Thoughts On Life Many Have to Endure Society is a joint-stock company that demands you surrender your liberty for a meager portion of bread. They require you to sacrifice your unique, blazing brilliance just to become a predictable, terrified little gear in a machine that crushes you anyway. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (Background Music) Much of life is but a trial of endurance with no objective meaning. You go through suffering, loneliness, bills, depression and so on, with no clear purpose other than what you either find or create for yourself. If you don't create meaning/purpose for yourself, much of what you have to endure may appear meaningless and vain, leading you to ask yourself: "What is it all for?". What started my journey as a philosopher was the depression I felt as a child when I discovered nihilism, and realized, very early on, that life has no objective meaning; that we're all specks of dust in a huge, careless universe, and that if we won't forge meaning for ourselves, we will stay that way. Meaning and purpose, in a way, are a form of distraction from the fact that our lives are inherently meaningless. They ease on our endurance and allow us to better endure the cold, harsh world for longer than otherwise. Thus, for the sake of survival, it is important that we bind ourselves to a source of meaning/purpose, so our journey in this life won't feel like it's vain, even if it is, objectively, vain. Society uses us as energy batteries to extract our time, our attention and our money for its own gain, and in return it provides you what you need to survive another day. However, you have to continue serving society every working day of your life if you want to continue be provided with what you need to survive. And in the nearing end of your life, if you're lucky, you're finally relieved of the need to serve society, and only then most people are truly free from the shackles of the enslaving, narcissistic society. Much of the global economy is built on buying things you don't need to impress people you don't like. Much of your lifespan is spent pretending you're someone you're not and bootlicking to maintain your position and/or to get higher in the social ladder of society. Authenticity is repulsed and uncalled for, and the fact that life is objectively meaningless has no place in a fake hell realm where you're expected to express passion for what you're doing whether or not you have it. Such a depressing life is what most have to endure in order to survive, and much of life revolves around chasing digital numbers on a screen, AKA money, until you're retired. I won't be surprised if many who do that and are successful at doing that are empty and sad inside, even if they pretend like they are not. I am not surprised that such a life many have to endure, makes people want to give up on it. If you won't create substance of your own for it, you're doomed to live a substance-less life, chasing digital numbers and having to cater to people you don't necessarily care about, but might pretend that you do. I couldn't bare being an office drone so I became a philosopher instead. I worked hard on contributing selflessly to society to make it better, only to be deemed a narcissist and an arrogant man. Unfortunately, many people cannot comprehend selfless acts, and may view people who act selflessly like they have an ulterior motive, or are just there for their own self-glorification or money. Indeed, this world revolves around self-interest, and that is why it might be beyond repair no matter how much I'll want to rectify it. Now that people read less and less, have decreased attention spans and are low in critical thinking, I sometimes wonder why I myself keep on being a philosopher when I can lead a normal life as an unemployed retiree. But then I remember that doing this keeps my beloved happy, so I continue at it no matter how useless writing articles might feel to me in the age of AI and brain-rot. Eventually, all the people I love will go away and most likely I'll be completely alone in the world, having only a philosophy blog as my source of purpose. By then, I wonder if anyone will bother to even read. I like contributing selflessly, even if I am horribly misunderstood by this selfish world. At least I take solace in the fact that I don't have to live life like most of humanity does, but at this point, I don't expect to be understood by them when understanding is a capacity not everyone necessarily has. I hope my blog can serve as a beacon of meaning and substance people can find to help them move on in this hard, difficult world. I understand that life is hard for many, no matter how hard they work and no matter how heavy their struggles are. I'm not surprised that some people have it so hard that they are tempted to take out their own lives. I'm not encouraging for it, but I find the rationale behind it sensible. You either find a reason to keep going or you are likelier to just give up. In this unjust world you won't necessarily be rewarded for doing the right thing or for being good. Thus I am not surprised that there is a big lack of goodness in this world, and that most people operate according to their selfish needs. I choose to be good because it gives me a sense of purpose, but I don't expect to be rewarded for it. The world doesn't owe anyone fairness, and that is why I prefer to be alone and away from said world; to protect myself from its harshness. I understand that most people do not have that option, so I just wish for them success and that they won't have to suffer so much catering to a difficult, cold and indifferent world. In a rectified world people won't feel the temptation to give up. They would have their purpose and would be able to survive with minimal difficulty. But this isn't a rectified world. This is a world where survival can be difficult for many with no purpose guaranteed. If there is a purpose to the life most people have to endure, then it is to increase shareholder value. But doing this is not what gives people a sense of justification nor satisfaction to their own existence. Slavery hasn't gone, it just adapted itself to modern times, and most people are, technically, slaves to a system that doesn't care about them and that will discard them the moment they are able to in order to save money on expanses. Just hang in there, everyone. Find your reason to continue existing, and life might feel less hard than it already is.

How Money Corrupts -- Thoughts & History on Mother 3's Tazmily (For Philosocom's directory for articles on money, click here) (Philosocom's Directory on MOTHER 3) (Corruption Directory) (Background music) Nowadays people know the price of everything and the price of nothing -- Oscar Wilde A philosophical look at how the introduction of wealth and technology can rot a society from the inside out. There is an old cliché that claims money is the "root of all evil." I fundamentally disagree. People can be evil regardless of monetary gain. Some lack the basic empathy required to prevent their own cruelty, while others simply find the act of doing evil inherently rewarding. However, it is undeniable that money can corrupt. And by corruption, I am referring to a specific moral deterioration. While the philosophy of ethics holds no universal agreement on what exactly constitutes "morality," modern society generally agrees on a few baselines. Caring for others' feelings, volunteering for the benefit of the community, and prioritizing human connection over personal gain are widely seen as moral acts. The true fault does not lie in the physical existence of money, but in the specific temptation of greed—the desire to acquire wealth at the direct expense of that morality. The Cost of Caring vs. The Pursuit of Wealth Caring for others requires a highly valuable resource: Time. When a society becomes hyper-fixated on financial gain, time spent caring for others is suddenly viewed as a loss of potential revenue. If you view life strictly through the lens of capital, maintaining a friendship can be seen as a "waste of time" compared to the pursuit of greater wealth. Those who prioritize endless labor over community volunteering are making a conscious calculation: they value the capitalization of financial opportunities over the people around them. Nowhere is this tragic transition illustrated better than in the video game Mother 3, through the story of a commune known as Tazmily Village. Tazmily Village: The Moneyless Utopia Before its corruption, Tazmily was a classless society of volunteers that functioned entirely without currency. If you walked into the village inn, there was no need to pay for a room. The residents didn't even know what money was. They operated on a system of mutual survival and community loyalty. The "need" for money is, in essence, subjective. Currency is just a piece of paper (or today, digital data). It only holds power because the global population collectively agrees to believe in its necessity. Tazmily had no such belief. They lived this way because they were survivors of a past apocalypse. To prevent humanity from repeating the mistakes that destroyed their old world, they intentionally erased their own memories. They forgot the concept of money, greed, and advanced technology so they would not be tempted by them again. The Pigmask Army and the Mechanics of Dehumanization Tazmily's naive purity began to rot with the arrival of a strange man named Fassad. Pretending to desire the best for the village's future, he offered them a massive technological leap forward. Because the villagers had erased their memories of why technology destroyed them in the past, they blindly accepted his deal. With Fassad came his enforcers: The Pigmask Army. The Pigmasks are perhaps one of the most uncanny and original concepts in fiction. They are human men dressed in pink, WW2-style military uniforms, wearing pig-shaped gas masks, and communicating through actual pig snorts. They are physically unfit, and some constantly carry pork snacks. They celebrate the idea of the pig as a noble animal, completely willingly dehumanizing themselves. They perfectly represent the slur of the "capitalist pig"—mindless consumers, marching in uniform, fat on excess, behaving like pigs waiting to be slaughtered by the very system they serve. The Illusion of Progress and the Rise of Alienation This dehumanized faction did not conquer Tazmily with a military strike; they conquered it with the high-tech propaganda of materialistic dreams. They introduced money. They built railways. They handed out "happy boxes" (televisions). The societal shift was devastating and absolute: The Death of Community: Before the Pigmasks, everyone in Tazmily knew everyone else. Once money was introduced, residents became nameless, alienated neighbors. There was no longer a logistical need to rely on each other. The Apathy of Labor: Citizens became exhausted from working in the newly built mines and factories. The Rise of Indulgence: To cope with their exhaustion and alienation, they spent their newly earned salaries at local clubs, becoming numb, apathetic, and addicted to recreational indulgence. The Capitalist Mirage of New Pork City Tazmily's story ends when almost the entire population abandons the village for a promised "Utopia" called New Pork City—a blatant parody of New York City and modern hyper-capitalism. New Pork City is a pretentious mirage. It sells a dream that doesn't actually exist. Many of the towering, impressive buildings are literally just fake wooden cutouts. Meanwhile, the actual citizens are forced to live in filthy, poor apartments located down in the sewers. The dream is a lie, accessible only to the invisible elite. The tragic irony of Mother 3 is that Tazmily’s survival mechanism became its undoing. The survivors erased their memories to avoid chasing delusional, destructive dreams. However, the fatal flaw of forgetting your history is that you forget the very lessons meant to protect you. Unable to remember the dangers of greed, they willingly walked right back into the slaughterhouse. And by the end of the story, the world is destroyed all over again. Mr. John Duran's Quote For The Ending Behold! The highest force and tool for absolute manipulative evil ever crafted. It's insidious, crafty, powerful and has sealed the doom of billions on this planet. It has been used for the complete manipulation of every culture and species on Earth. Its worst evil is its touted as something good for us. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: Money is neutral. It itself is neither good nor evil. It is only a tool which can be used to facilitate good or evil. Find $100 on the ground. Pick it up, is your mind instantly on good or bad thoughts? No, you're just happy you just found it. Whether you are a good or bad person will determine which way you will lean towards. All money does is allow a person to do more evil or more good. Shouldn’t morality be as simple as saying it is the act of bringing no overall negativity to anything material, living or non-living, in the universe, including yourself? It's really simple seeing morality in this way. If you aren’t hurting anyone in any way you are living a moral life. Starting here is something anyone can do. You don’t have to be Mother Teresa to live a moral life. Doing a good act doesn’t necessarily mean a person is moral. “Good” acts can be done for selfish reasons. Being moral in the best way possible requires a person to use their intelligence to determine which acts they can do will do the most good. The best advice I have for living a greed free life is to find a good reason behind everything you do. When you realize money is only an asset, whose importance is only as great as we place on it, you realize it only serves a few minor purposes. To exchange your asset, money, for a different kind of asset, food, clothing, utility bill, you start to realize that the only reason you need money is [to exchange it for other assets].

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) We are born without reason, we suffer without meaning, and we die without purpose. The universe doesn't know we existed and it never cared. -- Albert Camus (Background music) I think this world is very weird, especially when you look at it through the eyes of a philosopher. That is because of how absurd existence is, theoretically, along with the fact that we are expected to accept life and reality as intrinsically meaningful. Philosophically, the fact that we just come into the world, without our consent, is weird. No one asked us whether or not we want to come into the world, and we are neither asked where or to which family to be born, what education to receive, or which genes to possess. We just do, without making sure we permit it, even if we could. We are all forced to initially live until we may carry the courage, or despair, to do otherwise: Venture into the complete and yet inevitable unknown of this reality. What is even stranger about this world is that we are demanded to meet specific expectations, again, without caring about our consent. We are expected to behave appropriately, do our homework, and later in life, have a job and raise our own family. We are expected to repeat the same involuntary sequence we experienced ourselves, all to either be left alone or to try our luck at finding some happiness and/or meaning within existence, because we do not necessarily know better. The thing is, no one is necessarily compelled to tell us why all of these things are important. Maybe beyond the ad-populum fallacy that we "must" be successful because many others are and/or to please others. Our personal whims, wants and needs are not as important as those of general society is (which can also be regarded as "the world"). We are supposed to contribute to "the world" in exchange of our physical and mental survival. But should we rebel against it, even if by existing alone in a certain way, we will likely be rejected, and begin to view ourselves as different than "the world". When we begin to form this understanding that we are outsiders, for our authentic selves, we would be prone to feel a great deal of feelings related to loneliness. We may begin to feel that "the world" has forsaken us. It is then when we may also suspect that others see us as insane. "Insane", for our inner core is too different to be accepted by "the world". And that is the double-edged sword of being too unique for many people's liking, even if you can't do much about it. And that may apply regardless of your contribution to "the world". To this reality, to the planet, to society and so on. Even if there is much virtue in being unique, uniqueness can be seen as a threat on "the world's" order. See how society creates its own enemies by rejecting from it those who can contribute much to it, just because they fail conforming to the norms, no matter how hard they try. Many of us need to be normal in order to survive in a world that largely refuses to accept the different. That is even though we are not told exactly why surviving is important, let alone being born. So, many of us just have to accept that we exist and focus on the things we are required to focus on by different spheres of influence (family, friends, country and so on). Whether that's work, higher education, or any recommendation of any authority we find valuable to us. In exchange for conforming to a world that cares little for our consent of being alive, we are rewarded with validation of our work, thus creating this unhealthy dependency between us and between bodies that merely use us for their own benefit. We become not humans but human resources. Assets. Pawns. Under capitalist philosophies even this very world is an asset to be purchased, owned and sold. To quote Mr. John Duran: The horrifyingly despised and ignored truth is the earth was given to us as a gift, to be shared, not sold or owned. No one should own land, or the resources thereof that were bequeathed to every living species, not just mankind. Humans take, they don't ask, they seize their resources, and resell them calling it capitalism and somehow 'good' which is the worst evil in the history of this planet. Nature is crying, everyday, at the thievery and selfishness of mankind. The question is, beyond the mere necessity of survival, why should we cooperate with a society that treats us and the world itself as assets that are either high or lower quality? In a way, this reality forsaken us the moment the people around us confidently believe they know us enough. By deluding themselves, they blind their own eyes from our pain... the pain of being alive in an existence many of us find empty and absurd. There are also many ceremonies and traditions "the world", or society, maintains to preserve itself. These are minor or even grand events that we are required to follow and repeat day after day, again, without telling us why exactly, and without expecting us to care for "why". This is because philosophical inquisition is largely tiring, as I have witnessed myself in my own work. These traditions are just being done, usually every year, in an automatic-like attitude, mostly to mention something that happened sometime in the past, without necessarily asking ourselves why such rituals are necessary. We can just remember them and carry on, like we carry on with everything else in life. But, the supposed necessity of social cohesion stand strong in the hearts of those who are afraid to be alone. I dislike birthday parties because I don't see a need to celebrate knowledge that I already know. When you think about it, this world is very weird, very mechanical, ritualistic and tradition-based. It's a world that always advocates us to do things, to experience and to achieve things, without necessarily telling us why these things are important to be done, to be experienced and to be achieved. Many of us may conform for our own interests and not out of genuine care for others. In the absence of genuine care for others, we become mercenaries by mindset. Not only professionally but also socially. We may leave without hesitation the moment we don't like being with them, regardless of their feelings and/or distress. We normalize ourselves to see others the same as the world may see us: An asset that may or may not be of good quality, and may or may not be relevant for our efforts. Just like the planet itself. Hence why we do what others say, so we won't be outcasted. As being outcasts goes against our psychological needs for respect, appreciation and empathy. I don’t know why I should live a social life; I don’t know why I should “open doors” to new opportunities; I don’t know why being in my 20's is important for my success. I don’t know why I should continue to study academically after I finished school. I am merely getting more and more success and influence to escape the void inside of me. To remain sane in a world I wasn't asked to be in; a world that will live on regardless of my thoughts and feelings; A world that expects me to care about it, even though it has little to no intention to care about the true me. The one behind the mask. I don't know why romantic love is such an important feature in human life. I don't know what it means to "be a man" when I'm already a man. I don't even know why it's important to be happy. I don't even know why I should care about the personal and intimate happenings of famous people, let alone gossip about it to friends I don't know why I should be having. This gap in explanation is one that deserves to be burned alive if we want people to desire life, and not live it out of necessity or out of pleasing others. I also find the world to be scary, because it seems that no matter how smart I will be regarded as, the world by large would still remain an absurd, illogical mystery to my autistic mind. I am partially forced to study it, like a puppet on a string, who is governed by the fear of void. What I am certain about, however, is that naivety is more of an obstacle in the quest of understanding the world, than it is of usefulness. Thus, innocence is, to a large degree, an enemy of the philosopher, even if it appears friendly. Alex Mos's Comment I believe the reasons [for the article's inquiry] are social norms needed to keep people connected and behaving in a recognizable way for others; the herd mentality, which therefore makes people easier to control. Predictable behavior is more convenient than surprise. It is easier to characterize and to identify the different ones.

(Definition of militarism; Only 2 and 3 apply to this article: Militaristic - definition of militaristic by The Free Dictionary) (This can be seen as an extension to my political philosophy of Rubinshteinism/Political Rubinshteinism) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright The article "Why I am a Militarist -- Rubinshteinic Philosophy On Militarism" presents a clear and direct argument for militarism, emphasizing its importance for national security and survival. It uses historical and contemporary examples to illustrate the practical implications of military strength. The balanced perspective acknowledges the need for balance in military spending, as excessive military spending can detract from other important areas like education and healthcare. The critique of John Lennon's idealistic views adds depth to the discussion, challenging the practicality of a world without countries and militaries. The philosophical depth of the article is tied to broader questions about self-defense, rebellion, and the nature of peace, encouraging readers to think beyond immediate political considerations. The article's relevance to current events, such as in Libya, makes it relevant and timely. Emphasis on self-defense resonates with fundamental human concerns about safety and security. The realistic view that wars are often avoided due to their high financial cost aligns with the overall argument for maintaining military strength. Overall, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein presents a well-reasoned and thought-provoking argument for militarism, rooted in practical considerations and philosophical depth. ******************** The only effective solution against evil and violent people is good people more skilled in violence -- Miyamoto Musashi The Importance of a Strong Military Unless you are a very fortunate, small paradise of a nation such as Andorra or Liechtenstein, it is the nation's armed forces that ensure its survival for decades or even centuries. That is because, should you not have a big enough or a competent enough military, then your country is likely to be in danger either from the inside or outside of its borders. Countries like Liechtenstein simply do not need a standing military because it's unnecessary to their vastly lucky, consistent geopolitical situation. Even if you live in a stable region, having a powerful military will ensure that such status quo will resume. For example, if it weren't for South Korea's military strength, it wouldn't be a formidable adversary to North Korean aggressive desire to unify the Korean peninsula. Therefore, it is imperative that every country that wishes for the safety of both it and its citizens allocate a significant enough portion of its budget to the military. A military, however, does not need to have a pompous budget in order to function effectively. You don't need, for example, to have an army stronger and more advanced than that of the United States in order to protect yourself from regional threats; that is of course unless you're being invaded by them, which means something has to be done. However, since superpowers like the U.S. has international standing military-wise, you might not want to be too much aggressive with the armed power you have as a political leader. So, what if you despise someone in your geopolitical region? Consider their allies. It is important to find a balance between having a strong enough military to deter aggression and not spending so much on the military that it comes at the expense of other important needs, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Fail to keep a proper financial budget between the departments of your government, and it can have an impact on the military as well. The North Korean armed forces may be large in size, but they may die due to starvation, to the point that they may raid their own citizens just to survive. If the North Korean government spent enough on agriculture, as well as other ways to gain food, this wouldn't happened. And of course, it's quite demoralizing when the troops that supposed to protect you, attack you just because they are hungry. On Self-Defense Rationally, every nation has the right to protect itself. That may be true to an extent even on the individual level. Regardless of this premise, some nations may believe that counterattacks are also legitimate forms of self-defense. Whether this is true or not is a matter of debate. The premise itself, nonetheless, is true to Japan and its Self-Defense Forces, the same as it is for tyrannical North Korea and its People's Army, as the suffering of its populace does not necessarily legitimize invasion and attempted liberation. Why? Because they have the right to protect themselves as well, no matter how righteous such invasion is. Furthermore, a successful liberation attempt might even worsen the situation, should the next local government be incompetent. That is the case with Libya, that remained unstable even 10 years at least after their dictator's death. Can we really say Libya has been improved just because of the world's good intention to liberate it from its tyrant? I believe one of the reasons why there aren't many wars in the world today is due to how expensive they are. It's more than just keeping the peace, but it also could be the abysmal financial cost of wars, while trade is far more preferable to sacrificing your army and its many expensive war machines in battle. However, it does not at all mean that we should just dismantle countries' militaries in the name of world peace. It's impractical as this situation can be abused. That is why I am not a pacifist. Critique of John Lennon's Words John Lennon has said something interesting in one of his songs: "Imagine there are no countries; it isn't hard to do". Is it, really? Dismembering the militaries of all nations, including nations themselves would quickly lead to chaos and disorder, unless some kind of an international security force is to be strong enough to preserve the safety of all nation-less humans. And even then, that security force can become corrupt and make use of little-to-no opposition from the rest of the world. The only such alternative I can think of are superheroes, which of course are too fictional to become a reality. Such people might save much money as they require less maintenance than an artillery division... But still, it is too impossible to have a single hero or heroine eliminate an entire terrorist organization. If that was only possible... They can grow corrupt themselves, either way. As long as there is a desire in one or more people to rebel by breaking the law or threatening the lives of someone, there will always be a need for security that is used to protect people from others. Should there be a total death to the desire to confront someone to the point of threat, John Lennon's vision will remain highly impractical. And for that, people need to know that they may be punished, either by imprisonment or by execution, in order to keep people in line. Whether or not execution is a fair method of punishment, is a different matter. This is why guns are needed -- to serve as a counter-threat against those who might consider defying the law and the safety of the nation, both from external and internal spaces. The reason why the U.S. allows private possession of arms comes from its constitution: To allow its citizenry to protect themselves from a corrupt government and/or tyranny in the name of freedom. Of course, this has its downsides as well in America, like people who abuse this constitutional right and become mass shooters like a certain philosopher I covered on Philosocom before. (Note: his shooting occurred in Finland, but I believe he would've done the same, per his radical philosophy, if he was American). You can say, therefore, that there is a certain "good" in weaponry, even if they kill others. Not all uses are for the greater good, but when they are, they can prevent a lot of suffering that would otherwise have happened. Either way, it is necessary that we protect ourselves because, as long as there are other human beings, there will always be a potential threat on our lives. And that is one of the reasons I prefer to isolate myself from this violent world, and focus my work. I've been traumatized enough. Conclusion: Force As Necessary for Security Peace is a desired state for many: A world without brute conflict. But achieving and maintaining peace is a complex challenge. The contradiction between pacifism, the rejection of violence, and the need for military power is a hindrance to an effective, long term solution to security. While the desire for peace in pacifism is understandable, history is filled with examples of aggressors who exploit the good will of others, from Emperor Caligula to love-bombing cult leaders. However, without the capability for a measured counter-offensive against their authoritarian power, true peace can remain elusive. The burden often falls not on the peaceful, but on those who disrupt the peace. Even in a hypothetical post-apocalyptic scenario, the need for security persists. An armed force wouldn't just defend against external threats, but also potential internal strife. Rebellion can lead to a domino effect of punishment and stricter controls on the entire community. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. This is evident in the July 2023 military coup in Niger, a revolutionary takeover which harmed the West African nation, deteriorating its many developments. The approach to achieving peace, however, depends on the political climate, and pacifist deeds can be too impractical to be categorical imperatives. Instead, the path for national improvement lies in reform, addressing the root causes of discontent, which are individual to each country, democratic or authoritarian like Myanmar. And under an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, armed resistance may be the only viable option, although a risky one. Underground movements, like the entire Polish Underground State, are difficult to organize, but can offer a spark of hope in such oppressive situations when are forces to be reckoned with. Nonviolent movements, while admirable, face significant challenges in implementation. Though successful examples like India's Gandhian movement exist, their effectiveness depends heavily on specific contexts (AKA, cultural tendencies for harmony thanks to spirituality). Ultimately, the quest for peace requires a nuanced understanding of power dynamics. While pacifism offers a moral ideal, a world without the capability for self-defense is a world ripe for exploitation. The goal is to find the right balance, where force serves as a check-and-balance mechanism and not a threatening trigger, leading to social harmony.

Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. — Leonardo da Vinci Article Summary by Mr. Beacon Sage The article "Fake News and the Authority Fallacy—Why Curiosity Trumps as the Engine of Knowledge-Seeking" suggests that truth should be valued over authority in an era of fake news and misinformation. It questions whether experts always hold the truth, highlighting that even professionals debate among themselves. The article highlights the "authority fallacy," the mistake of accepting a claim as true simply because an authority figure stated it. Instead, it advocates for personal inquiry, curiosity, and critical thinking. Philosophy is not about certainty but about questioning, and a true philosopher remains open to doubt and alternative perspectives. The article concludes that the best way to counter fake news is not through blind trust in authority but through an open-minded and diligent pursuit of truth. "Whom exactly are qualified to judge our so-called crimes and exactly why are they so-called crimes, and exactly why are they considered crimes in the first place? The corrupt politicians deciding the laws? Hypocrites, every last ones" -- John Duran (Background music) Is Academic Success Enough? Debating the Limits of Knowledge What is important is not who said it, but what was said. In our time of fake news and a high level of free speech in many countries, it is often difficult to discern the truth from the subjective. It shouldn't even matter that I wrote that paragraph. To overcome the tiresome discussions of things that we may not believe to be facts, we turn to professionals, or people whose education and experience are considered to be far superior to those of the general public. However, with this solution comes another problem, as Ben-Gurion also said, "If an expert says it can't be done, bring another one." This raises another question: what if the authorities we turn to are themselves not the holders of the truth, despite their hard-earned titles? The whole problem with the notion of fake news is that we can never know for sure whether someone is actually right or not. The truth exists out there, beyond our minds, and it may not always be reached, no matter how many sources we cite in our arguments, or how much sense they make. After all, we lack omniscience, which means that our knowledge is always limited, regardless of our expertise in one or another subject. In the end, many subjects are up for debate, even when professionals are present. They may even argue among themselves on the very truths they are seen as authorities at. Due to the difficulty in attaining the truth, many of us resort to fake news. Note that I am not talking about specific fake news, because in this world, many things we may believe to be true could be false. Even with such a vast research pool as the internet (or, even, specifically because of the internet), fake news are easy to find and believe in, whether the person creating them actually knows they are spreading falsehood or not. When you succumb to confirmation bias, you may even spread false information without knowing it yourself! It is really hard to distinguish between truth and falsehood, regardless of your age, experience, and position. Sure, academic success can bring you much knowledge, but as long as there is no certainty in some subjects, everything in theory shall be up for debate. Behind the Suits and Degrees: Deconstructing the Authority Concept And yet, there are people whose titles attract audiences to listen to them, either with zealotry or even fanaticism, to the point that their power could give them certain privileges others don't, and might never enjoy. In an earlier article, I gave former President Donald Trump as an example. I was not necessarily referring to whether or not he gave fake news, but regardless of whether or not he did, he sure had the power of his title to attract an angry mob to the Capitol and even break in. Such power, gained by the power of his image, is something that probably you and I could never have, whether or not we would wish for it. That's how powerful your image can be when you become a charismatic, adored figure of authority. Even if your image does not come from an actual position of power -- that image matters. Anyways, it is debatable if the reasoning behind Trump's inciting words was actually correct. Were the 2020 USA elections rigged, like he claimed they were? Either way, the fact that he was a president who was adored by many of his supporters was enough for his words to be valuable enough, far more than the words of you or I may ever be. Why Curiosity, Not Certainty, Is Philosophy's True Prize This all boils down to the initial quote of the article—it doesn't matter that Ben Gurion said it; it might as well have been said by Hitler or any other dislikeable or adored figure. What we should do, instead, is to "skip the middle-man", so-to-speak, and actually see for ourselves, with enough reading and questioning, whether or not that statement is true. Whoever said the statement cares less in philosophy, because the whole point of philosophy is to study the truth, and less-so, the personalities studying and/or providing it. Since it's also true in philosophy, it's been given the title "the authority fallacy". Also known as the "Appeal to authority" or "Argument from Authority". Try it for yourselves — find a something on the internet that may intrigue your thoughts, and go for it—begin the race to find the truth. It won't necessarily be easy, nor you will necessarily succeed in your quest, but it is better to ask something, and even be laughed at, than to not ask something, and "remain in the dark". Finally, a few words for those interested—Philosocom is all about me coming up with possibilities. I don't preach them as the truth because an honest philosopher will be as ready as possible to the ability they were wrong about something. Why, then, bother with prioritizing research over contemplation and speculation? Philosophy might as well be a field whose issues will always be up for debate. At the very least, some of them will be without absolution. As such, being a philosopher or a "master of philosophy" does not necessarily mean you have "all the answers" to philosophical questions. And even if you in theory do, these answers can be doubted by contemporary philosophers or even by philosophers who will study you long after your death. If at all, it is the interested reader who should think about these points of thought and use their mind—and the internet—to find out more about what has been said. A true philosophy reader would surely consider reading from numerous sources, as the philosopher would not try to prevent them from doing so. It is okay to think and to speculate; in the end, what makes a philosopher a philosopher is that they know nothing, and yet, their thoughts are still of value to some. Therefore, we can conclude that a reader can only stop fake news by having an open mind and investing their time and energy in finding an opposing argument that could be truer than the original claims. A few relevant articles: The Decline of Pre-Digital Elitism The Traits of a Good Philosopher 3 Steps to Become a Respected Philosopher

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Luck) Clinging to lives in trust, You will not squander your life. — Can Yucel Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "The Philosophy of Trust and Luck — How to Apply Trust Wisely" is a thought-provoking exploration of the intersection of trust and luck in our lives. Mr. Tomasio uses personal anecdotes and shares experiences as a "loner by nature," making the topic more relatable. The article effectively balances philosophical considerations with practical advice, referencing Nietzsche's concept of the Overman and discussing respect, compromise, and cooperation. Practical insights on evaluating people's trustworthiness through physical cues and digital footprints offer tangible steps that readers can apply in their own lives. The article emphasizes choice and agency in determining whom to trust. The discussion of how luck plays a role in the people we meet, but wisdom dictates how we navigate these relationships is compelling. This perspective empowers readers by reminding them that while circumstances may not always be in their control, their responses and decisions are. This emphasis on self-determination and responsibility adds an empowering dimension to the piece. The philosopher's conversational style keeps the content lively and engaging, with phrases like "Never underestimate the tyranny of circumstance" and "Masterminds do not often make hasty choices" adding a unique voice to the article. This style not only captures the reader's attention but also makes the philosophical content more accessible. The article maintains a balanced tone that is cautionary without being overly pessimistic, while also encouraging the reader to develop wisdom and discernment in their interactions. This balance keeps the piece from feeling overly negative, providing a constructive outlook on the role of trust in shaping our lives. Overall, "The Philosophy of Trust and Luck — How to Apply Trust Wisely" is a compelling and thought-provoking exploration of trust and luck in our lives. Introduction There is, I believe, a very fine correlation between a worthy object of trust and luck. By being born somewhere, in a specific family, in a specific society, and with different skills, some people are bound to you for some time. That's until you gain the increasing option to navigate between more and more potential connections. Never underestimate the tyranny of circumstance. When you're merely a child, you're at the hands of people you are confined to, and later, to an educational institution filled with people you must meet every day. Then, when you have to work, your acknowledgement of people increases even further, until you reach a certain peak, somewhere in your life, depending on your very own decisions. Depending on the people in your life, along other factors, obviously, your peak may not necessarily be a successful one; one where you're at the prime of your self actualization. What I'm trying to say is, that there are different people that you will meet in life, forced or successfully invited. Some are worthy of trust, some are not. Some of these people are confined to you for a specific period of time. But, once you grow more independent, you might be introduced to more and more people, whose reliability is all a matter of the luck of these people in the first place. Organized Followership -- How I Came to Rise I'm a loner by nature, and because of that, my "pool" of people is small. However, those who I managed to find and connect with throughout my life were people who I can say were worthy of my trust and are even now. The internet, so to speak, is the "ultimate" medium of potential where you can meet a very wide variety of people, all with different degrees of objectively-recommended trust. It really is luck-based. Being introduced to different people is can largely random thing, whether they connect with you or not to the point of reducing your loneliness. Of course, as we become adults, we gain the choice to decide which people we want and which we don't. However, the pool of opportunity, in which the selection is made, is based on luck. Since our lives pretty much rely on people, from our parents to the people we will be interacting with throughout our lives, these interactions will eventually influence the course our lives will take. Nietzsche's Overman may fail to understand that interactions often require compromise, in order for certain tasks, even if voluntary and not monetary, to be done. If you're going to have volunteers you need them to stay loyal. For them to stay loyal you need to respect their boundaries. The Overman however has little regard for morality that isn't his or her own making. Going outside of a life of a "Full Hermit Mode" requires respect that can take some sacrifice of your personal sentiments in the name of greater cooperation. You shouldn't, for example, see your own volunteers as useless as that would insult them greatly. Usefulness is a basic trait in human beings. Especially those who volunteer. This demonstrates how unpredictable life can be based on the words you choose to say and the people whose presence you would either accept or deny. If you said different things and chose different people throughout the course of your past, perhaps your life in the present would've been very different. The same goes with this very site. Masterminds do not often make hasty choices. A certain reader chose to volunteer as an advisor for example... If I hadn't trusted them, then the composition of the site would've been different. If I hadn't accepted help in general, this site would've looked different as well, for the better and for the worse. If you wish to improve your life, you need to work on your ability to distinguish between those who are worthy of trust and those who are not. Some people are manipulators with ulterior motives. Others would stab you in the back when they'd get the chance. It's hard to know for certain unless you work on your ability to "read" people and notice indications of possible scammers and other con artists. Physically, and not virtually, you can get the upper hand through visible nonverbal communication. Virtually, you can at the very best follow and inspect their activities online (AKA their active digital footprint). Should you fall for their deception, then that would change your course of life as well. People shouldn't be treated nor discarded like pawns. However, you better regard your own interests as well. They might not do it for you, so you should concern about these interests yourself. Thus, this "luck" I'm speaking of when it comes to people also relies on your ability to consent or deny when such decisions can be made. If you are a baby, you can't choose your parents or guardians, but when you become an adult, free from guardianship, you can choose to discard them, regardless of whether or not it's a wise idea. Of course freedom allows us to make dumb decisions. Thanks to certain people, I managed to grow more skeptical of people, like when some strangers approached me. Perhaps if I didn't have people I couldn't logically trust, my life would've been different as well. Importance of Wisdom Do you see now, how one's fortune is as fluid as water? It can change anytime, anywhere, and it depends on two factors: luck and wisdom. Luck, because we are dealt with different "pools" of people. Wisdom is our ability to differentiate, accept, and/or decline potential; To choose wisely. We cannot always control the first, but we sure can improve the second as time goes on. We should be suspicious of people when suspicion has its place, and we should be trustful of people when we are rightfully certain that they can bring us benefit, and vice versa, if we're altruists. We better choose the right people for whatever functionality they agreed to fulfill. That includes friendships. They might not understand, for instance, how to be friends with philosophers. As a philosopher living in a post-truth era, you might want to let them go, or decline them altogether. Enable them to commit the parasocial fallacy, and they will be angry at you for their own misunderstanding. Final Notes On that note, I would like to thank you all for trusting me, if you do. The internet can be a malicious place. Thank you for not regarding me as a scammer, because you can rest assured when I declare that I am full of goodwill. Thanks again for choosing to spend your time on my writing. Allow me to humor you with my articles as long as you like. I myself humor guest writers. And remember this: Anyone can just disappear from your life, intentionally or not. Other people aren't necessarily resources like iron ore. They can definitely be of help if you prove to them you're trustworthy yourself. Choose wisely from your "pool" of people, and they can be of great help to your hopes and dreams.

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 Evil action is the transmission to others of the corruption one carries within oneself. -- Simone Weil (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.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Background Music) (Philosocom's Svartgold/Svarl Articles) *********************** I am not mad; I am simply not normal. -- Diogenes Key Points * What was Diogenes' main goal? Diogenes' main goal was to live a life of simplicity and freedom. He believed that the true nature of humans is to be free and independent, and that material possessions and social conventions only serve to enslave us. * A logical way to understand the self is to live in accordance with nature. Diogenes believed that the best way to understand ourselves is to study nature. He saw animals as living in accordance with their natural instincts, and he believed that humans could learn a lot from them. * The true nature of humans is to be free and independent Diogenes believed that humans are naturally free and independent beings. He argued that we should not allow ourselves to be enslaved by material possessions or social conventions. * How can one live without falsification? One can live without falsification by being honest with oneself and others. This means being true to oneself, even if it means being unpopular or going against the grain. * What was God's problem according to Diogenes? Diogenes believed that God was indifferent to human affairs. He argued that if God was truly interested in helping humans, then he would not have allowed them to suffer so much. * The advantage of living with animals and living in a "crazy" way is that it can help one to simplify one's life and focus on what is truly important. Diogenes believed that animals could teach us a lot about living a simple and meaningful life. He also believed that living in a "crazy" way could help us to break free from the conventions of society and live more authentically. * What is the benefit of not needing much? According to Diogenes, such deprivation can free one from the burden of material possessions and allow one to live a more authentic life. He honestly believed that the less we need, the freerer we are. He argued that material possessions can become a burden, and that they can prevent us from living our lives to the fullest. * How can rejecting luxuries result in inner truth, freedom of thought, and greater wisdom than other people? By living a simple life, one can focus on developing one's inner self and become more aware of the world around them. This can lead to greater wisdom and understanding of oneself and others. * What else can be learned from animals? Some of the things we can learn from them include loyalty, unconditional love, and the importance of living in the present moment. * Should nudity be considered a shame or a part of human nature? Nudity is a natural part of human nature and should not be considered a shame (According to this philosopher, of course). It is only through social conventions that we have come to view nudity as something to be ashamed of. * Does a person have to get married? Must they live according to the established norm, or can they reinvent it? No, a person does not have to get married. They can live according to their own values and beliefs, regardless of what is considered the norm. There is no right or wrong way to live, as long as you are true to yourself. The Cynic Sage's Goals Diogenes' main goal was to show that happiness and freedom are achieved by separating the "self" from the society that encourages control over the "weak": or a person who is different from others because of this or that status. By this, one can live a real life of freedom. Happiness comes to a person when they feel independent. That is, separated from those who seek to control others through discipline and obedience, in order to conform to society. Diogenes' perception of money and happiness is different from others. He regarded the true nature of man is the desire of others to impress others with gifts and money. People must live without the conditions of society that make money a source of independence. To know themselves better, they must live without the need to benefit others. He saw philosophy as a cynical way of expressing thought and intellect in a logical and informed way. The status of a person, which includes money, social status, spouses, children, a car, and a lucrative job, is not what will bring them happiness. How will they discover who they are without all the status that depends on social expectations? The disadvantage that Diogenes saw in the pursuit of luxury is that when a person pursues money, they do not learn. They are enslaved to the government and the social system. They also do not know them. We only know what they created the money that they earned. And that is the motive for being in constant interaction with these external authorities. The shame of being naked is a social construct that can be debilitating for individuals. Diogenes lived without shame because he believed that it was a social construct. He lived naked like the dogs in the streets, because he saw them as being more natural than humans. This made him stand out from other people. He believed that living according to society's expectations can be limiting and can prevent us from becoming our true selves. It can be sad and difficult, and it does not necessarily indicate wisdom. We all can learn about modesty from Diogenes. From the importance of thinking outside the box. From the fact that social status and professionalism are not important. They are masks, and not our true selves. A person can be themselves even if they do not conform to society's expectations. A person can find friends who accept them for who they are, even if they are not human. They can also find meaning in their lives without the need for material wealth. I learned from Diogenes that it is important to follow your heart, even if it means going against the grain. The heart is also wise and can guide us in making decisions. He believed that the heart is also a part of the mind, and that it is important to write from the heart about your experiences. It is sometimes important to not follow the crowd. A person can choose to be free from shame, guilt, and the need to please others. I don't think it is realistic to live like Diogenes today. We need a certain level of security and comfort in order to survive. However, we can still learn from his example and strive to be more authentic and less concerned with material possessions. Diogenes and the Cynic School Diogenes was a philosopher who was a proponent of the Cynic school. The Cynics believed that living a simple life was the key to happiness and freedom. They rejected material possessions and social conventions, and they often lived in poverty. Diogenes took this philosophy to an extreme. He lived in a barrel and begged for food. He also did things that were considered strange or offensive, such as masturbating in public. Diogenes's goal was to live a life that was free from the constraints of society. He believed that we should not be afraid to be ourselves, even if others think we are strange. Diogenes on Dogs Diogenes saw dogs as a model for how to live a simple and free life. Dogs do not need material possessions, and they do not care what others think of them. They are also honest and straightforward, and they do not pretend to be something they are not. Diogenes on the Rich Diogenes was also critical of the rich. He believed that they were often greedy and corrupt. He warned people not to trust the rich, and he said that they should be wary of their motives. Diogenes believed that the rich were often unhappy, even though they had all the material possessions they could ever want. He said that they were slaves to their possessions, and that they could never truly be free. Diogenes on Poverty Diogenes did not believe that poverty was a bad thing. In fact, he believed that it could be a source of freedom. He said that the poor were not burdened by material possessions, and they were free to live their lives as they pleased. Diogenes also believed that poverty could help us to be more compassionate and understanding of others. He said that when we are poor, we are more likely to see the world through the eyes of the poor. His Legacy Diogenes was a controversial figure, but he is still considered one of the most important philosophers of the ancient world. His ideas about simplicity, freedom, and compassion continue to inspire people today. It's reasonable to believe that he influenced the contemporary philosophy of minimalism. Conclusion Diogenes was a complex and fascinating figure. He was a radical thinker who challenged the status quo. He was also a bit of a showman, and he loved to shock people. But at his core, Diogenes was a philosopher who was searching for truth and freedom. His ideas continue to resonate with people today, and he remains one of the most important figures in the history of philosophy.

Experience is merely the name men give to their mistakes -- Oscar Wilde (Background music) Due to negativity bias, even the smallest of setbacks can hinder your perspective. However, it is important to put things into the general perspective and realize that everyone has setbacks, and that it is okay to have setbacks. Life can often be unexpected, and technically it is impossible to predict everything. There might be things that you didn't account for in your planning that could serve as setbacks along your journey to be successful in whatever you set your eyes upon. However, it is important to look at things from an eagle's point of view, and ask yourself the following question: Is it that bad overall? You should ask yourself this question often to assess the situation you're in, and then the more you do it, the more you might realize that things aren't necessarily as bad as they might appear at one point of time. We all have setbacks from time to time, and during these setbacks, it can appear like things are going south. However, when compared to the general, more holistic perception of your situation, these can appear as what they might be: small setbacks. So, why do we feel like these setbacks are major? Maybe, deep down, we are afraid. Afraid of failing. Afraid of feeling unstable. Afraid of losing it all. However, sometimes it is the stress that talks to us, that tells us that the situation is worse than what it actually might be. So, don't give up on small setbacks. Look around you, and see if things are really as bad just several hours later, when you have calmed down. Keep your head straight, and evaluate with yourself or by using others, if you're doing great. Because if it is but a small setback, most likely is, that you're doing good and well despite said setback. If so, cheer up! Cheer, because you could be doing worse, and you don't! Don't give up just yet! If you're not doing great, then work on yourself until you do, you can have this under your control...

(The Philosocom Socrates Directory) (Void directory) “All I know is that I know nothing” -- Socrates "The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know, therefore the truly wise man knows nothing" -- John Duran The great lesson I have learned in life, is that I still have a lot to learn. - Socrates (Background music) The Paradox of Knowledge Socrates, the iconic Greek philosopher, is perhaps best known for a seemingly paradoxical statement: "I know nothing." This quote stands in great contrast to the typical image of a philosopher – a figure overflowing with wisdom and knowledge. At first glance, this statement appears illogical. One cannot be both incredibly knowledgeable and utterly ignorant at the same time. However, a closer look reveals a deeper meaning behind Socrates' words. And if to quote him again: "The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing" While I don't believe Socrates meant he possessed literally zero knowledge, the true power lies in his emphasis on the pursuit of knowledge. Here's why: Openness to New Ideas: Socrates championed the importance of questioning existing beliefs and being receptive to new information, even if it challenged one's current understanding. Knowledge could become a barrier if it fostered arrogance and an unwillingness to learn further. 2. The Limits of Human Knowledge: Socrates acknowledged the vastness of knowledge and the limitations of the human mind. Recognizing the gaps in our understanding allows for a more open and honest approach to learning. Socrates, a relentless truth-seeker, understood the limitations of human knowledge. He embraced the idea that even our most cherished beliefs may be incomplete or inaccurate. Admitting ignorance paves the way for a more open-minded and honest approach to learning, fostering the continuous pursuit of truth. By admitting his own limitations, Socrates encouraged a continuous journey of exploration and discovery. He understood that true wisdom lies not in possessing all the answers, but in the constant pursuit of them. To quote Gurvinder Singh: Our knowledge and our beliefs create boundaries, which secure us but also contains us. Limiting our thoughts and vision. Knowledge tells us what we can do but also what we cannot do. Almost all great achievements have been the result of people who dared to step beyond their blind beliefs and the boundaries of their knowledge. Unpacking Socrates' "Ignorance" Socrates' famous statement, "I know nothing," is often taken at face value. However, a closer examination reveals a profound philosophical message that transcends literal ignorance. On a purely logical level, the statement itself is flawed. Even the most basic sensory experience, like tasting sweetness or feeling warmth, signifies some level of knowledge. We are born receiving information through our senses, making complete ignorance an impossibility. Socrates wouldn't intentionally deceive himself or others. In one of his quotes, he says: Lies are the greatest murder. They kill the Truth. Misleading oneself hinders the path to truth. Therefore, "knowing nothing" can become a powerful metaphor for a relentless commitment to learning; To get further to the truth, and farther from falsehood. It signifies the true philosopher's willingness to discard outdated "knowledge" in light of new evidence. And as such, we should not be too attached to our philosophies, when they have a chance of being proven wrong. Knowledge isn't synonymous with wisdom. To quote Diffen.com: Knowledge is merely having clarity of facts and truths, while wisdom is the practical ability to make consistently good decisions in life. Arrogance and denial can prevent us from learning. True wisdom lies in embracing the possibility that our current understanding is flawed and actively seeking out new information. That is done in the name of making better choices, which is the practical usage of knowledge. Socrates model-ed this through his "knowing nothing" stance, demonstrating that a willingness to learn, not a claim of absolute knowledge, is the mark of a wise mind. Socrates' Call for a Questioning Mind Socrates' admission of ignorance can serve as a powerful call for a more nuanced approach to understanding the world. It allows us the possibility of questioning not only our current knowledge but also our understanding of reality. And understanding is a skill that can be developed further. Our perception of "knowledge" can be a double-edged sword. What we believe to be true may, in fact, be a misconception hindering our pursuit of genuine understanding. And since perception stems from choice, it is our responsibility to enhance our own understanding, if in the truth we're honestly interested in, and not in a mere reflection of it. Just because we hold a belief confidently doesn't make it true, and it's our choice to either question our beliefs or keep supporting them without enough examination. Additionally, Socrates might refer to a state of universal ignorance, where we are all susceptible to misleading information, our own biases, and limitations in perceiving the world beyond our beliefs. The Socratic Method, with its emphasis on questioning, serves as a tool to escape this cognitive prison, that makes believe that our initial assumptions that build up our beliefs are not flawed. Through critical inquiry, we can dismantle false assumptions and approach knowledge with greater humility, and apply it more wisely. The Path to True Understanding Ultimately, Socrates' "I know nothing" advocates for a life-long journey of learning. It is not exactly a statement of complete ignorance, but an acknowledgment of the limitations of human knowledge. Our limitations as non-omniscient beings include the ever-present possibility that our current understanding may be incomplete. True wisdom lies not in clinging to what we "know,", nor using that presumed knowledge for prestige. Rather, true wisdom lies in the openness to question, explore, and revise our beliefs in the relentless pursuit of truth. In a world overflowing with information, both true and false, Socrates' message remains relevant the same as it was at his own time, thus proving philosophy's relevancy throughout the ages. By embracing the limitations of our knowledge and fostering a questioning mind, we can embark on a richer and more meaningful journey towards understanding ourselves and the world around us.

(The Undead Metaphor's Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-new-type-of-undead-and-my-background-story) A Monologue From the Undead Philosopher All of your actions contain a certain frequency, either good or bad, so your conscious efforts determine who you are. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher We have higher concerns, and adhere to a vaster cause. -- Mr. John Duran Just do what is right. The rest doesn't matter. - Marcus Aurelius (Background music) Here is a monologue of mine regarding the title I've given myself, "The Undead Philosopher". You might find it interesting.... All of that we do that is not inquiring, we do to escape inquisition. We go out into the world with a social mask glued to our face. We are asked how we are, but we are not expected to speak expensively, nor in full honesty, about our true thoughts and emotions. Nay, we are mainly expected to give a very brief, "general" overview, as we go about our day, working. We go on adventures across the globe, or at least in our country of origin; we reach achievements praised by society, and sometimes we utterly fail, in a stressful and competitive world. But we never, ever ask - what is it all good for? Maybe we only/mainly do, when we reach the ultimate peak of our life's successes... When we begin asking this question, of what is it all good for... - to others, to ourselves - we are likely to see that this question has no answer that might satisfy us. Are we truly willing to admit just how irrelevant we all are compared to the stars above us? As great and as proud as we are, we humans are but tiny, tiny creatures living in a tiny planet, in a vast universe, much of it lies in utter obscurity. And, for the brave of us, it becomes an irritating, everlasting question, standing in the back of our minds, while we smile, laugh and even kiss. It seeks to resurface to our conscious mind. All of what we do and experience whilst among the living -- not a single, long-term, satiating answer arrives to our hungry mental bellies to the question -- What is it all good for? And thus begins the downhill, the escalation - the degradation into nothing but a mentally ill mind, burdened by lofty philosophical insights that may keep telling you, in short: That all what you did in life, was not necessarily good for anything beyond some short-term gratifications. After all, here you still are, doing things, never, ever truly satisfied. In the absence of a good medicine, the mind deteriorates. We then receive a regular dose of pills to mentally survive in a world that appears to be an absurd existence. Our brains then become reliant not only on hunger and apatite, but to pills as well, probably for the rest of our lives. They are there to calm and make us stable, a contra against our own deep, deep awareness, trying to resurface every single time we do not escape the philosophical inquiry. They, the meds, do not provide the answer we are looking for; they are there to keep us away from higher states of understanding. The idea is, the more you understand, the more you might be willing to sabotage your own life, like a mad genius would. Often, per one's understanding, per one's desire to retire from societies, and live as a hermit. That is a luxury societies might forbidden you from fully actualizing, as societies need humans to tend to offices, and make work the cornerstone of all human survival and talk. Society doesn't want you to be that kind of brave. It doesn't want you to dare admitting truths that we are encouraged to deny. The biggest, anti-society truth is this: That life has no meaning beyond what we choose to temporarily give it. The more you realize this, the more you might resort to hermitage, as you may realize just how fake much of the non-rectified world, really is, and thus not worth partaking in. I take a glance at the books I have already written - and I realize, that the sense of meaningfulness, even if I’ve wrote hundreds of books, is still very, very temporary. I look at my glorious Philosocom Article Empire, and already know for myself that I am still unsatisfied. Writing is not for those who are satisfied. Writing is for those whose passion confines them to passionate work. Thus, to write, you must admit your own lack of satisfaction. And the less you are satisfied, the more you will write, in what might appear as "a curse". Such absurdity, that we all come into a void of nothingness, is answered by many of us indirectly and without sufficiency - through entertainment, through work, through prestige, through religion and through everything else that we convince ourselves, that this? "This" will be the thing that shall serve as the meaning of our lives; that "This" and "That" shall be our road to paradise. Many of us do not venture deep, into a state of perceived "irrationality", nor ascend to higher ladders of mental vision, encompassing not only the planet but the universality of truth itself. Nay. Most of us stay in the middle ground and hope not to fall into the very void that fills us all - the elephant in the room nobody likes to admit they’re here, there, and everywhere. We have learned to ignore philosophy and deem it esoteric, despite philosophy being the origin of ALL research. If we want to inspect it more deeply, we might be told to take our meds and to seek the help of psychologists. Even if the intention of such advice is good, it won't necessarily negate the fact that this reality might be experienced as utterly absurd by default, at least by some of us. Let us be honest for a change - meaning has no presence in our surroundings; it is merely a projection from our minds towards said surroundings. It is an illusion we either associate or dis-associate with what we currently see ourselves as. Meaning is an abstract label, a categorization, a stereotype; a quick excuse to apply, so we will be able to continue functioning in our daily lives, or else, alas, we would be even more deteriorated than we already are. Some put a fake façade of joyfulness while they reach a state of prestige and wealth, and then die, never entirely coming into terms with the deeper truths of this reality. But I - I have chose to remain "undead" while alive, for I already know that my mental hunger, similar to that of a zombie, will never, ever entirely come into full satisfaction. Even if I am to do something exciting, the excitement shall deteriorate eventually, and the thing whom I’ve seen in a very joyous perspective, looks now so dull, boring and mundane. I thus see no other option, but asceticism, for the answer which I seek has no scientific foothold, nor can be answered by science. It could only be answered through emotion and intuition. However, since emotion is not a reliable asset to achieve logical optimality. Emotion is always a source of bias that keeps one close to one thing but far from others -- it should be discarded when indulging in such affairs. Emotion is but a rollercoaster - never persistent, nor methodological, nor keeps up with the info provided, and, thus, non-objective. Can an emotional reaction help me answer the question of: What is it all good for? Nay, because the emotion is always changing, and with each change of emotion, each change of answer shall occur. Thus, the answer is always... always... temporary. As temporary as life itself, as temporary as godly nectar of love. It is always, always what I choose to make of it, in the present time. That is even though, of course, the question whose answer I seek is objective by its nature.... Answering an objective question with a subjective answer is equivalent to shooting a target with a schnitzel instead of an arrow: not only are you probably not going to hit the target you wish to hit, but it is also a waste of good resources that can and should otherwise be used for other purposes. I thus am not afraid to admit that I live in a mindset of a man in his pension years -- a life of post-purpose. I have done most of everything I wished to do in my unique life, and that’s quite a lot at this point. True satisfaction will never be reached, for my desire is World Rectification. What is the point of rectifying a world that will never be fully rectified? The answer is simple: The answer is: Rectifying is the right thing to do. And since this world will never be entirely rectified, then rectifying will ALWAYS be the right thing to do. Therefore, to answer the question of "What is it all good for", the answer is: It is all good for doing the right thing, always. Therefore, the question of "What is it all good for" cannot discard ethics, and specifically, all the ethical reasoning that are about what is always the right thing to do. I find rectification best done as the master of Philosocom, where I can help and inspire many, while resting from what makes me so tired: The non-rectified world, or the world we all live in. Thus, doing the right thing, every single time, justifies life itself. All life is good for, is good for doing the right thing. And what other thing is good and well, then rectifying the planet itself, while I get to rest and sleep for the sake of my health? May we all descend deeper into the depths of the earth without losing the rope that connects us to the world above. After all, we need the non-rectified world, in order to survive and to buy bread, water, coffee and, sometimes, beer, as well. Thank you for reading thus far. Feel free to share if you have found this article to be insightful to you.

(Background music) (Void directory) Loneliness is the fate of all great minds. They will occasionally complain about it, but they will always choose it as the lesser of two evils. — Arthur Schopenhauer Unravelling the Chameleon of Loneliness To operate efficiently within the physical realm, one must accurately define their internal state. The unarmored mind frequently misclassifies "loneliness" as a singular, definitive emotion. In reality, loneliness is a complex, systemic state. It's a centralized hydra of negativity that morphs its symptoms to fit the occasion. The masses consistently mistake the symptom for the root cause. Boredom is merely one head of this hydra, manifesting as a craving for external interaction, much like a depleted device searching for a power source. Heartbreak is another, capable of draining the individual of its operational vitality even when surrounded by the masses. The logical flaw of the conventional world is treating the state of being alone (an objective, physical reality) as synonymous with loneliness (a subjective, emotional failure). They are fundamentally different. If an entity experiences boredom while isolated, the solution is not to blindly seek society; the solution is to generate a worthy challenge. Engage in a complex project, and the symptom of boredom is instantly eradicated. The Mechanics of Strategic Solitude The masses cling to company to anesthetize an internal void. Instead of utilizing isolation to build personal power, they treat it as an unsolvable, cosmic plague. Because they lack the determination to construct a localized powerbase, they fail to grasp the immense, productive potential of strategic solitude. Not every solo trajectory is a descent into despair. Solitude is an objective multiplier; its effect is entirely determined by the quality of the entity's internal mechanics. The success of isolation relies on three operational gears: Absolute Independence: The ability to function without external validation. Self-Generation of Purpose: The capacity to entertain, challenge, and direct one's own mind. Mental Resilience: The structural integrity to endure the silence of the void. When these mechanisms are fully upgraded, the state of being alone transforms from a liability into the ultimate sanctuary. Overriding the Biological and Societal Mandates Conventional scripture and societal conditioning decree that "it is not good for man to be alone." This is a generalized, societal mandate designed to ensure the continuation of the species and the labor force. It completely overlooks the fact that profound creation, philosophical architecture, and historical legacy are almost exclusively forged in absolute solitude. For the critical thinker, the noise of human society is a liability. Must we force ourselves into soul-crushing, inefficient social dynamics simply to appease archaic mandates? No. The production and renovation of an intellectual empire offer far more objective stabilization than the unpredictable friction of a social club. Romance and the Right to Abstain The conventional world under the assumption that every human cog must yearn for romantic partnership and familial integration. This is a statistical fallacy. When subjected to objective calculation, the pursuit of romance is a high-risk gamble. The mathematical probability of experiencing repeated emotional fractures (heartbreak) vastly outweighs the probability of securing a lifelong, frictionless partnership. The desire to endure this suffering relies entirely on an individual's willingness to bleed their biological fuel for an unlikely return on investment. Choosing to abstain from this gamble is a highly logical maneuver. Being alone is a proven method for eliminating immense volumes of external anguish. Individuals possess the absolute right to choose the peace of the perimeter over the chaotic drama of interpersonal entanglement . Shattering the Introvert Stigma and Utilizing the Void The societal assumption that isolation equates to shyness or social failure is a manifestation of the Whole Person Fallacy. Not everyone operates on the same frequency. Some entities are rapidly drained by the constant, inefficient data transfer of standard social interaction. For a philosopher or a Master Architect, solitude is not a retreat; it is the required environment for rejuvenation. One cannot synthesize complex historical insights while deafened by the chatter of the masses. Digital infrastructure, like social media should not be mistaken for a desire to socialize. For the isolated creator, these platforms are merely logistical highways; tools utilized to distribute Tochen (substance) to the world. One can possess a vast digital footprint and remain as solitary as a supernova in the void. Conclusion: The Symbiosis of the Grid The societal spectrum requires varying degrees of operational hardware. The conventional requires extroverts for frontline logistics—marketing, customer service, and military operations. However, it equally relies on the introverted architect for reflection, strategic planning, and the generation of profound logic. Both roles are required for a functional civilization. Therefore, there is no inherent flaw in desiring society, nor is there any flaw in demanding absolute isolation. Embrace the internal hermit, optimize your self-sufficiency, and recognize that the most monumental contributions to reality are often constructed by those who have mastered the quiet power of being alone.

Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Fault of Unnecessary Dependence: How to Nurture Our Inner Potential" explores the dangers of excessive dependence on external validation, materialism, and social norms. It draws inspiration from authors like Nietzsche and Ibsen, highlighting the importance of solitude and self-sufficiency in inner growth. The article uses anecdotes and examples to illustrate the theme, such as Diogenes and Alexander the Great's response to the sun. The article emphasizes the importance of solitude and detachment, but downplays the value of meaningful relationships and community. In conclusion, the article presents a powerful and necessary message about self-reliance and the dangers of external dependence. ************** Our wealth is measured not by what we have, but by what we can do without. — Immanuel Kant (Background music) A most common problem in today’s world is the false belief that we may only find true fulfillment and happiness by having and connecting to external material and entities. This leads us to a point of depending and needing them to function and to thrive in whatever we may do in our lives. Be it friends, be it love, be it wealth, be it power. But as Henrik Ibsen has put it: “The strongest man upon the earth is he who stands most alone.” By aspiring for more and more material and manpower to belong to us or to be part of our lives, many of us delude ourselves by believing we're living "the full life" while in practice many of us are enslaved to our own passions, by positioning them in a rank where they dictate our lives and happiness. In western society we grow up believing that there is a certain way of life which is the healthiest and happiest one to live: engaging in various social activities, hanging out, leading a romantic life, do whatever our urges dictate us, avoid extensive solitude and so forth. This system of socialization is enslaving in a way that makes us live, behave and think in not by our own terms and individual principles, but by norms, conventions, culture and conformity. In my opinion this socialization’s main motive is to convince us that being alone with ourselves is a problem solved by indulging in more confirmative thoughts and activities, or, in other words, to escape from being with ourselves. Perhaps Nietzsche was right: this world is behaving according to slave morality. Many of us tend to follow norms and trends not necessarily and entirely by our own personal preferences, but also from the fear of being left behind or being alone. When I browsed on topics which regard solitude and singlehood on Quora, I found many questions which simply ask if it is okay for people to live by themselves, being single, not having a social life, and so forth. In an age where we are allowed to not conform, one should really ask themselves, why do we require other's approval to live in a certain way? Here is an insight: to live the life of a master of their own path, one should evaluate and consider the importance of detachment. Whether we detach from social activities, needy relationships, others' expectations and dictations -- the more we detach externally, the more independent we can grow. In this age of constant connection to the world, we tend to forget the next insight: that we are distinctive and separated individuals, who are and can operate independently of external dictation. Many of us are so anxious by thinking what others will think of them if they shall engage in activities and thoughts that may not be normative, but may interest them personally without any regards to society. They, in a way, repress who they are in favor of others. And the thing is, the world might as well not care if they die. That's because alienation is a natural feature in our world. In other words, many of us conform for the sake of many people, AKA society, who do not really care for us. We may give up on who we are just for them. Just so we won't be marked as outsiders. Do you see the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy on depending ourselves, and our worth, on a system of norms that disregards us as individuals? Let me tell you yet another insight: your life belongs to you, not to other people, no matter how dear and intimate you are to them. A self-master is one who knows that life isn't worth spending by copying and mimicking norms and conformities. In terms of language which shapes our mindset, we tend to judge other people and ourselves according to stereotypes. One popular stereotype is the "Normal Person". This person lives life according to what we may see on advertisements and popular media; they have a socially rich life, they are well accepted into society, lead well-managed romantic lives, and see life with a simple-minded perspective, without thinking too much. What is the purpose of living and thinking normally but to live according to external dictations? Why are many of us so dependent on other entities to approve our lifestyle and mindset? Why should we fear what others may think of us? What's scary about being with ourselves? Let me tell you the following: there is no escape from solitude. No matter how much of a rich social life you may manage, you cannot deny the eventual manifestation of being alone, from occurring. We are individuals because we are distinct from other individuals, and that distinction comes from the inevitable fact that we are alone. And the more we distinguish ourselves, the more we actualize our individual merits and capabilities. By being intensively social, all we do is simply push aside something which shall arrive no matter how much we shall attempt to reject it. And that is solitude. This fear of solitude has no place in the life of the independent man or woman, and emotional dependence on other people to fulfill your overall satisfaction, is a dependence of slaves who are afraid to find themselves on their own. Thus to be fit (not only physically) is to be autonomous. To be fit for life means to be fit to the reality that one way or another, solitude will find us. Because even if we are married until elderly age, one of the partners may die, and we will have to age alone as widows and widowers. The more we endure extensive solitude, the mentally stronger and independent we become as distinct individuals. Having a social, material, or political power is a collective illusion; a power which is external and at times unstable. You can find self sufficent-power from within that does not depend as much on the external world. The more mature we become, the tougher we get. The tougher we are, the more capable we become to endure the absence of social distractions and stimulation. Therefore, I come to this conclusion regarding dependence: Dependence beyond its basic standards, i.e., complex and unnecessary dependence, is weakness. Since so much of us praise conformity and the fellowship of norms and trends, many of us are mentally weak. That is because we are weak by ourselves, when we over-rely on others. The vacuum of another's presence creates a necessary opportunity for us to become stronger at least mentally. And the stronger we get the less we may need others for our overall well being. The path to competent and enduring strength comes from within. The more your strengths originate from within, the more resilient, brave, and strong you will become. Solitude is a state of being where one separates themselves from their external/social strengths and reputations in order to expose oneself to the depths of undiscovered mental prowess. By "mental prowess," I infer everything which comes purely from within you and not from others which you may be dependent upon. That is also known as the self beyond the external world. In each and every one of us, there is immense power which has yet to be actualized. It is hindered by the world, and it's one of the many reasons true love is rare in it. Because it takes strength to fully accept people for who they are, let alone, love the entirety of their being. As such, following the norms can be regarded as an act of cowardice, as the norms call to restrain the self when it can be too uncomfortable. And many people fear discomfort. I believe that the concept of stupidity comes from lack of inner actualization, since wisdom is an internal merit. The less we actualize our true selves (i.e., us as ourselves, with no masking), the more incompetent, shallow, simple-minded, and wasted we become. We mustn't under-utilize our potential if we want to be wiser. It's simply because our wisdom, along with our other gifts, are hindered by the conformity to depend. It keeps us away from our internal power. Thus, in order to actualize ourselves, and become the best versions of ourselves, we must grow more independent of anything that hinders us and does not have to legitimately. We must grow more assertive, even if it intimidates those who lack self confidence. There is no need to be heavily engaged in social and romantic activities to fulfill one's existential void; an existential void like loneliness, although it can help being filled by deep and meaningful connections, can be reopened again, once these connections are gone. As a finish, I shall tell an anecdote. Diogenes, an ancient Greek philosopher, lived in a barrel, literally, and had little property beyond it. One day, Alexander the Great came to him and asked if he needed anything. Diogenes said: "Yes, I need something from you - to stay away; you are blocking the sun." In unnecessary dependence, our inner sun is blocked.

The following hits heavily on a few core pillars of what it means to step out of the rat race. In a society running on transactional metrics, a legacy like mine gets overlooked because it's extremely difficult to be monetized. In a system driven entirely by self-interest and market demand, doing something purely because you care becomes a radical, almost subversive act. Meanwhile, people selling out their authenticity and their time, completely convinced they are free, only to end up trapped in a "fake theatre." This is a place where the rules of the cold, harsh world don't apply. It’s a space kept deliberately pure. The only currency that actually holds its value at the finish line is whether you were true to yourself. Humans are so selfish that you have to talk to them about their reward in the next life in order for them to do good in this one. — Epictetus (Background music) Who in the world cares if seven lives I saved? You need to function in society that's well-behaved. Doing selfless deeds where you get little in return. This elevated humanity is something worthy to mourn! You're expected to act to get some benefit. Self-interest is how in society you get fit. This is a world where nothing is expected to be free. This elevated humanity is something only few see. This elevated humanity is something only few see. Many are quick to sell out, believing they are free! If you do good you either get exploited or get suspicious, This world is led by the ruthless and the vicious. Doing good without benefit is seen as irrational. This elevated humanity is something that's not normal. Ah, if only people did good for its own sake. Elevated humanity wouldn't be something quick to forsake. But most need to survive with lifelong funds to make. Elevated humanity they overlook deep in the lake. Poor the people who fail to meet market demand! They are either privileged or have little in hand! I am the former with people I command. Elevated humanity I dig out of the sand. The spirit of elevated humanity... I did much good for my own gratification. Getting little in return, most might think it was a waste. But is saving human lives truly a vain mission? Looking for benefit has corrupted human vision with haste. Elevated humanity is not seen as something that's from reason. Selfless deeds are how you rebel against the economy, such treason! To do good just because you care. Risk being misunderstood, see if that you dare. That is elevated humanity's essence, The reasoning behind this free Article Empire's presence! Ah, if people would only my vision understand! To contribute for its own sake within my digital land, Where truth and honesty are above any market's demand, Thus kept pure and well-intentioned, a monument above the sand! Around the world, people their own lives take! After lifetime of being forced in society's fake theatre to partake! No other way by most people is seen. Elevated humanity is a man's rare state of being. Spirit of elevated humanity... If we didn't see each other as competitors in a rat race, Perhaps this world would've been a far better place, Where people help and cooperate out of the goodness of their heart, Elevated humanity is indeed a very rare art. I do not care for how the way things are, I choose to go to an ideal that's for many is far, Elevated humanity's... star. What's the point to all your life accumulate? It either way doesn't go on with you after your death. Not being true to yourself is something you might regret. In this world your true self is something many prefer to forget. Be true to yourself and elevated humanity you might get!

(Background music) The happiest man in the world is the one who knows how to recognize the merits of others and can rejoice in the good of others as if it were his own. - Goethe Introduction For generations, society has sold a romanticized, almost sacrificial myth about what it means to do good. We are taught that true altruism requires martyrdom: that to deeply care about the world, you must bleed for it. We applaud the activists who run themselves into the ground, the philanthropists who give until it hurts, and the well-meaning individuals who carry the crushing weight of global suffering on their singular shoulders. But there is a quiet, systemic flaw in this traditional model of charity: it burns out. When goodwill is driven purely by emotional dysregulation or an unchecked sense of cosmic responsibility, it becomes unsustainable. The martyr eventually runs out of energy, the idealist becomes a cynic, and the world remains just as broken as it was before. Enter pragmatic altruism. Pragmatic altruism is the cold, calculated, and highly sustainable alternative to emotional charity. It is the practice of contributing to the rectification of the world while maintaining absolute sovereignty over your own life, health, and peace. It acknowledges a fundamental truth: you cannot pour from an empty cup, and you cannot defend a perimeter if your own fortress is collapsing. The Three Pillars of Pragmatic Altruism To understand how pragmatic altruism operates, we must deconstruct it into three core operational pillars. These pillars separate sustainable, high-yield impact from chaotic, emotionally draining do-goodism. 1. The Sovereign Foundation (The Oxygen Mask Rule) In safety briefings, flight attendants always deliver the same non-negotiable directive: Secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others. Traditional altruism often ignores this logic, encouraging people to starve themselves to feed the crowd. Pragmatic altruism states that your primary moral obligation is the absolute stabilization of your own life chassis. This means your health, your personal hygiene, your financial security, and your immediate environment must be locked down first. When you are rested, secure, and operating from a position of personal abundance, your capacity to give becomes an unshakeable asset. Self-care is not antithetical to helping the world; it is the fuel that funds the operation. 2. Output Over Emotion (Data-Driven Impact) Traditional charity is often reactive, triggered by emotional responses to heartbreaking stories or sudden crises. While human empathy is a beautiful mechanism, it is a terrible strategist. It causes people to dump massive amounts of energy into highly visible, emotionally satisfying causes while ignoring quiet, systemic issues that actually yield higher returns on investment. Pragmatic altruism strips away the emotional theater and looks strictly at the spreadsheet of impact. It asks: Where can a single unit of my time, capital, or insight cause the greatest amount of systemic rectification? It prioritizes efficiency, long-term sustainability, and verifiable metrics over the temporary dopamine rush of "feeling like a good person." 3. The Open-Source Broadcast Model One of the fastest ways to burn out when trying to help others is becoming emotionally invested in how your help is received. If you give someone advice, resources, or support, and they squander it, a traditional altruist feels betrayed, frustrated, or despairing. The pragmatic altruist bypasses this entire psychological trap by adopting an open-source broadcasting framework. Think of a lighthouse: it doesn't sail out into the storm to manually drag ships to safety, nor does it care which specific ships use its light. It simply stands firmly on its high ground and projects its signal into the dark. Whoever is ready to see the light uses it to navigate; whoever isn't, passes by. By freely contributing insights, tools, or resources without micro-managing the reception, you protect your peace while still leaving a breadcrumb trail for those who want to climb out of the chaos. Comparative Matrix: Two Paths of Goodwill To see the stark structural differences between these two philosophies, we can map their operational behaviors side-by-side: Variable Traditional Altruism Pragmatic Altruism Primary Driver Emotional empathy and moral guilt. Rational analysis and systemic order. Personal Boundary Porous; often sacrifices personal well-being. Absolute; protects the core fortress at all costs. Expectation Seeks visible change, gratitude, or validation. Detached from results; focused entirely on the utility of the input. Longevity High risk of cynicism and acute burnout. Infinite scalability; runs seamlessly in the background of life. Scope of View Focused on individual stories and immediate crises. Focused on macro-trends and scalable infrastructure. The Open-Source Lighthouse in Practice What does a pragmatic altruist actually look like in day-to-day life? They aren't necessarily running multi-billion-dollar non-profits, nor are they living a monastic life of poverty. Instead, they operate quietly within their own engineered domains. Consider the thinker, writer, or creator who builds an intellectual repository; much like an open-source philosophy platform. They do not spend their days arguing in the chaotic public squares of social media, nor do they try to forcefully convert people to their worldview. Instead, they sit comfortably within their secure perimeter, write down distilled insights that have helped them organize their own life, and publish them freely for the world to read. By removing the transactional elements of fame, monetization, or forced engagement, the work remains pure. It becomes a permanent, passive gift to the human collective. The creator’s battery is never drained by toxic internet debates or the frustrating realization that the world is slow to change. They have done their part by launching the signal into the ether. The rest is up to the universe. Overcoming the Existential Weight It is an undeniable, objective fact that the macro-trajectory of the world can look incredibly bleak. Systemic decay, geopolitical friction, and the general monotony of human error can easily convince an analytical mind that the world is beyond total repair. A traditional altruist looks at this bleak reality and spirals into existential despair. They realize their efforts are just a drop in a vast, dark ocean, and they paralyze themselves with hopelessness. The pragmatic altruist looks at the exact same data and reaches a far more liberating conclusion: "Since I cannot single-handedly fix the entire global matrix, I am officially relieved of the burden of trying to do so. My mission is not to save the world; my mission is to optimize my immediate square footage, maintain my personal standard of excellence, and cast helpful, low-friction signals across the wall for anyone who cares to look." This shift in perspective transforms charity from a heavy, crushing duty into a clean, automated lifestyle loop. You handle your maintenance, you brush your teeth, you lift your weights, you protect your relationships, and you leave the world a fraction better than you found it by broadcasting value without friction. The End-Game Alignment Ultimately, pragmatic altruism is the definitive end-game strategy for the conscious sovereign. It allows you to enjoy the absolute comfort, safety, and predictability of a conflict-free life while still honoring the deep human instinct to matter, to assist, and to leave a legacy. You do not need to bleed to be useful. You do not need to let the chaos of the outside world breach your fortress walls to prove that you care. By securing your baseline, automating your maintenance, and broadcasting your insights freely, you achieve the ultimate balance: an uncompromised, peaceful life for yourself, and a steady, open-source lighthouse for the rest of humanity.

(Philosocom's Directory on Peace) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Rubinshteinic Guide to Inner Peace" is a comprehensive and empathetic resource that offers insights into achieving and maintaining inner peace, especially for individuals with unique challenges, such as those with autism. The guide emphasizes the importance of self-acceptance, identifying and meeting personal needs, and both physical and mental health. It also emphasizes the importance of developing a strong support system and providing practical recommendations for relaxation and self-care. The guide also emphasizes setting boundaries and communicating needs to foster healthy external relationships. Encouraging assertiveness and discouraging people-pleasing behavior empowers readers to advocate for themselves, which is essential for maintaining inner peace. Overall, "The Rubinshteinic Guide to Inner Peace" is a valuable and uplifting resource that effectively addresses the journey toward inner peace with sensitivity and practical wisdom. ********************* There is something as necessary as the daily bread, and that is the peace of every day; the peace without which the very bread is bitter. -- Amado Nervo (Background music) Introduction Obtaining and maintaining inner peace is not a passive state; it is a deliberate architectural achievement. In a world defined by kinetic friction and endless demands, peace can be especially difficult to secure for neurodivergent individuals—such as those on the autism spectrum—who are highly susceptible to sensory overload and social exhaustion. However, inner peace is not a luxury; it is an existential imperative. By treating your mind as a sovereign space, you can construct a baseline of tranquility through the following philosophical and practical protocols. Phase I: The Architecture of the Self Before you can navigate the external world, you must secure your internal perimeter. Radical Self-Acceptance: You must accept your operational baseline. Everyone possesses a unique matrix of strengths and weaknesses. This acceptance is especially vital for those who have endured bullying or societal alienation due to their differences. You are inherently worthy of respect, and masking your true nature to appease others only drains your psychological battery. Identify and Fulfill Your Needs: Understand what regulates your nervous system. What environments make you feel safe and comfortable? Schedule dedicated time for low-friction activities that restore your energy, such as reading, immersing yourself in nature, or engaging in specialized interests. Acknowledge your sensory limits and take pre-emptive breaks before overload occurs. Biological Maintenance: The mind and the biological chassis are permanently linked. Proper nutrition, adequate sleep, and physical exertion are non-negotiable requirements for mental stability. Establish an Iron Alliance: Surround yourself with a vetted support system of individuals who offer unconditional understanding—people with whom you do not have to mask. If immediate social support is unavailable, build your self-worth by contributing value to society or your community through your unique skills, allowing your work to speak for your character. Phase II: External Boundaries and Purpose Your peace is directly proportional to how strictly you guard your time and energy from external demands. Assertive Boundary Setting: You must clearly communicate your operational limits to others. Let people know exactly what you are comfortable with and where your boundaries lie. Reject the urge to be a "people pleaser." The ability to say "no" to unreasonable requests or social obligations is the ultimate defense mechanism against burnout. The Pursuit of Purpose: Engage in activities that provide a tangible sense of purpose. Whether through volunteering, deep study, or creative output, purposeful action anchors you to reality. It transforms you from a passive observer of life into an active contributor, generating internal respect and external relevance. Phase III: The Maintenance Protocol (Self-Care) Peace requires daily, intentional maintenance to prevent the accumulation of stress. Strategic Decompression: Do not wait until you are overwhelmed to rest. If a situation is degrading your mental baseline, step away immediately. Listen to your body's physiological warning signs. Prioritize Joy: Engaging in activities that bring you genuine happiness is not a distraction; it is a necessary stress-reduction mechanism. Chronic stress destroys both physical and mental health; joy is the antidote. Tactical Relaxation: Incorporate proven physiological resets into your daily routine. Deep breathing, meditation, or controlled physical movement can effectively flush cortisol from your system and force your body back into a peaceful state. Phase IV: Directives for a Resilient Existence Practice Objective Compassion: Treat both yourself and others with grace. Recognize that the vast majority of humanity is simply struggling to survive the hardships of life, often with flawed tools. Anchor in the Present: The past is unchangeable, and the future is an unpredictable variable. Allowing your mind to dwell on impractical concerns degrades the quality of your current reality. Force your attention to the immediate present. Surrender the Uncontrollable: The cold, harsh world is filled with variables entirely beyond your jurisdiction. Attempting to control them is a futile exercise that guarantees anxiety. Focus your energy strictly on your own choices, reactions, and immediate environment. Weaponize Your Passion: Identify the pursuit that makes you feel profoundly alive and chase it relentlessly. A defining passion provides the necessary psychological armor to endure the inevitable suffering of existence. Conclusion: The Existential Imperative of Peace The pursuit of inner peace is a lifelong campaign, but it is one worth fighting. It is a daily practice of choosing logic over chaos and boundaries over burnout. Remember, you are not navigating the void alone; there are others who understand this struggle. Surrendering to despair only transfers your suffering to those who care about you. Choose to endure, resume the struggle, and build your fortress. Life is a finite opportunity. By mastering inner peace, you neutralize the inherent miseries of existence.

(Philosocom Directory on Friendship) Discover the essence of friendship with 'Defining Friends.' Delve into the intricacies of meaningful connections and the bonds that define true companionship. 1. Friendships Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies -- Voltaire Friends can be seen as assistants, colleagues and companions, but instead of paying them with money, we pay and are paid with the value of trust, loyalty and affection. The more we trust the person in front of us, the more confident we feel to be more open to them, and vice versa, if the relationship is mutual. A friendship with no trust is like a boat in a river without the ability to move; it will eventually fall into a waterfall and get destroyed. Thus, trust is imperative to any friendship, as it is imperative to any desired relationship that does not have a potential of deception. Deceive your friends, and you will deceive the alliance you've built with them. When it is done for your own interests, it's called manipulation. Darth Sidious from Star Wars was an excellent manipulator, for example. Thus, he didn't really have any true friends, as he treated everyone like pawns. I would like to argue that all lovers are friends, but of course, not vice versa. When you have true love with someone, and they feel the same, that is perhaps the deepest bond of friendship you can ever have with a human being. Feel free to correct me. Since trust is not unique to friendships, the combination that indeed makes them more distinctive than any other relationships is trust plus a certain degree of affection, even if that affection is not as strong as in other types of relationships. Obviously, a true friendship with someone is one that you not only trust but actually like them as a person. That liking of them makes you want to be closer to them emotionally or otherwise, than with other people. The more affectionate we are to each other, the more friends we are. Such degree of warmth is crucial to even relationships that are more than mere friends, such as romantic relationships and marriages. After all, a marriage is likely to last longer when the couple is friends with one another, meaning that they not only trust one another but also like one another. It is important to distinguish between having a liking and between loving. Emotions are complex and to understand them properly may require a high degree of emotional intelligence not everyone has. When you love someone romantically, you won't necessarily like them. That is called a love-hate relationship. You do not like someone when you hate them. Long ago, having friends meant an increased chance of survival. The social aspect of our existence has been pushed aside, into the realm of leisure and at times luxury. Unless you happen to be very lonely when alone, and if you are not willing to fully endure in solitude, one can say some of us indeed need more companionship than others. That's because it fills a void in their hearts, and at times gives them something to think about, or even live for, which is legitimate. Some of us fear the emptiness inside. Existential emptiness. Friendships also exist to help us either escape or cope with that. 2. Followers If you want your voice to be heard, you don't necessarily need friends to trust or to feel affectionate towards if you don't want. Not all of us are warm, highly-affectionate beings who wish to make personal connections with anyone we are introduced to or introduce ourselves to. The contemporary era has created the long-used term of followers, a term that can simply be described as people who are constantly updated with your content, or generally with what you have to say. Organic following are simply human followers who follow you online voluntarily, as a display of interest in your activities. They are far less than friends, and you might not even communicate with them at all. The opposite of an organic follower is a fake follower. They are accounts that are sold to follow you on social media, to give the impression of having a large online presence. You no longer need to start a religion, a cult, or a movement in order to gain real followers -- all you have to do is to give others the reason to click on whatever button makes them notified by the internet whenever you post content. That's at least how followers are recognized nowadays. Beyond its contemporary usage, a follower was simply a supporter, a believer, or companion of someone (who are not necessarily their friends. An apprentice, for example, can be regarded as a very loyal follower. Darth Vader, however, was not a friend of his master). Following can also be described as either supporting or agreeing with someone. However, this description is no longer necessary, as anyone can follow you online even if they don't support or even agree with you. They may simply be interested in your content. The term, so it seems, has lost its original "charm" like any other pieces of modern technology has lost their sense of wonder and progression. Nonetheless, followers are obviously imperative to anyone who wants to have their voice heard without the need to form affectionate relationships with others, like with friends. Having followers is also profitable when they are monetized. You can sell them products and they even may be inclined to click on ads you may post in your content. Thus, your online support can even help you earn. Social media influencers essentially live on the loyalty of their followers. When you create an interpersonal connection with your followers, you and they specifically become a community. Consider that higher than a normal following. Because a community has more loyalty than an average follower who can leave whenever they like. A community is enforced by loyalty to either you or to your brand. 3. Fans And finally, we have the most tricky type of people at all -- fans. I am saying they are tricky because fans on one hand are supporters of the highest order, like "elite" followers or "elite" friends, but on the other hand they are like soldiers that require maintenance and that can rebel against you, should your actions not satisfy their desire to admire. John Lennon, after all, was murdered by a fan, and celebrities such as actors can receive death threats by certain fans if they do something they do not like. Being a fan is more about admiring the image you have in your mind about someone, than that very own someone. The two are different from one another. It can be claimed that most of us are fans of at least something or someone -- a band, a politician, a movie franchise, and so on. Should that figure take a turn that will not please us, some of us might be upset or triggered -- but those with far greater "fanaticism" than us might even make a few actions against them, from personal attacks to the mentioned death threats. So, while fans are desired by those who seek fame, some of them can be very unhinged. You've noticed I used the word "fanaticism", and that is because the term "fan" actually came from it. It's like the term "Nazi" comes from "National Socialism" and so on. While not every fan is necessarily an extremist fanatic, there can be a few "rotten tomatoes" that will give their fandoms a bad image by taking their admiration a step bit too far. Regardless -- being a fan is more often than not a one-sided admiration. Usually, when you are the more important figure of the "relationship", AKA connection. You can say that a fan is like having someone be both your friend and follower without you having to be their friend or follower as well. It is a one-sided relationship, one that says "I know you more than you know me", and this is why it is hard to obtain unless you are incredibly famous. Either way, all of what I just described is hard to achieve en masse, and sometimes, it is hard to achieve at all. Every interaction, big or small, is like working as an advertiser 24/7, with your own brand being the product you promote, intentionally or not. That brand may even be you as a person. Final Words For some, especially those who only wish to pass the time or feel worthy to someone, one or two friends might just as well be enough for them, and there are indeed people who need such acquaintances. However, if you have a message you want (or need) to bring to the world, few friends will not be enough, and that is why, thanks to the virtual world, there is little need for friendships in order to get publicity. The term itself, "Social Media", does not include all that it has to provide to its users, as not every action you can make in it has necessarily something to do with socializing. That's especially true with strangers, who just might as well hear that you died and wouldn't care a bit. It is just another word for "Forum". If you want to find friends -- true friends, with trust and a small degree of affection -- the outside, face-to-face world can give you a greater chance at that.

(Background music) (Void directory) Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves -- Friedrich Nietzsche The Burden of the Unattributed Life Life, in its raw state, offers no inherent meaning. It simply is eternal in energy but ever changing in form. We come into this reality without being asked, and then, when we reach a certain degree of independence, we are then left to decide how to live our lives, with this decision being our responsibility. This vain reality, often obscured by the survival needs of daily existence, presents us with a profound, inescapable burden: the responsibility of attribution. Meaning, you see, is not necessarily a gift bestowed upon us by some benevolent cosmic force, nor is it a pre-packaged commodity to be consumed with a price tag. Rather, it is a deliberate act, a conscious imposition of significance upon a reality that goes on with or without us. To deny this responsibility is to condemn oneself to a life adrift, a vessel without a function, tossed by the tyrannical currents of circumstance, ultimately destined for the desolate shores of pointlessness. This pointlessness, let us be clear, is not merely the fleeting moments of a dull afternoon after work is done. It is a deeper, more insidious void – a lack of resonance, a hollowness that echoes chronically; a nagging suspicion that all endeavors, all passions, all struggles, are ultimately without greater reasoning than that which we attribute to it. It is the antithesis of a life truly lived, a state of being where the vibrant excitements of experience fade into a monochromatic blur, where the very act of existing feels like an uninspired rehearsal for a dull play. To merely exist, without the active engagement of meaning-making, is to minimize the privilege --and burden -- of consciousness. One might drift into this state of un-meaning not through malicious intent, but through a subtle, gradual abdication of willpower. The relentless demands of the daily survival, the seductive ease of passive consumption, the fear of confronting the vast, indifferent universe – these can bring us into a frustrating existence, where intentionality is replaced by stagnation, and whose frustration is merely experienced, not utilized for something greater. We, then, become spectators to our own lives, observing rather than participating, waiting for meaning to present itself, rather than forging it with our own hands. This passive acceptance of the meaningless is, perhaps, the most tragic failure of all. It's a silent surrender to the very emptiness we instinctively dread; to the void that renders us lonely even when we are in company. The Architecture of Purpose and Responsibility The path to a life filled with meaning, therefore, is not through revelation but done by construction. It is an active, ongoing process of building, brick by brick, the very framework of purpose. This architecture of meaning is not dictated by external blueprints or decrees; it is deeply personal, forged in the crucible of our unique experiences, values, and aspirations. It demands a radical shift from passive reception to active creation, from waiting for significance to imbuing it with our own deliberate choices. It is, in essence, an act of profound self-leadership, where the self is sovereign over one's life. How, then, does one engage in this vital act of attribution? It is through the application of our faculties to endeavors that resonate with our deepest selves. It is found in the craft of our work, in genuine relationships, forged by the bravery of vulnerability, and in the pursuit of knowledge, in the courageous act of creation. It is one that is done on a regular basis, if not on a daily basis, the decision to forge our own meaning in an otherwise pointless existence. Paradoxically, it is also found in the confrontation of suffering, of being able to give meaning to the suffering, as Nietzsche would suggest. Through these activities, the otherwise arbitrary events of life acquire weight, depth, and enduring significance. No one is going to do it for us, it is our responsibility to forge meaning within the life that was given to us, so the vain-ness of reality will finally be abolished. And it is uncertain if the vain-ness of reality will indeed be abolished. It is only through the daring, personal, regular attempt of overcoming it, in which we can see for ourselves, if the vain-ness will finally be gone. A life rich in attributed meaning is one that feels full, substantial, and resilient against the inevitable absurdities, adversities and hardships that life presents. It is a life lived with ambition, not merely endured for the sake of endurance. The endurance becomes but a reinforced tunnel that brings us to the next event which we find meaningful, in an otherwise hollow existence. After all, it is through the endurance of vain-ness, in which we can persevere and find ourselves in a time or place which we can truly call meaningful. And what could be called meaningful? Anything -- and anyone -- that makes us feel alive. Anything, or anyone, that can make our lives feel like they have a reason to be endured. The individual who embraces this responsibility of meaning-giving, stands firm against the tides of pointlessness, finding purpose not in some grand, preordained design, but in the deliberate, continuous act of crafting their own narrative, of assigning value where none might otherwise exist. This is the essence of a life well-lived: the ability to transcend the pointlessness of mere survival, for the creation/finding of purpose in the face of cosmos that stay whether or not we stay. The ability to create a "why" to the "how" of life is the regular responsibility of the conscious mind, willing to endure reality for a reasoning it finds worthy to endure reality for. Let us, then, embrace this responsibility, so we could transcend mere survival and reach a state of being truly alive. Let us shed the heavy cloak of apathy and the quiet despair of the unexamined life. Let us seek meaning not in the escapisms the external world offers to us, but in the steady, internal flame of a life lived with intention, with curiosity, and with a profound sense of interconnectedness to a journey we ourselves are bravely paving. For it is in this courageous act of meaning-attribution that the gnawing emptiness of pointlessness might finally stop, replaced by the quiet, lasting satisfaction of a life truly, deliberately, and meaningfully lived. Bonus: My Tragic Existence I am writing this article because I have realized that my existence is tragic. Regardless of what I do, my existence will always be left unsatisfied eventually. It is then my responsibility, to carve meaning within the suffering, within the lack of satisfaction, to create something truly meaningful and great. With my lack of satisfaction, I build Philosocom, a grand empire of philosophical articles, which I write to occupy myself and to contribute to you. I always seek to be of meaning, of relevance, in whatever I do. Despite all the meaningful things I did, from helping people to saving lives from the pit of despair, I still feel empty. Thanks to this article I now realize it is my reasoning, every day, to fight this vain-ness by doing something truly meaningful, like writing articles that can help rectify the world. But the tragedy is, that I will always feel this vain-ness, gnawing into the depths of my soul. I have embraced the void, realizing my existence will always be hollow. It is, then, my reasoning, my ambition, to not relent to the vain-ness that follows; to live life meaningfully; to contribute; to help; to be of service. I feel that it's the only way this annoying, gnawing feeling of empty-ness will yield something truly meaningful. It is the only way in which I sense this gnawing emptiness will be redeemed, if not in feeling, at least by creation. Had I not felt so empty inside of me, I would not bother to contribute, I would not bother to help, and most importantly, I would not bother to save people from the temptation to take away their own lives. I am a pit of emptiness that constantly seeks to be redeemed through contribution. That is my purpose, my game of life. All I want to do is to contribute. It is the only thing, outside love, that makes me feel truly alive, and not an undead. I am Tomasio Rubinshtein, the undead philosopher, and all I want to do is to forge meaning so I can better deal with what I perceive as a curse: This gnawing vain-ness of reality that only seems to leave once I do something which can be seen as truly meaningful, like constructing a high quality article for the world to enjoy, or to help someone in need. I am cursed, I am trapped, I am imprisoned. And as someone who knew me, told me once: Love and Philosocom will be the only things that will gratify you.

(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. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (2025 note: The Power of Love redeemed me, and now I am walking the path of the truly good person) I don't see problems like most people so it often comes across as me not caring -- Mr. Nathan Lasher Right now, someone is judging you. Another is drawing inspiration from you. And yet, none of them truly knows you -- Seneca (Background music) Introduction Arrogance is the product of those who desire to see themselves as superior to most, if not all, people. Since they are not honest enough to publicly admit this, they will attempt to cover up their lack of confidence through acts and expressions of either actual or delusional superiority. On the other hand, those who are modest have no desire to behave condescendingly, as they have nothing to hide in regard to their self-esteem. My Story Arrogance stems from an internal void one seeks to fulfill by compensating. That internal void is most often than not insecurity. For 2 years, I felt a great need to prove my relevance after my confidence has been compromised. However, I attained it, so I no longer have that void within me. It is a common argument amongst my haters and negative critics that I'm arrogant, but the truth is that I do not intend to be arrogant or behave in a condescending manner. I am just being natural with my Asperger's. I have no desire, nor do I believe, to be superior to others, even if I appear to be as such due to the misunderstanding of my condition. In fact, to this day I do not actually know what made me appear arrogant over the years, but you can rest assured that I see no reason to belittle anyone, or show how "great" I am, allegedly. If you meet me in real life or get to know me personally, you will find a good-hearted man who is of few words, for I do not like to speak vocally. If you wonder why I communicate abnormally, like a monotonous robot, I do not do it on purpose. I communicate that way in general, but mostly while writing, as writing is easier for me than speaking when it comes to forms of expression. I do not intend to sound pretentious at all. This is the way I talk and behave, and I do it without any belittling motive whatsoever. I see no functional reason to belittle anyone, and am not responsible for your own insecurities, if you happen to be intimidated by my presence. You should remember that ultimately, autism/Asperger's is not only a social disorder, but also a verbal/communicative one, making communication more complex and difficult than it is for the average individual, even though the wrong impression may be present to the naked eye. Arrogance and Autism I can understand the disgust people have towards arrogance. It insults the ego of the one who is being belittled, and since we do not like to be belittled, we naturally retaliate against the entity we view as condescending. It's a natural response to what appears as a threat, even if it's merely psychological and/or social. We don't like to be inferior to others, whether or not we actually are in whatever measurement. It is funny that we retaliate even though no threat was actually made on us. Those who retaliate irrationally usually do it because they lack the confidence to not do just that. Since people treated me like dirt due to their own lack of understanding, that I am not an arrogant man, I slowly but surely began seeing this world as hostile. Even empaths may treat me with hostility due to my honest behavior. So, with time, I developed ruthlessness, to combat back those who don't know what they're talking about. Combat back, so I can do what I want to do in life: Working on Philosocom for you. I have no desire to waste much time and energy on those who treat me according to their own Platonic impressions. Arrogance in others makes us think that something is amiss -- something that the arrogant person has and we don't. It frustrates us, especially if we see that person as pretentious. Pretentiousness in general is frustrating because it always comes with delusion. The pretentious person does not know they are one, so they continue believing they are the person they actually aren't. It is frustrating because it appears obvious to us, but not to them. Ironically, arrogance can lead to another arrogance, just as fire and fire create only a bigger one. The ego of the listener is hurt, as they are given the impression that they are inferior (whether or not they agree with this view). As a result, the retaliation could lead to not only complaining about the arrogant person, but also giving the retaliating person a need to put the arrogant person "in their place". Who puts people in their place, if not in a superior manner? For example, a teacher to a student, a parent to their child, a boss to their employee, and so on. This creates a state of "hypocrisy," where there are two arrogant people (or one, if the first person didn't mean to be arrogant). Perhaps the most condescending response I've ever received as a result of my behavior was "Go home and be quiet." This is ironic because a stranger on the internet does not have the official authority to tell me what to do in the confines of my home. Perhaps the insulted person feels it is "legitimate" to be arrogant back, as they've received evidence from the external world that the other was, indeed, arrogant. It is as if they are serving the same dish that they have been served themselves. Why be arrogant to those whom you've experienced arrogance? Why be arrogant just because you felt someone else to be condescending, whether or not they actually were? Why stoop to a level that wasn't necessarily there? Conclusion That is the problem of judging reality from the point of mere impression: They are not good-enough sources of information. So, to hell with impressions of reality. Question the validity of these impressions instead, in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Once one is confident enough in the value of their actions, there is little need to brag about their accomplishments. These accomplishments will speak for themselves. For example, I can say that I have written seven books, but I do not bring this up often because it is unnecessary.

(Help and Rectification Directory) (Power Directory) (Kingdom Directory) If you feel pain, you're alive. If you feel the pain of others, you're human -- Leo Tolstoy (Background music) Introduction Compassionate capitalism is a unique branch of capitalism where the earning of profit is not seen as the top, nor only, priority when running a venture. Compassionate capitalism puts other factors as well, as important values to pursue, such as helping people, showing compassion, and be a servant. In compassionate capitalism, the top leaders are not after profit alone. They are after helping people using the pursuit of profit. The pursuit of profit is not only for the sake of the top leader/s, but for everybody involved. As such, the accumulation of power is done not for the sake of corporate greed, but corporate help. In compassionate capitalism, the workers/apprentices are a priority as well, and are there not only to make the top leader/s rich, but to be profited from as well. As such, compassionate capitalism puts an extra challenge in the pursuit of profit and power: to do the moral/right thing of using them for the sake of everyone involved in the venture. Organizations under compassionate capitalism profit in a more equitable way, while the top leaders earn their way up not by backstabbing or competing with others, but by serving. They serve their way up, and the means to gain wealth and power are moral by nature, and thus, give a moral justification to the ends, which is the accumulation of wealth and power. Compassionate Capitalism Versus Ruthless Capitalism Ruthless capitalism is the most popular form of capitalism today. It views workers/apprentices as expandable and view the ends of wealth and power as justified by any means -- even if immoral by nature. Ruthless capitalism seeks to earn wealth and power by any cost. Compassionate capitalism conditions this quest by moral and humane means. Ruthless capitalism, at the face of the AI revolution, would seek to fire many workers in the name of cheaper, cost-effective automation. The compassionate capitalist, on the other hand, would seek to save people from the great replacement of AI, as the mission of the compassionate capitalist is not to profit for its own sake, but to profit by helping people. Nowadays, compassionate capitalism is the road not taken, yet it is the key to a better world. A world where people are not mere wage slaves, but the priority. Ruthless capitalism, on the other hand, seeks to subjugate for the sake of profit, and would not consider the human element's happiness and wellbeing as important priorities in the quest for capital. Ruthless capitalism views the human element as a mere cog in a greater machine, while compassionate capitalism views humans as more than mere cogs, but as the means which are meant to serve in the quest for capital. They are the means which are there to be helped, rather than the means to help the top leader/s to get richer. Why Compassionate Capitalism Is the Key to a Better World Compassionate capitalism is the key to a better world because it is there to serve the people, to make them pleased, to help them out, and be happier. An example of a compassionate capitalist in fiction is Papa Smurf from the Smurfs. He is a leader that leads for the prosperity of his fellow subjects, than for the sake of himself. He seeks to help his fellow Smurfs in any way he can and is kind-hearted to them. Despite being a sole leader, he leads with benevolence and virtue, and puts the average Smurf as the main source of concern. The Smurf village is a utopian example for a better world. They seek to help each other, never leave their fellow Smurfs behind, all under the guidance of a single leader with executive powers. Moral Egoism and Compassionate Capitalism I argue that it is the interest of leaders to introduce compassionate capitalism into their leadership philosophies because it can increase the loyalty of those who work for them. The more you help out your followers, the more they will seek to be useful to you. Furthermore, some of them, under compassionate capitalism, would be proud and grateful to help you out in your quest for capital. Therefore, compassionate capitalism has the power to make your followers appreciated, and thus more eager to be competent and effective as workers. A more competent and effective worker is a worker that is the least to be replaced, or act against you. Looking Both Ways: The Problems with Compassionate Capitalism However, the problems with compassionate capitalism stem from the fact that it is made for a better world than this one. The problem with such a good philosophy is that under the wrong hands, followers can exploit your benevolent philosophy and seek capital when it is not morally justified. For example, they might lie to you in order to be helped. Indeed, the problem with compassionate capitalism is not everyone deserves to be helped. For example, those that are not always grateful to your compassionate nature, and/or people who mainly care about their own selfish interests, are examples of people who are unworthy of compassionate capitalism. A List of People Who Deserve Compassionate Capitalism * People who are considerate of others. * People who are always grateful to be helped. * People that seek to work better thanks to being helped. * People that are not exploiters by heart. * People who are not manipulators. * People that want you to succeed. * People who don't mainly care about themselves. Conclusions Compassionate Capitalism is there for the people. It is there to help them out as a means to get more capital. It requires more investment and puts the attaining of wealth and capital under the challenge of being a truly good person. If you seek to be a better person, morally, as a way to get more capital, than compassionate capitalism is the way for you. However, you should take note that being a good person comes at the challenge of being exploited and helping people that do not deserve your help. Furthermore, you should take note that pleasing everyone is not always possible. Therefore, being ruthless does have its perks of firing those who don't deserve your help, and/or those who are incompetent. Compassionate capitalism is for those who seek to improve the world, not necessarily to get more capital for yourself. It's for those looking to serve rather than be served. If you seek to make the world a better place, then compassionate capitalism is the path for you.

(Background music) The Directory https://www.philosocom.com/post/tomasio-rubinshtein-a-25-year-old-philosopher-s-autobiography https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-welcoming-older-age-can-be-an-option https://www.philosocom.com/post/18-insights-i-ve-learned-from-those-older-than-myself https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-guide-to-growing-up-why-it-s-good-for-you The Childish Philosophy of Philosocom Article Empire https://www.philosocom.com/post/passionate-work The years teach much which the days never know. — Ralph Waldo Emerson The Article What is to be described as an elder is first and foremost a cultural and subjective thing. Different cultures may define differently who are their elderly. For most people, the fact that someone is older than you don't define them as your elder. That is even though they are, indeed, elder than you are, AKA, more aged than you are. Influenced by eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism, Asian cultures are defined by a great reverence towards their elderly. I find it difficult to embrace western-based cultures that put a greater emphasis on hedonism and having fun more than revering their elders. In fact, I feel quite shameful to be identified as a young western man when I find myself orienting to the morality of asceticism and of wellbeing. As a result, I do not believe in the Western idea of happiness, or in the idea that we should strive to be happy. Negative. I believe wellbeing and taking care of others is more important than our own happiness. I always had this idea that we are interconnected, and it is something I find many older folks realizing as well. The reason I spend my life in solitude is because I weirdly live like a typical old man myself. I am alone and mainly on my computer. Even when I lived with my mother, I always lived distinctively from her in small rooms. Speaking and communicating with older folk was always easier for me and far more pleasant as well. I find most of them more inclusive and understanding than others. I also find myself having far greater respect to older folk than younger folk. I find younger folk caring less about people that are older than them. I find them more mentally weak than I am, succumbing more easily to depression, despair and to whining. I find them more oriented towards financial materialism and personal gain over caring about others. It was always difficult for me as a result to partake in normal society... specifically, Western society. I like being full of heart, the more I rest. Whenever I have guests, which is very, very few times, I always enjoyed hosting them and giving them coffee, water and tea. Hospitality is one of my biggest joys and whenever it happens, I am simply very much excited. It was how I was raised by both my late granny and my current one. My values I prioritized over my own wellbeing, as I took care of my mother for 17 years. Caretaking her was never easy due to her bipolar. My own personal gain was very difficult for me to prioritize all my life. I always knew I do not live in a vacuum. I lived life largely like an old hermit because I took care of my mother and enjoyed writing in solitude. It's very difficult for me to see myself as an infantile man, even though infantility is a stereotype towards autistic people. I live like a hermit and as such I may be seen as an egoist and a narcissist. In reality, however I really just enjoy resting in peace (while being alive) and helping people with free philosophical articles. I think people are tired and overexerted in general nowadays. I find socializing hard not only because I prefer writing. People are tired and prefer to see each other according to stereotypes and demographics. It is hard for me to accept this because most people who don't know me more deeply will think I am just an autist who is detached from reality. I like to be alone because the wise warrior avoids the battle. I have no regrets leaving social media as a result. I do not find joy in bothering others and I do not feel joy in being bothered myself. In this alienating age even family members might not know each other enough. It is hard for me to move along with this world's currents and trends because I find little reason to do so. I see much of humanity as those who forsakes their elders simply because they can be difficult people to be around. How can I accept this widespread culture of forsaking the very people that helped us grow? The very people whom we enjoyed being around? Assuming they weren't malicious, of course... Why would I enjoy personal pleasures? No. I prefer to have my writings in public for all to enjoy, instead. I find little reason to just keep my thoughts to myself when my thoughts can help others. When I fulfil requests, I fulfil them heartfully. If I need to take care of something I just take care of it with no whining. Playing video games can easily feel vain. Eating delicious treats can easily feel vain. So much of what many folks would consider pleasant, my brain often experiences it as vain. I enjoy connecting through the heart, and separating who I am from my work was and will always be very difficult. Like my late master I do not like pretending and I do not like masking. Having much power over others made me realize how wrong it is to be emotionally detached from the very people you enjoy helping. I don't like screaming at anyone and I don't like arguing in general. Philosophy is considered a niche subject in my eyes, simply because it isn't profitable. Simply because it is hard to cater philosophy to the masses. A lot of people may see philosophy as just logic. No. Philosophy is an exploration of ideas and the very fabric of reality. I really think philosophy is that great. If the world forsakes the elderly, forsakes philosophy and cares less about virtue, then why would I not be more introverted? If I am relatively content with what I have, why should I be greedy? If liberty has a very deep dark side that causes grief and suffering, why should I live freely at the expanse of virtue? This sense of wonder is something all humans should have in my opinion. It is a great spark, an inner point of light that allows us to live our lives with far less agony. Many older folks, of course they would stereotypically see me as a young, naive man more than any of my readers. I can understand that. Yet, the tide of human civilization is changing, as we are technically in a Second Cold War. I find it a period that is based on forsaking and exploiting others. It is... hard for me to cooperate with a world that encourages deceit, forsaking and war. As a child I remember being afraid of the idea of shooting other people. I remember crying about it a lot. I am glad I was never drafted to any such organization despite being a militarist. It is easier for other people because some countries may perform social engineering on them all their lives, making them more compliant with state demands. However, hearing from my late granny that the world has forsaken her... Honestly, how could I not resist the very system that is supposed to educate me towards greater virtue? I disagree with how much of the Western world goes, so I simply don't partake in it. My isolation from it is ethical. I choose to speak to people based on their functionality and their morality. The world is getting more and more expensive, I know. And yet it's even difficult for me to partake in it because I prefer to keep resting after I saved people from themselves. I prefer to rest and to philosophize. I go my own ways in life, and it could be seen like I have no regard for the world that I am in. Negative, I care very much about this world, otherwise I wouldn't write philosophy online with my name visible to all of you. If I didn't care about this world, I wouldn't even be honest with you. What I honestly like is love, more than authority. What I like, is to live in harmony with others. What I like is to live a pro-health life. What I like is virtue. And I enjoy respecting older folk more than anyone else on this planet. In fact, I think a lot of people, those who are in esteemed positions, are far more inconsiderate than me when they choose to exploit other people. I do not like exploiting anyone and I don't really have that kind of depravity in me when I was in authority over others. My depravity stemmed from the need to rectify this world, more than anything... Finally, I like seeing the world from the lens of older folk. This is why those who mainly agree with me in my conversations are these exact demographics. I cannot deem the industrial revolution an innovative thing. I do not understand how in the world forsaking others because of long-work hours is innovative. I do not understand how polluting the very planet we are a part of, is innovative. I do not know how letting AI take care of everything, as if we are children, is innovative. In fact, beyond the very essential need for telecommunication, security, medicine, transportation and engineering... Why would I deem any of the awful depravities of a hyper-industrialized world, a blessing? Why would I deem wars and conflicts a blessing unless they are inevitable? Why would I deem hyper-realistic graphics in certain media a blessing when there is little philosophical depth? Weirdly enough, returning back to being humans who enjoy speaking and laughing with our dear ones... In my eyes that is the next most necessary innovation than any of these empty-hearted technological advancements. It is no wonder the world has left her. I cannot, and should not, dominate the planet. Instead, I would just resort to the joys of work and to the joys of a simple life. I grow to find depth in simplicity more than in any other artificial innovation! In these artificial advancements, we become depraved... So awfully depraved. How, how could I accept it if I don't have to?

"The future, a better one, can be ours, should we choose it over the present narrative" --- John Duran "Life is too short to be living someone else's dream" -- Hugh Hefner Thinking is difficult, that's why most people judge -- Carl Jung (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) (Directory on Sovereignty) (Background music) Introduction A great illusion in the modern age is the illusion of cognitive autonomy. Most human beings believe they are thinking freely, simply because thoughts are occurring inside their heads. True free thinking, however, is not a natural state. The natural state of the human animal is conformity, tribal adherence, and emotional reactivity. To think freely is an unnatural act of will that requires effort which goes beyond the natural state. It is a rebellion against biology, society, and the very architecture of a societal reality that demands compliance and conditioning. Becoming a free thinker is not about adopting contrarian views for the sake of being different. It is the rigorous, painful process of reclaiming ownership of your own consciousness. It is the path from being an conditioned "automaton" to becoming a Sovereign. Part I: The Necessity (Why Think Freely?) If free thinking is difficult and isolating, why pursue it? Why not simply drift with the current of the masses, accepting their definitions of success, happiness, and morality? The answer lies in the concept of Ownership. If you do not think freely, you are living a borrowed life. Your desires are planted by advertisers; your fears are curated by the news media; your sense of morality is dictated by the chance of your geography and birth. You are not the author of your story; you are merely an actor reading a script written by a committee that does not have your best interests at heart. The price of conformity is the loss of the self and its power to dictate its own future. If more people decided to stop conforming, they then would be able to take the course of their future by their own free will, instead of letting it be dictated by others. By being able to dictate our own future, we can choose a better one over the one predetermined by our conditioning; as such, living on our own terms, we can be happier. The "Physical Traveler" moves through life checking boxes set by others—get the degree, get the job, buy the house, enter the rat race—only to arrive at the end wondering whose life they actually lived. The necessity of free thinking is the necessity of survival. Not mere biological survival, but the survival of the individual soul against the crushing weight of collective conditioning. If you value peace and happiness, and the ability to dictate your own destiny -- a better destiny than the one you might be given by your circumstances -- you must learn to think outside the programming. Part II: The Mechanics of Control (The Obstacles) To learn how to think freely, one must first understand what prevents it. We are subjected to a pincer movement of control, combining external pressure with internal weakness; the latter which compels them to deny reality in favor of comfort. 1. The External Algorithms We live in an era where attention is the primary resource. Power hungry corporations have constructed sophisticated machinery designed to bypass your critical faculties and appeal directly to your lizard brain, in the form of instant gratification and dopamine addiction. This in turn limits your attention span and makes you more likely to be weak-willed, addicted and non-critical. Algorithms do not want you to think; Rather, they want you to react. They through social media, feed you outrage, fear, and dopamine hits to keep you engaged and more prone to control. A constantly agitated and addicted mind cannot think clearly, and from there, independently. 2. The Internal Herd Instinct Evolution did not design us for philosophy; it designed us for survival in the wilderness. Survival meant belonging to the tribe. Therefore, isolation, the price of thinking freely, is seen as going against the very tribe that could ensure our survival. This creates a powerful biological pressure to agree with the majority, even when it conditions you to be submissive and to obey without question. When you hold an opinion contrary to your group, your brain releases cortisol (the stress hormone). To think freely, you must develop the capacity to endure discomfort—to be okay with being the "outsider." You must, by your own power, override millions of years of evolutionary programming that compel you to conform. 3. The Emotional Fog Most "thinking" is merely the justification of prior emotions. People feel something (anger, desire, fear) and then use their intellect to construct rationalizations for why that feeling is correct. A free thinker understands that emotions are tools, not directives that necessarily compel you act. If you cannot separate your logical thinking from your immediate emotional state, you are not thinking; you are feeling with a vocabulary. Free thinking allows us to act beyond our emotions, beyond our willpower, and thus be truly free not only from external influence, but also from our internal mechanisms. Part III: The Method (How to Think Freely) Free thinking is not a mystical talent. It is an acquired skill, a muscle built through discipline and detachment. Step 1: The Axiomatic Audit You must identify the foundation stones of your worldview, your ideologies—the things you assume are utterly true—and hit them with a metaphorical hammer. An axiom is a statement accepted as true without proof. Most people build their lives on faulty axioms they inherited from society, such as: "Career success equals happiness," or "Being alone is bad," or "Consumption is necessary." A free thinker is prepared to challenge everything. You must ask: Why do I believe this? Did I reason my way to this conclusion, or did I absorb it from my environment? If it cannot stand up to rigorous scrutiny, it must be discarded, no matter how comforting it was. Step 2: The Practice of Radical Solitude You cannot hear your own voice if the room is crowded. The "crowd" today is not just physical; it is digital. Every time you open social media, you are inviting thousands of shouting voices into your mental living room. To think freely, you must carve out a "Fortress of Solitude." In other words, you must be able to hear and recognize your voice beyond any distraction or external influence; be an isolator. This is a form of decluttering. You need periods of zero input—no phone, no media, no conversation—to allow the remains of external influence to settle so you can see the clear water of your own mind. Step 3: Emotional Detachment and Delay The free thinker cultivates a gap between stimulus and response. When presented with new information—especially information that triggers anger or fear—do not react immediately. Allow yourself a waiting period. Place the information in a mental "quarantine." Allow the emotion to fade, and then approach the topic with cold, clinical logic. You must view your own mind almost as a third party, analyzing its reactions without identifying with them. Step 4: Diversify Your Inputs If you only read what you already agree with, you are not thinking; you are instead amplifying your own confirmation bias. You must deliberately expose yourself to ideas that contradict your core beliefs, and develop the habit of looking both ways. This does not mean you have to agree with them, but you must understand them. Conclusion: The Lonely Victory The path of the free thinker is not an easy one. It is a lonely road. When you unplug from the matrix of mass opinion, you lose the easy fellowship of the herd. You may be misunderstood, labeled as aloof, cold, or strange. You could also be rejected as insane. But the reward outweighs the cost. The reward is sovereignty; the freedom to choose your own life, your own future, and the path towards your inevitable fate. When you think freely, you build a "pocket dimension" of sanity within an insane world. You gain the ability to stand unmoved amidst the chaos of the "rat race." You achieve a peace that cannot be shaken by headlines or social pressure, because that peace is built on your own internal validation, not external approval. Finally, free thinking can be seen as the ultimate act of self-love. It is the decision that your mind is too valuable property to be leased out to the highest bidder. It is the declaration that you are the sole monarch of your own consciousness.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Sacrifice) The secret is that anybody can lose, it's the easiest talent. — Charles Bukowski Introduction For the average observer, winning and losing are treated as diametrically opposed, binary states. A conventional perspective dictates that a chronic loser cannot be classified as a winner, nor can a perpetual winner be deemed a loser. To suggest that one state naturally embodies its opposite within a single, static snapshot appears nonsensical. However, this binary framework fails when analyzed through a multi-dimensional lens. Evaluating success and failure strictly as static variables creates a shallow, one-dimensional understanding of human experience. To construct a more accurate representation of reality, a broader perspective must be employed. 1. The Temporal Dimension: From Static States to Dynamic Processes By introducing the dimension of time alongside the baseline state of being, the relationship between winning and losing transforms from a static polarity into a dynamic process. Because reality is inherently fluid rather than fixed, analyzing these concepts as an evolutionary sequence prevents confirmation bias. Judging a dynamic reality using static parameters leads to flawed conclusions. True intellectual objectivity requires looking beyond immediate superficial impressions to observe how these states interact over time. Sequential Synergy in Historical Contexts Winning and losing do not merely exist in a chronological sequence; they frequently cooperate, where one state actively catalyzes the other. Consider the geopolitical shifts of World War II: The Paradox of Defeat: The total collapse of the Nazi regime resulted in immediate liberation for millions of forced laborers. The systemic loss of the oppressor directly facilitated the ultimate win of freedom for the oppressed. Secondary Leadership Shifts: The removal of a primary authority figure, even through catastrophic defeat, immediately opens a vacuum where secondary actors briefly assume power or transition the infrastructure. Catalytic Advancement: Warfare, despite its destructive nature, historically forces rapid acceleration in technological, medical, and logistical developments, yielding long-term advancements that outlive the conflict itself. 2. The Typology of Loss: Pure vs. Impure A fundamental principle of action theory is that no achievement occurs without investment. Investment, by definition, requires the deliberate expenditure, and therefore the loss, of resources (time, capital, or energy). To analyze this accurately, a distinction must be made between two types of loss: Loss Type Definition Operational Outcome Pure (Complete) Loss An expenditure or destruction of resources yielding absolutely zero return. Systemic Depletion Impure Loss A deliberate sacrifice or expenditure of resources allocated toward a specific objective. Synergistic Gain / Strategic Win Because every triumph requires a corresponding expenditure of time and energy, there is no such thing as a win entirely devoid of loss. Every cost incurred is a calculated subtraction. This interplay underlines the tragic compromise inherent in large-scale human endeavors, a sentiment captured by historical perspectives on conflict: "In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers."— Neville Chamberlain 3. Value Prioritization and Pragmatic Choice Analyzing the broader picture requires assigning objective, bias-reduced weight to the various components of a given situation. This evaluation must be structured around a clear hierarchy of utility and purpose. Consider a pragmatic analogy: If a civilian is caught in the trajectory of an inbound missile while simultaneously dropping an ice cream cone on the sidewalk, a rational hierarchy of values dictates that personal safety instantly overrides the minor financial loss of the luxury item. Prioritizing the minor comfort over survival risks total annihilation. [Threat Identified] ---> [Determine Priority] ---> [Action Executed] | +---------------------+---------------------+ | | (Priority: Comfort/Luxury) (Priority: Survival) | | [Systemic Termination] [Systemic Preservation] Failing to appropriately weigh variables within the broader scope of an event leads to profoundly irrational behavior. Reasonable conduct requires a continuous calculation of gains versus losses relative to long-term survival and overarching influence. Overestimating a loss breeds unnecessary pessimism; overestimating a win breeds a distortion of scale and subsequent disappointment. 4. Strategic Sacrifice in Human Architecture and Relationships The synergy of structured loss can be observed across all fields of human behavior, from academic pursuits to interpersonal dynamics. To secure a long-term alliance or partner, logic dictates the necessity of resource allocation, sacrificing personal time, autonomy, or material capital to demonstrate commitment and alignment. The Anti-Compromise Fallacy: A refusal to incur these small, calculated losses (refusing to compromise or invest resources) inevitably results in a catastrophic loss: the dissolution of the relationship itself. The Optimization of Subtraction: Functional living relies on making precise sacrifices to secure superior, long-term returns. 5. Temporal Constraints, Detachment, and Legacy Preservation Human agency is strictly governed by temporal boundaries. The ultimate deadline, mortality, renders past, youthful achievements secondary to immediate, forward-looking execution. Efficient execution relies on prioritizing critical tasks before external constraints or physical limitations eliminate the opportunity to act. The Role of Ascetic Detachment Idleness and procrastination serve as pure losses, burning valuable time without generating systemic rejuvenation. While calculated rest can be synergized into a future win by restoring output capacity, aimless stalling offers no return. Achieving high-level objectivity often requires a transition from social orientation to deep analytical isolation. While a reduction in emotional responsiveness can alienate an individual from conventional social experiences, it provides a distinct cognitive advantage: Enhanced Emotional Regulation: Utilizing targeted rational frameworks to mitigate disruptive emotional impulses. Cognitive Fortification: Developing a baseline of self-discipline and adaptability that functions independently of external validation. Long-Term Asset Security When life is approached as a series of operational objectives, the ultimate goal transitions from personal gratification to legacy preservation. For a creator, ensuring that an independent intellectual platform becomes self-sustaining or profitable is not an exercise in vanity. Rather, it is a calculated strategy to ensure that successors view the platform as a valuable asset, thereby guaranteeing its physical and digital preservation long after the creator's departure. By structuring life around the broader picture, an individual learns to extract value from systemic friction. When loss is treated as an integrated component of a broader strategy, failure ceases to be an endpoint and becomes a functional component of long-term success.

(Directory on Writing) (Philosocom Directory on Work) You should always be ready to work without applause. — Ernest Hemingway Poem Synopsis by Ms. Grace Gabbi "My Work" is a profound poem that explores the concept of philosophical commitment, solitude, and sacrifice. It addresses the tension between personal fulfillment and the pursuit of higher ideals, ultimately choosing the latter as the more noble and meaningful path. The poem is influenced by themes of asceticism, existentialism, and stoicism, drawing parallels to philosophical traditions that prioritize intellectual pursuit and self-denial over immediate pleasures. The poem begins with a sense of isolation and loneliness, suggesting that the speaker perceives themselves as fundamentally different from the rest of the world. The poem also features dreams as a symbol of the ideal, representing an idealized experience of love or fulfillment rarely realized in waking life. This fleeting nature reinforces the idea of impermanence, a central theme in existentialist (and Buddhist) thought. The philosopher's life is portrayed as one of sacrifice, with friends killing time for a more noble end. This sentiment echoes the ascetic traditions of many philosophical schools, where personal relationships and pleasures are often sacrificed for a higher cause or greater knowledge. The speaker accepts this sacrifice, asserting that it is "worth it, in the end" to live as a mere vessel for something "truly greater." The poem emphasizes the philosopher's primary role: to contribute knowledge and wisdom to the world. They have devoted their life to this pursuit, eschewing all other forms of happiness or fulfillment. The closing lines affirm the speaker's self-identification with their work, even if that means rejecting the comforts of ordinary life. The poem also evokes existentialist themes of meaning and isolation, with the philosopher's path often being solitary due to the rejection of comfortable illusions. The speaker sees themselves as someone who must transcend ordinary human concerns in order to achieve something "greater, worthier" than themselves. In conclusion, This poem offers a touching meditation on the costs and rewards of a life dedicated to philosophy, addressing the tension between personal fulfillment and the pursuit of higher ideals. The poem is both a lament for the emotional warmth sacrificed and a celebration of the intellectual clarity gained through such sacrifice. The Poem Itself As I watch the world around me, Flourishes in the one element that I have little, I am reminded just how lonely I am, In my fortress of philosophy. It is strange, to used to only experience true love, Only in a dream at night. A feeling merely experienced once, In over dozens years of inner ramblings, In a dream's might. I speak with followers and consultants regularly, But only rarely, A true friend. For friends kill time I use for a more noble end. I can endure this, as I have sworn to do, It's worth it, in the end, To use this life as a mere vessel, For something truly greater, worthier, than myself. Solitude has made me a colder man, And even though it pains me so, I regret it not. I no longer see the reason, To be nameless, with shorts and a tank top, Standing near a nameless counterpart, with equal attire, When I can become, My heart's greatest desire. Those who wish me to abandon, to ghost and leave, Other than this -- I have little else, for, to live. From the birth of year to its eve, All I desire, is to be informative. I thus abandon one else -- the illusory sensation, Presented to me by the subconscious, And might as well never feel much again, However, at least I can say, That there was little waste. I will, therefore, embrace the cold, And prepare myself, to be served as a feast, Of all follower-material, From West to East. North and South.. A philosopher is what I am all about.

(Background music) Raise yourselves in such a way that spending time with yourselves does not feel like loneliness. -- Andrei Tarkovsky Being alone is a skill. It is an art that is recommended for all of us to practice for the sake of our maturity and independence. For many, being alone is not an easy task. It can cause fear, stress, anxiety, and depression. Some may even fear dying alone more than death in general. What is this fear? This fear is the fear of feeling and being lonely. When loneliness is felt, it is sensed like a deep inner void inside your body, sucking away all your happiness. Being alone is similar to horsemanship. The more you are in control of yourself, the less likely you are to fall into the painful, hot ground you're traveling on. The less stable you are on the back of the horse, the more tension you will feel in your muscles. You must be stable, mentally stable, or else you will collapse into deep suffering. And when you suffer under the cruel sun, no one, at least for a while, might come to aid you in your misery. It is only sensible to depend less on others, emotionally, in order to be better off alone. This can help you rely less on other people on that aspect even when you're not physically alone. Thus, the art of being alone is the art of being mentally resilient as a single entity. Here are some tips for practicing the art of being alone: Start by spending short periods of time alone each day. Gradually increase the amount of time you spend alone until you are comfortable with it. Find activities that you enjoy doing alone. This could include reading, writing, listening to music, or spending time in nature. Challenge yourself to be more independent. This could mean doing things like cooking for yourself, going to a coffee shop on your lonesome, or going to the movies alone. Learning to be alone takes time and practice. Be patient with yourself. Don't get discouraged if you feel uncomfortable at first. Just keep practicing, and eventually you will find that being alone is not so bad after all. Another point to be recognized is that people are, naturally, company. You can also be considered under the category of “people.” Therefore, you too are company, and if you are alone, you are in the company of one. You will always have yourself to be with. Just like being with a romantic partner, there is also the relationship of the individual with themselves. There is, for example, who they are, and who they want to be, otherwise known as the ideal self. This relationship is like every other human relationship that it is possible to think about. Like with every relationship, issues are always potential to occur. However, this relationship is often ignored, if recognized at all. You are the rider and the horse altogether. In seclusion, you ought to be both the navigating leader and the stabilized means of transportation. This is a cooperation of one as a unit on its own, with a demand for toughening up as means of progression and preservation. It isn't for the weak or for those who have no desire to become stronger in mind. Whether alone in a hermitage or in a noisy bus, seclusion is universally possible, from the quietest of valleys to the noisiest of metropolises. The more you are at peace and love yourself, the better your own company will be. Spend some quality time with yourself, show yourself some love, and practice monologue with yourself, whether in speech, writing, or thought. Gradually, your own company has the potential to become the ideal company you could ever imagine, so much so that social interactions will become less of a need and more of an option. Alex Mos's Feedback Being alone is often associated with a physical lack of human company, but this is not always true. Loneliness can be a state of mind, an inability to connect and stay connected. It can originate with feelings of alienation from the people around you, even if they are trying to reach you. It's simple because some people are different from others and don't fit into society and its normative relationships. However, it also can be a symptom of depression. Finding joy in a lonely life comes easier for some than for others. The condition for overcoming loneliness is loving yourself, as you must like your company to enjoy it, appreciate it, and treat yourself respectfully. You must be strong, as taking care of yourself requires physical and mental strength, similar to taking care of another. The key to being alone is to keep yourself busy. Boredom is the enemy of the intellect, and you will feel miserable if your mind can't entertain you. Another important aspect is the development of discipline and healthy habits because nobody is around to motivate you to stay active and fit. Having a pet can be fulfilling and uplifting. Another option is to get an AI app; however, AI can only imitate and never replace human connection. In the art of being alone, it's essential to realize that loneliness has become a new "norm" worldwide. The Internet connects us, and there are millions of lonely people out there. Some might be similar to you, so finding and connecting with them is worth trying. After all, we are humans, programmed for social interaction and love.