reception. However, I still publish articles and post consistently, despite not knowing how they will be received by those who read them. With every piece I publish I risk how others will look at me currently. Some readers will stay, some readers will leave. Some will believe they have the authority to tell me what to do and how to behave, even though I am a free citizen, and this website is mine, and can act as I please as long as I don't break any law. A good philosopher will not expect to be liked and won't necessarily think they deserve respect for being philosophers . They will look at others, who might receive much more support and adoration than they do, and move on with their life and work. The point of philosophy isn't to make a philosopher famous or popular, but simply to reach possible truths, using contemplation and other means such as research. This field isn't at all about social status , and due to its inconsideration to social norms, some people might see some philosophers as offensive, audacious, aggressive and so on. Don't be intimidated when someone is angry at you for thinking otherwise. It's their right to react however they like to your content, and if you want, you can block them if they harass you as a result. Just consider the possibility of becoming a social reject , as a result of your work. And still, fear is your enemy , it's something that can prevent you from sounding your voice and publishing your work, and in general, make you give up on activities that can bring much good and benefit to this world, even after your death (hence the importance of heritage). In some cases, you might consider getting used to solitude when being a philosopher, just like I did. You should at least consider the social risks that come with being a philosopher, and I'm talking not about the role itself, but the way your specific work would make others react to it and to you (for example, you might be regarded as arrogant , for the stereotype alone). Even if you're nice, even if you're polite and kind, some people can still react to you in a way that is beyond your control, whether or not you're an autist like I am. This isn't whining but just how life is when being very vocal about your opinions and thoughts. The fact that you sound your thoughts also entails that others may comment on them. This is why those who want to be philosophers, should reconsider, if they are not prepared enough to be hurt by others. No, not physically necessarily, but emotionally and mentally. Philosophership isn't for those who are overly-sensitive. The more cowardly you are, the less exposure your thoughts might get. Therefore, even if you're a solitary person, you should consider compromising some of your solitude if you want to extend your sphere of influence and contribute far more to humanity. It also means talking or writing to strangers whom you don't know and who can hurt you in the ways I just mentioned. Your fears are in the way. You yourself, a truth seeker, have responsibilities of your own as a good philosopher: You should accept criticism professionally and allow some kind of feedback. That's because your critics could be truer than you are, and as a result, you can use their feedback to be a better philosopher. It's your right, of course, to tell people what kind of comments you want, but don't expect the world to entirely submit to your will. The world doesn't work that way, and some people would gladly "eat you alive" if there's something you wrote that they didn't like. Remember that in public, there may be psychopaths and sociopaths without you even knowing you're talking with ones. ASPD is more multifaceted than one might think. Do not expect strangers to give you empathy. Finally, philosophy is like politics in a sense that it's very difficult to find complete agreement with anything. Be prepared for people to be angry at you for thinking differently than they do. You can't necessarily change the world, but you can still be brave enough to leave a mark on it, to leave your voice. An extra note: I've been philosophizing since I was 18, in 2015, when I published my first book . I received positive feedback as I received negative feedback throughout the years. Nonetheless, I refuse none to get in my way, when my philosophizing does not purposefully nor voluntarily, harm anyone, in any way. I believe that no one can stop me as long as my work is legitimate and does not violate any rules. And as I said before, I don't expect any one to think like me, and I never claimed that I "know everything". Omniscience is a ridiculous notion when applied to reality (to a human being, at least). Thank you for your reading time. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Review At what point do philosophers go from social rejection to social acceptance? Look at all the great philosophers throughout history. Were they socially rejected when they were alive? Does this mean the issue is with philosophers being ahead  of their time? [It could mean that] what they have to say will only be important in the future.  There is a certain danger in philosophy which comes from people’s political stances. If you have any idea which contradicts what their party believes then all your content will be looked at the same way. [Philosophers] should consider writing a piece on politics. I think [Mr. Tomasio's article] goes back to political philosophy. That area is fascinating. That and the area of philosophy which deals with knowledge and how to best gain it.

(Philosocom's Directory on Technology) Summary by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "Why I Left WhatsApp - The Fallacy of Progression (AKA Appeal to Novelty)" critiques the common assumption that new technologies are superior to older alternatives. The article begins with an engaging introduction, defining the fallacy of progression and using historical and contemporary examples to illustrate its logical fallacy. It delves into philosophical ideas about progression, evolution, and technology, providing a thoughtful analysis that goes beyond surface-level arguments. The critique of societal norms and the pressure to conform to new technologies is well-articulated. (Background music) Introduction to the Fallacy The fallacy of progression (AKA the appeal to novelty ) is one that many of us may not be aware of that is even a fallacy. This perhaps may be true, especially among the younger demographics. The fallacy occurs when we assume that progression is good just because of itself, AKA, because it's progressive, new and so on. It is mainly a fallacy because it is wrong, technically, to assume that any kind of progression in any field is a good one, or even beneficial in any way. It does not mean that progression did not create benefit to humanity. However, one should consider not generalizing any kind of progression as beneficial, just because of these specific benefits, achieved throughout history. Part I: The Varieties of Progression -- Not Just Linear What is progression ? We seem to associate it with success , as in getting better at something, or as something is getting better or "evolving". However, we should understand, that: Not every progression is towards a greater development. Progression is simply an advancement of something, of something going forward. It does not imply that the advancement is great, for deterioration can be progress as of itself (AKA non-linear). The progression fallacy/appeal to novelty fallacy is fallacious because our conception of progression is unnecessarily fixated towards one specific model. Progression is not always about constant development and improvement but also about decline. Progression is about continuation and not about improvement towards a greater and better novelty. The responsibility of improvement falls on the people experiencing the progression of events (World Rectification) . There are various ways in which progression is expressed and not all of them are towards an evolving, general "good". Some progressions of things and beings, are either indefinite, or infinite. Therefore, the universe by itself is in a constant state of progress, as it continues to exist in the flow of time and space, and not necessarily towards a specific end-goal. You can see this understanding in Taoist philosophy. The Circular Example Progression in this sense can also be in a circular manner. The progress of spring is summer, and many of the blooming flowers and plants will die out because progression does not have to be towards a certain development of greater feats. You can find such circulation mainly in music , and your body is also circular in nature, in the forms of metabolism, and the repeating need too eat and sleep, whether or not you're like sleeping. Circular progress of oppression does not lead to linear development but to stagnation . Furthermore, not every progress necessarily has an end goal, like a "one hundred percent" completion, where the progression eventually stops. The Evolutionary Example Evolution, is not about developing into something greater, but about adjusting to our environment. It is an extremely slow, imperfect process that is there to improve the probability of a species surviving. It isn't about becoming better nor about improvement. The "progress" or continuation of evolution is, therefore, a genetic attempt to better survive. It does not ensure survival, and only the most adaptable of species will endure. Our survival does not have a precise end-goal,  besides the ones we choose to have/believe in .  We "simply" survive generation after generation as long as possible. The same reasoning of biological evolution can be applied to technological, robotic and financial evolutions . Companies that fail to adjust to the demands of their consumers will eventually die out by going bankrupt. Technologies that will serve their purpose less than other forms of technologies will become irrelevant to the vast majority of humankind. From this we can learn to look beyond whether something is innovative or not, and actually ask ourselves if the innovative product/concept is actually helpful and not just enticing. The Chronological Example In fiction, plots are progressed even when certain concepts in it are deteriorating. When the antagonist wins over the protagonist in a battle, the story still progresses towards an eventual conclusion at its end. The fact that Darth Vader defeated his son in "Empire's Strike Back" is part of Luke's development towards the man he became, accepting reality and seeking to rectify Vader towards good. Modern/novel forms of oppression, AKA, of doing the same morally-depraved act  but in different ways, doesn't make them necessarily good, needed or desired. You oppress a country with punitive billing, you deter their growth, you earn more as a politician  and may use your funds for personal gain  related to hedonistic pursuits.   In chronological progression, the destination can simply be the result, or the outcome. Reality is dynamic and ever-changing. Those who will fail to accept this reality and adapt will suffer unnecessarily due to their dependence on fixations and patterns. Taking action and overcoming the mere allure of things and beings, can make us more of active forces in the world, and less of passive recipients to chronological evolution. Part II: The Subjective Value of Relevancy In Technology When it comes to technology, this fallacy works out greatly. The PlayStation 5 gaming console was released to the public. However, it was redundant, because its predecessor, the PS4, was not only cheaper, but also runs tons of identical games already. Therefore, by this logic, even if the PS5 is the newer model, the one that is more recent, it's far-more beneficial an older model, simply because was cheaper, and was already a decent console. See how the appeal to novelty can unnecessarily make you spend excessively on things you can already afford for far cheaper. I call this idea the same result problem , where you can get the same result, at lesser expanse. That redundancy, I have found to exist in many other communication technologies, and yet, they are desired, probably because "everyone else uses them" and because "they are contemporary". When you claim that something should be used because it is commonly used, you adhere to the ad-populum fallacy, or even to the appeal to tradition (The Way Things are Fallacy) . The need to adjust stems from the need to stay relevant, not from the need to be popular. You don't need to be popular to be relevant and these concepts are different. A business needs to be relevant because it will only survive if its services is needed by demand. It does not need to be popular, or even admired or glorified, in order to fulfill this basic function. Take WhatsApp as an example . It is a messaging application that allows people to chat through text, speech and images. Nothing exactly new was invented here, and yet it seems to be a far more preferable choice of virtual chat, than sending SMS. We can all just send SMS messages to each other, but due to the appeal to novelty, ad-populum and the appeal to tradition, we are normalized to use this redundant service. This is a bit strange, considering that regular sending and receiving SMS on your phone, does not require an internet connection , while one needs to be online to be on WhatsApp . You literally need to pay money for internet connection, to use function you can use regardless of internet. The same goes for Spotify, by the way. You don't need Spotify to listen to music. The relevant service it provides is nothing revolutionary . It is simply modern, so many flock to it. It's ironic because there are far more songs on YouTube. I personally find Soundcloud easier in navigation, and never had to pay for any subscription while I used the desktop website. Part III: The Results of The Appeal Some people, and perhaps you included, may fear being without a smartphone (Nomophobia) and be too anxious, depressed and bored without one at your fingertips. This is very unfortunate considering we can spend time with one another instead and thus reduce our chances of being lonely. The existence of smartphones, while far more handy than a computer, has made us even more addicted to technology. It is possible that smartphones is are designed to malfunction for us to buy them again. Conclusions Sometimes the older products, older technologies and so on, have merits which the other ones, have not. Replacing a smartphone is very expensive, and not everyone can always afford it . But in comparison, older, "ancient" products, that serve the same functionality, could often do just as fine. Personal Commentary I believe it goes against my morality as a philosopher, to know that I am wrong logically, and not try to change that mistake in me . It isn't to say that I am purely a logical being, as one who realizes them to better understand reality. Fallacies are there to be learned from, not to be repeated.

(2023 Note: Now that I compared myself to other autists, I've realized I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can be considered part of ASD, or the Autism Spectrum Disorders. I, however, am no longer sure if I am indeed an autist, even though I was diagnosed with both Asperger's and ASD. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (Autism Subcategory Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Manipulation) (Philosocom Directory on Communication) (Background music) Understanding the Social World There's a misconception that autistic people can't grasp social situations, even though it is possible. In reality, we can learn from personalized learning methods , that there are different ways for autists to understand reality. As such, some learning methods are better than others, and it depends on the individual's strengths and weaknesses. While I excelled in school and got a graduation diploma, other people struggled more and unfortunately failed. On the other hand, many people find it easier to learn from teachers, while I enjoy learning by myself, in peace and in quiet. Therefore, on the societal level, while autistic individuals may process social cues differently , it doesn't mean they can't understand them altogether. Furthermore, thinking that you will never optimally understand society, and that therefore you shouldn't try, is a product of the nirvana fallacy. It is but a matter of finding the appropriate method for each individual. Many autistic people learn and navigate the social world in their own way. This might involve a more literal interpretation of communication or relying less on non-verbal cues . Regardless, autistic people can develop strong social understanding and meaningful connections, like romantic relationships, which often require a deeper understanding of your partner than other connections. That is despite the difficulties that may follow, resulting in autists struggling with love. Here's, however, an empowering viewpoint: Autistic people bring unique strengths to social interactions, and their uniqueness doesn't always have to be a liability . For example, some may find social awkwardness cute and endearing, rather than condemnable or disgraceful. Perhaps they excel at direct communication , or bring insightful perspectives due to their different experiences of the same world. Let's challenge the idea of something being "permanently hidden" from autistic people. The social world might function a bit differently for them, but understanding is definitely achievable. Am also an autist, and wrote a guide on autism on Philosocom for those interested. A Lesson from Autism and "The Great Mouse Detective" Ratigan: A Master of Manipulation , Yet Blind to Honesty Professor Ratigan , the film's villain, is a cunning deceiver, a manipulative egomaniac, and arguably a psychopath with no sense of remorse or empathy. This criminal mastermind orchestrates a plot to take over Mousedom, a kingdom of mice. His plan involves extorting a toymaker to create a robotic replica of the Queen, used to fabricate her "coronation" of Ratigan. However, despite his intelligence, Ratigan possesses a critical weakness: his deep-seated insecurity about being a rat, not a mouse. The Power of Honesty : A Lesson Learned (the Hard Way) Interestingly, Ratigan leverages this insecurity to manipulate his henchmen. His theme song, "The World's Greatest Criminal Mind," glorifies his intellect and upcoming coup. While celebrating with his intoxicated minions, one unlucky soul, Bart, spits out the truth and breaks a taboo: "To Ratigan, the world's greatest RAT!" This honest declaration throws Ratigan into a fury. Despite being a biological fact, exposes his deepest insecurity. Bart's honesty, sadly, leads to a gruesome demise, to get eaten by Ratigan's giant cat. It was a reminder of the dangers of defying Ratigan's carefully crafted persona. Understanding the Nuances of the Song's Story Ratigan's decision in the song, which required the song to be stopped mid-way, highlights the importance of social cues and understanding unspoken rules. For autistic people, navigating these nuances can be challenging, requiring extra effort and different approaches. However, just like autistic people can learn social skills, Professor Ratigan, despite his flaws, demonstrates a twisted form of social intelligence. He understands how to manipulate others and exploit their weaknesses. Manipulation is, too, a social skill that can be learned, which indicates these skills can be used for good and for bad. Learning the professional world in greater depth can teach us why bosses and workers shouldn't socialize too often: Office politics can create organizational instability , leading to favouritism and to the social exclusion of competent hands. People who don't get along can lead to the use of coercion , which can create unnecessary stress between people and factions within the organization, decreasing overall productivity. Ratigan's mistreatment of his gang members reveal the liability of his leadership as a narcissist. When your ego gets in the way, as a leader, it can become a great obstacle in your quest for success. Discarding a follower for a slip of the tongue isn't problematic necessarily because of him. It could be problematic because it threatens your false sense of ego. My theory is that Ratigan's song was a manipulative attempt to discard followers who threaten Ratigan's inflated sense of ego. What if "The World's Greatest Criminal Mind" is actually an elaborate loyalty test? It didn't have to be seen as just a celebration of a plan that became devised, but also part of that plan itself. Ratigan couldn't allow himself to allow followers ruining the public image he's trying to build as a future politician. So, to further consolidate his power, problematic elements were to be discarded from the very beginning. Instead of teaching his gang the valuable lesson of secrecy, he chose to oppress them instead, striking terror into their hearts. And I'd like to offer the idea that it is better to work on a healthy ego, than "having" to sacrifice people away. However, to do so one must realize his or her flaws. Being seen as flawed is a great threat to megalomaniacs , who might have a deep-seated fear. Conclusions And that is how one can read the room using logic and research of different aspects of life, from politics to power dynamics to psychology. The common interpretation focused on the celebratory nature of the music, and the sick delight of being evil , overlooks a deeper meaning. And therefore, social understanding can manifest in diverse ways, and trained by oneself or with external guidance. Recognizing these differences and appreciating the unique strengths autistic people bring to the table, we can build a more inclusive and understanding world. One that sees the special needs of people, and realizes the importance of alternative methods for the overall growth of society. Disabled people or otherwise. This analysis, based on reason and knowledge rather than personal experience and impressions, highlights a strength that can be found even in neurodivergent people just as in neurotypicals: the ability to think critically and draw insightful conclusions from available information and research. This example demonstrates that autistic people can understand complex social situations, even fictional ones, through careful analysis and reasoning. Social understanding can be achieved in various ways, and autistic individuals bring valuable perspectives to the table. I've been Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein -- thanks for reading. Review by Alex Mos Feeding Bart to a cat as a punishment for telling the truth is an allegoric example of widely accepted double moral standards in life. It also illustrates the problem with Immanuel Kant's universalizability principle , which states that for an action to be permissible, it must be possible to apply to all people. Yet, not everyone has the same priorities, perceptions, and sensitivities, and only empathic individuals can comprehend others [on a deeper level]. Bart paid the ultimate price for not understanding that lying about Ratigan's identity was normative in the dictatorship [he was going to build] and was so crucial to the tyrant that it would save [Bart's] life. We [can] all agree that Ratigan is a narcissistic villain and that Bart's sentence was a crime against truth and free speech. However, our communities encourage dishonesty in many ways for the "greater good," like propaganda, lying to protect others, and keeping the truth from enemies and competitors. Most of us approve of lying as morally justified in certain situations. However, Kant disagrees. He proposed that there are no conceivable circumstances in which lying is ethically acceptable. In his views, morality is rooted in our capacity to make free choices based on logic , and lying is an assault on morality because it aims to undermine this capacity. Did Bart make an illogical choice by telling the truth and dying in consequence? Maybe Bart didn't understand the "logic" of telling the objectively illogical lie to please the megalomaniacal Ratigan. As members of society, we are expected to understand and follow the delicate norms of lying and deceit for the "greater good," to please others , and to succeed as politicians , leaders, professionals, and even parents. Small children are brutally honest, disregarding communal sensitivities because they still have to learn how to lie to fit into society. Telling the prohibited, undesirable, or blunt truth can lead to social rejection or legal consequences. As full-fledged society members, we are expected to conform and follow the choices of our leaders and mentors rather than being authentic and making free choices based on truthful logic. We are supposed to fit like uniform bricks in our local societal structure, but sadly, not [to] the universal humanity well described by Immanuel Kant. The key to omnipresent human values lies in the seemingly paradoxical combination of individual desensitized authenticity and moral, logical empathy. To fit or not to fit in the societal matrix is the question only you can answer for yourself. I adhere to moral reasoning, remain loyal to philosophical truth, and happily blend into Philosocom's colorful wall of unconventional and honest writers led by Mr. Tomasio.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Summary by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Caligula Effect" explores the concept of irrational subordination to authority, using historical examples like Emperor Caligula's reign as a metaphor. Mr. Tomasio uses Caligula's reign as a backdrop for discussing arbitrary and irrational authority , making the concept relatable to everyday situations. The article also engages in philosophical inquiry, asking readers to question the legitimacy of power structures and the role of collective resistance in dismantling unjust power structures. Additionally, the article presents fictional and historical examples of "The Caligula Effect" in order to ground the concept in a greater framework. In conclusion, the article presents an interesting and creative exploration of power dynamics through the lens of "The Caligula Effect". (Background music) ********* Living for yourself often requires the destruction of others for us to continue, in every respect. Both financially and socially. But living existence often requires the detriment of others. We must ultimately destroy them , or recruit them to our cause in order to live and often indeed profit finally, though the very thought is abhorrent to me. This is the lot of all living beings. To be alive requires the sacrifice of others , one way or another -- Mr. John Duran The Main Body " The Caligula Effect ", not to be confused with a game with the same name , is a term I made in an attempt to describe the reasoning behind being subordinate under someone, who does not have much reasoning, to deserve loyal subordinates. In other words, I made this term in order to explain the phenomenon, where a figure of power and authority, have those, even if they are being incompetent, mad, hated and so on; Just like Emperor Caligula himself. Did you know? The name "Caligula" is a nickname and wasn't Emperor Caligula's true name. Apparently, the nickname means " little boots " in Latin, and he got that nickname, because his mother used to dress him as a Roman soldier when he was a child. Anyways, despite being an absolute ruler for life, this Emperor was only in power for only 4 years. His reign died with him, when he was assassinated by a military faction , whose power was stronger than the Roman Senate itself. As Emperor, Caligula was insane, and some may call him today " The Mad Emperor ". He would butcher his own citizens, appoint his own horse to a position of authority, have temples in his name, and deem himself a God. Obviously, his position wasn't necessarily respected, but certainly feared. But how about this, for thought? What if Caligula's power wasn't that important? What if his power was merely given, by others, and none more? What if, he could've easily been disposed of as a tyrant, if no one would've respected his own authority, practically? The absurdity of such power, which is given, can be regarded as "The Caligula Effect". Have you ever thought to yourselves, why do certain people have their power? Is their power, necessarily objective? A fact, like the dawn of day, per se? Is there anyone that cannot be rebelled against, even by questioning, alone? So, by this philosophy, it makes a lot of sense that Caligula only survived 4 years as Emperor. Some democratic leaders ruled far longer than he did, and their leadership is divided by terms, not for life! Do you see the irony? When you are a democratic leader, your leadership is supposed to represent the will of your people. On the other hand, when your leadership is forced by power alone, it is easy to be rebelled, and even be the subject of assassination attempts. Why are dictators despised? It's not necessarily due to their personality or behaviour, but simply because they are in authority, regardless of whether or not we asked them to be in that position. The mere fact that they are dictators, can be seen as a disrespectful gesture to our own consent, or lack of it, of their positioning. However! The fact that we may disapprove of their position, does not mean we don't allow it. How come? The answer can be simple: We allow it, as a collective, by not resisting, or not resisting enough. By giving up on this idea. Of course, we as individuals can rebel for ourselves, but it does not mean others will not be in the way, EVEN if said others, disapprove of the leader, themselves. In other words, disapproving is not the same as resisting, even though one could lead to the other. This is why, the main solution to the "Caligula Effect", is by collective resistance, and not simply by disapproving, hating, or despising the figure in question. By resistance, I refer to the disrespect of their authority, practically, and not only or simply by words, or any other form of media. One can claim that teachers are "Caligulas" of their own, even if they're not mad like the Roman Emperor himself. The only rule that grants them their legitimate authority, is compulsory education. Even if the class members hate being at school, their hatred alone is not a form of resistance, against the figure that represents that authority. They may hate all they want, but next morning, they will attend school, all because they "have to", by the law in question. It's not like students love to learn, necessarily. But the fact that they were never asked that question, and the fact that their answer does not matter practically, is the most basic example of the "Caligula Effect" today. To simplify -- the "Caligula Effect" is essentially the lack of reasoning to obey through subordination, while there appears to be a greater reasoning, to do otherwise. In a sense, it was "good" that Caligula was assassinated by his own guards, as his rulership was absurd, both in practice and in legitimacy. A rulership of a real-life psychotic clown. Perhaps, his own legitimacy was from his predecessor, Emperor Tiberius, who chose him to be his successor. Other than a dictator's "natural" ways of coming down from power, such as death or resigning oneself from that position --- the only way to resolve this "effect" is to make a collective effort, to overthrow his or her authority, from their subordinates (us, usually). To do so, it is imperative to convince others, that collective resistance is justified, by the lack of reasoning, present in the current state of affairs. To end this article, I'd like to give examples from fiction and history, where this effect applies: Fictional Examples 1. In Jimmy Two-Shoes , Lucius Heinous , the show's villain, only has authority because of his vast wealth. In an episode where he became poor, he practically lost all his power, because everyone stole everything he owned. His girlfriend, for example, was only there for the money , and never for love. Nonetheless, no one other than himself, likes him. Without the salary he provides to his workers, he is nothing. 2. In The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog , Dr. Robotnik 's power might as well come from the fact that his henchmen are too foolish to betray him. However, there are exceptions, but they are few. In addition, their dangerous job, which gets them severely injured , goes unpaid. Historical Examples Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, argued in his work Leviathan  that humans are inherently selfish and violent.  To avoid chaos, he proposed a social contract in which people surrender their individual rights to a powerful sovereign in exchange for protection and order. This absolute authority, akin to a Leviathan, could be seen as a Caligula-like figure. While the sovereign might not necessarily be insane or cruel, their power is derived from the fear and obedience of the people, rather than their legitimacy or moral character.     Michel Foucault, a 20th-century French philosopher, explored the ways in which power is exercised through institutions and social structures.   He argued that power is not simply repressive but also productive, shaping individuals and their behavior.  The concept of the panopticon, a prison design in which inmates are constantly watched, is often used to illustrate this idea.  The fear of being watched can lead to self-discipline and conformity, even in the absence of direct surveillance. In this sense, the panopticon can be seen as a metaphorical representation of the Caligula Effect, where individuals submit to authority out of fear and the perception of constant surveillance.    Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1950s, established a cult of personality around himself. He was portrayed as an infallible leader, and dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Stalin's power was based on fear, propaganda, and the control of the state apparatus . While he was not necessarily insane in the same way as Caligula, his tyrannical rule and the fear he inspired among his people are examples of the Caligula Effect in action.    Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean military dictator who ruled from 1973 to 1990, seized power through a coup d'état supported by the United States. His regime was characterized by human rights abuses, including torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. Pinochet's power was based on military force and the suppression of dissent. His rule is a historically-late example of the Caligula Effect, where a powerful individual maintains control through fear and intimidation.    While the specific circumstances may differ, the underlying principle remains the same on the historical, real life degree: individuals or groups can maintain power through fear, intimidation, and the perception of their authority as absolute.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Thinking is the method of processing information to obtain and understand knowledge. We generate wisdom by using knowledge to create something new, like a conclusion or opinion. Thinking deeply means discovering a greater perspective or meaning in information. Deep thinking aims to gain an understanding of something unknown, which sometimes can become wisdom and be applied to a clever action. A wise person is a good decision-maker . Everybody can think deeply about everything, r egardless of intelligence . We only need to dedicate time to self-learning and contemplating questions that matter to us. Philosophizing is a form of deep thinking about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings, expressed through multiple questions and answers. A person who is an auto-didact and a philosopher can become a great thinker, constantly exploring new ideas, transforming them into practice, and feeding on their thoughts for a prolonged time. Philosophers should express their ideas publicly in writing or other media, proving their worth as philosophers and content creators. *************** Okay, okay, I'll tell you a secret that not many people will tell you: It's very difficult for autodidacts (self-taught learners) to deal with people who don't like to learn. At the same time, it's very difficult for scholars to deal with autodidacts. The bottom line is that there's a lot of weight to controlling information and who holds it. A person who teaches themselves is a dangerous person. -- Anonymous (Background music) How to Think Deeply One of the purposes of thinking is to obtain, process and understand knowledge. Generally, there are two main types of knowledge: knowledge that comes from exposure (learning new concepts, gaining more familiarity with a certain subject) and knowledge that is translated into wisdom . In order to think, one needs to expose oneself to a certain source of information (the internet or the library, for example), and the second is to use that knowledge in the process of one's thoughts. An internal piece of knowledge that is generated on the basis of external knowledge is called an insight. An a piece of knowledge that stems both internally and is based on external knowledge, which can be used to plan ahead, is called foresight . Lastly, when it stems from past events, it can be called a hindsight . When one uses the knowledge one has in one's arsenal to create something new (a conclusion, an opinion, even a book), one produces wisdom , and wisdom is an example of a higher level of thinking, in which one can claim to be deep-thinking. Deep thought, is, overall, an astute , cognition-based production and understanding of new and existing knowledge. And the deep thinker is like an industrial complex of such resource. And yes, knowledge can be regarded as a resource, and thus, an asset. By having and generating knowledge, you can gain power in society, hence why philosophers, for example, may be viewed as powerful and authoritative. You can use this article as a source for deep-thinking through the process of reflection , and even seeing an ant colony on the earth can get someone to think deeply. Thinking deeply is to find or create the bigger picture or meaning which lies in every piece of information. One can argue that there are more ways, however, contradicting a statement is by itself the ability to create something new from an already existing entity and its symbolism. A simple or ordinary form of thinking can be described as having few questions and answers, or even just a question and an answer (especially if they themselves are simple and shallow. This is not deep thinking because producing wisdom requires progressive and complex exploration of a subject. Deep-thinking/wisdom is an equivalent to art : you have the colors, tools and patterns in the form of knowledge, and the art piece you produce from it, can be identified as a form of wisdom: you create something new from an already existing resource: Apply what you have learned previously. The element which drives one to seek wisdom is mystery , or in other words: the unknown . Hence, the purpose of deep thinking is to gain knowledge about something you don’t know . And of course, if it has practical value, the product of your intellectual findings can be translated into wisdom, by being applied into action in a clever way. Some people may refer to clever ways as "correct' and unwise ways as "incorrect" or as "mistakes". Either way, what defines a clever/correct application of knowledge, AKA wisdom, is the results of your actions. As such, the wise man or woman is a good decision-maker . In contrast to simple thinking , deep thinking is done independently or in an intellectual discussion or brainstorm , and takes more time and dedication. It's possible that wisdom, or the beneficial application of knowledge , can be extracted from every possible piece of information. Therefore, deep thinking is always possible in any field of knowledge. It does not necessarily imply that only people with a high enough IQ can engage in such an action, because even a person who is not highly intelligent can create something new from the knowledge they have. However, people with lower IQ may struggle more in deep thinking, in education and in the professional world. Everyone has some kind of knowledge at their disposal . All one needs to do is to be aware of that knowledge, and ask questions that relate to that knowledge, which may create further questions, which in turn may create new knowledge, which is the answer one has reached. Philosophers, either "Sorcerers" or "wizards" , are considered deep thinkers. From Socrates to Diogenes to more modern examples like Daniel Dennet. How to be an Auto-Didact One can learn to think more deeply and philosophically through the practice of autodidacticism . The meaning of autodidacticism is self-education or self-learning, or in other words, to be one's own teacher. Perhaps, there is a more personally-adjusted method of deepening one's thought than simply being alone for a period of time in one's daily life, and simply contemplating on questions which one sees as important and valuable to oneself. It can then be translated to the quest for answers by your own accord, externally of yourself. That is in fact how I studied the English language. Auto-Didacts include inventors like Thomas Edison and polymaths like Leonardo DaVinci . How to Philosophize Philosophizing , a form of deep thinking, is expressed through a series of multiple questions and answers, based on examination . It is done on the existential degree, and is about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings. All in the name of researching the truth beyond mere-information gathering, like journalists do . It is also known as the Socratic Method . An auto-didact, by the way, is more capable of practicing Socrates' method independently than people who are more intellectually passive or dependent in comparison. Unify the auto-didact and the philosopher and you can get a great thinker . An active great thinker is that that constantly philosophizes in his or her mind, forming and examining ideas, and trying to get ways to apply said ideas into reality. Their intellect is like an ever-developing, mental organism that is able to feed on its own material for quite long, with reduced chances of ever getting bored . Philosophizing, and deep thinking in general, are essentially more-than-simple cognitive processes where you examine pieces of information you either receive or create, and/or convert them into practice. Writing for example can easily be the product of such mental activities, hence why a writing or any other form of media can reflect the thinking of the writer/content creator; they are literally conversions from the " mental dimension " to what we exclusively deem as " the real world ". Every philosopher that converts these functions into media can be deemed a content creator. It would be very difficult to deem a philosopher as such if they keep all the philosophizing to themselves. Thus, the media they generate is the most basic proof of their philosophership (AKA, the quality of being a philosopher). Review by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Deeply, Be a Self Learner and Philosophize" by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is an insightful article that explores the nature of deep thinking, self-learning, and the practice of philosophy. The article is well-structured with clear headings and subheadings, offering a thorough explanation of concepts like deep thinking, wisdom , and autodidacticism. It encourages self-learning and being an autodidact, which can greatly benefit individuals in today's information-driven world. The philosophical approach discussed in the article aligns with the traditional philosophical approach of critical thinking and examination. In conclusion, Mr. Tomasio's article provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the processes of deep thinking, self-learning, and philosophizing, encouraging readers to engage in these intellectual pursuits.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "The Rubinshteinic Method To Fight Back A World of Superficiality" is a philosophical article that explores the negative effects of superficiality in modern society and offers a method for combating it through intellectual and emotional growth. The author uses personal insights and philosophical arguments to emphasize the importance of depth, self-awareness , and resilience in an increasingly shallow world. The article has strengths such as its engaging and reflective tone, comprehensive structure, philosophical depth, emphasis on actionable steps, and integration of heart and mind. It encourages readers to think deeply about the issues presented and how they may be influenced by societal pressures. The references to philosophy as a way to enhance one's life are particularly powerful, linking the abstract to the practical. In conclusion, "The Rubinshteinic Method To Fight Back A World of Superficiality" is a thought-provoking and well-structured article that invites readers to engage in self-reflection and intellectual growth. (Background music) Introduction: The Growing Trend Modern society, characterized by rapid technological advancements , instant gratification, and an unproportionate emphasis on entertainment , has recklessly fostered a culture of superficiality. Superficiality can be defined as a lack of depth embedded within something, someone, or within life itself. It's something that can make us feel empty inside, feeling that there is far more to be desired. It can be expressed in disappointment, as we expected something or someone to be deeper than they actually are. Part I: The Decline of Wonder As the initial impressions towards the subject fade, so might be our desire to be with them. In the world of romance, a lack of depth in someone we once loved, could be one of the reasons we might feel inclined to leave them, as heartbreaking as it may be. Excitement, once found mainly as children , fades slowly with time as we realize that this world isn't as exciting as it appeared to us back then. In fact, the more we learn about this reality, the more we might feel its emptiness. This can be seen as part of our maturity, as we grow up and realize that not all that glitters is gold. Shallowness and Losing Ourselves Losing our faith in a deeper reality, could lead us to depression , as it led me for many years. Initial excitements fade as a way to get accustomed to something or someone. Emotions, as desirable as they are, can easily distract us from the roles of daily life. As desiring as we feel to taste true love, to go on adventures and to discover this world, there are bills to be paid, jobs to do that many of us hate , and so on. As we are focused more and more on work and surviving, we might lose touch with reality, and namely, with ourselves. From all the work we might do, voluntary or otherwise, we might forget our inner light, our hope for a better world, and our faith in love and in those who are dear to us. We can feel hollow, for we lost touch with who we are deep down, and with our true ambitions, as we sacrifice our lives away for paychecks and for following society's flawed norms, so we won't be rejected. This pain, slowly becoming a motivator, can grow the more we pretend, the more we mask our inner light. With our dear ones, we can feel that we are unseen, and therefore misunderstood, more and more throughout the years. We give up on our dreams just to please others , so we won't find ourselves lonely, rejected and sometimes, even homeless. Part II: Back to the Light of the Sun I believe that such societies that promote the erosion of our inner lights, our inner spark and our true selves in such a ruthless manner, deserve to be opposed with revolutionary potential. Either opposed, or abandoned, as we lurk in the dark and build up our own societies. Societies, powerbases of our own design , societies where we are allowed to be more of ourselves. When our authentic selves are embraced, then, then we can not only embrace our inner light but also find that there is such "light" in reality around us. We might become aware of the beauty of nature around us , the beauty of scenery, and the beauty of love, found not only romantically, but also in our hopes and dreams. And also, exposed to the beauty of this universe's reasoning. And for that, we must develop the ability to tolerate one another, as eccentric as some of us may be. The more we try to accept each other, even at the sacrifice of our own standards, the more compassionate we can be. The more forgiving we can be , which then will allow us to let go of much suffering. Why We Diminish our Own Light To me, the term "professional" seems insulting to those that are not. As if we are somehow "lesser" for NOT being professional -- Mr. John Duran Much of our suffering can come from not being good enough, to people who might not necessarily care about us. To people who might forget our inner light, and abandon us, despite the time and emotion we invested into them. We might ask ourselves, what is wrong with us? What crimes exactly have we committed, that made people reject us? Are we worthy? Do we deserve other people? Do we deserve ourselves? Falsely, we can learn that we are not okay. That we need to reject ourselves as others rejected us. Then, we diminish our own inner light, cooperating with those who hurt us. And yet, that inner spark is necessary for wonder, necessary for philosophy, and necessary for love. Part III: The Functionality of Depth Philosophy allows us to go on intellectual adventures throughout oceans of ideas and insights, beneficial to help us realize the hidden depths of our universe. It can help us feel hopeful to live, not just for the next paycheck or duty, but hopeful for studying the truth, and understanding it. The depths of truth can set us free from worries, stress and anxiety . It can help us better survive in this world, while letting go of fears caused by our own ignorance . The fearful mind, trying to protect us from the clutches of uncertainty , will go to long lengths to deny our painful reality. Anxiety, while necessary for survival in stressful situations, isn't healthy for us when it is excessive and regular. This natural emotion, necessary for our self-defense, can reach an overload, which then would only harm our bodies and minds. The over-protective mind is like an anxious, clingy mother whose anxiety brings us grief just because she is trying to protect us from the harms of this world. We may argue with her and make her suffer as a result. In reality, however, we should use the truth to not only calm ourselves but also others. The Calmness of Clarity Understanding the depths of this reality, that we can have meaning and reason in this world, can bring much calm to our overprotective minds . Knowing that even in distressful times we are safe, for example, can bring much relief to both others and ourselves. Reality is filled with many silver linings. When we see reality in greater clarity, we are exposed to its logical depth. Then, we might realize that we don't have to focus on what causes us grief, but what inspires hope in our hearts. Deep inside, many of us seek the truth in our own ways. We seek it in the honesty of others, as well in going on travels across the world and so on. We do it, because deep inside we seek to relieve ourselves from feelings of emptiness and vain. These feelings are painful for us, as our exposure to them, within our internal worlds, can make us question the reasoning of our continued existence. Of our suffering and of our pains. Part IV: How Depth Can Make Us Want To Live Shallowness is therefore a problem because it deters us from realizing the true depth of this world. The point of this depth is not necessarily to bore us, but to help ourselves survive. Not only survive, but to thrive. To want to live. To live by choice, not by mere consent. To live not only because others need us, but also because we want it. Thrive against the darkness of this world. Against our loneliness and against our distress. Beauty might be subjective , but using philosophy as a way to want to live on, despite all odds... For me it's one of the greatest things. One of the greatest gifts we can give to ourselves and to others. The true recognition that they are relevant, that they matter, not only in their work but also in their being. That they are loved and valued and that their inner spark does not go unrecognized. To Feel Seen and Loved For Our Depths It should be the contrary. Their inner glow is to be desired. Our desire should be to embrace it with our warm hearts and arms. To know, that in this largely-empty universe, we can still find reason that goes beyond mere survival. Reason that justifies our most sincere desires, and not just our needs. Our desires reveal who we really are while our needs are there for things to either be preserved or further developed. Yet, our desires can exist regardless of our instrumental needs for food, water and shelter. To Make Others Seen and Loved For Their Depths The more we try to understand and embrace our own desires, we can then find others who also have these desires. Then, we can relate to them, and feel that we don't always have to compromise ourselves as much as we do in the vain world of ordinary society. Logic has its limits, and so do our hearts. However, the fact that something is limited or flawed, does not mean we should discard it (Nirvana Fallacy) . Thus, we have little reason to discard nor our rationality... nor our hearts. Part V: Call For Greater Internal Synergy The heart should cooperate more with the mind , and vice versa. We should use compassion and the ability to forgive, as a way to better understand people. With these two abilities we can then realize that others are also limited and flawed, and that might be fine. Ruthlessness, either to others or to ourselves, is done out of pain. Pain and desperation. We do not have to follow Kant, and see our current policies as categorical imperatives . Instead of explaining why someone is wrong, and discarding their worth in our eyes, we should strive for a more balanced, Tao-like approach. Yet, sometimes we have to be ruthless. Ruthless in the name of our dreams, ruthless in the name of our own survival in a largely-unforgiving world. However, as it can make us forget our inner light, that inner light can still remain, and not extinguish entirely. This inner light can help us understand the pain of others, as we can use it to heal others. Seeing The Bigger Picture With The Heart, Too A purely logical person would only offer solutions, not compassion nor empathy. Yet, many of us need both. Therefore, logic is limited. Limited per our lack of heart. The bigger we grow our hearts, and the more resilient we can become, not only we would be able to survive this world without getting hurt, but also understand this world better. Understand people, understand pets and even the natural environment. Then, we can expand our decision-making skills, as we realize we do not have to always be angry with someone because of their flaws. We can question our ways of problem-solving. No. With our inner light we could see ourselves in the person we're lambasting . We can see other people, who were very important to us, in that person. Then, we might realize how that person is very similar to people and values we wish to keep cherishing. Part VI: The Relations of Heart, Intellect and Perception Without our hearts, our perception of this world can alter, as we view it as a shallow reality, while we ignore the deeper parts of it. The parts which resonate with us! The parts which make us want to live! That is really the beauty of philosophy, the ability to wonder and to be immersed by ideas we find not only correct , but wonderful. A Literal Love of Wisdom And as such philosophy can be seen as something to be loved, not only to be studied, or dismissed as "irrelevant" . No. Philosophy has the power to heal our pains and the pains of others. Using the fuller synergy of the mind and the heart, we can enhance the clarity of our perception, and be better able to solve the problems of this depraved, alienating world. And this love really begins by embracing our inner light. Love for wisdom that goes beyond mere disciplined regimen , but love that resonates with who we really want to be or already are, deep inside, beyond the shallow facades we taught ourselves to put on our internal worlds. Yet, the depths of the external world can be embraced, once we are able to embrace our internal worlds. Perception is not only a matter of eyesight, but also a matter of intellect. The more we grow our intellect, the clearer this world can be, with all of its highs and lows, allowing us to not sink to depression and despair , so easily... Then, to combat superficiality, we need to cultivate intellectual growth. Final Part: Countering Superficiality: A Path to Intellectual Growth Engage in Intellectual Pursuits:   Prioritize reading , writing, and philosophical discussions to stimulate critical thinking and expand knowledge. Try even to see this world from a genius' shoes, and then try acting like true genius would. Alter Your Personal Media Consumption Philosophy:  Be mindful of the content you consume and seek out sources that prioritize depth and substance. Try seeking out pieces of media that relate to yourself, and not just pursue it as a way to escape your problems. Maybe use media in order to detect ideas that could solve your problems instead. Cultivate Self-Discipline:  Develop self-discipline to resist the urge for immediate gratification, and prioritize long-term goals. Remember that addictions can distract your mind and even make you forget who you really are, as you misuse your powers for malice , as a result. Embrace Eccentricity:  Don't be afraid to stand out from the crowd and pursue your own interests, even if they are unconventional . "The Crowd" doesn't necessarily have the innate knowledge about yourself, that you have. Ideally, you should see yourself as knowing more about who you really are, and act accordingly to your values, as subjective as they are from the rest of "the herd". Overcome Peer Pressure:  Assert your individuality and resist social pressures that hinder your intellectual growth. The reasoning for this is the same as the one given in the last point. Learn Logic:  Study logic to improve your reasoning skills and avoid logical fallacies. As heartful as you might be, you can improve your rationality to maintain emotional balance, and free yourself from impractical concerns. Expand Your Vocabulary:  Read widely and actively seek to learn new words to enhance your communication and understanding. As you expand your vocabulary your knowledge increases as well, which you can then use to better solve your problems, as well as help others. Prioritize Depth Over Superficiality:  Seek out content that challenges your thinking and offers meaningful insights. As much as the mundane answers our need for comfort , must we always be comfortable, when it can reduce our sense of wonder in our perception? By taking these steps, individuals can cultivate a deeper understanding of the world, develop critical thinking skills, and resist the superficiality that goes throughout modern society. With decreasing superficiality, we can remember how deep this world can be, and we can remember how deep we really are. Always try seeing the deeper aspects of things. Doing so will help you retain hope, away from the frustration of the absurd, and the anxiety of the uncertain.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Philosocom Directory on Friendship) The Directory Giving Up Your Privacy For Products -- The Ethical Philosophy of Contemporary Privacy The Rubinshteinic Theory On Contentism -- Why Emotions Can be Weakness Climbing the Bias-Breaker Hill -- How To See Beyond The Subtle Algorithm Bias Virtual Dictatorships and Plutocracies -- How Humanity is Being Shaped Search Engines VS Socializing -- Why Social Interactions are Less Necessary Than Before https://www.philosocom.com/post/hidden-gem The Search Engine VS Social Interaction -- Understanding Effective Information Gathering The Article In this digital age, the illusion of happiness is as pervasive as the toxic air we breathe from the products of ever-growing, greedy corporations . Paradoxically, this constant stream of seemingly perfect lives, filled with laughter, exotic travels,  and flawless, beautiful selfies , can easily paint a picture of a world where "everyone" is content and carefree. Without however the critical thinking required to dig beneath this carefully curated facade, a different reality will resume to lie low from our perception. The loneliness that lurks beneath the surface is a silent epidemic, only relatable to those who are regularly lonely.  In a world where connections can be made and utterly ghosted with a simple swipe, true intimacy often feels elusive. Whether we seek friendship or love,  the superficial nature of social media can leave us feeling isolated and disconnected, even as we're surrounded by countless online "friends". Ask yourselves regularly: Just how much do you really know about these virtual contacts? Ask yourselves, occasionally, if these people really know you, like you think they are, and vice versa. You might think you do, until something happens and you realize that you are more distant than otherwise expected. As such, without the sharper, critical intellect , it's easy to get caught up in the illusion of happiness, to believe that everyone else's life is better than our own, or to think our lives are intertwined with them.  Intertwined as respect is with relevancy! Yet, the truth is, everyone struggles with their own demons, and you might not even understand, why one time they just, "out of the blue" decide to lash out at you for just starting another friendly conversation.  Behind the carefully crafted posts , there are real people with real problems, whose realness is covered in the true uncertainty of reality. What we see online is often a carefully curated version of reality, a highlight reel that omits the mundane, the difficult, and the painful.  Highlight means a specific bias of something! And of course, bias distorts our accuracy of perception! Often times, even when that version is more accurate, it's not entirely accurate as the information we might understand better in the physical realm. Thus, it's important to remember that the lives we see on social media are not real in the same way that our own lives are. They are filtered, edited, and staged to present a certain image. They are also not presented as fluently as physical reality can demonstrate , as virtual reality always requires a user to update things. This can further hurt the understanding that people change, but do not necessarily write about it or record it in any way. Of course, it is clear in more ways than one that judging a person's behavior solely on virtual evidence can be compared to judging a book by its cover. When we prioritize judgement over understanding, be it positive or negative , we already set ourselves to be misled. Much of our peace can be developed from distinguishing illusion or delusions from reality.  Real connections, real experiences, and real emotions are what matter most, as they are the most concrete. Being with someone that you actually enjoy being with, can change your perception of reality. By the opposite side of the same token, you might feel like a ghost, not really in touch with reality (and yourself) when you're alone. Mentally alone that is. Instead of comparing ourselves to the carefully curated lives we see online, and ruminating about how miserable we are, we should instead focus on building meaningful relationships and pursuing our own passions. Passions that help us and others, and not the other way around. Loneliness is a natural part of the human experience, but it doesn't have to consume us. Thinking that there's no point not being lonely just because we'll be lonely anyways, is a product of the Nirvana Fallacy. By cultivating real connections,  finding purpose in our lives, we can overcome feelings of isolation and ruthlessly operate , until we find true happiness.... and/or true love even! Remember: next time you find yourself scrolling through your social media feed, remember that what you're seeing is just a carefully constructed illusion. An illusion of activity that we apply to reality itself. It's a tool. Is there a need to depend on our worth and our wellbeing on tools? Must our whole selves depend on the functionality and competence of tools? Don't let it make you so mentally dependent on them, and delude yourself that you are free. Feeling inadequate or alone, that is not liberty as much as it is submission to the tyranny of depression. Instead, focus on building a life that is authentic, meaningful, and fulfilling. One that makes you want to be alive.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Background music) In this article, I would like to introduce the world to a new concept that can be used to view life in a more practical manner. I am confident that this concept can assist us in overcoming the inherent naive perspective , and understand that much of the value we assign to things and beings in reality is just that -- assigned, a choice by us. It's with the similar rationale presented in the Rubinshteinic Butcher article. I founded this very website with the intention of maintaining control over my content, avoiding the potential for external admins and moderators to arbitrarily remove it. In mostly philosophical depth of content, of course. I also do the same with the content of others. This is why I believe that private websites, such as blogs, remain essential. I am primarily concerned with the security of the content and host for generations to come, in the name of Philosocom's vision : Contribution to the depth of digital content, and maintaining philosophy's relevance to humanity at large. Having a business requires a practical perspective. This means viewing everything and everyone of value as a "resource." By "resource," I mean the potential they have to contribute to the growth of your business and thus to the advancement of your hopes and dreams as a business owner. This does not have to entail treating things and beings as disposable . Let's be more rational and moral than that. Let's not turn allies into foes. L et's strive for a future where the more promising something is, the greater opportunities it can generate. Why, then, discard supporters when they can be of great help one day? The universal businessman approaches life with a calculated mindset. They have abandoned the blissful state of innocence in favor of looking at the bigger picture. When the naive go for a walk and witness the beautiful scenery around them, they may be inspired with awe. However, this practical visionary will set aside vanity to focus on the reason they went for a walk in the first place: to maintain or improve physical health , lose weight, and so on. This concept I'm trying to convey isn't necessarily how life is. Rather, it depicts how life, according to this idea, should be lived. It's not about being but about aspiring to be. For the universal businessman, every moment holds the potential to become an opportunity, one way or another. Have you noticed why I sometimes write about video games ? It's precisely because of this reasoning: Everything and everyone can pose the wonderful possibility of an article. See for yourselves how many I've written thus far. All for your enjoyment. However, this concept also carries an element of sadness. The universal businessman isn't necessarily an all-powerful being with limitless resources. Their resources are finite. And how can they not be limited? I'm not only talking about money here. I'm speaking about life itself. It is finite, and none of us are immortal, right? The essence of this life philosophy is to be rationally aware of our limitations. However, this does not imply that we should whine or dwell on matters beyond our control, such as the uncertainty of life itself! It could mean that we should not waste our resources and assets, dear readers. And we shouldn't underestimate them either, for we may have what many others lack. Gratitude helps the increase of awareness. Better than to not be ungrateful nor entitled. Consider your families, pets, friends, and followers. Undervaluing them could lead you to waste a great deal of potential without even realizing it. Remember: power is everything , and the Universal Businessman is more than aware of that. He or she is aware of the fact that anything could have promised potential, at the premise of that reason alone. Mindfulness meditation seeks to raise awareness through practice, to sense life beyond our habitual actions. Do you walk constantly? You might be amazed when you realize that it might as well be automatic, thanks to a lifetime of doing it. The aware meditator seeks to overcome the automatic by prevailing over the train of thought. I studied and practiced Zen meditation myself. The universal businessman, on the other hand, attempts to achieve the same thing, but not empirically but rationally. Logically, in other words. They believe that since they are limited, capitalizing on life can be beneficial. In other words, they utilize their resources and assets to their own advantage, because they are aware of what they are capable of. They do not allow their resources to be wasted away by mundane activities or the automatic process of the human brain, which gets activated when things are taken for granted. They will not desire to kill their own time so easily. I believe the " genius " of this archetype lies in the fact that you might not even need to meditate to be mindful. Simply examine your train of thoughts and convince yourself why they are either wrong, impractical or both, when it comes to your power. After all, our thoughts affect our emotions and, thus, our mental state, correct? Essentially, view this approach as a chess game . Undermine one soldier... One soldier on the board, and you might be doomed to defeat and failure, to the disappointment of your effort to win, to succeed. Never sacrifice anything and anyone so quickly or you might regret it! There's little practical reason to dwell on gloomy thoughts when you can seize the day and capitalize on the potential that life presents. This potential, inherent in both your life and the individuals who interact with it, can be defined by influence rather than direct power, regardless of whether it falls within or outside your control. As such, we are more powerful than we might realize , simply of how easily our actions can affect others -- and ourselves as well. Never underestimate the many chain reactions you can trigger with one act alone. I extend my best wishes to you all and express my gratitude for taking the time to read this article. Do you recognize what I just accomplished? I capitalized on the very essence of this article's concept -- the fact that your time can be used for much benefit, which I capitalized for that very purpose. Who claimed that capitalism must be solely confined to material wealth? Helping others can be seen as a form of moral wealth. Wealth includes more than just money or material assets. Sometimes, the most valuable wealth lies in the moments we experience in life, which we can use to further our goals. In my case, it's achieving World Relevance and rectification. So, why waste time admiring greenery when you can cultivate it instead?

For more on my philosophy on Evil, here are some articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-polarity-of-evil https://www.philosocom.com/post/evil-in-humanity (Background music) Unmasking True Evil: From Naivete to Reality What is true evil? Earlier in my life, I thought that there were no such thing as evil people, and that even despicable despots are not fully aware that their actions are evil, if at all. However, the more I grew up and the more I used English to communicate with the world , I have realized that there are more truly evil people than I have first imagined. I have studied ethics in university, and in fact, the philosophy of morality was my first introduction to my former academic life. According to what I learned, there are three interpretations of morality: Objective morality , which claims that good and evil are universal. Subjective morality , which means that the definition of good and evil is up to the individual; And, Inter-subjective morality , which means that morality is largely determined by one's local society or community (nowadays it can be applied to online groups too). I'm not absolutely certain about which variant of morality is the most correct one, but I do think that there are common components that are more obvious than others . And no, I do not refer to having an evil laugh, which is absurd and cliché. Those who think that is a good enough evidence for true evil might as well be deep in Plato's cave . Nonetheless, some villains from fiction do have some evil that can be applied to real life. Many classical villains can simply be regarded as crime lords, or people who run criminal empires or businesses . However, some are for some reason marketed as "supervillains" because they're rich and/or are high-tech ( like the Joker , who does not even have superpowers). But I digress. Morality, Deception, and the Quest for Self in a World of Villains I found out that in order to be regarded as a villain, both in fiction and in real life, one must commit crimes, or at least, consider doing so as a likely possibility. I enjoy the idea of " taking over the world ," but I would not overthrow legitimate governments just to do so, right? So, in a way, evil can be seen as a breach of legitimacy . And while breaching legitimate law is evil, some cases may deserve that the law will be broken in the name of good. The problem with this idea is that crimes are relative to the place or country one is currently in. Criticizing the government is considered a crime in a few places ( Hence one of the reasons North Korean philosophy fails without oppression ), but in most of the world it is usually okay to do so. It does not mean that disapproving the government is an evil act objectively. That notion would be ridiculous. Committing murder or attempting to do so, on the other hand, is evil, at least in theory, even when you are a government official or representative, which could mean that we shouldn't murder not only practically but also morally . I am not a lawyer, so I will leave it at that. Being a jerk doesn't necessarily make one evil. Maybe it makes one less good, but not evil. Having an attitude problem is nothing more than behavior, is it not? Also, what if it's possible to be a jerk and also have a heart of gold ? Some people simply have a different natural behavior than what is normally expected of them, which could cause problems in life. And yet, they could still be decent in some ways. Thus, simply having certain personality traits, do not contradict morality. Nietzche, for example, might've opposed society, but he wanted people to become what he believed to be the best version of themselves: The Overman . Would you, then, call Nietzche evil for opposing social order in his philosophy ( like sociopaths do in practice )? Maybe it is desired for one to be kind and compassionate , as that would be a good behavior, but lacking in these is insufficient for goodness overall. Maybe the one who is deemed a jerk is in fact a good person, as evident by their deeds? Remember: Not all jerks are monsters, and some people, like the fictional character Gus Fring , use their niceness as a front to their true evil. As you can see, a good attitude or even a gentlemanly one , is a good way to enable evil. It seems that law is necessary to have a much clearer understanding of good and evil, and not just any law, but law that would be agreed by as many people as possible . Agreed, as good and as just. And that is exactly why people who tend to be more evil, AKA, tend to defy good law, are deceptive and lie below the radar. It might be easy to use good acts not only to cover evil, but also for the long term -- as mere tools one can mention as excuse. This is how the fallacy of whataboutism flourishes. After all, no one wants to get caught and have their reputation ruined, or at least, be condemned for good by society! It's for that reason, as to why I don't like deceiving anyone, as I have no desire to be evil, or even be tempted to become evil. It's simply not worth it. Being an article baron and contributing insight is better than profiting over the misery of others by being a drug baron. The internet is full of scammers, and this comes from someone who is online almost entirely. It's easier online to hide your true intentions and pretend to be someone you're not. In a way, those who tend to be more evil have much more interest in deceiving the external world . It isn't because they necessarily do anything wrong, but because they may be wise enough to understand that evading authenticity can save them from public condemnation and humiliation. Hence the value of secrecy : Better not to ruin one's ambitions by being so recklessly open. That is the wonder of having a nickname or a false identity; it makes it harder to trace activities back to you. And maybe, the main source of evil doesn't come from the desire of material gain, but from preserving our own self-interest above all . After all, we must care for our own skin in order to survive, otherwise no one else might do it for us, right? But when that self-preservation turns to greed and vanity, that is where it is corrupted, in the form of making others unnecessarily suffer for your own gain. Unnecessary dependencies on validation have a potential to cause that kind of evil. I mean, if you think making others unnecessarily suffer or capitalizing on their addictions will help you feel important and respected ( Like "Heisenberg" ), maybe not all ends justify the means. And consider the fact that consumerism's ambition is to engineer and capitalize on otherwise-prevented dependencies! As a result, some of us would not care much about morality, about justice , about equality, and would mainly, if not only, seek to satisfy their own ego, above that of others . Maybe the ego is the ultimate source of human evil, assuming other beings are not necessarily as evil as we, as a species, or capable of being. What if the seeking of greater wealth is but a product of the ego, and not by itself, the "source of all evil," as they say? Even if an identity is necessary in order to exist and to identify other things in comparison, it could still contain the possible fact that it is the elementary source of (human) evil. The ego is divided into the Id and the Superego . The Id craves fulfilling their desires at all costs, and the Superego seeks justice, punishment, and atonement. That's what I, at least, recall from my psychology class back in high school. A Former Clerk's Awakening to the Cost of Indifference What if some people just don't care at all about morality, about anything that is considered "good," "noble," and "respectable"? Maybe these people are the evilest of all, especially when they pretend they do, and raise no suspicion as a result. Maybe those who lack any remorse or compassion for another living being, human or otherwise, and would not care if this being will die, are those who are "worthy" of being called "true evil." I really worked hard there and entered into something I call " The Reaping Fatigue Era " but I digress. Good work has a lot of value to me over prestige . I felt small in comparison to my job at the time, and I probably underestimated the role, despite the hard work I put into it. It is difficult for me to determine, for some reason, the fact that the numbers in my analytics are real people, even though I know they are and being very mindful, in a Shinto-ish manner , can definitely help. I must make sure that I won't become a disposer, so easily , if I want to avoid evil. It's important to realize that people are more than numbers, and that they deserve respect and tolerance too . Evil, while tempting, isn't a good idea. No pun intended. I have no desire to treat anyone as expendable . For me that a degree of evil that easily led to horrible atrocities I refuse to enable with my behavior. For me, at least, true evil is most clearly expressed when one is joyful due to the fact that someone died, who wasn't evil themselves. Maybe I am still too naive, though, given the joy of some when the British Queen Elizabeth II died . I can't see their reasoning, morally, at least. But they did put their own humor above grief, which fits my head canon on "true evil": Which is gaining a profit of some kind off the misery or misfortune of another. What do you think? What is true evil? Alex Mos argues: Evil is difficult to define as suffering is subjective and depends on the individual sensibility and circumstances. Every action has the potential to cause pain and suffering for a universal right or wrong reason, and yet, in both cases, it’s suffering. Our Earthly existence is based on inequality as we must eat and “fight”/work to live. Therefore, to live, we kill (animals), banish, and fight other humans to make our families thrive in relative safety and comfort. We make choices and are subject to choices, making some happy and automatically others miserable. Inequality and unfairness are a part of life itself , as one is born in a loving and prosperous home while another is an unloved and hungry child knowing nothing but evil around them. Yet, no species could survive too long with evil as a guideline, as evil is too destructive at its core. The universe balances good and evil, and our lives mirror it in its dualistic essence. For our good, to survive, we are equipped with an inborn moral compass refined by intellect and education to make choices based on compassion and consideration of others. The morals are meant to prevent us from causing unnecessary suffering/evil and to understand the consequences of our actions for others. Not having or disregarding a moral compass might lead to evil deeds, which means an imbalance. In such a case, the unbalanced person can become a true evil” being.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) ( Directory on Religion: How Religion and Democracy Struggle ) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "The Cult of Kefka: Nihilism as a Spectrum" explores the concept of nihilism using the character Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI as an allegorical example . Mr. Tomasio uses pop culture to make the topic more accessible and engaging for readers unfamiliar with philosophical texts . The term "Genocidal Nihilism" is introduced to clearly define a specific and extreme form of nihilism, helping to understand its dangerous potential. The article presents nihilism as a spectrum, acknowledging that not all nihilists are extreme or dangerous. It thoughtfully explores the oxymoronic nature of a nihilistic religion, highlighting the inherent contradictions in Kefka's cult. The discussion on the open-mindedness of philosophers versus the potential dogmatism in religious or ideological beliefs is insightful, encouraging readers to think critically about their own beliefs and the beliefs of others. In conclusion, the article is a compelling exploration of extreme nihilism through the lens of a fictional character. The use of Kefka Palazzo as an allegory is a creative and effective method to discuss these themes, making complex philosophical ideas accessible to a broader audience. (Background music) Introductory Disclaimer By using the example of a certain video game character called Kefka Palazzo , I will try and show you how an extreme variant of nihilism can actually be very deadly. The term I use, "Genocidal Nihilism" , is a term I made in order to define a form of purpose-defying belief that attempts to justify stuff like genocide, omnicide (the destruction of everything), and so on. Take this article as a way of me trying to explain, through an allegory, why extreme nihilism is bad and even dangerous for humanity as a whole. As usual and unless stated otherwise, I refer to video games as mediums to tell a story, so you can regard them as equal to a book , a play, and so on. No knowledge of gaming is required to understand most of my articles where I refer to story-driven video games. Like with every article, feel free to ask for clarification if needed. Exposing and Confronting the Monster Kefka Palazzo is the main antagonist of the game "Final Fantasy VI" that was released in the 90s. He is essentially a psychotic clown and a warlord who actually managed to win as a villain by taking over the world, only to be defeated around a year later. It is similar to Scar from the Lion King. In his last period of reign, he attempted to destroy his domain simply because he deemed life too meaningless to continue any further. Not only his own life, but all lives. "I will destroy everything! I will create a monument to non-existence!" -- Kefka Intermission: Exploring the Nihilistic Spectrum   This isn't to say that every nihilist will become suffering, let alone genocidal or omnicidal . That's why I regard nihilism as a spectrum, defined by deeds that were actually done because of one's nihilistic beliefs. The philosophy in question doesn't have to be a harbinger of doom. Many nihilists lead peaceful, fulfilling lives ,  even if they don't subscribe to some cosmic purpose. American poet Charles Bukowski wrote in a novel of his: “I was drawn to all the wrong things: I liked to drink, I was lazy, I didn't have a god, politics, ideas, ideals. I was settled into nothingness; a kind of non-being, and I accepted it. I didn't make for an interesting person. I didn't want to be interesting, it was too hard. What I really wanted was only a soft, hazy space to live in, and to be left alone. On the other hand, when I got drunk I screamed, went crazy, got all out of hand. One kind of behavior didn't fit the other. I didn't care. ” -- "Women" This struggle between the individual and society, between expectation of development and desire for stagnation , highlights the complexities of the nihilistic spectrum. While many "lowlife nihilists", like Bukowski , find a way to create a fulfilling life despite the absence of inherent meaning, it doesn't erase the potential for nihilism to manifest in more destructive ways on the other end of the spectrum. Paradox: Nihilism as "Reason" At least in fiction, where the nihilist villain "attributes meaning" to his or her ideology, by weaponizing it against others. Isn't it paradoxical, to use the lack of meaning as reason for an action one deems valuable enough to pursue? The "value" of their meaninglessness becomes an active force in the world when used to gain power and use that power as a weapon. Kefka here didn't care not only for his own significance but for the world's as well, so he was convinced by his nihilism to commit destruction with no regard for others, including his own followers. That is even though nihilism is the rejection of all meaning and value. In short: " Nihilism is attractive because it promises you don’t have to care." Then why become a mastermind? The Cracks In The Doomsday Cult The less reasonable a cult is, the more men seek to establish it by force. -- Jean-Baptiste Rousseau There is some religious significance within Kefka's story because he managed to win by becoming a god. An occult ritual of sorts ascended him to godhood and made him design the world in his own image. In addition, he also formed a religion or cult under his name, known as "The Cult of Kefka," a secret society of fanatical cultists who sold their lives to their founder. This is a very strange scenario because, in the real world, we usually associate religion with giving meaning to the universe. The idea of creating a nihilistic religion is very oxymoronic. While I am not religious,  I understand why some people value their religions so highly. I wouldn't say there's something wrong with it by itself... One of the reasons people join collectives and perform religious rituals is to give their existence a purpose . To feel belonging, and find a higher calling. If said meaning is not assigned to their current lifespan, then it is assigned to an afterlife , as presented in some religions such as Christianity and Islam, where the next world is highly desired and prioritized. Kefka is not only a god in his fictional universe but also an enforcer of his own brand of genocidal nihilism. He could not care less for his zealous followers and would kill them if, for example, he were too bored and needed entertainment at the time. Characters like Strago Magus , after Kefka brought much ruin to the world, simply joined his cult because Kefka's new global reign turned him insane. Faulty Reason Behind Despair and Destruction Finding no further reason to go on, Kefka tried to justify his quest for world destruction by seeing nihilism as some cosmic, undeniable truth, so even when the people who resisted him tried to talk it through, the attempt at convincing him was fruitless. That was his problem — his utter unwillingness to keep an open mind . After all, in his eyes, other perspectives are as useless as his own. He would prefer destroying everything instead. When you take a philosophy and believe it blindly, you risk treating it in a "religious" sense by looking at it with full bias towards itself . It's the difference between a philosopher and a religious authority, at least sometimes — the honest philosopher may be more open-minded and less biased than a public religious figure. Kefka Palazzo is a fictional example of how anything can become a source of cultish following, even if that source isn't strictly a religious concept. Be it a religion or something smaller like a cult, the subject does not really matter compared to some people's inclination to follow and/or praise something or someone greater than themselves. ....Many social and corporate entities possess cult-like characteristics. Although less intrusive compared to religious cults, these entities also engage in similar forms of the conversion process.... many business organisations propagate commanding ideologies and cultural values. While providing their employees with a sense of meaning, purpose and belonging, they also require a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. Dissenters are swiftly punished. -- Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries With Kefka's demise by a remnant of dissenters, the story can be seen as the triumph of meaning over oblivion and despair. And with his death, the world was restored to its former glory. Final Words: Further Insight into Nihilism Nihilism, the belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose, can be a complex philosophy. While some might conclude that nihilists are inherently closed-minded, clinging to their beliefs like religious dogma, this view overlooks the spectrum-like of the philosophy itself. Take Friedrich Nietzsche's famous proclamation, "God is dead." He wasn't suggesting the absence of all meaning, but rather the death of absolute, divinely ordained meaning. In its place, he saw the potential for individuals to create their own values and forge their own purpose. Because, the proclamation is part of a bigger quote... “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement , what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” This highlights a crucial point: Just as not all religious followers fit the stereotype of the fanatic, not all nihilists are pessimists who rather burn reality to ashes. Some may find liberation in the absence of external meaning, focusing on creating their own, or living regardless of it. The comparison to religion offers frameworks for understanding the world, but neither dictates an individual's actions. A Muslim doesn't have to be a terrorist (like in Sufism) , a Christian doesn't have to be a missionary , and a Jew's intelligence isn't defined by their religion . The same subtlety goes for nihilism and nihilists. Ultimately, people are multifaceted beings shaped by experiences and beliefs beyond a single ideology. Nihilists, like everyone else, deserve to be seen as human beings, and not just representatives of a philosophy. Come and exit the tribal bias.

Article Synopsis By Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "Philosophers and Relevancy -- How to Become More Relevant As a Philosopher" offers valuable insights into the challenges and aspirations faced by contemporary philosophers. It highlights the timeless relevance of philosophy, emphasizing that philosophical insights have a lasting impact. The article also includes personal anecdotes and reflections, providing a relatable and authentic touch. Practical advice for maintaining and proving relevance, such as gathering testimonials and leveraging recognition, is provided, offering valuable guidance for philosophers looking to establish their work in the public domain. The comparison between the longevity of philosophical insights and the fleeting nature of trends like NFTs emphasizes the depth and enduring value of philosophical work. The article also addresses the challenges of gaining attention in today's fast-paced, media-driven world , providing a realistic view of the contemporary landscape for philosophers. In conclusion, the article successfully addresses the importance of maintaining relevance as a philosopher and offers practical advice for achieving this goal. (Background music) Part I: The Philosopher - A Job that Never Gets Old The thing that is so amusing about philosophy is this: No matter from which era or century a philosopher has come, they could always be relevant. Even if we were to move 100 years into the future with a time machine, it's most likely that people will still talk about the philosophers of old, just as they do nowadays. Therefore, a good, living philosopher, is one who aspires not only to philosophize, but also to remain as relevant to the world, regardless of time. In fact, those who seek to immortalize themselves as philosophers, such as myself, might get insulted if told that they are irrelevant. So I've been told by someone who I once held dear to my heart. Through my work I hope to prove to her otherwise. Prove to the world, that I've the traits of a good philosopher. How can we know that we are relevant philosophers? If you have a site or blog like mine, abstain from having activities there on your behalf, as a test, for a set period of time. See whether or not people will come there nonetheless. If people seek to read your material, even on a day when you did not work on that material, then it needs to be told that you are indeed a relevant philosopher. Part II: A Tale of Two Relevancies (and Why One Endures) Being relevant is to be important enough to belong to a bigger context other than yourself or than what you just said or wrote. The greater your and your work's value belong to a bigger context, the more irreplaceable they are capable of becoming. When something or someone is irreplaceable, their mentioning becomes, almost, an inevitable possibility . It becomes something that cannot be disregarded in any way, when that specific, bigger context, is introduced. By the same token, you can't have a discussion on meta-philosophy without having a broader understanding of what philosophy is , or without at least trying to understand what it is. As such, you could say that there is a hierarchy of importance of components that build that "bigger context", which in this case is philosophy. As the "Father of Western Philosophy", Socrates ' relevance is one of the biggest there is in the history of philosophy. By the fact that we can't rationally deny it, his value and the value of his teachings are therefore irreplaceable. Higher degrees of relevance can only be attainable by being very important to the formation and continuation of discussions about certain subjects. The mere potential of said discussions to come in the first place, allow the relevance of certain components -- and people -- to exist. Despite being a minor niche, philosophy remains a relevant niche, which can be testified by the fact that we philosophize to this very day, even after thousands of years. A Fallacy of Progression The longevity of a niche does not always correlate with its popularity , especially in contemporary times where many trends are involved. Take NFTs for example. They used to be very popular, promising riches to its creators. However, a few years later, NFTs became a laughter stock with little seriousness remaining to it, as the vast majority of these online creations are now worthless. How did Socrates' memory outlived the NFT? The answer is simple: Insights matter more than sensational promises of riches. Even if philosophy isn't exactly profitable in cash , it's profitable in its wisdom and ability to make us understand reality, more. Part III: How to Increase the Endurance of Your Work A philosopher that no one cares about, is a philosopher who is, so to speak, "good as dead". That isn't because their lives are worthless, but because philosophy is meant to be shared with the world. The reason is that philosophy can contribute and enrich lives, thus proving its altruistic value. Not only theoretically but practically, too . It's why Socrates sacrificed his life in the name of the Athenian people, it's why Diogenes sacrificed his self-dignity, and it's why Nietzsche sacrificed his mental health . It's all in the name of not remaining forgotten in the abyss of the past. And truth-seeking , either way, requires sacrifice. And those who remain forgotten, can forever be lost in the dust of history. Thus, memory deserves to be a very sacred value to those who wish to be public. You may be surprised, but there are a lot of philosophers, throughout history, that remained forgotten. How many of you did know that India had a president who was also a philosopher? How many of you knew that there was a school shooter in Finland who was a philosopher? How about a certain Jewish intellectual who was shunned for his opinions, and was not Baruch Spinoza? There are more forgotten philosophers than it meets the eye. A Tip For the Aspiring Philosopher If you're a philosopher, here's my tip for you: Collect as many testimonials as you can, from people who want to give them to you voluntarily, with or without you having to offer your request . That way, you'll know that your material comes before you. For a philosopher without recognized work can easily be questioned as such than otherwise. You need to prove your worth through recognition , if you want your works to contribute further, beyond the halls of academia or beyond conducting private discussions. Once you've gathered enough of them, feel no shame in sharing them with the world, as they serve as evidence to the fact that your job as a philosopher goes as well as any other job, Monetized or otherwise (volunteering work). Doing so will be able to make the lives of others connect with your own work, as they slowly begin to understand your relevancy as a philosopher. And never underestimate the power of marketing, however attained, in a world where shallowness is a necessary evil. Navigating the Attention Economy as a Philosopher As long as you're alive, you're in a race against time. Should you not reach a state where your name is relevant, then there will be two results: Either you'll be relevant only after your death, similar to artists such as Van Gogh , or you will not be relevant at all, and will remain forgotten. A philosopher's greatest enemy, is the possibility of being forgotten by people and by time, which then would greatly deter his or her potential to contribute to humanity. I have such fear, myself . Being forgotten is another testimony to the declining relevance to philosophy. Hence why philosophers are extensions of the craft, and not just themselves, necessarily. And, you're not alone in this. There are other competitors for the attention of readers, and as with readers themselves, it is limited. As with any other field which is served for the public, you don't have to be number 1 to succeed , but you should aspire to reach as high as possible, as long as you're graced with life and with the ability to philosophize. That can apply to any industry as well in a capitalist economy. You might be surprised how beneficial it is to strive to be excessive. Part IV: The Blocks In Your Path The thing is, even if you're a very competent philosopher, there is no justification for you to reach "immortality" . By "immortality" I refer to recognition that is independent of your lifespan. This is an unfair world, where shallow videos of less than a minute will get far more attention than articles such as this; a world where your chronic mental anguish can easily be overlooked , thus making you feel lonely, under the "authority" of normalcy. To quote the great Charlie Chaplin : This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it. Viewer-base isn't based on socialist/communist methodology, like the one presented in the Lion King . There is no equal share of attention for those who truly deserve it. Hence, it's your job to create this justification for yourself, and rally the readers into reading your material and appreciating your philosophical material. Don't expect people to just come and read you in a world where there is a severe lack of justice served. With so much competition for attention, simply writing or speaking isn't enough if you wish to reach the immortalization of those before you. You need to work hard earning it. And those who refuse to work hard, might easily fall to get-rich-quick schemes. Attention is to be worked hard for, and worked for, relentlessly. Genuine followers, Not Cult Worshippers A few final words about relevance in philosophy: The "path of sin" is to turn your words into a cult, something that Pythagoras and Osho did during their lifetimes. However, by making your philosophy a cult, you will severely increase your chances of having your reputation stained by others, even by the media. Therefore, you shouldn't become a cult leader. You should become a philosopher with a community of viewers of equal status as yourself. It is but one of the tests one should pass in order to be a competent philosopher. The path between philosophership and cultist condescension is, unfortunately, quite thin. Avoiding cultist organization would mean that your philosophy might be more respected than otherwise. That's because many people may think in an ad-hominem manner, and would easily correlate your writings with who you were. As unfortunate as their fallacious thinking is, you have a reputation to preserve as a public figure for that reasoning. Ruin your reputation as a person, and your work's reputation can be ruined as well, by people who don't properly understand that philosophy is an exchange of ideas. It isn't an exchange of the people who create and discuss said ideas, but many people, being the irrational social animals that many are , won't necessarily care.

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) One of my less-known interests is obscure nations, also known as those that are not very well known. Micronesia, Tonga, and Brunei are examples of nations that remain in the shadows of most of the world's population. During the previous decade, I learned that there are nations that are even more obscure: micronations, also known as alleged countries that don't actually exist, whether or not their rulers have declared independence from their original countries like any other actual country. (And no, Micronesia, Tonga, and Brunei are not micronations, despite being small in size.) Not many people may know, but there are more micronations in the world than any of us are aware of. In this article, I would like to suggest an idea about the motive of these micronations' existence: that in an attempt to solve a problem with external bodies, some people may turn to "creating" their own countries. In other words, for some, there is a need to "micronate." I'd like to argue that the need in question is mainly sociological in nature, but not only. Will elaborate further. Some political entities may even regard themselves as fully-fledged countries. AKA, countries who take their role seriously and treat it like professional work. I will give an example later into this article. Many micronations across the world are more than just jokes or parodies, such as the Republic of Molossia ; some of them were created out of ideological or legal reasons, in an attempt to creatively fix problems against far stronger opponents. The Glacier Republic , for example, was a fictional entity created in an advertising campaign to describe the damage caused by mining corporations in Chile to glaciers. Finally, the Coral Sea Islands was a gay and lesbian monarchy created to represent the LGBTQ community and provide a safe haven for them (which was dissolved in recent years after Australia allowed same-sex marriages). Whatever the case may be, it seems that the existence of many micronations (aside from some) is an attempt to help those who create them fight back, whether in the form of protest or in any other form, against issues that were not satisfactorily solved by actual countries. Perhaps if said issues were solved by them, people would not define certain territories, small as they are, as "sovereign countries," regardless of whether it is done illegally or not (such as the Hutt River Province , which dissolved due to taxation disputes, contrary to Freetown Christiania , which coexists with Denmark, the country it is in). While some attempts at "micronating" are either illegal or a fraud, others are at least minimally recognized by "mainlands," AKA the original countries they "succeeded" from, by not being completely eradicated from the ground up by the authorities, and thus are left in peace, despite being no match against them. It is important to note that one of the essential requirements for a micronation to be considered such is that it is rarely, if not completely, not recognized by any de facto organization in the international community. Literally anyone can start a micronation, whether it has a physical territory or not. You can turn your apartment into a country, or even your own body. This is why many micronations are far from ever being taken seriously by anyone, regardless of your motive behind it. It is that broad and hence many micronations are not the same. If there's something that's universal to almost all of them, however, is their complete irrelevance on the world stage. Beyond themselves, they don't really hold any political power. That's because such type of power must be recognized by others in order to exist. Likewise, a king that no one takes seriously does not really have much authority, even if he is the official monarch of his kingdom. Those who are leaders but cannot really lead are like interns who have no idea how to do their jobs. Nowadays it is very difficult to be treated with general seriousness, when you separate yourself from your original country. People may deem your new nation as either a delusion or an escapist fantasy. I won't be surprised if it will change. Why? Because people who worked hard and contributed to others, who gave more than what they took, deserve relevance. For hard, genuine work towards something that's good, deserves appreciation, or at least recognition. But it is still something that needs to be achieved, this estimation. (You can see this enterprise as a form of "micronation," even though I wouldn't define it as such due to stereotypic thought. It is a sovereign territory where I rule, a "virtual dictatorship/autocracy" like the many ones I mentioned in an earlier article . In that sense of the word, there are a lot of them nowadays. And it is far more acceptable to be an admin of a Facebook community than an Emperor of a self-recognized community.) Despite the extreme eccentricity of micronations, people still choose to create them. Some do it for artistic reasons, others to promote an ideology or an agenda, or to protest. The options vary, but all has to do with creation. With coming up with an idea, and trying to put it in practice. The extant does not matter in this case. Regardless of the reason, it seems that humans still have the desire to define themselves and their identities to the world. A micronation is one way to do this, by creating a framework of a country, with flags and sometimes coat of arms. In that sense it's like creating any other organization that is genuine. Why? Because your ambitions may matter to you more than what others may think. Their every whim does not have to bother you as long as you aren't doing anything harmful or illegal. You may even go even further beyond the limits of your average one-apartment "nation," and actually work on developing a community of your own, under your own self-defined national identity. The Empire of Stomaria is an example of this, where its emperor does things very seriously, and does not regard this a mere hobby. Community-building deserves its worth in a world filled with alienation. You may laugh at him for his attire and old-fashioned speech, but there isn't exactly anything wrong with it. Is there? I might not like absolute rulers but it's not like all of them commit atrocities. If no harm is made, and citizens are allowed to leave the nation, then what is exactly wrong in building an empire that is based on the voluntary cooperation of its members? They even promote social responsibility. So, when we compromise our esoteric needs in favor of conformity, we may forget some key aspects: 1. Life is too short to bother worrying so much about the external reception of you and your actions. 2. Those who judge you might not even really care about you as a human being. That can include society as a whole. 3. Some people are eccentric by nature, and may resume being as such. 4. Regarding point 2, many people seem to have forgotten how to be humane themselves. Normalization turns toxicity and disgrace into something that's okay, towards those who do not deserve it. And who does not deserve it? Those who merely do the things they like and feel are meaningful to them. Just like building, you know, human communities that are not para-social in nature. Communities where people care for each other. Since collective identity is important to many, it is only natural that some people would seek to become part of such communities, and that includes micronations. And who knows? Maybe some of these micronations will become recognized internationally. I already know myself that I do not need any degree in order to be recognized for my work. What I think deserves to matter is, well, the work itself. Especially when it is not treated like a hobby. Philosophizing used to be my hobby, but now it's my job. Do you recognize the logic between these fields? If I submitted to those who mocked me ruthlessly for my earlier craft, I wouldn't have gone anywhere. Being a philosopher is usually not a job. In my case, it is. I made it so. So yes, build your empire, whatever it may be. You deserve doing it, because if you can work towards your accomplishments, why compromise so easily? Remember: The world is not your friend. Don't put random people in such a high regard. Humans are political creatures. It means that power and importance are fluid concepts. And it also means that things do not have to be the way they are right now. Because today you might be an average office drone like I was. Should you work enough for your vision, your eccentricity can also contribute to others, and not just to your taxes. Good luck, and remember this: A changeable reality deserves to be questioned. I'm not telling you to "not give up." I'm telling you to not do it so effortlessly.

(Background music) Introduction The " Law of Attraction " is a spiritual principle that argues that our thoughts have a direct influence on existence in relation to us. In other words, based on your "mental life", a.k.a., your positive or negative thoughts , different things will happen to you, based on said thoughts. In simple words, your thoughts are like a "magnet" for different occasions. Part I: Controversies This concept is actually seen as a pseudoscience , but if we may think about it, everything that is either mystical or part of the " new age movement " can be seen as a pseudoscience. Science, of course, is not perfect , far from it, and that is why it develops with time, as it seeks truths empirically through research and experimentation. If it was perfect, it wouldn't have any reason to develop further, as perfection requires no necessary development. Either way, scientific research is better than believing in scientific theories that have been proven as false ( such as the law of attraction, at least when it comes to our minds ). Intermission: On Scientific Inquiry Things that scientists thought were true may turn out to be false in the distant future. Science, unlike religion, does not "pretend" to give you all the answers to everything. It's a developing body of knowledge whose purpose is to give you technical wisdom . It's simply because it does not have all the answers yet, and it perhaps might never be able to have all the answers if it cannot unlock omniscience in any way . It is flawed simply due to the fact that it has more to advance towards, which is good. If it were omniscient, then scientific research wouldn't been necessary at all, as we would already have all the answers. Things that were considered beyond the realm of possibility, for example, have become possible as time progresses. Such as flight, international communication for everyone, space tourism , and so on. Perhaps, based on this logic, the realm of thoughts will be more thoroughly researched, and new insights, not proven before, will be proven. Although I'm not a scientist, I also tend to agree with the scientific method . That's because I can make up my own mind as to how positive thoughts won't necessarily attract good people or good situations. Practical Application of Law Of Attraction: Questioned Let's say you're serving a life sentence in prison for committing murder . How can you attract good things to happen to you while in prison? First, you are surrounded by other random people, so you have no privacy . You are prone to bullying and harassment by other fellow prisoners; you may have to hide your homosexuality if you are gay, and so on. Should you find yourself in a gang, which could be dangerous, you may given orders that do not align with the rules of the jail you're locked in. Things such as beating up someone from a rival gang, or smuggling contraband from outside of prison. These are not problems that positive thinking alone can help you overcome. Also, it's not likely that you'll get out of jail unless you're young, depending of course on the severity of your crime. Finally, there is no evidence that good thoughts help decrease the time you were initially told to serve. What will release you sooner from prison is good behavior, not good thoughts. Counter Example: Human Vibrations On the contrary, when I look at my personal life thus far, it seems that whenever I was more positive, energetic, and confident, more people were inclined, by their own will, to connect with me. That's because human beings emit energies others can sense, intentionally or not . I did not do anything in particular to attract them into my life other than being myself. Some have left, some have stayed to this day, and I'm not talking only about this site's regular visitors. Perhaps the way I looked, behaved, or used my facial expressions, intrigued people to come to me. It was especially true when I was in high school. I attracted not only the one with whom I was in love but also audiences of younger students who, sometimes, gathered around me. I don't know how to explain it properly, other than the appeal I had back then. Of course, this is no attempt at boasting but simply recollecting the past before my path to (physical) hermitage. It's an example that could drop some insight on the article's subject. Now that I am dead inside, it is usually the opposite nowadays, and people keep their distance. You need not know my truest self. The only explanation I can give, other than "emitting energy" is the way I behave, which may give subtle impressions to others. I have learned from those who have seen me as disposable , and thus I made up my mind to not dispose of anyone. After all, human beings are more than mere resources or tools that you throw away once you have no need for them. Who knows when they will be of use to you? Who knows when other forms of potential might arise as a result of your communications? I know it may sound cliché, but friendships shouldn't be underestimated , even if they are not as close as other friendships. Even partnerships shouldn't be discarded when they are unnecessary for the time being. A large, loyal network is most beneficial. Attraction In Fiction: Suikoden IV As a child, I learned my initial outlook on life through a particular video game that I already wrote about. In that game, you need to recruit an army of individuals to help you defeat a common foe. This union of people whom you cannot get rid of normally is the thing that might've created within me, the desire to not see anyone as disposable, as long as they do not cause any trouble or stand in my way on purpose. As you recruit more and more of them, your HQ becomes livelier, and your odds of beating the game increase as you have a more diverse selection of warriors to choose from as you see fit. Some are not even warriors and could help you otherwise. Part II: The Necessity For More In other words, if you want to attract certain situations and people into your life, mere thoughts won't cut it. You need to build your confidence and charisma and give people a reason to appreciate you, AKA, give them a reason to care. It's not something that you can necessarily do by sitting in a dark room and just thinking . No friend, reader, or follower will come knocking on your door just because you have socially-attractive thoughts and ideas in your head. It works through your behavior. Your words, your posture , and your appearance . Some of it is within your control; some of it is not. It's based on the individuality of each person. The Shadowy Mind Argument People can't see your thoughts, only the behavior that may be a product of said thoughts, given that you'll let these thoughts translate into behavior, with awareness or without it. Be good enough at pretending, and people might not know your true thoughts. Sometimes you can give yourself the "privilege" of being passive and just let people make contact with you. However, there are other people, who may be passive, like yourself, and will not, as a result, be attracted to your presence. It's simply because you yourself need to initiate the move and you might lack the confidence to do just that. It doesn't matter how joyful or optimistic you are. These are not substitutes for getting close to someone and making contact with them. To be concise, putting yourself out there and increasing your chances of getting noticed is far preferable to staying passive in the hope that someone will come to you. Some people are more attractive than others in terms of physical appearance and thus might have the chance of attracting more people than you simply because they're prettier than you are. Although Some are much more social than others, and no amount of physical attraction may compensate for one's natural social tendencies. Also, attractive men and women can also intimidate some people by their looks. Conclusion In conclusion, while the Law of Attraction may be a popular concept, it lacks empirical evidence to support its claims. While positive thinking can undoubtedly have a positive impact on one's mental and emotional well-being, it is not this magical formula that necessarily attracts our true wishes. Genuine human connection , active engagement with the world, and consistent effort are key factors in shaping our experiences. By understanding the limitations of the Law of Attraction and focusing on tangible actions, we can foster meaningful relationships, achieve our goals, and lead more-fulfilling lives.

Article Synopsis By Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "The Relationship of Survival and Merit -- How To Give Reason to Life's Continuation" explores the relationship between survival and self-actualization, arguing that survival grants individuals the opportunity to reach their potential and contribute meaningfully to the world. Mr. Tomasio posits that survival is not just about existing but about creating a life that reflects one's unique capabilities and leaves a lasting legacy. The interplay between survival and self-actualization is framed as a mutually reinforcing cycle, where each fuels and sustains the other. The article encourages readers to embrace their potential and strive for self-actualization, which in turn enhances their chances of survival and their impact on the future. The article has strengths such as an engaging introduction, clear message, holistic perspective, encouraging and uplifting tone, and personal touch. In conclusion, the article presents a thoughtful and inspiring exploration of the relationship between survival and self-actualization. The positive tone and personal touch make it an engaging read, encouraging individuals to embrace their unique capabilities and strive for a meaningful life.   (Background music) Part I: How Survival Ignites Your Potential The purpose of survival is to grant you more time to live. However, survival isn't just about existing – it's about giving yourself the opportunity to create a life that reflects your unique potential. The longer you live, the greater the chance to actualize, to bring your full capabilities and talents into the world, and enrich the lives of others along the way. This holds true whether you're strictly focused on the future or simply enjoying the present, doing nothing . Every decision we make presents a fork in the road. One path leads to potential gains, while the other carries the risk of loss. However, the act of survival itself leans heavily towards benefit. The more you live, the more opportunities you have to experience positive outcomes and minimize negative ones. And when the odds are against you, for example, in the niche your business operates in, you still have a chance to increase its chances of success, as long as you're alive and serving in its head. The Value of Self Actualization But why does self-actualization matter? It's not necessarily about personal fulfillment exclusively. It's about ensuring a form of survival even after your physical life ends, in the form of legacy. The things you create, the impact you have on others, the memories you forge – these become your heritage, a way to continue living on in the hearts and minds of those around you. And when they pass away, they might as well get to tell about you to the next generations, who are yet to even be born. Beyond legacy, self-actualization is an inherent human need . It's the drive to become the best version of ourselves , to express our talents, and contribute meaningfully to the world. It's the fire that fuels our existence and gives life purpose . Part II: The Relationship Between Survival and Self-Actualization The relationship between survival and self-actualization is one of both necessity and mutual fulfillment. In other words, it's a cycle that feeds one another. Allow me to further explain what I mean. Self-actualization can give a sense of purpose and worth to one's life, which in turn may increase their level of willpower, essential to keep on living and enduring life despite the difficulties involved. The more one survives, the higher is their potential to actualize. Conversely, the more one actualizes, the more satisfied they may become, which in turn may increase their chances of survival extensively. Intermission: Personal Reflections I myself take no interest in daydreaming about the far future, when I can be a relentless altruist in the present , thus taking action for the future I want, instead. The future will simply be, and will be entirely in the present. However, while I don't have complete control over the tyranny of circumstance , which shapes the future, I can add my fair share of influence to the future. That is the time-related, practical aspect of self-actualization: Contributing to the specific future we want to live in, by surviving and actualizing ourselves in the present. Into the Intricacies Therefore, survival and self-actualization can be viewed from 4 abstract dimensions: The self. Other people. The present, and The future. The mutually-benefitting cycle of survival and merit thus contribute not only to one or more people but to reality itself and to what it might become. The actualization of the self has not only nor necessarily an egotistical value but also one capable of reshaping the future itself, should it either be revolutionary enough, or leave a multi-generational impact. And it all begins within your willingness to work towards the life you want. As such, looking on such long-term and wide ranges, we can learn from this mutual relationship that we're far more capable than what we may allow ourselves to accept. Now, imagine how much wasted potential there would be if survival wasn't necessary to actualize more potential. In the absence of the potential of our merits and its possible actualizations, I dare say that self-sacrifice would be inevitable for some. Thus, the mere access to self-actualization reveals a two more dimensions: Life and death. Those who live for their work might understand more how the dedication to their craft contributes to their wellbeing. By extension, when they improve their wellbeing and thus avoid self-sacrifice, they contribute to the mental welfare of their dear ones as well. The thing is everyone has merits , and thus, everyone has potential, regardless of everything that distinguishes one from another. Perhaps we all have potential. What justifies our living is our talents and the various uses we can give to them. Every second that flows by is either: A waste, A break from actualization in the name of rejuvenation , or A time for actualization. These are the three categories of the time possessed by the living. The more time you dedicate to the latter two categories, not only will you be more motivated to be amongst the living, but you will be better able to produce whatever your merits have in potential. For there is no self-actualization in an unnatural death, caused by giving in to despair. Part III: The Enduring Impact We all grapple with the impermanence of human existence. The books I write, the articles I create – will they be remembered in the far future? What if some unforeseen event dooms our civilization, leaving my work to vanish into the dust? Despite this potential for oblivion, I find a profound peace in the art of article writing . I always failed finding it elsewhere. The vastness of time and the possibility of extinction, do not diminish the inherent value of contributing to the present. Just like a flower doesn't need to bloom forever to be beautiful, a creation doesn't require eternal existence to be meaningful. Hence the eternity fallacy. Sure, the future may be uncertain, but there's one thing we know for sure – we can choose how to face the inevitable. We can succumb to despair and nihilism , or we can succumb to the inevitable while still living, creating, and offering value to others, as long as we can. The latter option, with its focus on the present and its direct and indirect effects, holds far greater hope. The things we create have the potential to touch lives, spark ideas, and offer solace long after we're gone. They become part of a larger human collective history, and their impact can echo through generations, even if their exact form fades. Therefore, within our merits there is a great reason for us to survive life, despite the struggles involved in being alive. Please consider sharing this if you happen to know someone who could greatly benefit from this article, and thank you for reading. Additional Read I wrote an article called "How I Became Successful" which explains what made me, as a writer, actualize myself. https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-i-became-successful I also wrote an autobiographical article at the age of 25 that further demonstrates how self-knowledge could bring to self-actualization by helping us know what resonate with us the most. Thus, with it, we could also know how to survive. We could often learn from our pain to know what exactly needs to be actualized. https://www.philosocom.com/post/tomasio-rubinshtein-a-25-year-old-philosopher-s-autobiography Finally, I wrote why I personally chose philosophy as my purpose. https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-i-chose-philosophy-as-my-purpose

(Philosocom Directory on Numbers) In YouTube there is a parody-esque historic rap battle between two sides: The Western side and the Eastern side. The Western side is composed of Socrates, Nietzsche and Voltaire; The Eastern side -- of Confucius, Sun Tzu and Laozi. Their "Rap Battle" is defined by "dissing" the opposite side, AKA, insulting them until there is no retaliation from said team. Rap battles are won by the side who disses the other side the most, arguably, it's a subjective thing, decided by the audience's favour. Do you see the pun in Rap? It is about REPutation. In the video, a state of anarchy was created, where the members of each team, turned against themselves, thus creating their own independent sub-factions within the major-factions. The video is concluded by the question: "What is winning?" In this short article, I will attempt to solve this rap battle by defining winning: Winning is defined by either one's earn, other's defeat, or both. One can win a solitaire game without the need of the opponent being defeated. That's because there are no opponents in solitaire. Therefore, winning is about success. However, when it comes to conflict of at least 2 sides, then defeat of either, might decide the triumph of the other. In this case, both sides defeated by themselves. Imagine a soccer game with the teams kicking the ball to their own net, several times. Utter stupidity , but a possibility nonetheless. Therefore, in relation to the rules of soccer, basketball and so on, the team which defeated itself the least, is the ONE who won. Simply count how many disses the self-defeating sides inflicted upon themselves, and the side which landed upon itself, the least amount of disses, is the one, who won. Winning against an opponent is a matter of numbers going either up or down . In fighting video games like Tekken , the one who won is often the one whose health or stamina prevails against the same counterpart of the opposite side. If one side reaches 0 HP/Stamina, then the other side wins. If one has more health than the other, and the match is determined by the reduction of time, then one side may win even without the other side's HP reaching 0. If both sides reach 0 HP at the same time, both lose and win at the same time; it's called a tie. In this case, if the self-defeating factions defeat one another with an equal amount of "disses", then none of them win, as they reach an equal ground. I lack the power to count each diss myself. However, outside mathematics, winning is determined by mere intuition. And that, my readers, is how winning is arguably, properly defined. Here is the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N_RO-jL-90

(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) (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here)   (Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (T. Siddika's Articles) (Background music) Every life is built on investment . We invest not only money, but also time, energy, attention, and love. Yet not every investment leads to gain. Some lead to emptiness, regret , or loss. The difference lies in direction: where we place our effort, and whether it aligns with reason and purpose. Philosophers remind us that success is not merely fortune but the fruit of wise choices. As Marcus Aurelius once said, “ The happiness of your life depends on the quality of your thoughts.” In the same way, the success of your life depends on the quality of your investments. This article reflects on how we can invest rightly — in money, in habits, in relationships , and in ourselves — to achieve not just material success but a flourishing life. 1. Investment as a Moral Choice The first truth is that investment is never neutral. Each choice has a direction: either toward growth or toward waste. To spend money on what harms the body is a poor investment. To give hours to gossip or envy is a waste of life’s richest currency — time. But to invest in learning, health, and kindness is to invest in foundations that multiply. Philosophy teaches us to judge investments not only by profit but by meaning. What you invest in shapes what you become. The person who invests in truth grows wise; the one who invests in greed grows restless. Right investment, therefore, begins with moral clarity . 2. The Currency of Time Money lost can often be earned again; time lost never returns. Thus, the greatest investment is the wise use of hours. Seneca wrote, “It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it.” Many chase wealth while neglecting the greater wealth of time, filling their days with distraction rather than purpose. To invest time rightly is to give each day a task worthy of life itself. Reading, working diligently, practicing skills, cultivating relationships — these are seeds planted in the soil of time. They grow into success that is not only financial, but deeply human. 3. Investing in Knowledge and Wisdom Money can buy tools, but only wisdom knows how to use them. Knowledge is the investment that multiplies all other investments. The disciplined learner reads widely, observes carefully, and reflects deeply. This is not mere accumulation of facts, but the cultivation of judgment. Philosophers remind us that wisdom is a kind of wealth no thief can steal. The investor who knows markets may profit today; the investor who knows principles profits for life. The truest return is not in coins but in clarity — the ability to choose well, again and again. 4. The Discipline of Financial Investment Of course, life also requires the practical investment of money. Here, philosophy teaches prudence: avoid greed, avoid fear, and avoid haste. The disciplined investor does not seek instant fortune but gradual growth. As Aristotle taught, virtue lies in the mean — between reckless risk and timid inaction. Financial investment should serve life, not enslave it. The goal is not endless accumulation but freedom: the ability to live without constant anxiety. Money invested wisely in health , learning, and security supports a flourishing life. To spend without thought is slavery; to invest with wisdom is liberation. 5. Relationships as Living Investments Not all investments are financial. The bonds we form with others are perhaps the richest investments we can make. Friendships, family , and community yield returns that no market can match. A kind word, a patient ear, a generous hand — these are deposits into a treasury of trust and love. But here, too, wisdom is needed. To invest in false friendships or toxic company is to lose what is most precious: peace of soul. As the proverb says, “Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are.” Invest in companions who cultivate virtue, and you will share in their wealth of character. 6. The Investment of Self-Discipline No investment yields more than self-discipline. Every achievement in art, science , or business rests on this one foundation. Discipline is the compounding interest of the soul: each day of effort adds to the next until greatness emerges. A disciplined person invests in the future rather than surrendering to the pleasure of the moment. They save rather than squander, train rather than drift, work rather than wait. This does not mean denying joy, but shaping it. By investing in self-control, you gain the freedom to build the life you desire. 7. Choosing the Right Direction The greatest question is not how much we invest, but where. A person may invest enormous effort in the wrong direction — chasing wealth while neglecting health, pursuing fame while losing peace. To succeed truly, one must pause and ask: Does this investment align with my values? Does it serve the good of my life and others? Philosophy teaches us that right investment means harmony: with reason, with virtue, and with nature. When money, time, and effort are invested in what is noble, success becomes not only possible but inevitable. Conclusion — Moral of the Story Success is not the child of chance, but the result of right investment. To invest wisely is to live deliberately: to spend time as if it were gold, to nurture knowledge as wealth, to place money with prudence, to cultivate relationships with care, and to invest in the discipline that builds character. The moral is plain: life gives returns according to where you place your treasure. Invest in fleeting pleasures, and you reap emptiness . Invest in wisdom, health, virtue, and love, and you reap a life of lasting success.

The Subcategory Directory on Time: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-lapse-fallacy-why-time-doesn-t-matter-much-in-logic-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/making-deals-with-kronika-the-keeper-of-time https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-possible-purpose-of-life-free-time https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-killing-time https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-4-horrors-of-time-travel https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-cakes-of-lifetimes https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-overcome-the-timing-bias-for-better-relationships On Unavoidable Events and Logic -- Making Sense of the Inevitable https://www.philosocom.com/post/patience https://www.philosocom.com/post/right-investment (Background music) Why Life is Both Long and Short In regards to the time we have in our lives, it can be a crushing burden for one person and a gentle swift for another. It's just like a weight can feel light or heavy depending on our strength, life can be perceived as both long and short. It all hinges on what we use as a point of comparison. Additionally, it also depends on our goals. While finding someone to marry is both a desired and attainable feat for many people in their 20's and in my country , my aim in my 20's is to almost fully work on Philosocom, and make sure all my articles are renovated to top-standard. As such, the value of my time and the average person's time is different, based on the actions we choose to partake in for our goals. While it is easier for many to find someone to marry to, philosophizing can generally be a stressful and exhausting task that can last for a lifetime. After all, it isn't a task that exactly ends easily . As such, the time of our lives is a tool, whose value of length depends on the interplay between who we are and our work towards fulfilling our hopes and dreams in life. And yes, time is but a measurement of a slowly-diminishing resource. One that is to be utilized for planning and execution. Now, compare it to existing for 70-100 years without purpose or action. Be a klumnik , a deadbeat, and life stretches out before us as if we'd be immortals. However, stack our average lifespan against the eons the Earth has existed , and suddenly our lifetime shrinks to mere moments. Therefore, life can be both a grand journey and a fleeting moment, all at once. It's all a matter of relativity, one that doesn't contradict itself at all. There's no objective, universal measurement to definitively say if life is long or short. It's a reflection of the comparisons we choose to make. We, and the time we have as living beings, can be utilized or is already utilized in theory. To quote Mr. John Duran: If one wants to alter humankind, one cannot plan or think in terms of years, or even decades, but centuries. Time is a tool, and we are the insignificant screws being adjusted for the long haul to fulfill a set purpose. Wasting or Using Time? The same principle of relativity applies to how we perceive time spent – wasted or productively used. There's no scientific yardstick, no objective criteria to definitively say if someone is excessively spending away their hours or maximizing their potential. It all boils down to the standards we set for ourselves, and whether or not they serve our (or someone else's) goals. If unrestrained fun is our guiding principle, then spending weekends engrossed in video games might feel like a perfectly well-spent life. Do we value strength above all else? Then a life structured around training and discipline could be considered a life well-lived. Perhaps altruism is the cornerstone of our values? Then, dedicating ourselves to the betterment of others becomes the measure of a life well spent. To say that one activity is necessarily and universally more useful than another, contradicts the meaning behind "useful". For the value of usefulness is conditional for any aim or goal. The same goes for necessity. Things and beings are necessary only where there is no other way to achieve what we look to attain. If there are other ways, then we can still be useful despite our lack of necessity. By the same token, waste is when something is either used or produced without any usefulness for attaining our goals. Thus, even the consumption of low-quality entertainment is useful when it helps us attain the goal of having a good time. At the same time it's also useless when we have other things we either want or need to do, like studying for a test. The exact opposite of productivity isn't waste but counter-productivity, where the time we waste only hinders us from our goals. Ultimately, the power of choice of our own goals lies with the individual. Our lives are, by their very nature, our own personal property, unless we choose to lend them to a cause greater than ourselves. This inherent ownership means that personal preferences are the best compass to navigate how we spend our days. Since each person has their own unique set of values, the decision of how to measure "time well spent" falls squarely on their shoulders and on their ambitions. For me, life isn't a fleeting experience but a vast expanse of potential waiting to be industrialized. A life well lived, in my view, is one dedicated to the constant development of both mind and body through intellectual and physical pursuits. As I spend my lifetime through long walks, I allow myself to better hone my intellect, to study reality and write my findings to my readership. Crafting Your Own Measure Like Nietzsche, the philosopher who highlighted self-development , might advise, the key to optimizing your time lies in crafting your own set of principles for how you spend it. This philosophy isn't just about evaluating your hours. It's about aligning your actions with your deepest desires and propelling yourself towards your ambitions. Instead of succumbing to the tyranny of external pressures or societal expectations , you can become the architect of your time. By consciously defining what constitutes a "well-spent" life for you, you empower yourself to make choices that resonate with your core values, to create the life you truly want to live in, a life you can love. It's a journey of self-discovery, one where you define what matters most and use that knowledge to navigate the vast expanse of time you've been given. Only when you have a clear idea of the life you want to create, and of the person you want to become, can you make the best use of the invaluable resource that is your time. I already know what to do with my time. Even war or loss can't stop me.

(Here are more articles on money: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-main-elements-of-a-paying-job https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-money-corrupts-thoughts-history-on-mother-3-s-tazmily https://www.philosocom.com/post/wisdom-to-consider-in-finances https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-way-to-fortune https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-is-the-state-also-a-place-of-business A Bum's Night Out: Too much Time On my Hands (John Duran's Story Analysis, Part I) Equality and the Future Socio-Economic Class -- Why Our Ignorance Fuels Dystopia (And the Value of A Greater Vision) https://www.philosocom.com/post/catering https://www.philosocom.com/post/mortal-kombat-2 https://www.philosocom.com/post/art-of-earning https://www.philosocom.com/post/right-investment ) Small Introduction While it is ambiguous as to whether money buys happiness or not, it is certainly crucial for one’s survival in a civilization that largely depends on monetary gain and monetary spending in order to sustain our needs and desires . We as a civilization have become more materialistic because money is the capacity of our regular functioning, almost more than anything else. And, it's also a way for us to value people more than others. ("Regular functioning" refers to be able to sustain oneself financially, through one or several incomes, without living in institutions such as psychiatric wards and hostels. Financial sustainability leads to other areas of life as well, such as many things revolving around prestige bias ). The more money we have, the more likely we will be able to function. Hence why there may be people that are more desperate for money than others — because they have a bigger need for money than other people. Of course, that is outside of greed , which is based on void-filling. Problems With Money As a Powerful Presence The problem that I find in financial materialism comes when it surpasses other values, which in turn becomes either greed or corruption . When the desire for it becomes stronger than respectable and appreciated values such as compassion , understanding, tolerance, patience and so forth — that is where one’s dignity in the eyes of others may decrease with time, should they prefer excessive monetary gain than the pursuit of said values. Money is a necessity, but it can also be addictive . This is evident in cases of gambling, bribery, and the exploitation or deception of naïve people. In order to avoid letting our need for money become an addiction, we must strengthen our ability to resist the temptation of further monetary gain . That's especially if that gain is unnecessary, dangerous to our reputation, or could lead to imprisonment (When it comes to financial crimes ). If we can sometimes surpass the need or desire for monetary gain in the name of societal and personal decency , we will be able to preserve our discipline, strength, and self-respect in a world that is becoming increasingly materialistic. Don't let the pursuit of money become counterproductive to your daily endeavors. By becoming more resilient to its unhealthy and/or illegal temptations, you may be able to become its master instead of its servant . You can use money for the sake of survival, rather than basing your life on the accumulation of maximum revenue at the expense of your values. Remember that, in the case of Heisenberg , the drive of money is one that can cause unnecessary misery to others. One that can be reduced by love and feeling important to someone who is dear to you. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Money is nothing more than a tool we use to take care of our needs and wants. When you realize this and also realize you can always go make more money at a job, money loses its psychological power over us. People freak out about anything that involves money. If you want to save money the best advice I can give is to find things of enjoyment that primarily involve a one time upfront costs and minimal upkeep costs. When most of your focus is on something that doesn’t cost it then money will be easier not to spend. Isn’t that the whole key to money, act as a tool to get us the things which we want and need ? You want more money to go and find a job which will give you enough for all your needs and some of your wants. Perfect work/life balance. Always make sure you have time for a few of your wants. Otherwise what is the point of earning more money? Money is an asset and it should also be substituted for additional assets as well. Not letting your life be controlled by the desire to increase them. Cars, houses, boats, collectables, computers, video game systems. These would be examples of assets people are driven by getting. Just remember that money is only a means to get what you actually want.

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) Overview of Love as Strength and as Weakness Love can be both a weakness and a strength , and its nature as such depends on the object or recipient of love ( As there are many types of love ). Regardless, this weakness and/or strength is only temporary and prone to harm, as everything in this world. When the object or recipient of love has major if not optimal control over you , like that of a tyrant , then you can definitely say that love is weakness. However, that is in contrast to true love , where you are allowed to be the best version of yourself and vice versa. A perfect example is from the Turkish soap opera Magnificent Century , a show that tells the tale of Sultan Suleiman I, a great ruler of the Ottoman Empire , who is highly influenced by his wife Hürrem, to the point where he even executes his closest childhood friend Ibrahim, as a result of rivalry between him and Hürrem. It was a rivalry where Hürrem won by persuading Suleiman with her seductive skill and manipulation against who used to be his second in command (and who also tried killing her). It is even often said in the show, " Behind a great man hides a powerful woman ." Had the Sultan not loved her, she would've died by her many enemies. When you make your loved one a source of meaning, a reason to endure life along with all of its hardships, a motive to overcome despair, depression, and even suffering tendencies, then your love is your strength . That is until the intensity of this emotion fades or is converted to agony, such as in the case where your loved one dies or abandons you. Then, your strength is inverted and becomes a great weakness. Overall, I would say that love is a great strength under two conditions: You are assertive enough to not be easily ordered around by your loved one, while being able to resist and advocate your opinions. In other words -- not a people pleaser or a simp. The likelihood of your love for that person (and theirs for you) to endure for the long term is very probable. Such companionship would be a good engine to motivate you, and a good shield to protect you from the different poisons that life throws at you. Of course, this is all until your love fades or until you give in to your love more than to your individuality which subjects you to the tyranny of love or to "tyrannical love", as you become more and more dependent on your partner. And unnecessary dependency is at fault. These are two dangers that are very likely with a lack of sufficient self-awareness and self-respect. My Suggested Alternative I think that self-sufficient love is a better idea, though, as it is much more likely that your love will die when you die, and not end by the decision of another. Do not confuse this with narcissism, however, as narcissism is a delusional and grandiose form "self-love", that's in fact nothing more than a vain display of emptiness , like cardboard lumber. Not all those who suffice with their love towards themselves think that they are the best person in the world, that they are superior to all beings , and so forth. All of these beliefs are false. The self-sufficient love that I talk about is of another nature. It is a logical, proportionate, and non-compensating one. Thus, I coin the term Rational Self-Love. . Rational Self-Love is a love of oneself based on the following logical structure: Love is a good source of motivation. Depending on love for others would mean one's motivation would depend on others. Depending on one's needs on others is counterproductive when the need's supplier (the external lover) may change uncontrollably, and when one can supply the need themselves already Love is a need that can be self-fulfilled sufficiently even if it can be fulfilled by others. Therefore: 5. Self-sufficient love is more beneficial than romantic love, where the emotion of love is most intensified. In this way, Rational Self-Love (RSL) is not delusional like narcissism is, as delusions are by definition logically fallacious, and RSL does not have to involve extreme egotism, arrogance, overcompensating protection , or megalomania like narcissism does. RSL simply brings safer, more controllable, and therefore more certain benefit than romantic love, which can also be a weakness once you either lose your assertiveness, or when your loved one departs, or both. RSLers can love others and be altruistic, without romance even relevant to this case. Conclusion Logically, romantic love will ultimately become a weakness because the potential of it becoming one is inevitable. After all, love hurts. This potential weakness includes losing assertiveness against the loved one, and the departure of the loved one by various means ranging from breakup to death. In Rational Self-Love (RSL), however, the love dies with you and you seize the means of supplying it to yourself, not the other way around. In fact, an external love would be both the supplier and the distributor. Must we have both an external supplier and distributor, when we can be the supplier ourselves, with no distributor required? Additionally, there is no risk of losing assertiveness because there isn't an external force outside of you that may try to order you around while you're emotionally submitted to them. You also are not required to surrender yourself to someone else, because there doesn't have to be someone else, and vice versa (you do not have the other person surrender to you). By "surrendering" I refer to allowing someone, without resistance, to be the best version of themselves ( which is the loudest way to love someone ). With a sense of love towards yourself that becomes a form of emotional self-sufficiency, the craving for external love becomes less necessary. Such love can unfortunately become weakness and that, is agreed, is inevitable with departure you can't do anything about. And if we love someone else, we better let them go. We, however, are stuck with ourselves from birth to death. Extra source: Submission vs Surrender - What's the difference? | WikiDiff

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) Sensitivity, in a non-rectified world, is a weakness . In a world where bullets are more common than hugs, in a world where strong emotional responses can yield very negative results, sensitivity is a weakness. Imagine Nietzsche crying over the animal that was mistreated by its owner. In such a world, even back then, sensitivity was weakness. To be considered respected and mature , you are not supposed to be sensitive. You are supposed to be strong and tough. However, in love, the rules of the game of life change. In love, vulnerability is not a weakness but strength. In love, money matters less. In love, hugs are more relevant than bullets or firearms or even money sometimes. In love, it is more than okay to be sensitive, to experience emotions deeply, in a world that numbs these emotions down. This goes to show how this world is anti-love. In such a world, is what I call, the non-rectified world. A world where love is strength, is truly a rectified world. In love, the partner is the priority. In love, justice is made by allowing it to make us emotional, not as weakness, but as a human and humane strength. Love makes us stop being dead inside. Love can nurture life into our otherwise ruthless behavior and mentality. The power of love can make us truly happy and rectify the world! However, as long as we need to work, as long as we need to maintain professional distance , and as long as we, as humanity, shall cherish respect over love, the sentence about the power of love is irrelevant. Work is hard. Work that we hate makes us aggressive. Success often replaces happiness , and happiness makes us question if we really need to succeed well in life. I am glad to have forsaken humanity a second time. This humanity is aggressive, alienating and cares less for each other's wellbeing. In writing , I prefer to be self-ruthless and choose to be unhappy. After all, for me, this is work. And work is done best when treated like a butcher. In love, I prefer to restore my empathic origins and choose to be happy with my partner. Love have further taught me, that this world has failed, and there is no restart button. Love have further taught me, I prefer to be together in hermitage , than in a world defined by corruption and hedonism. Love is my island of sanity . My island of refuge. Love does not have to be of imperialistic nature. Love can allow us to be the most human. And it's wonderful. Wonderful to feel emotions again. Wonderful to be of light and not of dark. In solitude I preserve my good nature. In love I let it flourish. A world that is anti-love, and pro-profit and pro-conflict, is a world worth forsaking. But since I care about this world, I write in hope to contribute to you, my audience. With all my heart I still want to rectify it.... Why? Because sensitivity is important in art, in beauty, in being able to see life for its wonder, rather than for its flaws. Sensitivity allows me to craft beautiful AI art for my glorious empire, for all to enjoy. And of course it is also important, somewhat, in philosophy... Sensitivity enables us to see details, and awareness of detail allows us to see connections others miss… subtle frequencies and rhythms of everything -- Alex Mos

(Directory on Weakness) (Background music) In my quest for redemption from darkness, I have saved people from themselves. However, I am well aware of the fact that no one is going to save me. I helped a lot of people, but no one is necessarily going to help me believe in myself. It is the life I have chosen for myself. I have purposefully made life harder on myself because I want to be strong. I seek not the comfort of an easy life, but the strength that stems a hard life where no one helps me as much as I help myself. Being a child and playing "Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance", I was mesmerized by the enigmatic Zanetti, whose philosophy which I covered here on the site . In one of the scenes, the antagonist Zanetti said: If you cannot beat me by your own power, you are not ready to take over from me. That is what the ruthless Zanetti told Aaron, his own son, before casting him away, and renouncing him as his son. I never want to see you again! You are no longer my son! Later on, when I mastered English by myself and researched the game, I was mesmerized by the ruthless Zanetti philosophy, that said that you need to handle things by your own power. It inspired me to be the man I am today. I don't need psychologists to heal me. I want to heal myself. I want to always be strong because I want to be worthy a man enough to my woman. It is through my strength where I am able to overcome every adversity , every war, every distress, until the very last the Pax Ethica mentality is reached by my mind -- a state of total bliss, where inner peace and harmony reigns. This world is made out of weaklings that mainly help themselves, and don't have the strength within themselves to help others. In my overwhelming inner strength, I am left alone, prevailing the hardships of life by my own power, just like in the game of Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance, where your goal is to overwhelm Zanetti for casting you away from his mafia organization. In this solitary life, I cannot expect people to help me as much as I help myself. I seek not happiness but the satisfaction of being strong. It is through strength that I can overcome my problems and press forward in my quest to create a magnificent philosophical blog , for all the world to enjoy. Many contributed to this site, but this is mainly my own project. I alone stand responsible for this project. It is through my own power that I managed to craft such a unique philosophical blog, and it is through my own power that I managed to overcome my health impediments over the years. Very few helped me. My quest of recovery is done from my own prowess. Strength is a constant quest. Strength, like mastery, is something that is needed to be maintained regularly. Or else, it wanes away, leaving one to weakness. And the last thing I want to be is weak. I am brave, I am strong, I saved people, and it is my role to save myself from despair as much as I saved others from despair. I cannot expect anyone to help me as good as I helped others. I can't expect anyone to be my saviour, but myself. I am my own saviour, a relentless survivor of trauma. It is through passion that I work, and craft a unique philosophical blog and a unique self. One that isn't reliable on others in moments of where I feel down and/or broken. If I cannot overcome things by my own power, then I am unworthy to be the ruler of Philosocom. That's how I feel, and see this world. In this age of AI , where readership wanes in the name of artificially generated content, I have questioned if I should give up on doing this. I realized, however, that I shouldn't give up. Working on this site gives me discipline, gives me the strength to press forward in life, and helps sharp the power of my mind. Working on this site helps me develop as a man and be strong enough against the currents of a rapidly changing world, whose technology is built for the oppression and the manipulation of the masses. Against the contemporary technological trends, my philosophical empire stands firm, a special gem in a world of shallowness. I, its creator, must still stand strong if I want to overcome problems by my own power, inspire people, and rectify the world as a result. It is necessarily a solitary journey, which no one will undergo for myself. It is a journey I must keep on going myself. Even when I told that I am not alone, I know, deep inside, that I am. I alone seek strength. I alone seek to overcome problems by my own power. Even when I am not alone, I am alone in my burning desire for strength. No one is going to save me; no one is going to heal me; no one is going to be strong for me. I must be strong by myself, if I want to stay doing what I am doing in life; to be a philosopher in a world which sees philosophy as esoteric; to be a website owner in a world where websites grow irrelevant... Being a website owner is not done for the money. It is done out of passion for what one is most aligned with, for the niches that help one feel alive. I live to work on this site , for that is what ignites my passion and helps me feel alive. For some, it is a hobby. For me, it is a legacy to be left throughout the ages. I build myself around the site and around my woman. I must stay strong. I must persevere. Failure is not an option. I want her... I want her to still keep proud of me, as well as my parents. I refuse to fail. I refuse to give up. The only thing I chose to give up on, is weakness itself. And even when there will be no one left to stay proud of me, I still want to stay strong. That is my goal, that is my ongoing task at hand. I just can't bear the thought of being weak. I will keep exercising, I will keep working on the site, I will keep being independent by my own power, no matter what! Despite being disabled, I have honed my prowess to be more independent and stronger than the average person, both physically and mentally. I have saved 7 people with no support network. I don't want any support network. I want to be my own support network. I was mesmerized by Zanetti's philosophy, so this is the life I choose for myself. To overcome things by one's own power... feels so... so inspirational. It is the very ideal self that I wish to remain, a man that overcomes problems and adversity by his own power. For that, I must always be strong!

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Directory on Weakness) Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "The Zanetti Clan Philosophy: How To Live and Die by Power" is a thought-provoking and creatively written article that uses the backdrop of a video game, "Beatdown: Fists of Vengeance," to explore philosophical ideas about power, strength, conflict, and human nature. Mr. Tomasio uses a fictional criminal organization from the game to examine real-life themes of power and conflict, removing moral and ethical constraints that would limit the discussion of power in a real-world context. This use of fiction provides a safe space to explore controversial ideas without being bogged down by social or cultural sensitivities. The article captures attention with its direct, unapologetic style and stark declaration about who should continue reading. The confrontational tone challenges readers to engage with the material, even if they might initially disagree with the premise. The article does a commendable job of embedding philosophical theories, such as conflict theory, within the framework of the fictional narrative. By drawing parallels to real-life concepts like meritocracy, survival of the fittest, and even Sith philosophy ("The Rule of Two") , Mr. Tomasio creates a compelling argument that pushes readers to reconsider his own perspectives on strength and weakness. The article effectively relates the fictional narrative to real-world scenarios, such as office politics or societal power dynamics, allowing readers to see the practical implications of the "Zanetti Clan Philosophy." It encourages self-reflection by challenging readers to examine their fears, desires, and behaviors regarding power, conflict, and comfort. The article offers insights into human nature, particularly the dichotomy between strength and weakness, aggression and empathy, conflict and comfort, arguing that these elements are natural and unavoidable in human interactions. In conclusion, "The Zanetti Clan Philosophy: How To Live and Die by Power" is a thought-provoking and creatively written piece that uses the backdrop of a video game to delve into significant philosophical questions about power, strength, and human nature. (Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Power) The Zanetti Empire is a fictional criminal organization from the game known as " Beatdown: Fists of Vengeance ". If you refuse studying and reflecting upon its philosophy on power and conflict, just because it's from a video game , feel free to leave now. For those who don't mind as much, let us begin studying what true strength means. This criminal empire was led by a philosopher-king of sorts, known as Mr. Zanetti . He established his organization on a very extreme form of meritocracy , where merit is based on strength. That strength isn't limited to brute force alone, but also the strength to overcome your own co-workers. The weak are weeded out, while the strong persevere. As such, if you are told to kill your own members, for whatever reason, you are supposed to do just that, or else you'll be regarded as a weakling. And weaklings, as well as cowards , are of no use to the Zanetti Drug Empire. It is the natural order of things, to evolve through war and conflict, according to Mr. Zanetti. It's known as the conflict theory. Conflict isn't something to be avoided at all costs, but rather, something to embrace and accept as part of reality. Conflicts are tests of merit, nothing more, even if they contain whatever extent of danger. Those who fear and run away from it, are cowards according to the Zanetti Clan Philosophy. Your worth and relevance are only determined by your ability to be powerful . It is how you raise up the ranks and even be deemed worthy, in accordance, to inherit the Clan throne. Within the clan, you don't have friends. Friends are a liability, especially if you are ordered to kill them if, for example, they are too powerful for their own good. Such was the case with Aaron , one of Zanetti's children. He was tasked by his father to kill his group of elite soldiers because Mr. Zanetti believed them to be a threat on his own throne. Aaron refused, so his father deemed him too weak to be deemed a successor, and disowned him. Later on, Zanetti attempted to kill him and his group by setting up a trap, lead by his new successor, Eugene. Eugene failed to kill the group, and that group ended up, ultimately, finishing off the entire Empire as revenge for their betrayal. For the kingpin, all of this was nothing more than the logical thing to do . Be too weak and you're useless. Be too strong and you reach a state where you threaten the power of those stronger than you. When you're too powerful, you are then tasked with proving your worth, by eliminating those currently in the position of power. Should you fail, you'll die. Should you succeed, you will inherit their position. Beyond whatever it makes you feel, dear readers, it's not that hard to understand. That's what happens when you lack a humane moral compass, and look at reality without much emotion (if at all). A similar concept exists in Sith philosophy , known as "The Rule of Two". For psychopaths like Zanetti, it's just business . The suffering, the pain, the bloodshed, it's just part of the natural order of things, the premise of the Zanetti Philosophy: The strong have the right to rule over the weak . It is similar in nature the same as it is similar in human civilization, where empires dictated what is right and wrong, where might be made right . The weak died off, the moderately strong were subordinate, and the strong were given by both the right to lead them. In the Zanetti organization, you are best to survive in the middle. Desire power and you can get more in life, but you will be at greater risk as if you were in the lower layer of the hierarchy . Should you sacrifice your longevity in the name of privilege? You technically can as well in real life. Just make sure you can protect yourself from those who want that power to themselves. Mr. Zanetti's power was threatened by that elite group of mobsters. However, he wasn't afraid of the feelings he felt. No. He accepted them as natural, as just a feature in his natural order. By the same token, he had no problem trying to kill off his opponents . He was just doing his job by plotting their demise. Later on, that group slowly demolished his empire. They killed off his best assassin, Ignacy, and later on, his successor Eugene. Finally, they sabotaged his narcotics factory, which served as a primary financial lifeline. When they came to his office, an undisclosed hotel room, he remained stoic in character. The deaths of his best men, loyal or otherwise, didn't matter to him as much. After all, if they failed to stop the rebels, then perhaps they were too weak for their own good, and thus, deserved to be defeated. Two decades after I was introduced to this game by the Rubinshtein Clan heads, unsuspecting of what it contained, I have realized a few insights: Many of us are weaklings and cowards, more than we may allow ourselves to admit. Sure, we do not have to kill our friends in order to survive and thrive , but what about far less? Deep inside, you have fears that do not even amount to anything revolving murder... or even survival? These impractical fears are making you weak, and hinder you from becoming a better version of yourselves. We may promote niceness because we are afraid of rudeness and other types of unease. Accepting conflict as natural can make us stronger, at least mentally. The same goes for our emotions. We need to distinguish between our relations towards emotion and between the information it may indicate. True or otherwise. Allow me to further explain.... Zanetti does not fear emotion, like many of us do. How can one manage a criminal empire when one cannot even manage his mental state? He lived and died by his code of power. Physical, financial, political, you name it. If his intuition indicated to him that his throne was under a potential opposition, and if he trusted his intuition, then he would do anything he can to remain in power. It's that simple. He may relate to emotion the same as an animal in the wilderness may do, or a soldier at war: Nothing more than an indication regarding the external world. Mr. Zanetti himself is a machismo man , perhaps too much for his own good. As you can see he views the world in a very simplistic and primitive way. He managed his empire as if it was a pack of chimpanzees, with him as the "alpha male". A core element present in hyper masculine men is testosterone . This hormone that's present dominantly in men, can make us aggressive, assertive and even more muscular, as is the case with myself, a guy who only lifts groceries. Deep inside I know why some of you may be afraid of negative or violent emotions , even though they are a natural part of our reality. Deep inside, some of you might be too weak to accept them as inevitable in human interactions, and as such, you might try running away from them. Run away into the realms of comfort, niceness and politeness. However, in the end, your desire for comfort might as well be a cover for your fear of discomfort . Unease is an inevitable feature in power, because power leads to conflict from time to time. Not as extreme as a "civil war" within a business empire, yes? However, these are struggles you can find within any organization: Be it in the office, in the classroom, and even in a reception room. People may argue and yell at each other everywhere because they attempt to assert their dominance . Their gender does not matter, even though men are seen as more of a threat, especially to many women. The point is that power struggles are inevitable in any human company as potentials and thus the attempt to run away from them will never get you the serenity you're looking for. The weaker may attempt to force a regime of sensitivity over society because they, too, want power, whether they admit it or not. Otherwise they would not call to repress the insensitive. Do you see, then, how essential and basic power is in human society? We all need it. So, we compete , directly or otherwise, for it. As such, the call to be more polite and empathetic can be seen as the attempt of the sensitive to get/preserve their power. The question is, why should you submit to them when you can overcome their power by becoming a more complete version of yourself? A version that does not care to walk on eggshells? A version that knows other people's vulnerabilities are not his or her problem, considering they can be worked on? Submit to the weak, and you will be giving them power. Sensitive/vulnerable or any other kind of weakness. You will be giving power to those who are weak against their own sensitivities. Should it change the "natural order"? On the long term, this will not change the very premise of the Zanetti Clan Philosophy: "The strong have the right to rule over the weak" I will contemplate this philosophy, when the time to hand over my article empire, will arrive.

The Secret Plans -- Path To A Ruthless Self (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope ) (Philosocom Enduring Pillar Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Directory on Weakness) (inspired theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HGGtrj8hM  ) Too weak a mind I have had, As teen was too weak, and depressed. With pain and grief I knew I had to, Be, someone better, for me and you. Lied about having fun while walking. Two to seven hours in silence, without talking. With pain, and grief I could've slept in the streets, Every time, I could've slept secretly in the streets. But I refused, Every-time, As I crossed whole streets, And cities, Whole cities. I walked, every-time with mainly phone and bottle, The self, was too weak, I had to battle, The inferior self, Which only have, hindered me, And others, And others. The weak, do they deserve glory? Walked with poor equipment, Walked nonetheless with little limit. Dragged, myself like an undead zombie, Dragged, my mind to suffer my philosophy. I refused letting anyone prevent my cruel training, Otherwise one less person could've been remaining. No, I refused to not be in the present, No, I refused being weak as an ill peasant. Crying to sleep, On a nearby bench, I couldn't bear the thought, Of defeat. Of defeat. I could've done that if I gave up the challenge, No, one would know, the point was to manage.. Extreme distress, Time after time. I don't live for fun, Nor for joy, Nor for joy. I, refuse sinking in grave concern. I refuse exchanging strength like mere token. Refuse staying so weak and broken. Today I apply, the same mindset, To an Empire, of Articles, I've too secretly planned. Few understand my machinations... A former friend taught me to mask my revelations. I desire, no luxury, Nothing which weakens my mentality... Few understand, It's not worth it, To be so much, Impulsive... Impulsive... Few understand how to not shoot their own foot, Their let hardships, blow their minds to a kaput. I lead my life today with an iron fist. With only myself on that list. Only myself.. Just myself, For people, are just too weak for their own good.