The Search Bar

The Directory How To Understand the Joker: The Anti-Philosopher "The Cult of Kefka" -- Nihilism as a Spectrum -- How Nihilism Can Turn Destructive Drawing the Line in Rubinshteinic Individualism (And Philosocom's Directory on the MOTHER 3 Video Game) The Tragedy of Heisenberg (A "Breaking Bad" Inspired Poem) The Philosophy of the Galactic Empire -- Why Oppression Isn't the Way to Rule Recognition of "Force" -- The Philosophy of Razor Reapkvar The Zanetti Clan Philosophy -- How To Live and Die by Power "The Caligula Effect" -- Attempting to Explain Unreasonable Subordination The Demon Philosopher - A Tale -- How Philosophy Transforms Sisyphus and Jason Voorhees: Embracing Monotony Philosophical Complementary on Silent hill 2 (By Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac) Trying to Understand a Narcissist's Rationale (Captain Quark Character Analysis) The Drug Lords Fallacy -- The Philosophy of Moritz Zimmerman's Redemption -- Why We Need to Work On Ourselves Over Getting Power The Philosopher Who Became a School Shooter -- The Paradox of "Voluntary Natural Selection" The Philosopher Who Attempted to Overthrow The Japanese Army -- How Philosophy Can Be Practical Into the Mind of the Dark Ascetic Master, Heihachi Mishima of Tekken (And Directory) https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-the-bigshot-and-why-wise-guys-are-dangerous https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-humane-origins-of-corruption-graham-cray-character-analysis (Background music) Galactus: The Cosmic Devourer A certain video game I played has introduced me to one of the most powerful characters in the history of fiction, a cosmic god called Galactus . In short, he is a seemingly omnipotent entity who is neither good nor bad necessarily, but the fact that he needs to devour worlds in order to sustain himself puts him on the villainous side. There was a certain anecdote I found, where some other character told him it's wrong because what he's doing is mass murder, Galactus replied: "Is it genocide to tread upon an anthill?" A Cosmic Carnivore Galactus is only "evil" due to his necessity to consume worlds and, thus, kill countless beings who are but bits of nutrition to him. If his hunger wasn't powerful enough to demand the lives of countless civilizations , then he could've been perhaps less evil, if evil at all. In the past, I have regarded evil as a concept that is done out of maliciousness, with maliciousness being inflicting suffering or damage on others on purpose. However, when you need to destroy entire worlds and the species in them just to survive, the original definition of evil that I've given it becomes problematic. He's nothing more than a force of nature, but in fiction he's done far greater harm than the most evil of real-life humans. That's without the necessary malicious intentions said humans need to have, to be evil. It is not the case where you're evil while you think you're doing the right thing, like Hitler and the Nazis thought; Galactus is an example of a character that is evil simply due to a drive that exists in all of us -- the drive of hunger. How strange it is, indeed, to be evil incarnate and a cosmic horror just because you're hungry. In a sense, Galactus is very human, or simply very biologic. He does what all organisms would do if they had an hunger as big as his. He has an inherent drive to survive, a drive strong enough to keep him away from putting himself in harm's way, and thus, he obeys the biological imperative to keep being alive. The only reason, therefore, for his "evil", is because he is in a cosmic rank of the universe's food chain. It exists in any carnivore animal, as well as it exists in us humans, or at least in those who choose to not be vegetarian. I was vegetarian for years , but eventually gave up on it because the replacements to meat didn't make me satisfied. Thus, with a portion of regret, I returned to eating meat to this day. If I was a less hungry person, I would've considered more seriously returning to being a vegetarian. If I had an even smaller hunger, I might even consider becoming a vegan, who knows! Hunger, Morality, and the Cosmic Scale The reason why I brought up this character is because he reminds me of myself a bit. Countless chickens were slaughtered for my satiation, and even if I didn't eat or order them, someone else would've. The same goes for fish and any other biological corpse I've eaten throughout my life, and made me become the mountain of a man I am today. Many of us humans are "evil" due to the same reasoning Galactus is -- because we are far superior on the food chain, compared to other beings in this world. Furthermore, others are hungrier than others, and therefore would depend on meat more than others. Hunger and appetite is pretty much an individual case that also exists beyond orthodox points of view.  You might find yourself needing to drink Coca cola because you might lack sugar, for example. That is despite the health risks of this drink. You might find yourself needing to drink some sugar-filled drink because of lack of glucose! Yet, back to my example, I can understand the logic behind vegetarianism because I used to be one myself. No matter how one would put it, the demand for meat is the demand of murder. Of cows, chickens, fish and so on. I am quite envious of those who are able to exist outside this demand, but I'm afraid I cannot even if I wanted to; a meatless life for me is a life with hunger, and I am a very hungry person, as taller people need to consume more calories. Hunger, therefore, when it comes to organisms, is a necessary evil, just as it is in the wilderness. The reasons why animals hunt for their prey isn't to have fun but to ensure the possibility of living another day, hence why when you're a carnivore, someone has to be sacrificed for your survival, and that, you see, is the basic horror of consuming meat -- that for some, not necessarily humans, murder must be committed. Are all carnivores evil creatures? Be reasonable, please. If Galactus is simply at a planetary-scale size, and is a carnivore... does that make him evil for seeking to survive by eating planets? The alternative is of course one's own death . The best thing a cosmic world eater can do in the name of good is to kill themselves, since doing so would mean that countless other lives would be spared. However, survival-wise, that would be a dumb idea even if the logic behind it is correct. It is similar to the classic train dilemma in moral philosophy -- would you choose to kill a single person or a group of people? Only, in this case, the former would be you instead, sacrificed for the greater good, against your own biological imperative to survive. This is... quite a dark topic to discuss, I understand, but philosophizing sometimes leads to this, hence why I find it extremely difficult to be kid friendly even though I don't write about adult-related stuff. Perhaps due to the fact that death can at times be a dominant topic in philosophy, it is not an ideal thing for children to study. Socrates, the father of western philosophy, basically sacrificed his life by drinking poisonous wine in the name of his values. Nietzsche spent the last decade of his life in a psychiatric ward after he had a severe mental breakdown; Diogenes was a disgusting homeless guy who urinated in public. You can't just expect philosophy to be kid-friendly when something fatal, ugly, or dark is discussed, because that's very hard. You see, kids need to be sheltered from the darker shades of reality ( like from violence ) in order to grow mentally healthy. And philosophy, I'm afraid, is not for those who wish or need to be sheltered from existence. This is why I'm against trigger warnings , and why there might be times where I would offend someone even if I didn't intend to at all. the person themselves would be offended indirectly. It's because social conventions are also a tool to shelter us from uncomfortable truths. Such cowardice. From Galactus to Ourselves Thus, when characters such as Galactus are analyzed, it would be difficult to do so in front of children, simply because this character can reveal to us the horror of being eaten, or having your existence sacrificed for someone else who needs you dead and consumed. And that is why, perhaps, children might want to regard other beings, such as animals, as, you know, beings. As creatures that think and have feelings, too. If we truly care for other beings, we would not go in the carnivore-ish path of Galactus, the World Eater, and we won't eat much of the world ourselves, as we currently do. No. We would have a greater empathic capacity, necessary to understand the suffering of others, and not disregard it. For morality lies in the reduction of another's suffering. But how can we do that when many of us lack the emotional intelligence, required for empathy? And as long as we will have an increasing lack of empathy, we will resume arguing with each other, heatedly and unnecessarily, on the smallest of subjects in a pseudo-masochistic manner, until we're sore. So much suffering in reality can be taken care of with empathy and compassion as well... Galactus doesn't have a choice. Why do we not as well?

(For the directory on success, click here ) (Background music) ****************** The main insight as to how I became a successful writer, without going into the personal aspect of myself, can be summarized in one sentence that every dream-seeker should remember regularly: No one is going to care unless you give them a reason to care! In school, I learned a very important lesson: To sit and suffer while someone else is talking and screaming. That is how you become successful in a world run by dictatorships. It was a dumb lesson to learn, since this world is mostly run by democracies and by private enterprises. However, it is important if you wish to fade into the shadows, be remembered by as little people as possible, and let someone else have all the success, attention, and appreciation that the world has to offer. And it can generously offer it to anyone brave enough to exceed beyond the limiting dogmas often taught by socialization to keep people in line. Hence the virtue of excessiveness . Give society a good reason to care by preparing yourself to experience undesired results, such as insults, mockery , and even racism at times . Once you are strong enough to accept their inevitable possibility in every endeavor, your chances of success will increase significantly. The product you provide to the world should not only be suggested, but encouraged, in a non-forceful manner. Make them believe they have a good reason to pause their lives and dedicate themselves to the consumption of your product. Create within them the desire to be benefited from what you have to offer, and be mature enough to accept that some people may be displeased , since pleasing everyone is not always possible. Therefore, you should make the world care about you and your product. If you do not have the willpower to do so , and face disappointments and even the possibility of pain, just as unjust. You might as well remain the same school student who suffers someone else's yells in the silence of the unconfident. But should you, when you are prone to suffer as all humans do, each to their own degree? While you're at it at being alive, at least you can do something useful with this pain, and conquer your true ambitions. Humanity might not understand or even care for your pain (even though it cares for its own). However, the best thing you can do to mentally survive in such a reality is to become successful, for the honor of accomplishment is better than no honor nor true love , which is rare. It is lonely at the top , but at least you'll be remembered for something. It's better than to suffer in silence. Fail to make your consumers care, and you'll be left whining in isolation about who you could've became, AKA the ideal self , but failed. And the burden of demonstrating them what you're truly capable o f lies on your shoulders alone as the bare necessity. And my success is expressed by proving my worth to my worldwide readers after I decided to become relentlessly altruistic . And the moral way to become successful is to never underestimate the external world and what you can give to it, and the potential of making it, wanting to be given your content/product. Customer/consumer is king for a reason. And without ruthless work towards success, the odds would mostly be against you, in a world driven by competition for limited resources/assets. And the best way to succeed is expressed when the ideal self correlates with collective demand for your product/service. Recognize your ideal self, work towards it, find a niche that correlates with it, and prove your worth to your clients. "How I Became Successful" shares my journey of overcoming challenges, learning key strategies, and achieving my goals.

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

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) Poem Analysis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "Lurk In the Dark" is a profound poem that explores themes of alienation, identity, and societal rejection. It can be analyzed through various lenses, including existentialism, the nature of suffering, and the concept of moral darkness. The poem reflects existential concerns about individual significance and the meaning of one's existence in the face of societal indifference . The speaker's retreat from the social sphere suggests a feeling of alienation and marginalization, aligning with existentialist themes of isolation and the search for self-identity. The poem also delves into the nature of suffering and how it is often dismissed or overlooked by society. Mr. Tomasio acknowledges his pain and decides not to "burn them down," reflecting a nuanced understanding of suffering. This approach echoes philosophical ideas about the nature of suffering and its role in personal growth. The poem also engages with the concept of moral darkness, presenting the phrase "lurk in the dark" as a metaphor for embracing one's inner struggles and using them for personal growth rather than seeking external validation. The reference to " Grandma's word to be realized" introduces a traditional wisdom that encourages the constructive use of one's inner darkness, suggesting that the author's journey through darkness is not without purpose and can lead to redemption or self-actualization. The poem critiques societal norms that marginalize those who do not fit conventional molds , highlighting a failure in societal structures to accommodate and embrace diversity. The final lines suggest that despite societal failings, the writer's work and perseverance in the dark might eventually lead to a form of personal and philosophical redemption, reflecting a belief in the possibility of finding meaning and purpose despite systemic rejection.   (Inspired Theme) The Poem If you're down and deemed irrelevant, Why don't you put an end to it and become prevalent? Lurk in the dark. Society rejects your existence, And will live on regardless of your mental state. Lurk in the dark. Tempted to burn them down just to feel some warmth. But you know that then you'll be wearing their own stained coats, (Weakness up the throat). So instead you've decided to transform, Into a being who is no longer their shunned form. And lurk in the dark. For pain is unheard, thus ignored, But suffer not forevermore! Realize what you have in store, When you admit your inner roar! Darkness, morally utilized, A better world , Grandma's word to be realized. Apprentices have rowed! Happy alone while lying low! Friends left me in my depression, They are blind to my own self-oppression. I lurk in the dark. And as my heart was wide in light, It refused to go down to malice without a fight. So I stay in the dark. They didn't care for my care and for my sorrow. Tom thus died by the hands of Tomasio. .. (I'm a shadow). And for the sake of not traumatizing, This world with the dark I've been discovering... I lurk in the dark. Only through mastery I think I'll be able, Redeem the fault of being too weird , thus "disabled" (Saving I was able...) Society could've adopt better philosophies, But instead it creates its own antagonists. Lurk in the dark. Lurk in the dark. Lurk in the dark. Lurk in the dark.

Whatever Life Throws -- Theme of Perseverance (Background music) Whatever life throws, I endure. My strength is my cure. I am strong not poor I will endure everything That life throws at me, Whatever, I'll see it through, That I will pass through it soon, In morning, evening or afternoon. Whatever life throws I endure , Hardship goes without whine, Hardship I eat and dine, Whatever life throws it is mine, To conquer and overcome, To conquer and overcome, To conquer and overcome. To conquer and overcome. Can't give up just yet, can't give up just yet, Overcoming adversity , my mind is set, To pass every storm like steel-plated jet, To survive and overcome, until the day is done. I will overcome whatever until I'll be happy, I will endure anything, until I will be serene. I will overcome whatever until peace is found, I will endure anything, on this earth which I am bound. I cannot answer, to defeatism, I cannot answer, to escapism, I will endure whatever until peace is found, I will endure whatever on this earth which I am bound. Whatever life throws, I endure. My strength is my cure. I am strong not poor I will endure everything That life throws at me, Whatever, I'll see it through, That I will pass through it soon, In morning, evening or afternoon. Whatever life throws I endure, Hardship goes without whine, Hardship I eat and dine, Whatever life throws it is mine, To conquer and overcome, To conquer and overcome, To conquer and overcome. To conquer and overcome. Can't give up just yet, can't give up just yet, Overcoming adversity, my mind is set, To pass every storm like steel-plated jet, To survive and overcome, until the day is done. I will overcome whatever until I'll be happy, I will endure anything, until I will be serene. I will overcome whatever until peace is found, I will endure anything, on this earth which I am bound. I cannot answer, to defeatism, I cannot answer, to escapism, I will endure whatever until peace is found, I will endure whatever on this earth which I am bound. Whatever life throws, I endure. My strength is my cure. I am strong not poor I will endure everything That life throws at me, Whatever, I'll see it through, That I will pass through it soon.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Celebrities, primarily created in the entertainment sector, are contemporary elites who enjoy privileges and socio-economic status similar to those once reserved for "nobility." Their worth is mainly measured by the quantity of their active followers and fame, not by their contribution to humanity. The problem arises when celebrities are given privileges above others. Because of their popularity, superstars may enjoy privileges lesser-known folk don't have. Celebrity status shouldn't exempt anybody from civil duties; a person’s worth should be measured by merit and productivity, not fame. (Background music) Why Celebrities Shouldn't Be Privileged "Sadly, the perceived worth of good ideas is completely dependant upon the popularity of the one that shares them" -- John Duran Even with the major irrelevance of nobility, who used to manage the world by monarchies and oligarchies , it seems that today an alternative replacement has been created by humanity and by social media's popularity. It's a "nobility" so idolized that it can literally create "cults" of followers , in both a literal and usual sense of the word (AKA, people that support common franchises ). Most will probably not be remembered historically, due to the swift changes of contemporary relevance. Others might find themselves victims of their own misdeeds, their legacies forever stained by their moral sins, and be deemed infamous beyond redemption. Regardless, it is safe to assume that this contemporary social elite class is probably one of the most privileged socio-economic statuses on the planet today, only second to global leaders and national leaders and their families. Our recent ancestors used to call them " idols ", " rock stars ", "legends", and so on, mostly for their talent in either acting, music, or any other type of mainstream entertainment fields. However, a more-general term for this new type of pseudo-nobility and pseudo-royalty is "celebrities". (Note: It is possible to even become a celebrity in intellectual fields such as philosophy. Jordan Peterson is considered very much to be a philosophy icon/idol, etc.) We have come to the days where the worth of a "celebrity" is not measured by their merit or by their cultural contribution to humanity, but mostly by their amount and engagement of followers, by their fame, and by their ability of grabbing our attention to the point of greater relevance. With the increasing dominance of social media in our lives , anyone has the potential to become a celebrity at one point or another, long term or temporarily. Anyone with a computer and/or a phone who is appealing enough to attract a large audience of virtual followers can, in a short period of time, become so "important" that their content has the potential to affect the lives of countless people worldwide, regardless of the target audience. And of course, that effect can be monetized. The "importance" of their influence is all well and good , but in my opinion, the problem arises when that importance gives them privileges no other person would have. This problem only reinforces the sense of pseudo-nobility in their individual lives and in society as a whole. I also call it a pseudo-nobility because nobility is usually hereditary.  Contemporary celebrities/pseudo-nobilities are, however, made rather than born. AKA, gain by the merit of appeal. They do so through content creation. And in contemporary times, it matters less, unfortunately, the quality or substance of a content piece. What matters, in this competitive world, is attention-grabbing . But, I digress. Now, giving someone a privileged status simply because they are extremely popular and well-known, in a democratic country that is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law , can theoretically be considered as support of the country to the foundation and empowerment of the contemporary pseudo-nobility. It is ironic because truly democratic societies would not give social privileges to specific demographics. Such privileges belonged to the true nobility of old, and were one of the ways that made them distinguished from the "common folk" By letting celebrities be above the law where they should not, the law can lead to the rise of a new type of nobility/royalty. This future type is no longer "pseudo", but is official and written in black and white. It creates a normalized sense of superiority and might where such a sense should not exist in a society that should treat everyone as no worse and no better than any other citizen and/or resident. Much less so by social status, luxurious or otherwise. What should we think of this? Should we think that having more followers on social media, a TV show, a public performance, and so on, deserve to give us privileges that the rest of the citizenry don't have? Should we use renown as a means to an end, such as being exempt from certain activities and features in society, purely because of our popularity? Should we try to become famous not for the sake of being famous, but as a way to skip over obligations that are considered by any other citizen? I argue that the worth of a person should not be measured by whether or not they are a celebrity, nor by whether or not they have an immense number of followers or otherwise. In a world devoid of nobility-class elements, the worth of a person would be best measured by merit and productivity; merit and productivity that exist regardless of their popularity. As such, there are jobs that are far more productive than other jobs that are luxurious in comparison (like working in a gaming facility) . Should humanity ever come to a point where a new nobility is born out of social media, let us not forget the logical fallacy known as the ad populum fallacy – the fact that more people support something or someone does not make them more right than someone else. Democracy indicates who is fit to lead in the eyes of the people. It does not mean that the majority are the most reliable source on what is true and what's not. In conclusion , in a democratic entity, even if you are a well-known person with a celebrity status, you should in no way be above the demands of the law just because of your national or global renown. You are still a citizen, or at least a resident, in a country that should grant privileges that are granted by fame. After all, no one needs to be above the law in a proper democracy.

(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). (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) Funny, when I gave up all hope of success and happiness, I finally learned how to actually LIVE. That which often destroys others -- hopelessness, actually saved me -- Mr. John Duran How to Find Hope In Despair -- A Poem I expect everyone to respect me and vice versa, But I in no way expect to be loved by the world , Even if I try to do the latter myself. I expect everyone to tolerate me and vice versa, But I in no way expect to be loved by the world, Even if I try to do the latter myself. I expect to try and be in good relations with everyone, But I don't expect others to not be hostile with me, Even if I don't want to be treated with hostility. Based on my experiences as an autist, I know that I am extremely, socially dumb ; Permanent lack of intelligence in said field. Hence why, even when I'm to be respected and tolerated, I do not see any reason to expect, Love and sympathy, When I am a social thorn in, Quote-on-quote, "Everyone's" side. This insight is my own. Looking back, I am not surprised to have, Far more readers, Than actual friends . Whether it is my fault or not, My autism is a great flaw, And from this flaw there is no escape, So I don't even try. The call to be "less" autistic, And the claim that I'm "too" autistic, Have no practical solution thus far in this current humanity. Practically, the ambition to escape my own brain, The one that cannot be cured, Has no reason to be successfully implemented, For I am condemned by neurology to be trapped in my own, Social idiocy. I don't mind, Dying alone and socially outcasted, As long as I contribute with the Compromise of Philosocom . Even when my corpse will be six feet under, I don't see the reason to be too concerned with others', Unintended, Triggered reactions, When my disability cannot be cured, When my problem lacks definitive solutions. Even hoping for a solution, Won't necessarily ensure, The existence of such solution, In my lifetime. I'm not even a scientist. Sad, indeed, But I can't do anything, So I no longer even try. Not try to improve, Not try to give in to impractical emotion. Being accused due to my own disability, Has no reason to be entertained, When said complaints cannot be solved nor redeemed. I can give in to it as much as I would like, To loneliness , to sadness and alienation. It will bare no fruit; No fruit that I want, No fruit that you theoretically would want. I don't see reason to be bored in solitude, When I am to be a general outcast. I don't see the reason to regard people as mere friends, When they can easily detest me, For the dysfunction I am. With this computer at hand, My place in humanity will have less reason To be denied. If an orthodox life is to be denied, I can seek the unorthodox instead; THAT I can try. So I do not see any reason, To not dedicate my whole existence, For this very purpose! Global Relevance, dead or alive, Is m-m-m-mine. Does it matter, if I'm "fine"? I can't be f-f-f-ine. Write, until I die? ... Until I d-d-d-ie. ************************* Inspired Melody: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUwJjAwud5g

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Culture) Article Summary By An Old Hermit (Creative Exercise) Back in my day, folks talked about ruling the world all the time with all these villains in the comic books. Anyways Classic conquerors like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, they thought they were bringing order with their big armies. But listen here, the world's a rich weave of different cultures and ways of life. You try to force one rule on it all, you rip those threads apart. Think about it. Each place has its own customs, its own spirit. You take that away, you take away the heart of what makes them who they are. Besides, too much power in one hand is a recipe for trouble. It corrupts, just like old apples rot. Remember the old emperors who silenced anyone who disagreed? Not exactly a recipe for a happy world. The real answer lies in cooperation, in working together. We may be different, but we all share this big blue marble of a planet. Let folks have their own voices, their own ways, and come together when needed. That's the path to a world that thrives, not one that's just another tyrant's plaything. Introduction The pursuit of world domination has long captivated human ambition, from ancient empires to modern superpowers. Often fueled by the belief in a single, idealized form of governance or ideology, the idea of unifying the world under one central power is both alluring and controversial. History reveals countless attempts by leaders to expand their influence globally, each one motivated by the vision of a world where a single authority would ostensibly bring peace, order, and progress. But despite these promises, the reality of world domination raises significant questions: What might be lost in the pursuit of a unified world? Can any singular system adequately represent and serve humanity's incredible diversity, or... Would it inevitably stifle the unique voices and identities that compose our global tapestry? For every argument in favor of a singular governing force, there exists an equally strong argument against it—rooted in the values of freedom , diversity, and the ethical right of communities to shape their own futures. This article aims to unpack the multiple dimensions—the philosophical, psychological, and practical—surrounding the concept of world domination, arguing that its pursuit often leads not to harmony but to oppression and loss of essential human virtues. By examining historical motivations, ideological clashes, and potential risks , we explore why a centralized world authority is less an answer to humanity’s challenges and more a threat to its fundamental values... Part I: Philosophical Examination of World Domination Historical Motivations and Ethical Implications Throughout history, world domination has taken various forms, from physical conquest by empires to ideological expansion by religious and political movements. Leaders like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, who sought to unite vast territories under one rule, claimed to bring civilization and progress. In more recent history, the spread of particular ideologies—such as capitalism , communism , and democracy—demonstrates how the drive for dominance can persist even in more abstract forms. The ethical implications of world domination are profound. From a moral standpoint, the pursuit of a single global authority conflicts with principles like autonomy, self-determination, and individual freedoms. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant emphasized the value of human beings as ends in themselves, not as means to the aims of a ruler or ideology. World domination, by contrast, tends to commodify societies and individuals, treating them as pieces of a larger system rather than as entities with intrinsic worth and agency. Ideological Clashes and Resistance Another critical philosophical argument against world domination is rooted in the diversity of ideologies and belief systems. Each culture holds unique values, perspectives, and practices that contribute to humanity’s collective wisdom . Attempts to impose a single ideology ignore this plurality, erasing the richness that arises from differences. The unification of the world under one authority is fundamentally at odds with this diversity, as it requires either suppressing or subsuming various viewpoints into a monolithic framework. Furthermore, philosophers like Karl Popper advocated for an “open society,” where individuals are free to question authority and propose alternative ideas . An open society, by definition, cannot coexist with a system of world domination, which relies on uniformity and central control. If one entity dictates all social, political, and economic decisions, dissenting voices are either ignored or actively silenced, stifling the innovation and debate that drive human progress. Part II: Psychological Analysis The Psychological Appeal and Fallacies of World Domination The psychological allure of world domination often lies in the promise of control over chaos and unpredictability. Humans are naturally drawn to stability, and the idea of a world where one authority can maintain order appeals to those who view diversity and change as sources of fear or confusion. This desire for predictability, however, can lead to cognitive distortions like the “illusion of control,” where leaders believe they can govern complex, multifaceted societies as though they were uniform. Moreover, the “savior complex” or “I know best” fallacy is a recurring psychological pitfall for those who seek world domination. Leaders who believe they alone have the wisdom to direct humanity’s future often overlook the value of collaborative and democratic decision-making. This perspective dehumanizes others by reducing them to passive recipients of authority rather than active participants in shaping their societies. Psychologists argue that such authoritarian mindsets fail to recognize the strength and resilience of diverse communities, who thrive best when allowed to self-govern and determine their destinies. Human Agency and Autonomy World domination also represents a significant infringement on human agency, the power of individuals and communities to make choices that shape their lives. We should emphasize the importance of autonomy in promoting well-being and mental health. People feel a stronger sense of fulfillment and purpose when they believe their actions matter and contribute to a shared future. A centralized global authority, however, risks undermining this by reducing people to subjects who must follow rules and directives from an unapproachable source of power. This erosion of agency can lead to what psychologists call “ learned helplessness ,” where individuals feel powerless to effect change and become passive in the face of adversity. Over time, this mindset erodes a community's motivation to improve its conditions, as people see their contributions as meaningless under an all-encompassing authority. Such psychological impacts further undermine the social fabric, leading to resentment, apathy, and, eventually, resistance against the imposed authority. Part III: Practical and Ethical Counterarguments Impact on Cultural Diversity A single governing authority inevitably risks suppressing cultural diversity. In the pursuit of efficiency and unity, a dominant power might prioritize uniform policies that marginalize unique languages, customs, and traditions. Cultural diversity, however, is more than a mere collection of differences; it represents humanity’s collective experience, wisdom, and creativity. When a central authority promotes a singular cultural narrative, it silences countless voices and deprives the world of alternative ways of thinking and problem-solving. Real-world examples of such marginalization can be seen in colonial histories, where indigenous languages and traditions were suppressed in favor of the colonizer’s culture. Similarly, modern globalizing forces can sometimes lead to cultural homogenization, where regional identities fade in favor of a single, dominant culture. Preserving cultural diversity is not merely an ethical imperative but a practical one as well, as it fosters creativity, adaptability, and resilience. Economic and Environmental Consequences On a practical level, a single world authority would likely struggle to address the diverse economic needs of different regions. Policies that benefit one area might devastate another due to varying resources, climates, and socio-economic conditions. For example, a policy aimed at maximizing industrial productivity might harm agrarian regions, and vice versa. Furthermore, without the adaptive flexibility of localized governance, a central authority may inadvertently worsen economic inequality , creating imbalances that fuel resentment and unrest. Environmental consequences are equally concerning. A central power with unchecked authority might prioritize short-term economic growth over environmental sustainability, exploiting natural resources without regard to regional ecosystems. Decentralized governance allows for tailored environmental policies that consider the specific needs of different areas, promoting more sustainable resource management. By contrast, a one-size-fits-all approach risks exacerbating environmental degradation on a global scale, creating ecological crises that undermine humanity’s long-term survival. Potential for Abuse and Corruption The risk of corruption under a centralized authority cannot be overstated. Absolute power, as Lord Acton famously stated, tends to corrupt absolutely. Historical examples abound of centralized powers abusing their position, from silencing opposition to exploiting resources for personal gain. In such a structure, accountability diminishes, and the ruling authority can act with impunity, knowing that there is little risk of repercussion. For instance, authoritarian regimes are often marked by censorship, propaganda, and a lack of transparency , as seen in various historical and contemporary examples. Without the checks and balances provided by independent institutions and regional authorities, a world-dominating power is likely to prioritize its preservation over the well-being of its people. This susceptibility to corruption ultimately undermines the very stability that world domination seeks to establish. Part IV: Alternative Models of Unity and Governance Balanced Alternatives to World Domination Rather than pursuing world domination, humanity could achieve global cooperation through federative or cooperative models. Federations, alliances, and international partnerships enable collaboration on global issues—such as climate change, human rights , and security—while respecting regional autonomy. The European Union, with its combination of shared policies and national sovereignty, demonstrates that unity does not require uniformity. These structures allow for collaboration without eroding local identities, creating a balanced model of global governance. The Role of Technology in Empowering Autonomy In today’s digital era, technology enables decentralized and democratic governance more than ever before. Through the internet and digital communication, people can connect and collaborate across borders, addressing global challenges without a need for a single authority. Initiatives like the United Nations or international climate agreements illustrate that cooperation is possible without domination. Technology empowers people to exchange ideas, share resources, and work collectively while preserving their unique perspectives and cultures. Conclusion In conclusion, while world domination may offer an illusion of order and simplicity, it fails to address the complexity and diversity of humanity. By infringing on autonomy, stifling cultural richness, and risking corruption, world domination poses ethical and practical dangers that outweigh any theoretical benefits. Instead, decentralized and cooperative approaches allow humanity to address global issues while honoring the values of freedom, diversity, and shared responsibility. The future of a harmonious global society lies not in dominance but in collaboration and respect for diversity. Through voluntary partnerships and mutual respect, humanity can forge a path toward unity that celebrates rather than suppresses the uniqueness of each culture and community. In embracing this approach, we pave the way for a truly inclusive and resilient world order. Sources https://www.quora.com/Was-Adolf-Hitler-in-over-his-head-trying-to-rule-the-world/answer/John-Cate-2 https://qr.ae/pyTVzf Criticism by Alex Mos: In the current political, and economic setting and human mental development, I agree that conquerors of the world would encounter huge governing problems and might fail as leaders of such a diverse nation. Yet, I believe that Civilisation Type 1 will rise one day if we survive as a species to that day. The United Earth would be technologically advanced to such an extent that many problems named in the article would be solved or no longer exist. Weather control would enable Earthlings to harvest everywhere in the most efficient way and AI robots would be a new labor force while human life would concentrate more on self-improvement than on economic concurrence. Nationalism would turn to Earth as a home rather than to regions as planet resources would be distributed equally to all - with advances in technology. Such a Utopian dream might become reality one day. However, I’m afraid that this only would be possible after a disaster of epic proportions like a nuclear war or a cataclysm reducing population drastically and -- in the most idealistic outcome -- becoming the ground for a new human civilization type 1.

The Rubinshteinic Paradigm To Foster Your Best Audience Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article : The Rubinshteinic Paradigm To Foster Your Best Audience, Mr. Rubinshtein is delivering to us his tips and tricks about how to implement and attract a valuable audience for the purpose of enabling a site as his to be growing with a steady pace and become a valuable attractive site worth reaching! One must be prepared to be patient and take his or her time in order to build a valuable site; understanding always, always has to come from the other side… Consequently, be prepared to adjust your content in order to reach the other person with whom you wish to share some valuable content! You help others, you help yourself. That's the theory of unity. Mastering an art as this one of producing a site of values means dedicating some time and spending a lot of time re-adjusting accordingly… (Background music) (Philosocom Directory on Communication) Part I: The Heart of The Issue The most effective communication stems from genuine desire. By genuine desire, I mean, in a way that comes not from you, but from the other side. In the art of communication, understanding always, always has to come from the other side. For the other side to understand you, you need to encourage them to do it in the first place. For that, you actually need to develop something called a "Theory of mind" towards the other person. Based on whatever data you have on your audience... Try to understand how you would approach them in a way that will make them want to listen to you/consume your content. For the highly advanced, you can develop unconventional methods to attract your audience. I'm a mastermind . Masterminds are mysterious as much as philosophers are. I develop several techniques and plan on the long term using abstract concepts. You plan a way to attract and focus on the long term. That's because dedication takes sacrifice, and the sacrifice most often is literally the ability to be patient. Like a hunter in the woods, you can literally make the other side come to you. The more you make the other side be attracted, the more you can avoid battles. The more you avoid petty battles with others, the more you can rest. Never overexert yourself too much or it will ruin your health. You ought to be calculated because "slow and steady wins the race". Hastiness only destroys. Conflicts necessarily destroy. Harmony and peace are key to develop long term plans effectively. That includes attracting your audience. The Perceived Disregard An audience that listens, reads, or watches out of obligation will be disengaged and ineffective. A smaller, enthusiastic audience is far more valuable than a large, indifferent one. People can easily feel you're being arrogant over them because you may talk to them without understanding them. They feel that towards you, they forsake you. Developing a theory of mind is imperative in order to build the content matrix you want to see in this world. You have to consider them, occasionally more than yourself. You work on yourself, then your personal issues become less and less of a problem. This Principle Of Quality Over Quantity is Evident in the Classroom: Students often learn passively due to compulsory attendance, regardless of the material's value. Students can easily be disloyal and rebellious because they feel they are not seen for who they are. Successful communication requires effective "marketing" to cultivate genuine interest. Part II: Materialization 101 To be an effective communicator, you must present your message with emotionless passion and compelling reasoning. This makes the material not just valuable, but also attractive and desirable. The value of content does not automatically translate to audience engagement. As written, it takes time. A lot... a lot of time. Even in distraction-free environments, internal distractions like thoughts and emotions can diminish attention. This explains why we often forget much of what we learn in school, as much of our memory is personal, therefore nostalgic mainly to us. As one can deduce, personal problems literally interfere with what is considered conventional success. Conventional success means whatever the context your local folk would see you as successful. Conventional success is not necessarily your success. You literally need to think with yourself, what is the success you want to get in this world. Success may comply you to work extremely hard per your ambitions. Please prepare yourself accordingly. Often times, the sacrifice you're making is your own happiness. You fail your way to success. Failure is difficult but inevitable. Part III: The Essence of Loyalty The focus should be on building a loyal audience, not just a large one. Yes, even loyalty takes time. Loyalty is gained by demonstrating your content's worth to the world. Writing philosophy articles is literally an art form. You have an artist's mentality, you can then develop your content to unexpected heights. You have a soldier's mentality, you then can complete tasks more effectively. Why is a loyal audience crucial? Impact:  Loyal followers are more likely to be deeply impacted by your message, engage with you, and contribute to your vision of success. Influence:  They actively spread your message, amplifying your reach and impact. Authenticity:  A genuine connection with your audience fosters authenticity and allows you to make a lasting impact. Mutuality: The more you understand each other the better. Note: Self Discovery is what you need to foster the audience that can resonate with you. I am an esoteric article craftsman. I thus find myself often attracting fellow esoteric intellects. The Dangers of Cults: Cults (The more contemporary meaning of the term) exemplify the negative consequences of an audience manipulated and exploited against its will. They are authoritarian, involuntarily-isolating, and often driven by self-serving leaders. This is solved by sorting out your personal problems and stop self-denying them. You have to keep asking yourself if you are indeed a social person AKA extrovert or an introvert. In philosophy, being social is a risk. Writing is a very solitary activity either way. Be honest with yourself what you really want to do when building something (like an empire of whatever else that shall attract an audience). True Freedom: True audience engagement is built on the freedom of choice. Individuals should be free to follow or unfollow without pressure. Develop this habit of letting go. Develop this habit of looking both ways to understand better why your audience may use their freedom the way they do. Building a Lasting Legacy: My goal is to build a loyal readership that genuinely enjoys and values my work in a way that will help them. The Philosocom Article Empire is about contributing meaningfully to the world using the power of philosophy and humanity. I aim to create a valuable resource platform for readers, much like a bustling metropolis of interconnected articles. This will demonstrate the value of my genius to this world: Rectifying this world using my glorious empire. I prefer to rectify this world than to dominate it. You give up on your ego, you grow up from ego-based ambitions. To build something and make it endure, you must be disciplined and see reality more pragmatically. In this world, building something to last long is not easy at all. All what I already described to you is not easy, especially when it concerns something as big as an article empire. A Food For Thought: “When great empires fall, historians theorise, they fall so slowly that their demise isn’t even noticeable to those who live through it. It has to be reconstructed generations later, when the dust has settled and the patterns hidden behind seemingly random events can finally be made out.” -- M.R. Carey Conclusion: When it comes to the virtual world , whatever your definition of success might be, it lies in building a loyal and engaged audience through genuine connection and meaningful content. This approach, built on respect and freedom, is far more effective and impactful than any attempt to force engagement. The more you grow to respect this approach, the more you might find yourself developing virtue and becoming a better person yourself. You help others, you help yourself. That's the theory of unity.

The Golden Solitude of the Philosopher's Journey For more on this topic, I recommend reading the article about Solomon Maimon on this site. This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. Here are the rest of the material: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-the-importance-of-inclusion https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-buddies-and-temptations https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly https://www.philosocom.com/t/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophership-as-duty-definition-and-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosphership-being-proven-wrong (Background Music) Alex Mos's Synopsis: Philosophers are regarded with respect but not loved because they are messengers of the unmasked truth. Philosophical honesty can be upsetting for people who don't want to accept the uncomfortable realities of life. A philosopher must be prepared to face criticism, stand alone, and embrace the potential of rejection. Society is pretentious, sacrificing authenticity and genuine connections for social harmony. Philosophers refuse to play along, exposing the fakeness of numerous societal standards and sensibilities. The path of philosophy is lonely. Your reward is to become a voice of the unspoken truth, challenge the hypocrisy, and achieve greater relevance. "The journey to truth is one we take alone." -- Mark Bloom Why Philosophers Walk a Solitary Path Philosophers may be regarded with respect, whether within or outside the academia , but they are not loved as much. Hence why love and respect are not the same and thus there is distance in honor. While the discipline itself commands respect , the path it paves can be a desolate one, paved with disillusionment, existential dread, and loneliness . Philosophy, for all its noble pursuit of truth, can be a profoundly discouraging affair . It invites you to question everything, from the very fabric of reality to the depths of your own ego . This unsettling introspection can make you appear unhinged to the uninitiated ( Like with Nietzsche's example ), drawing concerned glances and raised eyebrows. I've witnessed first hand friendships wither and fade under the harsh light of brutal philosophical honesty , leaving me to navigate the world with a dwindling circle of those who can stomach the truth. The human heart, it seems, craves comfort, not discomfort. By default, it is too weak to handle it unless it is trained to accept uncomfortable, yet realistic notions like grief ( which is inevitable ). We prefer soothing remarks over unsettling realities, choosing blissful ignorance over the cringe-inducing truths philosophy is meant to discover. But the philosopher, bound by a personal oath to truth, might not be so inclined to deceive like a manipulative tyrant . They must speak the words, however disturbing, that illuminate the hidden corners of existence, even if it means isolation and other such social risks. This is the paradox of the philosopher's life: A solitary pursuit in service of a collective understanding . An understanding of a collective that might as well condemn them for their attempted service even if it's successful by the traits they express in their work. We walk the lonely path, not necessarily because we are drawn to solitude ( and thus asocial ), but because we are driven by a relentless pursuit of truth. A truth, that can be both liberating and alienating, too. It is a path few choose as it makes sense that some won't like it . However, for those who do, it is a path paved with the quiet satisfaction of illuminating the world, one uncomfortable truth at a time. Why Philosophers Must Embrace Their Shadow Selves Have you ever been told to "just shut up?" Not politely, mind you, but with a venom that leaves mental scars. Yet, the essence remains the same. It's a curious phenomenon, this human aversion to the unsettling truth. Respect may follow a philosopher's work, but it often lingers at a distance. For once (and perhaps forever, should you endure ) you embrace the mantle of truth, the inevitability of upsetting people becomes constant . Your words, like a surgeon's scalpel, will cut through comfortable delusions, leaving raw and angry wounds. Some people are not interested in the truth, as grim and enlightening as it is. But remember, a philosopher's job isn't to be a people pleaser , it's to illuminate. We are the guides, leading the willing out of the comforts of darkness and into the overwhelming light. And not everyone is wants to be guided, and not everyone is even interested in the ways towards the truth to begin with. They may prefer the Platonic cave, more. They might not be interested in the world beyond the minds, but, rather, in the phenomenon their mind creates, AKA, the reality that seems to them. Yet, the sun's glare blind people with rage, given the fault that is their attachment to their beliefs . Be prepared for the sting of accusations, the dismissive "senile ramblings" and "hogwash" thrown with cruelty by those who cling to their cherished ideals. In reality, they have not the guts to be proven wrong . These are the hazards of the path, the toll paid for challenging the status quo. And here lies the true test of a philosopher: The willingness to face potential the potential opposition as an antagonist , to stand alone in the face of a storm triggered by your own words. The support of friends, fans and followers is not a given. It is a privilege. Imagine Socrates, isolated in some a hermitage, safe from Athenian contempt. He might have lived a peaceful life, but would his name echo through the ages, in such a scenario before the digital revolution? No, it was his sacrifice , his refusal to mute the truth, that earned him "immortality ". Without resorting to peace, his ideas still resonate, a testament to the power of unyielding honesty. Peace is therefore a liability in part. So, to the developing philosopher, I say this: embrace the loneliness, the scorn, the potential for rejection -- embrace them all as inevitable possibilities . For within these shadows lies the true test of your conviction, along other tests in general . Only those willing to speak when others remain nervous, to illuminate even when it burns, can truly claim the mantle of "philosopher." For in the end, it is not the comfort of the crowd, but the courage to stand alone in the light, that defines the true seeker of truth. Why Philosophers Crash the Party Society, it seems, is a master of theatres. A grand performance where smiles mask indifference, laughter hides anxieties, and caresses are exchanged without warmth, unless people have the courage to be themselves. This elaborate dance of pretending, while preserving social harmony , demands a hefty price: the sacrifice of genuine, deeper connections. In a way, society breeds its own outcasts and rebels by refusing to understand them genuinely. Here's where the philosopher, a stubborn champion of truth, throws a wrench in the fake-ness-generating machinery. Armed with unwavering honesty, they refuse to play along unless it is THEIR morals that tell them otherwise. They see the cracks in the painted smiles, hear the hollowness in the forced laughter, and their words, like harsh spotlights, pierce through the carefully crafted act. By this reasoning, many philosophers are Overmen, at least by a certain standard. This, of course, comes at a cost. The philosopher, a perpetual truth-teller, is rarely invited to the party. Their words, though respected from afar, are too jarring, too uncomfortable for the delicate sensibilities of those who find solace in the comfort of illusions. They become the party pooper, the unwelcome guest who exposes the emptiness behind the glitter that pretends to be golden as well. The Philosopher's Lonely Quest for Authenticity But to mistake them for condescending barbarians is to miss the mark . Their solitude is a consequence, not a choice. They are ostracized not for malice, but for their unwavering commitment to authenticity, a commitment that demands preparation for agony. Like in love , like in physical training . So, to those who yearn for the philosopher's mantle, be warned: The path is lonely. You will lose some love in exchange for respect, find followers instead of friends, and trade allies for enemies. Your words will be the bump on every joyride, the unwanted truth in every whispered secret. Yet, in this solitude lies a profound reward: You become the voice of the unspoken, the mirror reflecting the uncomfortable reality that others dare not face. And of course, you will also have a chance at getting a greater relevancy , long-term-wise, as philosophy itself still remains relevant to a degree, even after millennia. You are the gadfly, the thorn in the side of complacency, and in that, lies the true power of philosophy: To challenge, to expose, and ultimately, to pave the way for a world where authenticity reigns over pretense . Truth, however harsh, becomes the currency of genuine connection. And we cannot truly love one another, without it. For we must not deny the truth. Feedback by Mr. Nathan Lasher It really is all about learning to frame your knowledge in the right way. That would be the benchmark separating desire from reality when it comes to being a philosopher. Something anyone can learn to add to their human capital? One doesn’t need to go out and socialize, though highly advisable, to merely get out and observe people. Sit in a mall and listen to all the people who pass you. To better understand people, who you are philosophizing for, you need to be able to get into their headspace and let you become better at understanding why  people act the way that they do.

Synopsis by Alex Mos: A high IQ is a virtue but can hinder human connections. “Scary smart” people can be intimidated or even rejected by others because of their high intelligence.  When brilliance is the reason for loneliness, it becomes an interpersonal burden.  Without friendship or love, highly intelligent people may look for relevancy in influence, becoming accomplished workaholics.  (Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (Background music) How High IQ Can Hinder Human Connection Intelligence is surely a virtue to be praiseworthy . However, we need to take into consideration that even this very virtue has its own flaws, at least when we interact with other people. In such cases, high intelligence might as well be a liability. It can be a liability when people are overly submissive to their emotions and gut feelings, especially when the information these components deliver is false. When these mental components deceive us with our consent, we express irrationality . For example, it is irrational to be intimidated by things and beings that do not pose a threat to us. And yet, if we succumb to the irrational aspects of ourselves, we can burn bridges with other people just because of a false sense of being threatened It's possible to detect when people are intimidated by your high intelligence , and there is even a slang called "scary smart" . If you are highly intelligent, you may find that people around you might start to avoid you, act defensively when you talk to them, and yes, even reject you. I guess... it was one of the reasons I got rejected one time by someone, once.... Moving on. When Brilliance Breeds Isolation Highly intelligent people may find themselves more alone than others because it can be difficult for many people to relate to them. Former friends may say that they are "from different worlds" (as I was once told), and those who feel intimidated by them may disrespect them as a way to protect themselves from threats that only the intelligent person "sees." In a sense, high intelligence can be an interpersonal burden. As such, I personally do not take pride in it. I am proud of the fact that I used my intelligence to survive post-traumatic symptoms. However, as you can see, my intelligence is nothing more to me than a means to an end. Thus, intelligence can hinder you socially, romantically and even sexually. Ironically, there is something called "too much intellect" . It is "too much" merely because it can hurt your personal appeal in the eyes of others. Of course, it is also "too much" because we need connections to survive and to thrive, meaning that if people decide to disconnect with you due to your high intelligence, then it is a liability in that regard at the very least. Intelligent people are also lonelier than otherwise. Of course, the negative impacts of constant rejection and social isolation can affect poorly on one's mental health. This is why there isn't necessarily any shame in being mentally ill -- it's not necessarily your fault. Navigating the Complexities of Intelligence and Social Connection In the absence of friendship and/or love in one's life, one might decide to seek their sense of collective worth elsewhere. In power and influence. In being admired by the world. In being relevant more than the average person. In the absence of these elements, one may seek respect and authority more than otherwise. It's all because we have a need to be valued. To feel like we matter. If we do not matter, why should we even love ourselves? And if we do not love ourselves? Why should we choose to live? Highly-intelligent people may live outside of the social world merely because of who they are. They won't necessarily be as loved or befriended as others (or initiate these actions themselves). They can be abused by those who feel intimidated by their intelligence. And as such, intelligence is not entirely a virtue. It is a virtue when it helps you and/or others in life. It's not a virtue when it stands in your way for healthy connections with the outside world. Those who are less intelligent might not be as aware of the hardships of being highly intelligent. They can easily submit to their confirmation bias, cherry-pick the facts on the matter, out-right deny reality , or use short-term ad-hominem fallacies that have little-to-nothing to do with the general issue. It's quite pathetic, I admit. It's pathetic only because I pity their inability to understand beyond their poor rationality. So, we can say that being less-than-rational has disadvantages of its own. Obviously, the highly-intelligent are often more rational. So yes, being "scary smart" can arguably scare people away. If it didn't have this distinct quality, highly intelligent people would be less lonely. And perhaps I would have known the love of another, empirically by now. When Loneliness Fuels a Obsessive Flame So, I take solace in constantly working, and thus turn a liability into an asset once more. It's the practical thing to do, you know. I used to think that workaholism is futile . I now take it back. It's better being a like that than depressed, lonely and irrelevant. And I've been alone far enough, and won't be surprised if some of you had enough of being alone, as well. It can eventually feel like the fun of being alone, overstayed its welcome. It's why I chose this work, despite being asocial . Anyways, I don't like intimidating anyone. I like living. Since I like living, the choice to endure the loneliness is mine and mine alone. Whether or not this existential problem will be solved in my personal life is beyond my control. So, all I am left with is to work as much as I can. Because I know for certain that intelligence is the last thing that can hinder this activity. And it is the only thing I seem to be good at. Other than being rejected for who I am by various people, of course. It's their own prerogative. Regardless of emotion, it wouldn't make sense to confront people for exercising their prerogatives in ways that I do not desire. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback High intellect requires demonstration so people can better understand what it is and how it affects their own lives personally. People can accept demonstrations more easily than they can concepts of intelligence. Let your intelligence be demonstrated as much as possible so people have a better understanding of it. Unveil the mystery so to speak. It should also be noted that intelligence itself is not the problem for most people. They have difficulty understanding how it is expressed. I believe anyone can get behind intelligence on a general basis. Yet, as expressions are simply the result of genetics forming different cognitive features, it can best be understood that the reason for isolation is because your brain simply works differently than other peoples. Loneliness is a state of mind. The feeling can be changed at any time if the right context is added to your situation. Think of isolation as less separatism and more of it as unbiased thinking . Really loneliness's biggest contributor is simply not discovering the herd with which you exist. Otherwise you will always remain a lonely horse or cow out to pasture. (or use any animal of your choosing). Remember at the end of the day it doesn’t matter your intelligence level. We are all humans with some just being a little different. Best advice I can give is for people to stop referring to intelligence as a scale and more like a spectrum that some people can move around on more easily than others.

(Background music) Rationalism vs. Empiricism: In the Quest For Knowledge The quest for knowledge's a puzzle whose construction might as well resume indefinitely, given how much we are more ignorant of reality than we admit. Now, in the maze of decisions we venture forth to build the most accurate puzzle to reflect reality as it is, we encounter two paths. One is paved with consistent pondering, the other a rollercoaster of experimentation. The former, my dear audience, is rationalism , which can be defined as a philosophy that holds reason to be the chief source of knowledge. The latter is empiricism which can be defined as several meanings: The belief that all concepts originate from experience. All concepts can be applicable to experience. All beliefs can only be known or verified by experience. Together, these two form the epistemology , or the philosophy of what is knowledge, how it is gained and so on. Epistemological questions include, but are not limited, to: What do we seek to create knowledge about? Who accepts knowledge as ‘true’ and how? (As presented in this source) Knowledge Through Reason and Experiment Now, the distinction between these two beasties is as clear as a polished gem. Rationalists, with their introspective minds, build their knowledge empires within ivory towers of logic, without much need to even go outside and interact with a lot of people for their knowledge. Using deduction , they construct and discover truths with the delicate tools of thought. Like myself, yes. Our minds have the power to generate insights almost autonomously from the external world, by becoming self-learners. While we rationalists don't necessarily need to do much external research , I'm doing it nonetheless in my articles (and even in articles I receive from other writers) in order to enhance their quality, further. Empiricism, on the other hand, is nowadays the main way science develops, i.e, through experience and experiment-based research, as opposed to "internal research" which is how philosophers become philosophers. For more on the relationships between science and philosophy, read about " The Two Heads of Wisdom ". Empiricists roll up their sleeves, per se, dive into the churning gears of the world, and wrench out understanding through experiments and direct experience. By doing so, they risk their mental survival. Rationalists, while being safe in their metaphorical ivory towers, are and will be missing out on life by the reasoning of what I call, the "Same Result Problem" . Interestingly enough, however, these paths find their homes in different corners of our different bodies of knowledge. Rationalism  lies humanities: literature, art, philosophy, where truths stem from contemplation and verbal agility. These fields, unlike the "hard sciences", don't rely on tangible experiments but on the elegant dance of logic and language. The expectation for that, in the rationalist approach to knowledge, is mathematics. That's because although there is no necessary correlation between logic and language in math, there is a strict correlation between logic and numbers, without the usage of regular, literal communication required to understand reality from a mathematical perspective. Arguably, the universe is either built or can easily be represented by numbers , but I digress. Empiricism, on the other hand, can be represented not only in any science that demands experimentation, but what is called in slang, as the " university of life ". It's a term that shows us that there isn't a necessary correlation between wisdom and education, as I proved myself in a logical fallacy I devised, called "The Degree Fallacy". By involving ourselves in society we can experiment in social interactions to better understand how other humans behave and what we should do in order to "get our way" in life. One can say that, in the "university" of everyday life, we become both experiments and "scientists", discovering the machinations of civilization by being part of its machinery. Most of us, like Japanese Salarymen , do it to survive, anyways. Both rationalism and empiricism are like trusty screwdrivers in the toolbox of understanding. Sometimes, a good, hard think is all it takes to unscrew a mystery. Other times, we need to get our hands dirty, tinker with the world itself, and see what makes it tick. So, the next time you're grappling with a question, remember: Knowledge is a destination with a specific way to get it. After all, the most brilliant thinkers are arguably the ones who can wield both logic's scalpel and experience's wrench with equal finesse. They really have the power to complement each other, when one way of knowing things can be combined with another way. I myself won't deny the allure of empiricism. It's a thrill to get your circuits buzzing with first-hand experience, despite the risk involved, to truly feel the truth rather than just think it . And let's be honest, sometimes a good, hard experiment can save you a lot of mental gymnastics. You know, like preparing to suffer in the name of love. And yet, not everything can be poked and prodded. Take the delicate network of abstract concepts . The meaning of life , the nature of consciousness, the existence of a higher power – They are "higher" expressions of existence, best approached with reason, not experimentation. You can't exactly file a good argument for the existence of divine beings if your source is your own personal experience, for example. That is known as the anecdotal fallacy. You must rely on more than a single case study, and the problem in the case of religion lies in the fact that it is still belief/faith-based. And belief/faith are not proper substitutes of knowledge. Hence why I choose agnosticism , (and hence why I once again digress). By the same token, consider the dangerous feat of jumping off a cliff. I haven't personally tested that one either, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't end well. But we don't exactly need to jump off cliffs, nor hear of real life examples where people fell of cliffs, in order for us to understand that we shouldn't do it. How come? Unlike moths we can better know when to stay out of such dangers. So, where does this leave us? In a delightful dance of both logic and experience!  Some truths, like the sting of a lemon, demand direct contact. Others, like the beauty of a sunset, can be appreciated from afar, through the lens of careful contemplation. Conclusions It's through the combined forces of rationalism and empiricism that we understand reality. However, neither one is without its flaws and its costs as well. You might find out that those who have been traumatized by life , will be more inclined to spend their time in isolation from the world. Nevertheless, you might find some of them to be as much knowledgeable as anyone else, and even more, because a first-hand experience is not necessary to understand this world, at least not entirely. Compare this to understanding North Korean philosophy without ever being in North Korea. By the same token, people who have travelled a lot, spoke to a lot of people and had exotic experiences, could in theory still have a less-than-profound understanding of reality if they do not work on becoming more logical beings. And yet it does not negate the fact that they had many experiences many people do not have, making them good sources of knowledge nevertheless. When seeking knowledge, we should take into account that we may be sacrificing something out of ourselves, if we want to maintain our sanity and safety in general. Pain, gathered along with living in general, is a most helpful teacher. But we better make sure it doesn't kill us or drive us to insanity. Even love can increase self-sacrifice risk when there's a heartbreak as a possibility. Do make sure that the knowledge you're seeking justifies the means to get it.

"If your priorities revolve around profit, you have failed as a human being. Capitalism isn't progress, but conditioning" -- John Duran "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground" - Genesis 2:5 Human connections are best treated like grounds to build farming fields in, and never, never industrial factories. That's if you are interested in the heart of the person in front of you, and not in your own selfish interests. Capitalist mentality, which is not geared towards human wellbeing and fulfillment , should not be applied to deep and honest human connections. That's because the heart is best not to be exploited for your own gain. No. The heart is to be nurtured like the farmer nurtures his or her crops. You should not place "factories" on hearts, but you should pour rain on them, and watch as the heart grows bigger and bigger. You need to give them time to grow, like a farmer needs to wait for his crops for harvesting. Factories are there not to nurture and develop the ground, but to exploit it in accordance to their own conditioning that does not align with the local factors . However, the environment around it may fail to adjust to the factories' exploitive nature. And adjustment, or adaptation, is how things and beings survive and endure. The factories would pollute the skies with smoke, taint the waters with toxic waste, and decrease the health of the people around them. As such, those who love are not to be exploited as if they were a business venture, as if they were grounds for industrialization. For them to open their heart to you, you must tend to it like a gardener tends to their flowers. The gardener needs to give said flowers time to grow and blossom. Should they feed the flowers with too much water, they would choke and fail to grow as the best versions of themselves. Surrender your capitalist tendency to turn profit when it comes to human emotion or "soul" as some of you may call it. It deserves to grow . Not for exploitation! Not even for you to enjoy it through grooming, ( and I refer to its original meaning of preparing to another state of being ) ! It deserves to grow for its own sake. And the best way for you to love someone's soul is to let it grow by its own accord. Without much restrictions. It needs to digest and reflect upon your words and upon the experiences you shared together. It needs time. You mustn't hasten it too much, or it will fail to grow. Human beings are just like that, like crops to be fed and grow. What we call " the Rat Race " is too much for many of us because this "race" exploits us for money and production. Those who fail to be productive and profitable workers will either end up unemployed, on welfare, or wandering in the streets. But when you are in a deep, honest, and intimate connection with someone, you must let them be themselves or they will suffer. They will suffer because it is the industrial, external world that forces them to repress themselves in the name of survival. But when they are alone with you, they deserve to go unrepressed. They deserve to express their emotions, even if these are uncomfortable to you. They deserve to act, even, in an insulting manner if they are hurt, because it is within the warm embrace of love that they are allowed to be themselves. We deserve to express anger, deserve to express anxiety, and be human. To be flawed and recognized for our flaws ; if not by the industrious nature of this capitalist world, then by the people who exist in one's private world . The apartment. The chat room on social media. The place you go to be alone together, etc. This is why privacy is imperative in such connections, connections that are not professional by any means. Connections that are not there to serve as functions of something greater. Connections that do not depend on conditionality; the same conditionality that exists in the workplace, in the office, in business meetings and factories... The one that causes us to be miserable and depressed. Why? Because we are expected all the time to be things we are not by genuine desire. A place of business disregards your authentic self. Connections based on love, even if not romantic, are expected the best FOR you and not FROM you. For love-based connections accept you for who you are. You shouldn't be conditioned all the time. It is in the company of those who accept you for who you truly are, where you can grow and emerge like a beautiful flower, and prepare for the pollen of the bees. Progress is done not by maximizing benefit. It is done by being humane and taking consideration of all parties involved.

Summary by Anonymous The article explores the concept of irrationality and its impact on human perception and understanding of reality. It argues that humans often limit their understanding to what they consider "possible" within their existing framework, dismissing anything outside this as "impossible" or "nonsense." The piece suggests that this limited perception hinders our ability to grasp a more fluid reality that otherwise may appear utterly irrational for us. To approach the truth, we must question our own limited perceptions and embrace the possibility of a more complex reality. Furthermore, Mr. Tomasio delves into the nature of irrationality, highlighting how it can manifest in various forms, such as anxiety and misplaced concerns. The writer emphasizes the importance of a logical mind in accurately assessing reality and making informed decisions. The author concludes by advocating for a balanced approach, recognizing the limitations of intuition and the value of critical thinking. By questioning our own rationality and embracing the unknown, we can move closer to overcoming our respective, mind-prisoning perceptions. (Background music) "Mankind has very limited tolerance and patience for matters they do not comprehend! Only perceiving the possibilities that they are willing to accept as 'solid', only within their self-decided concept of the possible. Concept/things and events that are considered "impossible" aren't acceptable for such limited perceptions and attitudes, so they remain so, but only to a point. A more fluid and irrational reality inevitably punches through the curtain of common perception here and there, and is instantly denounced as utter nonsense " -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Irrationality can be defined as something, such as a concept or even an emotion, that is too deluded to be based on reality. It's something that can make us deluded as well, should we be convinced by it. As we know, delusion is an enemy of philosophizing, as the point of philosophy is to stay farther from it, and not the opposite. Philosophy is the verbal study of reality from a logical standpoint. However, logic is not only a matter of capability but a matter of expanding our knowledge. The more irrational a being is, the less of a grip they have on reality. A grip of reality cannot grow if we refuse questioning our current understanding of it. Thus, without expanding our understanding of reality, we hinder our own rationality by our hubris and confidence. How to Get Closer to the Truth If one wishes to be closer to the truth, one must decrease irrationality as much as possible, by decreasing one's perceived rationality. That is done by questioning your limited perception, and accepting it in the first place. The more limited your perception is, the more reality can easily appear irrational to you. The question then remains: Are you the logical one for not inquiring further about reality? Or, is reality the one being illogical? Being limited people with limited knowledge, reality is far, far more absurd than we might realize. We never have full knowledge. Therefore, reality is necessarily absurd. Thinking that we understand reality competently without further inquiry and questioning, makes us all the more absurd and irrational. The Nature of Irrationality The irrational may have false notions about reality, which could make them a poor judge of it. He or she who lives more in a fantasy world, and correlates their imaginations on their reality perception, cannot be deemed as having a good rationale. Why would they? There are tendencies within us humans that are irrational, in a sense that they are not grounded enough to be objectively defined as correct estimations. This, in turn, leads us to over-react. For example, people who suffer from anxiety, like me, may find themselves having certain emotions that are too out of proportion with regard to the world outside the consciousness. Over the smallest of things, the irrational person can find themselves in deep anxiety, for instance. Misplaced anxiety is a proper example of irrationality. In some people, anxiety is more common than others. Using reason and by taking care of ourselves, these anxious patterns of behavior can be reduced. The Functionality of a Logical Mind The point of a good cognition is to be able to correctly estimate reality and base one's actions upon said estimation. The more accurate it is, the less one is to be guided by their own delusions. The less one is governed by delusions, the more rational they can be deemed. A good philosopher is expected to have an excellent quality of cognition because their brains are work tools. Having their brains in good conditioning means that they can be more in line with the reality that exists beyond their minds. That is the difference between the good philosopher and the crackpot philosopher. The crackpot theorist will not have their ideas grounded on reality, for example. A good fictional example for a crackpot theorist is Kefka from Final Fantasy 6. By the way, rationality and intelligence may correlate but they are not codependent. Dr. Eggman is an example of a character who is extremely intelligent but is too crackpot, or irrational, in order to be successful as an antagonist. That's how mad scientists usually are. Hyper intelligent beings who lack the rationality to apply their intellect in a way that will overcome their enemies. As such, you may find that intelligence alone is insufficient for your plans to work out. Case Example I used to fear public transportation before I began using it regularly, as I, at the time, mostly went to places by foot. However, that fear was irrational as the only obstacle that awaits in this case is my own lack of awareness, should I either miss the bus or miss the station (Which happened several times regardless). I have grown up since then. No one should be anxious about something like public transportation, as it by itself lacks actual danger that is worthy of us to be anxious towards. There may be exceptions, yes? But I digress. The Weird Concerns of Humanity Whether we like it or not, many of our concerns are irrational. It's not only because they are not grounded enough, but also because there is not much usefulness in having them and giving them a deserved place in our minds. It's a matter of both functionality and understanding. Discard both, and still hold a concern in high regard, and you might as well stay irrational. When we are concerned about something that cannot be helped, we might often make the mistake of letting this worry too much space, too much "power", or importance. Importance to us, of course. Importance that might as well be both false and even dysfunctional, or harmful to our endeavors. This is why having a calm mind is imperative to be the better judge of reality. The thing is, even if there are issues that are worthy of importance, it doesn't always mean we can do anything to fix them, if at all. People may be afraid of getting old, for instance , but it's not like it can't be prevented through natural means, correct? We can extend our lifespan but we can't live forever, can we? Then, worrying about getting old is impractical because we'll be old regardless of what we do. Our hair may get white, our skin paler and we may even encounter certain medical conditions that can hinder us in some way. This still does not mean we can solve these problems if these worries are without solution, no matter their value to us. Being Grounded in Reality Using Philosophy And that is indeed the overall irrationality that exists within different anxieties, or in other words, in our different feelings of distresses when we are to believe that something bad might happen. That's where reasoning can come in, or in other words, philosophizing. It's point of it is to clarify us from delusion and ground us more in reality. The more grounded we are in reality, the more we can rid ourselves of unnecessary, impractical and unrealistic anxieties. When did I happen to miss the bus? That is an irrelevant question that could just increase our anxiety. It should be a given that the bus has left the station and is now on its route forward. Feeling distressed because of it and because of the implications that may follow, won't necessarily help one bring the bus back, get to work in time and so on. My distress won't help, thus giving it too much importance would be irrational, compared to thinking what else can be done to get to the office . Correct? In philosophy, we must come in terms with things which are either possible facts or given facts. We must recognize the facts and the likelihood of things being fact, so we will not deceive ourselves so unnecessarily. It's obvious that the bus moved on, but maybe it should mean that we should move on too because the past cannot be altered, for it already happened. If anything, the past deserves its place when it is functional, AKA, when it can help us work towards a better/different future. I utilized my mental scars for work, for example. I utilized my vengeful tendencies to be a better philosopher and to focus more on the craft of article-writing. Using the past as a means to an end is better than wasting time and energy in lamenting it. I suppose we can agree on that. No amount of worry will get that bus back, so if we want to make it to work, we must think instead of another solution, since sinking in distress is irrational when it is impractical. It would've been practical if it were productive in any way. Perhaps we can learn that, when we miss the bus, to think of ways to reduce that chance of that happening again. The Essence of Practicality Remember: There are times where practicality matters more than our personal sentiments. Such is the case in professional settings. As such, I regard myself, or at least aspire to be, a consummate professional , when it comes to my work as philosopher and as Philosocom's founder. If something, like a poor article, doesn't meet results, I will consider deleting it or at least revamp it massively. It's nothing personal, even if emotional investment is or was included. My readership matters more, as it should. Lamenting over how disappointed I am over an article I thought would be interesting, is irrational as it is impractical. I am not an artist by heart. If my emotional attachment gets in the way, I take a pair of metaphorical scissors and cut it loose. Being able to distinguish between "Kli" and "tochen" is the key to understanding reality more accurately. Hence why I dislike the anxious tendencies within me. For the vast majority of the time, these anxieties are baseless not even on logic itself. It may exist within me, despite my knowledge that there is nothing to be anxious of. Such is the nature of generalized anxiety disorder. That's my only mental disorder, which I'm handling using logic. Rationality calms me. I am chilling in my apartment at midnight, no noise outside my headphones, and of course, no physical threats whatsoever. Why am I anxious now? Despite said tendencies, I have no idea. So, instead, I choose to avoid giving it an undeserved position. Accepting Our Ignorance If we wish to overcome irrationality, we must look beyond it . To the world beyond the mind. We must accept the notion that there might be things we are not aware of yet. Or, perhaps, underestimate or overestimate. Underestimate, like the importance of rest. Overestimate, like a minor discomfort. That is also the fallacy that lies with bias, as bias can make one overlook things, while also making other things more significant than they actually are. For better, like a test we excelled in despite worry. For the worse, like an error in a math equation that ruined our calculations. I was told several times that I should consider the intuitive part of the mind. It's part that is more spontaneous and that is not calculated at all; to " go with the flow ", to "be like water" and so on. However, as a philosopher, I must inquire: What makes intuition rational enough when we are not supposed to question it? What if intuition can make one more delusional, and thus, stay further from the truth? Why should we ignore Socratic questioning, when it could yield practical results? I do not claim to be the most rational being, as I am consumed by impractical anxieties. Anxieties I am trying to purify out of my system. Being more rational is key to being good at being a well-respected philosopher. That is the point of philosophizing to begin with: To get closer to understanding reality. With your clarity of thought, you can bring much good to this world, by helping others in need. It's the moral thing to do. Conclusion Do not find anything as given fact, before you can rest assured that it's either a fact. Likely, your emotionality is irrelevant in this case and can mislead you from the truth. Some things are easy to accept things as how our poor rationality draws them to be. Do not yield to it so easily, if it is indeed poor. Question your own rationality, and improve it, if you prefer the truth over your own false beliefs.

(For extra material on the subject, click here ) (For another type of prejudice I find irrelevant on Philosocom, click here ) (Background music) ************************* Sexist Thoughts Can Hide in Plain Sight Sexist thought is prejudice against people based on their sex, and assumes it to be true. It does not have to be against women exclusively, and it can even be used in a "positive" context as well. For example, the "gentleman" archetype is often seen as a positive thing. A gentleman is someone who opens doors for women, lays his coat in the mud so that a woman doesn't dirty her shoes, and always pays the full price in a restaurant. He is seen as noble and courteous because of the assumption that this is how a proper man should behave. However, this is also sexist. According to sexist philosophies, men and women have different, objective roles in society that define them. Do you see the contradiction? Society defines them, and yet these roles are objective, AKA, independent of relativity. The more a person fits into this stereotyped role, based on their sex, the more they might be seen as manly or feminine. It really is that simple. I purposefully started with this point in the article to show you my desire to be unbiased. It is obvious to me that sexism has a negative side as well. How can it not be obvious to me when women have been the victims of such prejudice for thousands of years? I do not have an agenda in this to promote a viewpoint of mine. My point is to clarify reality, as a philosopher should. Why I See Individuals, Not Genders or Races In truth, when I speak to people, online or offline, their gender does not matter to me. It does not matter to me because men and women are more than their sexes. They are, first and foremost, individuals with thoughts and personalities of their own. Women aren't more irrational than men , just because they are women, and I don't think men are much more into sports because they are men. How come? I have spoken with women who are as rational as anyone else is, and I am aware that anyone can be into sports . You may say that men are naturally stronger than women , yes? But I'm not sure if you are aware of the fact that anyone who is physically capable can become a bodybuilder. I am not a feminist because I disagree with the very term that is used . To desire gender equality is to not take gender that close to heart. Why? Simple. Making irrelevant distinctions based on gender is sexist, whether it's done negatively or positively. It's just like the example I presented at the beginning of this missive. For a true world devoid of sexism to exist, we need to act in accordance to the world we want to exist. Through our behavior we can lead by example and inspire others to follow our behavior. We need to be role models for the world we want to see in the future. The same logic applies to race . I don't care that I'm white, and your race or nationality does not really matter to me when it comes to individuals. Yes, I may speak of specific countries and regions of the planet, but that does not mean I accept the notion that we are entirely a product of these backgrounds. We are more, for we are, at the root of it all, different individuals either way. I know my analytics. I write to people across the globe. Your gender, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to me. I'm a philosopher; I am occupied with reason. I am not a technical expert on men or women. I strive to look at things mainly from a logical perspective, and one can be a philosopher whether they are male or female. A woman even wrote to me an excellent piece once . Assuming that women cannot be good philosophers like men, just because philosophy has historically been male-dominated, sins in " The Way Things Are " fallacy. A good philosopher would not gatekeep others from knowledge so unjustly. He or she would share their findings and would not really mind the fallacies that lie, by default, within human thinking. I have no desire to gatekeep my thoughts on unfair discriminations people can't do anything about. I personally am not fond of psychopaths, for example, but it's just a personal preference. I do not think all psychopaths are cartoonishly evil, because I do not want to resort to generalizations. As such I won't gatekeep my content from psychopaths because logic and personal taste are distinct. A good philosopher must be able to disagree with themselves. Do you know where generalizations exist? In sexist philosophies. It is, in fact, a variant of a fallacy called the Hasty Generalization fallacy . If I'm correct, a hasty generalization is a product of induction . Of concluding on the general, based on individual examples... Even if said examples number in the hundreds or thousands. Please keep in mind that we are, globally, billions. When you see countless women who are weaker than you physically, and you're a man, perhaps you will jump to the conclusion that women are always weaker. If you've seen people of average height thus far, then you might deny the fact that there are extremely tall people -- even women -- just like there are and were men whose height is less than a meter . Sexism is wrong, logically, for the same reason any generalization is wrong, dear readers: There are exceptions to the rule which traditionally define what is being generalized . Even in theory. Do you believe that the desire to procreate is embedded in all human beings? There are genuine asexuals out there, and there are genuine people who do not want to have families for whatever reason. You're reading the words of such an example right over here. Why Sexism Doesn't Make Sense Now, perhaps there are functions that are certainly exclusive to distinct sexes. You might say that women cannot grow facial hair, but there are who can . A rare condition, possibly hormonal imbalance. Perhaps males cannot get pregnant, but male seahorses certainly can . We do not have knowledge about every human that has ever lived. Why? Because events can be lost in history. It's one of the reasons we can never know everything for certain. In other words, perhaps there were male humans that had the capacity to get pregnant, but we never got to know them! Our knowledge of the past is never absolute, and maybe it never will be. However, with enough dedication to content preservation, we sure can avoid any disappearances of information and knowledge. (We don't have full knowledge of the future, either. It could mean that we are not fully aware of the human biological potential). And it does not contradict the fact that some women might never be able to have children anyway . Does it mean they are male? Does it mean they are necessarily masculine? Of course not... It is not necessarily the role of men to provide for their families when women can work and earn even more. Gender does not have to play a role in this. It is not universally the role of women to tend to their families when men can be househusbands as well, and be good at it, themselves. In certain hunter gatherer societies, women might've used to be hunters as well. Who said skirts are exclusively feminine? Roman soldiers are associated with masculinity and they wore skirts. Are business suits exclusively masculine? Not all business suits were made with men in mind. Since reality is dynamic, our beliefs should also be dynamic if we are interested in a better understanding of reality; one that isn't attached to our potentially-incorrect philosophies. I think that is the best reasoning I can give against sexism and against generalizations in general.

(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) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The interview with Andy Oppenheimer, conducted by Ori Sindel and published on Philosocom, offers a fascinating insight into the artistic and thematic elements of Oppenheimer Analysis' music. The conversation reveals the deep thought and historical context behind the lyrics, shedding light on the creative process and the messages embedded within their songs. The interview provides a platform for Oppenheimer to share in-depth stories and reflections, such as the 1930s science magazine's role in the song "Modern Wonder." It enriches the reader's understanding of the music by connecting it to historical events and figures, such as the connection between "Cold War" and the historical Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb. Personal anecdotes add a personal touch to the interview, making the music and its creation process more relatable and engaging. In conclusion, the interview succeeds in providing a meaningful look into Oppenheimer Analysis' music, capturing the essence of their creative process and thematic concerns. (Philosocom's Ori Sindel Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Beauty and Art) (Background music) The Interview in Question This is a short interview of mine, discussing the lyrics of OPPENHEIMER ANALYSIS , one of my all time favourite musical projects. S: Good afternoon Andy Orion Oppenheimer . I have always been curious about the general meaning of the song "Modern Wonder". Additionally, I am wondering what the modern wonder mentioned in the song is. O: "‘ Modern Wonder ’ was a 1930s ‘boy’s’ popular science magazine (paper not glossy). I had a collection of the magazines given to me by my boss when I worked at Omni Magazine, around the time Martin Lloyd and I formed Oppenheimer Analysis in 1981. The song is about a time traveller and his lover who get separated and propelled into the future, the ‘late atomic age turning into chronic rage’ – and its devastation all round… “here we lie in disarray surrounded by the present day”. “Should we tell them what we know” – means that we are living in the future of atomic destruction, so do we tell the people of the past what we know about the terrible future?" O: I love that song. Martin played a favourite instrument of mine – a twelve string guitar – on the track. I think it was in the first ‘New Mexico’ collection on cassette tape." S: In your opinion, did the song "Cold War" happen to be some kind of a precise guess for our present events? After most of us “thought it was over”? O: "It was in part a warning for the time we were living in then – 1982, the height of the early 1980s Cold War – but from the point of view of as the Oppenheimer of history ( now immortalised in THAT film ) during the 1950s Cold War. He was ousted from government circles during the Cold War McCarthy witch hunt phase, in 1954 - having built the atomic bomb – partly because he warned of the dangers of a nuclear arms race - and opposed the development of the H-bomb. “We thought it was over” refers to the end of World War II, we thought it was over… (I am singing as the historical Oppenheimer) - “ warn you of the danger I’ve got to get a hold ” “Your blood runs cold” “'When you think you only did what you were told'” – guilt from building the bomb but under military oversight" S: Who are the devil's dancers , and what does the devil symbolise in the song? O: "I took the phrase from one of the atomic scientists who said building the bomb was dancing with the Devil. "I didn’t refer to the bomb specifically, just ‘the future’s here said the pioneer’ – and turned it into a catchy bunch of lyrics vaguely about scientists being “ The Devil’s Dancers ”. Martin’s arrangement and our composition of the tune turned it into a dance track. "Never in my/our wildest dreams did we expect this song to get so much exposure later in the Internet era. Had we got a recording contract back in 1982 this song would probably have charted… it’s been covered and even featured in a Miss World contest and Lord knows what else… "Yet it isn’t my personal best, by a long way – I’ve done some great songs since after Martin died (in 2013). Mostly with Mahk Rumbae (Oppenheimer MkII – The Presence of the Abnormal, Out in the Field) and I am still composing songs – there’s a stunning album coming out this autumn (Songs From A Constellation) with Crystalline Structure on TONN Recordings. "But The Devil’s Dancers are so catchy that I guess it just caught on among electro club DJs and the ‘collectors’ of early synth pop music." S: Who is the “HE” referred to in “ Behind the Shades ”? O: "I had to really think hard about this one! It was the first song Martin and I did. I based it on The Man Who Fell to Earth. I had that total Bowie look when we first got together. "So - [in the song] I am Thomas Jerome Newton , sitting in the big black car, wearing the sunglasses - Behind The Shades – and I’m now a multi-millionaire after falling to Earth and making a fortune. "I think that the ‘he’ and ‘him’ is some American corporate giant who doesn’t core about me or anyone else… he’s the one with the real power, not me. He will bring me down. “I don’t care whose empire it is, I know that I can’t see him behind the shades … And he’ll never see me… Or bother to care who I am”" Key Takeaways The interview explores the stories behind some of Oppenheimer Analysis' most popular songs. "Modern Wonder" is inspired by a 1930s science magazine and explores the concept of time travel and a dystopian future. "Cold War" is a song written from the perspective of historical figure J. Robert Oppenheimer, reflecting on the dangers of the nuclear arms race. "The Devil's Dancers" references the quote from an atomic scientist about building the bomb being a dance with the devil. The song doesn't explicitly mention the bomb but uses the phrase metaphorically for scientists. "Behind the Shades" is based on the movie "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and explores themes of wealth, power, and alienation.

(Background music) Challenging the Universality of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Contrary to popular belief, I don't think Maslow's hierarchy of needs activity is objectively universal for all human beings, as it was meant to appear. I disagree that these needs are correctly prioritized for everyone, and for some humans, they might not require certain needs mentioned in the hierarchy, like safety. Perhaps there are some risks, even if social, in actualizing ourselves? What if psychological safety stands in our way for love? After all, love requires preparation to suffer. Humans are subjective beings, making subjectivity worthy of redemption . As such, an objective hierarchy of needs for subjective entities seems oxymoronic and overgeneralizing. And yes, self-actualization may require sacrifice of other needs that appear to be more basic than the very one on the top of the pyramid, which is also paradoxical because a pyramid is built on layers... The removal of a lower layer should devastate the other needs on top of it, but it isn't the case with self-actualization necessarily (given that the opposite could be truer) . There are individuals, for example, who have various special needs not accounted for in Maslow's hierarchy, making his theory not truly universal and applicable to all people, past, present, and future. That may be especially true when these special needs are more basic. For example, autistic people may, at least partially, have a greater need to isolate themselves from the environment, and yet Maslow's hierarchy does not regard the need to be alone, as a need. On the other hand, it attributes a full layer to love and belonging. Additionally, I disagree with the definition of self-actualization , as it is technically impossible to fully actualize oneself, i.e., achieve a full realization of self-actualization. How come? It is possible that we are always more capable than what we might think. Exploring the Paradoxes of Self-Actualization According to this logic, even by asking this question, you have successfully actualized your authentic desire to find knowledge, and I have successfully actualized myself by granting you knowledge. This presents an interesting paradox: how can we truly know if we've achieved Maslow's ideal of self-actualization, AKA, in a definitive, concrete way? The core challenge lies in the vagueness of "full potential." Logically, maximizing self-actualization could require dedicating every moment, necessary to explore any single thing that we're capable of. But this raises an uncomfortable truth: missing even a single, necessary second for this internal research, technically constitutes a failure to "achieve oneself to the fullest." As you can tell, the practical application of realizing an individual's full potential might as well always be in the shadows of our universal ignorance of reality -- including our very own. This dilemma mirrors the logic of terms like "everything," "perfect," and "nothing", as they are all absolute. Just one instance that contradicts the concept renders it incorrect. "Everything" can be ruined by a single overlooked detail, "perfect" can't be such if its object can be improved, and even "nothing" can't be nothing if there is something in it, however insignificant. By the same token, you can't realize your full potential if you overlooked a single detail, necessary to do just that. Overlook it, and by the easily-damaged logic of absolution, the "full" isn't actually full, if there is a component amiss. Therefore, the most effective solution might be to redefine self-actualization. Authentic self-expression, whether occurring once or habitually, can become the phenomenon itself, of self-actualization. In this way, we liberate ourselves from the unattainable pursuit of an eternally evolving "full potential," focusing instead on genuine and present exploration of our beings. Therefore, we can realize our full potential by expressing ourselves honestly, without the need to research every pathway that would lead to the actualization of our potential. I offer authentic self-expression because I deem it the bare minimum of self actualization. And in logic, the bare minimum is enough to qualify.

(Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Background music) (The Subcategory on Despair and Surrender: Hope In Despair -- How It Could Be Found (Poem) Giving Up Your Privacy For Products -- The Ethical Philosophy of Contemporary Privacy Giving Up When Giving Is Due -- Why I Gave Up On Weakness Bind Yourself! A Way to Not Give Up (Poem) On the Solitary Lifestyle and the Idea of Defeatism -- Why Solitude Isn't Necessarily About Giving Up How and Why I (Formerly) Gave Up On Love Accepting Reality I: Accepting the Pain https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-secret-plans-path-to-a-ruthless-self https://www.philosocom.com/post/woman-s-tale https://www.philosocom.com/post/butterfly-effect https://www.philosocom.com/post/anonymity https://www.philosocom.com/post/salvation ) Part I: A Personal Case Example Being a man with a massive physique who ruthlessly worked to be his master's competent solitary executor, I have suffered from over-body-fat for many years, no matter how physically active I was. Despite being an ascetic hermit , I invested a lot on working on myself, physically and mentally, and became regularly hungry and fatigued as a result to this very day. I have purposefully neglected society and I purposefully neglected other people's love and empathy towards me, so I could focus on becoming a ruthless communicator , as to better and better deliver my grandmother's wishes unto an awful world that made her despair. I actively searched for ways to lose belly fat, and, in some periods, I've been the most active person I have ever been. Yet, despite all the hours of walking, the gym, ground exercise, and healthy eating, I have failed to reduce my annoying, unnecessary fat. All the time I spent working out and eating healthy appeared futile, as I got even more fat, regardless of the activity I attempt to maintain on a regular basis. The only way for me to not give up, which proved successful, was to intensify my asceticism even further, to the point I become near-oblivious to my hunger, as I work on Philosocom and function nonetheless. I am a very hungry man, as I am driven by pain to improve my philosophy skills further and further. I need more food than the average-sized human being, and even more than people who are as tall as me. I am driven by the intensity of my emotions. Also, I am hard-wired to be more depressed than happy, and hard-wired to work very hard. On Specified Hopelessness My ambitions, ironically to my asceticism, are wide and only end when I die . I refuse to retire. Nothing satisfies me fully. Eating jungles of vegetables and meat, I would often remain unsatisfied as if I didn't eat much. Even on an average day, when I get to eat, food used to be one of my top subjects when thinking. That is, until my transformations. On an average day, whereas an average person eats 3 meals a day, I used to eat 9, I believe. It didn't change my hunger. Nowadays, eating 2 or 3 meals hasn't changed it either. I have accepted my suffering as for granted. I only talk about suffering-reduction because most people are not ascetic, but rather, hedonistic. All of the wasted time on physical health, which was quickly deteriorated by exhaustion , made me realize how futile my attempts to reduce my body fat were. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to become healthier, without compromising my ambitions, is to hone my asceticism even further. To accept my hunger, physical as well as mental, as unseparated from my own existence, for the rest of my life. I don't care whether I am liked or not. I don't need my ambitions and my pains sympathized nor empathized nor validated. If I am not about to die from starvation, I can wait several hours until I get to eat. I am unrelenting for my work and I am more and more independent of the external world when it comes to my inner peace. Part II: Analysis of My Demonstration Based on my personal example, giving up should only be made when there are absolutely no other options left, or when the options (and people) are far too incompetent to deal with the problem. Those who give up early are not aware of their potential, and those who give up late are unaware of their own futility. Therefore, the middle ground is to stop trying when there is no other alternative, or when the alternative is too costly (Not necessarily in money). Based on this, there's a difference between giving up on a core activity, and giving up on total hope; pure despair, versus specified despair. Thus, some activities, when given up, can help us amplify the efficiency of our other/main activities. Thus, some giving up is good, for some activities, based on our respective philosophies, aren't worth it. A hopeless liability, when given up could boost the fruition of new possibility, subverting said liability. If you are in a reality where you do not tolerate it enough, at least make the best of it, while you're in it. Conclusive Musings On The Expression It is strange to use the word "up" in "giving up" because "up" is supposed to be something better-spirited, like a stand-up routine. Yet, when you give something "up", you give it to something or someone that is above yourself. Therefore, giving up can be seen as an expression of modesty, where the self is not the goal but the means that gives itself up for the goal. Helping others, is when you literally give up your resources, time especially, for their aid. Therefore, not all forms of giving up are forms of defeat, but sometimes strength too. It's just that we are biased to see the term in a pessimistic manner. The expression can also give us the following insight: When you give up, it is our choice afterwards, whether to look down in despair, or look up in hope and/or resourcefulness. The usage of my personal situation has led me to create something new, AKA, look "up" for something else that is and will resume being far greater than myself exclusively, as a result of giving up. "Giving up" could simply mean "stop what you're doing and look forward to something else thereafter". When we give up on caring about something, it can be a strength for us , as it can increase our focus on doing something that might be more important currently. Conversely, when others are dependable on us, it can become a weakness more than a strength. It really is a more natural term than it appears for most of us.

(Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth) (For more on honesty, click here) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "On Honesty -- How To Overcome the Problems In Becoming a 'Truth Warrior'" is a comprehensive exploration of honesty, emphasizing its significance as a form of bravery and a moral choice. It begins with thought-provoking quotes from Ms. Anonymous and Mickey Eilon, setting the tone for the discussion on honesty. The article is well-structured, divided into distinct parts that guide the reader through different aspects of honesty. The analysis of honesty as a form of bravery is insightful, highlighting the personal risks and emotional challenges involved. The distinction between seeking understanding and cathartic release provides a nuanced understanding of why honesty is important. By addressing both the moral imperatives and practical consequences of honesty, the article offers a balanced view, acknowledging the potential for negative repercussions while emphasizing the long-term benefits of maintaining integrity. Real-world examples, such as the discussion of honesty in business and the extreme case of North Korea , add depth and relevance to the theoretical points. In conclusion, the article is a compelling exploration of honesty, emphasizing its importance as a form of bravery and a moral choice. ************** "Shine bright like a diamond, but reflect like a knife." -- Anonymous "Everyone born here is unique and brings with them an entire universe, but the system is built to make individuals lose who they really are, and fear being the authentic version of themselves. Those who are coded to be a truth warrior already know the accompanying difficulties, in all aspects of life." -- Mickey Eilon (Background music) Part I: Why Honesty is a Form of Bravery Honesty is a form of bravery. It is the courage to speak your truth, even when you are afraid of the consequences. Honesty is all about taking more risks in life's game of risk, where you exchange the truth you want others to know, at the price of your vulnerability.  Honesty in practice is the daring act of expressing yourself authentically; Even when your voice trembles or your heart pounds, as the other side might lambast you , reject you as "insane" and even use coercion against you. Other forms of punishments may ensue too. Of course honesty is extremely difficult, especially to the fearful! This bravery manifests in two ways: Seeking Understanding:  We take a risk to be vulnerable and connect more deeply with others. Sometimes, honesty is about clearing the air,  building trust,  and fostering stronger relationships. Cathartic Release:  Honesty can also be a form of self-care, as you prevent yourself from being overwhelmed by emotion and trauma.   Burying secrets, untold truths and repressed emotions can weigh heavily on us, as they still stay in the background , and may govern us from the back of our minds.  Speaking our truth allows us to release burdens and find emotional freedom, but we always have to find the right time and people for it to avoid risk. Truth and Consequences The potential responses we receive are far from guaranteed, so we'll have to competently think if we don't want to argue with anyone, or worse. Being hurt in the past may comply us to not be honest, as a form of self-defense mechanism. Furthermore, in business, deception and betrayal can be tempting... Honesty is, in fact, primarily a moral choice. Businesspeople do tell themselves that, in the long run, they will do well by doing good. But there is little factual or logical basis for this conviction. Without values, without a basic preference for right over wrong, trust based on such self-delusion would crumble in the face of temptation. Most of us choose virtue because we want to believe in ourselves and have others respect and believe in us . When push comes to shove , hard-headed businessfolk usually ignore (or fudge) their dollars-and-cents calculations in order to keep their word. And for this, we should be happy. We can be proud of a system in which people are honest because they want to be, not because they have to be. Materially, too, trust based on morality provides great advantages. It allows us to join in great and exciting enterprises that we could never undertake if we relied on economic incentives alone. Economists and game theorists tell us that trust is enforced in the marketplace through retaliation and reputation. If you violate a trust, your victim is apt to seek revenge and others are likely to stop doing business with you, at least under favorable terms. A man or woman with a reputation for fair dealing will prosper. Therefore, profit maximizers are honest. This sounds plausible enough until you look for concrete examples. Cases that apparently demonstrate the awful consequences of abusing trust turn out to be few and weak, while evidence that treachery can pay seems compelling [Even if they fail]. -- Amar Bhidé and Howard H. Stevenson Honesty is not a magic key that unlocks universal acceptance, for there might be ulterior motives that are left uncompromised. Yet, the foundation upon which genuine relationships can be built. The Moral Challenge: The White Lie "It's better to have a honest enemy than a dishonest friend" -- Mr. John Duran There are times, however, when a white lie may be the more tactful choice. However, it's mainly tactful due to mental weakness when being exposed to information. Imagine a situation where your truth could cause significant harm to yourself or another person. Perhaps revealing a secret could shatter a fragile trust, or a harsh truth could inflict unnecessary emotional pain. In these instances, thoughtful discretion might be the more responsible path... However, isn't it our own responsibility to be strong? To strive to be as strong as iron, so we won't have to feel offended so frequently? The world often rewards honesty, but there are situations where a white lie can be a necessary social lubricant. And its only because of those who refuse/don't know how to be tougher. What we can all have, however, is ethics. Ethics that are used to promote the interests of our plan/s. Imagine a friend confides a secret they're deeply ashamed of. While honesty is usually the best policy, exposing the truth could shatter their trust and deepen their pain. Here, a white lie, like "I understand why you wouldn't want to share that," shows empathy without judgment. And then, "I have no desire to share that myself", sets your mature prioritization theory in motion. It shows you honestly care about them and their wellbeing. You also demonstrate that they are trustable. White lies should be infrequent, minor deviations from the truth, and ultimately protect someone's well-being, and your mutual relationship. The key lies in thoughtful discretion. Is the truth truly necessary, or would it cause unnecessary harm? Part II: Navigating Honesty in a Complex World And How to Ethically Swing the Truth The decision to be honest is delicate, depending on what you get and receive in return. The best course depends on the situation and the potential consequences. To do that, you must assess reality correctly, and frequently. Imagine a tightrope walker suspended high above the ground. Honesty is the act of taking that step, venturing out onto the wire. Sometimes, the ground below will be a safe space for open communication.  Think of a close friend with whom you can share your vulnerabilities freely, or even your true love. However, the world isn't always a safe space. It's filled with oppressors, who think their way of rule is right.  North Korea provides a disturbing example... “Kindness toward strangers is rare in North Korea. There is risk in helping others. The irony was that by forcing us to be good citizens, the state made accusers and informers of us all.” -- Hyeonseo Lee Mourning a dead leader is not only normalized but is required by their law. Here, honesty becomes a perilous tightrope walk, with potentially devastating consequences, laughing during this period could have severe punishment. So, many would act up very convincingly. Even in less extreme situations, honesty can come at a cost.  Online harassment, bullying, and even death threats can silence voices of dissent, and ruin mental health overall.  The fear of being ostracized or ostracized can lead some to suppress their truths. They choose to stay on the ground,  and ethically isolate themselves from "walking the tightrope". They may do so to prevent suffering, to either themselves, others, or both. Conclusion: Defeating the Ego By Your Own Power Now you see, boy… If you can’t beat me by your own power, you are not ready to take over for me! You will stay in my shadow forever, left to wallow in your own recklessness. Even I hadn’t counted on you being this ignorant... -- Zanetti (Beatdown , PS2, symbolizing arrogance) . This quote, from a fictional villain, exemplifies the dangers of unchecked ego. Zanetti seeks blind obedience, not genuine strength. For he has no use for weakness, as he has no use for those stronger than him. He doesn't try to be stronger himself. However, to be ready for the truth we must hone our strength. Should we sacrifice authenticity to avoid being ostracized?  Should we censor ourselves to avoid conflict?  Yet, much suffering from this can be prevented, again, if we get stronger. Stronger as warriors. Suppressing truths can lead to living a life of inauthenticity. Should we do so? Should we deceive everyone we know, like Walter White did, just for our egos? Yes, conflict can be unpleasant, but suppressing truths can lead to a hollow life, where no one/few only understand you, as you risk being discovered for masking your true identity and intent. Honesty is a muscle that needs to be exercised in order to overcome the tyranny of the overinflated ego.  The more we speak our truth, even in small ways, the stronger and more resilient we become. We should be strong enough to face rejection and conflict while staying true to yourself. It's being strong enough to be hurt, yet keep working towards the truth you believe in. Strong enough, to be vulnerable, and therefore, honest. Strong enough, to be hurt, and take it, as you work to see the truth you want to have in this world, actualized. True strength isn't about not being hurt, but about taking the blows and continuing to fight for what we believe in... Relentlessly.

Along the way we collect traumas that make it difficult for us to continue living, do not let us free ourselves from the past and keep us in a mind loop. It is important to always be in communication with yourself, do self-work and reach a high + deep understanding of the things that caused us these traumas, so that we can come to terms with them and let go. -- Mickey Eilon Why Some Abstain From the World “The wise warrior avoids the battle.” -- Sun Tzu There seems to be a large misconception about what "real life" means. It appears that there is only a specific portion of "real life" that is actually "real life", while the rest of existence is less "real"; as if there is a way to be more "real" than anything else that is seen as more esoteric, even if it isn't necessarily fictional, pure or partial. For some people, hermits and loners have no "life". They are " dead " even though they are alive just like anyone else. It's as if a branch that falls in the woods is not as real as a branch that falls in the middle of a nature party. What is the difference between the two? That it is more "normal" for something to occur in the midst of many, and not alone, in their absence. The thing is, hermits and loners exist just as much as anyone else, believe it or not. Our esoteric lifestyle is not less real than that of any socialite. We do not live in fantasy or in a sci-fi world, or any world that is different than yours. Our hearts beat the same, we have wants and needs, and so on. Perhaps this delusion, that there are "more real and less real" things and beings in existence, comes from the fact that some may see solitude as a very unrealistic option to choose , when it comes to our daily lives. After all, isn't it fun to socialize, to argue, to go to parties, to immerse oneself in the dating scene? I can at least say that for me, socializing is a threat; a threat on my mentality, on my ever-going search for peace and tranquility . Thus, I never see the need to socialize, when socializing, at least for me, reminds me of a traumatic past, and when people do not understand my pain. Only delude that they do, instead of being open to the knowledge , necessary to reduce overall pain. The Inevitable Possibility “All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.” -- The Joker It is a fact that for some, trauma is inevitable. It is inevitable not because some people deserve it, but because it just happens. It happens like the blowing of the wind, like the sunset in the end of the day. It is actually a very natural phenomenon, because we humans, whether we intend it or not, oh-so "love" to scar others' mentality. We scar them as if it is but a regular occurrence; scar them because "I feel like it", because of ideology and so on, without caring whether or not such infliction will have a long-term affect on their lives. But why should one care, when it is not one's own life? So is the cruelty of humankind, and not that of only cold-hearted dictators, but also of that of average-joes, people like me and you. That's how simple a mental scar can occur, and thus lead to a potentially lifelong illness of the mind! Intelligence is a virtue merely for being able to plan ahead for good. For that, the intellect deserves to be praised, and not intimidated. The Human Company Dilemma Since we humans are so easily capable of scarring one another, an important question should come to mind -- why desire the company of others, where there is much safety, much peace, in solitude? Let that sink in, that each day in your life, can lead to a trauma, without you even being aware of it. Anyone who doesn't like you can come and hurt you, whether physically, mentally or in any other form, and move on like it was nothing, while it is beginning to be embedded in your subconscious for the rest of your lifetime. And what have you done to deserve this? All you have done is not be the version your abusers wanted you to be. That's how imperialistic we humans can be, with our great desire to impose our ideals onto the reality of others, and condemn them heavily for not following our own whims, even if we have no authority over them whatsoever. Ways to Cope With Reality "This the day I live" -- Brad Armstrong, LISA Because of this realization, I feel no regret in my great desire to abstain from this world, as I have received enough mental scars from other people, largely strangers. I choose to utilize the scars I already have. Thus, when desiring to interact with the world unnecessarily, one should consider the consequences, especially when meeting new people. Humans are not good by nature; that is a very naive notion. The fact that many humans don't like to learn marks their infliction of suffering on themselves and on the world. Good intentions don't cut it when we can learn of ways to reduce pain and suffering in ourselves and in others. That is the moral, humane aspect of learning and accepting reality. Knowledge is power that can be used for so much good. If we deny it from ourselves with a false sense of confidence we refuse to question, we further choose the grief found in being alive regardless. Pain is an inevitable part of life. However, reducing it is the key to avoid unnecessary trauma and to reduce suffering caused by existent trauma. We can learn ourselves and each other better. That includes those who are the closest to us. We can learn what we can do to not make them suffer so much than otherwise. By saying "I already know you best" is a way to prevent yourself further knowledge you can use to help your loved ones help themselves to live a more peaceful life. Instead you should tell yourself: Maybe it would be helpful if I know them even more. Those with good intentions but without sufficient knowledge, may not hesitate to tear your mental state apart, simply because they don't know what they're doing to you. Ignorance can be that horrific, and in the name of human decency it deserves to be reduced to a minimum. As such, ignorance is also a good reason for trauma to occur naturally between humans. A society of learners that also strive for morality is the best kind of society in that regard. Because humans don't need to carry so much trauma within them. And with greater knowledge we can better cultivate mutual respect and understanding . After all, the momentary whim—the tyrant of many—is quick to command us. It doesn't deserve to that much, when it can scar our loved ones, and in some cases, scar ourselves by working against our interest for good mental health. As such, the greatest, unintentional malice within us is the refusal to learn. Delude yourselves that you know more than you do, and you will enable this malice within you, not reduce it, as it deserves in the name of having better lives. Practice meditation , and you may help yourself release the trauma. Some of it, at least. Gathering knowledge on PTSD can help, as well. But since I now realize how traumatized I was. I only live life as a task. Something to see through that it will be done. Not something to be experienced nor enjoyed. Hail Philosocom.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Intellectualism and Society -- How Intellect and Perception Create Misunderstandings" offers a nuanced perspective on the complex relationship between intellectuals and society. It highlights the importance of self-reflection, balancing intellectual identity with humility, emphasizing shared humanity and diversity, and criticizing stereotypes surrounding intellectuals. The author engages in self-reflection, offering insights into their personal journey from feeling alienated to recognizing a broader societal context. T his approach adds depth to the article, making it more relatable for readers who might otherwise find discussions of intellectualism abstract or aloof. Balancing intellectual identity with humility acknowledges the limitations and potential flaws of intellectuals, such as arrogance and lack of social skills, which can hinder relationships. This balanced view challenges the stereotype of intellectuals as inherently superior and opens up a conversation about the value of intellectual humility. The article also emphasizes the importance of open dialogue, inviting readers to correct their own opinions and contribute to the conversation about social integration and inclusivity. The open-ended approach helps build a bridge between the author and the audience, fostering a sense of community and shared exploration of complex topics. The article encourages broader perspectives on success and fulfillment, challenging conventional definitions of success by suggesting that intellectual achievement alone does not guarantee happiness or fulfillment. The discussion on love, emotional experience, and the limits of logic in human relationships introduces an important dimension to the conversation, reminding readers that intellect is just one part of a much broader human experience. Overall, the article makes a meaningful contribution to discussions on intellectualism, humility, and social connection, challenging stereotypes, promoting empathy, and encouraging a deeper understanding of the complexities of human relationships.   (Background music) Beyond the Binary: An Intellectual's View of Society As an intellectual , I don't see my relationship with society as a simple binary of connection or disconnection. In other words, I don't feel entirely connected nor disconnected from other people, given that there are people who are able to read me and understand my ideas. That, of course, does not have to collide with the fact that being an intellect is often lonely. And I quote " Psychology Today ": Making and keeping friends is often problematic. It's hard for others to feel comfortable getting close to someone whose intellectual prowess far outshines their own. And this is especially true if the gifted individual can't keep themselves from demonstrating their superior knowledge or acumen. Here is where intellectual humility becomes crucial. But many of the mentally gifted fail to develop this trait, and their relationships suffer accordingly. And the very fact that you're an intellectual, even if not entirely self-described, can create resentment from others, as intellect often intimidates. And when you are intimidated, the source of intimidation (even if there is no threat whatsoever), is seen as a threat. At the same breath, the intellect can be seen as a source of power, capable of attracting followers, and building organizations. It's of course very attractive for sapiosexuals as well. Thus, we shouldn't completely whine about such double-edged matters, when much of this distinct potential our intellects grant us, is up for our usage. Still, we shouldn't give in to the idea that a high intellect is capable of solving any problem or difficulty that would stand in his or her path. For example, undermining other skills, such as social skills and teamwork , can undermine an intellect's path to success. From Isolation to Importance During my younger years, I did experience a sense of alienation, but I believe this stemmed from my own immature thinking rather than any inherent difference between myself and others. Further analysis of society have determined that many wouldn't care if I die unless I become more relevant, so this is exactly what I'm planning to do with time. Take the example of the late Sandra Drummond in the 2000's, a British woman who died in the age of 44 and no one cared enough to notice her departure from this world. This, you see, is what happens to people who are not important enough: Not only they die alone (whether or not it's a problem is another issue), but their death would easily be overlooked, and even the local area of their residence would continue as usual. Given the fact that people with high intellect tend to develop mental health issues , and given that social withdrawal is a common symptom of mental illnesses like depression , it's likely that the very intelligent will have their own set of unique problems to deal with. Solving these problems can make them, as well as anyone else with these problems, an effective and contributing member of society. I believe that every individual has something valuable to offer the world, regardless of their intellectual level. We are all useful to an extent. We all possess unique experiences, perspectives, and talents that can enrich the lives of others. It is in this shared humanity, this interconnectedness, that we find true value and meaning. From Ivory Towers to Open Hearts And of course, you won't necessarily be highly motivated to contribute, when people who are intellectual are faced with stereotypes associated with arrogance and omniscience . Of course, stereotypes are, by default, flawed, even if they are commonly used as part of our attempt to understand the world. How can we properly understand reality if we confine ourselves to stereotypes? Back when I was younger, my understanding of society was limited and stereotypical. I saw it as a homogeneous entity, which inevitably led to misinterpretations and generalizations. As I matured and gained experience, however, I realized the complexity of human existence. Society is not a single entity, but a spectrum of diverse individuals, each with their own unique perspectives and contributions. My intellectual pursuits don't necessarily place me above this spectrum; I'm just another component of a rich, sociological ecosystem. Furthermore, I came to understand that intellectual ability is not a measure of worth. While I may excel in certain areas, others possess strengths and talents that I lack. You might find it surprising but people with high intelligence often struggle in finding love. And in love, you are supposed to listen to your heart, not to your mind or logic. Love is far more emotional than, let's say, writing a philosophy article. And while people seek to experience life over analyzing it in their metaphorical ivory towers, it's quite difficult not only finding love, but actually enjoying it from a logic-free perspective. Feel free to correct me in the comments if I'm wrong on that. Anyways, each domain of human endeavor has its own value, and no one area is inherently superior to another. Similarly to the attempt to objectively define "success" , it really depends on what we want to attain in life. Debunking the Myth of Intellectual Superiority There's a persistent stereotype that intellectuals sit on a pedestal above the rest of us. I only agree with this to a limited extent. While intellectuals may excel in one or more intellectual fields, their prowess in those areas doesn't translate to universal superiority. As demonstrated before, proficiency in one domain doesn't guarantee prosperity in all the diverse fields life offers. As I've shed the stereotypical delusions surrounding the labels that technically describe parts of who I am, I've realized I share more with society than I initially thought, and that this world hosts far more intellects than I initially presumed. Assuming one's intellect makes them a rare "specimen" is a fallacy, inflating positive attributes to an unrealistic degree. My earlier statement about intellectual superiority is justified by recognizing that society isn't a monolithic entity. I can find common ground with some fellow intellectuals within it if I wasn't focused so much on Philosocom. And it does not contradict the fact that I can't connect with so many others. This logic applies equally if I had different strengths, like being a skilled musician, a dedicated sports fan , or a hardcore gamer. Our ability to connect with one another depends on our ability to relate to them, or in other words, "find part of ourselves" in them (like having things in common) . Let us not victimize ourselves just because some of us happen to be more unique than others.

(For a poem related to the subject, click here ) (Note: Although written in 2021, some of the context and reasoning are still relevant to this day, in 2023. Perhaps indefinitely, too.) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). ************** Audience of Philosocom, I've been suffering a lot lately due to the constant mental stress I'm in. Although I enjoy writing and feel very content with it, the irrational fear of " have I written enough ?" continues to torture my mind. It's an anxiety I've been having for years, hence why I've written so much thus far. I still wish to write more, though, but I understand that without taking breaks, that would unfortunately be an unwise idea, as I also need to consider the state of my mental health. Being a philosopher is a very stressful occupation, as I have witnessed. You're in a constant need to prove yourself to others and also need to make sure you're not writing too irrationally or illogically. It's a tedious job where even the simplest of fallacies can challenge the existence of the claims you're making. In addition, there is also the issue of reception . Not everyone will like your philosophical writing, nor would necessarily agree that you are a philosopher, even if you have proven that you are several times through the practice of philosophizing. Yet another issue is to actually make people stay and read your articles , whether or not they are well written, due to today's short attention span. I even learned, through researching competitors, that the average stay in a philosophy website is around 1 to 2 minutes, and obviously that is insufficient for the average reader to read even one article. In a way, being a philosopher is like being a king, because as a king you ought to justify your mandate as such, defend your reputation from your "enemies", and make sure you have enough support for people to take you seriously in your role and not to "overthrow" you in favor of other "rulers". Looking back, it is indeed no wonder that I went under a lot of pressure, and I'd probably have had significant pressure even without my stress-increasing disabilities. The hardest thing, however, would be attracting the attention of the ungrateful ; those who want to react to your content without even the least bit of gratitude towards your work, who also don't care for you as a person, and thus wouldn't hesitate to insult you even though you work for the common good. Fortunately, those were few. But in the end, people need to understand that even philosophers can be offended, no matter how good or bad they are at their job. In the end, we want to, so to speak, work for the "love of wisdom". To celebrate our desire for insight and possible truths, and to feel safe doing so. Unfortunately, because not everyone is in this mindset of "celebrating" our love for wisdom, ungratefulness and even spite can come when some people are witnessing content they don't want to consume. Even if the material itself is legitimate, a philosopher's job isn't to appeal to their audience, necessarily, but to write what they genuinely think to be logical and true. Even if it met with controversy, one should remind themselves of the ad-populum fallacy. I won't lie to you when I say that I don't like the external world and all the stress that it contains. Even before realizing my "destiny" I was a very stressed individual, and I admit that this world is too stressful for me to live in like a functioning individual. As I said in one of my videos, stress cause me physical pain , and if that stress becomes too intense, it can result in a panic attack, and unfortunately, I had countless of those. However, regardless of the pressure, I don't want to give up on being a philosopher. I have no other reason to live other than providing to the world as many philosophical content as possible, for that is possibly the only good thing I am capable of doing and generate a sense of purposefulness at the same time. I tried in the past working at monotonous jobs that actually provide a steady income, but those made me depressed and small in significance. I do hope in the future to provide you with even more articles, videos, and poems for you to enjoy; content that will quench your thirst for wisdom, and put a smile on your face, even if the content at hand is a bit dark in nature. Nonetheless, as I enter what I call "Full Hermit Mode," I really recommend you check out my older articles that are available at the far reaches of this blog. I made this site in 2019, and much content has been generated for this site. If desired, consider dedicating some time to reading older material as I'm taking a break from writing newer material. Use the search engine if desired ; who knows what you'll find? Thank you all for following and supporting my endeavours as a philosopher and this site as my formal base of operations on the internet, Regards, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein

(For an article that expands on the hermit subject, click here ) (Inspired theme) Before attaining philosopher-hood , I have sympathized with the antagonists of fiction, Those who had the ability to alter the course of the world, And thus were a force to be reckoned with, By those who dare to oppose them, And beat them, due to cliché. One day I came to my former master And told him of my desire to change the world, As it is too wrong, too dysfunctional, Too disgusting. In response I was given the thesis of Epictetus: That there are things within our control -- and beyond, And thus -- the latter are not of our concern. In short, reality has taught me that I cannot change the world, For its force far exceeds mine, So I am to either sit, and endure , Or disappear, completely or strongly. I cannot change the world, And not even a certain girl's heart, Whom once I knew, So what is the point, then, in fighting A battle where the odds are against you? In reality, there are no minions, no superpowers, Rarely any ultra-rich with private armies, Nor doomsday devices, At the disposal of the realistic antagonist, AKA, he or she who initiates change . All you have is some money, a computer And maybe an apartment to live and sleep in. Only rarely, You get a powerbase , Beyond the basically. As the conqueror inside me is disappointed, When facing the burden of reality, Philosocom will be my base of operations, My "evil lair", Where all I can do, Is to provide my thoughts, Those who are influenced are them, Are beyond my control as well. This isn't defeatism , This is maturity. And as long as I don't have an army of minions and maybe a nuclear device, (So-to-speak, metaphorically of course) I want to remain in hermitage, For the mature one does not fight a war He/she is surely to lose in. I had a fleet of airships once, Hundreds by the number, But they were all be put out of commission, By the sharp darts of trollish laughter. I had enough of being hurt Even simply, for expressing, The fact that I exist, So I become a hermit, And thus in that way I might consist. Maybe, just maybe, If I had more control, Over myself, over the received influence from others, Over the alternation of communication with others, I wouldn't be such a hermit, Who is just waiting for his elder years to come, And perhaps write a few philosophical articles, Throughout the silent, desolate way. Thus, if you want to avoid hermit-dom, Seize control, By social skills, by attraction, connections, and by luxury, All of which I might not have, And (might as well) never will, For all I want now, if not permanently, Is to have a bit of serenity. Those who have the formers, Should welcome the burden of Stress, worry and anxiety, Just to sense a bit of power, That is beyond their own property. (2023 Added Verses): But now I realized, That a hermit's worth is compromised, Because as long as he will be deemed unimportant, His legacy to humanity can be undermined as well. So, in order to avoid that biased fate, I have no choice but to bury my hermit-dom with hate . Being irrelevant, is a thought I carried with much distaste. With my increasing fame, My former love have faced the truth. For she has paid, For saying that "I'm just too irrelevant", Apathetically, she declared. No empathy, no remorse, Now, I just have, To suffer life and work, Suffer, and stay on course. Now I am asthmatic, It is far from fantastic. To my craft, I am a fanatic, Stress and repression were its trigger, All I am left is to build an empire, And grow it bigger. For taking away my future, My happiness, so I could survive, Those who appointed themselves my repressors, Will pay, By my ability, to thrive. By my success they will be left, Proven wrong , With their past locked away, And in vengeance , Kept.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism ) In response to my article "Philosophy and Blades" a reader asked me if I favor nihilism. Here is my reply, which has been expanded for the sake of length and to further explain my position: I actually oppose the embrace of nihilism because it would entail the waste of our potential as human beings. It would also mean opposing morality, the law , basic etiquette, and so on, regardless of whether or not these values are subjective or objective. Because of that, nihilism is not only wasteful but also dangerous if people take it too far. The truth is, if we want to get along as a society, we need to have basic norms that are implemented and accepted. If nihilism were to be favored by most, it could lead to anarchy, which is harmful to our lives. Therefore, we can say that nihilism is a harmful ideology, at least on the societal level. Instead, I am in favor of existentialism , which is the idea that we create our own meaning in a potentially empty universe. If there is no inherent meaning to the universe (assuming there isn't), then it is our duty, if we so desire, to designate our own meaning to our lives. Thus, meaning is imperative to most for a life that can be considered well lived, and a life of nihilism, on the other hand, is not something everyone is capable of just accepting as it is. I heard there is a concept called " optimistic nihilism " and I think I can understand why it would be optimistic. The absence of meaning is also the absence of a specific plan of life to succumb to. Perhaps some are "privileged," so to speak, to accept it, but as long as you want to be productive with your life and do something that goes beyond the day-to-day pleasures, nihilism is pretty much an obstacle more than it is an asset. This is why I am an existentialist, rather than a nihilist. If you want to be safe in the streets, the people around you need to attribute meaning to the concepts of law and reputation, because otherwise, people will kill one another left and right if they so desire. If someone as a business owner wants to attract customers, they ought to attribute meaning to self-respect, reputation , and credibility. Otherwise, a business owner that overlooks these values would have a harder time attracting clients, and might even find themselves in poverty. A professional with no regard to professionalism will suffer financially and unnecessarily. The so-called "sad truth" about nihilism is that it's a very impractical ideology when it comes to surviving in this world with other people, and for some—with yourself. Some people might find it completely okay if they were given the chance to spend their lives in hedonistic waste, but those who feel more entitled to their merits and to what they can give to the world, nihilism is pretty much counter-productive to your efforts in becoming a more fulfilled individual who may or may not use that fulfilment to contribute to others as well. Those who feel responsible for something, like an organization or family, shouldn't fall into nihilism, because that would mean that their responsibility is worthless. Would a nihilistic parent abandon their kid because they don't see parenting as meaningful (for they see nothing as meaningful)? Perhaps most if not all of us need to admit the following: a "pure" nihilist is one that is willing to sacrifice everything and everyone and stay apathetic, for said sacrifice will truly be meaningless to them. Would you be willing to sacrifice your family, friends, reputation, property, and so on? A true nihilist would, because they may find them all as equally meaningless. Therefore, a true nihilist truly has nothing to lose, even if they have everything they want. Even their own willpower is meaningless. This is how far a true nihilist would go, and this is why I am not a nihilist, but an existentialist, for I have given myself a purpose I refuse to give up on. In the end, most if not all of us have something to lose , because we humans are usually emotionally-dependent animals. We love, we are passionate, we are proud, and so on—our emotions attribute meaning to the things and beings who are a part of our lives, and if said things and beings would go away, like the death of a beloved pet, then the loss of their lives would truly be unfortunate to us, for our emotions bind us to this "earthly" world. A true nihilist will not care, for they have no emotional dependencies that will tear them apart when the object of their affection perishes. They will be able to see the death of someone they love, and they will not care too much about it , for nothing is worthy of them, not even themselves. I don't know if this can be seen as an ascension or a descension. It could be the former, due to the emotional freedom that it could entail, and it could be the latter, because of how internally broken someone may be as a result of sheer apathy that can only be attributed to a true nihilist. We are thus presented with two options, if we are to discard nihilism: either this universe has an inherent meaning, or it does not. If it does not, then it is our responsibility to find or create such meaning, if we wish to avoid things such as emptiness, depression , and the potential of self-sacrifice.

All I Want To Do If you know the right thing to do and don't do it, that for you, is evil. -- James 4:17 Knowing good from bad is sensed from the conscience, more-so from the heart than head. -- Panama Dusa One must imagine Sisyphus happy -- Albert Camus' (Directory on Rectification and Help) (Subcategory of Failure) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Background music) All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is... doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! I indeed enjoy restoring my heart! Yet I'm supposed to care mainly for myself... Even though the flaw is always indefinite... Rectifying is the right thing to do! With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil... I refuse! All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! Helpers are alone and the evil socialize.. Full rectification, none can actualize... Like Sisyphus with his rolling stone, My duty is mainly my own.. With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil...... I refuse! All I Want to Do, is To Rectify the World! Not for power or evil, But for the greater good! This world had failed! This world is... doomed! I don't have the heartlessness to stand by! Too good for this world! Too good for this world! I am supposed to like the stone falling off! And I'm supposed to care mainly for myself... Even though the flaw is always indefinite... Rectifying is the right thing to do! With all my heart I enjoy being good, Evil...... I refuse!