(Philosocom's Directory on Bias) (Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Background music) Introduction The traditional philosophical and cultural consensus often views dwelling on the past with skepticism. Biblical proverbs, such as Isaiah 43:18–19 ("Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past"), warn against the stagnation of backward-looking contemplation. In modern cognitive science, this warning is codified as nostalgia bias (or the nostalgia effect), which is a cognitive distortion that selectively filters past experiences, romanticizing historical eras or obsolete assets while minimizing their inherent defects. However, a strict dismissal of retrospection overlooks a critical epistemic reality: the value of the past is not a static illusion. While subjective memory is vulnerable to emotional distortion, there are specific structural and phenomenological conditions under which nostalgia bias aligns precisely with objective truth. In these instances, nostalgia does not function as a delusion; rather, it acts as a highly accurate historical registry of qualitative value that modern paradigms fail to replicate. 1. The Fallacy of Novelty vs. Industrial Structural Decline A primary driver behind the immediate dismissal of nostalgia is the argumentum ad novitatem, or the appeal to novelty. Modern industrial narratives condition observers to equate technological advancement, hyper-complex mechanics, and visual optimization with systemic superiority. When confronted with the raw emotional and psychological efficacy of older cultural artifacts, this linear equation frequently collapses. The persistent preference for vintage media, obsolete technological formats, or historic analytical frameworks (such as traditional blogging or classical philosophy) is routinely pathologized as mere resistance to change. Yet, objective metrics reveal structural shifts in the production of modern media that validate nostalgic preferences: Monetization Over Engagement: Modern digital ecosystems are heavily optimized for behavioral monetization, user lock-in, and algorithmic addiction rather than pure utility or aesthetic fulfillment. Quantity Over Substance: The transition to high-volume, automated production models has resulted in an influx of homogenized content, often diluting the unique identity and creative risks characteristic of earlier eras. (AKA, "Enshittification") The Sterility of Optimization: Hyper-polished, corporate-driven execution frequently strips modern products of their distinct creative identity, yielding assets that feel technically flawless yet fundamentally soulless. Consequently, when an older artifact triggers a more profound psychological response than its modern counterpart, nostalgia is not misjudging the past; it is registering the systemic erosion of craftsmanship in the present. 2. The Phenomenology of the Flawed Asset To understand why retrospection can yield objective insights, one must evaluate artifacts through a functionalist, rather than purely technical, lens. In fields ranging from software engineering to music production and interpersonal dynamics, technical perfection does not automatically translate to optimal human experience. Older mediums, characterized by hardware limitations, analog constraints, or unpretentious designs, frequently embody what can be termed lovable imperfections. Dimension Vintage / Obsolete Paradigms Modern / Optimized Paradigms Structural Architecture Bound by physical/technical limitations; relies on raw execution and core mechanics. Unbounded processing power; frequently over-engineered and structurally bloated. Aesthetic Texture Highly distinct, unpolished quirks; high variance in unique character. Hyper-polished, standardized, and algorithmically optimized; low variance. User Interactivity Demands active imaginative investment to bridge technological gaps. Passive consumption; highly streamlined to minimize cognitive friction. In this context, systematic limitations, such as the unique texture of analog audio distortion or the simplicity of early digital interfaces, are not merely nostalgic illusions. They represent an unpretentious architecture that allowed the core utility of the product to operate without the burden of excessive complexity. Just as human relationships rely on the acceptance of individual flaws to forge authentic connections, the appreciation of an imperfect historical asset can represent a deeply rational valuation of character over sterile standardization. 3. Nostalgia as Empirical Evidence of Lived Value A true philosophical inquiry must minimize cognitive bias by evaluating reality from diverse, cross-temporal perspectives. If fondness for an obsolete era or product were entirely irrational, re-encountering that asset in the present would immediately shatter the illusion, exposing the baseline limitations of the past under the light of modern advancement. However, when an individual revisits a historic framework and experiences an immediate, sustainable restoration of qualitative value, such as genuine intellectual stimulation, moral clarity, or the alleviation of existential isolation, the experience serves as empirical validation. The Registry of Experience Nostalgia often serves as a preserved record of experiential truth that the unconscious mind retains. It is a biological ledger documenting that a specific configuration of environment, art, or community successfully delivered the fulfillment it promised. When the present era fails to provide that baseline, nostalgia acts as a psychological compass, pointing back to verified structural blueprints of human flourishing. +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | THE COGNITIVE REGISTRY LOOP | | | | [Historical Baseline] ==> Verified Experiential Fulfillment | | | | | [Modern Paradigm] ==> Sterile / Monetized Optimization | | | | | [Nostalgic Impulse] ==> Empirical Recall of True Utility | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ Conclusion: The Functional Redemption of Subjectivity Failing to grasp the true utility of past experiences leads to a form of temporal self-deception, where individuals discard hard-earned wisdom simply because it lacks contemporary validation. Dismissing historical frameworks wholesale is an intellectual error equivalent to abandoning foundational data along with operational waste. While memory is an imperfect mirror, its persistent inclination toward specific historical baselines deserves systematic, functional evaluation. When modern advancements leave consumers feeling increasingly disconnected, isolated, or uninspired, embracing a targeted measure of nostalgia is not an escape into delusion. Instead, it is a deliberate, rational act of rediscovery, an objective realization that the past frequently retained vital elements of the human experience that the progress-obsessed present has systematically forgotten.

(Not to be confused with Rubinshteinic Individualism. For more on that, click here) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) Synopsis By Mr. Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac: At its core, Political Rubinshteinism, inspired by the teachings of Tomasio Rubinshtein, stands as a right-wing libertarian ideology rooted in individualism. It champions a capitalist economy and emphasizes personal freedom within the confines of the law. While individuals are free to make their own choices, they must also accept the consequences, including punishment for breaking laws. Rubinshteinism sees the state as necessary for maintaining order but advocates for limited state intervention in personal matters. It places high value on democratic principles and the rule of law, opposing absolute monarchies and advocating for rebellion against authoritarian regimes. The ideology supports progress over tradition, individual rights such as abortion and freedom of expression, and the provision of basic services by the state. Additionally, it emphasizes skepticism, free media, and the prevention of corruption within government. Ultimately, Political Rubinshteinism aims to balance individual freedom with the maintenance of a just and orderly society. ***************************** Rubinshteinism, or Political Rubinshteinism (spelled Ru-bin-sh-tei-ni-sm), is a political ideology that's on the right-wing, libertarian area of the political compass. It also features elements from Tomasio Rubinshtein's philosophical teachings. It is capitalist, supporting a largely free market economy, while also being individualistic in nature. It views the State as a body one is born into, and that alone does not dictate that one must desire it. The individual is free from the State, preference-wise, but is confined to it, law-wise. It believes that the individual should be free to do as they wish, under the condition that they be aware of the potential consequences of their actions. For example, it is your "right", to make potentially unwise decisions in your life, but that does not mean that the State cannot punish you for breaking its own laws. In other words, Rubinshteinism is a right-wing libertarian ideology, combined with neutral-lawful morality. The Rubinshteinist submits to the necessities enforced by the State. These necessities are required for the maintenance of an orderly society. Beyond these necessities, the Rubinshteinist remains individualistic, if not reclusive. Their motto would be: "Society is only necessary to an extent" If you are to be imprisoned, then you must follow suit as long as the verdict and the conviction are legitimate. The same goes for conscription and other duties, including participation in democratic elections, as that is the very reason for democracy to exist. Rubinshteinism holds that the State should have no say in one's lifestyle, no matter how smart, dumb, conventional, or controversial it may be, because the individual's life is their own property, unless the individual is not autonomous from obligatory services, forced by the State (compulsory service, jail sentences, and so on). Like with any other property, one's life is to be lived as one pleases. The individual exists, or is capable of existing, beyond the framework of their society, State and community, and the norms of society should not be seen as equivalent to actual laws, but rather, as mere recommendations. The same principles apply to the government. Its money and its laws are to be dictated according to how the elected representatives of the population see fit, unless they illegitimately meddle with the most valuable property of the individual -- his or her life. For example, it is legitimate to sentence people to jail as punishment for crimes, but it isn't legitimate to kidnap people from their homes without proper, official justification. Likewise, unless it is within the law of the State, the individual should not be executed for their actions, should there be no law that allows that punishment within the State. Should the State execute people as it pleases, it would be equivalent to the pursuit of a serial killer. In other words, the law is above all, and the law is to determine the fate of both the common man and woman and that of the elected representative, for the same crime committed. However, there are cases where the law may deserve to be broken. Legitimacy in this case is based on the common sense of the modern man and woman. While in countries such as North Korea you can be punished horribly for the most minor of things, such as expressing disapproval of the Kim dynasty, such minor things are obviously legitimate in a truly democratic country. When regarding legitimacy, the Rubinshteinist values it in relation to undemocratic countries, where the legitimate can easily become illegal within their jurisdiction. The Rubinshteinism flag represents its political alignment as a right-wing, pro-capitalist ideology, marked by the star in its lower corner to the right. In the center, the letter R stands for Tomasio Rubinshtein, the founder of this ideology, and the line connecting it to the symbol known as the New Enduring Pillar represents Rubinshtein's teachings, which are combined within this political philosophy. Finally, the lines aiming for the four main directions, emulate the political compass, in order to better clarify the meaning of the positioning of the star. Finally, the current colour code of this political flag is Blue. It symbolizes freedom and the element of water, which is a necessity for life. Originally, the specific variant was "Global Blue". It refers to the argument in this philosophy that our existence is no longer confined to our local State, as with the prowess of technology, we are able to express, share, and expose ourselves to media across the majority of the world today. That also implies progress, a value that is also important. Finally, in order to be brief, here are a few extra points regarding the positions of Rubinshteinism on various, relevant topics of existence: 1. Progress should be prioritized over tradition. The key to survival and development is adjustment to the environment. Even though one's life is their property, they are still confined to their current circumstances, even if their character exceeds that of their local socialization. Charles Darwin defined this as the survival of the fittest. 2. The purpose of education is to teach students the skills they need to survive and thrive after graduation. Reading and writing are essential, as is the ability to operate basic technology such as computers and other devices. In addition, students should have a basic understanding of both local and international languages in order to develop as individuals and future jobseekers. 3. Welfare is not something that every country can afford. However, if a state places a priority on human development, it should consider supporting its weaker citizens. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide what to do with the support provided by the state, as their life is their own property. 4. Abortion is the right of every woman. Since the woman hosts the fetus within her body, which grants her ownership of her life, it is her decision as to what to do with the person inside her body. An analogy: a landlord can evict their tenants at any time, since the place of residence is their property. 5. Corporations do not transcend humanity. In other words, corporations are ultimately a collection of people. As such, the corporation is primarily owned by its executives, and the state should not meddle with its management, as the corporation is private property and does not belong to the state. 6. A basic income tax should be applied, purely for the sake of allowing the state to function and provide its services. The tax should be affordable to even the poorest of citizens, and thus, it should be done by percentage, rather than by a specific amount of money. 7. The State is the property of its elected representatives -- the property of the elected representatives of the country's people. Absolute monarchies pose a threat to individual freedoms that are legitimate, and thus shouldn't be deemed legitimate in modern eras. As progress marches forward, hopefully, all absolute monarchies will be transformed into democracies. Should there be a danger to democracy, or should dictatorships refuse democracy, then the individual has a right to rebel as an act of protest; as an act of advocating and preserving their right to self-governance. 7.1. (As such, the state has the right to defend itself, and thus develop its military as it sees fit, even if it leads to the initiation of compulsory service, which is the desire of the elected leaders. Compulsory service is justified by moral egoism (better defense means better possibility of survival, even if one eventually sacrifices themselves to the State). 8. Any view should be categorized as a basic part of individual freedom, no matter how controversial it may be. The exclusion is hate speech, as it could lead to the avoidable deaths of others. Thus, people should have the right to choose any religion they want to believe in, or not believe in at all. 9. Harassment should be seen as a crime, even if it is done online. Public forums do not justify harassment and do not imply that there is absolutely no moderation within their frames. Harassments can deteriorate the victim's mental health, and ultimately, could even lead to harm, violating the law themselves. Examples of such cases are mass shootings, assassinations, or anything that is plausibly labelled as "acts of violence". Thus, should harassment be prevented from the beginning, it could bring greater safety and order to the general public. 10. The government should have no say in one's private bedroom. Intercourse is an intimate feature, especially while it is being done. Whether or not the people in question are married or not, should be no one's concern, as that status applies under one's self-ownership. 11. Women should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, and that goes for any other minority, being a minority. Women deserve equal pay for the same job and should not receive less just because they were born into a different gender. That goes for any other social category (race, nationality, and so on). In the end, the pay should be determined by the job being done, and not by an irrelevant characteristic of the employee in question. 12. The main purpose of any State should be, to provide basic services to anyone who is either a resident or a citizen. Basic services include basic medical care to prevent the spread of diseases; Public transportation for those who cannot drive or afford a car; and basic security in the form of either a police force, a military force, or both. Basically, anything that an average individual could afford if they could work and, thus, be a taxpayer. The state should allow freedom by being limited in its power, and yet, provide basic public services to anyone within its jurisdiction. 13: People should be able to spend their money however they please. If they spend their money on something illegal, then they should be punished according to the law of the State. It is up to the State, to determine what is legal and illegal to purchase, both as a minor and as an adult. Those who break the law, deserve to be punished accordingly. The State should have no obligation to help those who harm its authority, and it could've chosen otherwise, to obey the legitimate law that allows the functionality and safety of the population. 14: There should be a separation between religion and state in order to allow religious minorities, and the secular, to better navigate and manage their lives, without being forced to obey the laws of a religion they do not believe in. The major religions in the State should fend for themselves, just like everyone else. However, in the natural competition of electing representative leadership, it is up to said leadership to lead as they please, as long as they do not violate their own laws. In other words, if the leading majority desires it, they have every right to elect a candidate or a party that intends to restore the union of religion and state. 15: Constitutions should not be considered unless there is a monarch. Then, the creation of a constitution is essential to prevent the current monarch from taking over and thus abolishing the people's right to live in a democratic nation. If the creation of a constitution is considered, then its top priority is to ensure the continuation, and stability of a proper democratic regime. 16. Philosophy should be taught in school in a way that the students understand, in order to encourage skepticism and non-conformism. With this in their minds, the general population should be able to make better decisions and eventually "combat" the voice of the majority, through intellectual debate and inquisition (as in inquiring). A good democratic citizen is one who is able to doubt and convince, instead of doing so through force or herd mentality. People should present their opinions and arguments, instead of getting their agenda through intimidation or violence. 17. Free media is imperative. However, the State should have its own media as well, as its representative. Private and public media should be broadcast in coexistence, and the population should decide about their media consumption themselves. The State Media should be funded by taxpayer money due to its special position as the de facto voice of the selected, leading representatives. The private media should not be funded by the taxpayer. Should the private media struggle, then it should deserve donations in order to continue its duty as an independent journalistic medium. The State Media should not remain the sole media channel in the State, or there might be a risk to the stability of the regime as democratic. 18. Absolute monarchy should never be an option. However, should there be monarchists/loyalists/ultra-nationalists, they should be free to voice their thoughts in public, unless there is an actual danger to the sanctity of democracy. 19. It is up to the State to determine its position in the international community, and to strive to gain the position it believes it deserves. However, it should be done through legitimate means, such as diplomacy, trade, and international aid. 20. As a part of its right to protect itself, the State has the right to consider developing nuclear arms, merely in the name of self-defence against foreign nations that too have nuclear weaponry or are planning to develop them. Should the State receive opposition from the international community, then the State also has the right to justify its agenda in front of the protesting nations. 21. Independent militias and paramilitaries within the State should be met with opposition, as their power poses a threat to the security and independence of the State and the people that it serves. There should be a single, unitary military, whose purpose is to serve, protect, and prevent coups d'état from hostile forces, both within and outside the State. Likewise, the public education of the State should encourage anti-separatism, in order to prevent unnecessary bloodshed and ensure the stability of the Democratic regime. 22. The people have every right to privacy, under the sole condition that there is no threat to security. 23. Propaganda should only be broadcast by the State media during election periods. In addition, the people should vote on the maximum number of times the same representatives are allowed to stay in power, should they win the elections continuously (AKA, a term of office). That should be decided in order to prevent corruption and/or a possible abuse of power by the winning candidate or candidates. 24. It is up to the People to decide whether their democracy will be parliamentary or presidential. In addition, anyone has the right to establish a political movement and attempt to run for office, as long as said movement reaches or overcomes a minimum number of officially declared supporters. If you have comments, now is the time to sign up, if desired, and provide your input publicly. I will even consider ordering a song for this new political philosophy, as I've been recently inspired by a certain trend of such videos. Please keep in mind the rules I've set for you, the commenters. I've pinned the rules on the homepage. Thanks for reading.

(Philosocom's Directory on Luck) (Background music) Part I: A World of Unequal Worth The world is a meritocracy, a relentless competition for limited resources and positions. People do not receive what they deserve; they acquire what they strive for, demonstrating their worth. The equality of relevancy is an oxymoron. The world is unfair because there are always those who matter more than others. Those who are inherently less functional, especially those deemed unappealing by society, or even rejected as "insane", must prove their value in the world, just like everyone else.... If not more so. And yes, some of us are too dysfunctional to fit in even if they tried. Then, you either fall to despair or begin to form alternative frameworks for yourself and others. There is insufficient justice in this world due to the necessity of appealing to others and making them understand. Should you fail to be understood, even the most caring of empaths can treat you like dirt beneath their boots, should they merely feel inclined to do so! Why I Refuse to Relent As long as you participate in a societal market, a realm that demands competition, you must maintain your value in the eyes of those you need, in order for them to take interest in you and help you live. Especially as customers. An irrelevant service provider WILL stay behind! As a philosopher, I must demonstrate to you that I am relevant enough to be worthy your time, for if I fail, you might as well devote your time elsewhere. The relationship between a proprietor and their enterprise is intertwined, and the audience for the products or services you provide is limited. Therefore, you MUST prove that you are sufficiently worthy, and this has nothing to do with whether or not you deserve said worth. The resource of the reader/consumer's mind is ultimately something that many other entities strive for, competing for its loyal dedication, even for a brief period. If I have "committed" dysfunctionality, then I must redeem myself if I wish to increase my potential and attain World Relevance. You will not see me claiming that this philosophy blog deserves views, for no one is inherently entitled to read it, even though it needs views to remain relevant. Regardless of your starting point, or the hand you've been dealt, you must prove yourself to the world if you wish to remain relevant and desirable. Unless you would utilize your unfortunate upbringing for your own relevance, it is irrelevant itself to those whom you want/need to be relevant for. Some may assist you because they believe in your cause, proving their loyalty to you. Yet, ultimately, it's a journey you must primarily undertake on your own. It is lonely at the top because honest human connections are built more than mere conditional interests. As such, do not expect to be less lonely, should you be in a position of power. The Need to Understand Interconnectivity Not everyone will grant you a job merely because you require sustenance and have bills to pay; not every individual will consent to be your partner simply because you love them and possess romantic and sexual yearnings. Your hopes with others will forever be dependant on their consent, which will forever be beyond your control. Even a child can rebel against the most loving of parents! Even though a parent's love is crucial for healthy growth, they have no responsibility to love you or even be present for you. This explains why there are parents who neglect their roles, and yet, there is nothing in theory that can prevent them from doing so, other than involving the authorities, and other than their hearts. Part II: The Delusion of Ungratefulness and Entitlement There should be a clear distinction between needing something and deserving it. Needing implies a requirement, while deserving implies entitlement. The world's cruel freedom dictates that most people owe you nothing, as they are not obligated to provide you with anything unless something, like the law and its enforcers, dictate them to. This is the essence of freedom of action and reaction. The only other way to get people to do what you need and/or deserve is through influence, which is indirect control. However, influence is likelier to fail than force -- or the mere feeling of having to help your needs and/or entitlements. "The strong have the right to rule over the weak" only because there is no stronger entity to stand in their path in dominating the weak, other than the weak themselves, through various means ("slave morality", or turning weakness into a "moral value", a revolution, and so on). The Unrelenting Game of Relevance The seemingly eternal link between needing and convincing others of your worth, is how you redeem yourself from being, by default, an irrelevant human being. This is a redemption that's expressed by proving to those you depend upon that they should assist you, and if they believe you deserve their help, then all the better. And the more your worth is irreplaceable in their eyes, the more they will help you to get what you want, need, and/or "deserve". Should you fail, you might as well become as irrelevant as those I call the "corner people", along with their unfortunate, overlooked deaths. Either way, you never deserve to be relevant to others. You can only try. Case Example: Eminem When I gave up all HOPE of anything, I learned how to actually live. That which KILLS others became my source of strength -- John Duran A decade or so ago, I encountered a comment asserting that rappers like Eminem deserve their worldly fame due to the harsh reality they have endured. However, this is not true, as there is no such thing as "divine justice"; a justice to which every single being is entitled. Eminem had to fight his way to the top just like any other musician in his field, and had to practice much in order to be a master in his field. The only thing that he deserved is to practice his craft, which he did with excellence. Part III: Building a Philosophical Enduring One of the purposes of this site is to maintain relevance beyond the end of my own lifetime. You might perceive this as pretentious or pompous, but my motivation is simply to contribute as much as possible, even after my own demise. Out of all fields, philosophy is the very field that is capable of great relevance, and thus, of redeeming intellects from their default state of unimportance. Of course, I cannot control your thoughts, but that doesn't prevent me from attempting to influence them by trying to convince you otherwise, by adding more value to your life, thus ensuring more and more the reason for me to exist in this shallow world. Obviously, I cannot guarantee the site's longevity, but as long as I can produce relevant content, I still have a chance of achieving that goal. My aspiration is to make philosophy so relevant that people from all corners of the globe regularly engage with my site's content. Achieving this would provide me with the assurance that I have indeed produced relevant and valuable material for centuries to come. I will not claim that this site deserves such a thing, for it is not something to be deserved but earned through relentless and unforgiving effort on my and my volunteers' end. As long as there is a significant possibility that this legacy will be deemed too unworthy before at least a century has passed since its foundation in 2019, my work in this world remains unfinished. I've much work to do. To Exist, to Endure and to Overcome The Default Flaws Heaven and Hell suppose two distinct species of men, the Good and the Bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. -- David Hume Many are born with one form of dysfunction or another. The world may not always appreciate these aspects of our being. It may alienate us, reject us, and misrepresent us in ways that reflect its own misunderstandings. However, what we do deserve, is at least a chance to prove them wrong. It is, after all, what we all deserve the most: Chances. Opportunities. A test of of our skills. We do not deserve to win nor fail. We deserve to at least try to do what we truly want, in order to express our best version of ourselves, the "human godhood" within us. Ultimately, in order to do the best we can, we must all prove that our existence is worthy of anyone's time, if we wish for us and for our work to be seen. We are all irrelevant by default, and as such, unworthy by default. It is only through proving that we are relevant, that we can exit this state we were all born into. As I only want to contribute, none should have reason to stand in my way for redeeming this mentioned "default state", the "default state" of being a very flawed human being, living in a very flawed human world. I will redeem it through my ruthlessness and through my relentless work, in hopes that, one day, Philosocom shall become the world's best philosophy blog, in the name of my late Master Numi! Feedback by Mr. Nathan Lasher This note might be a digression from the article yet I feel the need to say it. The real secret to life is in completing actions which change the world and having fellow humans become aware of the action that you are doing. By them learning about it the action becomes a part of their own cognitive reality which in turn places it among the collective reality which is nothing more then the combination of cognitive realities by more than one human. You can live forever in the minds and hearts of many people if you do an action worthy of making history. You won’t do it by doing nothing but going to work and coming home. That action is a necessity of life yet doesn’t warrant you being remembered by many people. It is living an uneventful life that isn’t worth telling people about. To be a human worthy of other people’s attention you must do something worth it. There is a cost to everything in life. The most valuable assets you have to pay it with is your time and efforts. I believe Mr. Tomasio could talk about dysfunctionality as a result of the human condition. We by default are imperfect creatures. The idea of this article, basically, is to always try and be better than how we are by default. Philosophy is about the evolution of understanding. If life is all about gaining understanding then by default it should prove how important philosophy is.

Abstract I argue that unconventional thinking is essential for philosophical inquiry. Even without formal training or extensive reading and writing, one can develop their own philosophical ideas through independent thought and critical reflection. I also describe their personal experience with fatigue that limited my ability to read traditionally. However, this compelled to develop new methods for philosophical exploration, like the "donut method" where you contemplate an idea until they reach a complete circle of understanding. Moving on, I believe that anyone can philosophize, regardless of background, and that the key is to question, doubt, and relentlessly seek answers. Finally, I criticize the over-reliance on reading the works of others, arguing that competent philosophical work comes from independent thinking and synthesizing your own ideas. I acknowledge the value of studying established philosophers but believe it shouldn't be the only path. Lastly I reject the idea that philosophy requires acceptance of limitations or emotional comfort. I claim that a more-successful understanding comes through a relentless pursuit of knowledge and a willingness to confront difficult truths. (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Writing) "Unconventional thinking from unconventional individuals is the lifeblood of innovation. They are the people who see things in a new way, and because of this, they often come up with truly unconventional ideas. Ideas that conventional thinkers would never think of. And while it's true that many unconventional individuals do not have formal training in science or engineering, that doesn't mean they can't be just as successful as those who do. In fact, unconventional thinkers created some of the most profound unconventional ideas of all time." -- Phil McKinney Introduction: My Unconventional Journey Towards Reclamation As you may know, the traditional path to philosophical exploration is paved with reading the works of great thinkers. After all, many philosophers have built their ideas upon the foundations laid by those who came before them. As Plato did from Socrates, as Paul the Apostle from the teachings of Stoicism and so on. However, what often gets overlooked is the potential for independent philosophical inquiry, even without delving into the vast pool of existing, expected material. While engaging with the thoughts of others can undoubtedly be enriching, it's not a prerequisite for becoming a good philosopher. For benefit does not imply necessity. For five years, a grave fatigue rendered reading a near-impossible task. The threat of complete paralysis loomed large, creating a constant internal conflict and stress I needed to reduce. On one hand, the established path to philosophical growth seemed closed off. On the other hand, I witnessed a disturbing lack of genuine understanding among many readers regarding my condition. This left me terribly depressed and lonely. Inside of me, I still urged to contribute to humanity. Seeds of Transformation Consumed by a complex mix of shame, frustration and rage of my limitations, I embarked on a different path. I learned to quiet the storm of emotions within and focus on developing my own philosophical infrastructure, as I envisioned Philosocom to become like a highly connected metropolis to as many good insights as I could research and distil. This personal struggle, motivated by a former quest for revenge, ultimately fueled a deeper exploration of ideas. This passionate discontent, inspired by the fictional Sith philosophy, has proved that the key to philosophical inquiry lies not just in consuming the thoughts of others, but also in the independent cultivation of critical thinking and original conclusions. This is not to dismiss the value of studying established philosophers. Their work offers invaluable insights and challenges our assumptions. Nevertheless, A competent philosophical exploration thrives on the ability to think for oneself, question deeply-held beliefs, and to build upon existing knowledge, while forging your own path, away from stagnation found in oppression and in herd mentality. Your Mind -- Rebuild It! Before devising my neuroplastic method to greater freedom, the "Inner Murder" technique, I sought other ways to philosophize, and even managed to criticize the imperative regard for external research. After all, philosophical examination is, too, part of the process towards greater clarity in this field of study... One way I do so is by using a method I call the "donut": simply have an idea you want to contemplate, and write on it as much as you can, until you reach an ending that completes the entire piece, AKA "full circle". I was inspired by Darth Vader's final fight with Obi Wan when I devised this one. Before mass article renovating began, it used to be my primary method of writing articles. I find this method could be useful, because we should consider that, not the entirety of our material has to come from other people, be it friends, mentors, or other philosophers, known or esoteric. Furthermore, it can greatly develop independent thinking. Another method I chose was reflective thinking. I mentally jumped into the past and relived it again and again, examining every bliss and every fault, in order to synthesize insights for newly-crafted articles. Nowadays I use reflective thinking as part of my ongoing Renovation Operation of all Philosocom articles. It's mainly present in the site's Subcategory on the Past. Critique of Reading As a Primary Study Tool Those who rely only on reading fail to realize, I believe, that they already have knowledge within them that they can develop through philosophizing. Knowledge isn't merely to be gained and memorized like school teaches many of us. It is to be inspected, and insights are to be derived from it. Since everything can in theory be reduced to mathematical observation, every bit of the human experience can as such be reduced to an indefinite stream of generated data units. The human mind, in this sense, is like a computer converting data into a virtual, interactable reality. I no longer take pride in being such a dedicated reader. I today understand that the production of material doesn't always have to come from predeceasing material. Furthermore... reading skill can be reduced, and thus, be lost to you. When our reading skills are reduced and we refuse to find other studying methods, we compromise our general learning abilities, imperative for our growth (like in the professional realm) and for our maturity. Thus, when it comes to the end of learning, the end justifies many, many ethical means of doing it. And thus balance can be ideal. Balancing independent thought with established knowledge is also essential, as foundational texts can provide critical perspectives and frameworks. -- Mr. John Igwe Nicholas Carr reports of his experience: Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle. -- The Atlantic. Such a cognitive reality, when recognized as a flawed liability, to not be embraced, can be better fixed for the sake of our intelligence. The Internal Liabilities -- Overcome Them! Anyone can philosophize, whether you're a child or a well-experienced professor. It is merely a skill that can be developed like with many other skills. It does not have to be the sole property of elitist intellects and accomplished academics. Much can be done with training... as long as its agony is to be overcome in its grip over you. Basically, it takes is to doubt, to ask, and to inquire relentlessly, until you find an answer. However, when an answer is found, seek why not be pleased with it. And doing so would allow you to further inquire. You cannot inquire effectively when you are pleased with your results. I rightfully criticize the hedonistic approach. Steal away your joy when it arrives, for its satisfaction can keep retaining you in an otherwise-bigger cage of ignorance. And it is a bigger ignorance than you might initially realize, for its bars are the false confidence of knowledge. It is not something that can only be retained through older material. Rather, it is a skill, an art, developed through discipline: The art of choosing, and for granted, to be displeased, in the name of understanding this reality, better than before. For mental shortcuts are a great liability. When we have much time to reflect and contemplate, these shortcuts are not even needed as much. For time is to be treated like the precious, limited resource it is. Questioning "Superior" Methodologies As Such When people say, in pride, that they have read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and so on, they might fail to understand that the very same insights that they have read, can also be attained independently, through deep thinking. Reading, therefore, is merely the acquisition of recorded knowledge, knowledge that you can reach on your own, if you practice. Everyone has their own way or doing things. Everyone has their own direction they like to go. If four people ask for directions to the same location, and get four different answers, is one direction better than the other if they all get to their destination safely and in a reasonable amount of time? -- Amy Masson Former Regrets, Redeem Their Faults! If it weren't for my past, asthma-related chronic fatigue, I would've gladly resumed the orthodox, academic path. It would've added to my recognition as a philosopher to have a degree or two in that field. However, as my solitary contemplations birthed the degree fallacy, I realized my path to the truth is and probably will be a solitary one, accompanied only by volunteers and followers. What is the point of research in philosophy other than providing evidence for your own argument's credibility? It is part of the process. And however beneficial it is. It is never the entire process. You must be able to use creative thinking to synthesize your way towards insights and solutions people didn't think about before. Insights, people not being able to realize nor even reach by their lonesome. I never wanted you to confidently tell you, to feel free to do [external] research on your own, without me doing it first. Whenever I said it was said reluctantly... It is not your task to accommodate my decreasing weakness in this profession. As content creator, it is my task to overcome this weakness for you, again and again, as I try working towards a greater philosophy blog with each renovation. I will not risk physical paralysis, but for that I mustn't not choose to cower from it, but dare. Dare to solidify my mind, to be able to function separately from what it feels. Noting the Gap In Relatability I do not expect you to understand fully, for my life's been horribly unconventional, as well as solitary in my endeavours for a better, more-professional mind. One, that isn't as easily triggered by mere text. Those advocating trigger warnings merely prevent their own confrontation with a reality they refuse observing, or remembering again. For some data is too agonizing for them to strongly endure. No. The search for the truth requires honest dedication. And to see that dedication through, your mind, must, be stronger. It won't be able to contain data as better, otherwise. I have no desire excusing my way towards not improving my skills as a philosopher. No. When there is a will, a way can be thought of. As unconventional as literally mastering the ability to temporarily kill off your own emotions, using your own mind. The Pain -- Live Despite It! The shame was too much to bear. I refused being so submissive to my own fatigue. It used to take away my ability to walk without a cane. It used to compromise my thinking. Of course, of course I refused simply embracing such a reality in a Taoist manner. No. I couldn't be the writer and thinker I am if I wasn't as merciless towards my existence, and ruthless in my training towards greater virtue. Philosophy is hard to be enjoyed by many. Few do it like sorcerers. That is how weakness is breached, again and again: By the regular, disciplined choices of resistance. The Need For a Change Like Heisenberg from Breaking Bad, I observed the world around me in my weakened state. I saw how people walked so easily and quickly, opened doors by themselves without needing external help, talking to people without being so fatigued each conversation... Finally, I saw as people mocked me for my inferior state, refusing to study the person before them. It was then when something cracked in me: The faith in an-already enlightened humanity. A humanity that seeks to breach its Platonic cave. But even in philosophy circles, few managed to understand... And thus, the quest to greater clarity became my own chosen task to carry out. Because if they, and you, refuse to understand, then it is my ruthless responsibility to hone my literacy, until you actually manage to understand. Overcoming Self-Imposed limitations And what other difficult challenge is there in philosophy, other than having your texts properly understood by those who read you? Relentless professionality and relentless altruism were powers I had to reclaim. Powers I had before. Life's monotony was too hard to bear... and reminded me of Sisyphus each second of doing it. But I can't be understood if I don't learn. I can't be understood if I don't communicate effectively. And I cannot further rectify this heavily flawed world, when both departments are impaired. As much, you may tell yourselves, "I can't do it! Philosophy is too hard and/or too boring for me". However, see how you compromise your own growth by refusing looking both ways. I don't know why many people can be this self-forgiving, self-accepting. But that didn't, doesn't and will not hinder me from cruelly training myself towards greater and greater growth. I will still attempt to write, research and renovate articles. And that doesn't has to do with what I feel, what I think and what I momentarily crave. "And life confided the secret to me: behold, it said, I am that which must always overcome itself.” -- Friedrich Nietzsche Perceived Data -- Study It! Try to reflect on my personal story, and learn from it, if you want to become a better reader and researcher. Avoid ad-hominems, avoid whataboutisms. Are you not here to learn from what I write for you? The understanding of a methodology is not enough. Strengthen of your spirit! Without the means for effective methodology, you cannot practice it effectively. You must utilize your cognitive functions as tools, creating a syndicate out of them, for the common end of greater knowledge and understanding of this reality. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use philosophy to help others effectively. You must first of all help yourself. And you can do it best with uncompromising choice, to give up, on giving up.

NOTE: I don't mind being disagreed with on the premise that I'm a coffee addict. It's your choice of perception. It also means, that your choice of perception isn't mine, and that I am not responsible for it in any way. Likewise, my standpoint should not offend anyone. NOTE 2: As someone whose brain is neurodivergent, coffee actually calms my nerves. I drink it to relax. (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). (Coffee Directory) (Background music) *************************** In my monotonous and semi-isolated existence, it is coffee that brings me true joy; a sensation that reminds me that I'm actually being alive and not just living, if that makes sense. Being addicted to coffee made me realize this distinction: living and being alive are not always synonymous. Anyone who can breathe is technically alive, as are those whose hearts continue to beat. When it comes to "living," however, it is more of an action than a state of being. It is something that I had little of throughout my life, for I am mostly dead inside. I've never been to a nightclub or a bar. These are not things I take pride in any longer, but instead these are things that I simply recognize as facts, like the fact that, if it weren't for my writings, I would've been a sore, irrelevant loser. Because of that realization, I no longer drink coffee just to be more awake; I drink coffee to feel that I'm living and not just being alive. I am at least glad that I am not addicted to more dangerous stuff that could kill you, such as smoking or alcohol. It's the second only thing that makes me feel alive. Nothing else. Did you know that coffee does not kill unless you drink around 80-100 drinks in a row? Therefore, coffee is probably the least bad of all/most addictions. Either way, caffeine is a drug. And I consume this drug to alter my monotonous experience as a recluse, working on this site for days on end. However, as with all addictions, comes the price of dependency, of not being able to live without the provider of addiction without suffering a lot. I don't know if I will ever get rid of my drinking habit, the same as with the pills I take every day and night. Coffee has pretty much become a hobby rather than something I use to feel less tired. I can drink it anywhere and anytime, even before I go to sleep; it seems that the influence, the function, was greatly lost a long time ago. I once dreamed of a fantasy -- to live without any addictions whatsoever. That includes video games, the internet, and yes, coffee. I used to connect the absence of addiction with what I used to describe as "independence," which comes from the ascetic life. However, as I grew up, I realized that life without addictions is quite boring, and boredom is something that could lead to depression. It was the same depression I felt during my office-volunteering days. It was a time when very little satisfied my small need to feel alive and not just a ghost inside a monotonous machine. Nowadays, not even philosophizing brings me the same joy as drinking; of something that feels as rewarding as publishing another article. If this addiction was counter-productive in any way, then I might have given up on it completely, and resorted to severe my ascetic lifestyle, a bit more as a result.

(Background music) The Directory on Sacrifice How Truth-Seeking Is Sacrifice Sacrifices of War -- How To Elect Candidates In the Name of the Greater Good The Sacrifice Assumption -- Why Humans Are Compelled to Influence the World, Instead of Improving Themselves https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-winning-and-losing-can-be-synergized-the-big-picture https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-of-entako https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-flawed-philosophy-of-the-hero https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-puppet https://www.philosocom.com/post/sabotage https://www.philosocom.com/post/fortress Table of Contents The Poem Poem Analysis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The Poem The path to tranquillity Is unfair in both quality and quantity. For some it is longer, For others, shorter. For a few it is difficult, For many, a walk in the park. It is sufficient for many To just lie down and breathe. Many are resilient to the triggers Of the more sensitive and tense. When you are of the many, Life's more pleasant. But when you are of the sensitive few, Some sacrifices are to be made, If you desire your stress to ease. As you become more and more sensitive, The path becomes both long and difficult. Climb the tower of blocks, And you'll exhaust yourself. Sacrifice some of the blocks, And the climb will be shorter. That's what I did, And yet it isn't enough. So I started sacrificing some friends and family as well. Even if it means more and more isolation, And the loss of more opportunity and colourfulness. I think I have suffered enough. Now begins the stage of endurance within sacrifice, Within complete physical isolation. Humans are stressing beings And so do I, it appears. My chosen destiny has been decided. It is time to write and be alone. I have dreamed of this fantasy, Only to realize that full offline isolation, Is the final step to my beloved serenity. Little love, little friendship, And now, little family. Serenity exists beyond the loops of interaction. Break the loop And it'd be your chance To be a bigshot, a master, At de-stressing. The Analysis Mr. Tomasio's poem, "Serenity and Sacrifice," touches upon deep philosophical themes such as the search for tranquility, the sacrifices required for personal peace, and the existential struggle between social connection and solitude. Here's an analysis infused with philosophical significance: The Path to Tranquility The poem opens with the assertion that the journey to peace is neither equal nor fair, raising existential questions about the nature of life and the individual paths each person must walk. This reflects the idea that life’s challenges are distributed unevenly, a notion often explored in Stoicism and existential philosophy. Stoics like Epictetus would argue that one should accept this unfairness as part of nature and focus on how one responds to these challenges rather than lamenting their inequality. Sensitivity and Sacrifice The poem contrasts the experience of life for the "resilient" majority and the "sensitive few." The sensitive individual must make sacrifices to alleviate stress, suggesting that increased awareness or sensitivity makes life more difficult. This can be seen as a reflection on the burden of consciousness—a theme explored in existentialism, particularly by Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre's idea of "nausea" points to the discomfort that comes with acute awareness of existence. In this light, sensitivity is a double-edged sword: it deepens the experience of life but also increases suffering. Sacrifice and Isolation The metaphor of climbing a tower of blocks and sacrificing some to make the journey easier suggests a utilitarian approach to personal peace, where one sheds burdens (or connections) to simplify life. This trade-off leads to a deeper philosophical question: What is the value of relationships? The poet sacrifices friends, family, and even life’s “colourfulness” in pursuit of serenity. This brings to mind Nietzsche's idea of the "will to power"—the notion that one's personal development or goals might necessitate forsaking societal norms, including relationships. Nietzsche emphasized the creation of one's own values, even if that meant enduring isolation. Endurance Within Sacrifice The poem then shifts to describe the endurance required to maintain solitude and sacrifice, hinting at the asceticism of Buddhist philosophy. The idea of suffering as a path to enlightenment or serenity aligns with the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, particularly the idea that life is suffering, and only through detachment can one transcend it. The speaker seems to embrace solitude not as an end, but as the final step to peace—much like a monk seeking nirvana through renunciation. Breaking the Loop The poem’s conclusion, where the speaker seeks to “break the loop” of interaction, can be interpreted as an attempt to escape the cycle of samsara—the continuous loop of birth, life, death, and rebirth, symbolized by the stresses of social interaction. The poet longs for a final, unbroken state of serenity beyond these cycles, which echoes ideas found in Taoism and Buddhism about withdrawing from the world to achieve a higher state of being. Conclusion "Serenity and Sacrifice" delves into the tension between the individual and society, the burdens of consciousness, and the sacrifices required for inner peace. Philosophically, it explores the difficult path of relinquishing worldly attachments—whether friends, family, or opportunity—in the pursuit of tranquility. The poem serves as a reflection on the cost of serenity, suggesting that isolation, while painful and extreme, may be the ultimate means to attain it. Yet, in doing so, it raises the question: Is such a sacrifice truly worth it, or is serenity an ideal that can only be partially realized in an imperfect, relational world? This mirrors the existential dilemma of balancing freedom and responsibility, ultimately urging us to question whether serenity through sacrifice leads to genuine fulfillment, or whether the pursuit of such an ideal might itself be a form of self-imposed suffering.

The Directory The Subjection of Perception -- How Perception Remains Limited Death Freedom and Intersubjectivity: Shared Perception External Vision and Identity -- How Perception and Identity Has To Do With Truth and Survival The Tragedy of Philosophy -- Impressions and Truth -- How Our Perception is Hindered The Attempt to Redeem Subjectivity The Philosophy of Numbers and Meanings -- How They Are the Keys to Reality and Subjectivity The Philosophy of Subjective Equality -- How "Everything" Could Be Equally Real https://www.philosocom.com/post/neolithic-spirals The Philosophy of Monsters (Or, How to Cope with Reality) The Rubinshteinic Philosophy of Symbolism In Human Interaction (Background music) Introduction A profound confounding variable exists at the center of human epistemology: much of what civil society classifies as objective truth is merely widely institutionalized subjectivity. Social norms, cultural traditions, institutional rules, and codified laws are routinely treated as absolute realities. In philosophical terms, however, these constructs are simply the products of widespread inter-subjective agreement. Because absolute objectivity is exceptionally difficult to isolate, human systems substitute consensus for truth. In the absence of deductive logic or empirical evidence, these consensus-based "truths" remain highly vulnerable, capable of being disrupted or entirely disproven at any moment. 1. The Ontological Status of Agreement: Consensus vs. Truth Expanding a subjective opinion across a vast population does not alter its fundamental ontological status. Whether backed by superficial observation or institutional authority, an opinion remains subjective regardless of its scale. The universe is too fluid, dynamic, and uncertain to permit the casual derivation of eternal, universal truths. To assume an opinion gains objective validity simply because a majority adopts it is to commit the argumentum ad populum (the appeal to popularity) fallacy. The validity of a premise is structurally independent of the number of minds that validate it. Reality Type Ontological Basis Operational Example Stability Subjective Individual internal perception, emotion, or bias. Personal aesthetic preferences; acute situational anxiety. Highly Unstable Inter-Subjective Shared agreement among a collective group; institutionalized norms. Legal frameworks; currency valuation; cultural dining etiquette. Conditionally Stable (Dependent on Consensus) Objective Independent external reality; logical and mathematical truths. Laws of thermodynamics; mathematical constants (e.g., \pi). Universally Immutable Deconstructing Normalized Assumptions Many foundational human assumptions reveal themselves to be inter-subjective constructs rather than objective mandates when analyzed closely: The Biological Imperative: The widespread belief that human existence possesses an inherent, default mandate to reproduce is an interpreted value framework rather than an objective teleological law. Cultural Etiquette: The insistence that food must be consumed using specific utensils (e.g., a fork and knife) to qualify as "civilized" is a local tradition mistaken for a universal standard of human development. Existence is inherently diverse and unpredictable. Consequently, local exceptions continuously emerge to invalidate common beliefs that were once guarded as objective certainties. The presence of a single structural exception proves that a universalized belief is merely a localized phenomenon. 2. The Three Barriers to Trans-Historical Objectivity To identify independent truths that exist outside of human bias, a philosopher must transcend three distinct local scales. Each scale restricts human perspective but can be systematically bypassed through targeted cognitive strategies: The Scale of Present Knowledge: Human understanding is perpetually bottlenecked by contemporary data limits. To bypass this, an operator must adopt a posture of radical, lifelong learning, treating all current knowledge as an iterative draft. The Scale of Technology: Analytical frameworks are often constrained by the physical tools of the era. This limitation can be mitigated by theorizing within abstract models and exploring the logical boundaries of hypothetical or fictional technologies. The Scale of Culture and Norms: Thinkers are routinely blinded by the localized moralities and traditions of their birthplaces. Overcoming this barrier requires assuming the role of an objective social critic, willingly incurring social risks to dissect institutionalized biases from an outsider's perspective. By systematically stripping away these localized frameworks, logic emerges as the primary mechanism for discovering genuine universal truths. Structural logic, much like mathematics, serves as an independent building block of reality, operating uniformly across all coordinates of time and space. 3. The Mechanics of the Philosopher's Trap The Philosopher's Trap is an epistemic hazard: the moment a seeker of truth believes they have captured an eternal, immutable principle capable of defying reality, they enter a state of dogmatic delusion. Reality does not behave like a predictable, uniform stream. It is a shifting landscape characterized by systemic chaos, where order exists only in fragile, isolated pockets (e.g., the solar system, cellular biology, or modern infrastructure). [Dynamic Reality: Continuous Chaos] | v [Formation of Temporary Order] (e.g., Systems, Norms, Predictions) | v [The Philosopher's Trap] ----> Assumption of Immutability / Dogma | v [Systemic Shift / Black Swan] -> Collapse of the Static Framework Because change is constant, a highly sophisticated theory designed to forecast long-term geopolitical or social trends can be instantly collapsed by a single, unforeseen historical pivot. To insulate oneself against this trap, a thinker must implement a rigorous protocol of ongoing verification: The Verification Protocol Discovering a sustainable, wide-range truth requires continuous exposure to counter-evidence. A rational analyst must actively seek out exceptions to their own rules, experimenting with scenarios designed specifically to falsify their baseline assumptions. One must actively climb atop personal biases to eliminate the limiting filters that distort raw data. 4. The Functional Value of Uncertainty Accepting total existential uncertainty is a prerequisite for high-level philosophical analysis. On a long enough timeline, even the most stable human structures face inevitable entropy; modern infrastructure will eventually be reduced to cosmic debris, and immediate personal attachments are continuously vulnerable to sudden disruption. When the search for absolute, permanent answers fails, human systems typically diverge into two intellectual endpoints: The Religious Conclusion: Shifting from rational inquiry to faith-based frameworks to manufacture a sense of permanent order. The Nihilistic Conclusion: Recognizing the absence of objective, cosmic values and elevating that very absence into a primary, unshakeable law of existence. To maintain utility without falling into ideological dogmatism or paralysis, the philosopher must focus on generating high-fidelity, context-specific insights. These insights remain highly functional until a systemic shift renders them obsolete. By analyzing reality on a trans-historical scale, a thinker's work can retain its structural relevance across centuries, outliving the temporary contexts in which it was originally forged. 5. The Eagle's View: Purging Bias as a Pragmatic Imperative Humanity remains highly susceptible to confirmation bias, frequently confusing collective acceptance with absolute correctness. Societies routinely choose the comfort of validation over the disruption of objective truth, even when doing so encourages unsustainable lifestyles. To view the world objectively requires achieving an uncompromised perspective, an "eagle's view" entirely stripped of distorting psychological filters. While completely purging subjective human qualities may alienate an individual from conventional social experiences, it remains a vital functional necessity. Systematic bias reduction functions much like a conceptual democracy: it may be a demanding, imperfect system, but it represents the most effective available mechanism for navigating a chaotic world colored by misleading, overconfident perspectives. Stripping away subjective noise is the precise price required to observe reality exactly as it operates.

(A poem on alienation) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Master Numi) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Aliens and Outer Space) (Philosocom Directory on Friendship) (Philosocom's Directory On Uniqueness) (2025 note: The Power of Love redeemed me, and now I am walking the path of the truly good person) Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Alienation As 'Natural' -- The Philosophy of Resonation and of Psychology" is an engaging exploration of alienation in modern society. Its strengths include its engaging structure, personal anecdotes, philosophical depth, vivid imagery, and critical reflection on the nature of human relationships. The article's division into clear parts, such as "Recognizing the Distance," and "Delving Into the Rationality of Alienation," creates a coherent flow that guides the reader through the discussion. Personal anecdotes, particularly the relationship with the late Master Numi and her impact add depth to the discussion, making abstract concepts more relatable and tangible. The integration of philosophical ideas with psychological concepts showcases your ability to navigate complex theories, prompting readers to reflect on their own experiences of alienation and connection. The vivid imagery, such as "mental prison of our own making" and "feel like aliens from outer space," enhances the emotional resonance of the writing. In conclusion, the article offers a powerful reflection on the nature of alienation and connection in our increasingly disconnected world. In today's age there are endless "options" and access to people all over the world is possible and almost direct. However, the distance between the people is getting bigger, and the fear of both sides to reveal and discover their hearts is getting stronger. People are afraid to show who they really are and be authentic because they are afraid of being judged or somehow feel that their voice doesn't matter. -- Mickey Eilon (Background music) Part I: Recognizing the Distance I slowly and slowly come to understand why alienation is something very natural in our world.... See, when there are billions of people in the world, none of us are taught to see them as our friends, associates, or whatever. Our perception remains tribal in estimation -- only family, friends, partner(s), and other associates are those who are most important to the average person. Sometimes, even our family doesn't know us. After all, alienation is the process of humans feeling like they are aliens. Aliens to others, and to themselves too. With alienation, people become depersonalized as a result, and may see the world as not only absurd, but also nihilistic. I've become a stranger to many people over the course of my solitary life. Weirdly enough, I also become a stranger to myself. For people to be honest with others, they need to be honest with themselves first. It is for a reason I pursued philosophy a long time ago. It is also for a reason I became a weird expert in many things despite being a total hermit. I philosophize as a way to return back to myself. Philosophy after all is the study of reality. We are also part of reality. It is why psychology used to be a branch in philosophy until the 19th century. The Psychology and Philosophy of Distance It is only within the same century that psychology became part of social sciences, while being an independent academic discipline. Yet, we can simply agree that psychology is both part of social sciences and natural sciences. that it is a hybrid discipline, weirdly connecting between philosophy and society. It is the human after all that is a hybrid between naturality and logic, and society. Psychology is a hybrid discipline because humans are always torn between themselves, between the world beyond the mind, and between society. Deep inside, we have a need to connect to the world. To connect back from the mental prison of our own making. Why do many of us seek to connect to the world, including myself? Connecting to the world in a way that fits us, allows us to connect back to ourselves as well. Back, back from the very same natural traumas that detached us from reality itself. Back, back from feeling like aliens from outer space. How is it done? It is done by connecting to people that resonate with us. By forming connections necessary for our minds to realize we are not just living within a big pile of meaningless void. Our different ambitions in life, necessary for rectifying the world from its depravities... We do them because they speak to ourselves. Through connections, through work, and even through love, we seek back the meaning within us. Doing things that resonate with our "third eye", are done as part of our quest for meaning. Meaning, necessary to make us feel like ourselves again. To make us feel human once more. And feeling like humans... feel like paradise. Part II: Delving Into the Rationality of Alienation You see, each person can have a function of its own for us, and, thus, a different value. That is, unless you adopt a more universal perception, and treat everyone equally. Of course, equal treatment is very hard because we are individuals with different relationships with one another. We resonate differently with each other, and with some we don't even resonate. Sometimes, we hate the very people we admire. In other times, we love the people we hate. Weirdly enough, we also love to hate... Dr. Venture: Oh, you don't know when to stop with all this, do you? You just keep pushing my buttons! The Monarch: You're my arch-enemy! That's what I do! That's my thing! If you love someone very much, then according to the idea of pure human equality, you must love every single being with the same intensity of love. That's what makes this method very impractical, even if it is the ideal thing to do. The Paradoxes of Resonation No. It's not realistic for most humans to act with each other beyond the scope of their own resonation. Oftentimes it includes myself as well. Rather, there is no justice in this world because of the very resonations that create power bases and alienate us from others. The "tribal" bias on the other hand, is what most, if not all, of us have towards our own humanity. It doesn't matter if you're religious or atheist, creationist or evolutionist. No. Most, if not all, of us aspire to have a clear hierarchy of importance for the people we encounter in our lives. It's a way to distinguish a friend from an enemy, a friend from a stranger, and a loved one from someone you don't have feelings of love for. In other words, we interact with others, because deep inside they move us. Equality of all humans is something that will always be so-ever unrealistic, despite being seen as a human right, therefore. Conclusions: A Human Problem Created By Our Own Flawed Humanity This paradigm leads to the inevitable conclusion that alienation is natural. Why? Because there is a limit to everyone's set of priorities towards the many fellow humans that exist. You can't expect everyone to be your friend, unless you're very naive. You can't expect justice in a world driven by human resonation and rejection. You can't realistically expect to love everyone the same as your loved one. It would make your loved one far less distinct than everyone else. Negative. True love makes you more moral. However, it requires that one to be loved more than anything else in this world. Do you see the paradox? That is how human truths are... Grey. Final Insights When I was blocked by different people online, it was because we didn't know each other at all. Sometimes, they might unblock you, and then try to return to you. Sometimes, they may seek to redeem themselves out of the genuine goodness of their heart, after a dramatic conflict has taken place. Perhaps, in a different timeline, where my grandmother was appreciated for the beautiful mind that she was, things would've been different. If she was appreciated, I would've let go of such conflicts like they did, these former connections, former friends. No. I can't. I refuse to let go. My only true friend. If I am to forsake her memory as well... How can I ever be able to forgive myself? No. I have to be different. It's what my true friend wanted. More different, more unique. No. I prefer to be either very honourable, or very unappreciated. I am a great guy. I am not a nice guy. I personally don't really have the "guts" to "get rid" of people, no matter how minor they are in my life. I understand that alienation may be natural in general, but it isn't natural for me. It is their freedom of choice to get rid of me, friends. I have a world to rectify. Out of love... for a dead Nora.

The Scar of Utility -- Theme of Moral Revenge A scar is tissue that grows back thicker, harder, and less sensitive after a deep wound. The pain has turned into an instrument of work. The scar stopped being a vulnerability and became armor. An army of articles, a grand audience, and a refusal to say goodbye free speech has been promised. The trauma, the lack of belonging, and the hostility faced, has forced one to become useful. Every single promise made in those lines has been made. The army was deployed, the fortress was built, and the scar was fully seized. Philosocom was born as an army of the mind. (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Background music) I shall be known by the world with my articles, My glorious, soldiers! I will turn this world to be more rectified, Ms. Antagonist. I will write as much as I possibly can, To leave a great, positive, impact I will show this world I am not "irrelevant", Ms. Antagonist. I will no longer keep things to myself, Due to your, unease. I will not depart my right for my free speech, The writer's voice, the dark, shall breach. Passion is a legitimate emotion, Even if it's a solitary, motion. Your cowardice will be my fuel, For optimal recognition! Your repulsiveness of me shall be, until death, My source of a life-long, wish. I have a grand audience, While you, pass by. Your impact on me will be a reason, For me not to say, goodbye. There is no other alternative for me, Other, than, full, despair! I will work as long as it will take, To fully seize my.. scar.

Synopsis by Alex Mos: It's said that Love is the greatest emotion in existence, and yet, it also can hurt to the point of total despair. Being in Love is accompanied by several biases, which can twist our perception of somebody. Love hurts when biases collide with reality, or someone you love betrays your affection. To be less hurt by Love, we need to be critical of our biased thinking, be emotionally resilient, and accept solitude as an inevitable possibility. Love relationships between rational, moral, and strong people have the highest chance of being long-lasting and least harmful. (Background music) ********************************* Introduction It is said that love is one of the greatest emotions in existence.... According to Better-Help: Love is powerful because it serves as a fundamental emotional and psychological force that binds individuals and communities.... Love transcends physical limitations and can make even the smallest voice heard in a cacophony of noise. The most important emotion of all, by those who believe in it the most, to the point of great bias. And yet, it is also said that love hurts. Indeed, love, while it bathes you in warmth, can also hurt you a lot, even to the point of some people being willing enough to... desire death. If love is such a wonderful emotion, then why is such a negative extreme? Most importantly, why is this harmful aspect of love, overlooked by many? The Nature of Love Love can be seen as the collective embodiment of several biases: The Halo Effect. According to Psychology Today: "The halo effect occurs when a person's positive qualities influence our perception of their other traits, leading to unrealistic expectations and disappointment when a partner inevitably falls short of these expectations. This can cause strain in the relationship." The Similarity Bias. According to FSblog: "We like people who resemble us. Whether it’s appearance, opinions, lifestyle or background, we tend to favor people who on some dimension are most similar to ourselves." The Liking Bias. According to Joseph Adebisi: "When you have an object of affection, you tend to ignore their faults and comply with their wishes. You like people, products, and actions that are associated with your object of affection." All these biases, and more included, can easily twist our perception towards someone, and blow their value out of proportions, thus indicating the illogical nature of humanity. And to love, some may argue, is an essential part of being a human being. Therefore, an essential part of being a human is to have our judgement impaired by our emotions. Love hurts when the reality beyond our minds collides with our biases towards the one we love. As such, they may be disappointed by us, we may be disappointed by them and so on. We might learn to realize that they are not very similar to us, and we may also learn that they aren't so great like we once thought they were. Love therefore hurts because its biases may collide with reality, and more often than not it is reality that reigns victorious over an emotion that is prone to change and decline. Coping With Love and Its Problems To make sure love hurts us less, we need to develop our meta-cognition skills, by being able to criticize our own thinking and feelings as if they were external of us. Doing so can allow us to ground ourselves more in reality and less in our delusions towards reality. Being stronger, to the point that we'll be able to live whether or not we'll be loved by others, can also reduce the overall pain found in love. It's a harsh reality about love: That some people have no love with or without a lifetime of former relationships. Isn't it ironic, that something as praised as love is one that not only hurts and traumatizes us, but can also leave us lonely, as if we never had a partner before? The mental pain caused by love comes from this harsh reality, that we might be alone either way. And love hurts more when we refuse to accept our solitude as an inevitable possibility, or as something that would happen either way. Even if we love someone for over 50 years, like my grandparents did, when grandfather died my grandmother became, obviously, a widow. The solution to not be so heartbroken by the damage of love is to be stronger. Tougher. To be able to live and carry on with our lives and other ambitions. Being stronger will allow us to love without the constant fear of abandonment and loneliness looming in the back of our minds. Developing inner-strength can also allow us to love better by being brave enough to be alongside our loved one when they are in distress. It allows us to embrace them instead of rejecting their negative emotions as illegitimate. This strength in turn will not only hurt us less but also help us hurt our partner less as well. What also makes love so agonizing, is the possibility that one day, you will no longer be needed, by said person. It's the same approach a villain would have to his/her henchmen. Especially if they failed you "for the last time". Those who have this approach towards you, as someone they should dispose of with little regard to you, these are people who aren't really worthy of your love. And your positive biases towards them, even and especially when they exist after betrayal, are irrelevant to this truth. This pain can happen anywhere, anytime, by anyone, as long as you are either too weak or too attached. However, while attachment is a double-edged sword, AKA, necessary to open up to others, we can toughen up our mentality, so we would suffer less unnecessary agony. While we cannot control reality and the hearts of other people, we can mentally train ourselves to be more capable of suffering, thus suffering less than before. Reality is uncertain because the future is uncertain. The Victory Fallacy is based on this truth. People you once thought to be your allies might leave you whenever they please, just as you can do the same to them. Love, regardless of type, is all about emotional attachment, to someone who could rip said attachment, if they see a good reason to do so. Good in their eyes, not generally. However, your love will be put to the test, when you'll be able to let them go and still love them enough to appreciate them. The only certainty, when it comes to love, is the love you have for yourself. You can't leave yourself, can you? People will come and go, but you will forever stay within the confines of your own company, whether you're together with others, whether you lead a life of solitude. There is no such thing as absolute loyalty, even if declared, because doubt is always an option, especially in times of crisis, or of other opportunities. But you're not going to indoctrinate your lover to believe that there is no doubt, correct? Your insecurity does not justify such cultish action. Those who have a mercenary's mindset when it comes to love, who will abandon you with little to no remorse when "a better offer" will come by, these people are also not worthy of your love. Therefore, love is partially illogical, because it is an emotion that seeks certainty in an uncertain world. It's also a concept that seeks to abolish conditionality in a reality built on it. It's a concept that seeks stability in an unstable world, and peacefulness in a world built on conflict and competition. It seeks loyalty where there could be doubt. It seeks long-term alliance that would last as long as possible, without having this business' mentality founded by self-interest. Why, therefore, put love in such a supreme position? Just because it gives one such satisfaction at start? Those who are not afraid of negative emotions, such as rejection, might as well be exceptions to this missive. Hence the politics involved in this field. I'm not referring to a government. I am referring to the power struggles between people, on limited "resources". With the "resources" being other partners. And within the relationship itself, there may be a unique power dynamic between the partners. No one likes being seen as expendable, unless it pleases you somehow. And yet, this element is always present even when you love someone, are loved, or when the feeling is mutual. It's what happens when we act mainly on emotion. The wise and mature solution is to build the necessary moral infrastructure for the relationship to last. Otherwise it will fall by the whims of our hearts. As such, we better love people who are rational, mature, moral and strong. I would like to pose the argument that these kind of people are the least likely to hurt you. But do not expect for no pain at all. Pain, in a way, is also what makes us humans.

Disclaimer No. 1: This is an article from my first book. Regardless, I believe such content can still contribute to the world. Disclaimer No. 2: As I wrote previously, if you don't understand something, let me know and I'll try to explain. I'll try to answer your questions regardless. It doesn't mean I'll succeed immediately. Be patient. Article Overview by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "The Nature of Ideologies" by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein offers a profound and nuanced discussion on how ideologies shape human lives, societies, and perceptions of truth. It provides a strong foundation for readers to reflect on how their own beliefs are not solely self-originated, but are products of a cultural, social, and historical lineage. The article also introduces psychological insights, such as how ideologies impact mental health and individual autonomy, which could be elaborated upon to explore cognitive biases like confirmation bias and social identity theory. The concept of "mental imperialism" is compelling and serves as an important critique of dogmatic beliefs that prevent open-mindedness. The balanced discussion of ideologies' utility and harm adds depth to the argument. Ideologies can unify, provide purpose, or help people navigate complex realities, but they also serve as a caution against their absolute authority. The discussion on innocence and preaching is poignant, accurately capturing the vulnerability people face when they rely on simplified, dogmatic beliefs. In conclusion, this philosophical journey into the essence of ideology challenges readers to acknowledge the limitations of their beliefs and cultivate an open, flexible mindset. (Subcategory on Book-Related Content) (Background music) Enjoy. ******************************** Assembling armies is a product of a widely-acceptable ideology. It was not humans, weapons, the forces of nature, or luck that shaped the face of the world, built civilizations, and destroyed empires. These were the words written in the books of thought. All our own lives and those of our forefathers were laid not by dictators, prime ministers, and emperors, but by the lines of mindset they implanted in us. Man is the only animal whose sober moments are guided by the fate of reason and its components: ideologies. We are all guided by one ideology or another, whether we are aware of it or not. It isn't an autonomous entity, like an animal in the forest. It is something we choose to be led by. Something that's imaginary by itself. Whether it has been given to us by the environment or is the fruit of our creation. In metaphorical religious language, faith can be a candle to our feet and redeem us from our torments, or it can place us in darkness and enslave us to the possibility of suffering. There is no such thing as just one ideology being right. Any strong ideology guides its fanbase. If it is influential, its preachers boast of it as the objective and right of all beliefs. In order to arrive at the same "truth" that ancient religions and modern ideologies believe in good faith that they are, one must get rid of the ideology that controls his spirit and the spirit of the environment and examine it in depth. An examination also requires one to doubt it. Only in this way will he or she find his or her logic. A logic that is only theirs, and yet it will not be the universal truth any more than any other line of thought. A personal ideology. Yet those who are interested in the truth, must take another step, which I will explain here... Ideologies, too, have many effects on mental health. Those who sanctify it as a value will tend to choose ideologies that they believe fulfill it. Those who seek meaning will choose ideologies that give them a high sense of mission and reason to live. And so on. Therefore, not all ideologies are harmful or toxic. Even if they're not true, they can still be of help. The truth isn't always interesting, and thus, it isn't always desired. Either way, the truth might as well be. They do not care if you pay attention to them, or escape in terror. For this matter, its importance is irrelevant. Only because there isn't truth that both share the property of being autonomous of our experiences; as individuals and as nations. The belief that there is only one objective ideology, and that it is an unquestionable reality, is called "mental imperialism". If that belief is the property of society, then its name is "socio-mental imperialism". Such is the nature of ideologies: their whole purpose is to fulfill one or more values, and these can be socially conscious values or invented values. These are the characteristics of believers: their purpose is to undergo a process of objectification. The beliefs that are presented to you, unfold not as opinions but as "reality" itself. Every person believes in something. This is natural for the human being -- that the owner of one's nature will dedicate oneself to one ideology or another. Through education and preaching, one might get the impression that the ideology learned is a worldly truth. In this way, human beings complement themselves, sacrifice their lives, and become dependent on the values of ideology, sometimes in a pitiful way. Morality may also be a feature of any ideology that does not reject it. On the other hand, in the eyes of the people who follow the ruling, local ideology, a person who does not follow it and takes it for granted, is immersed in escapism. The escape from what is commonly seen as "reality", when in fact no ideology exists as reality. Instead, they're presented in the form of education, authorities, government , propaganda, society, and culture. This is a major part of "socio-mental imperialism", so much so that even the preachers themselves might not exercise discernment and doubt. Nonetheless, this unawareness is an important element in assuring oneself of one's allegiance to said ideology. There is no such thing as "escapism" when it comes to ideologies that claim to present themselves as the true reality. There is no prayer for a more realistic, correct, or superior force than spending time together, enabling (or disabling) human rights, or declaring a holy war. A united people cannot stop a master manipulator, for example. They cannot, when said master outperforms your sense of judgment. When he/she is playing sides, and thus, gaining social and political power. Pretending to be an ally, and raising oneself into authority of power in the process, is when one becomes a puppeteer. The concept of "reality" is no more than what the controlling force deems fit to claim as reality. Even the common, unquestioning individual can not determine what is reality and what is illusion. He can only claim and believe. If reality were that clear to our minds, philosophy wouldn't be necessary. The point of philosophy is to research the truth. The problem arises when said authority force, and their agenda (hidden or clear), are ignored in the name of being naive. We can call that process "objectification". That's because, in this sense, we "objectify" a perspective. We turn that perspective into a thing, per se. We merely do it in our minds, and thus, delude ourselves. That delusion might not necessarily be revealed. The term here can and will be used sarcastically. The process of objectification, the claim that faith is truth -- is not a process that changes the face of reality. Only the face of human thinking. Only then, when the consciousness believes innocently in something, does the practice begin. The practice of certain lifestyles, justified by said ideology. In this sense, freedom does not exist in human thought. By its nature, it's drawn to ideologies even if it's unaware of them. Unaware of limiting one's own mental freedom. Any ideology or religion that wants to gain influence and sympathy, will see it appropriate to put into its components some way to salvation. It will lecture an audience of believers that only if they do so and so will they truly be free from the injustices and corruptions of the world. (2023 note: the function of an ideology is to answer an issue or issues people may have. Whether or not the answer matters, depends on its ability to be honest. If the answer is false, then it can fail its own supporters) (Another 23' note: Philosophy might be irrelevant to many because it can disrupt ideologies. The stories we tell ourselves about reality.) Believers, for their part, are "best" when they are full of innocence. It is a central component of a believer's life. An innocent person is not necessarily a naive person. They are often victims of the preachers of the dominant ideology in society. These preachers might do everything in their power to take advantage of the good faith of humanity to recruit their members into their ranks. A belief in a certain entity also counts as an ideology that does its job. Thus, the Abrahamic religions sanctified the value of innocence in order to entice many victims to believe in their idols. Thus, it made any promising ideology thirsty for power and influence. It also caused many ideologies to be highly challenged. Challenged by people who are not naive. People such as critics, revolutionaries, and philosophers. Any influential ideology must be empiricist, for its power is not drawn from a higher power, reason, or reality itself. It's through sensory experience that we not only feel, but relate to and submit to inspiring rhetoric (a more rational person, will not be moved by so many things). Its power stems from the simple consciousness of the undoubting believer. Sharing stories and experiences is a possible path to an easier understanding of a doctrine. Far more, arguably, than using logic (for logic is to be taught). So do the democratic religion, the religion of love, and the collective religion. These three religions are the dominant religions in much of the world, which arrogantly claims to be more developed, innovative, and enlightened than any other "world" in history. The first claims that her religious regime is the most ideal, the second that the purpose of life is to love, and the third that the only reality is based on social consciousness. These religions, which control contemporary reality, are also not "reality". Much of "reality" is a human invention that, on the one hand, strengthens mental imperialism and, on the other hand, bends the average human consciousness to an abstract order, which controls them at a high level. The problem begins when we do not distinguish between collective delusion, and a reality that is independent of a community. There are two main intentions for creating an ideology: Providing a solution to certain existential problems, and accumulating power. There is no such thing as an ideology that does not address human distress and fragility. And, when shared with others and receives social recognition -- gains power. Every ideology, then, is a theory, like glasses of different colors. glass, through which the subject it speaks of can be seen, and never purely objective. It does not matter anyway whether the ideology in question is pure scientific truth. The only thing that differentiates one ideology from another is how many people believe it, and deem it to be the pure truth. Ideology is an approach, a way in which the believer becomes drugged as he delves deeper into it. In a way, the more "lore" an ideology contains, the more likely a believer is to become a fanatical zealot. And the problem with zealotry comes with the blinding of reality's portion. Blinding that's caused by bias. Moreover, there is no such thing as a radical ideology, since what determines radicalism is not how far it is from reality. It's also how much society sees it that way. There are no fixed or correct criteria for determining the extremity of an ideology. (For instance, In some cultures, Western cultures might be seen as radical. For some, women who are not covered "properly" may be seen as radical). Since the only criterion is the power of its influence, and what is now considered radical was considered centuries ago as an axiom. The esoteric and the alternative are radical, merely because they are abnormal. Anything that isn't normal, and therefore eccentric/radical/whatever you name it. And the more radical belief you gain, the less esoteric and alternative it will be until it is perceived in a particular social consciousness as "the truth". Then it will lose its radical status, and be converted to a norm. Until then, it will remain under the label of "weird". The weirder you are, the less likely it is for you to survive in a society. Therefore, pretending has its own functionally -- the ability to pay the bills. The only reality that exists in the world is material reality, unless proven otherwise. Material exists independently of our thoughts. Therefore, they're likelier to be proven true than, let's say, an idea that's "true" because "millions believe in it". A rock does not need a test of popularity like an idea does. Hence, what's more obvious, can be truer than a theory that might be debunked eventually. A rock isn't prone to the indefinite potential of being debunked. And even with regard to ideologies like communism, socialism, and capitalism that separately believe that their "religions" are the inevitable reality. When it comes to theories about determining reality, it does not matter here whether one is closer to the "truth" than another, but the benefit and influence on material reality are what determine whether an ideology is effective or not, and whether it brings its believers satisfaction. (2023 note: The point of many ideologies might as well be political, as philosophical. A philosophical one attempts to research the truth. The political one gives power and benefits. An ideology can be both). I will not say my own ideology, Rubinshteinic Individualism, is true as an ideology, since the argument here is that there is no ideology that is right or more false than another. This belief, which is simpler to call the "Solitary Doctrine", is also an example of what can be seen in the world, no more clearly than another. This "religion" looks at the world and human existence in an abnormal way. Therefore, it may be considered radical, bizarre, eccentric, and the like. Only those who have learned to know that ideologies are not reality will be able to draw the best from them, enrich their spirits, improve their decision-making abilities, and become smarter without being sucked into their content and being blinded as a result. Although ideologies can contribute to this world, one should not fall for a specific ideology/religion and abandon the rest. That would confine you to relative ignorance. Ignorance that can be reduced. A salad is more nutritious when it has a larger variety of vegetables in it. (2023 note: The philosopher will seek to learn from anyone and anything. It's only fair to do so if one wishes to explore the truth. This also means that they will resist the political/social nature of ideologies).

(For more on Dr. Eggman, click here) (Philosocom's Directory on Failure) (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). Have you ever woken up in the morning after long years of craving something to be attained, but the obstacles that you cannot get rid of always overcome your efforts towards said craving? You were very powerful, successful, attractive, and so on, but the goal has never been attained no matter how hard you've tried and endured? This is what I like to call the Eggman Principle: no matter how hard you try, you will not succeed at your mission, whatever it may be. The term that I'd like to coin here was taken from both fiction and real life. It's called "Eggman" because of the genius, yet incompetent villain that is Dr. Eggman from the Sonic the Hedgehog video game series, which I grew up with. Even as a child, the concept of a maniacal dictator-scientist with armies of robots, airships, and doomsday devices sounded ridiculous to me, as they all, in the end, failed to overcome a simple, fast hedgehog humanoid. Regardless of his efforts and power, unmatched throughout the world, he failed to conquer it, like he always wanted, because Sonic would always foil his plans, whether alone or with a small company of friends. Without this hedgehog in the way, this villain would have taken over the world a long time ago. Of course, there were instances where he managed, but these were never permanent, and his empire would collapse easily and in a fun, video-game-like manner. Some of us are "Eggmen"; people who always try to do something but fail at it. Perhaps you succeed at times, but as long as you don't try to make it endure for a long enough time for it to become a common reality, there is always a chance of you always going back to the state of being you were in in the first place. Believe it or not, I am a sort of an "Eggman" myself, because there is a certain person I know, who I wanted to be with for around 8 years as of writing this article, and regardless of my improvement as a person and of the achievements I made throughout the years, that person does not want me as their partner. I've been told a lot of times to just give up, that she's not worth all the suffering I had as a result of communicating with her in our high school years, and yet, there is a certain fire in me that makes me want that person, no matter how much time passes on. I'm a rational person; logic would dictate that there are much more suitable women for me that do not need so much of my energies being spent on, in order to "conquer" them. However, that person, whom I love so much? It might sound dumb, but I've never seen someone so beautiful as her. She is the most cat-like person I've ever seen. My desire to "conquer" her is probably as strong as Eggman's desire to conquer the world, and create a life of utopia in his own image. Being an "Eggman", there is also another element in this term I wish to coin: this principle applies only when the person rarely, if at all, gives up on their ambition for success, no matter how much the odds are against them. Literally countless of Eggman's creations and facilities were destroyed by Sonic, it's not even funny. If robots had the capacity to emote (some had, actually), Sonic would've been deemed a bit more villainous than otherwise. He even had countless versions of a Death Star-like space station called the "Death Egg", that were taken down mercilessly. Economically-wise, he sure had lost a lot of resources in his feeble attempts at world domination. And yet, he doesn't stop trying, doesn't stop believing, because at least in this case, he is nothing without his empire-building visions. This is how determined you have to be in order to be considered an "Eggman". Will that beautiful woman ever be mine? I don't know, because I doubt that she has ever loved me. And yet, such beauty I have never seen in any other female, regardless of her changing appearances throughout the years. What I do know, however, is that I want her, to be mine, and I, to be hers. You may find it surprising, but I actually abstained from romantic/sexual relationships from 2014/15 up to this year, to the point of calling myself "Tomasio the Monk". Why? Because I thought I could manage without women. I thought I was not an "Eggman", and that this person is of little significance to me once they disappeared from my life. Much of my early philosophical writings go with the premise that you don't actually need romantic relationships in order to be a happy, satisfied individual; that society is only necessary to the basic extent; that in terms of love one can be self-sufficient in most if not all aspects once one becomes an adult, and so on. I don't need that person. They are unnecessary to my life, just as Eggman doesn't need to rule the world in order to have a decent territory of his own to control and no more. And still, whenever I see her picture, I am certain that I want her, and for that reason alone, I will not hide the fact that I love her, both for her beauty and kind-hearted attitude. In conclusion, there are 2 solutions to overcome this principle: * Either permanently give up. * Resume your work until you die and/or appoint a successor to do the work for you once you are dead. If you are to give up, make sure you're doing this honestly, i.e. that you're genuinely retiring and not willing to ever return. Since existence is uncertain, temptations may come and go as they try to lure you back into being an "Eggman", the one who works their way to victory but fails. You might come back from time to time and try succeeding, which is basically the middle ground, but it is a compromise in an endeavor that did not succeed anyways, so why choose the middle ground when it significantly lowers the efficiency of your attempts? The other solution is to, quote unquote, "turn to the Dark Side" and embrace your Eggman-hood, and actually like the fact that you keep on trying, despite failing. You may ignore the fact that you're a failure in regards to this specific goal, but at least you will enjoy the deeds and/or planning themselves, no matter how unsuccessful they ended up being. It can be compared to a game that you cannot win in, but still try and get a decent high-score. The character of the game didn't kill all the enemies? Who cares, at least I killed plenty of them and had a good time! As for myself, whether or not I actually get this lady, at least I am content with the fact that I'm not denying my feelings for her any longer. My feelings for her ended when she called me irrelevant. Perhaps then, I did not love her unconditionally, but conditionally.

(This can be seen as a prequel to this article: https://www.philosocom.com/post/thoughts-on-the-theory-of-unity-we-are-all-one) ************* An assessment I wrote to a reader It is very likely that we are all "One" in the sense that we are all made from the same materials as the Earth. The Earth is a collection of asteroids that collided with each other, and perhaps the same is true of other planets in the universe. Even beyond these asteroids, there is a specific, universal energy called "Zero-Point Energy." This energy was not necessarily created by a deity, but simply fluctuates in and out of existence, thus creating the universe. I find this theory to be very interesting, but I am no expert. Additional reading is required for anyone interested in this concept. However, even if we are unique as individuals in our personalities, interests, and so on, it is reasonable to claim that we all have an origin. This origin may be one or more gods, or a universal, fluctuating energy. In one way or another, none of us are actually made from a unique set of materials. We all consume the same materials by breathing, eating, drinking, and even before -- by being combined into a single entity by sexual relations. Similarities and Differences in Human Beings According to the ideology of individualism, every individual being is unique, meaning that they are different enough from any other being to be considered distinct. However, there is a problem with this premise. If we can find even one person who is bland enough to be considered not unique, then perhaps we are not as special as we think we are. For more on that, I devised the Reverse Individuality Theory. I hold this ideology dear to my heart, but I also believe that it is important to be realistic. We are all unique in our own way, but we are also all human beings with the same basic needs and desires. We all have different sets of potentials. Some of which we are not even aware of because of how much we limit ourselves in the name of others. Knowing ourselves more would mean knowing more what we're truly capable of. Some of that potential can bring much good to humanity, while other, the exact opposite. I believe that it is important to celebrate our individuality, but we should also remember that we are all connected. We all have common genetic origins and our importance might as well depend on our responsibility for others, like my responsibility for this site, or your responsibility for your children. It is possible to blame the process of socialization for this conclusion of averageness. After all, socialization is designed to make individuals conform to the norms, and the more normal you are, the less unique you are. Norms are society's leash on you, and when these limitations are not justified, they are flawed. This could be a reason why individualism is rightfully seen by some as false -- because the norms limit our uniqueness and thus, limit the greater extant of potential. I also wrote on how to be more unique. This led me to form my own kind of individualist ideology, which believes that individuality is to be earned, and is not inherent to one's existence simply because we are separate beings. Without the work of finding and/or creating your distinct individuality, that individuality will either stay hidden or non-existent. Common Material Origins In addition to this contemplation, we can also claim that individuality is not so dominant in its presence due to the fact that we are all "made" of the same materials; materials that can be found in food, fluids, and theoretically on soil (those who are buried without a coffin technically become a part of the Earth). Furthermore, the materials that Earth is composed of are also contained, whether completely or partially, on other planets, regardless of how far they are from us. If we are all made from the same set or sets of materials, what is so special about us materialistically, if one's particles are not so distinct than another's, other than the fact that they are in a different being and/or are differently embedded within the body? Because of this reasoning, there is no need to "retreat" to the spiritual realm in order to argue for the universality of existence, as that universality could be correct no matter how religious or irreligious one is in their beliefs. In a sense, we are all one, but in separate bodies and constructs. It doesn't matter if you believe in one or more gods, evolution, or whatever -- even in the separation of being, there is a common origin, a common resource. We all need materials that exist in our environment in order to sustain ourselves -- oxygen, protein, H2O, and so on -- even if said materials don't exist on many planets, they do exist on planets that are similar to our own home world. What is, therefore, so unique about water from outer space to water from this world when they have been, essentially, constructed by the same particles, which we ourselves are composed of? After all, we are mostly water. If we were to drink said water from another planet, assuming that water is as drinkable as here on Earth, will we become different in our personalities, or in our bodily composition? Unless there is a special agent in that water, we will logically stay the same, as the water in that region of the universe is as drinkable and life-sustaining as it is here. Otherwise, we would suffer from illnesses or even death. Regardless of the "outer space water" argument -- whether you believe in an Abrahamic religion or in the validity of science -- Earth and all of its existence had to be formed in something external of it, as it couldn't just have popped out of existence. Since there were already things outside of it (asteroids, other planets, and so on), it would be inevitable to conclude that Earth was formed out of things that were already present. And indeed there is some truth in the Old Testament, when it argues that in the very beginning there was chaos. What was that chaos? It was but the chaos of anything that collided into each other and thus formed the Earth as it was many millions of years ago. Unless we came from an external origin, like extra-terrestrial beings (assuming it could be true, of course), our common origin as biological beings are pretty much the many particles that were drawn into the Earth and thus formed it. Are we all that unique, thus separated in distinction? Physically, the vast majority of us are not. We are all composed of very similar particles, and we consume these particles in order to sustain ourselves. It is logical, to an extent, to see who we are based on our nutrition. The only way to achieve true individuality is to develop our own character to the point where it is unique enough to be distinguished from others. And to do that we must unlock our inner genius. I'd like to argue that we all have that potential within us. And unlocking that potential can make you a genius. But no amount of genius can hide the fact that we are human, or that we have a common ancestry with many people. We cannot escape from Earth to be the first colonizer of another planet (yet). However, we can work on becoming more unique, so that we can be distinguished from others. Doing so can make us the best versions of ourselves, but can also make us lonely as it will be more difficult to find common denominator with other people. In other words, we have some grip on our ability be a common part of humanity, for either side (belonging, thus being part of a more universal entity, or the exact opposite). And this has nothing to do with the material aspect of existence because humans also have access to the abstract layer of existence. And even if you gain power as the best/greater versions of yourself, you might still find yourself having little in common with people because people relate to each other by findings things they themselves have in them. In a sense, we are all "one" that has been multiplied into countless bodies and entities, like rain from a cloud. If we assume that "Zero-Point Energy" is true, then we are all formed from a universal stream of energy that is present everywhere Therefore, there is no need to retreat to more spiritual/mystical/occult theories of oneness. The physicality of our existence seems to do the job just as well. Make sure you're aware of what you are sacrificing by being more of what you're capable of, and less restrained by what many others allow themselves to be restrained by. The restraint of the norms, although limiting, is also what allows us to find common grounds with one another. By dressing, behaving and thinking in similar ways, we may find it easier to connect with one another and thus become more "universal". He or she who lives beyond these socio-universal standards the norms attempt to impose, might find themselves alone and even loveless. Article Feedback by Mr. Roland Leblanc It seems to me that the whole thing can be summarized by this one and only verse that I found in the Scriptures… ‘’ אברם הוא אברהם '’ Note: It is Chronicles I chapter : 1, verse : 27… Chabad.org has it translated as: ‘’ Abram, he is Abraham.’’ Note : My translation would be : ‘’ Abram mutated into Abraham! But, here is the problem I see with the Chabad’s translation: In Hebrew, the verb: ‘’ to be ‘’ is very seldom used unless there is a reason to specify an action; as ‘’ to be is to do’’ in Hebrew… So, for me it is obvious that this verb is not with the meaning: to be… I have found out that this verse describes the transformation or mutation of any human being that is born in his or her physical reality. However, that person, by existing, has taken the decision to progress on the path of: ‘’Go to your self’’ (Lech Lecha)… In essence, each human being is in a process of discovering who he or she is.... Spiritually speaking, I would say! The purpose of our existence is to embrace our free will. By understanding ourselves deeply, we can strive to improve and realize our full potential. To achieve this, we must embark on a journey of self-discovery. In my view, the name Abram should be interpreted as: "Unaware of the potential rebirth within (our inner world)." As such, Abram is depicted as unfruitful. In the narrative, Abram was unable to have a child until his name was changed by adding the extension (or, Abraham)! Thus, we can summarize Abram as: "Non-fruitful." And for Abraham... he's the new aware guy that knows that he is more than this existential physical being! He goes on a Lech Lecha and he leaves his place in order to go to other (physical) places… This movement signifies that we need to abandon our outdated ways of being and thinking. Instead, we should engage in personal growth and become more aware individuals who can master their dual nature, which encompasses both the spiritual (inner world) and existential (outer world)! Conclusion: Mastering these two aspects allows us to become the complete beings we have been destined to be since birth. However, we must first explore our true selves before evolving into this newly reborn individual, guided by our own inner wisdom. This understanding is crucial for grasping the universality of existence! Being fruitful means being in the process of becoming our whole being! The steps are as follows… We are not aware. We are aware of the existence of the dual nature that we have. We fructify by going on a Lech Lecha or path to ourselves. We are this new reborn being that can manage (to master) both aspects and apply its guidance, so that the part that does is guided by the part that knows!

(The Directory: https://www.philosocom.com/post/emotions-and-epistemology https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-tale-of-the-silent-hour-5-poems-on-the-philosophy-of-the-heart-by-mr-ogbule-chibuzo-isaac https://www.philosocom.com/post/preparering-to-suffer-my-philosophy-on-a-broken-heart https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-as-basic-how-it-can-touch-the-heart https://www.philosocom.com/post/insights-to-understand-social-engineering-by-mr-o-c-isaac https://www.philosocom.com/post/love-and-humanity-a-guest-post-by-dr-seyed-alavi https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-forbidden-love-a-wise-fable-by-an-anonymous-lady https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-i-want-to-dominate-the-world-through-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-ballad-of-tom https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-storage-room-theory-a-philosophy-of-the-heart-how-to-value-humans https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-multi-layered-shadow-box-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-sad-philosophy-of-safe-spaces https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosopher-king https://www.philosocom.com/post/memento-mori https://www.philosocom.com/post/all-i-want https://www.philosocom.com/post/tragic-tale) (Void directory) (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). Theme of Cake (Background music) Long, I have found, no affection. Long, I have found, no warm lane. Don’t you know, there is no, salvation. The void has begun, with the brain. Long, the silence, has dominated. Long, the cold, became my cloth. Don’t you know, there is no, salvation. The void has begun, with the brain. An army of readers have been marching with me, Some are delighted with the spoil, some have deserted. There is happiness in solitude, yes it exists in my servitude, And work has became my new food. I, am a stone, military general, Who influences the world with apprentices, several. Don’t you know, there is no, salvation, The void has begun with the brain. There is, little heart, that remained a fluid mineral. It is a solid metal, forgotten by time. Don’t you know, there is no, salvation, Your cake can't melt down, My dead heart.

(Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (For more on this subject, click here) Summary by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein The article presents a crucial message: our experience of someone else's egotistical expressions shouldn't hurt our own ego, especially when their expression had no intention of hurting us in the first place. Sometimes they aren't there to hurt us with their joy of self. Sometimes they just express genuine happiness in themselves, for they do not necessarily see the self they celebrate, as something to put under masking and barrier of modesty. With the rise of social media we can technically challenge the norms far better, by creating trends with agendas, like on Instagram, that give us a greater sphere of influence over this world. (Background music) ...In the period we are in now it is required of us to finish the lessons of the past, and be reborn as free people, reopen our heart chakra and agree to live life anew! This is a time when we learn how to love ourselves again, and rediscover our inner voice. -- Mickey Eilon Why Self-Prioritization Isn't Evil By Default Even though many people do not like egotistical individuals, like those who are co workers, it is still plausible to claim that egotism is not morally evil and/or corrupt by itself. The reason is because we are all, or most, egotistical people, in terms of priority. This theory is known as psychological egoism. A quick example to prove that is by asking ourselves the following question: Would we prefer to be someone's minion, or have our own minions/henchmen to do our bidding? Surely, the terms "minion" and "henchman" are very degrading, and very few people would actually call themselves somebody's minion, even if they are subordinate to them. It's because our Self-Love and the Ego is usually far more respectable than to have that title attached to our identity, whether we are egotistical or modest by personality. In other words, the ego plays an important part in the way we respect ourselves. Because many of us do have a certain level of self-respect, many or most of us have our own, positive aspect of ego that deter others from walking all over us and treating us like garbage. In other words, the ego is also a good self defense mechanism. Would you deem a self defense mechanism from potential abusers, as evil or as a bad thing? Negative. We must protect ourselves from psychological harm in order to retain our sanity and survive mentally. Self-Love in a World That Sees Modesty as Virtue and Not a Barrier Ironically, at the heart of egotism lies a hidden truth: It often stems from a perceived threat to our own self-importance. We might despise the egotistical person because they view themselves as more significant than us, but in reality, it's not their modesty we crave; it's their appreciation, their validation of our own egos, not their own. We might be jealous at them for their higher-than-average disregard towards social conventions. Unlike them, who love themselves enough, we might not seek the validation they already have inside of themselves. We seek others to prioritize us because of voids associated with selfishness and altruism. It's far more comfortable to seek external validation and external emotional support, than facing someone who expresses genuine love for themselves – a love we might secretly wish they would direct towards us. Human interaction is based on supply and demand. If you already love yourself to the extent that you don't really need to depend on external, social and emotional support, you might lose your value in any human connection. Humans cooperate to solve problems, to be here for each other. In a sense, loving oneself is a "social liability" because with self love you can easily become a more self-reliant individual. Modesty, on the other hand, allows people to nurture a void within them, intentionally or otherwise, in order to gain emotional support from others. And that support can be seen as a reason for many relationships with human beings. Love, in general, often occurs because of our imperfections. When you love yourself enough, in what I call, Rational Self Love, you give others less of a reason to offer you something you already nurtured within you. And people do not like feeling like "third wheels", in a sense that their presence in your life is less-than-necessary. Nevertheless, it's safe to say we all possess a degree of ego, whether we choose to display it or not. Our own well-being matters, and only masochists enjoy feeling undermined or not worthy enough. We yearn to be loved and appreciated, just as we would love and appreciate others. So, what's wrong with a bit of healthy self-pride? Celebrating our achievements, recognizing our unique strengths – is that truly deserve of repulsion, by itself? No. A person who truly supports you will not deter you from your own pride in your success. They will be there for you without making you feel ashamed for the fact that you love yourself. That's because your own growth will not threaten their own. Your growth and your love for your development won't intimidate them because they truly care for you, and want to be part of your life without them feeling a need "to put you in your place". Remember: the opposite of love is fear, not hatred. Those who are intimidated/repulsed, by your feelings of love towards yourself, which are legitimate, are too vulnerable for their own good. Any relationship based on any type of goodwill must include some degree of vulnerability. And if you're too intimidated by the idea of being vulnerable, and merely at the presence of a self-loving man or woman, how can you be there for them with loyalty? After all, the aversion created by fear is triggered by intimidation, and intimidation stems from feelings of insecurities. People don't like feeling insecure, so they might as well normalize their undesired vulnerabilities, by condemning those who truly love themselves, and even call them narcissists. Ironically, true narcissists don't really love themselves. Those who genuinely admire self ex-pression, in both themselves and others pose no problem, as their insecurities do not stand in the way of healthy, goodwill-based relationships (from friendships to romantic relationships). But those repulsed by such innocent, non-malicious behaviors, might contain their own hidden desires for attention, which they fail to get. Ironically, they might criticize the very egotism they find unsettling, projecting their own discomfort onto others. At times it may even be done unconsciously. This isn't to say they shouldn't receive their fair share of attention and appreciation. But to condemn someone for expressing self-love, while seeking validation for oneself at the same time, is hypocritical. In some cases, the desire to condemn one's egoism may be done in the name of another's own egoistic interests. Therefore, others appreciating humility as a virtue primarily because their lack of self-confidence, can easily normalize a culture where self-love is seen as condemnable, as "narcissism". The solution for that in the first place is to solve your insecurities so you won't project them unto others. However, for that you need to recognize the fact you might be doing so. And you cannot solve this problem if you refuse to acknowledge its existence. Refuse to acknowledge it on a societal level and you will create a culture where being insecure by the honesty of self-love is the acceptable thing to feel, without doing anything about it from within. And how can we expect to love ourselves if it's associated with social deviation? How can we be happy, if we do not love ourselves? Since modesty is prioritized over self-love, and since people in general prefer to conform to social norms, it's logically-fair to say that the norms are not designed in our genuine favor. No. If we're conforming to the norms at our own expense, and remain miserable, then there's something wrong with these unwritten rules of conduct. And in the name of becoming the best version of myself, which is the highest form of love, I'm done "sinning" for society's good. Self-Love Without Shame A truly altruistic person wouldn't be threatened by genuine self-love, especially when it doesn't harm others. The honest self-lover, in their own moments, would acknowledge the other person's lack of interest rather than resorting to labels like "snob" or "arrogant" (labels they might themselves might carry). Why? Because their self-love is a force of strength, a virtue that prevents them from becoming abusive energy vampires that crave for attention. Self-love is a force for self-sufficiency. Insulting others on purpose serves little reason when you don't feel compelled, due to a void within you, to make them feel bad. The true altruist prioritizes others not from self-doubt, but from a genuine desire to minimize harm, regardless of the other person's level of self-absorption. What purpose, in their eyes, is there in shaming someone for simply expressing self-love? No. If they truly love them they will let them be themselves because letting people to be themselves is how love works: From genuine desire that has little to nothing to do with control and with the "industrialization" of their company in your life. Those who genuinely strive to make a positive impact wouldn't mirror the negativity they wish to erase. Likewise, those who are genuinely interested in the reduction of egoism won't do it due to their own self-interest, AKA egoism. The only reason for such mirroring is the denial of the self being part of what is being condemned by said self. Self-love can easily be expressed innocently, even naively, unaware of the social risk it might have in a society that normalized the preservation of insecurity and other weakness, like over-sensitivity and moral depravity, as virtues. Self-love doesn't have to equate to arrogance or superiority; it's simply acknowledging and appreciating one's own worth. One's own gratitude for being alive. One's own pride in their accomplishments. We haven't fully grasped the concept that loving oneself doesn't have to contradict loving others. We can be both the giver and receiver of love, finding fulfillment in self-acceptance without depending external validation. And that is really how relationships, even romantic, can be saved: When the vanity of self-love won't be seen as a sin but as a celebration and gratitude of being alive. And the need to be recognized for one's efforts may be justified not because of self-love but because of the efforts themselves being made in the name of others. Those who choose a solitary path and thus practice the art of being alone, self-love becomes an essential component. In solitude, preserving one's mentality often requires a significant effort, which in turn can make you mentally stronger through its tolerance. It's a skill that's often underestimated, that demands self-acceptance as a foundation, and self-love helps a lot in making one's solitude a lot more bearable.

(Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis Life revolves around two primary stages of suffering. The first stage occurs when we are forced to abandon our true desires and submit to compulsory education and societal conditioning. The second stage may emerge when we reach our goals but succumb to frustration and depression caused by a lack of self-awareness. However, it's possible to find genuine happiness in this post-purpose phase. Suffering is an inseparable part of life experiences for most people, regardless of status or wealth; discomfort can help with personal growth. A part of suffering originates from societal control and restrictions on personal liberty, which we can minimize by gaining more freedom. Yet, even those free of imposed suffering might experience emotional pain caused by a lack of purpose. Most people need a long-term pursuit that makes them "feel alive" and happy. Their higher purpose can be charitable, communal, or philosophical. Philosophy is underrated, yet essential in our lives. Besides seeking objective truth, a personalized philosophy can empower us to reduce suffering and depression in ourselves and others. The Two Faces of Suffering Suffering often arises from a gap between two states of being: The first occurs when we're forced to give up our desires. This is most evident in early life, where compulsory education for a significant portion of our youth restricts our freedom to pursue what truly interests us. School becomes the obstacle, and the resulting lack of control over the time in our lives and can often fuel our suffering. This connection between freedom and suffering is clear: Overcoming suffering can lead to greater resilience and autonomy. When something stands in the way of our immediate desires or long-term goals, the perceived loss of autonomy can be painful. Freedom, then, becomes a powerful antidote to our otherwise-longer distance from our ideal selves. With it, we have the agency to choose our actions and pursue a life path that aligns with our true desires. Not necessarily the desires indoctrinated to us through culture. The second stage of suffering emerged even when we have achieved our desires. This seemingly paradoxical situation highlights the limitations of choice, and raises awareness to a concept I'd like to call post-purpose. It means that, despite the accomplishment of our goals, we may not always possess the knowledge or self-awareness to extinguish the flames of unwanted suffering. Because of this, for example, it's often lonely at the top. Despite the belief that we know what's best for ourselves, there are times when these choices lead us down paths that ultimately bring frustration. This is why knowing ourselves properly is crucial. To combat this second stage, people turn to a variety of solutions, both temporary and long-term, seeking a sense of lasting fulfillment. Some may resort to substances or fleeting relationships, while others embark on journeys of self-discovery. Others simply succumb to depression. While there isn't a one-size-fits-all remedy, some individuals do find ways to navigate this stage and experience periods of genuine happiness. Life can be described as revolving around these two basic stages of suffering. If so, life then becomes a matter of how much suffering we're experiencing at the current phase of our lives. But an agony-free life might be impossible. After all, by choosing life, we also choose grief. For life is a package of various features, both optimistic and pessimistic. Then, why not see suffering, such as the slightest discomfort, as an option for greater growth? Growth Through Discomfort While some argue that suffering can build resilience, a life completely devoid of it wouldn't necessarily be ideal. This issue depends on two factors: The Nature of Suffering: Not all suffering is created equal. Some forms of trauma can leave deep scars, while others might be temporary setbacks. Trauma can even be used to understand reality better, and accept it. The type of suffering can greatly impact how it shapes us. Individual Differences: People have varying capacities for dealing with hardship. Some individuals are naturally more resilient than others, although it's not entirely clear why. Additionally, support systems and access to resources can significantly impact how someone copes with suffering. Humans are not known to cope well alone. The absence of justified suffering is a luxury few experience, and even the prestigious and the rich have their own suffering to deal with, as underrated as it is. To quote the Dalai Lama: Yet even the rich have their own kind of suffering, anxiety, doubt, and fear. So in many cases, wealthy people aren't happy! And once those with material wealth encounter small difficulties, their amount of mental suffering is sometimes bigger than it is for those who have faced such difficulties every day. As members of society, we often face limitations, as society needs harmony, and thus, restriction, in order to preserve itself. In childhood, mandatory education restricts our autonomy, similar to a "penalty" for belonging to a larger group. Later, to achieve financial independence, we might take on jobs that aren't inherently enjoyable, enduring them until retirement (which is another perceived penalty for living independently). So a lot of our suffering depends on our ability, and willingness, to be free. It is within this "framework" of freedom, after all, to work towards resolving our own suffering. A person with little freedom does not have much means to work their way towards a minimally lived life of suffering. And since it's not society's interest for you to be free due to fear of control, society works against your ability to free yourself from pain and agony. But even an existence free of imposed suffering might not be free of the emotional pain caused by emptiness. As optimistic nihilism is so hard to achieve naturally. Some of us are straight-out afraid of this void of meaning, which requires us to confine ourselves and to commit to a specific purpose/s. As such, Many people crave a deeper meaning in life, beyond daily routines. Optimistic nihilists, content with the absence of purpose, are the most distinct exception. This "higher" meaning we may seek isn't necessarily about grand causes; it's a long-term, purpose-driven force that transcends daily life and justifies our existence to ourselves. It resonates with us and makes us feel alive. This "feeling alive" sensation is likely to be the state where we suffer the least. That's because "feeling alive" is where we are concerned the least, instead filled with a state of bliss and genuine joy. If destiny exists, despite the potential irrationalities existing in this concept, then it's possible that we truly achieve ourselves, and relieve ourselves from much if not all suffering, when we're feeling alive. Therefore, the moral thing to do for ourselves is to seek out the things which make us feel alive. If we truly love someone, we would also want them to experience this wonderful sensation, where they meet and actualize their "higher meaning" or "higher purpose". Hence the grand importance of finding that purpose. Doing so can release so much pain within you, and can help you even love being alive. This "higher meaning", the key to feeling alive, can be manifested in three (potentially coexisting) forms: Altruistic (doctor, volunteer, hero, sacrifice for the greater good), Communal (a common source of purpose), or Philosophical (developed through introspection and contemplation). Finding a purpose that combats suffering in its two stages can make life significantly more bearable, related to Nietzsche's quote: "He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." Finding Meaning and Overcoming Suffering Philosophy, often confined to academia (but not necessarily), holds an underrated importance in our lives. Philosophy can be an act of personal reflection and dialogue aimed at understanding the world and ourselves. This innate human desire to solve problems through reason is the core of philosophizing. And problems we can solve should be solved. While insights from established philosophers can be valuable, the act of forming a personal philosophy is almost a duty we owe ourselves in confronting suffering depression. The objective truth of the conclusions we reach can be just as important as their ability to contribute to our functionality in society, and in our ability to endure life. Traditionally, philosophy sought absolute truth. However, The power of philosophy lies not just in finding universal truths, but also in generating ideas that resonate deeply on a personal level, even if they don't correspond to objective reality. As such, philosophy offers more than mere truth-seeking. It also empowers us to combat and reduce unnecessary suffering in ourselves and even in others. By "purpose-ifying" our lives – striving for a life well-lived – we can find meaning and overcome the struggles that burden us. At the very least, these burdens would be a lot more tolerable. Alex Mos's Feedback Compulsory education means that parents must send their children to a state-approved school. Since the beginning of the 20th century, all countries, except Bhutan, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vatican City, have implemented compulsory education laws. The obligatory schooling system has pros and cons but is a necessary evil, as knowledge is the key to choices and possibilities. Learning makes it possible to distinguish between the ignorance of a slave mindset (Plato's cave) and freedom's complicated decisions (and consequences). Proper education is a blessing; however, schooling in an evil manipulator's hands is used for harmful propaganda and political mind control of future adults. A child is like a sponge absorbing everything around them and is a natural learner. Although learning can cause discomfort due to the reinforcement of discipline, a child should never suffer, be bullied, depressed, or stressed because of school. In modern society, parents have no sufficient knowledge, time, or competence to educate their children. Compulsory school education was implemented to give poor and neglected children fair chances, regardless of their parents' ignorance, economic difficulties, and unwillingness to educate their offspring. On the other hand, the compulsory education system can be a tool for controlling and indoctrinating political, societal, and dogmatic values instead of pure knowledge. The mandatory school system in many countries is discriminatory, inflexible, and pedagogically imperfect. Yet, even an imperfectly educated, intelligent, and logical person is likelier (it's only a statistical assumption!) to make an unorthodox, moral choice and step outside the intellectually limiting norms than an ignorant person who can hardly read or write. Children's education should remain compulsory, but reforms and adjustments of programs and methods are necessary. Educational programs for gifted and neurodivergent children, online study options, and implementing logical thinking in the primary curriculum are essential. Also, education should be honest, free of manipulation, and based on understanding rather than memorization. Some children don't like school, but life is a hardship. We must build discipline and resilience through education to help them survive, make conscious choices, and be wise and strong enough to find their purpose and mental freedom. However, when a child experiences education as suffering, it proves the system is a failure. We are encoded and conditioned to embrace the expectations of others and survive through society's validation in normative categories or rejection. We are taught to be a part of a societal syndicate and be successful in material and traditional ways, regardless of how we feel about it deep inside. When we achieve societal success, which is not our inner ambition, we triumph on the approval of others, similar to a drug-induced euphoria. It's a fleeting moment of glory, followed by inner emptiness, because we only count when we are visible, followed, and liked. When it's gone, we must find another source of euphoria and another one till we likely succumb to depression, realizing the pointlessness of life, which "feels not ours." Ultimately, the abyss is staring at us, regardless of how others view us; nothing can free us from the feeling of failure anymore as we failed to find its deep meaning. The purpose of life is in us, hidden deep in our minds. Fulfilling one's purpose may be the true meaning of destiny, and it might be predetermined in genes at birth and fine tuned by life circumstances. Finding and fulfilling the purpose through life is a blessing to a few privileged humans, often gifted and visionaries (sometimes madmen) who are not only exceptionally talented but also persist in their never-ending quest for infinite knowledge or artistic expression. Their continued dissatisfaction, ongoing need to create, and the absence of post-purpose make their life worth living. Why do so many people struggle to find their purpose, which might be rooted in themselves or even in all humans? We all live to find meaningful fulfillment. The most fundamental gratification is satisfying our physiological and societal needs, including status, safety, procreation, and parental instincts. However, some humans seek more abstract intellectual, artistic, and spiritual actualization. Our "basic nature" and societal conditioning might overshadow the more abstract "core" when we grow up, or the abstract core might be underdeveloped without sufficient intelligence, education, or stimulation. Neurodivergent and introverted children might be less sustainable for social influences and, therefore, develop a better understanding of their inner core, but they also need guidance. Parents and teachers should observe and nurture all children's dreams and ambitions, not dismiss them as unrealistic and unfit, as they may represent their inner core and lead to greatness. Adults can connect to the "abstract core of their purpose" through contemplation, isolation, hardship, and self-acceptance. Also, reconnecting with your "child within" might be helpful. Think about your likes and preferences when you were a less biased, more honest, and "raw" version of yourself. Such an inward journey might be helpful if you struggle with an apathetic lack of purpose. Look back at your forgotten childhood dreams and find your goal in the depths of your inner core, regardless of your current age, education, career, or success.

(Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis: A good life appears to lie before us, yet it's still beyond our reach when we get the seemingly last missing piece to make us happy. Yearning for fulfillment is a universal human experience, and we can approach it in different ways. Devotees find their answers in religious salvation, while others accumulate wealth and seek hedonistic pleasures. Existentialists believe in creating our significance by pursuing our passions and committing selfless acts. While the two first options are often unsatisfactory, creating a purposeful life leads to deeper fulfillment. Find the meaning that resonates with you and make an achievable plan to live the happy life you want. Why Our Efforts Fall Short Many of us live much of our lives believing something is either amiss or not okay, whether personal or external. We chase after this missing piece, convinced that only when we remove or add the necessary element will we finally live the life we were working so hard for. Yet, even when we achieve our goals or acquire what we desired, a nagging sense of incompleteness often remains. No matter how hard we strive, the journey towards the "good life" seems to stretch endlessly before us. We chase a vision that appears to be constantly receding, like a certain character's hairline. This yearning for something more, something that will finally fulfill us, is a universal human experience. The only way to break it is through either death or through the embrace of disatisfaction. Throughout history, different cultures have offered answers in the form of religious salvation. In Judaism, there's the hope for a Messiah. In Christianity, the belief in Christ's arrival and the Day of Judgement. Both promise an end to our earthly struggles and a final, perfect state. While I'm not a religious scholar, these examples highlight our enduring desire for an ultimate solution, a single event that will bring an end to our lifelong search for happiness. However, this very pursuit may be leading us astray. Perhaps, true fulfillment lies not in reaching a final destination, but in embracing the journey itself? Finding Your Own "Good Life" Some chase the promise of a blissful afterlife, believing the "good life" waits beyond this world, earned through unwavering devotion to a higher power. Others believe it lies in the accumulation of wealth – the more they possess, the fuller their lives will be. However, there's another school of thought: those who embrace Nihilism or Existentialism. They mock the idea of an inherent meaning, embedded to the universe necessarily. They suggest life has no predetermined purpose. Instead, they believe we create our own significance through actions like artistic expression, selfless acts, or simply pursuing what ignites our passions. Ultimately, satisfaction isn't a singular destination reachable through one specific path. It's a spectrum, built from a combination of factors like contributing to something greater, achieving personal goals, and experiencing moments of joy. Fulfillment Beyond the Fleeting A good life goes beyond fleeting pleasures. It involves a sense of accomplishment and the pride that comes from living authentically, AKA, living the life that we want to live. The hedonistic pursuit of pure pleasure alone often leaves a void, lacking the depth found in a life filled with purpose. Personally, I find comfort in the existentialist perspective. Wagering this whole lifetime on the hope of an unknown afterlife seems like a waste of potential, while I have my own ways to live. Logically, with so many religions existing, the odds of choosing the "correct" one to secure eternal reward seem improbable. Similarly, chasing material wealth offers a fleeting high. The initial thrill of acquisition fades as possessions become commonplace. The truth is, the wealthy have their own struggles, and financial security doesn't guarantee lasting happiness or even an honest friendship. Personal Reflections The human quest for the "good life" often encounters a roadblock: The nagging feeling that something is missing, regardless of external circumstances. We therefore face a choice: Accept this disquiet or take action to create a life of meaning. The latter path leads to a deeper satisfaction, a sense of accomplishment fueled by pursuing goals aligned with our values. This yearning for purpose resonated with me even during my seemingly happy childhood. Joy filled my days, but it lacked substance. While basic needs were met, a void persisted. Leisure activities with family, though enjoyable, felt insufficient at times, even bordering on depressing. This disquiet sparked my interest in philosophy in my early teens. I craved more than fleeting pleasure. I wanted my limited time on earth to matter. Only when I delve into projects like writing these articles, do I experience a different kind of joy – one that transcends the emptiness of of this universe as I perceive it. It's a joy imbued with a sense of contribution, a fulfillment that strengthens my embrace of wanting to live life by desire, and not by consent. This philosophy resonates with me because it emphasizes that existence precedes meaning. We are not pre-programmed with purpose; we create it through our actions and endeavors. In societies that do not properly designate personlized purpose of each of our lives, that task falls on us. The Blueprint Ultimately, relying on external forces to define your worth is a gamble. These forces are often beyond your control or influence. So why not forge your own path, if you want to make the best decision for yourself? Why not actively create meaning and purpose through your choices and contributions to the world? This is the essence of crafting your own "good life": a journey of self-discovery and fulfillment, fueled by the pursuit of meaning and the satisfaction of leaving your unique mark on the world. And you cannot know what a good life to live for youself, if you have yet to face yourself, and study it on all of its complexities, strengths, weaknesses and contradictions A good way to plan for the life you want to live, a life that resonates with you, is to make this collaboration between your ambitions and between the parts of yourself you can actually change. What exactly within yourself is to be changed in the name of the life you wish to live? Who is anyone to judge? You are the one who spends the most of the time with their self, being literally imprisoned in it. Don't just pray or hope to manifest. Actually come up with a plan that could work with enough time and effort. Do you really want to live the life you're currently living? Simply living that life you won't necessarily want, from day to day, month to month, would only enable its continuation. Why, then, should you resume enabling it any longer? Mr. Nathan Lasher's Review The good life is a subjective life as it only relates to your own cognitive reality. Meaning, your idea of the good life might be different from everyone else’s. You can choose to either have a good life for yourself or choose to help others reach their own “good” life. Which one will fill you more. It can feel empowering to help someone else reach their own good place. It can also help you in trying to find your own. If anyone needs help in discovering their own good life, look no further than making a list of everything you’d like to accomplish in this life in order of importance. It will create a goal line which will not only let a person know they have reached it but more so it will show them how they reached it. Truly a great thing when you realize you can help others out who have been struggling with similar things. It really is all about picking up the right habits which will result in you reaching your own good life. I want to run a marathon. It might be a good example of the “good” life. You prepare for that by running each and every day. The good life is nothing more than the manifestation of your actions' consequences. Whether that is making drastic changes or if you just want to work on one thing at a time such as a vehicle you might want to buy. You get it by saving money until you have enough. That is the actions required for life to present you with a piece of the good life. Stop, rinse, take away, Repeat. You reach your entire good life by putting in the effort to get yourself a little piece of it. Life is all about stepping stones. Once you learn what it took to get you to that point you will see what kind of effort it took and have a better realization of what will go into creating the good life.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) (Background music) The Rise of the Non-Academic Intellectual With the increasing dominance of technology, the gatekeepers of information have been replaced by an open door. Books, newspapers, and journals once served as the primary avenues for sharing ideas. However, now, literally anyone can voice their thoughts and spread them worldwide. This creates a potential for a fascinating shift: the rise of the non-academic intellectual, and his or her internet insights. Anyone with dedication and skill can become a thought leader. Through practice in logic and communication, individuals can build intellectual credibility outside the ivory tower. According to Forbes, it takes the following traits: Being able to bring unique viewpoints to the table. Proficent specialization in a certain field/s. Authenticity (AKA, freedom from pretenses). Leadership qualities. In many fields, and especially in the arts and humanities, these virtues can be gained outside of the academia. This challenges the traditional view of academia as an exclusive source of knowledge and bringer of virtues such as those. In a world where information is readily available online, the Pre-Digital Elitism associated with academic credentials begins to diminish. And rightfully so, given how much student debt comes along with these prestigious studies. In the US alone in 2023, student debt was gathered to several trillion USD. That is the price an entire developed nation pays by succumbing to two terms which I covered here on Philosocom: The Prestige Bias. The Degree Fallacy. Access to gate-keeped information doesn't equate to expertise. While the financial burden of traditional higher education may be avoided, self-driven learning requires significant discipline and critical thinking skills. Not all online resources are created equal, and navigating the information landscape demands discernment as much as it demands drawing accurate conclusions from the information that is likelier to be true and not a misinformation with an ulterior motive/s. On the other hand, the value of degrees should not be underestimated when the degrees offer relevance. While alternative paths to knowledge are emerging, academic credentials still hold merit when they have a practical application to specific contexts (like when speaking of health and medicine). Degrees demonstrate commitment, professionalism, and specialized skills valued by many employers (hence the reason many pursue them). However, as open-mindedness and tolerance for diverse perspectives grow, the importance of degrees as the sole marker of credibility may decrease. Ultimately, the digital revolution has democratized knowledge, challenging orthodox hierarchies and creating opportunities for self-made intellectuals and underground thinkers. While there are trade-offs to being an auto-didact (like studying what you want to study, and not necessarily what is useful for your efforts), this shift has the potential to foster a more inclusive and diverse intellectual landscape. Rethinking the Value of "Armchair Philosophers" A textbook example of such an intellectual is Socrates, who acquired his wisdom by engaging in philosophical dialogue with the Athenian people, undermining reading and writing (Plato served as his recorder of thoughts). In today's world, Socrates might be told to get a job or a degree. He could also be told to stop "wasting his potential" by engaging in open discussions rather than writing and marketing philosophy books of his own making. Ironically, he remains one of the the most well-known philosophers of all time. This raises two important questions: Will we ever see a future where academic studies are no longer socio-economically exclusive, even though many jobs require them despite uncertain application due to high demand and competition (excluding fields like medicine and law where degrees are truly necessary, rather than beneficial, but not objectively necessary to do the job)? Should we, as individuals and professionals, move beyond judging people solely based on their educational background and degrees? Could we save people time, money, and unnecessary pressure by focusing on individual potential and fulfillment rather than conforming to external expectations? Conclusion Academic studies are undeniably demanding, stressful, and expensive. People should not be ashamed to prioritize their well-being and choose paths that better suit their individual needs and aspirations -- and still become educated in their own ways. Not everyone is cut out for academia, and not everyone has the courage to leave after investing time, effort and funds. As such I consider myself educated despite not having any degrees. I'm just a man who dedicates much of his time learning about the world and in general, so I could serve you the high-quality articles you came for by coming and/or subscribing to Philosocom. My time spent in industrious isolation is to help teaching people about philosophy and about life in general. If I believed in the falsehood of the Degree Fallacy as a necessary truth, I would've committed something called "The Same Result Problem", leading to unnecessary redundancy. This is why "armchair intellectuals" like myself, who actually do their research, deserve to challenge negative stereotypes. It's as similar as to other marginalized groups facing societal pressures for being who they are. We should all strive to move beyond the limitations of imposed norms and acknowledge that individual struggles deserve understanding and respect. And struggles, especially, that succeed in delivering you exactly what you asked for. Hail Philosocom.

(Philosocom's Asceticism Directory) (Directory on Fear: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-fear-and-the-right-to-resist-it) (Void directory) Introduction "It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor." — Seneca Many years ago, I wrote a poem that explains my motives for living a more ascetic life and renouncing it to an extent. Not in the name of a religious deity, but in the name of strength, serenity, and saving money. In other words, I am an irreligious ascetic who tries to live only the smaller aspects of life, such as daily chores and work, moments of rejuvenation, and resting/sleeping. You will almost never see me socializing, hanging out in nightclubs, or even going abroad for tourism. I only rarely go to restaurants, too. I am therefore a contemporary semi-hermit who aspires to dedicate his life to rectify the world through philosophy, and to achieve a state of continuous serenity through my work. "But why are you doing this to yourself, Tomasio?" You may probably ask. The reason for that will be momentarily presented in the following poem, where I take the image of a jester, heavily inspired by Diogenes, the ancient Greek philosopher, who critiques the orthodox ways of living; the endless pursuit of many after ultimate happiness and mental security. Enjoy. The Ascetic Joker I, have ascended From the unnecessities Of our universe. There is no glow, So bright, Which can convince me To end my life and blow. I observe the people who Build pyramids of sand, Tying themselves to others With emotional glue, And call their love "true", Following the herd's command, Afraid to face their own emptiness. But I find it so humorous, When I contemplate this in my seclusion. Inhale, and exhale, The universe's ignored hell. My heart is so pale, With such amusement. [Laughing] Noises and coloured lights, Are things which without them makes people, So afraid, so lone, with their frights. Meaning is a subjective term, But only few wonder and claim Whether subjectivity is or not actually existent. We, are, surrounded with emptiness, but we deny it, As many of us afraid, and the rest are blind, With their closed eyes of deep thoughts, And continue to play with their draughts, And never look around and beyond their projector's varied lights. Recreation, so to face the self, too late, Worldly adventures – an internal escape. There is nothing, beyond what I already do, That I crave, that I wish to woo. Excessive activity is, a sign of anxiety, To keep one away, from the void's immortality, I've produced so much meaning through my creations, But how come that a grain of meaninglessness is still intact? In my seclusion, I have contemplated, And above the earthly, I have ascended. The tragic of existence, I have attended, And now, my inner mask can be truly dead! [Laughing] Life is a one-time game, But you cannot restart, save, or pause. But why should I "carpe diem," When I understand That the void is something that cannot be fully overcome? All the glamour, fame, sparks, heights, sex, and love Cannot elevate me beyond the void's final bound. Happiness and joy do exist. I do not disagree. But they are only short-term satisfactions, Satisfactions that exist for a certain period of time, And then we feel like we need to provide them all in a continuous loop. I have no fear of exploring the strange and the obscure. I am no conformist. I can accept and live with this void. [Laughing]

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

(Background music) Introduction Consumerism is the belief that acquiring goods and services is beneficial to both the economy and one's personal well-being. Economically, this is true to a degree. There are countless jobs that require constant, repetitive consumption to exist. Entire industries finance themselves by selling things that are fundamentally unnecessary for a life of satisfaction and happiness. While the culture of consumerism is necessary for the sustainability of those who provide these goods, it is not necessary for the people to remain in a constant state of unnecessary shopping "crusades." The Economic Trap: Who Are We Saving? Consumerist culture is inherently more beneficial to sellers than to buyers. Without the continuous activity of unnecessary shopping across global trading centers, mass layoffs would be inevitable. Companies cannot sustain losses; when the buying stops, the firing begins. This leads to a difficult ethical question: Are we, the consumers, responsible for the livelihoods of those who provide us with unnecessary goods? The answer is, of course, no. We live in a world largely built on free-market economies, driven by competition. It is not the responsibility of the individual to ensure the sustainability of a business that sells useless products. We are not charities for failing business models. The False Blurring of "Want" vs. "Need" Consumerism itself hasn't blurred the distinction between wants and needs. Rather, conformity and herd mentality have. There is a pervasive notion that we "ought" to be like everyone else—that we "need" to be accepted as normal within our social circles. This social anxiety leads to peer pressure, forcing us to buy unnecessary things simply to fit in. The Manipulation of Language The way we use language plays a massive role in this deception. We often use words like "must" and "need" to convince ourselves and others that a purchase is essential for a "well-lived life." However, what constitutes a well-lived life is up to interpretation. Managing an article empire is fulfilling to me, but it might not be to you. A specific car might matter to a collector, but not to a commuter. This is exactly how Clickbait works. By telling us in a headline that we "must" watch a video or "need" a product, content creators manipulate our fear of missing out to generate traffic and revenue. Ultimately, it comes down to profit. Providers make money by convincing you that a desire is a necessity. Even if the reason is deceptive, it is effective. Brand Loyalty vs. Biological Necessity If you embed a brand deeply enough into society, you increase the chances of people consuming unnecessary products under the guise of necessity. The Reality Check: You do not need a McDonald's just because you are hungry. You do not need a Coca-Cola just because you are thirsty. You need to eat and to drink. Those are the biological necessities. The specific brand is a choice, not a need, especially when you have plenty of healthier, cheaper options. Conclusion: The Ascetic Advantage The Ascetic knows this truth well. Consumerism is vital for the people whose job it is to sell you things you don't need. By convincing you that you "must" have them, you extend the duration of their employment and the lifespan of their company. Therefore, consumerist culture is necessary for one category of people (the sellers), but it is often harmful to the other (the customers). Can you live a well-lived life with nutrition that is both tasty and healthy, without buying into the hype? If the answer is yes, then countless brands are rendered unnecessary, regardless of their marketing budget.

Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. The article "3 Concepts In Modernity That Cause Unfairness" is a well-written critique of three key concepts in modern society: capitalism, alienation, and fame. It provides a solid foundation for the discussion, highlighting the relevance and thought-provoking nature of these issues. Mr. Tomasio uses credible sources like Britannica and the World Bank to support his arguments, enhancing the credibility of the article. The writing style is engaging and reflective, encouraging readers to think deeply about the issues presented. The article covers a broad spectrum, addressing not just economic aspects but also social and psychological dimensions of modernity. It acknowledges both the negative and positive traits of human nature, providing a nuanced perspective for a fair and constructive critique of societal issues. Overall, the article "3 Concepts In Modernity That Cause Unfairness" is a thought-provoking piece that effectively highlights crucial issues in modern society. (Background Music) How to Better Understand The Governing Elements of Our Modern World The modern world is complex and difficult for many people because it is based on three main values that are unfair: capitalism, alienation, and fame. These values promote inequality, corruption, injustice, and apathy towards the unprivileged and the unfortunate. Those who are privileged are more merciful and fortunate, while those who are not are left to suffer. Capitalism is the most common type of economy in the western world. To quote Britannica: Capitalism is the dominant economic system in Western countries. In comparison, fewer countries use socialist economic systems. As of 2020, only Laos, China, Cuba, and Vietnam claimed to follow the principles of socialism as dictated by Marxist and Leninist theories. More often, however, it is difficult to label countries as solely capitalist or socialist. Many have mixed economies that operate under both capitalist and socialist principles It promotes a free market and large wealth gaps between the rich and the poor. Those who are rich have the fortune to survive and prosper with minimal (financial) worries. On the other hand, those who are poor are usually left unsupported or minimally supported by the government, unless they're on some kind of welfare program. This is because capitalism does not promote equality and social justice, but rather personal wealth, private grip on national economy, and economic progression on the expanse of the lower socio-economic classes of society. Venturing Into Capitalism Capitalism is by definition unequal because it promotes the societal application of a class hierarchy based on capital. And when I speak of "capital" it's important to understand that not all capital, or asset, is financial. Non financial capital include, and not excluded to: Intellectual property Vehicles University degrees This very blog. Being part of a network or managing it (Social capital). When you normalize an entire planet to value people by their capital, AKA, on what they have, and not on the fact that they are humans deserving and capable of true love, you further contribute to inequality. That's because in capitalist mindset, the human element does not matter as much of what that element has to offer. Humans are reduced to "human resources", and the quality of this "resource pool" is presented by their functionality; By the worth of them being an asset. In such a world you only matter as far as you go as an asset, and not by the fact that you're a human being. Given that different people possess different talents at different qualities, inequality is sure to be created and maintained in capitalism. 2. The Normalization of Alienation It's quite hard to even love other people when you treat them as people who do things, instead for who they are. The idea of alienation has been around since the beginning of the industrial revolution. With the modernization of technology, science, entertainment, and industry, feelings of loneliness and lack of empathy have begun to emerge on a constant basis. Entire communities were disbanded in the name of modernity and personal success, slowly evolving a general feeling of apathy towards each other in a planet that becomes more and more populated and metropolitan in nature. Living in the city can feel far lonelier than living in smaller, if not more intimate, communities. And I quote the World Bank website: Today, some 56% of the world’s population – 4.4 billion inhabitants – live in cities. This trend is expected to continue, with the urban population more than doubling its current size by 2050, at which point nearly 7 of 10 people will live in cities.   This apathy, which sometimes can be very cruel, is but a normalized, ever-increasing phenomenon in our hyper-connected, para-social world. It's phenomenon that shall only thrive as we become more addicted to technology, and more disconnected from each other on an emotional level. Simping, a contemporary problem, stems from people's problem to form genuine relationships with others emotionally. And their loneliness is exploited for revenue. Today, it is unlikely that your neighbors would care about you, or the common pedestrian to help you in time of need. This is exemplified by drivers not stopping for pedestrians, capable of running them over and fleeting the scene. Alienation is an expression of unfairness because some people are more liked and even loved than others. Incel communities are built up across the world as they are alienated by the world. Being moral matters less to many people than, well, having capital. And it's not that being who you are that will gain you the adoration of people. Many people are instead attracted to power, status, and dominant personalities. You won't necessarily be respected for being a human. You will be respected under the fulfillment of expectations of others. Offer no relevance and you'll be casted aside by many, only to either contemplate death... ...Or desire revenge. Intermission: The Age of Ego This is the age of the ego. Altruism becomes less and less less common, not because it is valuable as a rarity. It's but because it becomes less and less frequent in application, as people prefer to be validated over giving additional value as content creators (as nowadays anyone can be one). Philosocom is an altruist's venture, but I digress. Loneliness therefore becomes a common problem and many people are questioning if their lives have any meaning, thus also leading to the common phenomenon of depression. It is only natural in the historical evolution humanity has set for its future and ideals 3. The Thirst For Fame and Recognition Even though apathy is a common theme in our urbanized times, the human being still remains tribal by nature. By calling the human "tribal" I mean that many have, or search for, a definitive social frame and belonging. Fame thus emerges when people want to feel they belong to the aura of the famous person or group, which also replaces common sympathy and empathy for one another, in favor of people regarded on the historic scale. The more famous a person is, the more they become favorable. The more favorable they are, the more people gather around them and actually care for them even at the superficial aspect. It's all a product of the horrible herd mentality potential within many humans. We won't, either way, bother too much with those living in more-obscure places, unfortunately. They don't necessarily matter to us as much as people who appeared in our favorite fictional medias... A Case Example Of Fame Stefan Karl Stefánsson, a deceased famous actor playing the villain Robbie Rotten, suffered from cancer and received plenty of donations in order to support him. On the other hand, there are plenty of more people who suffer from unfortunate things, such as cancer, starvation, and extreme poverty, and they are barely being assisted or supported by the world simply because they are not famous enough. And you won't likely support someone you don't find relevant to you. Therefore, relevance and respect are intertwined. This isn't an expression of whataboutism because this article discusses unfairness, with fame giving people access to more help from others, than people in lesser known countries. This is why the famous may be more fortunate and loved than the infamous or the less known people. They have this “aura” around them that, allegedly, "justifies" them as being more worthy than other people. Final words This is our world, where the fortunate minority prospers over the less fortunate or the unfortunate majority. If there is something to blame, then it ought to be human nature, which is the root of unfairness, corruption, power games, and apathy. However, human nature is not all that black. It also possesses some positive traits, such as kindness, altruism, and consideration. Even with the injustice of today, let us not give in to negative bias. Furthermore, instead of using capitalism for exploitation and oppression, we can develop a more compassionate approach to this methodology: Compassionate Capitalism means that corporations have to account for the costs that they impose on the environment, the communities that lie in the vicinity of their factories and plants as well as offices, their employees whom they have to treat with more kindness, and the consumers and other stakeholders to whom they must be accountable. -- The "Management Study Guide" Blog And as long as we ignore what's normalize to ignore -- our hearts, our relationships with others and our true passions, we may be enabling the same concepts we despise with our submission. To quote Mr. John Duran: "The final tragedy is not the fact that we live in a dystopian society, but that very few are willing to finally admit its true nature. The path we continue on was inevitable and that's the plan. To Obey and Consume, that has become our very reason for existence. We have allowed this to happen via mass-conditioning and personal apathy. Its so much easier to ignore the horrors of modern society that's been normalized.

(Background music) Introduction: The Body as a Data Bank The human body is not merely a biological machine; it is a massive, complex data bank of information. It holds our latent energies, our immediate tensions, and our deepest pain. This repository extends far beyond our individual experiences. Through our genes, the body inherits and stores multigenerational trauma, carrying the historical echoes of past conflicts and survival struggles. When we witness the suffering of others, genuine emotional empathy forces our biology to register that data. Our bodies store their pain, creating an internal compaction that compels us to act. Pain and Trauma as Pure Information In a chaotic world, stress is a functional necessity. The somatic architecture is designed to contain as much stress as possible while allowing us to maintain the daily execution required for survival. However, stress operates on a ledger: the more you gather, consciously or subconsciously, the heavier the toll on your physical and mental baseline. Mental friction inevitably manifests as physical ailment. The Somatic Maxim Pain is information. Trauma is information. They are the raw data points that help us decode the environment, signaling what we must avoid and what we must endure to survive. By becoming deeply attuned to your body and connecting directly with your pain, you unlock a profound diagnostic tool. You begin to understand not only your internal mechanics but also your exact positioning in the world, discerning where to invest your energy and what to completely cut off from your life. Society, Work, and the Repression of Self Society operates as a necessary evil. While it provides the infrastructure of safety, goods, and services required to function, it simultaneously exerts a constant, oppressive pressure. This friction is most acutely felt in the arena of professional labor. The Cost of the Professional Mask Work is frequently the space where the authentic self must be systematically denied. To secure a business, avoid termination, and remain operational, we repress our innate reactions in favor of an artificial, professional ideal. This chronic self-denial inflicts a massive stress tax on our biology. [Innate Self] ---> (Societal Expectation / Professional Mask) ---> [Somatic Stress Accumulation] To navigate this without breaking, one must adopt a mindset of functional asceticism. When work and self-denial are integrated into a ruthless, deliberate regimen, they cease to be passive forms of victimization. Instead, they become a source of internal fortitude. Strength is cultivated by enduring this reality, using the resources gained to protect your domain, and refusing to profit off the pain of others. Reclaiming Autonomy from Conditional Validation Society builds up internal stress factors by treating acceptance, validation, and love as a conditional business transaction: Execute Action A --> Avoid Behavior B --> Receive Reward C (Validation) Failure to comply with these social trends results in systemic rejection and isolation. The ultimate countermeasure is to overcome the psychological need for external validation. By engineering your own self-appreciation purely for the purpose of survival, you cut out the conditional societal transaction entirely, removing a massive source of chronic anxiety. 14 Tactical Tips for Systemic Stress Reduction To achieve optimal serenity, you must proactively insulate yourself from toxic stimuli, optimize your intellect, and manage your immediate environment with chess-like foresight. Dimension Tactical Action Ultimate Objective Environmental Stimuli Insulation & Temperature Control Protect the somatic baseline from sensory overload. Financial Debt Elimination & Low-Stress Labor Remove resource-based hyper-vigilance. Social Strict Relationship Vetting & Solitude Eliminate interpersonal friction and forced masking. 1. Demystify the Illusion of Wealth Do not mistake financial abundance for absolute serenity. Wealth introduces its own complex stress matrix; the greedy are, by nature, trapped in a state of perpetual restlessness. Money is a tool for logistical optimization, not a cure for internal suffering. 2. Audio Insulation and Thermal Regulation Constant exposure to dramatic, chaotic noise agitates the nervous system. Utilize high-quality, noise-blocking headphones to filter out environmental stress. If you operate in a high-temperature environment, opt for earbuds instead; standard headphones trap body heat, and elevated physical temperatures actively increase stress responses. 3. Implement Tactical Cooling Protocols Prioritize systemic rest and short naps. The most immediate, mathematically effective way to drop your stress baseline is to physically cool the body down, neutralizing excess somatic heat. 4. Cultivate Chess-Player Foresight Never make critical life decisions while emotionally reactive. Analyze your existence like a grandmaster: understand that every word uttered and every action executed carries long-term consequences. Use your freedom of expression not to vent passing impulses, but as a strategic tool to engineer the exact relationships and outcomes your long-term goals require. 5. Master the Sovereign Art of Solitude Dedicate uncompromised time to being completely alone. Within the secure perimeter of isolation, you are permitted to drop the exhausting social mask and offer true acceptance to yourself. If you do not have a partner who allows you to exist completely unmasked, mastering solitude becomes a non-negotiable survival requirement. 6. Transmute Internal Tension Do not allow accumulated stress to stagnate within your body. Actively transmute it into productive, tangible outputs, whether through rigorous physical training, artistic creation, or philosophical writing. Focus your energy inward and declutter external stimulation. 7. Eradicate Procrastination Leaving critical tasks to the final hour triggers an intense, unnecessary adrenaline spike. Finish what needs to be done early to completely liberate yourself from predictable crises. Defeating procrastination is the simplest way to eliminate a future vulnerability. [Procrastination] = Delayed Crisis + Compounded Stress [Early Execution] = Absolute Freedom + Secure Perimeter 8. Prioritize Peace Over Financial Luxury When choosing between a high-stress, high-paying position and a sufficiently paying job with low friction, choose the path of least stress. No amount of material luxury can compensate for a broken physical and mental baseline. 9. Avoid Volatile Freelance Dynamics If you struggle with interpersonal anxiety, avoid unstable freelance arrangements where your income depends on chasing clients. The exhausting "crusades" required to collect payment from unprincipled people drain vital reserves. A stable, predictable operation provides the psychological safety necessary for stress reduction. 10. Minimize Financial Liabilities Treat loans as an absolute last resort. Debt creates a predatory requirement to earn far more than your baseline needs. Avoid loan sharks completely; they do not respect your body or your boundaries; they exist solely to exploit your stress for profit. 11. Rigorously Vet Your Social Circle Surround yourself exclusively with tolerant, grounded individuals who refuse to subject you to mindless peer pressure. If an active social life strains your battery, choose absolute isolation instead. Your inner circle should consist only of people who understand your architecture and stand firmly by you during your lowest moments. 12. Trade Labor for Health Maintenance Preserving your physical and mental health is your primary operational objective, even if it requires taking deliberate days off from your labor. If professional psychological support is financially unfeasible, ensure you have at least one trusted, deep-thinking confidant with whom you can unpack your heaviest internal struggles. 13. Systematically Avoid Conflict Do not allow yourself to be dragged into low-level interpersonal wars. Use deliberate, peaceful discourse to navigate disagreements. If you cause stress in others, the systemic feedback loop ensures that stress will eventually be reflected back onto you. Socially engineer a quiet life through precise, calm communication. 14. Enforce Strict Interpersonal Morality If you are in a romantic relationship with an individual who consistently demonstrates a lack of core morality, sever the tie immediately. The immoral will inevitably become a headache, using your energy for validation or turning into abusers. A healthy relationship exists strictly to reduce stress, it is a mutual gift that celebrates and protects the existence of both participants. Conclusion: Becoming a Self-Learner of Life To successfully implement these strategies, you must break away from a society of passive consumers. Most individuals lose their innate curiosity as they age, surrendering their learning process to institutional validation, degrees, and external courses. To survive a cold, harsh world, you must become an independent self-learner of life, or someone who treats their own body as their primary teacher. Spend time alone with your biology, analyze the data of your pain, and systematically execute the actions required to lower your baseline stress. Minimize incompetence, optimize your energy, and build an independent fortress that makes your survival fundamentally rewarding.

(Philosocom's Directory on Competency) (Background music) Introduction: The Invisible Gaps in Institutional Education Modern society boasts robust educational systems and highly funded ministries of education, yet it systematically fails to equip individuals with the vital insights required to navigate life. These are not merely minor gaps in data; they are profound, systemic holes in our understanding of the self and the world. When institutions prioritize technical certification over psychological growth, rote memorization over applied wisdom, and blind conformity over critical thought, they produce individuals unequipped for reality. If we do not actively discover these missing insights ourselves, our lack of practical capability, which is caused by external institutional incompetence, leaves us functionally uneducated, regardless of how many formal graduation certificates we hold. We become polished products of a broken assembly line. The Architecture of External Failure Much of an individual’s internal friction is the direct byproduct of the failures of others. The Roots of Trauma: If a childhood was defined by instability or trauma, it was due to the psychological incompetence of those who raised us. The Origin of Anxiety: If an adult lives in a state of chronic fear and hyper-vigilance, it is because the figures responsible for providing foundational safety utterly failed to do so. The Scars of Dependency: As children, our development is fundamentally intertwined with the choices of those we depend upon. Whether they guide us with competence or compromise us with chaos determines our initial adult baseline. Acknowledging these invisible gaps is not about assigning blame; it is a clinical diagnosis of reality. To step out of the cycle of generational dysfunction, we must demand better from our institutions and, more importantly, take absolute personal responsibility for filling those missing spaces ourselves. The Sovereign Truth on Morality As long as we are not explicitly taught to cultivate personal virtue, we are prone to serve as mere building bricks for a morally depraved society. True morality is directly tied to competence. If you lack the logical competence to manage your own mind, your interactions, both personal and professional, will inevitably suffer. From External Hindrance to Logic-Fueled Resilience Dwelling on the continuous incompetence of society is a time-consuming, well-being-depleting trap. True resilience does not arise from receiving perfect instruction; it is forged by containing and neutralizing the unnecessary suffering inflicted by a chaotic world. Navigating an environment populated by people who fail to execute their duties properly creates an elite, logic-fueled strength. [External Incompetence/Chaos] ---> (Logical Firewall & Boundary) ---> [Internal Competence/Peace] The transformation begins when you shift your internal focus from the impractical, exhausting "why" to the completely controllable "how." By refusing to let the ripples of external failure dictate your mood, you reclaim absolute agency. You are the sole operator of your internal climate. The freedom to choose your response to adversity is vastly wider than society leads you to believe. Reclaiming the Engine Room: Overcoming Victimhood Stop victimizing yourself due to the incompetence of others. Ask yourself the ultimate diagnostic question: Is this the life you genuinely want to live? A life spent whining over how you want others to change, while possessing zero power to make them do so? When external reality is unreliable, the logical conclusion is absolute self-reliance: you must do everything yourself. Core Mindset The Victim Paradigm The Sovereign Competence Primary Focus Fixating on external flaws and societal breakdowns. Managing internal reactions and immediate territory. Locus of Control External (Dependent on others performing well). Internal (Dependent on personal discipline). Reaction to Chaos Irritation, emotional draining, and stagnation. Logical bypass, boundary enforcement, and execution. Ultimate Result Compounded misery and systemic incompetence. Unshakable inner peace and operational mastery. The true source of psychological unease is rarely the external flaw itself, but our internal irritation to it. By allowing a toxic social reality to breach your perimeter, you actively participate in your own discontent. You unconsciously enable the very chaos you despise. The Economics of Empathy: Balancing Benevolence and Self-Preservation The incompetence of external reality does not have to equal your personal misery. While experiencing emotional empathy for unfortunate situations is a hallmark of a moral character, it becomes dangerous when it cripples your ability to function. The Threat to Stability: Allowing external dysfunction to consistently penetrate your baseline actively deteriorates your internal competence, halting your progress through life. The Limit of Mercy: Noble values like sympathy and mercy can become highly impractical when placed in direct opposition to self-preservation. Mercy is not a virtue if it requires the sacrifice of your own stability. The Tactical Boundary: You must draw an unyielding line between acknowledging human suffering and letting that suffering define your well-being. Your internal peace is far too valuable to be sacrificed on the altar of global grief. Defensive Reflection Audit the anxieties that occupy your mind. You will frequently discover that many of your burdens are self-inflicted; ghosts carried long after their initial impact. Repressing these anxieties only fuels them. Recognizing them, facing them with cold logic, and permanently letting go of them is the first definitive step toward reclaiming your power. Conclusion: Engineering Your Own Well-Being The external, greater world may remain permanently dysfunctional, messy, and unhinged, but your internal world is not required to mirror its decay. By mastering the art of navigating external negativity without absorbing its poison, you cultivate the precise competence required to thrive in the face of adversity. Choose to focus exclusively on the variables that genuinely matter to your mission. Let go of the rest. Step out of the crowds, rely on your own mind as your primary guide, and reclaim the absolute power to define your own well-being. It starts and ends entirely with you.