The Search Bar

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Social Media Directory) Article Summary by Mr. O. C. Isaac "Giving Up Your Privacy For Products" is a comprehensive exploration of the ethical implications of data collection in the digital economy. The article delves into the trade-off between personal privacy and the use of online products and services, offering readers a nuanced perspective on this increasingly relevant topic. The article's strengths include its timely and relevant topic, clear structure and flow, effective use of sources and examples, balanced perspective, engaging writing style, and call to action. It condemns data collection practices but also acknowledges the conveniences and benefits of modern digital products. The conversational tone combined with rhetorical questions and reflective statements captures the reader's attention and provokes deeper thought. Overall, "Giving Up Your Privacy For Products" is a commendable piece that thoughtfully examines the ethical dimensions of privacy in the digital age. Our Digital Footprint: Why Online Privacy Matters In this time and age, of "Smart Industries"/4.0 Industries, every single online activity can have a financial and informational value. To quote a Usercentrics article: Your activity on the internet is valuable. Both in terms of time and money. In fact, everything you do – including everywhere you click, all the pages you browse and anything you buy – is valuable to some company somewhere. Your internet activity and data are collected, processed and sold daily by a variety of companies, websites and analysis firms. Why? So they can use that data to sell to you again, or sell it to others for a profit. Data collection and sale are a huge part of the modern digital economy. From sole proprietor online shops to tech giants like Google and Facebook, user data is used for everything to do with sales, marketing, product development, user experience, and more. Each of your online actions can be recorded and used to either sell it to third parties, or be stored in an organization's database. This is done to better learn about its users' activities when they consume its online products, such as websites, apps, and even gaming consoles. That is done using cookies, which are trackers used to contain your data. In the name of having better products, we give in our virtual information through its tracking, thus not having to deal with the same result problem of communicating directly to users. This greatly damages our right to privacy, even though we ourselves, technically, choose to do so by agreeing, directly or indirectly, to an organization's privacy policy. Whether we actually took the time to read it or not, is our own responsibility, and no one else's. By the way, Philosocom also has a privacy policy, along with a service level agreement. Why Privacy Policies Matter More Than You Think It's easy to blame ourselves for skipping online contracts. We click "I agree" without a second thought, just to gain access to that new app or game. However, playing the "blame game" will get us nowhere if we refuse to learn from our mistakes. In this case we should at least try to understand any online contract before we agree to it. This feature should be a part of any philosophy of any technology user, looking to improve the ethical way they use the internet for. However, in some cases the reality is more complex. Many products create a "black or white" situation: agree and use the product, or disagree and be left out of its use entirely. This can be especially frustrating for internet-connected devices like gaming consoles. An example for that being Injustice 2. You either accept to the terms, or are denied to play it even though you paid for it. According to the Isotopic game store company: If you further research the topic, you’ll find out that you actually do not own the games, and never had. What you do “own” is the digital license to use them, with many different systems working against having access to the files that you’ve paid for! Even if we protest against privacy breaches, companies can point to our consent. After all, clicking "I agree" sets the terms in action. Being concerned about privacy we exchanged in favor of goods we may deem too low-value to even trade our privacy for, is known as "The Privacy Paradox". This paradox is solved when we will be more inclined to be observant towards the actions we do, and ask ourselves if the content or product we consumed, worth the sacrifice of our right for privacy. The situation gets even trickier when products demand unnecessary permissions. Location tracking, for example, can be used to recommend social media connections based on mere proximity. A research paper explains this with a concrete example: Foursquare was a mobile social networking application that enabled people to share location with friends in the form of “check-ins.” The visualization of surrounding known social connections as well as unknown others has the potential to impact how people coordinate social encounters and forge new social ties. This is a creepy reminder of just how much corporations can learn about us, and on the importance of limiting them in the name of our personal freedoms. Additionally, camera access, microphone access and even phone calls are other potential privacy breaches hidden within agreements. You need to read the contract so you won't regret it later. Not only as an individual but also if you happen to be a head of a company! Here's why reading privacy policies and terms of service is crucial. It's not just about following rules, it's about understanding what you're giving up in exchange. Ask yourself such questions, and make it a habit: Is the convenience of this app worth sacrificing my privacy? Is the thrill of that game worth constant location tracking? Should issues such as popularity, novelty and instant gratification in a product or trend come at the cost of our personal data? Even if you're short on time, skimming these documents can make a difference, as it's, you know, better than nothing. Look for the central points of each section, and consider generally improving your skimming skills. Remember, your choice to consent (or not) holds more weight than you might initially think. Bonus: The Era When Privacy Wasn't the Price of Access Remember the golden age of gaming? The PS2 era, where you could pop in a disc and play without surrendering your personal data. Or the pre-social media internet, where communication thrived without having to live in an era similar to the one portrayed by George Orwell's 1984. Looking back, Orwell's cautionary tale feels strangely similar to the virtual world we live in today, with the rise of spreading misinformation through deception and internet surveillance. I often miss, with my nostalgia bias, the days where I could simply enjoy a certain game without philosophizing about worldly affairs. I philosophize not only because I enjoy it, but also because I choose to care for the world and help others. The Bottom Line and Philosocom Demanding so much personal information is often excessive, although excessiveness could be a good thing. Companies claim that personal data helps them understand their user base. However, even that purpose seems intrusive in the face of privacy concerns. The bigger issue? Once information is surrendered, some platforms can know about you more than the creepiest of stalkers. Even "free" products come at a cost – your data becomes a company's resource, fuelling their power and influence. And as private enterprises, they answer primarily to lawsuits, not a user's right to privacy. After all, most of us already "agreed" to hand our privacy over. Here's my dilemma: social media is a powerful tool for reaching an audience, which is a necessity in today's competitive world. While I acknowledge the privacy's sacrifice, I still use it. I know I enable, like many others, a culture of sacrifice. And indeed, if I didn't want to contribute to humanity, I'd forsaken it. That includes you, who read me. But despite my efforts, I dream of a world that values privacy, more than corporate domination. Isn't that a future worth fighting for? I wholeheartedly avoid spying on my readership using heatmaps for a reason. This is a philosophy blog, not an evil lair.

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

(Background music) We are slaves to our comforts, they dictate how we like them, not us -- Mr. John Duran Embracing Life's Discomforts Discomfort, regardless of size, lingers in our minds like dirt in our noses. No matter how much we clear our nose, the air we breathe carries new, uncomfortable dirt, standing in the way of our breath. Similarly, everyday life presents varieties of minor unease into our ears and other senses, no matter our situation or circumstance. Do you really think we can live a life that is completely free of any unease, of any degree of suffering, no matter how big or small? If we are not hungry, we will starve. If we are not thirsty, we will avoid drinking more often. Discomfort, therefore, contains a practical aspect that is worth embracing in the name of our survival. Perhaps children often feel less discomfort because they have their family to take care of them, so they have less to worry about. However, it's often that once we grow into adulthood, we may be less happy because we have far more concerns. Perhaps being yourself as an adult can reduce your unhappiness, yes? But "being yourself" won't negate the fact that you have bills to pay and things to afford. Rich or poor, popular or rejected as insane, empowered or controlled, our minds catch these discomforts. Like flies to honey, they stick in our consciousness. The presence of discomfort is an inseparable part of life's package. Of everyone's package. However, how we choose to perceive it, the emotional weight we assign it, -- that, dear readers, is pretty much our choice. Many struggle to distinguish between the "discomfort feature" and the way they choose to see it. They may see both their perception and its subject, as the same. This, in turn, negates our potential to endure it better. Why? Because our experience is shaped not only by what we experience, but also by how we regard it. Inspecting our perspectives, therefore, is imperative in the ability to customize the ways we experience the world. Our unwillingness or ignorance of the power of introspection, breeds an unconscious tendency to inflate inconveniences and individuals, leading to unnecessary, reduceable suffering. Instead of seeing them as unwanted dust bunnies, let us view them as fleeting clouds, passing shadows. Acknowledge their presence, yes, but don't let them rent too much space in your mentality. For much of our perception, and not just the discomfort itself, that determines its power over us. With a shift in perspective, we can remind ourselves that life is dynamic, ever-changing. We use our minds to strengthen our resilience by breaking the cognitive habits of our thinking, and reconstructing them. Our ability to navigate the ups and downs of life, is possible with greater ease and greater motivation, for we are not necessarily batteries to be recharged, but generators. Either way, a life devoid of any bumps or discomfort, would be a bland one indeed, as the absence of risk is, in a way, a great risk by itself -- risk of opportunity. Finding Opportunity in Discomfort Modern life offers a new level of comfort; a comfort that surpasses the hardships our ancestors endured through plagues, poverty, persecution, pillaging, human rights abuses, and military conflicts. We, the modern humans, undeniably enjoy a far wider spectrum of comfort, and pleasure compared to our distant past. Of course, it's although not all people enjoy the same level of comfort, making it, at large, a privilege that many people nonetheless have. Ignored minorities may have it harder, for example, as well as people who have to deal with war. And yet, in this era of comfort and hedonism, many of us still find ourselves agonizing over the remnants of discomfort that modernity has yet to eliminate. It's like a single grain of dirt amidst a pristine beach, a minor inconvenience that has survived the mass extinction of its larger counterparts. An example familiar to many: our modern impatience. Ironically, despite instant access at our fingertips, we often struggle with waiting. It can largely be due to stress. And of course, modern life, despite its entertainment value, is full of stress. I experienced this very issue once of impatience. My barber, promising a 10-minute break, vanished for 20 30 minutes. While many would complain, I saw this delay as an opportunity for introspection. Thanks to this "minor" discomfort, I took the inspiration to write (and later on, revamp) this article. Had the barber returned swiftly, this piece might as well never have come to fruition. This is my point: even the tiniest discomforts can spark immense productivity. They transform from annoying hiccups into springboards for creative leaps and other opportunities. Consider the possibility that comfort may hinder you from taking the necessary risks for new opportunities to be formed. Having your comfort unchallenged could make you less resourceful as resourcefulness comes at times of discomfort. That's because problematic times can serve as windows for thinking outside of the box. And by being more resourceful you can have a better chance at realizing more portions of your potential. Conclusions So, when discomfort arises, ask yourself: "Is this really as bad as I perceive it?" Often, our minds amplify inconvenience. "How can I convert this into a productive possibility?" Reframe the challenge as an opportunity for growth. Remember, the next time you encounter "a single grain of sand," it might just hold the potential for the production of something else, that wouldn't be there, if it weren't for it.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com)  (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) (Philosocom's Kaiser Basileus Articles) (Part 2) Article Synopsis by Mr. John Igwe and Co. "Dystopia -- 21st Century Socio-Political Critique -- Part 1" by Mr. Kaiser Basileus is a thought-provoking examination of modern socio-political dynamics, challenging many assumptions and norms. The article covers a wide range of topics, from law enforcement and judicial practices to economic disparities and the influence of corporations. It offers a critical perspective, questioning the legitimacy and fairness of existing systems, encouraging readers to reflect on the structures that govern their lives and consider the necessity for reform. The article's broad coverage of diverse issues such as wealth disparity, corporate influence, freedom of speech, and the judicial system allows for a comprehensive understanding of the interconnectedness of societal problems. By questioning the status quo, the article promotes critical thinking and encourages readers to not accept societal constructs at face value. The use of metaphors and analogies between psychological states and political entities adds a layer of relatability and understanding, making complex political critiques more accessible and engaging to a broader audience. In conclusion, "Dystopia" is a robust and stimulating critique of contemporary socio-political systems, challenging readers to reconsider their acceptance of current societal norms. (Background music) ********************** Mr. Rubinshtein's Description of "Dystopia" Mr. Kaiser's "Dystopia" is a socio-political critique on contemporary society, covering many aspects of modern life. His unique perspectives offer a refreshing look on many features of our lives in which we learned to accept as completely legitimate. "Dystopia" is here to challenge our beliefs and expand our discourse in contemporary philosophy, from society to ethics to politics. The original document given to me is extremely long and as such will be divided to several parts. I hope you will benefit from it. Enjoy. *********************** Law enforcement officers don't study law, they study enforcement. The US judicial system both requires that they harm you before you may legally resist (standing) and that you pay for the litigation. A system that requires allowing them to harm you before fixing it cannot be legitimate. Funny how the founders explicitly added a clause that the Bill of Rights was a Minimum (9th amendment), and ever since, in direct opposition to their concern, it's been treated as a Maximum. As soon as someone is 10x more powerful, wealthy, etc. as someone else, society is not free. Could you will someone to have 100x more of them than yourself for any reasonable purpose? Why would such a discrepancy ever be necessary or unavoidable? Companies cannot have names that may displace meaningful normal language search terms. they should only be numbered and known by descriptive terms (the largest bed store in the county)(the bakery at 5th and main) (ice cream from all over), and they'd better take care to choose something meaningful in case, for instance, a larger bed store opens. In social math, nothing plus nothing can equal something. Sponsored results are inherently immoral by showing people what someone else wants them to buy, which has no relation to their needs, instead of what they're interested in buying . Any government that doesn't respect freedom of speech is a tyranny, because they cannot even potentially know what their citizens actually need. The metaphors of psychology make good substitutes for those of political malfeasance. Most states are narcissistic, etc. If there is no escape there is no freedom. A law that can be used to produce irrational effects will be used to produce irrational effects. Freedom of religion enshrines a right to believe irrational things and inherently to use those beliefs to effect actual changes in the world. We cannot have civilization and religion at the same time. Police should have more training than citizens, more responsibilities and more restraint, never more rights. Privilege is when you're integrated enough that things in general are going well enough, that the little things that can have major detrimental effects on other people don't matter. If you cannot escape an oppressive society, freedom is but a bigger cage. The government that constrains the power of people to use their intellects to its best advantage in order to improve the world around them is directly working against everyone's best interests Only the wealthy are allowed to know how much wealth other wealthy people have. Since they have an unknown amount of resources and power, what chance has anyone else to change anything? A society where you have no choice but to obey must first have perfect laws. Externalities - under-staffing, besides decreasing pay/work ratio, wastes many customer's hours unnecessarily waiting {currencies tend to require trust without trustworthiness. Any currency that allows speculation is inherently untrustworthy; Currency tagged to the average world currency value}. The only weapon ordinary people have against too much order is chaos. "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth." Those with the most informed opinions almost never concur with the majority, so democracy almost never produces the best option, and when it does it's in spite of itself. Those in power dare not question the legitimacy of the system lest they inherently question their own. There is no ethical way to protect someone from themselves without prior, explicit consent. Democracy ensures the best ideas never get heard because the best ideas are never in the majority. A government cannot be legitimate that grants itself the right to record anything it experiences, but denies that right to the people. That the supreme court had to issue a ruling that constitutionally protected activity (like taking video in or from a publicly accessible area) could not be considered suspicious. It proves that the entire court system below that level is inept. It is a minimum understanding of law that rights cannot be protected or considered protected if they are considered suspicious or treated as suspicious by default. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Rights are best considered an obligation, rather than untrustworthy). Property rights that allow degradation of anything wanted by others are immoral. The government can only be prevented from creating human rights constraints. Before the fact that most jobs require you to be bubbly, energetic, and hustle is a tragedy. Let's try to build a world where people can relax at work, take time off as needed, and do the best job possible, not the most productive one. Enclosure was a crime against humanity. So are usury, copyright, patents, and legal fictions and rent-seeking of every kind. Saying that people have a right to be unreasonable consigns reasonable people to hell. The government needs to have greater transparency and accountability than ordinary people, not less for public employees out those on the dole to pay taxes can only be a waste of resources. When police ignore rights they are not acting as law enforcement, because the purpose of law is to ensure rights. If they're uncertain, that's no less a problem. Legal fictions -- just like capitalists still get all the profit after they eliminate all the risk, cops still get all the privilege even when there's no danger. Ignorant, oblivious, or numb are the only ways to deal with modern society. Intrusions may be rendered legitimate only by being both harmless and for good reason. "You can't comply your way out of tyranny". -- Christine Anderson. A conditional right cannot be interpreted differently from state to state or it's nothing more than a mere privilege. The longer a technology is iterated, the more additional features are useless to the average person while core functionality degrades. When a government grants itself illicit powers, they're never entirely reversed until there's a revolution. The government cannot ethically require background checks because it is not more ethical than the average person and therefore not more capable of determining who is "worthy" of having a gun. In fact many of the reasons it restricts are problems it caused, which is tyranny. If background check criteria are hidden such that people can't have reasonable belief in advance whether or not they will pass, in order to save themselves the expense or to avoid undue government scrutiny, it is arbitrary and unpredictable if citizens see corruption where the police do not, the police are not adequate at policing themselves. As long as anyone has less than their share, everyone who has the average has more than their share. Government qualifications indicate someone's readiness for something must never be taken to mean only government qualifications can confer that readiness. If you cannot afford to buy land you are a second class citizen. (Rubinshtein's note: Through morality, resistance and altruism, many of the problems mentioned here by Mr. Kaiser can be fixed, or worked to be fixed and improved for a better, fairer, and less corrupt, society).

The World's Compassion -- How to Try and Increase It (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) "When people care for their neighbors as they care for themselves, then this world will be worthy of saving" -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) The sad truth about this world is that it has little compassion, especially among strangers. Neighbors can easily open a rivalry with you because of a minor controversy. Some hot-headed drivers might even get out of their cars in the middle of the road just to confront you for not driving like they want you to. Others do not care for your sensitivities and may resume doing whatever bothers you, within your presence. And last, people online won't hesitate to harass you for doing (or not doing) something they expect you to do, as if you owe them anything. That's what you get when you put rugged individualism over the values of decency. Many people in this world are hyper individualists, AKA people who put their own whims over their influence on others. As a result, there seems to be less and less reason to be compassionate, or at least considerate, to anyone who is not your family and friends. Therefore, it seems that we have retreated to tribalism, even though we live in an ultra-connected world. After all, if someone is not a person you know or value, like a family member or friend, why should you actually care whether or not your insults hurt their feelings? Why should you care about a stranger's less-resilient mentality, if you get to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want? Sure, that person may cry or at least be angry or anxious because of you, but the influence of your actions should not matter, as long as you yourself get to feel good and comfortable! In other words, as the world gets more divided and more toxic, it is safe to assume that the world is becoming less and less compassionate, simply because we put the "sanctity" of our own whims over our effect on those we are too apathetic to care about, whether they were hurt, even if they were driven to self-sacrifice by our actions. As I heard in a short recording of Slavoj Žižek, the renowned Slovenian philosopher, he was asked by someone who was interested in his teachings to help him with some personal stuff. Žižek replied: "I don't care, kill yourself, it's not my problem". Being insensitive is a privilege not everyone gets to have, even if to attain to a degree. Overall, it seems that the world is run by insensitive people, given that ruthlessness can be linked with success. Many of them can be those who think that being too sensitive is childish and immature, and that being considerate of others, like a civil human being, isn't something they are obliged to do. There could be plenty of reasons why people would avoid being nice. And thus, the sensitive are shoved to the corners of society, because the world does not care about your feelings; it cares only about whether or not you are doing your job and paying your taxes. It cares about you if you contribute significantly enough to it to earn its respect. It is largely a meritocracy. Your public existence is but a function you fulfill, not your own honesty, which you are often expected to keep to yourself, unless expected otherwise. Things are differently when you're in a position of power, as people would want to please you to get their way, so they may even show you more compassion as a result. See how unfair life is, depending largely on one's authority, for "power is everything". Why should it hurt, technically, to be a little kinder to others? Not because an omnipresent being shall condemn you to hell if you don't, but because of your own sense of conscience; your own sense of self-dignity. And even then, dignity, respect is subjective, as presented in different cultures. Even after actions such as bullying and shaming have been proven to be harmful to society and to the victims themselves, these are things that keep existing, both in the real and virtual worlds, as if it's all just for the fun of it. The "fun" of it, to create mental illness in one's mind; for the fun of it, to wonder why they harmed themselves just because their own self was too eccentric to be tolerated by the company around them. Yes, one's fun can be another's trauma, as presented in a real-life story called "My Dead Piggy: Funeral For a Furry Friend" Where is the heart; the genuine concern for an equal human being? Of course, this is not a universal generalization, nor an attempt to say that humans by nature are toxic beings. It is just that the notion of sensitivity has been put to shame by those who are too unwilling to understand that sensitivity isn't something that one necessarily achieves by desire. It's something whose potential already exists within the person. Why then, call them a "snowflake" or an "over-sensitive" person, if they were simply born that way? The answer is that unless one is compelled to care, they won't likely to care. Empathy can be either emotional or intellectual. You need either of these faculties to empathize. If you lack any of those, like many sociopaths, you won't likely to care for others as much as you could've otherwise, because you feel no moral responsibility for your actions. "Only remorse leads to a real apology and change". Is it truly a shame to be born with certain characteristics that you're not responsible for having? People, at large, don't choose to have the traits that cause them to be tormented by others, whether it's sensitivity, sexual orientation, mental disability, and so on. If some of your traits interrupt the order of the public world, then you will be condemned for it, as if it's your fault; as if you've done something horrible. Such is the cruelty of this world when it disapproves and rejects you. In general, strangers shall care more about what's wrong with you than what makes you a decent human being—especially the mistakes you make or the imperfections you carry within you. This is why, in another article I wrote, I argued that we live in a "not-okay" culture, AKA a mindset that puts the idea that, by default, things are not okay or not supposed to be as they currently are. Therefore, others will attempt to change the course of things to fit it more to their own liking, regardless of how that course influences others in the process. And since most things are not under one's control, all that some people have left is to use shaming and utter disregard to influence the world in their own image of what a "proper" world is. Whether it is on the topic of religion, politics, and so on, you probably have no idea how many people hate you right now, simply for you being a certain someone with certain traits and tendencies. This also includes being a "snowflake," AKA a highly sensitive individual. What is the solution to all of this? How do we bring more love into the world, in order to make it a more welcoming place to live for as many people as possible? The answer is this: as Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." However, that won't be enough if you wish to optimize your own influence. Simply being kind to your neighbors won't change much beyond the local sphere of the street or neighborhood. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the age of content creation, where anyone's words can reach even the most remote corners of Earth, and I can attest to that from experience. When you have things to say that you believe are important, saying them to your family and friends isn't enough. Perhaps, then, the problem of hatred and intolerance simply comes from the combination of hyper-individualism and tribal altruism (AKA, caring only to those close to you). It comes from the unanswered question, "Why should I care about others that I don't have an emotional connection with, when I can have the freedom of being a jerk?" Go out there and spread the World's compassion if you want others to treat you compassionately as well. Thanks for reading.

(Directory on Rectification and Help) Directory on Children: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-good-kid-and-the-good-parent (Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Background music) A philosophical exploration of human flaw, mutual growth, and the pursuit of a rectified world starting within the home. We all originate from a family unit, but the nature of those units exists on a vast and unpredictable spectrum. Some families provide an impenetrable foundation of love and support—a safe harbor that nurtures growth. Others, unfortunately, operate as environments of toxicity and abuse, actively jeopardizing the well-being of their members. Because of this extreme variance, the ability to distinguish between constructive and destructive company is the absolute foundation of a healthy social philosophy. The company we keep ultimately builds our character and dictates our reflection in society. However, in our pursuit of healthy relationships, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of demanding absolute perfection. The Nirvana Fallacy in Human Relations A good family—or any good company—does not have to be flawless in order to be valuable. The fact that suffering, friction, or unnecessary drama occasionally occurs does not mean that a relationship is inherently bad. It is a critical philosophical error to demonize those who genuinely wish you the best simply because they are imperfect in their execution. Demonization is a cognitive bias; it impairs our judgment and prevents us from seeing the objective reality of a relationship. Humans are fundamentally flawed beings. Expecting perfection from them is like expecting a bowler to roll a strike on every single frame of a lifelong tournament. Do not fall victim to the Nirvana Fallacy—the logical error of dismissing a good, functional reality simply because it does not measure up to an impossible, idealized utopia. When you observe someone demonstrating genuine commitment and loyalty to your well-being, do not be quick to discard them over a flaw. Loyalty is a rare and heavy essence; it's best to be respected. The Duty of Continuous Learning If you wish to cultivate a happier, more mentally stable existence, you must develop a holistic outlook on life that recognizes the duality of the universe. Every distress, every argument, and every failure within a family structure is best to be weaponized into a learning experience. You must learn not only how to navigate the grim realities of the world, but also how to engineer your environment to prevent those distresses from repeating. To quote the ancient wisdom of Shimon Ben Zoma: "Who is wise? He who learns from every man, as it is said: ‘From all who taught me have I gained understanding’ (Psalms 119:99)." True wisdom requires the eradication of arrogance. You must overcome the assumption that your current knowledge is sufficient. When adults grow older, they often lose their curiosity. They succumb to confirmation bias, falsely believing they no longer require further study or behavioral correction. This stagnation is exactly where unintentional trauma and deep generational conflicts are born. The Mutual Contract of Growth To prevent this stagnation, the traditional top-down hierarchy of the family must be re-evaluated. A child or a dependent is not merely a passive receiver of a parent’s treatment. Once an individual develops sufficient intelligence and emotional maturity, they possess an active duty to help guide the family. The individual becomes a provider of wisdom, offering feedback that can guide authority figures to make better, more informed actions. A healthy family dynamic is not a dictatorship; it is a mutual mentorship. It is like two students of swordsmanship sparring and learning together. By focusing on the practical application of our shared potential, we can abandon the destructive "blame game," atone for past mistakes, and actively engineer a harmonious future. The Supremacy of Moral Beauty Society often fixates on visual aesthetics—the arts, the mountains, the seas. But there is a higher, more profound aesthetic: Moral Beauty. Moral beauty is the power of individuals and groups to actively work toward the greater good. It is the profound, awe-inspiring sight of a flawed human being recognizing their disrespect, offering a genuine apology, and doing the hard work of atonement. It is the human resolve to achieve Tikkun Olam—the rectification and repairing of a broken world. Power, intelligence, and influence are entirely neutral. They are only valuable when mastered and deployed as tools to craft a more moral, peaceful reality. Instead of looking at an unjust world and simply accepting it with cynical apathy, we must become the opposing force to that flaw. We best take responsibility for our actions and soothe the suffering we cause others. Because we are interconnected to the reality we inhabit, the peace we create for others will inevitably become the peace we get to live in. The Economics of Goodwill We can teach ourselves and others to spread goodwill, not just out of pure altruism, but out of enlightened self-interest. Improving the state of another person directly improves your own environment. Never underestimate the absolute power of a listening ear. To quote the author Leo Buscaglia: "Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around." The rectification of the cold, harsh world does not start in the halls of government or the boardrooms of corporations. It starts in the micro-grid of the family. Strive to be a good role model. Acknowledge mistakes, practice forgiveness, and fight for the future of those in your care. By building a functional, communicative, and morally beautiful family structure, you are laying the foundational bricks for a better world. Alex Mos's Review What is the perfect balance between emotion and logic regarding family matters? Should we strive to love unconditionally or use cool ethical logic, wanting the child to become moral, happy, and accomplished? What does happiness and accomplishment mean? These are the questions every caring parent will encounter, but only a few will find the answer, because "the golden ratio" in relationships does not exist. Also, parents and children differ in intelligence, innate abilities, dreams, and neurotypical or neurodivergent brains.   Unconditional love will develop empathy in children, but will not necessarily shape a solid, moral, and independent character or help with psychological distress. Other thoughtful parents might opt for "tough love," based on reason and preparing a child for the challenges of adult life, but sometimes overlooking a specific child's abilities and preferences. This type of upbringing could result in a successful yet troubled adult. What if social norms and acceptance do not always lead to happiness and success in adulthood? For some, they do, and for some, they don't. It takes high intelligence, unconditional love, educational skills, and an open mind to figure out the "golden formula" for a child to succeed, even if it means abandoning social approval of career, profession, or gender. And now, view life through a child's eyes. Children, too, can be torn between the wish to please their parents and their unique personalities, which do not always fit in the world they are expected to fit in. Love for their parents commends them for obeying, causing an inner conflict of interest and suffering from being misunderstood and lonely. People are not educated about having children as it's considered a fundamental human right and nobody's business. I see it as illogical and unethical. The majority of human mental disorders result from a traumatic childhood. Such psychological traumas could be prevented if parents were knowledgeable, mindful of the unintended damage they can do, and financially capable. Children's first company, their parents, should be conscious of being a fundamental key to better humanity. Otherwise, they shouldn't become parents at all.

(Background music) The Igniting Spark of Irrelevance For those new to Philosocom, let me tell you about a pivotal moment that ignited my "world-conquest" mission. It began revolving around a woman I falsely call Ms. Chen, my former love interest. Though brief, her presence had a profound impact on my life, much to our reluctancy. Our connection ultimately collapsed when she dismissed me as "too irrelevant." This word, filled with the notion of inadequacy, sparked a new fire within me. A different fire. I was determined to prove her wrong, to amplify my success as a writer. What started as a positive outlet morphed, I now realize, into a quest for altruistic retribution. However, after much introspection and grappling with my autism, I believe I understand why she used that hurtful word. Perhaps it stemmed from a lack of respect, a perception of me as unworthy. Reflecting back, I find no shameful actions on my part. As a teenager, I even composed a waltz for her and proudly shared my first printed book. Yet, this gesture didn't seem to earn me her respect as an equal. For being the eccentric man I am, I will always be undermined by certain people, no matter what I do. Understanding this, even back then, I never expected her to love me back. I already knew I'm too different for people like her to ever accept me as an equal. For this world is unjust, and rejects the exceptional for its weirdness, while embraces the mediocre, for its ability to meet collective standards. I see no reason to win the respect, let alone the love, of those who prefer mediocrity above being exceptional. As such, her lack of love towards me, never offended me in the slightest. During our student days, she'd often disregard me entirely, pretending I do not exist. Ironically, her very presence triggered a coping mechanism – a wave of nausea that plagued me during those dark years, where I was depressed the most. Years later, after a lengthy silence, she inexplicably allowed me back into her life. Yet, the flame of rejection reignited when she uttered that dismissive word – "irrelevant." Even then, I did not expect her love. I expected her ability to accept me for the strange being that I am. It was quite unrealistic of me, to expect such a thing from those who relate to mediocrity, and to normalcy. For those who hold genuine respect for the exceptionally different, wouldn't resort to such a hurtful term. It's a word dripping with disrespect, capable of making you feel ashamed for existing, the way you are. While I may have played a conflicting role in her life, an "anti-antagonist," the final verdict was clear – I wasn't worthy of her respect. People who deem the different as too unworthy of this right, will not supply them the right for respect. Therefore, the only way to be respected by others, is to be relevant. And to be relevant, is to matter to a context bigger than yourself. If you cannot matter through compliance to normalcy, matter through a great success. That's how a moral revenge is done -- one that helps others, and not make them suffer as a result of your own suffering. Why Respect Fuels Relevance This obsession with relevance led me to a fascinating realization: relevance and respect are intertwined by the concept of recognition. Without recognition, neither can truly exist. Recognition is this: Agreement that something is true or legal. You cannot be recognized without the consent of another to do so. Although you cannot control them, through influence, it is your prerogative to get them to recognize who you really are, and what you're capable of. This leads to the next development of the word: If you are given recognition, people show admiration and respect for your achievements. Think about it. If you don't recognize something or someone's value, disrespect and even hostility can easily follow. Good qualities are to be recognized or they will be overlooked in the name of negative biases; products of the whole-person fallacy. Online trolls exemplify this perfectly. Their mockery stems from a fundamental lack of recognition of the target's worth. The same applies to being on the path to philosophership. You can't contribute as optimally if you're not recognized for your efforts. However, the harsh truth is that neither relevance, recognition, nor respect are fully within your control. You can't force appreciation, and the same goes for forcing love. Resorting to tyrannical tactics, on the other hand, would not make people appreciate or love you. You would instead make them enter a reluctant victim's mentality, whether they deny it or not. Instead, it needs to come genuinely. It's like why many students don't like school -- they are forced to go there. They are not convinced to like going there. Their consent isn't respected, so they themselves don't like school in turn. Should they respect the teachers, it is not done, necessarily, as an authentic behavior, but as a product of their own oppression. It isn't genuine, unless they truly respect their teachers, deep inside. So, if I want to make a significant contribution with my content, I need to earn the respect of others. This respect, in turn, hinges on their genuine recognition of my value and the value of my work. I cannot force it, so I won't force it. The only genuine way to do it is by being a good human being and by adding additional value to people. It's one of the core points of Philosocom. Appreciation should be freely given, not coerced through fear or deception. While some may achieve a semblance of respect through these tactics, it goes against my core principles. If I need to deceive, I would only do it through masking, for it is a necessary evil in a world that condemns the self for what it really is. And it is one of the reasons I prefer being more alone than together. Information travels fast online. Past actions can resurface to paint you as a hypocrite. Every word, decision, and behavior can be lambasted, making consistency and integrity imperative for your efforts in this contemporary age. A single YouTube video, exposing contradictions, can tarnish your reputation permanently. Make sure you're ready to be lambasted accordingly. Ultimately, self-respect is the key. When you hold yourself in high regard and live authentically, you naturally attract those who find your authentic way of existence, relevant to their own. After all, a hypocritical public figure is ultimately brought down by the very audience they failed to earn genuine respect from. Respect yourself and your authentic desires by demonstrating them. You cannot be recognized, and thus respected, without respecting yourself enough to not hide it so much. Otherwise the respect you'll earn be towards a mask, a fake self, not towards a self you regularly hide. Conclusion Respect, I believe, is earned through consistent, meaningful sacrifices – acts that demonstrate your commitment. It could be dressing professionally for an interview, offering accurate directions to a stranger, or simply lending a listening ear. You compromise your impulsive self, or "the Id", by developing and using your "super ego", your moral, higher self. By justifying your worthiness of respect through acts, you build the influence necessary to make a genuine impact and achieve true relevance. Do not expect anyone to love nor respect you, otherwise. It would be too unrealistic, to get these attributions, without extensive work done by you. The autistic need to do the same, even if it will be met with greater difficulty. But it is possible, nonetheless. If you're autistic, like me, never expect it to be easy.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (Background music) Contrary to intransigently-conditioned popular opinion, progress would indeed continue with the removal of financial gain, it would simply be structured quite differently, but progress in all areas would be freed from the greedy, relentless demands of profit. If we change our goals as a society, we change our own operating parameters, and will start viewing our existence as a cooperative, happier endeavour, versus a miserably unhealthy and unethical competition.. and slog-fest to be the one that dies with the most toys. -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Each lifetime is limited, and because of that it is precious. It is precious not only objectively, but also inter-subjectively. Precious, specifically, to the many people, sources, and organizations that are interested in taking a portion of your lifetime. Part I: The Capitalistic Value of Time Time is a resource of great capital. Despite of its greater worth, time is a resource just like any other, more-physical resource. From the time your genuine friends and family global corporations take, they are basically taking a resource from you. A limited resource, given that life is not lived immortally. As small as the time people take from you may be, these smaller portions can still be essential. This type resource that can be utilized in the name of consumerism and capital, or the "flow of cash". Case Example: Time In the Addictive Industries The role of addiction is for you to go ahead and buy the same goods and services repeatedly even though you don't have to. With the prioritization of addicting you, your time is likelier to be taken away from you by your own consumption habits. For profit-oriented corporations, which do not sell essential products (AKA products for basic needs), addicting the customer is of their financial interest. In the food industry for example, your appetite can grow unnecessarily upon the consumption of sugary food, and/or food with increased fat. Given that sugar is addictive, addictions are there to take more and more of your time, as you invest more and more capital. As addictions are not healthy whatsoever, this is one of the reasons some corporations should be limited, or at least regulated, in order to prevent corrupt trends. Part II: Humans as Beings and Humans as Resources Because time is a resource, this means humans, whose time belongs to them, are resources as well. As such, the term "human resources", although soulless in perception, is even truer in terms of time. We can consider the fact that this term goes beyond the regular description of a human workforce. Through intent or mere habit some people will "convert" themselves to be a friend, a follower, a customer, and so on, to a service or product. Every human life that interacts and consumes things and beings beyond their own self will partake in the external world (AKA, in society, or in the world beyond the solitude of homes). Our time, can can easily become the product of others, the more we are influenced by them. Whenever we have this imperative collectible of attention, it is then when our time can be most utilized for others' gain. As long as we do something, and not do nothing, we will seek ways to spend our time elsewhere. As you can tell, doing nothing isn't as profitable as doing something can easily be. Hence, to be constantly on the move is an elementary financial interest of countless organizations. The "need" to be constantly on the move isn't necessarily a need. Thinking it is can be seen as a delusion of necessity. We seek to spend our time externally because we have voids we need or want to fill inside of ourselves. The need or desire to fill in these voids can easily make us selfish and ignore others. Some people may claim that true strength comes from within. The less voids we have, the stronger we can be. The stronger we can be, the more we can attend to others and to our dear ones specifically. Alternative Case Example: True Love We can regard our pursuit for love and affection as a very important time investment as well. In conditional love, once the void has been fulfilled, or once the other side will fail at filling that void for you, you might feel compelled to leave them. In unconditional love, also known as true love, the investment of time in each other is less relevant. Given how rare true love is, some may even claim that there is no such thing as true love. Look within. See for yourself if conditional love is worthy of your time as if it were a product you are consuming, like a YouTube video. Part III: The Competition of Time The competition for your time might be enormous, and even more than you might think. He or she who will fail rising beyond the ceilings of irrelevancy/anonymity will stay socially irrelevant. People may be enticed by relevancy because relevance is essential to success. As such, there are so many advertisers, businesses, and content creators to choose from. These bodies, both private individuals and more-collective enterprises, may invest much of their time catering to your ability to find them online, not just offline. Competitors are not always about "content creators" or "news channels" and such. The Additional Aspects of Attention For global giants such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter to get so much of our time, that is a truly giant achievement. Some may use these products for hours, but technically even ten minutes a day is already a meaningful achievement for any possible source of attention. The more they understand how their traffic operates, the more they bias said traffic towards their products and websites. They can create such a bias within their visitors, that it can be very hard to break. These attention-competing bodies compete not only for your time but also for: Your attachment to their products. Your ability to focus on your products. Your eagerness to consume their products again and again. Your loyalty to their brand. Your experience with these products. It therefore would only be natural that so many attention-seeking bodies would have so little grip on the "cake" of your lifespan. Part IV: The Value of Free Time When we have free time, why would books be something hard to read for long? Some of us have TVs, and within these TVs there are channels we like and like less, and we have a computer or a phone with apps we use more and use less... In short, the temptations of distractions are wider to some of us than in any other period in human history. And because of that, reading books is getting harder for many. This goes to further demonstrate the value of free time when it comes to consumption of media. After all, what serves is a distraction is very often an addiction. Are addictions moral when they take away from us our free time, or is our free time specifically for our addictions? The answer to that question is subjective as our lives, and especially our own free time, belongs to us just as our lives belongs to us. Isolation Within our Free Time In today's standards, where work is an inevitable possibility for many, consuming small portions of products (like 1 or 2 levels in video games) might be seen as inevitable as well, as we don't necessarily have the free time for more-extensive products like movies, and luxuries many can't afford. When we are physically isolated from the world, nowadays we have far-more accessible content to consume. As such, physical isolation in the digital revolution can be less severe unlike the times before it. This raises the question: Is the consumption of content more relevant than spending time with others? The reason as to why people might be lonelier than before could be exactly because of these private and public organizations constantly seeking our attention. An average person lives around, what, 60-80 years? The exact number is irrelevant here, but it is nonetheless a very great "cake" in mathematical standards. How much of that time is spent with others? Spending less quality time with others can reduce the value of friendships, leading to greater alienation between people. In general, that "cake" of yours, AKA your lifespan, is only reduced the more you live. People's time is important so do not overestimate it! And the same goes for your time, too! When you have free time, that time is yours to decide what to do with it. Utilize the power of choice for your hopes and dreams! On Fame and Relentless Work: Final Insights The relentless races of life often favors the privileged few, those who can leverage their success and influence to dominate industries. Fame might be pursued by such ambitious individuals, despite the fact that fame is fleeting by nature. While viral sensations capture attention quickly, the majority of hardworking individuals face a longer, far ruthless path to success. In their case, years of dedicated effort may be required, and the financial rewards may be modest. The path to mastery, as such, is more about skill, less about validation from others. As such, becoming a master in a skill nowadays is extremely challenging in a fast-paced, dynamic human reality. The need to capture your attention, and fast is therefore the interest for many, as speed and even addiction play a crucial role in them earning from their attention-grabbing efforts. On the other hand, this desperation, especially in a very expensive world, could easily hand-in-hand destroy people's ability to be competent. Nowadays, when jobs are treated necessarily as finance-driven, there is less passion in doing them. This eager need to earn quickly could serve as to why many people nowadays are incompetent. Their need to cater for your time is less honest a service for you, more a need for them to get the next pay-check. Either way, The principle of equal opportunity remains, whether you treat your job with much hate, or dedicate your entire life, and heart, for it. Obviously, when you live for your craft, your life can easily be a lonelier one, as a result. Should you dedicate your life for your craft or choice or should you jump from job to job? That depends on whether you wish your share of the cake in people's time, or simply to hone your craft in inner peace.

Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "Human Godhood: How We Are More Than What We Restrain Ourselves" is a thought-provoking article that explores human potential and self-transcendence, drawing parallels to the Supreme Trickster, Prometheus and emphasizing mental capabilities. The article invites readers to reflect on their abilities and limitations, encouraging self-reflection and personal growth. The message of overcoming limitations and realizing one's potential is inspiring, with a personal anecdote about overcoming a physical disability adding a powerful, relatable element. The article emphasizes true love and cooperation as catalysts for unlocking human potential, underscoring the importance of empathy, support, and communal effort in achieving greatness. Philosophical depth is also present, connecting psychological theories with practical examples, offering a well-rounded perspective on human potential. The passionate tone of the article conveys a sense of urgency and importance, motivating readers to take action in their own lives. In conclusion, "Human Godhood: How We Are More Than What We Restrain Ourselves" is a compelling and inspirational article that explores the vast potential of human beings. (Background music) Introduction: On the Self Beyond the Way Things Are Currently The human potential, even if individual, is one that may exceed even our own knowledge. Perhaps we may deny it, and perhaps we do not. However, we are far more than what we currently are. And by that, I mean that we are more than our shackles. What shackles? Societal, moral, mental and so on -- the abstract self exceeds its abstract limitations. In the realm of psychology, that is known as Self-Transcendence. We may be meat, blood and bones. However, we have a complex access to the mental dimension, which far exceeds our potential than that of our biological counterparts. It is through our access to this mental dimension, that allowed us to cooperate and form complex communication, which allowed us to form, lead and serve countless social constructs, and build power. The same power that eventually allowed us to conquer Earth and become the ruling, dominant species of this planet, as we wrecked countless other species who opposed us with our hunger for more.  Greatness, Fulfilled Power is everything. Power is essentially the ability and potential to trigger and initiate change. The human mental dimension allowed us access to many technological breakthroughs that many animals might as well consider unimaginable. The ability to forge steel. The ability to fly. The nuclear bomb. The internet. All have one thing in common -- they could not have been made without our mental dimension. It is through the abstract realm of the human being that we are granted access to many possibilities in this world. And in order to become the ideal self, in order to break free from the shackles of our own imposed limitations -- we must be aware that we are far more than our little, day-to-day, lives.  To realize we are more than our concerns, than our fears, than our anxieties. That we are more capable than just working at a 9 to 5 job, raising families and getting university degrees. We are capable of forming empires. We are capable of being "Divine", like Prometheus. For good and bad, we are capable of far more. We are capable of causing much joy in this world as much as we are the exact opposite. The human being is a massive vault of potential that either will or will not be actualized in accordance to one's most sincere hopes and dreams. Philosophers, political leaders, thought leaders, inventors, master artists and craftsmen and craftswomen -- What all these "great men and women" have in common is that they all fulfilled the greatness contained within many if not all of us.  One is not great by pretense. One is great by fulfilling what they are truly capable of, beyond the shackles of societal and other mental limitations. It is when the human potential is unleashed, is when the human being proves himself as great, relevant and even irreplaceable in the eyes of many! A Personal Anecdote Someone loved me once. She told me this: She told me I am far more than my limited self. And she was right. Thanks to her wisdom I devised a technique that got me rid of my post-traumatic physical disability. Yes. It's thanks to her insight, ultimately, that I recovered from my physical, psycho-somatic handicap status... No more cane. No more physical weakness. The potential was in me all along... And I just didn't know it. I will not forget her, for I realized, I am more than what I perceived myself to be. My former self therefore died accordingly. The Power of Love -- How It Breeds Growth She helped me in ways only I might ever understand... And it was thanks to her affection, which allowed me to become the better version of myself. A metaphorical Prometheus who showed me true love and taught me the ways of true love. The same true love I want to impart to you and to humanity... The same true love I ordered a volunteer to create a miniseries on. The one which exclaims: The best way to love someone is to let them be the best version of themselves!  And when they become ones, their ideal selves, much good can be caused! Much problems can be solved, if we just show each other true love. Not hatred. Not vengeance. Not spite or jealousy. Not even fear or worry, but the very emotion that allows people to accept each other for who they truly are, and allow them to become the very beings they are capable of! Beings.. they already are, but are not aware that they can manifest from within through self growth, dedication and discipline. But as long as we're in constant ruminations of fear and worry, we will never be able to impart this unconditionality to others, and thus, they will never be able to heal themselves and ourselves properly, just like that person allowed myself to do! With no judgement. With no fear... Effects of "Divinity" -- The Personal Level Since that person allowed me to be me, I am now a better philosopher that managed to overcome this Reaping Fatigue Era! And if it weren't for this growth, I wouldn't be able to improve so many of my articles, and I wouldn't be able to manage my volunteering followers for Philosocom's overall growth to a greater version. I thought I will never recover from that horrible ailment which made me a handicap... I honestly thought I would die. Effects of "Divinity" -- The Global Level What allows humans to become "divine", AKA, far greater than their current restraint, is true love and the cooperation that stems from it. A personality enlargement, a "rebirth", deep into what we deserve to be -- ourselves, beyond the truths we either deny or fear. Fear due to conformity, fear of being lambasted, and so on. And it is through cooperation, in general, that we managed to conquer this world and reign supreme as its mortal gods. But what about ourselves as people with different uniqueness? What about our divinity over ourselves? What about the untapped power that lies not collectively, but individually? It is through the nurturing of individual asset, that can enable greater collective growth. Not through oppression, but through faith in humanity. The more potential we'll be able to extract from ourselves, the wider the variety of actions in our lives will become. The wider it will become, the more good we'll be able to do in this world, by being more capable of helping each other more. For potential is a power of its own! And everything is energy.  Doing good is the moral imperative of every honest philosopher, he or she who lives in accordance to the truth and to its virtues. And for philosophers, the highest virtue is to not deceive so easily with false findings, and to use their findings to reduce human suffering. It all begins with remembering that we are allowed to be ourselves, and that it is okay to be so.

(Philosocom's Directory on Competency) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "Usefulness of Human Beings: Why Everyone Matters" presents a compelling argument against the notion that some people are "useless" to society. The author presents a wide range of perspectives, emphasizing the intrinsic and extrinsic value of every individual, regardless of their perceived productivity or economic contribution. The article's strengths include its inclusive perspective on human worth, which challenges conventional definitions of "usefulness" tied to employment or economic productivity. The Philosopher uses real-life examples, such as the character from the movie "Rain Man" and the author's own grandmother, to illustrate the diverse ways in which individuals can be valuable. These personal stories help to reinforce the idea that human worth is not solely determined by economic contribution, but by a multitude of factors, including emotional support, artistic creativity, and unique talents. The article broadens the definition of "usefulness" beyond traditional metrics, such as work or productivity, to include emotional impact, artistic expression, and the potential to inspire or bring joy to others. This broader definition encourages readers to reconsider how they view themselves and others, promoting a more compassionate and inclusive mindset. Mr. Tomasio engages with philosophical concepts, deepening the conversation about human value and purpose. The reference to Yuval Noah Harari's idea of a "useless class" serves as a thought-provoking counterpoint that adds depth to the discussion. The author encourages critical thinking and dialogue by explicitly stating, "Feel free to convince me otherwise, and respectfully," making the article more engaging and thought-provoking. Overall, the article "Usefulness of Human Beings: Why Everyone Matters" is a thoughtful and well-intentioned exploration of human value, challenging societal norms and inviting readers to reconsider what it means to be "useful."   I don't believe there are people who are useless to society. Even the most mentally ill people can be used to advance scientific research in psychology, sociology, criminology, and so forth. For example, prisoners in maximum security can be used to study the effects of long-term incarceration on the human psyche (not necessarily through human experiments). And even babies can teach us something about the parents' biology and/or reproductive systems, genes, and so on. After all, they came from them and thus carry data related to them; data that can be learned from. Even those who are unable to work are not necessarily useless. They can still be of purpose in other ways, such as making their families happy, volunteering, or even opening their own business/es. These are some respected purposes when you are unable to work due to an extreme disability, for instance. Even if you are worthless to many, you can still be important to at least one person -- a parent, a friend, a child, and so on. While it's not necessarily true that "no man is an island," it is true that we all can leave an impact on this world, and no matter how microscopic it may be, it is still an impact. And an impact that can go down the line of time. It's one of the benefits of influence. And since we can influence others around us, we may be more useful than we might think. Purpose does not always have to come from employment, and purpose does not always have to be directed to other people than yourself. After all, you are also a person. For others, you are a person, just as they are to you. What objectively, therefore, makes you and I different from people in general, when we are all people? Being useful to ourselves, is also a form of usefulness, is it not? Must we always be useful for others, in order to be useful in general? I watched the classic movie "Rain Man". It's one of the most well-known movies about autistic people in a time when autism was not very well known. In the movie, the main character's autistic brother, who was mostly a burden and unemployed, actually proved to be very competent in gambling. He thus helped his brother return his large debt, to the point that the casino they were gambling in expelled them because the casino was losing money. All because of this unemployed, institution-residing genius. My grandmother in her final years believed her life was meaningless. It was one of the reasons being she felt very lonely (even though I visited her regularly) and was retired. However, she was a great artist with phenomenal talent. However, she was never a well-known artist. Unfortunately your name as an artist is also important when selling your creations. It is sad how negativity bias can make you easily devalue your talents and potential contributions to the world. It can blind you from your own promising worth. What we can conclude from all of this is that no matter who you are, as long as you are human, you have at least some degree of potential you can use (or others can make use of, not necessarily in a bad way) in the name of self-actualization and productivity. Where there are humans, there is potential for productivity and for creation. The same applies, of course, to animals as well; to the animals we domesticate to be our beloved pets, the animals that we produce meat from, and animals that entertain us at the zoos. Let us, therefore, not fall victim to the delusion that we are utterly meaningless, because as long as we are alive, we have the chance to be helpful and/or productive to a degree. In addition, few are the people in the world, theoretically, that don't matter to anyone whatsoever. Remember that, even when no one cares for you, you can still have the power to make some change, and thus alter at least one thing in the environment you're in. To be useless is to have no use at all, and since we are all capable of using something, or being used for others, finding at least one person who is or was completely useless, is therefore extremely difficult. More than you might think. We should consider the fact we don't know each other like we think we do. Those who choose to be useless on purpose do not count, because what we choose to do with our potential, is still ours. The potential exists, we just need to discover/rediscover ourselves, to realize this. We also need the tenacity and other values to be/keep being useful. And allow me to critique the philosopher, Yuval Noah Harari, for his "useless class" idea. The idea's premise stems from the notion that one can be useful to others only through monetized work. That's not true at all, when one can volunteer, as explained before.

(Philosocom's Directory on Culture https://www.philosocom.com/post/stormtrooper-culture-a-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-cancel-culture-influences-freedom-of-speech https://www.philosocom.com/post/truth-opinion-and-pc-culture https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-philosophy-of-cyberpunk-what-we-can-learn-from-the-sci-fi-subgenre-by-mr-igal-shenderey https://www.philosocom.com/post/arguments-against-world-domination https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-button https://www.philosocom.com/post/intercultural-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-of-justice https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-role-of-culture-in-society) Article Overview by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "The Universal Culture -- A World United, And A Directory" is a comprehensive exploration of the impact of the internet on cultural identity in the digital age. It discusses the homogenizing effects of a "universal culture" and the resilience of local traditions, demonstrating the complex interplay between global connectivity and cultural preservation. The article raises questions about whether the internet is eroding traditional cultural boundaries or fostering new hybrid identities, encouraging critical thinking about the future of cultural identity in a digital world. Mr. Tomasio presents multiple perspectives on the impact of the internet, acknowledging both positive and negative consequences, such as the spread of new ideas and the threat to local traditions. Real-world examples like North Korea, Russia, and Vietnam illustrate how different countries are responding to the challenges of internet freedom and cultural preservation. The article also looks ahead, considering how future developments might impact the relationship between local and global cultures. Overall, "The Universal Culture (And Philosocom's Subcategory on Culture)" is a thoughtful and well-rounded exploration of a complex issue, offering a balanced view that considers both opportunities and challenges.   (Background music) ************************************* The Wide Spread of Culture in the Digital Age As the world is becoming more and more connected to the internet, it would be only logical to deduce a certain conclusion. With enough interaction with different people across the world, the values of one's local culture will be abandoned in favor of the culture created by the internet. A culture whose makers are anyone on Earth who has enough recognition in said medium of communication. Of course, we are still bound to our local cultures. However, the more people adopt international languages such as English, the less the influence of said cultures will be on future generations. Instead, they will be influenced by a universal culture, shared by the online world. This is a thought-provoking issue, the impact of the internet on cultural identity. The internet does undoubtedly create a space for the exchange of ideas and the formation of new online communities, whose members can also join many other online groups. However, it's important to consider some key aspects that oppose this expression of globalization: Persistence of Local Cultures: Local cultures are deeply ingrained in traditions, rituals, and social structures that are not easily replaced by online interactions. The internet can even serve as a tool to strengthen local cultures by allowing people to connect with others who share their heritage. Hybrid Cultures:  The internet may instead lead to a blending of cultures, where people incorporate elements from various online and offline influences to create their own unique identities and subcultures. Digital Divide: Not everyone has equal access to the internet, and this can worsen existing cultural inequalities. This leads to more racism and ignorance of the larger world on both sides of the divide. The internet is a powerful force that is undoubtedly shaping culture. However, it's unlikely to lead to a complete homogenization, as long as the world won't attain universal literacy and have a wider internet access. The future will likely see an even more complex interplay between local and global culture. Can Tradition Withstand the Digital Wave? Some cultures might already be aware of this, and thus try to force their members to abstain from online communication in order to preserve their own sense of cultural identity. In North Korea, for example, there has been a law passed by Kim Jong Un, that country's dictator. The citizens must avoid using slang from South Korea, the peninsula's far more democratic country. This extreme law has been declared in order to further preserve the North Side's cultural identity. This example highlights the tension between cultural preservation and the free flow of information that is a basic element of the internet. North Korea's restricted internet access serves as a kind of "cultural firewall", attempting to shield its citizens from outside influences. Other countries with restricted internet access include: Vietnam: The Vietnamese government restricts access to websites and social media platforms that it deems critical or subversive. They also censor content that is related to human rights, religion, and politics. Russia: The Russian government has cracked down on internet freedom in recent years, blocking access to websites and social media platforms that it criticizes. They have also passed laws that require internet companies to store user data in Russia and give the government access to this data upon request. Egypt: The Egyptian government has blocked access to social media users if they deem them "dangerous to public security". Additionally, they have also introduced laws that restrict freedom of expression online. As long as the internet will be restricted, national authorities would be able to better preserve their cultural heritage and influence over the populace. This however isn't necessarily a good thing when it's done through oppression. The Benefits Which Threat Governments Open access to the internet would likely lead to a significant shift in countries like North Korea, but also in other internet-restricted countries. Citizens would be exposed to: New Ideas and Beliefs: Exposure to diverse viewpoints can challenge existing beliefs and potentially lead to a loosening of the state's ideological grip. Religious Diversity: North Korea is officially atheist, but online access could introduce individuals to different religions, fostering a more pluralistic society. Because this exchange of faiths threatens their cultural restriction, North Korea has one of the worst levels of freedom of religion in the world. Global Communication: The ability to chat and connect with people from other parts of the world would undoubtedly foster a sense of global citizenship among North Koreans, especially with those who managed to defect. This openness could be seen as a threat to cultural identity, particularly for more traditional societies. The historical example of some Jewish communities also reflects this concern, who see a need to create a metaphorical "fence" between their sacred texts and a world of sin. Preserving Identity: A Balancing Act The challenges of balancing cultural preservation with the undeniable pull of the interconnected world, are clear and bright as the sun itself. The key takeaway is that the internet acts as a powerful force in shaping and spreading culture. While some cultures may attempt to build firewalls to maintain their traditions, the long-term impact of the digital age on cultural identity remains to be fully understood. It is likely a future where local and global influences will continue to interact, creating a more complex and interconnected cultural landscape. The Double-Edged Sword of the Internet The internet is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity. From online banking to job applications, internet-connected devices like smartphones and computers are essential tools in today's world. This common fact presents a unique opportunity: global visibility. With dedication, anyone can build an online presence and achieve a level of fame, connecting with people who would have never known of them otherwise. In some cases it can even diminish the value of academy. However, this accessibility comes at a cost. Anyone can post anything online, regardless of truthfulness, leading to the rampant spread of misinformation and "fake news." Developing trust in online sources becomes a critical skill in the digital age, but also a problem. We need to trust the right source, one that does not seek to manipulate us for financial gain. As internet access continues to expand and English proficiency increases at least in the workforce, the influence of local traditions may diminish. Community centers live in the shadow of online forums, traditional performances overshadowed by live streams, and physical sports replaced by the thrill of esports. In a world where there aren't enough job opportunities to go around, a global culture has the practical function of expanding one's reach for work. Finding Balance in a Connected World Media Literacy Education: Equipping individuals with the ability to critically evaluate online information is crucial for combating misinformation and preserving cultural identity from manipulation. Digital Storytelling: Local cultures can take advantage of the internet to share their stories, traditions, and values with a wider audience. The internetization of content exists for good reasons. Blended Experiences: Instead of viewing online and offline experiences as separate spheres, we can create opportunities that integrate both. Imagine attending a live concert that is also streamed online, allowing global participation. Another example is through the interactive use of VR technology, which impacts perception both practically and philosophically. The internet doesn't have to be completely destructive to local cultures. By embracing its potential for communication and storytelling while fostering critical thinking skills, we can create a future where local and global cultures coexist and enrich each other. The Future of Connection The internet is undeniably transforming how we live, work, and connect. Just as our grandparents may not understand MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), future generations might find these terms as commonplace as televisions and smartphones. The online sphere is becoming an increasingly integrated part of our lives, blurring the lines between the virtual and the real. Whether it's an elderly person mastering a video game or a young person connecting with a global community, the internet is weaving a web of connection that promises to reshape the world in ways whose impact is grand and can be fully understood.

(Subcategory Directory: With Happiness and Joy -- Why Optimism is Important (Poem) Success Versus Happiness -- Why Success Can Outweigh Happiness Why I Fear Disrespect of Family (And How to Be Happier) The Factors of Unhappiness (And a Possible Solution) The Power of the Granted -- Why I Choose to Be Unhappy Why Positivity is More Reasonable Than Pessimism The Problems of Following Your Passions https://www.philosocom.com/post/elementary-to-me-poem The Childish Philosophy of Philosocom Article Empire https://www.philosocom.com/post/cold-logic https://www.philosocom.com/post/power-of-love https://www.philosocom.com/post/doronbo-gang https://www.philosocom.com/post/catering https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-road-to-happiness https://www.philosocom.com/post/traditionalist-path https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-and-joy) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley And Co. "The Subjectivity of Happiness" is a thought-provoking article that explores the complex nature of happiness, emphasizing its individualistic characteristics. Mr. Tomasio uses personal anecdotes and experiences to illustrate the diverse ways individuals perceive and achieve happiness, making the content relatable and compelling. The article critically examines generalizations made by studies on happiness, such as Dr. Robert Waldinger's research on relationships, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging individual differences. The philosophical reflections on happiness, survival, and the role of emotions add depth to the discussion, with quotes from thinkers like Tracy Dennis-Tiwary and Kenneth Stewart enriching the narrative. The article offers practical advice for self-discovery, emphasizing self-knowledge and exploration of new experiences. It critiques social norms, such as marriage and gender roles, and highlights how these norms can impact individual happiness. The article maintains a realistic view on the pursuit of happiness, acknowledging that it is often a privilege rather than a guaranteed right. This perspective encourages readers to be pragmatic about their expectations and efforts. The notion of a "higher calling" and finding satisfaction in something greater than oneself adds an inspirational dimension to the article. (Background music) Part I: Understanding the Subjective Self The logical truth about happiness is, that there is no one, universal source that will make all of the currently-living human beings happy, even if there is such a source that makes most of them happy. According to research: “Over and over in these 75 years, our study has shown that the people who fared the best were the people who leaned into relationships with family, with friends, and with community" -- Dr. Robert Waldinger However, this research is overgeneralizing, and ignores the fact that some people prefer to be alone, even when presented with good company. It ignores the fact that the past affects our behavior, thoughts and emotions, to the point of changing our priorities in the future. It ignores the whole concept of social fatigue, which in some cases, could be attainable through any kind of human company. We are not the Same Ever since I saved my old master from herself, I slowly sank into depression as a child. This depression sometimes returns. I realized what matters to me the most is not even happiness but survival. I developed an ascetic mentality, along with anxiety, to help me better survive: Emotions are tools for survival, forged and refined over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to protect and ensure that humans can thrive. They do this by providing two things: information and preparation. -- Tracy Dennis-Tiwary High-quality connections do not make me happy. Being mindful about the fact I am surviving, and being a good influence on reality, is what makes me happy and happier. My happiness stems from gratefulness, and never from any human interaction. I sacrifice all mindfulness sessions for my craft because I know I still have much, much left to do. I don't care about the fact I already did so much. I go on being self-ruthless in my way until my influence on this world will improve the lives of many more, using the virtue of philosophy. The knowledge about my potential is a double-edged sword, as I actively let it deprive me of pleasure, and lambast hedonism for stagnating the growth of the human potential towards building better lives. The more better lives there are, the more we can rectify this world! Then, enough generalizing about individual people's happiness, when these people, like me, actively contemplate about the pain and trauma these lands have experienced. Stop generalizing when I don't care about myself as much as I care about the world, and my ability to help it... in my own unconventional ways. I am a mysterious man. Part II: The Path to your Own Happiness If you truly want to attain long-term happiness, you have to know yourself better, and get to know what makes you feel good and what causes you to feel the opposite. Only when you'll know yourself well enough, you'll be able to determine what that source is. There are two ways you can know yourself better, in order to determine what to pursue in life and what to avoid. The first one is in solitude, where you'll have to contemplate in order to know yourself better, and the second one is by getting yourself to experience new experiences, so you might surprise yourself, and find such an activity that you have yet to realize that it genuinely makes you happy. You might find, for example, that being in nature can bring you happiness, due to its mental and health benefits. That is despite much of the global population living in cities, alongside the rapid growth in urban development. Lastly, you cannot expect others to tell you what will make you happy, as much as you can determine it yourself. Take rule on your life, and lead it like a benevolent dictator does. You are capable of being the best candidate for it. The Source of All Suffering You can lead your life to the future you want yourself and your dear ones to be in. Consider halting your attempts at clinging on destructive hope, which deters you from accepting reality. Instead, devise a vision where you can find yourself the happiest. Happiness is rarely unconditional, after all, given how much we desire that we believe to be amiss. You will suffer accordingly to ambitions that haven't been fulfilled yet. Years can go by, and as long as your idea of paradise won't come to fruition, you will suffer. You will suffer because you care. You will suffer per your desire to make your life matter to someone other than yourself. Yet, you will lose things, you will lose people by departure or by death. However, you can, and should, rebuild yourself after realizing you can, and how you can, do it. Until then, by caring for a different reality far more than this current one, you'll live in frustration, whether recognized or repressed, as you try to cling to hope, maybe more than you should... I'm in the profession of hope. Each hour I spend with a client is like an "archeology of hope," if you will, uncovering evidence that things will get better for them: that depression will fade... that anxiety will be transformed into tranquility. But there's another kind of hope that.... inflicts pain instead of easing it. This is what I call "destructive hope." Destructive hope pulls us into a chaotic future, promising us a heaven and dumping us in hell. The inevitabilities of living in an imperfect and mortal world mean that sooner or later each of us must each face necessary losses. -- Kenneth Stewart Part III: The Fault of the Orthodox Paths “No person, no place, and no thing has any power over us, for ‘we’ are the only thinkers in our mind. When we create peace and harmony and balance in our minds, we will find it in our lives.” -- Louise L. Hay The fault in some traditional communities is that they believe they know what is good for you, without necessarily knowing yourself beyond the sphere of your societal origin. They will get you through certain events, especially as a child or a teen, without necessarily caring for your thoughts, even if such rituals are not mandatory by the law of the state. Arguably, the "ultimate" happiness-related ritual in such communities is, of course, marriage. In some of these communities, you will be required to get married by local norms, due to the belief that it is not good for humans to live by themselves, and that a truly happy life is that which always includes marriage. Case Example: Women in The Days of Old Women in ancient China did not enjoy the status, either social or political, afforded to men. Women were subordinate to first their fathers, then their husbands, and finally, in the case of being left a widow, their sons, in a system known as the “three followings” or san-cong. Often physically ill-treated, socially segregated, and forced to compete for their husband's affections with concubines, a woman's place was an unenviable one. -- Mark Cartwright Can we really say women were happier in traditional times? If a woman's desire to either live single and/or not bear children was ignored and misunderstood, can we say they were happy? While children can make many couples happy, the sad truth is that not everyone is fit to raise children. Not necessarily due to ill, but also because not everyone has an affinity for them. It's one of the reasons why I, for example, might never have kids, as I find them extremely loud and thus, harmful for a lifespan I'm trying to expand. Of course other women can also experience life that way, especially when you suffer from misophonia. Societies can understand how loud children can be. However, do their truly understand you if you have misophonia? Will the average authority figure care for this? Would they want to know this? And as women did what they were told in traditional societies, were they happy given that they didn't have the freedom to do what they want? While modern-day women might not be happy too, can we blame this on their lack of choice? When sexism still thrives today, and when women still have a disproportionate burden in the household and struggle in providing proper care for their children, how could they be any happier? Part IV: I Want to be Strong Enough To Keep Caretaking! Some may claim that a life without happiness is not a life worth living, and those who lead such lives are more likely to sink into depression, if not ruin their lives While I don't agree with them wholeheartedly, I do understand the importance of happiness for the average person to say in their mind that "Ah, this is a life worth living". I understand some people need happiness, such as the one found in love, as core reason to go on living. Hence why, for many, happiness is valuable, if not imperative in order to gain satisfaction from life. Happiness can also help us avoid certain illnesses and premature endings that may follow with an unhappy life. Is happiness a right, or a privilege? Perhaps for most throughout history, it was the latter. The lower classes of premodern societies, instead of worrying for happiness, they had to worry for bread and for the future of their children. Many still worry about it today. Rights, however, are not innate, but given to you by someone else. They are best provided when we make them an ethical obligation. Therefore, in the absence of a giver, "the right to happiness" is just a privilege reserved for the few. To quote the philosopher, Mary Warnock: “I do not think that it makes sense to say that you have a right unless someone has a duty to make sure you get what you claim.” Do we have a right to be happy? It might depend on duty. And I put it as a self-proclaimed duty to make sure my partner is happy. If I can't ensure the happiness of many, I can ensure her happiness, at the very least!! Understanding The Power of Rights There is a distinction between survival and happiness. One can say happiness is not necessarily a basic right like any right that allows you to survive better, such as the right to live safely, or labor rights. The first is a right in any democracy that cares for its people. The second is a right in any society whose rule of law hasn't been torn apart. No state is obliged to make you feel good; if you wish to feel good, you'll have to reach it yourself. It's not a responsibility anyone has for you, even as a child. That is... unless you have someone who wants to make it a right for you. Someone strong, capable, and with a large heart to contain you. Most people are basically on their own in the pursuit of happiness. Even in modern times, jobs can deter you from your happiness. Life after workdays doesn't have to be enjoyable as well, when you struggle with loneliness and work-related fatigue. However, it doesn't have to be that way, when you can find people who want to make sure you're happy. Simply, because they love you. And of course, I love her so much. Conclusions -- The "Higher Calling" Since your life belongs to you once you reach adulthood, it is then that you can better decide whether or not you're going to be pursuing happiness as a higher goal. That includes what it will be in your life (a job, a hobby? What kind of people?). For some of us, life is more about living to the next pay-check than taking care of our children or living comfortably. For some of us, there is a "special call" in life—something that gives us great satisfaction, more than anything else. Religious folk may claim that this "call" is from a higher being. Yet, even atheists and irreligious folk can have such "calls." Once you find it you can be, tremendously happy. In theory, it can be anything that can be special to anyone. Yet not everyone necessarily has it, nor will necessarily have it. They won't, likewise, recognize your call. Don't depend on validation too much. The Other Aspect We can conclude that the pursuit of happiness is not only subjective, but, at large, unfair and unjust. Some will have to sacrifice certain things in order to attain it, while others might never get to have the thing that truly makes them happy. What is certain, however, is that happiness is not as imperative for living as other things, such as money etc.. To think that everyone wants to be happy to begin with is a critical error.

(A poem on depression) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. This article provides a comprehensive exploration of depression and its potential solutions, focusing on the emotional components of the condition. Mr. Tomasio identifies three key components: helplessness, sadness, and lack of willpower, providing a structured approach to conceptualizing depression. The article demonstrates empathy towards individuals experiencing depression, emphasizing the emotional struggles that accompany depression. The article emphasizes the importance of hope and perspective in combating depression, suggesting that focusing on future possibilities and finding small areas of control can be empowering for readers. The article also encourages seeking help, a crucial aspect of mental health advocacy. It reinforces the message that support is available and that seeking help is a positive step. In summary, the article provides a valuable exploration of depression, blending philosophical insights with practical advice. It effectively emphasizes hope and the potential for future change, which can be motivating for readers. (Background music) ********************** Depression may come from the realistic fact that we cannot control everything. That we are not as powerful as we would like to be. We are bound to control only what we can, while hoping to interact with the uncontrollable in some other way that will make our lives a bit easier to bear. However, the initial strike of depression comes not from the uncontrollable itself, but from its pessimistic product—helplessness, and the discontent towards it. Those who have no reason to give up unwillingly, whether that reason genuinely exists or not, will find little reason to be depressed. I'd like to suggest that the weak-minded (both men and women) are likelier to be depressed than otherwise. That is because they give up on so much of their power. So much of their resolve. Unlike frustration, depression combines the element of sadness into the equation. Not everyone who is helpless in a situation would necessarily be sad about it. They can choose to be hopeful instead. Therefore, depression has three components, at least according to this thought process: helplessness, sadness, and the lack of willpower towards the first. You won't see a depressed person who feels like they're both in control and are content with it. This is why depression also generates a sense of defeat, of "slavery," or at least, of inferiority, towards whatever makes them feel helpless. And the thing is, since we humans can be delusional at times, few are those who are fully or at least optimally resilient to periods of depression. We all, theoretically, feel that there is nothing we can do, that we are weak compared to this inevitability and that we just carry on with this "fact". Perhaps the most common example is when a heartbreak is created—that the person you've loved so much will probably not return to your presence again, and/or that they don't like you at all while you love them and so on. Surely if we could have the power to control anything, AKA, omnipotence, what are the odds of us being depressed when anything can bend to our will? But the reality is that we are alone against the inevitability of circumstance, of time, and of realism. We can't always do what we desire, we don't always have time to dedicate to activities we would otherwise want to do happily, and we don't always have what it takes to achieve our dreams, so some of our ambitions might remain unattainable for the rest of our lives. The solution of depression, AKA, of this defeatist sadness, is the alternation of thoughts; of believing that there is another way, and that not all is lost. Whether it's about a heartbreak or negative nihilism, the notion that there is hope of alternation and that it will arrive someday, it by itself can be very soothing, if not offer solace, whether that "ray of light" actually exists. For religious folk there is the promise of a rewarding afterlife; that this current life is some sort of a test to view your worth in the eyes of one or more gods, who will then pass their divine judgement. For unsuccessful singles, there is this cliché, yet sensible idea that there are "many fish in the sea" and that perhaps one day they will find what they are looking for. Regardless of the situation, it appears that the most important virtue in the fight against depression is the belief that things will not stay the way they are. And that is true, to an extent. We are not immortal, nor will we necessarily be confined to live the same day over and over again in the reminder of our lives, until death arrives. Everything, in the end, is prone to change, either for benefit or for its exact opposite. Because of this, unless you have very few days left to live, we technically shouldn't be depressed, not because depression is something we should avoid, but because whatever cause that made us depressed might be altered eventually for the better. Thus, change can eliminate the root for our sad sense of defeatism. The fact that realism usually requires lowering our idealist expectations, does not mean this attitude is always an indication to succumb to something. Remember—even if we cannot directly alter our emotions, we can at least find solace in the fact that every emotion, theoretically, can be handled. Emotions are not a verdicts we ought to carry for the rest of our lives. Not only that, but the external source of said emotions won't always be there, necessarily. Some of us have harsher lives than others, but in the end there are many things that can give us, at least, a tiny sense of power over our environment. Be that the pursuit of certain hobbies, the unsupervised use of our devices, the ability to express ourselves with no censorship and so on. Finding power is imperative, but it doesn't have to be, necessarily, power over others, nor abuse. There is no shame, after all, in feeling in control; a sense of control that can elevate us beyond the sinking we were in due to our depression. The ultimate answer to depression, even if not ideal, is simply the visualization of the future. Of dreaming of a better life that might happen eventually, no matter how far or close it may be. For example, one may feel a great deal of despair, do they really know anything that's going to happen to them later on in life? Of course people aren't fortune tellers, except for those who are (assuming there are), so how can the depressed person be completely certain that all hope is lost, when they haven't mastered their own lives, in terms of knowledge, of certainty about the uncertainty? Thus, regardless of where you are in life, remember that things don't have to be the way they've been thus far, and that even in a generally powerless life, there are still things to be found—and appreciated—that one can have control over. They may be more in number than one might think. If you or someone you know is struggling with depression, please reach out for help. There are many resources available, and you don't have to go through this alone. Go through it alone, and you may have a lot more to cope with than otherwise. You can become a broken man or woman as a result. Like me.

Article Summary by Mr. Roland Leblanc In this article Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is trying to get us to think about what we can do in the real existence that we currently have in order to concretely contribute to better our existence; hence, making it possible to live on top of existing only! He is getting us as a start to consider 6 ideas… 1. Haste being devilish. 2. Pleasure's deception. 3. The creation of an environment where diverse viewpoints are respected. 4. Beyond the Norm: Embracing Diverse Paths to Fulfillment. 5. Invest your energies in things that deserve your attention. 6. Remembering the Good and Cherishing the Present. Conclusion: It is now the time to consider being part of the solution and contributing to this world rectification by being knowledgeable of who we are so we can contribute by our unique way of partaking on this Grand-Œuvre of World Rectification! (Background music) A Vision for Progress Obviously, the world is far from perfect and likely never will be. Even if it will be, the irony is that the lack of challenge will make it retain its imperfection. Either way, the lack of perfection doesn't mean we should abandon our efforts to improve it in our own unique ways. If such visions clash, that's the natural consequence of sharing the same space, resources, and air. In the arena of a true democracy, most, if not all, voices deserve to be heard. That's whether or not they are if not universally embraced. Here is but of my many contributions to you; 6 of my insights that could improve the world: 1. Beyond First Impressions: The Dangers of Hasty Judgment We are prone to leaping to conclusions and generalizing about people based on limited information and a lack of reflective thinking. Seeking further details through research can prevent false assumptions and the spread of misinformation online. By taking a moment to learn more, and question the current limits of our understanding's competency, we indirectly benefit others by avoiding perpetuating inaccurate narratives. Resisting the urge for instant gratification in this regard is crucial, as this urge can prevent us from inquiring further beyond our first impressions of something. Since we are all imperfect, that may also include our ability to judge things more objectively. Actually, being subjective beings, it's very likely that our different subjective biases will mislead our own understanding, thus leading to false, hasty judgements. Why then, assume without question that our ability to judge reality in a competent way? After all, hasty judgements have their own problems: Reduction of being useful in a cooperative setting. Correct estimations of what we need to do is the key to overall effectiveness in an organization. Miscommunications that could've been solved if we simply sought to confirm what we understood (Hence why we should ask for confirmation, far more frequently, in the name effective communication). Friendly fire (in combat of course) that can be resulted in death. Increase of emotional pain in more-emotional-invested settings (like in relationships). Heartbreaks, in fact, have an effect on our health. The reduction of hasty judgements can, therefore, relieve us of many physical and mental ailments! When haste judgements can lead to so much suffering, and even death, of either ourselves or others, haste indeed "stems from the devil. The same hasty judgement can apply to ourselves as well. Misconceptions about ourselves, as in the example of megalomania, can overestimate what we really are. Would we prefer to be lied to, even if by ourselves? Or would we prefer to understand the truth about ourselves, so we will better know, what we're truly capable of? If we think we're nice people, we might even delude ourselves, that we were nice, at times we were not nice. The self, indeed, is a host of contradictions, but I digress. Hence, per se, "the hastiness is from the Devil". 2. Pleasure's Deception: Beyond the Feel-Good Factor The alluring feel of something doesn't guarantee its actual benefit, hence the absurdity of fun. Examining beyond the immediate pleasure can reveal the true impact of an action, especially concerning addictive substances. Ignoring this could lead to a cycle of counter-productive desire. Many lives have been can be ruined by prioritizing the temporary buzz over long-term consequences. Gambling, for example, can ruin lives, and not only financially, all in the name of its rushing thrill. This reminds us that our senses can be deceptive, regardless of our circumstances and level of intelligence. As such, we shouldn't blindly follow our senses, nor our intuition, when they can mislead us. And yes, intuition can backfire. Even in business, emotion should be left at the door. Business plans can be poorly made if they are emotion-based, because the long-term effects of logic renders the competency of your emotions inferior and short-sighted. The fact that you feel something, doesn't mean it should be done (or avoided, for that matter). Therefore, to make better decisions, we must become more logical beings. Should we overestimate our logical reasoning, we might make poorer decisions than otherwise. As such, we must improve our reasoning in order to make it a reliable feature. Now, to avoid confirmation bias on your end, I'll add that it's important to use emotion from time to time, as in the case of empathy, to those who need it. And indeed, empathy can be taught, and should be taught, in the name of making this world a better place. 3. Courageous Voices: Speaking Up in a World of Opinions Voicing our opinions, even when facing potential ridicule, is essential in a world that champions freedom of speech. Therefore, we could say over-sensitivity stands in the way of a truly liberal society, where the dependency on trigger warnings, does not compromise the value of exchanging ideas. After all, the permit of liberty does not oblige us to care for the sensitivity of others, when they can work on themselves and take criticism in a professional way. And as I discovered, in this age of content delivery (opinions included), over-reliance on emotions can be a sign for weakness. As such, the existence of cancel culture is a threat to freedom of speech. One opinion shouldn't be less legitimate than another, not as something that depends on social validation, at the very least. Being a philosopher obliges you to philosophize regardless of these social risks, so if you're interested in being a philosopher, or already are, be prepared. Silencing dissent through shaming (a common feature in cancel culture) undermines the very foundation of a democracy, where people are allowed to protest, and not only in the streets against their government, but also against one another. We can strive to create an environment where diverse viewpoints are respected, not excluded, no matter how much we oppose them (and their presenters) emotionally. After all, it is through the exchange 6 of My Ideas on Improving the World and opinions that we can have a chance at better understanding reality. For the philosopher, ideology is a tool, not a goal or a brand. As such, philosophy and ideology are not the same. Perhaps, the one exception to the freedom of speech is incitements. After all, most of us would like to express ourselves, not encourage genocides. 4. Beyond the Norm: Embracing Diverse Paths to Fulfillment Romance and children are not prerequisites for a fulfilling life, as much as it may surprise some of you. They are merely options on a spectrum of possibilities, and the conventional path doesn't guarantee success for everyone. In fact, the orthodox ways of lives can unnecessarily be a stressful burden on some. Individual flourishing depends on finding the lifestyle that resonates with our unique needs and aspirations. This is one of the reasons Maslow's hierarchy of needs deserves to be criticized. Furthermore, personal choices, unless demonstrably harmful, should be free from unwarranted interference or judgment. For me, philosophizing is worthy of restoring my debt to the very field that saved my life. Do I expect you to agree with me? Of course I don't. We are shaped by difference experiences, interactions and realizations. 5. Letting Go: Releasing the Grip of Anger and Past Discomfort "Worrying grants a power/influence to the very things we worry about" - John Duran Life presents plenty of opportunities to feel anger and stress, but we shouldn't reduce our inner peace on minor annoyances, especially past events and even minor discomforts. Our emotional energy, like a battery, is finite, leading to stress and exhaustion. As a philosopher I aspire to be stressed and exhausted on what I believe deserves my concern. Let's invest our energies wisely, like a swordsman during a swordfight. Do consider doing nothing and thinking: "What should I let go and what I shouldn't? What would be practical to let go of, and what wouldn't be impractical to be too concerned about?" Respect your energies. Don't waste them all in one place that won't yield you any results. Like with money, you should invest your energies in things that deserve your attention, AKA, things that would actually yield something meaningful. Don't give power to things that do not deserve to be given power to. 6. Cultivating Joy: Remembering the Good and Cherishing the Present Amidst life's challenges, cherishing moments of peace, happiness, and satisfaction is equally important. Consciously reflecting on positive experiences can significantly improve our mood and overall well-being, as positive thinking does in general. Whether through journaling, thinking on those who are dear to you -- actively remembering precious moments and people becomes a powerful tool for combating negativity and fostering joy in our lives. Final Words Thank you for taking the time to read. If you agree with my points, consider sharing this article for a larger exposure. Perhaps it could make the world, to whatever degree, a better place to live in. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback This shall be unlike any review I have done. I’m going to tell you how each idea relates to me: Hasty judgements -- My [position on] hasty judgment is a little two sided as I understand how humanity works. Is it hasty that I judge people as only having lower/average intelligences? You [can] reach a point where you are intelligent enough that you can quickly scope an individual's intelligence. I just automatically assume that it is around average. [I've] yet to meet anyone who has clearly more intelligent than I am, [so I] think I have every right to pass that hasty judgement.  On the other hand, if one refers to average intellect individuals' [point of view], then I agree that they should not pass hasty judgements. I believe a few wars have been started because of this. Examples are as follow: the Pig War, where the death of a pig led to a confrontation over evicting an entire American population on San Juan island during its British occupation. Another example is the American-Mexican War, avoidable by President Polk's ability to negotiate with Mexico over disputed territories(AKA Texas), instead of using aggressive tactics. “Haste” is a relative and subjective thing. A minute to me has my brain processing a huge amount of information. Haste should be a question one should answer. Is haste nothing more than faster than normal? I posses the ability to make quality harsh judgements. [However, they]are pretty spot on [regardless]. I disagree with the idea of intelligence can’t aid in us processing sensations better. [People with] higher intelligence are less likely to be effected by emotions. As I’m smart enough to not give into pleasures, since my intelligence started to express itself, I have had less of a desire to gamble. [Gambling is done] for the rush. [However, I can get] A rush I get from reviewing articles and letting my creativity get nurtured [instead]. I believe it is all about giving into the right pleasures: Productive pleasures. Emotions can give people a reason for living. They are super important at adding quality to life. [I believe] Life is all about finding the right things to get that good feeling from: Healthy emotional expressions.  4. Personal experiences shape the person you are. If you want to be a certain type of person, then you must have experiences which a person like that would have. Your actions dictate who you are. Funny how that works. [If] you want to be a nice person you should practice doing nice deeds. 5. If you ever want to let go it can be done with a really simple step: Does what you want to let go off play any important part of your future? Worrying about the past is pointless because there is no way we can change it. Our time is better spent focused on the future which teaches us all we have is the present moment. Your present moment determines your future. Sit on your coach and try to mow the lawn: You can get rid of worry by taking actions of one who solves that problem.  6. We should find the things which make us happy and find other experiences which can repeat that emotion.

(This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. The rest of the material is in this directory). Alex Mos's Synopsis A philosopher craves recognition and respect from others. Their authority comes from philosophizing, not from memorizing books. A philosopher's ideas must be distinctive yet resonate with people's minds to raise and keep their interest. A philosopher is a creator and doesn't need a diploma to prove their worth. You can learn how to think logically online, contemplate in solitude, and support your theories by research. A degree is only relevant if you intend to work in academia. Philosophy is a field where broad agreement is difficult. There are only a few rules: be existential, logical, and persistent. You earn the title of philosopher through your intellect. Practicing philosophy is work and requires sacrifices. (Background music) Why Philosophers Must Earn Their "Sovereignty" From Anonymity Philosophers, as presented in part of intellectualist misconception, can easily be seen as some pompous figures whose authority is questioned as much as they question reality itself. Yet, unlike your run-of-the-mill "authoritarian", the philosopher craves not dominion over others, but dominion from them – a power forged in the fires of recognition, respect, and, dare I say much intrigue. In this age of gilded certificates and bias of prestige, philosophy stands awkwardly out of step. One can memorize the dusty tomes of ancient thinkers and their methods until their beard turns grey to make a philosopher distinctive or even important to others. No, the true philosopher's authority springs not from the solitary halls of libraries, but from the very act of philosophizing itself – the occupation with uncertainty, the attempt to understand the mysteries of existence, the relentless, often-solitary quest for meaning in a universe that might not care either way. That is what turns the philosopher from the philosophy student or even a philosophy professor: Their minds are distinctive that it is a "brand" of sorts, like any brand of a corporation you may know today. Socrates, Aristotle, Kant -- by their own intellect they forged a brand of their own that distinguishes them by their own mentality, for good, and for bad. In theory there is not much that isn't a double-edged sword in some way, but I digress. Think of it, if you will, like the difference between lecturing about airplanes and actually flying them. One can point out facts about wing sizes and fuel capacities and whatever. And yet, until you've piloted the aircraft the wind, you haven't truly grasped the essence of flight. Being capable of altering our minds, as it has been doing with my own mind, philosophizing on a constant basis gives 1 point to empiricism over rationalism because it's an act that has the power to transform you and make you more unique as an individual. What is recognition without distinction? You cannot recognize something over other things, if it is not distinctive enough. Contrary to my devised reverse-individuality theory you won't be recognized as a philosopher if your average ideas will get overlooked. Your claims hold weight only as long as they resonate with other minds, determined enough to bother reading you frequently. They could, at the same time, spend their free time playing a free-to-play mobile game, but the fact that they can choose you over an addictive phone game, speaks much of what you're capable of. Earn your sovereignty from the ceilings of anonymity through the sweat and blood of genuine inquiry. Let your ideas take flight, and not as echoes of past intellects. On the powerful currents of your own critical thinking you can, perhaps, gain dominance over an empire of thought, to secure it for generations to come, long after your departure. Proving Your Philosophical Genius Regardless of Diplomas A philosopher is necessarily a creator, and not merely an observer of things that have already been created by others throughout history. We need to understand that understanding is an active process of information, and that we don't just passively retain information like a memory databank. The way schools teach us is largely incompetent because we may lose so much of what we learn. How come? We need to improve our process of information so we can understand it better. Testing us for information we simply need to memorize isn't enough for us to even understand it enough. This is one of the things that lead to the illusion of knowledge, while in reality, which Socrates admitted, he, and we, know "nothing". Likewise, the fact that an airplane pilot just graduated from his or her school doesn't necessarily make them a skilled pilot if they ended up being incompetent as a pilot (this is merely an analogy). Getting several A's in class for writing several essays on Jewish history doesn't necessarily make me an expert on Jewish history. Expertise is much more profound than the paper certificate/s which aim/s to validate it. With or without certification, anyone can claim the title of "philosopher", just like anyone can make shallow content, gain social media subscribers across the world, and then call themselves "influencers". Overrated, isn't it? But the "real deal", the Einsteins and Kierkegaards, prove their worth with every daring dive into the abyss of thought, and actually doing something that's distinctive with it. So distinctive that they go above the heights of others, thus gaining themselves recognition like any other notable thinker. If you want to learn how to think like a philosopher, there is no need to get a certificate to do so. Read online material, watch some videos, and contemplate extensively in solitude. Write your insights, make the necessary research to see if they align with reality (or what reality might become). Try to understand how you could be wrong, and not only how you are right. This careful and delicate work, a combination of any component necessary for studying the truth, is the very activity that, even after years, can eventually get yourself a degree of relevance on a global scale. "The drop of water doesn't dig a rock by its power of impact but by its power of persistence. Does any of this require a degree? Only if you intend to be dominant in academia. But why limit your audience of readers/listeners to the confines of luxurious institutions, in a world whose academic students find it harder and harder to afford their studies in them? Think for the long term. Plan ahead. Gatekeep yourself too much in the "ivory towers" of academia and you'll be limiting people's own access to your material, which can do much good to the world. Consider the fact that gaining recognition in this niche isn't instant and probably will never be an instant success. And you also might not necessarily become a "superstar" or whatever, considering how shallowness is in theory a necessary "evil". No. If anything, you're doing this to study reality in a way most people don't bother, and yet still go on claiming how knowledgeable they are. Recognition's a double-edge sword in a world filled by toxic forums and the easy submission to the temptation of hatred. On the one hand, philosophizing is pretty easy once you practice contemplation on the existential level, and do so regularly. But, on the other hand, some people would call you a hoax, a fake, or a pretender simply because you don't have anything else to prove your position other than your own mind and logical reasoning. Philosophy is a field where it is very hard to find wide agreement on many subjects where philosophy is involved. Thus, sometimes one's own credibility might be put in doubt. How come? Anything in philosophy can be doubted legitimately using the very means you used yourself in the name of the truth. Fail to prove the worth of your content to those who are too close-minded, and they might "sin" what I call "The Whole Person Fallacy", using the rationale that the mind behind the presented material, also matters. There are no "universal" rules other than those two: Be existential (AKA aim for a profound understanding of reality) and logical, as much as you possibly can be. Work on them tirelessly using a "grindset" and like with many skills they can improve over time. You just be surprised by how much your brain is capable of once you put it under a training regimen. We have so much potential we can achieve, but we remain unaware of the true extent of our abilities. Therefore, if you wish to practice philosophy publicly, you need to earn your title through the sheer force of your intellect, the audacity of your ideas, and the unrelenting confidence in your own logic (unless proven otherwise, of course). You need to be a crusader for your own philosophies, a gladiator in the arena of thought, as you fight to gain the support of other like-minded, rational individuals. It might be tiring as it might be stressful to be a philosopher. You might find yourself suffering from insomnia as your intellect confronts issues that leave you restless. How come? It is in the night where the intellects can ponder the most undisturbed, hence many of those who are more intellectual by nature, tend to be night owls. But nevertheless, whether done in the name of having fun or in the name of other purposes, philosophizing -- and the attainment of your distinct recognition as someone who does it -- is work. A work of expanding one's perception to horizons many people don't bother considering much. As such, never underestimate the fact that the seeking of the truth requires sacrifice. Have I already mentioned that influence and power can be seen for what they basically are: a means to an end?

Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "Universal Lonerhood: Why We're All Loners and How to Thrive" is an article that explores the concept of loneliness as an inherent part of the human experience. It argues that we are all alone due to our distinct individualities, and that true understanding between people is rare, making loneliness inevitable to some extent. The article presents intriguing ideas about the nature of loneliness, particularly the notion that even in close relationships, a lack of understanding can create an insurmountable barrier. Mr. Tomasio uses analogies and metaphors to illustrate the inherent separateness of individuals, making the article more engaging. The piece balances philosophical musings with practical insights, suggesting that individuals can grow stronger by accepting their solitude and improving their self-understanding. It also addresses modern issues, such as the impact of social media on relationships, making it relevant to contemporary readers. Overall, "Universal Lonerhood: Why We're All Loners and How to Thrive" is a thought-provoking piece that contributes to the ongoing conversation about human connection and isolation.   (Background music) Objectively, all things share one universe. Subjectively, each thing has its own universe. -- Dan Echegoyen We are all loners because we are all alone to an extent. Allow me to explain. Loners are beings who are continuously alone, distinct from togetherness. When you are alone, you are separated from other beings. Universal Lonerhood, like togetherness, exists on a spectrum. You might realize it when, for example, you are with someone who fails to understand you. Then, you are both with them, but the lack of clear understanding creates this "barrier" between you and them. When it occurs continuously, it creates this uncanny state of being where you are never understood properly, and thus, your inner being is never seen entirely, beyond the appearance of you and your behavior. Understanding is essentially a form of abstract vision, where the information you receive from others is converted into knowledge. It is often a lengthy process that may or may not be hindered by denial, hasty conclusions and judgmentally-dismissive attitude. The intelligent as such are lonelier due to the fact that it takes more effort to understand them. You may claim that spending time with someone is how you don't make them lonely, but that's simply not true. It is not enough because to reduce their loneliness you must understand them more, so their inner being, the one beyond your impressions and assumptions of them, becomes visible enough to avoid deluding yourself about them. Simpler people are easier to understand and thus it does not take much effort to relieve them of their loneliness. Thus, at least by this reasoning, simpler people are the least likely to be lonely. Within our inner loneliness, we might eventually realize that those who are dear to us are not really interested in learning us properly so we won't be as lonely. They may have the following problems in their thinking: They may claim that they've known us for most of our lives (or all of it). Therefore, they're preventing themselves from the underrated value of self-doubt, necessary for further learning. They don't necessarily have any interest in learning about us in general. They might be too tired, too busy and so on. Their hearts are not necessarily open enough to contain us entirely. "Heart", or emotion, is not only an ability, but also a capacity. As such we can't expect much from the heartless when it comes to greater understanding of our deeper parts. Out of their on inner void and/or intimidation, suppressed or otherwise, they may call us narcissists, people who are too full of themselves, etc. Their inner voids may prevent them to be altruistic towards us, thus indicating their own lack of a strong, inner core. It is usually such people who feel the need to be validated the most. It is also hard for such people to understand us and be there for us when they are too vulnerable to do so. We can learn from this that it isn't even realistic to be expected to be well understood by some people. This presents us the opportunity to grow strong alone instead of depending on them. As such this shall allow us to further practice the art of being alone, and learn how to live and prosper despite the harsh, cold loneliness within us. Either way, we are always separated from each other. Even if we were put in a very small room, we would still be each on our own, because our individuality logically makes us separated from each other. The fact that my consciousness is not your consciousness leads to the conclusion that we are alone, i.e., separated, from each other. Even people who happen to share the same body, but have different heads, are still their own individuals by this principle of separate consciousness. That includes different personalities and interests. However, a very rare case of conjoined twins, who have thalamic bridge, allows them to indeed share the same mind. It's believed they can "mentally travel" to each other's minds and share the same experiences as if they are in their own special mental world. Such a phenomena might be the only case which would ultimately relieve us of our loneliness. Perhaps, at the cost of our mental privacy, which might be the final frontier of our privacy in general, but I digress. Take this analogy to further understand the individuality of existence: The desert does not exist. It is only a collective imagery of grains of sand, which are separated from each other. The fact that they are separated from each other proves that they are alone even if they are to be categorized as a "desert." The same applies to human collectives. Even if we constantly interact and socialize with each other, we still remain detached from one another in some way. And the only realistic way to bridge this existential detachment is by a clearer understanding of others. But if they are to fail to understand that understanding is a complex, lengthy process that could even be trained and improved, we will likely remain detached. We will remain detached, but at the very least we can improve our understanding of ourselves, so we won't be as lonely as beings who are not understood by anyone, themselves included. There is no actual entity called "society" in the World Beyond The Mind, like there is no desert. It is merely an association of individual components, as large as they may be. Society gets more unified as one not only through enforcement of law but also through a shared understanding of reality. However, it does not mean at all that this understanding is even correct in the slightest, just because of the function it serves. The World Beyond The Mind is a world composed of individual atoms, connected with each other only through interaction, but not through being. Communication, too, is partial illusion, embodied only through sensory symbolism we were taught throughout our lives, as our graduation to the collective Mental Dimension through socialization. Imagine the world as existent independent of our minds. Then, you may realize that the words you're reading have no objective meaning. You were simply taught that they have, so you would understand them. Of course, the study of language compels you to know the specific meanings that are collectively assigned to these words. But in reality they are just assigned, not an inherent part of them. What allows us to bridge between us and others, like words and their meaning, is our understanding of them. Only when the understanding is aligned, we could far better settle our differences, improve our harmony, and decrease the overall loneliness epidemic happening globally. The fact that we are constantly in communication with each other does not make us into a single, individual being. By the clarity of communication, which can be improved, we merely prevent ourselves, either partially or largely, the inevitable trait of loneliness into our lives. Ever wondered why even in relationships we may be lonely? It has many reasons, from unrealistic expectations to distractions such as social media. So, even in the most intimate of relations we could feel lonely, and not, well, intimate. It is inevitable to come to the conclusion that we are all alone due to our distinction, physical separation, and individuality. Togetherness does not exist in the World Beyond The Mind, but rather in our shared perception, which is used to bridge us to one another to an extent. In fact, a network of people is never quite a physical one, but rather one that is mental and metaphorical. Even the term, "Chain of Command", has this same logic applied. There is no actual chain. It is a metaphorical one, but functional and imperative nonetheless. Where objects are built and collapsed, the atoms remain. The same goes for us individuals and the collectives we form in the Mental Dimension. We may pass through many teams, organizations and communities in life. The idea of a collective union, from a company to a relationship, to last, requires much struggle for it. It requires much struggle to preserve it because reality is by nature dynamic and quite unexpected. When any collective collapses, we need to make sure our mentality does not go down along with it. And for that we need to be strong alone for nothing really lasts forever. In that regard, we are pretty much stuck in our own "mental prisons." We better make ourselves comfortable, if we want to better ensure our strength as individuals. Alex Mos's Feedback "I know of no greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, without end." — these are the passionate words of Franz Kafka, describing a feeling of togetherness, an ecstatic moment of closeness we want to experience with a loved one forever. We live in a modern world characterized by fake digital connectedness, decreased physical interactions, and the growing "epidemic" of loneliness. In industrialized, highly developed countries, one person in 12 is affected by loneliness. This condition makes a person irritable, depressed, and self-centered, also increasing their risk of premature death by 26% due to cardiovascular diseases and cognitive decline. Loneliness is not just physical isolation from the company of other humans, which could be easily helped by improving social skills and socializing. It's a complicated feeling of being an extraterrestrial, trying to communicate with earthlings who don't listen and don't understand but judge mercilessly by their biased standards of normality. It's the feeling of not fitting into a social establishment, perceiving the world as a sophisticated computer program, and engaging in a solitary game rather than living in sensory reality with others... until we fall in mutual love. Can romantic love cure us from this lonely mental state, which brings significant health risks equal to smoking 15 cigarettes a day? Love is an emotion associated with the euphoric effects of neurotransmitters in our brain that can be expressed in many ways. It can feel like irresistible sexual desire, envious possessiveness, power of dominance, or delight of submission. It can even be irrational to the degree of objective impossibility or obsessive delusion. Euphoric romantic love can temporarily ease loneliness, but this strong emotion lasts only a few months to a few years. The keys to the lasting mind structure of togetherness are understanding each other, active listening, empathy, honesty, and intimacy. We also must overcome our egos, show our authentic selves, be willing to improve and accept the partner with their flaws and talents. Romantic love is the firm foundation, while psychological and physical closeness is the fortress that will protect us from loneliness, sometimes for the rest of our lives.

(Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Background music) Introduction to Society's Architecture We are born into a machine we did not build, operating on rules we did not consent to, and we spend our entire lives trying to extract a highly abstract concept— happiness —from an engine designed exclusively for resource allocation. When an individual realizes that pursuing their deepest passions is rarely profitable, and that attempting to monetize their soul only leads to exhaustion , a profound disillusionment sets in. We ask ourselves: "Why am I even trying to make a profit out of this? Why doesn't the system support what I love?" The answer is brutally simple, and accepting it is the first step toward true Sovereign freedom: The system is not broken. It is working exactly as intended. It was simply never designed to make you happy. The Blind Engine of Civilization To understand the friction between human passion and the socioeconomic machine, we must look at the blueprint of civilization itself. The modern world is a marvel of logistics. It is a highly complex, interconnected grid designed to solve the biological problems of our ancestors: starvation, exposure, and physical vulnerability. The system prioritizes stability, mass production, continuous consumption , and predictable labor. As this structural reality dictates, the "system" is an engine. And an engine does not have feelings. It does not possess a metric for fulfillment, philosophical depth, or artistic integrity. Its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are gross domestic product, quarterly earnings, and the efficient transfer of capital. When you approach this blind, churning machine and ask it to validate your passion, you are asking a calculator to write a poem. The system only understands one language: Utility.  If your passion does not immediately solve a problem for the masses or entertain them at scale, the system cannot assign a monetary value to it. The Illusion of the "Dream Job " For generations, we have been sold a highly toxic and perfectly marketed illusion : “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”  This cultural conditioning convinces us that if a passion is genuine, it must be monetizable. We are taught that a hobby is just a business waiting to happen, and that true success means turning your sanctuary into a storefront. This is the Monetization Trap . When you take a pure passion—like philosophy, writing , or art—and force it into the intersection of market demands, a fundamental chemical change occurs. You invite foreign, corrosive elements into your Fortress: The Algorithm :  You no longer write for the truth; you write for the algorithm, chasing clicks and engagement just to stay visible. The Logistics:  You transition from a "Maker" (the visionary) to a "Manager" (the administrator). You spend your energy paying henchmen, fixing servers, and managing ledgers instead of creating. The Consumer as Sovereign:  When your passion relies on profit, the audience becomes your boss. Your intrinsic joy is replaced by the anxiety of external validation and financial viability. This is exactly why the management of a passion project sucks the soul out of it. The moment you demand that your art feed you, you place a heavy, grinding yoke on its neck. It ceases to be an act of freedom and becomes an act of survival. The Exhaustion of the Empathy Battery Furthermore, the system extracts a heavy toll on the human nervous system. We are not wired to process the sheer volume of data, suffering , and competition that the modern digital economy forces upon us. To survive in the system, we must trade our time, our physical energy, and our executive function for capital. By the time the workday is done, the biological chassis is depleted. The "Empathy Battery" is drained. The cognitive surplus required for deep, meaningful pursuit of passions is entirely spent paying the literal and metaphorical electricity bills. The system relies on this exhaustion. A tired population does not have the energy to build philosophical empires; it only has the energy to consume passive entertainment and prepare for the next day of labor. The system does not want philosophers ; it wants participants. The Sovereign Rebellion : Decoupling Passion from Profit If the system is a cold, harsh reality that cannot be changed, how does an individual survive without succumbing to despair or giving up on their life's work? The answer is not to fight the machine, nor is it to surrender to it. The answer is to Decouple. You must violently separate your survival from your soul. You must accept that the system is where you go to extract the resources you need to live (capital, food , shelter), but your Fortress is where you go to actually live . Demote your passion from a Business to a Legacy:  Relieve your art of the heavy burden of making money. When you stop trying to force your passion to be profitable, you reclaim total control over it. It becomes yours again. Embrace the Unprofitable:  The most beautiful, profound things in human existence— love , philosophy, genuine connection , creating art for the sake of art—operate at a financial loss. They are capital sinkholes, and they are worth more than any currency. Pay the Toll, Protect the Vault: Do what you must to survive the system. Pay your bills, manage your logistics, and secure your perimeter. But keep a vault deep inside your mind where the system has no jurisdiction. Inside that vault, you write, you build, and you think, not for clicks, not for profit, but because you are a Sovereign mind exercising its right to exist. The Final Metric The system is not designed to make you happy. It is a harsh, indifferent weather pattern . But you are not the weather; you are the architect of the Fortress holding the line against it. By realizing that the world owes you no profit for your passion, you are finally free to pursue it purely for the meaning it brings to you. The ultimate rebellion against a system obsessed with profit is to spend your time doing something entirely unprofitable, simply because you love it.

(Background music) Introduction I wish to be clear about my motives as a moral man. As such, I decided to write this article, where I come clean about the reasoning of my actions. Although I explained much of the reasoning behind my motives in the poem " The Heisenberg of Philosophy -- Within a Shadowy Intellect" , this article can be seen as a spiritual successor to said poem, where I elaborate even further. I hope that by writing this article, no unconscious obscuration will remain, and that the mystery behind myself and Philosocom will be further unveiled. Why I Saved My Grandmother As a kid I saw her isolation and decided I wanted the isolation for my own. Therefore I studied under her as a kid to learn what made her solitary. I never told her this, and she passed away without me telling her my true reasoning behind my actions, and saving her eventually made me amnesiac for 18 years, further solidifying the mystery behind my actions. I saved her because I needed her alive to further know why she was solitary. If I wanted to lead a life of isolation like she did, I needed to save her. As such, I did it, causing myself amnesia and chronic pains . My sacrifice was never recognized by my extended family, and only my mother thanked me for saving her. I guess my extended family was never strong to admit the immense failure that is letting a child witness a Harakiri attempt, so they preferred to deny reality like the weaklings they are. The Incompetency of Her Death She died in 2012 after months of being in a vegetative state. The reasoning for being in it was because, on her way to visit her doctor, she collapsed and there was no defibrillator present in the building to save her. The reasoning of her death , therefore, was the incompetence of the institution she went to. Had they have a defibrillator, my dear grandmother would've lived several more years. This further solidified my isolation and disdain for this world, after realizing that many would prefer the pursuit of capital over investing some of it to help the needy. The Way I Avenge Her As I wrote in the poem I mentioned: Nothing will, ever bring her back. Improving the world, is my counter attack. I avenge her death by trying to make the world a better place, AKA, World Rectification . The thing is, I don't really care about this world, which I forsaken years ago. I am too disgusted by it and by how it works to truly care. Thus, beyond my online contributions through Philosocom I truly don't want to have anything with this world. I want to help people as means to avenge her death, and then be left alone. I don't want any attachments , any deeper relations with anyone besides the inner circle of followers that I cultivated and that help Philosocom grow as a website. I derive joy from avenging her death through helping people. I do it purely for my own amusement. Had I not enjoyed helping people, I wouldn't bother doing it in the first place. How Come The Site has Many Writers In 2023 I rose to power over many people. 2023-2024 is when I helped people the most, not only by giving them work on the site but also saving people from despair. In total, I saved 6. Besides my grandmother, all the people I saved contributed to Philosocom in some way. In 2024 I decided to lay off my medications , leading to a brief but significant "Unmedicated Era" where the site knew extreme creative output on my end that resulted from my former madness. However, that madness was also expressed in paranoia, which caused me to severe ties with much of the site's writers via deleting my former social media accounts. For my mental health, leaving social media was one of the best decisions I ever made, even if under paranoia, but it also came at the sacrifice of having even more writers to the site. Social media was, after all, how I gathered all these writers, and some of their articles I syndicated from the platforms themselves, while rewarding them for their work. Supreme stability has been achieved back when I got better meds, but I digress. Why I Seek to Rectifying the World Like helping people, I do it purely for my own amusement. However, I know it is also the right thing to do, despite its Sisyphean nature -- there will always be something to rectify. You might ask that if I don't care about this world, why I seek to rectify it? The answer is simple: It is possible to help the world from a detached state, and I deeply care about doing the right thing; of being better than this morally depraved world. It also satisfies my revenge quest from my late grandmother's incompetent death. If the world was too incompetent at saving her, then I will do my part at making the world a better place. That is how I choose to right the wrong, refusing to be like the very mall that was too greedy to put a defibrillator to save her. Why I No Longer Seek Relevance My quest for relevance, which served as a fuel for revenge under my amnesia, has been satisfied completely. Without me, people would've been dead either by their own hands or by circumstance. That is enough for me to attain relevancy. I don't seek fame, validation or glamour. I sought relevancy by doing important things, which in this case were heroic . They were enough to satisfy my revenge on the person who claimed I was irrelevant. If I wasn't called irrelevant, I wouldn't bother to rise to power and help a lot of people, meaning several people would've been dead. Since I'm not in connection with most of them, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are dead at this point, as saving is temporary. At least I'm glad that I did my part at making their world a better place, even for a little while. What I'm Doing in 2026 And Forward With my quest to avenge my late grandmother's death largely satisfied, my need to write has largely been quenched. As such I don't write like I used to. My need to write has also been quenched because of another reason -- reaching well over 1000 articles -- my need for self-actualization has largely been fulfilled. Because of the quenched drive, I resorted to living a simple life of a retired man; living simply and peacefully . Knowing well that the world is beyond repair, I at least take solace in doing my little part by investing into Philosocom and giving work to my inner circle. I still wish to be left alone, and the solitude I'm having is most blissful.

(Background music) (Philosocom Directory on Work) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) Alex Mos's Synopsis Most people have a mercenary mindset, meaning they work to maintain or improve their lives. They strive for a hedonistic quality of life , chasing after happiness, love, and wealth. Work can't give us control over the uncertainties of life like war or disease. Therefore, the working-to-live mindset is flawed by default. It weakens us mentally because our goals are fleeing, and nothing lasts forever. When you live to work instead, putting an idea before existence, you can more easily overcome failures and maintain hope in daily life.  Fictional villains can be inspirational because they endure failures and persistently make their dreams come true.  Mr. Tomasio cares less about his comfort as long as work is done for Philosocom. Mercenaries in the Marketplace The vast majority of human beings work in order to live, and do not work for the sake of wanting to contribute to society or humanity in general. Most of them have, what I like to call, the mercenary mindset. Mercenaries work under the same reasoning any other average employee works -- to either maintain or improve their quality of life. In our hedonistic times , quality of life is seen as one of the ideals of humanity. People chase after happiness, the same as they do after love and wealth. Work is but a means to that end and existence is never the means to work but the other way around. Work as a Journey, Not a Sentence You see, logically, the problem with the working-to-live mentality stems from the fact that life is fleeting and uncertain. No amount of work would necessarily grant you happiness or even safety. And yet we work in order to maintain the very little we actually have within our control and influence to either preserve or alter. However, no amount of work will save you from disease, war or the rising costs of living. In other words, most of humanity dooms its expectations from the very beginning, by hoping and praying for things they cannot preserve or improve. Work, for most of us, does not grant us the ability to control the events happening in one's geopolitical region, for example. This means that if your country goes to war, no amount of work would compensate for the loss of your quality of life, created by said work. How are we supposed to maintain a quality of life when we lack significant control to do just that? Of course your job helps you maintain a house and feed your family. Therefore, the working-to-live mentality is flawed by default and is doomed from the start . We are not entitled to happiness when happiness is temporary. We of course are entitled to pursue happiness, as we deserve to do if we so desire, but we never deserve to actually reach this fantastical state of permanent happiness. And obviously, no amount of work would ensure us that, either. The idea of working to live is making us mentally weak. That's because whatever we want in life will always be fleeting to a degree, as nothing lasts forever. And because of that, we are in constant fear of losing what we have, and I mean that by "mentally weak". I refer to the constant feelings of hopelessness emitting in the back of our minds. Hopelessness, because we lack the power to terminate the fleeting-ness of existence. Anything that we build can fall. Any human connection can end abruptly. How can we work to live when work is insufficient for a good quality of life and good health? I am deeply inspired by fictional villains because they have a certain virtue many of us don't have: An inner spark that motivates them to endure failures regularly. Unlike many of us, these characters live to work and not the other way around. They live to make their dreams come true . Their very own lives are but tools; a means to an end. The end that is their own twisted utopia, the end that is their sweet revenge , the end that is attaining their fantasy by making it a reality on Earth. Idea VS Quality of Life In Work When you live to work, you put an idea before existence and that is extremely practical because an idea can be far easier to maintain than quality of life! Because no matter how many times you will fail miserably , as long as you have an idea you can work towards, you can have hope that can overcome the regular day-to-day living. We do not have to live from paycheck to paycheck. We do not have to live on the next rent. There can be something greater than our own lives that we can manifest and have it at play. An idea that can benefit not only ourselves but others as well. My quality of life does not matter to me as much as I put an idea before me. An idea far greater than myself . An idea that can surpass at least several generations after my death! Yes! Hail Philosocom! It gives me hope! And I mind less about myself as long as there is work being done! For I am just a tool for my own creation!

(Background music) Although ranging to 6 books, I have managed to summarize the entirety of my philosophy in one, single article, for you to enjoy and enhance your understanding of the philosophy I have to offer to the world. Hereby is a collection of ideas and principles that so far have been expanded on a total of 7 books, 4 in my native language of Hebrew, two in English, and one that I published in English and you can enjoy online. 1. Independence is the key to self-actualization : While others can help us along the way, the goal of self-actualization is to actualize oneself beyond the sphere of society ; in other words, we as individuals are more than just what we think society thinks about us; we are people with different potentials that ought to be discovered through the utilization of seclusion. 2. Egoism isn’t inheritably bad: There is no fault in putting your own interests above those of others, and in fact, you can still contribute to others even if you put your own interests first. 3. Society is at large centered on itself, AKA sociocentric : This idea isn’t directed at a specific society but at the collective at large. In order for the collective to preserve itself and gain more authority over others, it encourages its members to focus primarily on themselves, as if they were the center of all existence. One way to attempt to do so is by encouraging people not to be alone, because being extensively alone means disconnecting from the grip of society. Another way it does so is by giving authority to the norms and influencing individuals to aspire to respect it, and disdain whatever is considered weird and eccentric . Thus, such beliefs limit us in the name of its influence over us. 4. Seclusion is the key to optimal freedom under realistic circumstances: Ultimate freedom is impossible because we are always dependent on things and beings to keep us alive. The more we're alone and develop our individuality, the closer we can have some freedom from conformity . 5. Not all humans are necessarily social creatures: There can be many people who prefer their own company to that of others, and some may even prefer doing so to socializing. The statement that all people are social creatures is therefore a stereotypical generalization. 6. The Age of Solitude: Due to the dominance of technology over our lives, we are becoming less and less social because many of us spend time in front of screens instead of in front of people. Though we have global access to people, we might nonetheless be lonely. Therefore, if we learn to accept seclusion in our lives and even utilize it for our own benefit, we can overcome the contemporary "epidemic" of loneliness. 7. Being a loner doesn’t make you an egoist: Solitude can be utilized for the benefit of society. Writers, artists, philosophers, and so forth are all examples of people who utilize solitude to contribute to the world at large. 8. Being a loner doesn’t make you a loser, either: You can be successful in whatever field you’re good at even if you're a loner, and success doesn’t have to come only through societal or normative means such as marriage, sex, or wealth. 9. Self-discipline and a more ascetic lifestyle can bring you closer to optimal freedom: Financial materialism has the fault of making us addicted to constant purchases and consumerism , and addictions by nature are enslaving. If we live a healthier lifestyle by making our lives more ascetical, we can become more independent and resilient to addictions that are toxic for us, even if they make us feel good. The good feeling we receive from them is actually a delusion of good, hence, we pursue them. 10. Live and Let Live : It is not right to force your beliefs on others, because such a right does not exist. People should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, because that is the most basic freedom we have. Hence, future technology such as brain-machine interfaces is dangerous, because our minds don’t need to be invaded or altered by external forces unless we give them our full consent to do so through convincing. 11. Society is only necessary to an extent: Let us not confuse our intense passions with our needs. While we do need society to help us fulfill our basic needs, much of what society has to offer is unnecessary in order to live a life of satisfaction and purpose. 12. We are both influenced and have control over our lives: Rubinshteinic philosophy largely emphasizes the importance of evidence, and that pure logic is not always sufficient for a possible truth to be an actual truth. Hence why concepts such as " fate " and " karma " are largely non-existent in Rubinshteinic philosophy. What we do have, however, is the fact that we are influenced by others and also have a degree of control over the direction of our lives. (EDIT: The idea is that karma and fate are not necessarily evident and are thus theories rather than something more concrete. I used them here under the same category because they are spiritualist in nature. The idea of logic in Rubinshteinic Philosophy is that it's insufficient by itself to reveal the truth. A good logician would not necessarily be a good physician, for example. They will need the medical expertise instead or in addition.) 13. Inter-Subjectivity is not Objectivity: It's used to see the thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of the majority as the objective reality. However, reality exists beyond our minds, and much of what we perceive as objectivity is largely inter-subjectivity, AKA, the shared and common subjectivity of others. And finally: 14. Meaning and importance are largely subjective terms: There isn’t necessarily a grand, universal purpose to our lives. It is thus our responsibility to give meaning and importance to our own lives by knowing ourselves as distinct individuals with distinct skills and traits. By dedicating time and energy to do so, we can be happier and more fulfilled beings without any need to hope for an external entity to supply it for us. We also don’t have to have just one meaning or one functionality, for the rest of our lives.

(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.

Alex Mos's Synopsis: The Theory of Unity proclaims that, despite apparent separation , we are all interconnected beings. We might be a part of collective consciousness , a unified energy field, or even the universe itself. Some claim that all beings can love and that love fills the universe. This radical view challenges us to consider a deep level of Unity and that love is the easiest and most moral way to achieve greater cooperation. The author sees interconnectedness as a universal system of cause and effect. Choices enabling love, compassion, and empathy might positively influence the future. Our actions, emotions, and thoughts ripple outwards, impacting the world. Therefore, collective consideration should be in everyone's self-interest, leading to a more harmonious world. The Theory of Unity intersects with religious ideas of divine beings, design, and free will . Yet, it aligns more accurately with Spinoza's pantheistic view that God is the universe. The theory's agnostic character resonates with the author, who deeply cares for the human race. Interconnectedness doesn't oppose the importance of the individual, similar to cells or organs that are necessary for an organism's functioning. Further exploration of the theory could transform our lives for a better world. (Background music) Rethinking Our Place in the Universe The human experience is deeply rooted in the concept of individuality . From a young age, we're conditioned to see ourselves as separate entities, distinct from those around us. It is even why I consider separation as one of the seven essences of existence. However, what if this perspective, isn't the whole picture? This is the core idea of the Theory of Unity -- that we are not as separated as we think we are, but part of a larger being, or essence (like a force or energy). The Theory of Unity asserts that, despite our apparent separation, we are all fundamentally one interconnected being . An example of that comes from the claim that of the claim that "we are all capable of love". According to this claim, as I quote Dr. Seyed Mahmood Alavi (From his Philosocom article) : Love encompasses the whole universe. All beings float in love, and its waves wave everywhere and crystallize in all the particles of the universe. The universe is the hotbed of love, the divine creatures are its home, and love is its symbol.    The world of creation is based on love; love is complete with wisdom and faith; all beings are in motion according to innate love, from the creation of the earthly man to the single heavens, all are moved by love. The world of creation is based on love; love is complete with wisdom and faith; all beings are in motion according to innate love, from the creation of the earthly man to the single heavens, all are moved by love. This might sound radical, especially to Westerners accustomed to a more individualistic worldview. However, the theory challenges us to look beyond our perceived differences and consider a deeper level of unity, unheard of, and rejected, by most people. After all, even with our difficulties of loving, it is something, perhaps, we are all capable of, least in potential. Even people with anti-social personality disorder, and those suffering from antisocial tendencies, are capable of describing love as a feeling. Furthermore, narcissists can also love, although less commonly, and you can tell that by their actions. Therefore, on a practical scale, learning how to love humanity can bring you to greater cooperation with other beings, allowing you to feel what you were capable of doing in the first place -- to unite with them. Instead of hatred, which is easily tempting , and instead of demanding forgiveness, which can be hard for them to oblige to, use the Occam's razor to understand the easiness of choosing the good of love, in your relationships. Apply this as a habit, and you'll see how contingent love and kindness really are. Perhaps love is a universal power after all, which merely remains dormant under our morally-depraved , socially-engineered habits? What if we just have to overcome our adversities, see beyond them, and prioritize the mutual unlocking of love's healing power? Because, if we're to imagine the human body, each cell, while seemingly distinct, plays a vital role in the functioning of the whole. Similarly, the Theory of Unity suggests we are all individual "cells" within a larger, universal "being". This "being" could be interpreted in various ways – some might view it as a collective consciousness , a unified energy field , or even the universe itself. I choose to see it as a highly complex system of cause and effect. Nothing exists in a vacuum, so we can design the environment around us using our behavior. As both things and beings can be influenced by the things and beings around them, our choices may matter more than we might think, as we're all unified under this cause-and-effect universal system. And like a boomerang, our own choices may return to haunt us in the future, due to the effect on the environment, in which they enable. Enabling cycles of love, compassion and empathy are far better options than enabling suffering, coercion and mockery. Never forget that love has healing powers , and that the reduction of psychological safety through toxic behavior, can harm our health . Humanity as of now is very sick, with both physical and mental illnesses on the rise. Let's do our best to restore our health, using pro-social contingent ways, in a cause-and-effect reality. We influence each other more than we think. The concept of reality being so interconnected, can be unsettling. How can a dictator and a stranger on the street be considered influential on us? That's a good question to contemplate on. Because that dictator can contribute to a trend of international democratic reduction , and that stranger may compel you to experience passive smoking. Our actions, thoughts, and emotions ripple outwards, impacting the whole. This interconnectedness compels us to move beyond self-interest and recognize the inherent value in all beings. Should we actively choose to remain unbalanced, and prioritize our own self-interest than general consideration, we ironically will not contribute as much to our own interests. For worsening the situation of others, [they] can come back at us, whether through our regret, and/or through their revenge. Therefore, collective consideration should be part of anyone's self-interest, for "no man is an island". The Theory of Unity doesn't diminish individuality . It simply proposes a different framework for understanding our place in the universe -- as one that cannot exist in an impenetrable vacuum. By recognizing our interconnectedness, we can cultivate a sense of shared responsibility and can work towards a more compassionate and harmonious world. Warming the Relations of Unity with Religious Diversity The Theory of Unity suggests a fundamental oneness underlying the apparent multiple-layers of existence.  This concept naturally intersects with various religious ideas of a divine being or beings. However, the Theory doesn't require adherence to any specific religion or deity. Shinto-ism is a good example of a religion that applies a good theory of unity, as it allows anyone to practice its ceremonies, under the sole condition that respect and mindfulness are to be maintained to the land and to the kami, reality's many spirits/gods. Monotheistic Interpretations For those who subscribe to monotheistic traditions like Judaism , Christianity, or Islam, the "one being" could be interpreted as God. However, the Theory goes beyond the Abrahamic concept of a separate, external creator. It suggests that this oneness isn't a singular, personified being (like Jehovah) with independent emotions, but rather an underlying essence or force that permeates all existence. Here's where Baruch Spinoza's philosophy becomes relevant.  Spinoza, a Jewish philosopher, argued that God is not separate from the universe but identical with it – a concept deemed heretical by some, to the point of him being excommunicated, and generally rejected like other Jewish philosophers.  The Theory of Unity aligns more with this pantheistic view , where God is not just the creator but the very nature of reality itself. Using religion as a way to separate, divide and even manipulate people , is how religious leaders unfortunately breed hatred, fueled by the tribal bias and by the desire to disregard others. This can hinder many people from these religious sects to use the healing power within them, to love and accept those who are and will be different than them. The Theory of Unity embraces a wider perspective than just monotheistic religions, who often persecuted pagan religions throughout history . In our era, Christians unfortunately are likelier to be persecuted, but I digress.  Should we prioritize religions as a way to actually care for other people, and for the world's health in general, and not as a justification to persecute others, the world could be a better place to live in. Not only we would decrease the agony of others, but we can also decrease the agony of our own. We can choose to spread health, instead of aimlessly promoting behavior that leads to illness. Unity vs. Determinism: The Theory acknowledges the idea of a source or design, but it doesn't necessarily endorse determinism. Determinism proposes a preordained plan for existence, discarding the idea of free will. The Theory doesn't preclude the possibility of individual choices and the impact they have on the whole. Interconnectedness does not imply universal design, whether or not universal design is factual. Agnosticism and the Divine: The Theory of Unity is compatible with agnosticism, my personal stance.   It doesn't require belief in a specific deity, but rather a recognition of the interconnectedness that transcends individual identities. What if religious faith could unfortunately diminish our desire to connect with those different from us, despite their influence on us? What if religious faith could lead to conflict, as it indeed did before, such as holy wars , and even terrorism? We have an overflow of hatred towards each other based on mere demographics. Of course we would suffer so much as a result. I prefer to not add on the suffering but aid in the effort to reduce it. I do not need divine faith for that end. I need, and choose to have, faith in people. I may have discarded humanity in my hermitage, but with my work on Philosocom, I still care deeply for the human race. Otherwise, I'd abstain even more. I've no desire nor reason to give up. Bridging the Gap Between Separation and Unity The Theory of Unity acknowledges an apparent "paradox". On the surface, we appear as separate entities, isolated by physical bodies and distinct minds. We often lack connection with even those closest to us, let alone people in far-flung corners of the world. This is a very common phenomenon since the industrial revolution , known as alienation. However, interconnectedness does negate the existence of physical and mental distinction. An organ in a body does not lose its individual importance when it becomes a part of a larger system. Furthermore, an effective synergy of components can increase the output of a component's distinct features. As such, your heart is responsible for keeping every one of your organs in shape. Apply the same to a human construct, like an organization. An effective synergy between the different teams could lead to an increased rate of efficiency overall, highlighting the importance of being good to others for the sake of the organization's overall purpose. Decreasing stress in teammates/co-workers/employees, for instance, can boost their reliability and accountability. Levels of Oneness The Theory of Unity proposes different levels of interconnectedness. Physical:   On the most basic level, we share the same physical world. Our bodies are made of the same elements, products of the same cosmic processes. Emotional:    Emotions can be contagious , and empathy allows us to feel another's pain or joy. Even without empathy, our display of emotion, or lack thereof, can affect us in return, both in the short-term and long-term, like in the form of violence. Mr. John Duran's Bonus: I no longer see reality quite the same way. There is no true solidity in the universe, just varying levels and degrees of liquidity, acting as a vast ocean would, and living creatures are the native mariners within its seemingly infinite waters. After this realization, things can never seem quite the same again. Words Of Departure The Theory of Unity encourages openness to other people, and rationalizing it can further our own interests, without the risks that often follow negative/oppressive/malicious methods. We may not fully understand the nature of oneness, but acknowledging the possibility opens us to a more profound understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. Perhaps further exploration, through introspection, meditation, or scientific research, could shed more light on this concept, allowing greater education and application of the very understanding that could transform our lives for the greater good. The Feedback of the One Known As " St. Javelin's Pretext Seeking Missile" Probably the most important question a person can grapple with is, "what do I owe others?". The reason this is our most important question as humans, or in fact even as sapient beings, is because only sapients can a being ask themselves the question. Dogs can love us, purely . They can sacrifice themselves to save us without prior training out of this love. But they cannot ask themselves this question; they act on instinct. This question, properly analyzed, will lead us inevitably to the same conclusion. I submit -- perhaps grandiosely, but I'll stand on it for as long as I can defend it -- that we owe everything to everyone else. None of what we have can we say properly belongs to us alone. We will come to these conclusions, upon proper contemplation, regardless of other such issues as antisocial personality disorder, or the trait of narcissism. We will come to these conclusions because self-respect compels us to respect others. Only our emotional impulses blind us to these realities. Only our insecurities drive us to stand above others. Even empathy, that often maligned trait among the neurodivergence, is utterly irrelevant to the equation. Empathy can only tell you when to be considerate, not whether or not. Only self respect can tell us to always be considerate. We become agents of good by choosing to be, and by no other means. Why? Many reasons. Among the first of them is that because by serving others, I serve myself ; and by failing to serve others, I abandon myself, just as I abandon them. Far from compelling us into conformity, universal love requires respect for the universal claim to autonomy, and the absence of any legitimate authority to restrict another's autonomy. Perhaps as we colonize the (uninhabited) planets among the stars , we will split into new species over time, better suited to our new environments. These differences are also part of our connection . And our cooperation will always make us stronger than our competition. We should stand firm in our position that you should express [spirituality] in any way that promotes your health and the health of your community. Exclude people from your circles of empathy though, at all of our peril. I am very grateful for Mr. Tomasio's work.

Portrait of John Duran. Credit: Unknown (Subcategory Directory: The King and the Bargainer - A Philosophical Analysis ( philosocom.com ) A Philosophical Analysis of John Duran's Story, "For the King's Pleasure" -- How People "Like" to Be Lied To ( philosocom.com ) A Bum's Night Out: Too much Time On my Hands (John Duran's Story Analysis, Part I) https://www.philosocom.com/post/john-duran https://www.philosocom.com/post/uncommon-perspective https://www.philosocom.com/post/weight-of-genius https://www.philosocom.com/post/prodigy ) Abstract This article is an interview with a sage, a writer ( John Duran ) a citizen of the USA out of his experiences of being a homeless person for much of his life. It explores the complex issue of homelessness, a hidden population facing the harsh realities of life without a permanent residence. It delves into its root causes, impact on individuals and communities, and ongoing efforts to address this societal challenge. The article challenges stereotypes and misconceptions about homelessness, highlighting the economic factors and daily struggles faced by those without stable housing. It also examines the role of governmental policies and their negligence, community initiatives, and public perception in shaping the landscape of homelessness. The aim is to foster understanding and empathy, sparking conversations towards effective solutions and a more compassionate society. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: It also covers the mentality of a man who is seasoned in being homeless, and the things we can learn from him. I also added a few words myself). Interview & Insights A first question to him was: What are the main causes of homelessness? He emphatically answered: “Poverty, ignorance, heartlessness, and ridiculous conditions for renters, along with absurd rental amounts". The following point was drawn: Poverty: Economic hardship, insufficient income, and limited access to resources can lead to homelessness. Individuals and families facing poverty may struggle to afford basic necessities, including housing. Ignorance : Lack of awareness or understanding about the root causes of homelessness can perpetuate societal misconceptions. Educating communities about the complex factors contributing to homelessness is essential for fostering empathy and informed solutions. Heartlessness: A lack of compassion or empathy toward individuals experiencing homelessness can hinder efforts to address the issue. Building a compassionate society involves recognizing the humanity of those facing homelessness and working towards supportive and inclusive communities. Ridiculous Conditions for Renters: Unaffordable and challenging rental conditions, such as high rents, lack of tenant protections, and substandard housing, can contribute significantly to homelessness. Addressing these issues requires a focus on affordable housing policies and tenant rights. Absurd Rental Amounts: Unreasonable rental costs relative to income levels can make it difficult for individuals and families to secure stable housing. Affordable housing initiatives and rent control measures can play a role in mitigating this challenge. However, addressing homelessness effectively often involves a comprehensive approach that tackles these root causes. This includes implementing policies to alleviate poverty, raising awareness to dispel misconceptions , promoting empathy and compassion, advocating for tenant rights, and working towards affordable housing solutions. By addressing these interconnected issues, communities can strive to create environments where homelessness is less likely to occur, and support systems are in place to help those in need. He concluded by saying: “I was homeless for 35 years across 46 states. I believe it's the future for millions more Americans” Here comes the second question: What initiatives or strategies are being implemented to address homelessness? "There are reasons many homeless avoid staying in shelters, and it's not what the media portrays". Certainly, there are various reasons why some homeless individuals may choose to avoid staying in shelters, and these reasons often go beyond what may be portrayed in the media. Here are some common factors: Safety Concerns: Shelters can be overcrowded, and conflicts may arise among residents. Concerns about personal safety, theft, or violence may lead individuals to avoid staying in shelters. Lack of Privacy: Shelters often provide limited privacy, with shared sleeping quarters and communal facilities. Some individuals may value their privacy more, and find the communal living conditions uncomfortable. Rules and Regulations: Shelters typically have rules and regulations governing behavior, curfews, and restrictions on personal belongings. Some individuals may prefer the autonomy of living on the streets rather than adhering to the rules of a shelter. Substance Use Policies: Shelters often have strict rules regarding substance use. Those struggling with addiction may avoid shelters due to the restrictions on alcohol or drug use. Traumatic Experiences: Some homeless individuals may have experienced trauma, including abuse or violence, which can make staying in a communal setting emotionally challenging. Shelters may be triggering for individuals with traumatic backgrounds. Mental Health Concerns: Individuals with mental health issues may find the chaotic and crowded environment of shelters overwhelming. The lack of mental health support in some shelters can also be a discouragement. Stigma and Discrimination: Homeless individuals may face stigma and discrimination in shelters, affecting their sense of dignity and well-being. This social aspect can influence their decision to avoid shelters. Limited Accommodations for Couples and Pets: Shelters may not always have suitable accommodations for couples or individuals with pets. For those with companions or service animals, the lack of options can be a barrier. Previous Negative Experiences: Some individuals may have had negative experiences in shelters, such as encountering theft, violence, or unsanitary conditions, which can lead them to avoid such facilities in the future. Understanding these reasons is crucial for developing more effective homeless support systems. Addressing safety concerns, providing mental health services, and offering more flexible and accommodating shelter options can contribute to making shelters more accessible and appealing to those in need. What are the current homelessness statistics in the USA? "All wrong, don't believe what they claim. According to the official record, the USA has just over half a million. But it's far close to a 5 million". What kind of support and resources are available for homeless individuals? "Very restricted ones, as well as indentured servitude . Shelters are mainly cesspools, and worthless. Homelessness is a deep black pit. Once fallen into, people rarely get out". The perspective shared by the individual highlights the challenges and frustrations often associated with homelessness. Here are some aspects to consider in response to these concerns: Limited Support and Resources: The observation about very restricted support suggests a need for increased and more comprehensive support systems for homeless individuals. This could include expanded access to healthcare, mental health services, employment assistance, and affordable housing programs. Indentured Servitude Concerns: If there are concerns about exploitation or unfair labor practices resembling indentured servitude, it is essential to investigate and address these issues. Ensuring fair treatment and dignity for homeless individuals is crucial in any support system. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Instead of being triggered by information we are presented, it is important to not be too quick to judge, and investigate rather than argue. After all, we don't always have knowledge like we think we do. It is far better to respect what we don't necessarily know, than to mock it and, as a result, abuse the mentality of the person who may have the knowledge you might not have. Not only it's arrogant but degrading and counter-intuitive for your quest of knowledge. Why would someone you laughed at, feel compelled to give you information?). Criticisms of Shelters: The characterization of shelters as "cesspools" and "worthless" underscores the need for improvements in shelter conditions. Enhancing the quality of shelters, addressing safety concerns, and creating more welcoming environments are essential steps in encouraging homeless individuals to seek shelter. Perception of Homelessness as a Deep Pit: The sentiment that "homelessness is a deep black pit" reflects the profound challenges faced by those experiencing homelessness. Addressing the root causes of homelessness, such as poverty, lack of affordable housing, and systemic issues, is critical for creating paths out of homelessness. Long-Term Impact: The statement that "once fallen into, people rarely get out" highlights the long-term and systemic nature of homelessness. It underscores the need for sustained efforts to provide ongoing support, including mental health services, job training, and affordable housing solutions. In response to these concerns, communities and policymakers can work towards developing comprehensive strategies that go beyond immediate shelter provision. This includes addressing the underlying issues that contribute to homelessness and providing supportive services to help individuals rebuild their lives. Collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the community can contribute to more effective and compassionate solutions for those experiencing homelessness. What role does the government play in addressing homelessness? "They treat them like trash, garbage to be "moved along" as they lock the homeless up, outta sight, outta mind, just for existing . What a life!" Does it mean they lack human conscience? "No, they care for themselves, and the ones in their circles , I think this is negligence of the highest order" How does the public perceive and respond to homelessness? "With disdain and unreasonable hate . They have a "Kick them when they're down" mentality". What then is a hope for the homeless child? " When I gave up all hope, I learned how to live, that which kills others ended up my strength. " What was it like? "Acceptance and setting down one's burdens of accomplishment ... It freed me to become what I am now". Then our discussion ended with: What's your advice to the homeless? "Be resilient, be strong, rely upon no one". Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's Bonus Never play the victim , even if you are one. Victimhood feeds on itself, and makes more people prey on you, thus exploiting your pain and your weakness for their own gain. Even the homeless can be stronger from within if they do not let themselves become prey due to victimhood. Strength, while not a complete requirement for survival, contributes greatly to it. Especially if we go on this life on our lonesome. And the interest of gaining and maintaining power in any situation is to survive, physically, mentally or both. Power is everything . It is money the same as it is a will of iron. While social beings depend on the strengths of others, the loner and the lonely, like the homeless, must be stronger than others, as individuals, in order to endure the unforgiving nature of this human-dominated world, where self-interest over altruism is prioritized. Do not expect others to help you if there is nothing necessarily beneficial to themselves. That is how any desire/interest-based organization works, from a social group to a syndicate. The same applies to politics and unfortunately helping the welfare of the homeless might not yield any interest to those who can invest in it. Thus, in their eyes, helping the weak and unfortunate might not be too beneficial even though that's not true (as helping the homeless can bring more productive members of society, for instance). But as long as the powerful will disregard the weaker in power, they will not see a reason to assist them without any interest on their side. Therefore, the lack of external support requires you to be strong in spirit, and attain what many attain safely: Getting the next meal, the next drink, and the next place to sleep in. As such, alone, we must be tougher. And even if we're lonely with the company of other people, we are alone. The interviewee said something interesting: That giving up hope helped him learn how to live. The hope to be accomplished and successful often restrains one to comply with society's social contract in order to be successful in the first place. However, when society forsakes you to live outside of it, you may feel less compelled to be a part of a collective that disregards you and leaves you to fend for yourself. This might make you think: Why care about the very same entity that put you in its outskirts, and rejected you for your so-called "insanity"? Why play a part of a contract that, by default, forsaken you for your homelessness and eccentricity? As such, it is often society that builds its outsiders, rejects and even those who actively oppose it in the form of being lawless (as in John Duran's very example). Do not expect people to want to comply to the norms when the norms opposed them in the first place. And degradation will only make their hostility to society, even more severe. See how individuals and societies create and nurture their own enemies.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Narcissism) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Military and Combat) (Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Alex Mos's Synopsis The Galactic Empire in the Star Wars universe is an example of oppressive rule, with the leader holding the ultimate power and crushing all rebellion . The technologically superior military does not hesitate to commit genocide, enslave races, and annex allies. The philosophy of oppressive regimes has many flaws. The Empire maintains control by suppressing individualism, creativity, and progress , leading to stagnation and rebellion vulnerability. Oppressive systems often justify their ideologies by demonizing social minorities or glorifying the superiority of a dominant group. In the Star Wars universe, Emperor Palpatine embodies the grandiose narcissist, and narcissism often underlies oppression. Therefore, promoting empathy and critical thinking is crucial to preventing narcissists from manipulating societies The ways to combat oppression are to speak up against injustice, encourage equality, and embrace diversity . The comparison between the Galactic Empire and American consumerism illustrates the danger of excessive materialism . Overvaluing materialism can lead to an exploitative consumer culture and loss of individuality , similar to the Empire's regime. Introduction: The Narcissistic Oppression of the Galactic Empire The Galactic Empire , while undeniably a powerful presence in the Star Wars universe, serves as a warning against the pitfalls of oppressive rule . Real life examples to the Galactic Empire include: The Roman Empire , Nazi Germany and the First French Empire. It is a combination of an absolute monarchy (the opposite of a constitutional monarchy ) and a military dictatorship . It rules through fear, and expects you to adhere to imperial law, or else. Many of its military properties and personnel, such as the stormtroopers, are designed to appear intimidating. The Death Star was its most threatening asset, made to destroy entire worlds who were too insubordinate. Explore the deep-rooted philosophy of the Galactic Empire and why their oppressive rule ultimately leads to downfall. The Galactic Empire was built with one intention in mind: To give its leader as much power as possible, by ruling through oppression, and crushing all rebellion. Through central planning and high taxation, the very economy is designed to propel the Imperial military industrial complex. And the very military, unmatched in its technological superiority, often does not hesitate to commit genocide in its own planets , enslave entire races , and annex its own allies. Here's why their philosophy ultimately fails: Maintaining Order Through Fear: "This bold vision of the future requires not only the service of those of immaculate reputation and consummate skill in the just exercise of power, but also the service of a vast military dedicated to upholding the laws necessary to ensure galactic harmony " -- The Tarkin Doctrine The Empire relies on fear tactics and brutal suppression to maintain control. This reduces individuality to a minimum, hindering creativity and progress. However, a healthy society thrives on open exchange of ideas, and not on blind obedience . Centralized Power :   The Emperor wields absolute authority, creating a single point of failure. This lack of checks and balances allows corruption to prospe r and ignores the needs and perspectives of diverse populations within the vast galaxy. Stagnation and Inefficiency:   Oppressive regimes are often slow to adapt. Freedom, especially economic, intertwines with innovation, which can increase efficiency. Fearful bureaucrats become more concerned with self-preservation than innovation. This inability to adapt makes the Empire vulnerable to dynamic rebellions that an authoritarian regime may fail to counter in accordance to their attacks. Dehumanization and Xenophobia :   The Empire views non-humans as inferior. This not only breeds resentment but also ignores the potential contributions of countless individuals and cultures. A multicultural society should strive for unity in diversity. The Psychological Cause That Make Us Want To Oppress There are complex factors for the psychological cause for oppression. Here are some key elements: In-Group Bias: We naturally tend to favor groups we identify with (in-groups) over those we perceive as different (out-groups) . This can lead to a sense of superiority and a justification for treating out-groups differently. Need for Power and Control:   Some people have a strong desire for power and control. Oppression can be a way for people to exert dominance and feel secure in their position. Authoritarianism :    Some personality types are drawn to authoritarian leadership and rigid social hierarchies. They may see oppression as a necessary tool for maintaining order. Fear and Uncertainty: In times of fear or uncertainty, people may be more likely to support oppressive measures as a way to feel safe and secure. Hence why dominant leaders may be supported for power in uncertain times. This can be exploited by narcissists and megalomaniacs. Justification Through Ideology: Oppressive systems often rely on ideologies that demonize out-groups or present the dominant group as inherently superior. This can make oppression seem necessary or even righteous, by making these minorities their scapegoats for greater power. Upbringing and Socialization: We learn attitudes and beliefs from our families and communities. If someone grows up in an environment that promotes prejudice or discrimination, they may be more likely to become an oppressor. This follows the simplistic " Monkey See, Monkey Do ", method. Sheev Palpatine : Narcissist Emperor Palpatine, the embodiment of evil in the Star Wars universe, perfectly exemplifies a grandiose narcissist . Here's how his character aligns with narcissistic traits: Grandiose Sense of Self-Importance:   Palpatine believes himself to be the ultimate ruler, destined to control the galaxy. He craves constant admiration and sees himself as far superior to others. Need for Admiration:   His manipulation of the public through propaganda and the construction of himself as a benevolent leader , to become Galactic Emperor feeds his need for adoration. Lack of Empathy:   He views others as pawns in his grand scheme. The deaths of countless innocents mean nothing to him as long as they serve his rise to power. He has no genuine emotional connections.  He uses everyone around him, from apprentices like Darth Vader to Senators like Padme Amidala, for his own gain. He takes no responsibility for the suffering he causes and blames others for his failures. Sense of Entitlement, and Arrogance:  Palpatine believes the galaxy belongs to him and that he deserves absolute power. He feels no remorse for the manipulation and destruction he unleashes. He constantly belittles and underestimates his opponents, a fatal flaw that ultimately contributes to his downfall. Fantasy and Magical Thinking :  Palpatine believes his mastery of the dark side can unlock unlimited power, a delusion that clouds his judgment. Devaluing and Demonizing Others:  He cultivates fear and distrust of Jedi and alien species, portraying them as threats to justify his oppressive rule. The Relations Between Narcissism and Oppression Although complex, the connection between narcissism and oppression holds definite ground. Here's how narcissism can fuel oppression and why they often go hand in hand: Need for Control and Domination:  Narcissists have an inflated sense of self-importance and crave power over others. Oppression provides a system where they can exert control and feel superior to those they subjugate. Lack of Empathy:  A core feature of narcissism is a diminished ability to understand or share the feelings of others. This allows them to inflict suffering without remorse, a key aspect of oppression. The inherent need for control and lack of empathy make them high risks for abusive leadership . Justification Through Devaluation:  Narcissists often view those they differ from as inferior. This devaluation justifies oppression in their minds, making it seem necessary to control or punish the "out-group." Grandiose Fantasies of Power:   Narcissists often harbor fantasies of ultimate power and control. Oppression allows them to turn these fantasies into a disturbing reality. Public Image Management:  Many narcissists crave admiration and will go to great lengths to maintain a positive public image. Oppressive regimes often rely on propaganda and manipulation to portray the narcissist in a favorable light. Narcissistic leaders are drawn to positions of power and can be highly effective manipulators.  They use fear, propaganda, and violence to maintain control. Narcissistic leaders can be charismatic and persuasive.  They can exploit societal anxieties and scapegoat minority groups to gain support. Oppressive systems can create narcissistic followers.  The promise of dominance or association with a powerful leader can attract individuals who identify with narcissistic traits. Conclusions The Star Wars universe offers a much-relevant exploration of the dangers of oppression, in a world suffering from an increase in authoritarianism. The Galactic Empire, ruled by the narcissistic Emperor Palpatine, serves as a warning to what happens to democracies whose leaders betray the very freedom that allowed them to get in control. Oppressive regimes hinder creativity, progress, and lead to unnecessary suffering of countless people. By understanding the link between narcissism and oppression, we can better identify and resist oppressive systems.  It's crucial to promote empathy, critical thinking, and challenge pro-authority propaganda to prevent narcissistic personalities from manipulating societies. Understanding these psychological foundations is crucial to dismantling oppressive systems. We have the ability create a society less susceptible to the allure of control through oppression. Bonus I: Don't Oppress Others! Oppression is wrong on so many levels. Here are some key reasons why: Everyone Deserves a Chance:   We all have something to contribute , and oppression denies people the opportunity to reach their full potential. Strength in Diversity:   A society that embraces its differences is a stronger one. Oppression silences unique voices, leading to unnecessary stagnation in many fields of study and technology. The Ripple Effect:   Oppression rarely stops with one group. It creates a climate of fear and division that can harm everyone in the long run. That's especially true when they are normalized. A Moral Imperative:  Treating others with respect is a fundamental human value. Oppression violates this basic principle. The Occam's Razor idea, combined with morality, explains how being good yields benefit while being cost efficient. There are many ways to combat oppression. We can speak out against injustice , promote equality, and celebrate diversity. By working together, we can create a world where everyone has more opportunity to thrive, and contribute without fear.. Bonus II: The Galactic Empire and American Materialism Both the Empire and America share a drive for progress, but the line between healthy ambition and excessive materialism can be foggy. Here's how it can manifest: Commodification :  In the Empire, everything from droids to entire planets is seen as a commodity to be exploited. Similarly, consumer culture can lead to a feeling that everything, even experiences and relationships, have a price tag. Loss of Individuality:  The Empire enforces uniformity and discourages individuality, leading to what I call " Stormtrooper Culture ", where any individual can be discarded from the machine they're a part of. While America values freedom , the pressure to " keep up with the Joneses " can lead to a cultural homogenization of lifestyles and a reduction of diverse perspectives. Both through law and norms, the two entities can discard anyone not valuable enough. While enterprises can benefit from materialism in some ways , unchecked materialistic values can lead to a society that prioritizes possessions over human well-being, and echoes the exploitative tendencies of the Empire. It takes strength to exist independently of both financial materialism and the need to oppress others. To quote Mr. John Duran : I finally understand the hate and disdain of society against the poor and especially the homeless. It is based upon fear! The poor adapt, we survive, we have lived through the worst possible circumstances modern life can throw at us, and we have emerged, still here, and without the luxuries dangled in our faces that we are preached at that we should supposedly strive for . We survive, when others don't, and are far stronger than we should be. We have ben forged in the fires of hell, and come out the other side, wiser, stronger and more determined than ever to continue on, regardless of poverty. We won't break, break or BOW as you do . So we are feared by society, the subjects of decision and unreasonable illogical hate. But ultimately its Fear, that we are so strong without your money or voluntary wage-slavery. We are the powerful ones, not those in nice homes and luxury cars. We will survive, where others wouldn't in our old worn-down shoes.

(The Directory on John Duran) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "The King and the Bargainer: A Philosophical Analysis of Mr. John Duran's Story (The King's Saga)" provides a comprehensive critique of the moral complexities within the narrative of "The King's Saga." The analysis delves into the moral and philosophical themes of the story, highlighting the consequences of having a psychotic leader and the manipulation of public perception . The author effectively engages with the text, providing detailed summaries and interpretations of key scenes. The moral implications of the characters' actions, particularly the king and the bargainer, are well-articulated, with the analysis on the king's use of morality and sacrifice as tools adding depth to the discussion. The critical perspective of the analysis helps uncover the underlying themes of power, deception, and sacrifice. The examination of moral and ethical dilemmas within the narrative is thought-provoking and offers readers a deeper understanding of the complexities of leadership, deception, and sacrifice.  Introduction The following is an analysis of Mr. John Duran 's second chapter of "The King's Saga", following the moral mismanagement of a psychotic tyrant towards his subjects. Thus far, Mr. Duran's saga teaches us on the importance of not having psychopaths in charge of large-scale organizations, for the suffering of their followers is one that is capable of bringing them joy. And, in the absence of morality, these horrible leaders can actively seek the constant pleasure, found in the many of forms of oppression. The first chapter teaches us on the political importance of others not knowing who you really are, deep inside. That is because it's important to rule the narrative of what is seen as the truth, and not what the truth actually is. Therefore, it teaches us that it may be beneficial for us to lie, in order to maintain our interest to remain in power. The actual document of the second chapter can be found on the Inkitt blog platform . Furthermore, you may leave a review in the same site. in which both chapters were originally published. The King and the Bargainer -- Part 1 Analysis: The Court of the Commoners The first chapter of the saga's second part teaches us the importance of maintaining the illusion of a good public image. It further highlights the importance of deceiving others, by pretending that you truly care for them. When people feel that you care for them, they would be more compelled to be loyal to you. Even if it's a mere feeling, not based on reality, that feeling can be powerful enough to make people respect your authority as their leader. The psychotic king doesn't really care about the wellbeing of his subjects, and even confesses to the readers, us, that he doesn't really take it seriously. However, he is intelligent enough to understand the importance of demonstration over mere statements. Illusions can be reinforced when their maker demonstrates them as being factual, rather than mere confessions of false honesty. Therefore, every once in a while, the King conducts the Court of the Commoners event, where he listens to the pleas and cries of the subjects in which are to him nothing more than playthings. Of course, when such a leader directly listens to your words, why would you think he doesn't care about you? And that is how you socially engineer an entire populace to think you truly care about them. Why don't we trust our contemporary politicians? Whether or not they truly care for us, they don't necessarily demonstrate that they do. They won't necessarily show empathy to us, nor compassion. In the absence of demonstration of a humane character, that character can easily be opposed and rebelled, thus weakening one's public trust in them. And understand this: The point of this is to make your followers not question your ulterior motives. When we refuse to work on ourselves, to become better people, all we're left to do is to deceive: To show and reinforce the collective delusion, that we are already moral beings, and thus require no actual self-work of moral character. And to present his highly-moral, highly-royal public image, the king allows much generosity in that court, which he allows once per week: Everyone is allowed, friend or foe alike. Full diplomatic and criminal immunity during the audience given by the King. "They shall neither be apprehended or interfered with during their comings or goings on that day (unless they are actively committing an offense right then and there)". In part two, we even learn that you don't have to reveal your true identity. The King actively makes irresistible benefits for anyone who chooses to have their two-minute audience with him. That includes, even, a certain serial killer, who actively kills off the King's enforcers in the woods. The audience he gives to the criminal Bouchard shows us that he has a great moral understanding of leadership. However, he uses that understanding as nothing more than a tool to keep the populace loyal and in line. For him, moral behavior is nothing more than a means to an end, and not something to aspire to as an end. However, the mere presentation of behavior indicating otherwise, is how he makes the populace not only fear his rule, but also to admire it. The King could've executed the criminal right here and there, in his own court, surrounded by his guards. However, he is smart enough to not act on petty emotions. After all, the criminal did not make any offense during his audience, and thus, deserved criminal immunity just like anyone else. Ironically, despite the King's devilishly corrupt nature , he was smart enough to not act upon it. See how acting on our own temptations, goes against justice. The King teaches us that moral behavior is done by overcoming our emotions, and even our own personality. By being impulsive and filterless, we ruin morality. Thoughtless freedom is therefore how we can unintentionally ruin our best intentions, and contradict our own ethical code, rendering us hypocrites. Of course one's followers would be far less loyal to you, if you chose to be a hypocrite, and act upon mere emotion. Our own conditions and rules can be broken by our own impulsivity. And if we break them, why would anyone else desire not breaking them? When the social contract is demolished from the very beginning, it becomes worthless to adhere to. One therefore must follow the very contract they created, regardless of how they are. Psychopaths or otherwise. And as such, I theorize that the criminal in question died after his audience with the tyrant, eventually... Part 2 and 3 Analysis -- Encountering the Bargainer (Spoilers) Next in the court of commoners, comes a mysterious man, the self-proclaimed bargainer... "Your Highness, sometimes discretion is far more useful than public display, so I have here a special note, for your eyes only, and if you read it yourself without another pair of eyes, you will immediately understand why I use such a method to make this bargain crystal-clear to you and only you." "Bargainer I take it you are quite serious about this offer? You realize the enormity of this choice, the consequences and what has to happen correct?" "Yes Sire, since I wrote it, I know exactly what it entails. Do you accept my bargain under the listed terms Your Highness?" The bargainer offered a very strange exchange: He desires to know the King for whom he truly is. In exchange, the bargainer is to be executed. This strange and dangerous deal is the ultimate example of how truth-seeking is sacrifice. The bargainer got what he wanted, for the King, although morally depraved, understands the importance of fulfilling deals and contracts with others, for his long-term rule and collective abuse. Furthermore, the King did want him to die. After all, he derives sadistic pleasure from harming others. The King already knew he was going to enjoy delivering his end of the bargain. After all, when someone knows the truth, he could use it against you. Therefore, the truth becomes not only a refreshing relevation, but a dangerous, powerful weapon. During their meeting, held in four eyes only, the bargainer admitted something of his own... He was, in fact, his son. The Prince. And like his father, he was intelligent as well as cunning. However, the difference between them, is that the son chose the path of good, and the father, the path of evil. The Prince already came up with a plan to overthrow his psychotic father. Deep inside, the Prince already had a gut feeling of his father's cruel nature. As such, the Prince came prepared: He already planted the seeds of a rebellion, spreading the truth before confirming it. He wanted to confirm the truth, before dying. He executed himself to deprave his father the joy of murdering him, thus ruining the deal. The Prince died a happy man, for he knew he did the right thing: Sacrificing his own life on the altar of good. He died for the sins of his remorseless father. He did whatever he could, and won. A rebellion might emerge, and the King might be overthrown. Self-sacrifice... is rarely seen as good in contemporary times. But what if it isn't entirely the case? What if self-sacrifice can be done morally? Would you, then, consider the self-sacrifice, mentally ill, with no stable understanding of reality? If you catch a grenade during battle, so your comrades in arms wouldn't die... Then, you are deemed a hero. However, that is a form of self-sacrifice: You actively seek to dispose of yourself, so others wouldn't die. Self-sacrifice, therefore, can hold moral grounding. It is the moral ground even the King was intelligent enough to realize. For having such an intelligent son, he was actually proud of him. And whether we use morality as a means to an end, or as the higher end, we must understand that morality requires intelligence. On that word, his head fell to the table, and his body slumped over, and the bargainer was gone by his own doing. This was my only son, and his own guile made me proud at that moment. I guess it truly does run in the blood. Finally, I had a gold-plated plaque placed upon the doors as well, "Here lies the Bargainer, the King's only son with the deviousness of a prince. May he find his rest, for he certainly has earned it" Alex Mos's Review The analysis by Mr. Tomasio delves into the question of when self-sacrifice can be considered morally acceptable. Martyrdom is the obvious example of an ethical self-sacrifice , but can self-sacrifice for revenge be considered martyrdom? I read Mr. Duran's story with interest, and I enjoyed the "opponent" style, as it was written from the perspective of the narcissistic King. The vengeance of the Bargainer, his Son, was ruthless and worth the King, yet I wish he would poison his Father and (optional) himself instead. There is no guarantee that the evil King will be overthrown or that the letter proving the spite of the King will be effective in turning his subject against him. The story left me powerless as the King appeared proud of his Son rather than remorseful or despairing. Yet, I also understand that the Son didn't have a better option than to take away once life, as he was a traitor in his Father's eyes and would not be forgiven. For the sake of the story's morality, I wish Son's plan succeeds and the Bargain's sacrifice was not in vain. Thank you for sharing, Mr. Tomasio.